[jude24]

You're starting to sound like people within my denomination (Plymouth Brethren) when they try to use types, which are inherently subjective, to prove doctrine.

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.

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

You're starting to sound like people within my denomination (Plymouth Brethren) when they try to use types, which are inherently subjective, to prove doctrine. 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".

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

All that said, Typology is pretty cool.

It can't "draw the lines" for us, but it can certainly color inside the lines... and a picture's worth a thousand words....

[the_doc]

Some of the types in the Scofield Bible ARE spiritually ludicrous. But I wouldn't throw the baby out with the bath water.

There are more level-headed ways to approach typology.

[the_doc]

I would add that the Absalom type is obvious--and that it is not at all offensive to any doctrine in the Scripture. Heck, it fits God's doctrine.

(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.)