All graphics and images are copyright of A True Church
All graphics and images are copyright of A True Church
Last updated 03-31-10
From: jeremyj1515@aol.com
To: feedback@atruechurch.info
Sent: Thursday, January 28, 2010 10:40 PM
Subject: ?
Hello,
Have you ever researched"outside the camp"?(ousidethecamp.org)Please give me feedback .I have known mass delusion is everywhere. Including me.The Holy Spirit has testified of Jesus to me.But I can't find the truth.I know it is all my fault .I am self-seeking in my seeking.Anyway please provide feedback on this site.Itseems to have something.--Thanks-Jeremy Jenkins
From: Darwin
To: jeremyj1515@aol.com
Sent: Friday, January 29, 2010 9:58 PM
Subject: Re: ?
"I am self-seeking in my seeking."
Unless that changes, you will perish. See Romans 2:6-10.
In regards to that website, you have given ear to false lips (Proverbs 17:4). They are false. For one, they admit to being ecumenical. They write in the preface of their "Confession Of Faith" that their confession is,
"truly ecumenical in the good sense of the word."
There is no good sense of the word in our venacular nor in their context, since they also claim in this preface regarding their "Confession of Faith",
"The other Confessions leave room for their adherents to speak peace to those who believe false gospels; this Confession does not."
Since their confession is not exaustive regarding the "doctrine of Christ" (2 John 9), and since the Biblical "gospel" is "the word of truth" (Ephesians 1:13, i.e. "every word of God" Matthew 4:4), their claim is actually a lie and it most certainly does "leave room for . . . adherents to speak peace to those who believe false gospels".
In fact, they themselves speak peace to an aberrant gospel, limited atonement. In their confession under "II. God, D. Predestination. 2. Reprobation" they write,
[e.] "Jesus Christ did not die for the reprobate in any sense,"
Under "IV. Jesus Christ. C. His Work" they write,
"6. Those who deny the effectual work of Jesus Christ, claiming instead that the blood of Jesus Christ atoned for everyone without exception (including those in hell), deny the very heart of the gospel."
The gospel teaches exactly that. Christ did indeed die for people who perish (those in hell). See Romans 14:15; 1 Corinthians 8:11; Hebrews 10:29; 2 Peter 2:1; etc..
They also write in the preface of their confession about "God-hating religionists" who "believe that Jesus Christ died for everyone without exception". This is actually what God-loving religionists believe. Thus, they declare the gospel of God-lovers to be evil, and the gospel of God-haters to be good. The curse of Isaiah 5:20 & Galatians 1:8-9 is upon them [for more on limited atonement, see www.atruechurch.info/calvinarmin.html, under III. Limited Atonement].
Furthermore, they write in their confession under "II. God, A. The Knowledge of God",
"7. God is a logical being, and the knowledge that He imparts to His people is logical and noncontradictory. God is not paradoxical or illogical, for God cannot be against Himself. [Num 23:19; 1Sa 15:29; Psa 61:7; 117:2; Isa 65:16; Mal 3:6; Joh 1:1; 1Co 14:7-9; 2Co 1:18-20]"
This is faulty on at least three accounts:
1) Scripture nowhere teaches it (Proverbs 30:5-6).
2) It is subject to the frailty of human logic and what man thinks to be logical, paradoxical, and contradictory. God has already declared man's wisdom to be foolishness (1 Corinthians 1:20; 3:19-20).
3) It is flat out a lie. In Gethsemane, Jesus, the Son of God, God Himself (John 1:1), prayed an illogical paradoxical contradictory prayer. He prayed, "Take this cup away from Me" (Mark 14:36). That request was against the logic of God's perfect eternal plan for both Christ and the salvation of mankind. It was paradoxical to be asking for that which cannot be. It was contradictory to God's prophetic word (e.g. Daniel 9:26; Isaiah 53; etc.). Sovereign Redeemer Assembly (outsidethecamp.org) has a god of their own making. They have "changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptiable man" (Romans 1:23).
In this confession under "II. God, C. Divine Attributes" they write,
"1. God is all-knowing, everywhere present, unchangeable, and not able to be limited."
The last phrase, "not able to be limited" is again a lie, as Jesus said in His impossible prayer in the garden, "Abba, Father, all things are possible for You" (Mark 14:36). The eternal infinite all-powerful God can be limited. His ability to be limited is well illustrated in His wrestling match with Jacob. Even after dislocating Jacob's hip, the Lord still requested for release saying, "Let Me go, for the day breaks" and Jacob refuses saying, "I will not let you go unless You bless me" (Genesis 32:26). The Lord then blesses him, and Jacob releases him. Jacob "struggled with God" and prevailed (Genesis 32:28; Hosea 12:3-4).
