Free will makes God appear impotent.

[Winman]

Man has a free will but only in the realm of his nature. God gives wicked men freedom of will to operate in the bounds of their wicked mind. Even when it comes to natural ability we are not free to do what we want to do. Most people have limitations of skill, vocabulary, strength and so on. I may want to do something or become something but I must have the power to perform. I will to be rich but do I have the resources ? I may will to be of another nationality but can I change my skin ? Take for example the animal kingdom. A animals diet is controlled by it's nature. Try feeding a cow a steak or a dog hay, they won't eat, Why ? they are controlled by their nature. Now try forcing salvation on a lost man, he will not have it. It's all foolishness to him. What will change this lost man's will ? regeneration when God takes away the stony heart and put's in a heart of flesh.

False, scripture clearly shows that unregenerate men can and DO obey the gospel.

Rom 6:16 Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?
17 But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you.
18 Being then made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness.

This scripture clearly refutes Total Inability. Paul taught that to whom we yield ourselves servants to obey, we are servants to whom we obey.

In other words, we do not sin because we are servants of sin, we are servants of sin because we choose to sin.

This is clearly evidenced in daily life. No man is born addicted to cigarettes. It is when a man freely chooses to smoke and continues to do so that he becomes addicted and a slave to nicotine.

The same is true of drinking, no man is born with a bottle of Jack Daniels in his hand. It is when a man freely chooses to drink and continues to do so that he becomes a slave and addicted to alcohol.

Paul showed that man has both the ability and option to yield himself "whether" (option) of sin unto death, "or" (option) of obedience unto righteousness.

Then Paul thanks God that these Romans who "were" servants (slaves) to sin OBEYED the gospel from their heart.

BEING THEN (after obeying the gospel WHILE they were slaves of sin) made free from sin they BECAME (a new creature) servants of righteousness.

I have presented this scripture probably two dozen times in the last two months, and not one Calvinist has refuted it, in fact, they have completely ignored it.

Is there any Calvinist here who has the nerve to comment on Romans 6:16-18 and explain how it does not utterly refute Total Inability?

Or will you all continue to ignore this scripture that proves your doctrine false?

 

[padredurand]

So you don't believe in Total Depravity either? Well I do If you don't. Just stating my position sorry for the caps.

Now that you've stated your position now prove it. I suspect you don't know a thing about those who hold a free will position. I provided three different quotes for you to get started. All three are from historic Wesleyan-Arminian sources. You can't get any more free will holding than that. Regardless, do some independent research and find me one 'free willer' that believes what you so boldly stated, "MAN BY AN ACT OF WILL CAN ATTAIN DIVINITY!" One credible source and I'll buy everyone on BB an ice cream cone.

Why wouldn't I believe in total depravity? They are not contrary positions.

 

[Winman]

Why wouldn't I believe in total depravity? They are not contrary positions.

I'm going to throw a monkey wrench into this discussion.

The word "depraved" actually shows a progression from good to evil. In other words, to be depraved you had to once be good. Sad, but true;

Full Definition of DEPRAVED

: marked by corruption or evil; especially : perverted
— de·praved·ly adverb
— de·pra·ved·ness noun

See depraved defined for English-language learners »

Examples of DEPRAVED

the work of depraved minds
He acted with depraved indifference to human suffering.

First Known Use of DEPRAVED
14th century

Related to DEPRAVED

Synonyms

debased, debauched, decadent, degenerate, degraded, demoralized, corrupt, dissipated, dissolute, jackleg, libertine, loose, perverse, perverted, rakehell (or rakehelly), rakish, reprobate, sick, unclean, unwholesome, warped

Antonyms

pure, uncorrupt, uncorrupted

To be depraved means to be corrupted or perverted. It doesn't mean you were born evil, it means you were good and have BECOME evil.

Now, folks won't like that, but that is what the word depraved means.

Depraved does not mean an inability to do good as Calvinism redefines it. The scriptures teach that all men are sinners, but the scriptures also teach that sinners can do good things.

Luk 6:33 And if ye do good to them which do good to you, what thank have ye? for sinners also do even the same.

Sinners can do good, Jesus said so. Yes, Jesus is saying it is far better to do good to those who do not treat you well, nevertheless, it is no sin to do good to those who do good to you. In fact, you SHOULD do good to those who do good to you.

So, depraved does not mean a person cannot do good and believe the gospel.

