OT Relevance

In reply to Mr. Siemens:

Had to look up antinomian. No, I am not antinomian.

I write a devotional for an e-mail list of family and friends. I start with
a word and a concordance and find a theme from there. It seems that with
almost every word, the message is balance. Yes, we are saved by grace. But,
there is obligation tied to that free gift. The following are from the New
International Version. I really like the Bible Gateway website.

Romans 1:5
Through him and for his name's sake, we received grace and apostleship to
call people from among all the Gentiles to the obedience that comes from
faith.

Romans 6:15
[ Slaves to Righteousness ] What then? Shall we sin because we are not under
law but under grace? By no means!

Hebrews 10:29
How much more severely do you think a man deserves to be punished who has
trampled the Son of God under foot, who has treated as an unholy thing the
blood of the covenant that sanctified him, and who has insulted the Spirit
of grace?

James 4:6
But he gives us more grace. That is why Scripture says: "God opposes the
proud but gives grace to the humble."

1 Peter 5:10
And the God of all grace, who called you to his eternal glory in Christ,
after you have suffered a little while, will himself restore you and make
you strong, firm and steadfast.

In my devotional , I string together a bunch of verses, commenting on each
one. I figure you can comment at least as well as I can.

You can't get tone from e-mail, so let me define it. I am not angry, but
pleading to be understood. I am disturbed that so many scientists and even
Ehrman have left Christianity. I spend hours a week, cumulated over many
years, in study of the Bible. I also spend significant time in reading
science books. I have them in my car, on my coffee table, at my office. Lisa
Randall's recent book is one of them. I believe science. The Bible is
foundational to me. There is an issue there. I haven't defined the issue,
but it has placed a question in my soul. I am trying to find the question as
well as the answer.

I hesitate to give out these 'where I'm coming from descriptions'. My
husband equates them with the chick-flick mentality. He values expression of
sentiment in three words or less. 'I love you' is about as long as it gets.

Back to the point:

How can you take the OT literally? Not to be misunderstood - How can you,
Mr. Siemens, participator on a list who generally find YEC's to be a
disturbing lot, defender of science, take the OT literally? If you do take
the OT literally, then why is my question about the Minoans offensive? It is
a serious question. I've had a string of serious questions that seem to have
offended all, but I don't see how they are unreasonable:

If the Old Testament is be believed at all, then God in some way, whether
directly or by his permissive will, allowed the disobedient to be punished
by their actions up to the time of Christ. This punishment was directly
related to their actions and directly turned around by miraculous or at
least dramatic intervention as soon as they repented. If there is one
message in the Old Testament it is that God is God and he is in charge and
that man should take note.

The grace of the New Testament frees us from this dramatic cause and effect?
As of the resurrection of Jesus, do we just get natural cause and effect
without the direct link between our errors and devastation or our repentance
and protection from devastation?
Received on Wed Mar 29 09:37:12 2006