Under "II. God, D. Predestination. 1. Election" they write,
"d. When Scripture speaks of God's covenant, it does not mean a conditional agreement or contract between two parties; rather, it means a bond of friendship and fellowship that is unilaterally enacted by God. [Gen 15:12-21; Lev 26:44-45; Deu 4:31; 7:6-8; Jdg 2:1; 2Ch 13:5; Psa 89:3; Isa 54:10; 55:5; Heb 6:17-18; 8:10]"
They lie here as well when they say, "it does not mean a conditional agreement". God's covenant is both unilateral (e.g. Romans 8:29-39; etc.) and conditional (Romans 11:20-22; 2 Timothy 2:11-12; Hebrews 10:26; etc.). Of course, when you are stuck on one's own idea of logic, contradiction, and paradox, then truth is therefore rejected based on a man-made standard of logic, contradiction, and paradox.
Under "II. God, D. Predestination. 2. Reprobation" they write,
"e. God does not have any love toward the reprobate or any desire to save them,"
That is in direct opposition to Jeremiah 8:19-9:6; Micah 1:3-9; John 3:16; Romans 11:32; 1 Timothy 2:4; etc..
Under "III. Man. B. Human Nature After The Fall and Before Regeneration" they write,
"1. Adam and Eve sinned by believing the devil's lie and eating the forbidden fruit. [Gen 3:1-6]"
Adam did not believe the devil's lie (1 Timothy 2:14).
Under this same section in "3." speaking of the serpent's words to Eve they write,
"according to the devil's lie, 'You shall be as God.'"
That was/is not a lie. It was true on that accord what the devil said. They would indeed "be like God, knowing good and evil" (Genesis 3:5) as the text further illustrates. It was the tree of the knowledge of good and evil and when they ate of it they became as God knowing good and evil.
Under "IV. Jesus Christ, C. His Work" they write,
"2. . . . while upon the cross, Jesus Christ, as a perfect representative, substitute, and sacrifice for His people, became a curse for His people and suffered the unmitigated fury of God the Father, which was equivalent to suffering the very pains of hell."
The Bible does not teach it "was equivalent to suffering the very pains of hell". They should not be adding a concept to God's word that is not there (Proverbs 30:5-6).
Moreover, Sovereign Redeemer Assembly prove themselves to be devils (slanderers, διαβολοι [diaboloi] "devils" 2 Timothy 3:3) under "IV. Jesus Christ. C. His Work" where they write,
"6. Those who deny the effectual work of Jesus Christ, claiming instead that the blood of Jesus Christ atoned for everyone without exception (including those in hell), deny the very heart of the gospel. They do not believe that it is the work of Jesus Christ alone that makes the difference between salvation and damnation; instead, these self-righteous boasters believe that it is the effort of the sinner that makes the difference between salvation and damnation. These blasphemers deny that Jesus Christ made full satisfaction for sins and that Jesus Christ accomplished and ensured salvation for all whom He represented. They trample underfoot the precious blood of Jesus Christ, treating it as something of no value. They glory and boast in themselves, for whatever one believes makes the difference between salvation and damnation is what one glories and boasts in. There is not a single one of these blasphemers who is a child of God. [Psa 25:14; 74:18; 94:4; 139:20; Pro 30:12-13; Isa 28:14-18; 42:8; 48:11; Joh 16:8-14; Rom 3:27-28; 4:2; 10:3; 16:17-18; 1Co 2:12; 2Co 10:3-6; Gal 1:8-9; 6:14; Eph 2:8-9; Phi 3:18-19; 1Ti 4:1; 2Ti 3:2-5; 4:3-4; Heb 10:29; 1Jo 2:22-23; 4:6; 2Jo 9]"
In the above quote they slander those who believe the truth (Christ did die even for those in hell) and falsely accuse them of being "blasphemers" who "believe that it is the effort of the sinner that makes the difference between salvation and damnation". They accuse them of denying that "Jesus Christ made full satisfaction for sins", of trampling "underfoot the precious blood of Jesus Christ, treating it as something of no value", and not being "a child of God". Believing Christ died for even those in hell does not in any way dictate such slanderous accusations. But, according to their logic, it does.