But only God has the power to regenerate a man who believes.

 

[Reformed]

If you feel compelled to be critical of any notion of free will take a few moments and educate yourself on how it is viewed by those who hold to it.


Articles of Religion of the Methodist Church (1784)

We believe man is fallen from righteousness and, apart from the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, is destitute of holiness and inclined to evil. Except a man be born again, he cannot see the Kingdom of God. In his own strength, without divine grace, man cannot do good works pleasing and acceptable to God. We believe, however, man influenced and empowered by the Holy Spirit is responsible in freedom to exercise his will for good.​

Artice VII of the former Evangelical United Brethren (1963):

We believe man is fallen from righteousness and, apart from the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, is destitute of holiness and inclined to evil. Except a man be born again, he cannot see the Kingdom of God. In his own strength, without divine grace, man cannot do good works pleasing and acceptable to God. We believe, however, man influenced and empowered by the Holy Spirit is responsible in freedom to exercise his will for good.​

These are really interesting comments about man exercising his will for good. As a Calvinist I could agree with both of these quotes, although in the larger context of Calvinistic theology they may be interpreted differently. The rub is how both camps interpret certain phrases and words that both would have no problem using.

 

[pinoybaptist]

“As for you, you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good, to bring it about that many people should be kept alive, as they are today. So do not fear...” (Genesis 50:20–21a, ESV)

???? How does this relate to the discussion ? Thanks.

 

[Reformed]

If God is the one who set that up and planned it to be that way then how could one make such a claim? Understanding here that is was God who set it up that way.

Let me say this again: It was God who set it up that way.

We know that God is omniscient (He knows all things). We know that God's ways our higher than our ways. We know that Jesus Christ, who is God, is the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end. God operates in and outside of time. He sees events (happened, as happening, and yet to happen) as always before Him. He is not bound by the laws of time and physics which He created to govern His creation.

If God is all these things, then it would be illogical for God to divorce Himself from His own will of decree and cede an autonomy to His creation that He would have no control over.

The "foreseen faith view" tries to explain away free will by saying that God looks down the corridor of time and decides to choose those who choose Him. That view is a boiler plate for those in the free will camp. But as interesting as it sounds it still puts God on the defensive, having to react to the choices of His creation.

 

[Winman]

As a Calvinist I could agree with both of these quotes,

This quote is very revealing, it shows that Calvinism is your authority, not scripture. Who cares what Calvinism teaches, what is important is whether doctrine agrees with scripture.

Isn't that so?

 

[tyndale1946]

Inclined to evil? Mans heart is only evil continually! I see they didn't believe in Total Depravity either! Seems to me that they didn't think Adam fell far enough. Eph 2:1 And you hath he quickened who were Dead in trespasses and in sin. 5 Even when we were Dead in sins hath quickened us together with Christ (by grace are ye saved) 8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is a gift of God: 9 Not of works lest any man should boast. Seems to me Adam was pretty Dead! God told him he would be Gen 19 In the sweat of thy face thou shall eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it was thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust thou shalt return. 21 Unto Adam and his wife did the Lord God make coats of skins and cloth them. Seems to me we have a difference of opinion but I understand free will even if you think I don't. There are brethren on here that will agree with you and there are brethren on here that won't. btw just because I believe the 5 points of Calvinism does not make me of the Calvin brethren. I respect the Calvin brethren as I respect everyone on here. I have a right to state how I understand doctrine according to scripture. I'm not offended if any disagree with me but will post how I see it... Like I always say... "Consider what I say and The Lord Giveth Thee The Understanding!

 

[Winman]

Inclined to evil? Mans heart is only evil continually! I see they didn't believe in Total Depravity either! Seems to me that they didn't think Adam fell far enough. Eph 2:1 And you hath he quickened who were Dead in trespasses and in sin. 5 Even when we were Dead in sins hath quickened us together with Christ (by grace are ye saved) 8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is a gift of God: 9 Not of works lest any man should boast. Seems to me Adam was pretty Dead! God told him he would be Gen 19 In the sweat of thy face thou shall eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it was thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust thou shalt return. 21 Unto Adam and his wife did the Lord God make coats of skins and cloth them. Seems to me we have a difference of opinion but I understand free will even if you think I don't. There are brethren on here that will agree with you and there are brethren on here that won't. btw just because I believe the 5 points of Calvinism does not make me of the Calvin brethren. I respect the Calvin brethren as I respect everyone on here. I have a right to state how I understand doctrine according to scripture. I'm not offended if any disagree with me but will post how I see it... Like I always say... "Consider what I say and The Lord Giveth Thee The Understanding!

