There is not real problem with that as long as one uses the scripture to define what the symbols / figures / metaphors mean. Usually they are defined within the passage itself. When it is not, then usually how it is defined is in the OT. The HS is a stickler about defining things early on in scripture and usually the Law of First Mention comes into play. Not always, but mostly.
That's just it! I'm running into this left and right here.
All these things are defined in Scripture - Scripture to interpret Scripture - but so many want to interpret it according to their personal revelations from God, or God's revelations to some other "spiritual leader" or such.
But none of it carries any authority if it's not from the text itself and they are driving me nuts!
Over the decades on these forums, I've learned this. The more literal a person interprets Scripture, the more likely they are to hold to the same sorts of views. The less literal a person interprets Scripture, the more likely their view will diverge in all manner of directions.
Thank you for a breath of fresh air!
The parables are a great example! Jesus asked the disciples how they would understand any of the parables if they didn't understand the parable of the sower.
Different people respond differently to the gospel.
And so in the parable of the mustard seed . . . it grows bigger than is natural . . . birds nest in it's branches . . . they were with us, but not of us . . .
If we just take it for what it says, then it all makes sense, in the very Words God said. No redefinining, claiming special revelation, just reading the Bible.
Much love!
Mark