From: "Drew Terronez" [eyehateman@gmail.com]
To: feedback@atruechurch.info
Sent: Thursday, February 04, 2010 2:19 PM
Subject: A quick question
First of all, as someone who is not religious, I can't think of a thing in the world that I agree with you on, but your ability to actually live out what the Bible actually says is pretty astounding to me. I've read every part of the Bible at at least one point and can't currently think of anything you got wrong.
That being said, I have one question, and I apologize if this is already answered somewhere on your website, but I couldn't find it. Why do you actually believe the Bible? Everything you have on your website is the logical conclusion of a literal interpretation of scripture, but why are you literally interpreting scripture in the first place?
One other question that kind of ties into that one is why you accept the authority of the canon agreed upon at the Council of Nicea, since those in attendance don't meet your definition of true Christians?
I hope these don't sound sarcastic or anything, they were just the only questions I had that I couldn't find answers to on your website.
From: "Darwin" darwin@atruechurch.info
To: "Drew Terronez" eyehateman@gmail.com
Sent: Thursday, February 04, 2010 10:20 PM
Subject: Re: A quick question
"Why do you actually believe the Bible?"
Please see our FAQ #13.
"why are you literally interpreting scripture in the first place?"
Because we know all those who do not take it literally end up in hell as "unbelieving" (Revelation 21:8).
"why you accept the authority of the canon agreed upon at the Council of Nicea, since those in attendance don't meet your definition of true Christians?"
Please see our archivedblog4, May 03, 2007, subject: The Holy Scriptures (www.atruechurch.info/archivedblog4.html).
From: Drew Terronez
To: Darwin
Sent: Thursday, February 04, 2010 10:29 PM
Subject: Re: A quick question
Can you defend the Bible without quoting it? Becuase before you can quote it you have to establish that it should be taken seriously, which is what you're trying to do.
As for the canon goes, how do you know that that particular canon is the true one?
From: Darwin
To: Drew Terronez
Sent: Friday, February 05, 2010 10:07 AM
Subject: Re: A quick question
"Can you defend the Bible without quoting it?"
Conceptually, we refuse to do so, because our trust is not in "persuasive words of human wisdom" (1 Corinthians 2:4), and we know doing so will save no one and help no one.
"Becuase before you can quote it you have to establish that it should be taken seriously"
According to you, but you are under the curse of Jeremiah 17:5, and your mind is debased (as Romans 1:28 says); so your thinking is perverted; but you think it is correct (that's how perverted it is, as in Isaiah 5:20). Such is the fate of all who reject God. Their brain is worthless. You will find out in the end how worthless it was (like the rich man in Luke 16:19-31), but then it will be too late to do anything about it. Moreover, this Biblical principle is found in that story about the rich man. Abraham tells him, if his brothers do not listen to "Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded though one rise from the dead" (Luke 16:31).
"As for the canon goes, how do you know that that particular canon is the true one?"
That is answered in the archivedblog4 & the FAQ#13.
From: Drew Terronez
To: Darwin
Sent: Friday, February 05, 2010 3:12 PM
Subject: Re: A quick question
OK, you don't argue from the basis of logic, rationality and commen sense. So I guess it's pointless to argue the Bible with you. But all I could find on the archived blog was something along the lines of "it's still God's word even if they perverted it." Again, you didn't prove that it was God's word.
From: Darwin
To: Drew Terronez
Sent: Friday, February 05, 2010 4:32 PM
Subject: Re: A quick question
There is no need to prove that which is self-evident.
From: Drew Terronez
To: Darwin
Sent: Friday, February 05, 2010 4:33 PM
Subject: Re: A quick question
When your only claim for its self evidence is found within it there is.
From: Darwin
To: Drew Terronez
Sent: Friday, February 05, 2010 4:57 PM
Subject: Re: A quick question
Indeed, according to your "logic, rationality and commen sense." Problem is, what is known as logic, is against Logic Himself (Logos, John 1:1). And, what is true sense is not common (Luke 13:24), and what is common is non-sense (1 Corinthians 3:19-20). As I said, you will find out in the end. In the meantime, consider us fools, as you no doubt do.
From: Shelton Markham
To: feedback@atruechurch.info
Sent: Sunday, February 07, 2010 10:11 PM
Subject: a church like yours
I have seen another church that seems to believe like your church. You should check out their website. They think that Christmas is pagan, believe most popular pastors are going to hell, and in predestination. I put the link at the bottom. It is Grace and Truth Church in Hendersonville, TN (Jim Brown is the pastor).