The world was very different when Gen 6:5 was written, men lived many hundreds of years. This contributed to man's depravity. It is the threat of punishment and death that most deters sin.

Ecc 8:11 Because sentence against an evil work is not executed speedily, therefore the heart of the sons of men is fully set in them to do evil.

The lifespan of man dropped off dramatically after the flood. God altered the earth in such a way that men do not live for hundreds of years anymore, but around 70-80 years max on average. I believe God did this as an incentive for men to turn from sin and repent.

So, you have to consider the fact that men were living many hundreds of years when Gen 6:5 was written.

And do the scriptures say man was born evil at this time? NO, the scriptures say man had "corrupted" his way. To corrupt means to go from a good state to a bad state, as when fruit rots.

Gen 6:12 And God looked upon the earth, and, behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth.

Scripture does not teach that men were born evil, it teaches that they corrupted themselves, even in the early world before Noah.

And immediately after the flood God swore he would never curse the world again for man's sake, for man's imaginations were evil from his YOUTH.

Gen 8:21 And the LORD smelled a sweet savour; and the LORD said in his heart, I will not again curse the ground any more for man's sake; for the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth; neither will I again smite any more every thing living, as I have done.

I would be willing to bet you don't hear Gen 8:21 in Reformed churches on Sunday very often.

 

[preacher4truth]

Christ preached man is not free in any sense until He sets them free (see John 8), yet we have experts who know more than He (who preach error) and say man is free in his will. To at least one of these even a canine is free and has faith.

There need be no wondering as to who is correct, yet, some do just that as if they are schooling the Son of God.

 

[padredurand]

These are really interesting comments about man exercising his will for good. As a Calvinist I could agree with both of these quotes, although in the larger context of Calvinistic theology they may be interpreted differently. The rub is how both camps interpret certain phrases and words that both would have no problem using.

It is the rub indeed. I posted this quote a page or so back

"It does not depend on any power or merit in man; no, not in any degree, neither in whole, nor in part. It does not in anywise depend either on the good works or righteousness of the receiver; not on anything he has done, or anything he is. It does not depend on his endeavors. It does not depend on his good tempers, or good desires, or good purposes and intentions; for all these flow from the free grace of God; they are the streams only, not the fountain. They are the fruits of free grace, and not the root. They are not the cause, but the effects of it. Whatsoever good is in man, or is done by man, God is the author and doer of it. Thus is his grace free in all; that is, no way depending on any power or merit in man, but on God alone, who freely gave us his own Son, and "with him freely giveth us all things."

I know who said it. If you want to go back and look you will know who said it. I suspect we could ascribe it to a historic Calvinist and no one would be the wiser. The writer is emphatic about the source of Grace and man's inability to respond to the Gospel, in whole or part, by merit or human power.

Free will is not an absolute exercise of the human will as some define it here. Perhaps it was in the OP where someone spoke about having the freedom to drive their automobile wherever and whenever they chose. That is an expression somewhat but even that liberty is not without its limitations.

A car must be operated within the bounds of physical law. You might feel the freedom to express your will by declaring you will drive 90 mph along one of those beautiful mountain roads in West Virginia. You might want to but you will end up on your roof in a bottom. You can only drive as far as the gas tank will allow. You also have to operate within the bounds of civil law: speed limits, traffic devices, which side of the road to drive....

From the historic free will position, a person's exercise of their free will is bound only to respond to the Grace before them. In other words free will is neither free nor an exercise of the human will.

 

[Winman]

Christ preached man is not free in any sense until He sets them free (see John 8), yet we have experts who know more than He who preach error and say man is free in his will. To at least one of these even a canine is free and has faith.

There need be no wondering as to who is correct, yet, some do just that as if they are schooling the Son of God.

Any person that has ever owned a dog will tell you dogs trust some persons, and do not trust others. You can deny reality if you wish.

Again, when the scriptures speak of man being a slave or servant of sin, it is not saying that a man is compelled to sin. Sinners do not always sin, it is not a sin when you tell the truth, otherwise the commandments are nonsensical.

Likewise, Christians do not always do right. Just because you have a new nature does not make you unable to sin.

