Quote
Joe k said:
Allegories are used when allown Pilgrim. I see too many similarities to throw away the understanding that the Ark is a type of Christ. When in scripture does anything specifically mention a "type" of Christ? One window, one door, God shuts the door, salvation from the flood of sin. There is a stronger case for this than to use Peters words to prove baptismal salvation/regeneration.

“But with thee will I establish my covenant; and thou shalt come into the ark, thou, and thy sons, and thy wife, and thy sons' wives with thee.” (Genesis 6:18)


How many types are explicitly said to be types? There are a few, but not many.
Joe,

The problem is one of hermeneutics. The misuse of Scripture via "spiritualizing" and "allegorizing" is plentiful in the history of the Church. There have so many fanciful teachings and errors promoted even by some otherwise reliable men that it would make one's head spin. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/dizzy.gif" alt="" />

One is only justified in calling something a "type" when there is a corresponding element, either directly or indirectly mentioned. As I posed in my question to you, Where in the N.T. or even in the O.T. can you find ANY mention that Christ is related to Noah's Ark? I believe there is none, at least that I can find. Just because Gill states that the Ark is a type of Christ doesn't make it so. I did supply a quote from Peter who was hermeneutically correct <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" /> having been under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, that the Ark is a "type" and baptism being its anti-type. Typology must be established on the inspired text and not upon one's own fertile imagination. Similarities may be seen but a similarity is no basis for making something a "type".

The problem, which we see here in our differences, is that once one determines something is a "type", the conclusions one arrives at will be based upon the "type" itself. A true biblical type will bring one to right teaching and a false type will bring one to erroneous teaching. For example, in your view, having decided that Noah's Ark is a "type of Christ" you have then concluded that all individuals in the Ark were infallibly saved since all who are in Christ are saved. But since you cannot, or at least at this point have not established a proper biblical foundation that the Ark is in fact a "type" of Christ, your conclusion is not veritable.

So, FIRST can you show, using the Analogy of Faith, establish your premise that Noah's Ark is a legitimate "type" of Christ? In short, can you produce even one scriptural passage that would at least even infer that the Ark and Christ are related? Again, alleged similarities are not necessarily typological. The same can be said and even more so, re: Allegory.

In His grace,

[Linked Image]

simul iustus et peccator

[Linked Image]