Does anyone know of....

Actually, I think it matters a great deal because at the end of the day we're actually talking about the Gospel of Salvation we have come to believe. And what we believe in our heart of hearts is going to have a profound affect on our every day, personal relationship and walk with God. Once one truly understands the Five Doctrines of Grace (a/k/a Calvinism), he is brought to a place of total humility because he realizes that he had absolutely nothing do with God saving him. He knows in his heart that God's salvation is nothing less than a miracle. And no one contributes to any of God's miracles.

Moreover, all the various soteriological systems or views out there are incompatible with each other. They contradict each other. So, yes, it does matter what we believe. Not all those systems are the true Gospel! I often wonder how many in Christendom believe that their faith saved them -- or an act of their "free will" saved them, etc.

Maybe you could clarify what 2 Cor. 2:12-14 plainly defines the natural man as.

Start your definition with, "2 Cor. 2:12-14 plainly states that the natural man IS ..."

Probably talking about members of nudist colonies. Lovers of the au natural.

But only by the HEARING OF FAITH are you able to KNOW that the promises are YOURS.

There is no tension between predestination as it is spoken of in scripture and free will as it is used in scripture. Scripture does not mean exhaustive determinism when it speaks of predestination.

What does it mean?

It means to determine from some point in time that something else should happen at a future time.

Define "exhaustive determinism" and "free will", please.

Okay...I am going to use your reasoning.

Show me chapter and verse where King Josiah did not keep the law of God perfectly, which is what you are claiming.

I am not sure what is the hearing of "faith" ... how are you using the word faith?

Good grief, fellow, gird up the loins of you mind already and use your God-given brain. As far as proof for my interpretation, I provided that already. Since Josiah is being compared to king David who himself was a sinner, then logically speaking Josiah's keeping of God's law had to be as imperfect as David's was!

Now, I have a question for you: How did Jesus attain to the moral-spiritual level of sinlessness?

Exhaustive determinism means that absolutely everything that was, is and will be has been foreordained.
Free will means desires that have not been foreordained. What free will does is voluntary, unforced; as were Old Testament free will offerings.

On another thread, I believe, I had quite the exchange with either Studier (who seems to have fallen off the planet since) and/or PT over the controversial 1Tim 2:3-4 passage in which I used the larger but still more immediate context to refute the misinterpretation. But just today I ran across a John Piper article dealing with the same passage in his Ask Pastor John Podcast. A writer wrote in and asked Piper this question about the passage:

“Pastor John, hello and thank you for this podcast. First Timothy 2:3–4 says God desires all men to be saved. He desires that end. But not all men are saved. Does that mean (1) God will not do what he wants to do? Or (2) God cannot do what he wants to do? It has to be one of these two options, right?”

Piper fielded this question in an interesting manner by going outside 1Timothy to 2Timothy, and in so doing gets into a complex discussion about God's multiple wills.

While Piper brought the "wants" of God to his argument, I found it interesting that he didn't bring God's "needs" to bear in his argument. All of us know that we're often conflicted in our own decisions when we have to weigh our wants against our needs. And God does indeed have needs -- not external to himself -- but internal. We see this at the Cross of Christ. God is full of mercy and compassion and "desires all men" to be saved; yet, at the same time God could not save anyone at the expense of justice since He is a righteous God. So, Jesus, "needed" to pay the penalty for the sins of God's covenant people in order for people to be justified in God's eyes AND in order for God to preserve his own integrity -- his own Righteousness and Justice. Anyhow...I digress a bit.

Piper does go and and provide several biblical examples of how God acts even when his will is "conflicted". In all cases, I believe that whatever God decides that is his perfect will. Not only is it perfect, but it is Good. (Many times in the OT, for example, some prophet of God would tell God do what is right or good in your eyes.) But at the same time, we don't live in an Ideal world. We live in a fallen world -- a world in which God is constantly working through evil. So, while God's will is perfect in this less-than-ideal context, it's still nonetheless not his Ideal Will. For example, in the eternal, visible Kingdom, God will never have to decree or permit murder, war, lying, etc., since the Eternal Environment will be perfect holiness and righteousness. Anyhow...here is the link to the article.

https://www.desiringgod.org/interviews/if-god-desires-all-to-be-saved-why-arent-they

1. What has not been foreordained?
2. "Unforced" externally, internally or both?
3. Does "voluntary" mean that man can become anything he wants/desires?