So, your view is easily refuted every day, all a person has to do is open his eyes. (and mind).

When the scriptures say a man is a servant or slave of sin, it is saying that we are a POSSESSION of sin, just like a slave who was purchased in the market. Sin is personified in the book of Romans, and Paul says the "wages of sin is death". No matter what you do, good or bad, sin is your master and he pays one wage and that is death.

You cannot escape this bondage except by death. This is where Jesus comes in. Jesus was made sin for us, and died to sin for us. When we trust Jesus we are baptized into his body and die with him to sin.

Rom 6:1 What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound?
2 God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?
3 Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?
4 Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.
5 For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection:
6 Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin.
7 For he that is dead is freed from sin.

The problem is that Calvinism does not understand what Paul is saying in Romans 6. Paul is not teaching we are compelled to sin, he is teaching that we BELONGED to sin, we were sin's POSSESSION, sin was our MASTER, and we were sin's SLAVE.

But the law has no power over any dead man. When we died with Jesus, sin no longer has any power or authority over us, we are FREE from sin.

We are now raised with Jesus to new life with him. We now BELONG to Jesus, we are now Jesus's POSSESSION.

Sin only paid the wage of death, but the gift of Jesus Christ is eternal life. We will always belong to Jesus, because we can never die again!

Rom 6:23 For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

So, the problem is that Calvinism does not understand what Paul is teaching in Romans, he is not teaching we are compelled to sin.

Likewise, we are not compelled to always do right now, but we still BELONG to Jesus.

 

[Reformed]

It is the rub indeed. I posted this quote a page or so back

"It does not depend on any power or merit in man; no, not in any degree, neither in whole, nor in part. It does not in anywise depend either on the good works or righteousness of the receiver; not on anything he has done, or anything he is. It does not depend on his endeavors. It does not depend on his good tempers, or good desires, or good purposes and intentions; for all these flow from the free grace of God; they are the streams only, not the fountain. They are the fruits of free grace, and not the root. They are not the cause, but the effects of it. Whatsoever good is in man, or is done by man, God is the author and doer of it. Thus is his grace free in all; that is, no way depending on any power or merit in man, but on God alone, who freely gave us his own Son, and "with him freely giveth us all things."

I know who said it. If you want to go back and look you will know who said it. I suspect we could ascribe it to a historic Calvinist and no one would be the wiser. The writer is emphatic about the source of Grace and man's inability to respond to the Gospel, in whole or part, by merit or human power.

Free will is not an absolute exercise of the human will as some define it here. Perhaps it was in the OP where someone spoke about having the freedom to drive their automobile wherever and whenever they chose. That is an expression somewhat but even that liberty is not without its limitations.

A car must be operated within the bounds of physical law. You might feel the freedom to express your will by declaring you will drive 90 mph along one of those beautiful mountain roads in West Virginia. You might want to but you will end up on your roof in a bottom. You can only drive as far as the gas tank will allow. You also have to operate within the bounds of civil law: speed limits, traffic devices, which side of the road to drive....

From the historic free will position, a person's exercise of their free will is bound only to respond to the Grace before them. In other words free will is neither free nor an exercise of the human will.

I am well acquainted with Wesley. I was not always a Calvinist, so his writings were helpful in shaping my theology in my early Christian years.

Once again, the devil is in the details. Wesley's comments do come across as Calvinistic. I mean, if it is God who is the author of all things (and in control of all things), even according to the free grace position, then where do we see free grace at work?

On a simple intellectual basis I cannot get my head around the idea of free grace. I can type out how I believe man freely chooses Christ in response to God first doing the choosing. But in that situation there is not a freedom not to choose Christ. The call is effectual, which means it will not fail to happen because it is God who is doing the calling. While the Wesley quote does not say it specifically, Wesley did believe that a man can choose to accept or reject God's offer of salvation. I believe that too, but only in a highly qualified sense, and then only from my finite understanding. If I preach the Gospel and call on those in attendance to repent and believe, some may accept my message and some may reject it. If I am interpreting their response as an act of their free will then my interpretation would be correct. But if I am interpreting it from God's perspective, then my opinion would be different. Only those effectually called by God will respond positively to the Gospel. They are free to do so, but they are not free not to do so. Those that reject the Gospel also choose freely. They choose in accordance with their nature. Unlike the person who is effectually called, those not effectually called cannot respond positively to the Gospel*.

