I disagree that the type is defined by dissimilarities (I'm actually not even sure that makes sense). It's like saying we are the same type because we are different.Defined by what, similarities? NO. Defined by dissimilarities.
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
I disagree that the type is defined by dissimilarities (I'm actually not even sure that makes sense). It's like saying we are the same type because we are different.Defined by what, similarities? NO. Defined by dissimilarities.
I disagree that the type is defined by dissimilarities (I'm actually not even sure that makes sense).
I am not following you (sorry).It makes as much sense as "But not as the trespass, so also is the free gift."
I am not following you (sorry).
I understand how the types are different. I do not understand how you can believe what makes them "types" are in their differences.Maybe this will help. You don't understand it when I say that Adam as a FIGURE of Christ is defined by dissimilarities to Christ. I've highlighted SEVEN dissimilarities, from scripture, in my first post. Seven dissimilarities.
Now, from scripture, list the similarities that define Adam as a type of Christ. FYI, before you give your list, first Adam and last Adam are dissimilarities (which brings the count to EIGHT dissimilarities).
List all the similarities.
I understand how the types are different. I do not understand how you can believe what makes them "types" are in their differences.
Do to say Satan is a type of Christ is to say they are of the same kind with Satan pointing to Christ (even if through contrast).
My objection is saying Satan is a type of Christ. I believe it is wrong.
Martin,I can well understand how one's traditions might prevent one from accepting this remarkable typology, but facts are facts. What was nailed to the pole and hoisted up in place was not a lamb, as one might expect, but a fiery serpent. Where have we seen a fiery serpent before? In Revelation 13. It's there. Everyone who looked at the serpent was healed from the penalty for their rebellion against God (Numbers 21:9). How can looking at a representation of Satan heal people in that way? But the Lord Jesus says, "And this is the will of Him who sent Me that everyone who sees the Son and believes in Him may have everlasting life" (John 6:40; c.f. also Isaiah 45:22).
It is a cardinal point about types that they cannot be pressed too far. If we say that Isaac or Joseph or David is a type of Christ, we do not mean that these people correspond exactly with our Lord in every way. Of course they don't. But we are able to see in the lives of these people a clear resemblance in certain respects to the Lord Jesus that is invaluable in preaching from the O.T.
So I would just encourage people to lay aside their traditions and preconceptions and look at the Scriptures to see that the brazen serpent is a representation of Satan and a clear type of Christ made sin for us that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.
I agree the point between Adam and Christ (in that passage) is their differences.Because scripture is defining by differences in Ro 5.
I think it's wrong too. In my first post I stated there's no pointer in scripture that would lead to it.
I agree the point between Adam and Christ (in that passage) is their differences.
I am sorry - I misunderstood ypu to be saying you also believed Satan was a type of Christ. I find that idea more objectionable than many that I would disagree with on the BB so I can't apologize enough for my error.
In the thread Christ made Sin? @Martin Marprelate (with the approval of @percho and winning approval of @SovereignGrace ) compared Christ as being lifted up to Satan in Revelation 12:3 and suggested that Scripture presenting Satan as "a type of Christ" is proof that Christ was literally made sin.
I think that if you are going to suggest that you are quoting me by using inverted commas, you should at least quote me accurately. What I said was:My view is that Satan is not "a type of Christ".
The brazen serpent is a type of Christ made sin for us.the brazen serpent is a representation of Satan and a clear type of Christ made sin for us that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.
You are correct insofar as Christ on the cross strips the power from SatanMartin,
You are correct that a lamb was not lifted up, but you are not correct in assuming it was the type of Satan, but the authority stripped from Satan.
All mankind in a sense have been bitten by the serpent, since we are all lost in sin and dying as result of Satan's activity. It is when we see Christ with the eye of faith, suffering, bleeding, dying on the cross that we are healed (Isaiah 53:5; John 6:40).The typology is the accomplished work of the crucifixion, it was not that of a sin offering but that of life and healing aspects.