1. One example: whether I perform the good works God has prepared for me to do today, or I refuse to perform them. Another would be desires to sin have not been foreordained.
2. I think I phrased that incorrectly. I should have said, "What free will does CAN BE voluntary, unforced" (externally and internally) However, it is possible to force a free will being to act contrary to its will/desires, so that it does not do what it would have done had the force not been applied.
3. No, voluntary does not mean that a man can become anything he wants. That definition does not make any sense. "Tom gave voluntary service to the poor and homeless, does not mean "Tom can become anything he wants to the poor and homeless."

Biblically incorrect. For example, the Doctrine of Reprobation in Rom 1 whereby God gives men over to more depraved behavior than they had experienced previously.

Biblically incorrect. The will is not an independent, autonomous faculty. The will is located in man's heart and operates in conjunction with man's other three faculties.

Of course it does. Take what's going on in the Woke Movement. Men believe they are females simply because they desire to be one, and they reject their biological identity. So my question again is: Just because they desire to be something they are not biologically, does that make them actually be what they are not?

Again, here is the text:


2 Kings 22:2
New International Version
2 He did what was right in the eyes of the Lord and followed completely the ways of his father David, not turning aside to the right or to the left.

King Josiah is compared to King David in the positive. The comparison is not meant to show King Josiah as a sinner but one who did not
waver in his following of the commands of God. Can you not see this in the verbiage?


On your question:

Now, I have a question for you: How did Jesus attain to the moral-spiritual level of sinlessness?

Jesus did not "attain" sinlessness. You should rethink your choice of words.

Logically, God ceasing from restraining a man somewhat from his ability to practise all the sin he wants to does not equate to God foreordaining the types and number of the man's subsequent sins. You have not shown that my response was biblically correct,

I never said the will is an independent autonomous faculty, whatever that means.

In the case of transgender men thinking they are women, no that does not make them women. However, you would be committing the fallacy of composition to assume that because X is not true in this particular case, X cannot be true in all cases.
I stand by what I said -
i.e. 3. No, voluntary does not mean that a man can become anything he wants. That definition does not make any sense. "Tom gave voluntary service to the poor and homeless, does not mean "Tom can become anything he wants to the poor and homeless."

Do you disagree with what I said?

But David did not always do what was right in the eyes of the Lord, since he was a sinner in both his official public role and in his private life. David did turn aside to the right and to the left! Therefore, king David did not follow completely the ways of the Lord. So, you need to rethink your interpretation that king Josiah was as perfect as his father David was. Neither one of them obeyed God's laws perfectly. Just because this particular text lays emphasis only on the "positive" side of David does not give us license to ignore the larger context of scripture. We can only understand the passage rightly by taking into account the full context of David's life, which was NOT all positive!

"Attain" sounds good to me. It means to "reach as an end", "'gain", "obtain", "goal". In fact, this can also mean "to come to as the end of a progression or course of movement". And since we're talking about obedient lives, living life itself is a progression or movement or process and this fact is born out out by Heb 5:8 which says Jesus "learned obedience from what he suffered". And Jesus often stated as one of his goals that he came into this world to do his Father will, which he did perfectly right up to the Cross (Jn 4:34; 6:38).

But you obviously don't want to answer this question, so I'll answer for you. Jesus was born inherently righteous, holy and good, which is how he kept his Father's law perfectly and lived a perfectly sinless life, while simultaneously moving to the ultimate Goal of the obedience of the Cross so that men could be saved through his perfect obedience. Jesus did not come into this world with a sin nature. Jesus Christ was the only being who ever kept all of God's commandments all the time. These things cannot be said of any other human being!

Here's a hint: You need to understand 2Ki 22:2 in light of:

Eccl 7:20
20 There is not a righteous man on earth
who does what is right and never sins.
NIV

David and Josiah were both "righteous" kings; yet, they were not morally perfect human beings. And 2Ki 22:2 does not teach that. Nor does Eccl 7:20. You and Neh6 read that into the passage because you refuse to understand spiritual truth in its full context.

Yeah, it logically it does! Otherwise, removing restrictive restraints amounts to nothing!