*I am always compelled to add this caveat when I make this comment. No one knows who God has elected, so we are to proclaim the Gospel to all and implore all to believe.

 

[convicted1]

Man ties God's hands all the time...:tear:

Man can either choose to obey or rebel....

Man is in rebellion from birth....doesn't need any help whatsoever...

 

[Winman]

I am well acquainted with Wesley. I was not always a Calvinist, so his writings were helpful in shaping my theology in my early Christian years.

Once again, the devil is in the details. Wesley's comments do come across as Calvinistic. I mean, if it is God who is the author of all things (and in control of all things), even according to the free grace position, then where do we see free grace at work?

On a simple intellectual basis I cannot get my head around the idea of free grace. I can type out how I believe man freely chooses Christ in response to God first doing the choosing. But in that situation there is not a freedom not to choose Christ. The call is effectual, which means it will not fail to happen because it is God who is doing the calling. While the Wesley quote does not say it specifically, Wesley did believe that a man can choose to accept or reject God's offer of salvation. I believe that too, but only in a highly qualified sense, and then only from my finite understanding. If I preach the Gospel and call on those in attendance to repent and believe, some may accept my message and some may reject it. If I am interpreting their response as an act of their free will then my interpretation would be correct. But if I am interpreting it from God's perspective, then my opinion would be different. Only those effectually called by God will respond positively to the Gospel. They are free to do so, but they are not free not to do so. Those that reject the Gospel also choose freely. They choose in accordance with their nature. Unlike the person who is effectually called, those not effectually called cannot respond positively to the Gospel*.

*I am always compelled to add this caveat when I make this comment. No one knows who God has elected, so we are to proclaim the Gospel to all and implore all to believe.

Except that Romans 6:16-18 completely refutes your view and directly says these Romans who were servants to sin OBEYED the gospel.

So, your view that a man can only choose according to his nature is absolutely refuted by scripture.

Rom 6:17 But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you.
18 Being then made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness.

Why don't you answer? Why don't you show me how my interpretation of this scripture is wrong? Why do you simply ignore this scripture?

 

[preacher4truth]

Man ties God's hands all the time...:tear:

Man can either choose to obey or rebel....

Man is in rebellion from birth....doesn't need any help whatsoever...

Correct, and Wes may never get this unless the scales are removed, and at the same time he preaches a dissident lie that some need no repentance, and that even fido has faith just as a man has faith.

He is THAT myopic.

 

[Winman]

Correct, and Wes may never get this unless the scales are removed, and at the same time he preaches a dissident lie that some need no repentance, and that even fido has faith just as a man has faith.

He is THAT myopic.

It is you Calvinists that have blinders on. Romans 6:17 clearly says that these Romans who were slaves or servants of sin OBEYED the gospel.

That's it, GAME OVER. Total Inability is utterly refuted by this scripture AND YOU KNOW IT.

Who are you fooling? Not me. You are fooling yourself.

Do you want to be true to scripture, or true to Calvinism? Make your choice.

 

[padredurand]

I am well acquainted with Wesley. I was not always a Calvinist, so his writings were helpful in shaping my theology in my early Christian years.

Once again, the devil is in the details. Wesley's comments do come across as Calvinistic. I mean, if it is God who is the author of all things (and in control of all things), even according to the free grace position, then where do we see free grace at work?

On a simple intellectual basis I cannot get my head around the idea of free grace. I can type out how I believe man freely chooses Christ in response to God first doing the choosing. But in that situation there is not a freedom not to choose Christ. The call is effectual, which means it will not fail to happen because it is God who is doing the calling. While the Wesley quote does not say it specifically, Wesley did believe that a man can choose to accept or reject God's offer of salvation. I believe that too, but only in a highly qualified sense, and then only from my finite understanding. If I preach the Gospel and call on those in attendance to repent and believe, some may accept my message and some may reject it. If I am interpreting their response as an act of their free will then my interpretation would be correct. But if I am interpreting it from God's perspective, then my opinion would be different. Only those effectually called by God will respond positively to the Gospel. They are free to do so, but they are not free not to do so. Those that reject the Gospel also choose freely. They choose in accordance with their nature. Unlike the person who is effectually called, those not effectually called cannot respond positively to the Gospel*.

*I am always compelled to add this caveat when I make this comment. No one knows who God has elected, so we are to proclaim the Gospel to all and implore all to believe.

