a bible, theology, politics, news, networking, and discussion site
46 members
103 members
7 members
18 members
54 members
Replied Nov. 4, 2008
Albert McIlhenny has not received any gifts yet
Posted on June 28, 2008 at 8:10pm — 1 Comment
Posted on June 26, 2008 at 9:00pm — 5 Comments
Theology
Reclaiming the Mind Ministries
Christian Classics Ethereal Library
Council of Biblical Manhood and Womenhood (complementarian)
The Center for Bibical Equality (Egalitarian)
Evangelical Theological Society
Society of Evangelical Arminians
Center for Reformed Study and Apologetics
Church History
Christian Traditions
Apologetics
Bible Study
IVP New Testament Commentaries Online
Online Bible and Theology Education
Theology and Bible MP3s
263 Theology Questions and Answers
Theologica Chat Rooms
© 2009 Created by Michael Patton on Ning. Create a Ning Network!
Comment Wall (8 comments)
You need to be a member of Theologica to add comments!
Join this Ning Network
I have seen the usage of "type" and "antitype" but it is somwhat confused and probably due to misudnerstandings. The prefix "anti-" means against and does not really convey the meaning described.
Types are something that points to something else by conveying part of the other's essence in some symbolic or actual sense. Types are often temporally prior but this is not necessary. For example, in Catholic theology the priest is seen as a type of Christ but obviously follows Christ temporally. When something is meant to be understood as a type foreshadowing the thing it points to then it is called an "antetype". The prefix "ante-" means before and hence, for example, the Church Fathers prior to the Council of Nicea are called the "Ante-Nicene Fathers".
I am familiar with the terms used like this: Adam was the TYPE, and Christ was the ANTITYPE. (Rom 5:14)
Can you refer me to an explanation of "antetype" as you have used it? I hope you won't feel that I'm being PIKKY. Jack, the Geezer
Thank you for the kind words. I will check out that group. God bless.
You have a fantastic website, the Book Discussion group could really use someone like you...
Thank you for the welcome and the compliment. I would consider myself Evangelical in the sense of sharing the Gospel but not in the sense of the current state of Evangelicalism. I would consider myself Catholic in the sense of sharing the faith of what has been believed in all times and places by all orthodox Christians but not in the sense of what is promulgated by Rome. I guess that makes me an Evangelicatholic Anglican.
Would you describe yourself as an evangelical anglican?