Thanks,
Shelton Markham
http://graceandtruth.net/index.php?option=com_frontpage&Itemid=1
From: Darwin
To: Shelton Markham
Sent: Sunday, February 07, 2010 11:07 PM
Subject: Re: a church like yours
We don't believe in asking people for their money. Brown does:
"People all over the world are starving for this spiritual food. Help us reach out to them. You can help now by giving an offering to the ministry from here by clicking on the [Make A Donation] button below." (http://graceandtruth.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=151&Itemid=63)
One sure sign of a false teacher is they want your money (2 Peter 2:14). A true man of God flees from such things (1 Timothy 6:9-11).
We also do not believe false teachers of the past have anything to offer. Thus, we would not recommend people read their material, as he does at http://graceandtruth.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=180&Itemid=68
From: Darrell Bowen [dbowen37@gmail.com]
To: feedback@atruechurch.info
Sent: Monday, February 08, 2010 3:54 PM
Subject: One Example of Your Lie
Yes, here is one example of your lie. And it took only about 60 seconds to find it. You write that Mr. Graham, based on James 4:4, is an enemy of God because he is a friend of the world. The word "world" in the Greek means "the world system" not a person. Mr. Graham has often spoken of the Satanic world system.
Who would want the "cultish', legalistic, Pharisaical kind of "religion you market? I would assume very few. I think you should call your website "thetruechurch" since you apparently think you are.
You must be demonized to have taken so much time to write and speak against a true servant of God. I think you suffer from an overblown case of envy and jealousy. This is my diagnosis. Praying for your salvation.
Best regards,
Dr Bowen
From: Darwin
To: Darrell Bowen
Sent: Monday, February 08, 2010 6:22 PM
Subject: Re: One Example of Your Lie
"The word 'world' in the Greek means "the world system" not a person."
According to that definition, it means that "God so loved the world system, that He gave His only begotten Son" (John 3:16)? Or, "He Himself is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only, but also for the whole world system" (1 John 2:2)? Or, "He was in the world system, and the world system was made through Him, and the world system did not know Him" (John 1:10)? Am I understanding you correctly? Is this really what you are saying?
From: Darrell Bowen
To: Darwin
Sent: Monday, February 08, 2010 6:30 PM
Subject: Re: One Example of Your Lie
Check the context Darwin. As any good theologian knows, "a text without a context is a pre-text."
Darrell . . .
From: Darwin
To: Darrell Bowen
Sent: Monday, February 08, 2010 10:23 PM
Subject: Re: One Example of Your Lie
Perhaps you could explain to us how the "world system" does not include wicked people and therefore James 4:4 has nothing to do with friendship with the wicked?
From: Darrell Bowen
To: Darwin
Sent: Monday, February 08, 2010 11:19 PM
Subject: Re: One Example of Your Lie
Amazing Darwin that Jesus was a "friend of sinners". I guess He was an enemy of God. Woops! He WAS God!! Hmmm, there I go again.
Are you one of those, "Don't confuse me with truth, my minds made up", sort of people?
Darrell . . .
From: Darwin
To: Darrell Bowen
Sent: Tuesday, February 09, 2010 10:19 AM
Subject: Re: One Example of Your Lie
I ask in sincerity and you mock me. That's fine. You don't have to answer.
"Jesus was a 'friend of sinners'. I guess He was an enemy of God."
You believe Jesus was a friend of sinners? I thought that was blasphemy from His enemies (Matthew 11:19; Luke 7:34). They also called him a glutton and a winebibber. Surely, you don't agree with that as well? But you do agree with their blasphemy of being a friend of sinners.
Hebrews says that He is "separate from sinners" (Hebrews 7:26) and the very text at hand, James 4, reveals enmity with God (Jesus) for adulterers (sinners). Romans 5:10 says sinners "were enemies". Psalm 11:5 says His soul hates the wicked and Psalm 97:3 says He burns up His enemies. Yet, indeed, He died (loved) for them nonetheless (John 3:16). I know God loves His enemies as well. But, I have never seen that He is in truth a friend of His enemies.
Do you have any reference besides the blasphemy text for this concept of Christ being a friend of sinners?