And even as they loved each other deeply, this is where Wesley and Whitefield were divided. You summarized it well in when you said, "...are free to do so, but they are not free not to do so."

Unfortunately the popular definition of free will is I will come to God when I'm good and ready to. I won't come a minute too soon nor a minute too late but I will come on my terms and in my timing. That doesn't fit the classic definition.

I recall a lengthy discussion during a class at one of those free will institutions surrounding the call of Esther to intervene against the decree brought upon the Jews in Susa. Mordecai sent word to Esther.

"For if you remain silent at this time, relief and deliverance will arise for the Jews from another place and you and your father's house will perish. And who knows whether you have not attained royalty for such a time as this?"
Esther 4:14 NAS77

Picture if you will a dialogue between Wesley and Whitefield. Wesley gets the first line "...if you remain silent at this time..." Wesley would insist Esther could make a choice. She could speak to the king or she could remain silent. The preceding verse is what he would call prevenient grace - the grace that precedes the response.

Then Mordecai told them to reply to Esther, "Do not imagine that you in the king's palace can escape any more than all the Jews.
Esther 4:13 NAS77

Esther's unlikely rise to favor and position in the palace is akin to the call. It was nothing short of Providence that took her there and nothing of her own merit.

Whitefield would have the final word and insist the final sentence in verse 14 was the effectual call. He would insist Esther was compelled to respond to her position because of Providence. Her rise to favor was not for Esther's vanity but for her - and subsequently her people's redemption.

 

[preacher4truth]

To all looking in, SNIP (winman) listens to no one but himself and to his own experience, both being his authority up to and including rejection of all whom God has ordained to preach the truth throughout time.

He has touted himself and bragged as being a person who does not read other's works (although recently he has laid claim to reading a few, one including a lost commentary, and another as reading 'Sinner's in the Hands of an Angry God' as if these were major feats and accomplishments) and, as if these are a badge of honor and are to be noted as 'something'.

But for the majority of his tenure here on BB he has rejected others and has received himself and his own subjective experience to the detriment of the Holy Spirits testimony in Ephesians 4:11ff that God has placed other men as those to whom the church is edified.

Winman has also laid claim to being a 'KJB sort of feller', even giving testimony that through prayer God spoke to him directly and told him personally that the KJV is THE only right Bible implying all other versions are not God's Word.

Said has also taught that some do not need to repent (a result of his rejection of all under sin, none doing good -- Romans 3:10ff) and that, according to him, even a chihuahua has faith and by such an admission can also be saved.

 

[Winman]

To all looking in, SNIP (winman) listens to no one but himself and to his own experience, both being his authority up to and including rejection of all whom God has ordained to preach the truth throughout time.

Baloney, I listen to the scriptures, and I show those scriptures where I derive my views.

He has touted himself and bragged as being a person who does not read other's works (although recently he has laid claim to reading a few, one including a lost commentary, and another as reading 'Sinner's in the Hands of an Angry God' as if these were major feats and accomplishments) and, as if these are a badge of honor and are to be noted as 'something'.

It is the fact that I read other's books years ago that I do not read them now. You can find 50 authors that support a given view, and then you can find 50 writers of equal ability who refute that view.

I would like to know, how do you know those writers you believe are correct?

Come on, I know the answer. :laugh:

But for the majority of his tenure here on BB he has rejected others and has received himself and his own subjective experience to the detriment of the Holy Spirits testimony in Ephesians 4:11ff that God has placed other men as those to whom the church is edified.

OK, I am not Mr. Popularity. That has never been my goal. I am concerned about what the scriptures teach, not what is popular. I am not influenced by "peer pressure" as someone recently wrote.

Winman has also laid claim to being a 'KJB sort of feller', even giving testimony that through prayer God spoke to him directly and told him personally that the KJV is THE only right Bible implying all other versions are not God's Word.

Would you care to show where I EVER said God personally spoke to me directly?

Said has also taught that some do not need to repent (a result of his rejection of all under sin, none doing good -- Romans 3:10ff) and that, according to him, even a chihuahua has faith and by such an admission can also be saved.

Romans 9:11 says Jacob and Esau had done neither good nor evil while they were alive in their mother's womb. If they had died at this point (as many millions of babies do) what sin would they need to repent of?

Answer that question, what does someone who has never done any wrong thing need to repent of?