Types, Antitypes, and Universalism

[Homer]

The OT is full of types and shadows of great and important doctrines of the church, and the corresponding antitypes are in the NT. Where, in the OT, do we find any judgement that would be a type for universalism? They all seem to be decidedly against it, with some people saved and others irrevocably destroyed.

[steve7150]

They all seem to be decidedly against it, with some people saved and others irrevocably destroyed.









In the OT there is very little mentioned about an afterlife at all whether good or bad. I don't recall hell being mentioned in the OT either only "sheol" which means grave despite the KJV sometimes translating it into hell.
BTW where do we find "irrevocably destroyed"? Irrevocably destroyed is a pillar belief of the JWs as they believe the wicked will not be raised despite many scriptures that say the opposite like Ezekial 16.55 (i think) where God says Sodom will be raised before Israel.

[steve]

One could argue that God's treatment of Israel is the microcosm of His dealings with the world (Gen.12:3; Isa.49:6; Rom.3:29). What God did for them foreshadows His dealings with the nations as well. If Israel's judgments were a type of the judgment of the human race (e.g.,Jude 5), then one could conclude that the latter is intended for chastisement and correction, as was God's judgment upon Israel (Isa.4:4; 26:9; Lev.26:23-24; Jer.23:30; Lam.3:31-33; Ps.99:8).

[jriccitelli]

Good angle Homer.
Hello there 7150, although some CI proponents allow some of the dead to go straight to the LOF (or possibly bypass a final judgment), many of CI hold that the dead are raised (although still ‘dead’) and go through a final judgment, judged guilty or not guilty, and then either are punished then put in the LOF (annihilation), or go straight to the LOF (annihilation). The JWs stop short of any punishment but death, which would be wrong, because the bible says there will be a large number at the final Judgment Day.

Hello again Steve, true it is that God chastises and corrects them, and killing prevents anyone from continuing in sin, but is killing ‘chastisement and correction’? It could be said in 'some' cases that killing might ‘save’ their soul, but that seems to be the exception not the rule. Especially when it comes to God warning us, and them that; unless you repent you will die.

In fact if there were a type (and it is not a type) it would be the NT passage that says ‘hand him over to Satan so that his soul may be saved’. I think what Homer is asking is; what OT scripture would infer such a concept as that, rather than death being rather a final judgment for the unrepentant sinner? I’m glad you gave some OT scriptures, but still don’t they all demand repentance as being the goal of all the chastisement, as part of the Covenant ‘otherwise’ it is death? (Or; repent is the ultimatum for the unrepentant, death ‘is’ the result, not just a punishment)

(please excuse rushed lunch break style post)

[dwilkins]

To build on Steve's point, the author of Hebrews repeatedly uses the story of Israel, specifically as they failed to have faith in God to enter the land, to make soteriological points. The main point seems to be an admonition not to lose faith like the Israelites did or Christians will not enter their promised land just like the Israelites didn't. I think this line of thinking makes more sense as an argument for conditional salvation security than universalism.

Doug

[steve]

A type in the Old Testament is not a one-to-one correspondence between two things. Adam is a "type" of Christ. The flood was a "type" of baptism. These are examples of principles illustrated in Old Testament cases, but applying more broadly in the new order. The judgments of the Old Testament can be seen as "types" of the ultimate judgment, though the judgments in the Old Testament were of nations corporately (individual fates of the righteous and the guilty in those societies were not always discussed), the final judgment involves every individual answering for his/her deeds.

Where the similarity is found is in the purpose of God's judgments—they are remedial. Israel as a nation was destroyed, and then restored. This was God's purpose in judging. The burden of proof would seem to rest on those who believe that other judgments of God are not of the same character or for the same purpose. Where is there a reference in scripture to a judgment that is said to be merely retributive, without any better purpose in God's mind than to punish?

[Homer]

Steve,

As I said at the outset of this long discussion, the tenor of scripture is against universalism.

The judgments of the Old Testament can be seen as "types" of the ultimate judgment, though the judgments in the Old Testament were of nations corporately (individual fates of the righteous and the guilty in those societies were not always discussed), the final judgment involves every individual answering for his/her deeds.

But again and again we see that individuals were destroyed and a remnant saved, and the nation or people (corporately) restored. Seems like a type for "the restitution of all things". If we take "things" literally, then some day I'l have my old Renault back. Yikes! But it was melted down and became my old Corvair! Double yikes!

Where the similarity is found is in the purpose of God's judgments—they are remedial. Israel as a nation was destroyed, and then restored. This was God's purpose in judging. The burden of proof would seem to rest on those who believe that other judgments of God are not of the same character or for the same purpose. Where is there a reference in scripture to a judgment that is said to be merely retributive, without any better purpose in God's mind than to punish?

No, the burden of proof is on the universalist. The type is in a nation destroyed and then restored, composed of a different set of individuals.

So you hold that puishment is, by its very nature, without purpose? Isn't this the essence of annihilationism: punishment followed by destruction? I thought you said you leaned that way, or are you completely agnostic on the subject?

[dwilkins]

There seem to me to be all sorts of people in both the Old and New Testaments who are killed ignominiously in judgment by God where there is no implication that they are going to be redeemed or that greater meaning would be applied to them. The following are a list of names of people that I think fit that category:

All of the people who died in the flood of Noah
The residents of Sodom and Gomorrah
Lot's wife
Korah and his family
Achan and his family
The faithless of Israel who refused to trust God to enter the promised land
Aaron's sons
The occupants of Canaan when the Israelites exterminated them (including Jericho)
Uzzah, who grabbed the ark and was stuck down
Saul and his sons
Joab
The prophets Elijah called fire down on
The 42 kids Elisha sicked the bears on
The Persian scribes who tried to get Daniel killed, and their families
Annanias and Saphira
The generation of Matthew 23 on whom doom was declared, and their children

In all of these cases, and I'm sure I could come up with more, I suppose you might say that their destruction would be an object lesson for others. But, I don't seem them getting much out of it themselves.

Doug

[steve7150]

No, the burden of proof is on the universalist. The type is in a nation destroyed and then restored, composed of a different set of individuals.







Interestingly at the end of Revelation the tree of life bears fruit every month for the healing of the nations. This sounds like the restoration of all things to me because the word "nations" never means a remnant from a nation but the majority or all from that nation.

Now why would the burden of proof be on the CU anymore then say the ET position which is still the most popular afterlife belief in Christianity? There is not a shred of evidence for ET in the OT yet i never hear their position challenged from anything in the OT. They would claim the OT is an incomplete revelation and why use it to prove anything when it's just a shadow.

[Homer]

Now why would the burden of proof be on the CU anymore then say the ET position which is still the most popular afterlife belief in Christianity?

ET might be correctly called "the commonly held" view but universalism is the popular view in the sense of people liking it; it has a popular appeal. People want to believe it, as they have since day one.