People have wrongly interpreted forever. I see a difference between misinterpreting a single verse, and misinterpreting the substance of a whole book.
Archaeological evidence does not support the story of Genesis, plain and simple.
If you're talking about young earth vs. old earth, Harley has already shown that "old earth" does not defeat the exact account in Genesis. There is at least one unknown gap that could have encompassed any amount of time. Does anything else in man's 2007 version of archeology "defeat" Genesis? I mean, man's 21st century archeology has already given us all the ossuary and tomb evidence showing us brand new revelations about Christ. :)
FK: "I don't agree that God's gift can be "free", yet have significant strings."
But later on you say "Christ did pay all the bills of His elect. However, in no way does that free us from any obligation." Sounds like you do believe God attaches his 'free" gift to significant strings, FK' you just like to disagree with me. :)
No, no, although I enjoy that too! :) In your case, you mean people using their free wills to fulfill the obligation, on penalty of losing salvation/theosis. In my case I mean that the obligation is placed by God, and will be ACCOMPLISHED by God, with no risk of losing salvation. God never fails. The responsibility for the obligation is on different entities. In our human experience, we "feel" and are aware of the "obligation" to do good because that is what our new heart tells us. Theologically, it is God Who does all of the fulfilling. We participate and are blessed by it.
FK: "God chose not to transform us into sinless beings during physical life."
Then why would He say "I will put my Spirit in you and move you to follow my decrees and be careful to keep my laws" (as you quote in Eze 36)? He doesn't say "more or less."
He doesn't say "without error by you or me" either. The statement, by itself, it absolutely correct. We know that even the most faithful still sin from time to time.
He does expect us to be sinless once we receive a new heart and once we are under His grace. We choose not to be!
Yes, we choose to turn away in sin. No question about it. That is free will. But once we are under His saving grace, then it would be up to Him to remove it or not. He promises that He will not for His elect. I'm not exactly sure how to address what His "expectations" are, since He already knows, etc. Maybe it's related to the outward vs. inward calling thing.
Very true, FK. I have been professing that for ever.
Does anything else in man's 2007 version of archeology "defeat" Genesis? I mean, man's 21st century archeology has already given us all the ossuary and tomb evidence showing us brand new revelations about Christ. :)
It's not old earth/new earth, FK. The oldest human remains hardly match Adam and Eve. The dinsaurs contradict at least one version of Genesis (the one that has animals created after man), etc.
we "feel" and are aware of the "obligation" to do good because that is what our new heart tells us. Theologically, it is God Who does all of the fulfilling. We participate and are blessed by it.
That goes back to being robots, FK. But we already know the Reformed think they are a bunch of robots, although they must have been programmed to deny it.
He doesn't say "without error by you or me" either. The statement, by itself, it absolutely correct. We know that even the most faithful still sin from time to time
Oh yeah? Then why does He say "Go and sin no more"? Or "Be therefore perfect as your Father in heaven is perfect"?
Or when he says "sell all you have and follow Me..." Is that a figure of speech? I don't think so. It's a call to righteousness and most of us can't handle it. So we find excuses. That's why +Paul is so popular among Protestants. He doesn't require you to do anything; just believe and wait for your turn to go up.