No, you made the point of distinction of not seeing Him "face to face" as the OT says. I was saying "seeing God" period. If the OT verses are to be taken literally as you guys do, then seeing an apparition of God would apply. Jesus for one would have killed an awful lot of people who saw Him!
What is the FACE of God FK? What does that verse mean? Can we see God and not die? Or does it have to be God "as He is" in which case Jesus was not God as He is!
Can we see God and live? Yes or no? Does God have a face? Yes or no? If we can see God and not die then the Bible is incomplete when it says we can't. If God has no face and the bible speaks of God's face then the Bible is not fully revealing God.
The faces and eyes and hands of God are symbolic representations of invisible and ineffable God. These words cannot be taken, like most of the Bible, literally or read like a fairy tale (Reformed approach). We can take literally the Gospels because God walked on earth with His disciples, as opposed to appearing to them in their dreams and visions and what not. It was witnessed for three years.
The error is that we Calvinists take all things literally as some kind of rule. We do not. By today's standards, many plain meaning interpretations of scripture appear to conflict. But this is not the end of the world or any reflection on the truth of all scripture. We say that scripture interprets itself, and it surely does. So, since we see all scripture as equally true, we look to the weight of all other scriptural evidence to make decisions about individual passages. This actually works exceedingly well. :)
What is the FACE of God FK? What does that verse mean? Can we see God and not die? Or does it have to be God "as He is" in which case Jesus was not God as He is!
The verse means "as a man speaks with his friend". That's it. The idea of God's literal "face" is obviously metaphorical, since God is a spiritual being. It is an expression used so that we can understand the point. This is not a big deal, and this certainly has nothing to do with the Incarnation, so I don't know why you even bring it up.
If we can see God and not die then the Bible is incomplete when it says we can't. If God has no face and the bible speaks of God's face then the Bible is not fully revealing God.
What? The Bible is indeed complete. I don't mean to insult you but isn't this exactly what a Pharisee would say? They were hyper-legalistic with their interpretation of the OT, and Jesus told them (in part) to relax and have some common sense. The OT was clear that God is a spiritual being, not comprehensible to the eyes of physical man in a physical sense. What else do we need to say? :)
The faces and eyes and hands of God are symbolic representations of invisible and ineffable God. These words cannot be taken, like most of the Bible, literally or read like a fairy tale (Reformed approach).
I agree with your fist sentence. So, you are incorrect about the Reformed approach. We do NOT see God as a man with super powers. He is above us all, and no one can comprehend Him close to fully. He reveals to us as only we need.
We can take literally the Gospels because God walked on earth with His disciples, as opposed to appearing to them in their dreams and visions and what not. It was witnessed for three years.
But God spoke openly in parables in the Gospels. How can you say that we must take everything literally in the Gospels? Jesus was plain that He was speaking to those to whom God gave ears to hear and eyes to see.