I appreciate your graciousness and generosity. I hope I can do the same.
I don't remember the song, but it sounds catchy.
I appreciate you sharing your experience. What does "absolute reference" mean? What does it mean, to you, to have a sense that the scriptures are an absolute reference?
When I was a youth the scriptures struck me as a bunch of stories, rules, and genealogies that seemed to go on forever. Later, it didn't change all that much. I had a better sense that something important was being said, but it was still a bunch of writings. Then it happened. They came alive for me. They spoke to me. I had fallen off a telephone pole, cracked my heal, and so as I was laid up for a bit. I decide to read the NT. It was different from then on. Something changed in how they spoke to me and I didn't just make it happen.
So, I also see them as an absolute reference, in terms of my faith. There are plenty of religious books. I've read a good many of them. None of them come close to my experience with the scriptures. All that being said, I don't equate "absolute reference" with "every possible thing taken literally." I don't know how to put it except, the scriptures (and the Spirit) led me to the Person. That is the function of the scriptures. The Person is the "object" of my faith, not the scriptures.
I agree.
I'm not sure what "Jesus is the Name of the Father" means, but I'm on board with the rest of it. Do you mean the Son reveals the Father? I agree. I also agree that the terms "Father" and "Son" are adequate, but not exhaustive. What has been revealed, and the way in which it has been revealed is sufficient for what we need to understand.
You lost me here. Do you mean God has a mouth because of the incarnation? Or, do you mean, God has a mouth because we are created in the divine image, and the physical "mouth" is part of that image? Not trying to nitpick, just to understand.
Agreed.
I agree, again. This is what I would call a figurative interpretation, which I take it is your point.
When you say, "accountability to His Word" do you mean the scriptures or Christ? As you know, Christains use "word/Word" to refer to two different things. One is a book of sacred and divinely inspired writings and one is the eternal Son of God. These are not identical but intimately related. One is a means to an end, the other is the end of that means. Scriptures-in conjunction with the work of the Holy Spirit-are a means to coming to know (in the strong sense) Jesus Christ, who in turn reveals the Father.
I don't ignore the literal meaning of the text. When it comes to the opening chapters of Genesis I take them very seriously, even though I don't hold that they are a one-for-one correlation with historical events. If it wasn't for the literal text, the meaning would not come through. Moreover, I hold that it is possible to believe it is literal and still miss the meaning.
Let's assume I believe the Genesis account is a one-for-one correlation with historical events. So what? Simply believing something is a fact does us no good. What we need is the meaning. What do the opening chapters mean? What do they tell us that matters? Here are some salient candidates:
1. God is the Creator
2. All that is not God is created by God
3. Creation is good
4. If creation is Good, so is it's Creator
5. Creation has order
6. Humanity is made in the divine image
7. Humanity was created to flourish in relationship with God
8. Sin adversely affects human florusihing and relationship with God
9. Sin kills
10.There is hope given by God
Now if I believe Genesis is literally true, but do not grasp meanings 1-10, what do I have. I have facts with no import, no meaning. There is more to the scriptures than simply believing something is a fact.
I take these meanings from the opening chapters of Genesis to be true, even though I don't necessarily hold that the opening chapters are literal. Why? Because they make sense. They are reasonable. I get it. More than that, 1 - 10 strike me as more reasonable, and in fact, more beautiful than anything else I have come across. I have a good sense of what is out there in terms of religion, metaphysics, and things to do with the divine. I've not come across a religious account as sublime as what we have been given in Genesis. Those truths, 1-10, are beyond compare. And the beauty of it? The rest of the scriptures hold to those salient truths and build on them. I could talk about it all day long.
I bet you believe 1-10, as well. So, notice, you and I believe the exact same things (i.e. 1-10), and yet you take Genesis literal and I don't. How is that possible? Because we both have the meaning, the import. Genesis is a sacred, inspired writing that reveals certain divine truths. I believe those truths. More than that, almost all of 1-10 are beyond the purview of science. With one or two possible exceptions, science could never reveal what we have in 1-10. So, I don't even compare Genesis to science. They are two different things.
We will have to disagree here. I think it is clearly speaking to the Incarnation and pushing back against those who asserted that he was only Spirit, i.e. Doceticism.
I can probably get on board with the idea that "the incorruptible body is both physical and spiritual" because it is ambiguous. Eating fish is familiar "flesh" stuff and walking through walls definitely transends our "flesh" experience. Again, I think this is why Paul refered to a "spiritual body" instead of using "flesh" (sarx). And, maybe, Paul isn't the best example for me to use because he saves "flesh" for moral degeneration and corruption. I don't know, exactly, what the resurrected body is like, but I know it is not corruptible, with which we both agree. If it were corruptible, then we'd just die, again.
There is something else that you have touched on that I think is important. I get the sense that you feel if you don't take Genesis literally, then you will doubt everything else. And, of course, the end of that slippery slope would be not believing in the incarnation, death, ressurections, etc. of our Lord. No literal Genesis = no faith.
Maybe that would be true for you. It wasn't and hasn't been true for me. I don't approach the scriptures like a house of cards that needs to be treated with all delicacy or it will all fall apart. But, then again, my faith is not in the book, but the Person. My faith is in a living, resurrection Lord. You might question how that is possible, and all I can say is that it is absolutely possible. It is true. We can just call it the miracle of faith. I consider it a gift. So, it is simply not (necessarily) the case that if one does not take Genesis literally the whole house falls. Trust what I am saying.
IMO, I don't think we should present the scriptures as a false dichotomy of: believe all of it is literal or don't believe any of it is true. That is just not true. It seems to me, that approach can set people up for doubt, instead of leading them to the living Christ.
