The Highway Forums General Discussion Theology Discussion Forum Was Ham elect?

Let's suppose that the Ark (Noah's that is) was only built to hold just the amount of people that God wanted to save. Does that mean that Ham was one of God's elect?

As Baptism is just a sign and seal into covenant relationship with God so was the arc passing through the waters. Being baptised doesn't save, it just represents covenant membership.

Noah's faith was counted to him as righteousness and as the federal head of his family, the covenant was made to him and them. But as with the nation of Israel and now the Church, not all who belonged or were in covenant relationship to the nation and now the Church are saved.

So the covenant promises being to the children and to those far off is not the same as election.

Y.B.I.C,

Dave.

Just Bacon!!!

Not necessarily. It goes back to the reality of the doctrine of the visible and invisible. Ham may have been in a pre-covenant community, but not one of the Elect. The OT time and time again mentions the remnant. We are not saved by our lineage.

Yes. All in the Ark are elect.

Joe,

I'd like to know how you arrived at that conclusion.

Wes

Becasue of what the ark represents. All In Christ are saved. What would make one conclcude he was not?

Joe,

Can you point me to the Scripture(s) which indicate that the Ark which Noah built was a "type" of Christ? I can't seem to remember any. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/shrug.gif" alt="" /> What I do remember is what Peter wrote concerning the Ark and what it represented here:

Even here, the Ark is not seen as typological but rather the water upon which the Ark floated is a type and the anti-type is said to be "baptism".

Secondly, where Peter states that "eight souls, were saved through water", the reference is to physical deliverance or rescue and not spiritual salvation. The anti-type baptism is referential to spiritual salvation however. But even here, much to the error of many, the text is not saying that baptism itself saves.

So, help me out here. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

In His grace,

Well, the Church represents the people of God but not everyone who is a church member is in Christ so how can we know Ham was elect by being on the Ark? What do we really know about Ham? Have you read what Scripture has to say about Ham and his offspring?

We know Ham was saved from the flood waters but do we really know (based on all available information) if he was elect in Christ?


Wes

Williams <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/my2cents.gif" alt="" />

Joe K
I learned somthing here and I think Wes and Pilgrim are correct. But Pink who's very popular as of late wrote The Typology of the Ark in Gleanings In Genesis.

Although A.W. Pink is so often marvelous in his understanding of Scripture, his interpretation contained in that article is simply awful... aka: "spiritualizing" of God's sacred Word. If nothing else, it is instructive in that it is a reminder that 1) no finite man is perfect in his use and/or understanding of the Scriptures and 2) we must all handle the Word with the utmost care.

In His grace,

William since you like to read Pink's commentary you might like to read Pink's further comments on Genesis 9 as well. What a contrast we find here in Noah who had keep himself unspotted from the sins of the world while preaching righteousness to the generation in which he lived. Here we find Noah falling into the sin of drunkeness and impurity. This chapter tells us of Noah’s fall and of Ham’s wickedness. Ham observed his father in a drunken impure condition and went out and reported this to his brothers. For a child to expose and sneer at his parent’s fall was wickedness of the worst kind, and evidenced a heart thoroughly depraved.


Pink's comments on Noah's fall and prophecy

Pink asks the question: "What then are we to learn from this linking together of Noah’s fall and Noah’s prophecy?"

He answers his own question: "In seeking an answer to our last question we need to observe the scope of the prophecy itself. Noah’s prediction contains an outline sketch of the history of the nations of the world. The great races of the earth are here seen in their embryonic condition: they are traced to their common source, through Shem, Ham end Japheth, back to Noah. The nature of the stream is determined by the character of the fountain—a bitter fountain cannot send forth sweet waters. The type of fruit is governed by the order of the tree—a corrupt tree cannot produce wholesome fruit. Noah is the fountain, and what sort of a stream could flow from such a fountain! Read again the sad recital of Noah’s fall and of Ham’s wickedness and then ask, what must be the fruit which springs from such a tree, what must be the harvest that is reaped from such a sowing! What will be the history of the races that spring from Noah’s three sons? What can it be? A history that began by Noah abusing God’s mercies; a history that commenced with the head of the new race failing, completely, to govern himself; a history that started with Ham’s shameful impropriety can have only one course and end. It began with human failure, it has continued thus, and it will end thus. Here then is the answer to our question: Why is Noah’s prophecy, which sketches the history of the three great races of mankind, linked to Noah’s fall? The two are joined together as cause and effect, as premise and conclusion, as sowing and harvest!"