It is quite clearly a type of Christ made sin for us. He counteracts and destroys the activity of Satan (1 John 3:8; c.f. Luke 10:18-19) by becoming sin for us that we may become the righteousness of God in Him..The folks looking upon the wilderness serpent of the wilderness served as a typology to the nullification of the power of Satan over death and the grave.
8And the LORD said to Moses, “Make a fiery serpent and set it on a pole, and everyone who is bitten, when he sees it, shall live.” 9So Moses made a bronze serpent and set it on a pole. And if a serpent bit anyone, he would look at the bronze serpent and live.
Therefore, the your thinking is correct in that the wilderness brazen serpent was not a sin offering, but mistaken in thinking it was not a typology of the Christ.
No. Are you?Are you a mason ?
I was using them to set off the phrase "a type of Christ" (another use of the punctuation). The Baptist Board is equipped with a quote feature. That is what I use to quote members comments.I think that if you are going to suggest that you are quoting me by using inverted commas, you should at least quote me accurately. What I said was:
The brazen serpent is a type of Christ made sin for us.
Are you?
All mankind in a sense have been bitten by the serpent
On another thread a member came to a rather interesting conclusion, one that I personally had not considered previously. It is a conclusion that I believe can be rather quickly dismissed, but since a couple of members agreed with the posting I thought it worth exploring a little.
In the thread Christ made Sin? @Martin Marprelate (with the approval of @percho and winning approval of @SovereignGrace ) compared Christ as being lifted up to Satan in Revelation 12:3 and suggested that Scripture presenting Satan as "a type of Christ" is proof that Christ was literally made sin.Let's consider: How does Scripture present Satan?
He is the father of lies (John 8:44).
He is the thief that comes only to steal and kill and destroy; contrasted with Christ who came that men may have life and have it in abundance (John 10:10).
He is the enemy of mankind (1 Peter 5:8).
He is the author of the “powers of this dark world” and the “spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms” (Ephesians 6:11).
He is the accuser of men (Job 1:6-12).
He is the tormentor of men (2 Corinthians 12:1-10).
He is opposed to the Church (Revelation 2:8-10).
There are, of course, at least two sides of the argument: Those who affirm Satan as a type of Christ (at least @Martin Marprelate , @percho , and @SovereignGrace ) and those who reject the idea as unbiblical.
What is interesting is how Satan is viewed as well. When we look at Scripture Satan is not viewed as "God's accuser" but as the "accuser of man". So is Satan God's adversary or the adversary of man?
How one answers that question is important. I do not believe that God has legitimate adversary because no one can actually strive against God except as God has permitted. So I view Satan as the adversary of man. Therefore I view the claim Satan is "a type of Christ" as heretical foolishness.
But I can see at least two other ways of viewing the issue. One is that Satan is God's accuser or adversary. The other is considering that Jesus literally became sin (literally became an unholy, evil, act of rebellion against God) and trying to develop a fuller theory to narrate the error.
Open to discussion:
Is Satan a "type of Christ"?
I can well understand how one's traditions might prevent one from accepting this remarkable typology, but facts are facts. What was nailed to the pole and hoisted up in place was not a lamb, as one might expect, but a fiery serpent. Where have we seen a fiery serpent before? In Revelation 13. It's there. Everyone who looked at the serpent was healed from the penalty for their rebellion against God (Numbers 21:9). How can looking at a representation of Satan heal people in that way? But the Lord Jesus says, "And this is the will of Him who sent Me that everyone who sees the Son and believes in Him may have everlasting life" (John 6:40; c.f. also Isaiah 45:22).
It is a cardinal point about types that they cannot be pressed too far. If we say that Isaac or Joseph or David is a type of Christ, we do not mean that these people correspond exactly with our Lord in every way. Of course they don't. But we are able to see in the lives of these people a clear resemblance in certain respects to the Lord Jesus that is invaluable in preaching from the O.T.
So I would just encourage people to lay aside their traditions and preconceptions and look at the Scriptures to see that the brazen serpent is a representation of Satan and a clear type of Christ made sin for us that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.
'For this reason the Son of God was manifested, that He might destroy the works of the devil' (1 John 3:8).I don't think Satan has anything to do with things. Jesus defeated sin, death, and hell.