From: Darrell Bowen
To: Darwin
Sent: Tuesday, February 09, 2010 11:10 AM
Subject: Re: One Example of Your Lie
Here is the reference you requested . . . I knew Mr. Graham, worked for him for ten years. He was not a friend of sinners. He had a very close circle of friends, i.e., T.W. Wilson, Grady Wilson, Cliff Barrows, George Beverly Shae and John Corts. If you were to say Mr. Graham had a number of acquaintances who were sinners, you would be correct. This is a far cry from being a friend of those who are enemies of God. I do not know you Darwin, but it appears that you have a judgmental spirit. I find that this kind of spirit develops because the person who judges does not know all the facts. Only God does. Are you claiming to know all the facts of Mr. Grahams life, or are you drawing your conclusions on what others have written about him? If you were to criticize him because of his comment to President Nixon about the Jews, you would be correct in this. Having worked from him, understanding the inside of the organization, and knowing Mr. Grahams integrity have given me confidence that he is a man of God, not the false prophet you claim that he is. Someday you (I pray) will be with him in forever in eternity. Do you really want to carry all this baggage to heaven with you? When you stand before God (again, I pray) and He audits your life, do you really want to have holding in your heart this judgmental spirit?
From: Darwin
To: Darrell Bowen
Sent: Tuesday, February 09, 2010 11:40 AM
Subject: Re: One Example of Your Lie
I asked for a Scriptural reference regarding Christ being a friend of sinners, and you gave me a personal reference of Graham not being a friend of sinners. This is strange, especially since you argued Christ was a friend of sinners.
On Larry King, Graham said he was a friend of Buddists, Mormons, people of other faiths and even said that he loved "to be with them, and friends with all of them". So, Graham says he is. You say he isn't.
Strange discourse this has been.
From: DeWayne Watson [dwatson@gracelife.com]
To: feedback@atruechurch.info
Sent: Thursday, March 18, 2010 12:55 PM
Subject: A quick question
Hi guys,
I was wondering by what authority you have chosen to judge Teen Mania and Ron Luce?
Just curious,
DeWayne Watson
From: Darwin
To: DeWayne Watson
Sent: Thursday, March 18, 2010 11:27 PM
Subject: Re: A quick question
By the authority of God's word (Hebrews 4:12-13; 2 John 9), Christ's commands (John 7:24; Ephesians 5:11), the nature of spiritual men (1 Corinthians 2:15), and the mandate of true faith (2 Corinthians 4:13).
From: chrismann3030@aol.com
To: feedback@atruechurch.info
Sent: Saturday, March 27, 2010 10:25 PM
Subject: exposing
On your site, you expose an enormous number of false teachers. Can a ask a couple of questions?
1. This link takes one to a site where the writer(s) claim that baptism is NOT a part of salvation, and they address 1 Peter 3, and Acts 2.
http://thesinmuststop.org/articles/Immersion%20for%20Remission.pdf
2. Your church's position against Free WIll is clear...how would you address the following objection, if it were posed to your church?
http://thesinmuststop.org/articles/By%20Nature.pdf
3. In their argument for Free Will, they post the following writing:
http://thesinmuststop.org/articles/double%20predestinaton.pdf
Thanks,
CM
From: Darwin
To: chrismann3030@aol.com
Sent: Sunday, March 28, 2010 1:49 PM
Subject: Re: exposing
Your first link speaks of church of Christ. For our position on them see www.atruechurch.info/churchofchrist.html.
Concerning their PDF on baptism, after quoting Acts 10:44-48 they rightly note the Gentiles are saved before getting wet (baptized), but then they write,
"there is no remission, cleansing or forgiveness of sins in the waters of baptism"
That's not what Acts 10:44-48 says, and that is an outright denial of the explicit wording found in Acts 2:38 ("be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins").
Shortly after this they write,
"The good news of the Gospel is “repentance towards God and faith in our Lord Jesus Christ”, NOT repentance towards God, faith in our Lord Jesus Christ PLUS waterbaptism".
In this quote, what they fail to acknowledge is that "faith in our Lord Jesus Christ" = "faith in the Word of God" (John 1:1, 14; Revelation 19:13) = "faith in the Scriptures" (the Scriptures being the Word of God). Thus, faith in the Lord Jesus Christ = faith/obedience to the Word (1 John 2:4). Part of the Word is to get baptized, as Jesus says, "He who believes and is baptized will be saved" (Mark 16:16).
Later, they quote Peter out of Acts 15:11. What they don't acknowledge about this statement is that both Jews and Gentiles were baptized and it is indeed part of the salvation of their souls. This PDF file reveals they do not understand the Biblical teaching on how salvation works. There is indeed inicial salvation, but salvation is a continual process as well, and even a future event. For more detail on that, I suggest going to this page - www.atruechurch.info/justification.html under II False Distinction.
A little later they quote Acts 9:17-18 and state,
"This then would include (like it did for Cornelius and the Gentiles) forgiveness of sins and and a sanctified soul APART from immersion (Acts 26:18)."
