Posted on 09/06/2002 8:50:44 PM PDT by drstevej
Which Israel?
Rom. 9:6 Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel.
Amos 9:9 For, lo, I will command, and I will sift the house of Israel among all nations, like as corn is sifted in a sieve, yet shall not the least grain fall upon the earth.
There are those who are born "of Israel," and those who are reborn into Spiritual Israel. But, the second verse I quoted makes the difference very ambiguous. I really do believe the solution to this problem cannot be discovered in our age.
Hank
I emphasize a continuity between the national Israel and the Church (which delights all covenant theologians and irks some dispensationalists), but I also point out with unshakeable confidence that it does not follow from this fact of continuity that national Israel was the Church (which position delights all dispensationalists and irks most covenant theologians, I guess).
I think we need to be more careful in the systematizing which we do. I specifically believe that we need to appreciate typology more.
National Israel was called the "Church in the wilderness," but I read this as a largely typological statement (very much like "That Rock was Christ")--not a simplistically literal statement. I think the reference to the "Church in the wilderness" presents an important idea, but I maintain that it has to be typological rather than literal.
(Hey, that's the way I read Revelation 20, too!)
And this makes a monumental difference in the overall theology. (Of course, it makes a monumental difference in our interpretation of Revelation 20, too!)
In short, I say that the type and the antitype are CONNECTED in God's progressive revelation. But still, it should be crystal clear that the type is NOT the antitype. (Absalom certainly wasn't Christ! For that matter, Adam was not Christ even though Christ is called the "Second Adam." In fact, the First Adam and the Second Adam are actually antithetical.)
I tend to mix the two theologies in my empty head ...seems there is some truth in both
But still, David was not God. Absalom was not Jesus.
I have never thought of him specifically as a type of Christ..but rather it was an opportunity to peek into a fathers heart...David loved him inspite of his murder and later betrayal.
While we were yet sinners...
David was a man after Gods own heart:>)
Absalom means "Father of Peace." He was the son of David. He was the rightful heir to the Throne of Israel. He died the death of the accursed, hanging from a tree. He was pierced in the side with Joab's dart as he hung there.
His death quelled the rebellion of Israel and saved Israel.
(Ah, but this just goes to show that types are figurative. Absalom's death saved national Israel just as the Lord's death saved spiritual Israel. But national Israel and spiritual Israel are not the same thing any more than Absalom and Christ are the same person. As I said earlier, the type and the antitype are spiritually connected, but they are different.)
Types carry ABSOLUTELY no weight in my mind because I can name types alleged to demonstrate the pretrib rapture, etc. One of the first rules I learned when I was taught hermaneutics was that types were to be completely subject to doctrine, never used to prove them.
You're "Plymouth Brethren"?
Well, I can see that it will be a hero's labor to divorce you from Dispensational Premillenialism, then. (That's all well and good, I was a dyed-in-the-wool Dispy Pre-Millenial myself at one time).
BUT.... perhaps you should start calling yourself OrthodoxPlymouthBrethren, given your adoption of Absolute Predestinarian soteriology (JN Darby and his associates were, of course, strict 5-Point Calvinists). It's only the latter-day "Plymouth Brethren" such as Dave Hunt who have led that denomination astray into the wilds of Humanistic Arminianism.
Although, if you really want to be an "Orthodox Plymouth Brethren", then you of course cannot call yourself a "Calvinist". While the Baptist Spurgeon was entirely comfortable with the label "Calvinist" (as, indeed, am I), the Brethren JN Darby thought that it was silly to define the Biblical Doctrine of Absolute Predestination in what he considered to be "sectarian" terminologies.
JN Darby had a much different terminology for the Biblical Doctrine of God's Sovereignty: he preferred simply to refer to Absolute Predestination as "plain, simple, Bible doctrine".
It can't "draw the lines" for us, but it can certainly color inside the lines... and a picture's worth a thousand words....
There are more level-headed ways to approach typology.
(So, I am a bit puzzled by the fact that you seemed to be bothered by my post. Most people find a study of the typology of Absalom delightful. Our "hearts burn within us" as the things of Christ are shown to us in the Old Testament.)
All men who have never been deeply convinced of sin, all persons with whom this conviction is based upon gross and outward sins, believe more or less in free-will. You know that it is the dogma of the Wesleyans, of all reasoners, of all philosophers. But this idea completely changes all the idea of Christianity and entirely perverts it." ~~ John Nelson Darby
JN Darby BUMP!!
Best, OP
Come to think of it, I vaguely wonder what our Hyper-Dispensational, Arminian "Baptist" Freeper "RaceBannon" (whose contributions to the Pro-Life and Genesis threads I have respected in the past) would think of Darby's soteriology. (Or for that matter, what the ever-so-false-baptist "ForTheDeclaration" would think).
I suppose that they must regard Darby as a "Calvinist son of Satan" who just happened to get his Dispensational Eschatology "right"... Gee, awfully lucky for them; but a pity for that poor, deceived predestinarian JN Darby.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.