Wow. I have heard people claim that Christians will have grief of their sins at some point after being saved but that it isn't necessary
to become saved. I think one reason why they believe that false doctrine is because after they started claiming to be a Christian, they never had true repentance but they may have had some semblance of shame for their sin over time. Not sorrow towards God, but perhaps worldly sorrow about not being a good churchgoer. I remember things like that before I was saved. I remember I was sinning while I was a churchgoer and I was aware that it was wrong, I knew I should stop doing it and I even felt bad about it, but I didn't have sorrow toward God for it. I think it was my conscience working to reveal my sin but I believe my pride was still getting in the way of me actually coming to repentance of it at that point.
Christopher J. E. Johnson is basically a closet Calvinist crackhead who teaches that God must give every individual person repentance BEFORE they can be saved. Acts 11:18 disagrees and says God ALREADY has granted repentance to the Gentiles AS A WHOLE, but Johnson has given a false definition of repentance altogether based on a retards reading of 2 Corinthians 7:10!I cannot believe that he really sat there and typed out the words to call Chris a "
Calvinist crackhead" and a retard, and in doing so, he
truly believes he is doing God a service to "expose" him. But really, all he did is expose himself as an incredibly hateful railer and false accuser. I was initially disappointed to hear that he left a bad review that might steer readers away from the book, but after thinking more about it, if someone is going to truly take a review like his to heart and choose not to read the book because of it, then they likely shouldn't spend the money on it because they probably wouldn't want to read past the first few pages anyway.
There are so many contradictions here. This was just extremely confusing and it makes no sense. I found it odd that he believes God doesn’t have to “
give every individual person repentance BEFORE they can be saved,” but the way he decided to “prove” his point was by claiming Acts 11:18 “
disagrees and says God ALREADY has granted repentance to the Gentiles AS A WHOLE.” If someone doesn’t need to repent to be saved then why would God have even granted it to gentiles as a whole at all (as he claims)? And if he thinks that all gentiles have already been given repentance, then why would Christians be commanded to preach repentance and remission of sins to anyone? That is such an odd argument... just, wow.
Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures, And said unto them, Thus it is written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day: And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. - Luke 24:45-47Another thing I noticed here is that there is an incredibly stark difference in his text compared to Chris' response. You can hear the hatred and railing attitude from Nate in his writing, and in Chris' response you can see humility and possibly even sorrow and exhaustion at having to deal with someone like this repeatedly. I have encountered hateful people when speaking to them about doctrine before, but I imagine that it is much harder to deal with strangers harassing and sending
multiple hateful emails
for years, randomly deciding to write a bad review, creating new emails and lying about their name, all for the sake of railing and spreading false doctrine. Why can't they just let it go and move on with their lives?