Wes

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.

Gill:

The ark was a type of Christ, into whom whoever enters by faith, or in whom whoever believes, shall be saved; but as they that entered into the ark were but few, so are those that enter in at the strait gate, or believe in Christ; and they that went into the ark were saved by the water bearing up the ark, even by that by which others were destroyed; as the very same thing, for different reasons, is the cause or means of destruction and salvation; so Christ is set, for the fall and rising of many, is a stumblingblock to some, and the power and wisdom of God to others; and the Gospel, and the ministers of it, are the savour of life unto life to some, and the savour of death unto death to others. This instance of the dispensation of the providence of God to the old world is very appropriately, though by way of digression, introduced by the apostle; showing, that in times past, as then, God's usual method has been to afford the outward means to ungodly men, and to bear with them long, and then bring down his vengeance upon them, and save his own people; and this suffering saints might depend upon would be their case, and therefore

Pink does an excellent job here. He is nowhere close to spiritualizing the Word.

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,

I agree that there is a history of spiritualizing the scriptures resulting in error. But there are too many similarities to this account.

As I stated, there is not a verse that specifically says "The Ark is a type of Christ. But one word that has always stuck out for me was "pitch" which comes from teh root meaning forgiveness, pardon, atonement and is only used here.

Also the similarities of the Ark and Christ.

Pilgrim, believe me I have seen many gross exagerations of types in writings, but this is not one of them. Many learned men confess the same thing.

http://grace-for-today.com/1324.htm

Parks does a better job than i could

Joe k,


I'm going to, hermeneutics or no hermeneutics, agree with you. (unless someone knocks it out of me) There is just too much there. I do know for sure that "spiritualization" and allegory of the Scripture has caused much heresy and grief among Christians.

Our Pastor awhile ago gave us a sermon in Genesis about Joseph. He said that Christian scholars had found over 300 different parallels between the life of Joseph and the advent of our Christ. These parallels (or types) are touched but hardly completely so in the New Testament.

I won't mention the thread but this idea of the wealth and richness in the O. T. types has got me into a lot of trouble in the past here on the highway, and I was still only half convinced. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/bash.gif" alt="" />

BTW, I still do not agree with you that Ham was Elect as that is a different matter altogether.

Denny

Romans 3:22-24

Denny,

The issue is, Are these alleged "similarities" those which Scripture itself makes or are they something which one's imagination makes? <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/scratchchin.gif" alt="" /> Again, the problem historically has been the over-active imagination of men "seeing things" which simply are not there and from them arrive at fanciful "types", etc. One would have to admit that "similarities" can be forced to support a preconceived idea, e.g., those promoted by the "name it and claim it" and "health and wealth" groups.

Re: misuse of allegory, I would give you but a couple of examples of men who are infamous for radical misinterpretation of Scripture: 1) Marcion and 2) Origen. Oh, and how about a "popular" one that popped up within our own day and fairly recently, "The Prayer of Jabez" <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/rolleyes2.gif" alt="" />.

In His grace,

Pilgrim,


I very much agree that this happens and is often dangerously true, but....


May one infer by this that there may be a proper use of allegory rather than a misuse? Or, is allegory always to be passed off as Scripturally immature imagination? <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/bananas.gif" alt="" />

Denny

Romans 3:22-24

Absolutely! <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/yep.gif" alt="" /> Scripture itself uses allegory . . . but again it is inherent in the text itself and should not be imposed upon a text. Some examples of allegory can be found in the Lord Christ's description of Himself, e.g., "I am the door . . .", "I am the true vine . . .", etc.

