Debating from typology - eg. 2 Cor 4:6 vs evolution

[KGP]

Hi all, new the board, glad to be admitted. I've perused the forums as a visitor for the past few months and learned a lot, hope to learn some more here.

I have a fairly heavy interest in typology in scripture; a few years ago my wife's grandfather (gospel hall Dispensational) gave me a book on the tabernacle (Made According to Pattern - C.W. Slemming), and I was floored by the depth in which every element of it's structure is patterned after Christ. I've always been fond of making the connections in the Bible; and this book really got me excited.

I do know however that sometimes a person can read too much into these things; the Holy Spirit and a proper hermeneutical framework are necessary for proper exegesis and staying the course when it comes to the true meaning of scripture. Many people have gone astray for seeing things that are not really there, and building a theology on it. Yet when you get it right, typological connections are unspeakably beautiful to see and a powerful testimony to the meticulous sovereignty of God.

I'd like feedback on this sort of approach. I'll use an example when it comes to "God using evolution" in creating the world, as some people posit.

The Biblical data on regeneration says it is spontaneous, of course. The new birth is not a process, it is instantaneous. That is not arguable by anyone who wants to be serious about the Bible.

Now, I believe 2 Cor 4:6 - "For God, who said, "Let light shine out of darkness," made his light shine in our hearts to give us the light of the knowledge of God's glory displayed in the face of Christ." - makes a pretty solid typological link between God's act of spiritual creation in regeneration and his act of physical creation. I know it is one that Jonathan Edwards utilized; but he utilized in a forward manner; using creation as a pattern to teach God's work in creating spiritual life and bringing it to maturity.

All this to say that I have utilized this typological connection in defense of the position of a 6 day literal creation ex nihilo. In regeneration, faith is created out of nothing (there is nothing in fallen man for God to work with) in a person, and it is complete. Nothing needs to be added. It only needs to grow. Given 2 Cor 4:6, I am strongly inclined to look through this lens at the creation account. God said, it was, fully formed.

There is simply zero room for any sort of evolution when I think this way. There are probably better ways to argue against that position, but I keep coming back to this one. Why would God do it differently when the scripture links the two?

Nobody has had anything to say when I bring it up; but they haven't thought about these things much either. Do you think this is a valid argument?

I can think of several other types in scripture that have implications for debates; especially with arminians, maybe I'll post some later.

I suppose it all depends on if the type is valid...

 

[Contra_Mundum]

In my opinion, you have reverse-engineering with your method or proposal. You are taking individual spiritual life-giving experience (regeneration), and then arguing that Creation is like Salvation. But, as you must admit, it is as dissimilar as it is similar. Recent-Creation-in-6-days may be "instant-like" compared to evolutionary contentions, but 6-days is not the same thing as "instant." It's, well, six whole days. So a precise analogy would have us reimagining regeneration as a 6-day experience, or Creation as instant. There have been those who argued for an "instant" creation, merely taught to man in a "presentation-week." Augustin was a defender of this position. The more precise analogy seems to be breathing into man the breath of life, 1Cor.15:45.

Does Scripture present Creation as type to Salvation's antitype? Or does Creation merely provide illustrative material? That is, is Paul's reference to God's creating light out of darkness an analogue, or an illustration of spiritual enlightenment? One of the things that makes a type is its instatiation by God for that purpose. E.g., the Tabernacle. Type is the very essence of its creation. Adam, through his fall is right away converted into the type of the One who was to come. It's hard to argue that he was a type of Christ from the moment of his first breath, when the need of man for Christ was not yet historicized. Once he fell, his failure is made typical, as well as the unrealized potential of his holy-estate being appropriated as a type of eschatological hope.

The stuff of Creation was put in place in order that there should be a stage for the drama of Redemption. Clearly, there was a fall already in the mind of God before the world began, even as the elect were in the mind of God always in eternity. But this does not translate into his manner of creating serving as a blueprint for regenerating sinners. The darkness of the heart is the stuff of evil. The darkness of primeval chaos is not intrinsically (albeit illustrative of) evil. God created the raw material of the universe out of nothing. He took [some] time in creating/ forming. He created man out of the (good) dust of the ground. God creates the new-man out of the ruin of the old. The amount of work or preparation he makes with regenerating people is actually a secret, but it seems to be variable to some degree.

Please do not take this analysis as a criticism of a healthy use and benefit of typology. I would recommend the following book on typology, THE TYPOLOGY OF SCRIPTURE - PATRICK FAIRBAIRN - Google Books

Blessings on your study, and may you find Christ in ALL the Scriptures.

 

[KGP]

Thanks for your response Bruce, glad to hear from you on this.

Adam, through his fall is right away converted into the type of the One who was to come. It's hard to argue that he was a type of Christ from the moment of his first breath, when the need of man for Christ was not yet historicized. Once he fell, his failure is made typical, as well as the unrealized potential of his holy-estate being appropriated as a type of eschatological hope.

The stuff of Creation was put in place in order that there should be a stage for the drama of Redemption. Clearly, there was a fall already in the mind of God before the world began, even as the elect were in the mind of God always in eternity.

I guess I hadn't factored the historical element as heavily into things as I maybe ought to. In my mind, Adam's person was always a type of Christ in the mind of God. As you say, the fall was in God's mind before the world began; Adam's fall was ordained in order that the saving work and obedience of Christ might be clearly defined and displayed, for the glory of God and the benefit of the elect. But I see your point in that there is a historical development in Adam that does differentiate him from, say, the tabernacle. But should the type be defined strictly along historical lines? Or does the eternal purpose of God in Christ act as a primary control?

Scripture makes the Adam/Christ connection along the lines of their respective representative headship. In this regard Adam as a person is typical of Christ's person. I see this as the framework within which their respective disobedience / obedience is contrasted. So I might be inclined to disagree with you that he was converted into a type at the moment of his disobedience; as it was only because he already was the federal head of his people that his disobedience was significant; indeed he would have been so from the start, no? Just as Christ was the same for his people from the start.

But that is a different discussion altogether really.

See, it is a bit less tricky with the tabernacle, say, or like the items in the ark of the covenant; with objects. They generally point to fairly static realities as objects are quite static themselves. Their typological boundaries are more easily defined. Events are similar I suppose; the tearing of the curtain in the temple is fairly straightforward. But the organic nature of people (Adam) and groups (Israel) can blur the boundary lines of typology making it a little difficult to know where to start and stop, how far are we intended to look into these connections, and how deep the connections actually are.

You did a fair job of pointing out that the connections I was making were not altogether warranted by the text, and having read your points, I agree. Regeneration and the creation are probably not as typologically linked as I have thought. Reconsidering 2 Cor 4:6, it is simply linking two creative acts performed by the same God; not necessarily linking the acts themselves. It's a secondary connection at best.

I guess sticking really closely to the text is (as usual) important for discerning where the types begin and end, or even exist in the first place. Typology surrounding Christ and the church have shaped my position in discussions surrounding egalitarian vs complimentarian perspectives on gender roles. It might be good to revisit those to see if I am indeed making valid connections.

Please do not take this analysis as a criticism of a healthy use and benefit of typology. I would recommend the following book on typology, THE TYPOLOGY OF SCRIPTURE - PATRICK FAIRBAIRN - Google Books

Not at all; I appreciate your input. I have not read much on the science of typology, if I may put it that way, just a lot of the substance of it; so any discussion or feedback is illuminating. I have thought of much just writing this response, in a lot of ways I am thinking out loud here. Hope it isn't too rambly. I will check out the book when I get a chance!