I agree with one thing you said: any true interpretation will be consistent with the whole counsel of God. But an interpretation can fit with biblical truth without actually being what a particular passage teaches. That is the issue I keep raising.
“We walk by faith, not by sight” does not mean we believe interpretations that cannot be demonstrated from the Word. Biblical faith rests on what God has revealed. “Faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God” (Romans 10:17).
And 1 Corinthians 2 does not teach that the Holy Spirit gives believers private symbolic meanings that are nowhere stated in Scripture. Paul is talking about truth God revealed by His Spirit and then communicated in words taught by the Spirit. The passage does not give us permission to assign meanings to Jordan, Canaan, fire, doorposts, servants, treasure, pearls, and then say those meanings are spiritually discerned.
In fact, Scripture already tells us what happened to the old man: “our old man is crucified with him” (Romans 6:6). Paul does not say the old man waits for some later Jordan-crossing experience to be crucified. The believer is united with Christ in His death and resurrection.
The same problem appears again when you say the Holy Spirit is the fire that burns up the old man on the altar, that the whole burnt offering represents complete surrender, and that crossing Jordan represents entire sanctification. Those are connections you are making. Where does Scripture actually assign those meanings?
Even Matthew 3 does not say, “The Holy Spirit is fire which burns up the believer’s old man.” John speaks of baptism “with the Holy Ghost, and with fire,” and the very next verse speaks of chaff being burned with unquenchable fire. You cannot simply take the word “fire,” attach it to sanctification, and then build a doctrine from it.
The rich young ruler does not prove your system either. Jesus did expose his attachment to possessions. But when the disciples asked, “Who then can be saved?” Jesus did not answer, “Those who surrender enough.” He said, “With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible” (Matthew 19:26).
Christ absolutely calls us to deny ourselves, take up our cross, and follow Him. I am not denying surrender, obedience, sacrifice, or sanctification. I am denying that Scripture teaches the particular symbolic system you keep placing on these passages.
That distinction matters.
A devotional analogy may be interesting. A possible connection may even be useful. But once you say, “This is what Jordan means,” “this is what the fire means,” “this is what the pierced ear means,” or “this is what the treasure means,” you have moved from application to doctrine.
At that point the question is still the same: Where does Scripture say so?
“Spiritual discernment” is not a substitute for biblical proof. The Holy Spirit inspired the Word. He does not need us to add meanings to it that He never put there.