Perhaps one of the more infamous impositions of allegory upon a text is found here:

One of the more fanciful interpretations of this text says that the axe head represents the Church, which although may appear to have perished eventually rises to the top and reigns on the earth.

I'm sure one could try and justify such an interpretation by pointing out certain "similarities" between the axe head and the Church as well as other items in this account. But there is no "similarities" to be found anywhere in Scripture that equates this or any other axe head with the Church. "Scripture interprets Scripture". <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

In His grace,

Pilgrim,

I am still more than just a bit confused. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/scratch1.gif" alt="" /> I don't think anyone has a problem with explicit allegory such as "I am the door" or "I am the true vine". But what about implicit allegory such as found in Malachi 4:2:

"But for you who fear my name the sun of righteousness will rise with healing in its wings: and you will go forth and skip about like calves from the stall."

This from Calvins commentary:

"The meaning then of the word sun, when metaphorically applied to Christ, is this, -- that he is called a sun, because without him we cannot but wander and go astray, but that by his guidance we shall keep in the right way; and hence he says,
"He who follows me walks not in darkness." (John 8:12.)
But we must observe that this is not to be confined to the person of Christ, but extended to the gospel. Hence Paul says,
"Awake thou who sleepest, and rise from darkness,
and Christ shall illuminate thee." (Ephesians 5:14)"

Calvin goes on to say that there is no doubt that this O.T. verse refers to the risen Christ.

Denny

Romans 3:22

Denny,

Sorry you are still confused.

The example you gave from Mal 4:2 is what I would consider "clear" and Calvin's comments accurate re: a "metaphor" because of the CONTEXT.... i.e., again, the Scripture is self-interpretive. How? because the "sun of righteousness" is said to be "Elijah" and from the N.T. we know that this coming Elijah spoken of in Malachi is the Lord Christ. One doesn't have to impose their own allegorical/metaphorical ideas upon the phrase "sun of righteousness" by gathering up alleged "similarities" to conclude this is true. All one needs to do is see the Scripture's own inspired words and reference to come to the true understanding of the text.

Coming full circle.... as I tried to explain to Joe, there is not ONE SINGLE reference or allusion to be found anywhere in the Bible re: Noah's Ark being a "type of Christ". I even provided the passage where Noah's Ark is referenced (cf. 1Pet 3:20, 21), but it is the water that is called a "likeness" and not the Ark and that likeness is in regard to baptism and not Christ.

If in this matter I am going to err, I would much prefer to err on the side of caution rather than on the side of imposing, injecting and/or misinterpreting God's Word due to an over-active zeal to find Christ, or whatever it might be in alleged "similarities". It might result in some preacher's notoriety as his audience/readers sit in awe at his marvelous "insights" into Scripture, but it doesn't mean his conclusions are correct. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

In His grace,

Pilgrim,

Thanks for the confused and floor pacing Graemlin:


I'm going to go <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/sleep.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/sleeping.gif" alt="" /> tonight and <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/scratch1.gif" alt="" /> about this as there is much more to it than I have always <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/scratchchin.gif" alt="" />.

The ideas of allegory, metaphore and simile probably deserve their own thread anyway. Do you have any suggested reading?

Denny

Romans 3:22-24

As a start, I would recommend the following (disclaimer: I do not endorse everything written in these books. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />)

1) Principles of Biblical Interpretation, by Louis Berkhof, Baker. [color:"red"]Highly Recommended![/color]
2) Interpreting the Bible, by A. Berkeley Mickelsen, Eerdmans
3) Biblical Hermeneutics, by Milton S. Terry, Zondervan
4) Typology of Scripture, by Patrick Fairbairn, Kregel (available here: Monergism.com)

In His grace,