“I know the answer is going to be “read everything through the lens of the NT”, but that will require completely discarding much of the OT because there simply is no reconciliation. I could never do that. God’s Holy word is either God’s Holy word or it isn’t.”
That is indeed the answer, FK. If the answer were that the OT meant precisely what it seems to say, then +Athanasius was completely wrong and that would mean that Christian Incarnational theology is bunk. Now, that may in fact be precisely what Calvinism teaches. Is it?
God’s Holy Word is indeed God’s Holy Word. I submit, however, that pre-Incarnation, people, Chosen, elect or otherwise, couldn’t even come close to understanding it.
“God’s Holy Word is indeed God’s Holy Word. I submit, however, that pre-Incarnation, people, Chosen, elect or otherwise, couldn’t even come close to understanding it.”
Ahh, my friend, you forgot about Joseph, Mary, Elizabeth, Anna and Simeon, all Old Testament saints who waited patiently for the incarnation.
I must confess that my memory of +Athanasius on this exact point is not strong enough to comment on. I would need some sort of explanation/definition of what you mean by "Christian Incarnational theology". Calvinism takes the OT as it is given to us. Like in the NT, interpretation is needed when appropriate. However, editing out large swaths of text is not an option. We go by the weight of the totality of scripture.
God’s Holy Word is indeed God’s Holy Word. I submit, however, that pre-Incarnation, people, Chosen, elect or otherwise, couldn’t even come close to understanding it.
In that case the OT righteous really could not have been righteous, could they? It would mean that the prophets did not understand what they were writing as they wrote. Does that sound likely? Not to me.