Zero Sum: Wow. OK...Thanks for reminding me why I'm a Protestant, SFA
ZS, what SFA stated is no different than what is all over the Old Testament. Does that offend you too?
Actually, Kosta, given our previous discussions I was considering asking you the same thing. :) But you asked first, so here's my answer:
We've discussed how many things in the Old Testament might very well be viewed as allegory, and IIRC you said that it must be viewed in light of the Gospel. I agree. I do not believe that it is essential to the Christian faith to view the entire OT in a strictly historic sense, and in fact doing so can cause some problems. C.S. Lewis opined that as the Hebrews were God's chosen people, so their mythology was God's chosen mythology. Some of the OT may be historical, some may be mythological or allegorical, but it must be read in light of the Gospel, in which "myth became fact." So no, I'm not offended by the OT.
But there is a difference between this and the claim that "It was the Church guided by the Holy Spirit that destroyed what God wanted destroyed!" The latter is driven by a claim of infallibility, much like the rigid historic inerrancy that the Reformed tend to attribute to the OT. Either way, it is nothing more than an excuse that makes God the author of sin.