Problem is, again, it doesn't say or even conceptualize (i.e. said in different words) "APART from immersion." In fact, baptism is right there in the text - "he arose and was baptized". Why? So he could feel good about himself? Acts 2:38 says why. Mark 16:16 says why.
Later they write,
"Now, if Paul understood water baptism as a CONDITION to obtain initial salvation, why would he baptize some, but NOT all (1 Co. 1:14,16)? The answer is clear, water baptism is NOT necessary for salvation to place, however, the Word of God is"
The Word of God includes baptism.
It is indeed true, as the theif on the cross well illustrates, someone can get saved without getting immersed in water. Yet, getting immersed in water is still what God has commanded. If you refuse it, you'll perish, because no one who truly follows Christ will refuse such a command (1 John 2:4). Thus, the refusal would reveal they are still in rebellion against God and do not have any faith in the Word of God (Christ/Scripture). There is more error in the PDF, but I'll leave it at that for now.
The second PDF clearly rejects Psalm 51:5; 58:3; Proverbs 16:4; Romans 5:19. For example, they write,
"According to Paul children not yet being born have done neither good nor evil (Ro. 9:11)! How could Paul make these claims if he truly believed men and women are born sinners due to Adam?"
Paul does not address "born sinners" in Romans 9:11. He addresses those not yet born, but the writer jumps to the point of birth. That's not what Paul was talking about. In Romans 9:11 it is before they were born, not when they were born. For that, read Psalm 58:3. They come forth speaking lies.
Immediately after the above quote they write,
"It should become obvious, Paul never taught this 'dreadful decree' and clearly understood children are born innocent without the guilt of Adam's sin (Rom. 9:11, Ecc. 7:29, Duet. 1:39)."
Neither Paul nor Ecc. 7:29, nor Duet. 1:39 say children are born innocent. Innocence and not knowing good and evil are not necessarily the same thing. Evil can be done without knowing it is evil (e.g. Luke 23:34). Indeed, Ecclesiastes 7:29 says God made man upright. Adam was indeed made upright. Everyone after him were "made sinners" (Romans 5:19), and God has committed (literally, confined) "all to disobedience" (see also Galatians 3:22).
A little later they write,
"Infants do not come into this world separated from God".
That is a blatant denial of the exact wording of Psalm 58:3 - "The wicked are estranged from the womb, they go astray as soon as they are born, speaking lies."
Shortly after the above quote they write,
"The Scripture is complete with text the prove infants are born innocent with NO knowledge of good or evil (2 Kings 14:6; 21:16; 24:4; Joel 3:19; Ro. 9:11, Ecc.7:29, Duet. 1:39). Therefore, infants do NOT go to hell if they die being they have no moral sin to be punished for (Matt. 19:14 Mark 10:14; Luke 18:16; Jn. 9:41; Ro. 3:20; 5:13; 7:9)!"
Scripture never actually tells us what exactly God does with infants, other than Romans 9:11-13 that they are indeed destined somewhere by God. "Good" arguments could be made on either side of this issue (e.g. John 3:3 - how is one born again at 1 month old? John the baptist was, before he was born, Luke 1:15, 44).
A little later they ask,
"where does the Bible teach that men are made righteous apart from choice (Ro. 5:18; 1 Jn. 3:7)?"
John the baptist is an example (Luke 1:15, 44), and Romans 9:16 explicitly says, "it is not of him who wills".
After the above they write,
"Sin cannot be transferred any more than virtue can be exchanged from one to the other."
How then was He "wounded for our transgressions" and "bruised for our iniquities" (Isaiah 53:5)? How did He bear "our sins in His own body"? How did He become sin (2 Corinthians 5:21)? How did every last descendent of Adam end up being "made sinners" and "confined all under sin" (Galatians 3:22)? How then does "the righteousness of God, through faith in Jesus Christ," come "to all and on all who believe" (Romans 3:22)? The statement above is a doctrine of man nowhere found in holy writ and is against His word.
A little later they write,
"Man can produce neither vice nor virtue apart from his own volition and to say otherwise is to violate the freedom of the will which God bestowed upon all his creation."
Besides the fact that Scripture says no such thing (Proverbs 30:5-6), Jeremiah explicitly denies these words.
"O Lord, I know the way of man is not in himself; it is not in man to direct his own steps." (Jeremiah 10:23; see also 13:23)
For free will, please see www.atruechurch.info/calvinarmin.html under the first point.