One of the members on our forum had pointed out that a couple of reviews to this book had been written on Amazon. I'm the kind of person who generally ignores reviews when looking at books because someone's opinions or feelings is not relevant to the truth. (This is why I don't utilize Youtube likes or dislikes.) But this critique was rather long and quite detailed, so I'm going to post it here and then try to respond to it.
Here's the link where it was original posted, and is entitled "Beware of Gnostic Leaven:"
https://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-
reviews/RBERF71VPV5XY/ref=cm_cr_dp_d_rvw_ttl?ie=UTF8&ASIN=1089322461Just to clarify, as far as I know, I do not know who this person is, but after looking at her profile on Amazon:
JOY W. AMAZON PROFILEYou can start to see the worldliness come through in her (assuming it is a woman) purchases and reviews. It should be noted that, as far as I could tell, this is the only book review she's ever done on Amazon.
REVIEW OF WHY MILLIONS OF BELIEVERS ON JESUS ARE GOING TO HELL -- BY JOY W. ON AMAZON
Chris is doing a good job in addressing the errors of the false church system and sugar-coated Christianity, but he simultaneously preaches a false gospel antithetical to Scripture throughout this book while implying repeatedly that anyone who doesn't believe that "foundation" for repentance is "grief" is, therefore, "prideful" and unsaved.To say that I "implied" something, is not an argument. For example, if you were in a court of law, you could not accuse a man of admitting guilt by saying he "implied" that he was guilty. There was no implication in the book because I wrote directly, and used the Scripture very thoroughly in everything I said, and so what's she's doing is making an accusation based on how she felt, not what I said.
In an effort to expose the false church system and false Christianity, Chris goes to the opposite extreme in an effort to avoid a works-based mindset that many fundamentalists promote of teaching by comparing repentance and conversion and glossing over 'conversion' quickly in location 161 and attacks the false church system for not teaching 'grief.'I have no idea what "location 161" is. Furthermore, I did not rebuke the false church system for not teaching "grief," but specifically, godly sorrow, which is what the Bible teaches. Were only into her first paragraph, and I can already see the deception in her words.
It is not that grief over sin is wrong or less important, but he seems to be capitalizing on this doctrine to the extreme by making the claim that the false church is in such a poor state that it is in because they have not (and do not) grieve(d) over their sins (rather than repenting all together [going and sinning no more] which Christopher says is impossible. Does he believe Romans 8:13, 1 John 2:1, Genesis 4:7, Romans 8:13, 2 Peter 3:17, John 8:34, and many, many more?)Where did I say that it was impossible for a man to go and sin no more? This woman is deceptive because she makes a claim based on "implication," and not on fact. I never said it was impossible for a man to go and sin no more, but if man thinks he has no sin, or even to say that he has no faults, which would be the potential for sin (Jms 5:16), then he is turning the truth of God into a lie. (1Jo 1:8-10) And again, we have another person here who believes that a man must turn from all sin in order to be saved, which is not possible for any man; for some reason, this woman read the book from the perspective of one who is already saved, rather than someone who is not saved, and her deceptive critique reveals a deeper desire to defend her belief that she has been saved without true repentance. (2Co 7:10)
As much as Chris accurately exposes 501-C3 churches, false Christianity, debunking the logical fallacies of satanic worldviews, exposing the Prosperity Gospel and false pastors and much more in his ministry, I expected more depth and consistency and the defense of truth in this book than what has been delivered throughout the entire work of his life.This is just a generalized disgruntled statement; it doesn't say much of anything. Basically, this woman is saying that I am correct in pretty much everything else I teach, but then when it comes to the salvation gospel of Jesus, she hates what I teach, and that's usually indicative of someone who has never come to true repentance, which is a gift from God. (2Ti 2:25)
In this book, Chris is judging one's salvation based on whether or not they have expressed grief for sin, rather than taking up your cross, following Christ, dying to yourself, and being filled with the Spirit producing a new creation in Christ Jesus.Okay, this actually confirms for me that this woman believes in works doctrine. In my book, I teach that a man must come to godly sorrow (i.e. repentance) and believe on the Lord Jesus Christ (i.e. faith in His shed blood on the cross) to be saved. (Mark 1:15) As you can see, this woman opposes Mark 1:15, and is instead teaching that you must take up your cross (i.e. doing works), follow Jesus (i.e. studying and works), and dying to yourself (i.e. turning from sin) in order to be saved. That's heresy; those things come after a man has been converted, not before. Nowhere in this book did I ever teach that a man does not become a new creation in Christ, because I taught that a man must be born again, and so now she's lying.
I've been following Christopher's Creation Evangelism Ministry for a few years now and expected much more accuracy given the excellent and logically consistent coverage he presents for other topics in his ministry.This shows a lot of blindness on her part. If I have been wrong on the basic salvation gospel of Jesus Christ for this many years, and she never noticed it once in all the years she has been listening to me (because I share that gospel often in my teachings), then she is either deaf and blind, or she does not have the Holy Spirit of God in her to discern good from evil. (Heb 5:14)
I am not impressed with this writing and am deeply concerned for his understanding on the matter of salvation. He seems to be taking great pride in how sorrowful and grievous he is in a sense. His argument is filled with numerous contradictions which parrot the works of Augustine and the fruit of the Reformation which I will list toward the end of this review:I don't really care whether or not she's impressed with what I wrote, but did I read that right? So let me see if I understand this: God brings me to sorrow of my sin, and I'm being accused of being prideful for it? That's a new one. I have never heard that in all my years of ministry. But notice also that she said "he seems" and she does not quote any particular section that provides actual evidence. In addition, I have not read any works of the Reformation apart from Foxe's Book of Martyrs, and I don't believe I even know who "Augustine" is, so I have no idea what she's referring to, and thus, she is accusing me of bringing in influence of these other sources into my book, when I have done no such thing, and other readers can attest to that fact.
The premise of the entire book is based on the doctrine that "Repentance" means "godly sorrow" instead of, "to turn."So when she says "instead of," it means that she believes repentance means "to turn from sin and turn to God," and in my book, I explained the contradiction of Scripture to say that. Thus, she is desperately defending her "turning from sin and turning to God," because she never came to that godly sorrow of her wrongdoing, and therefore, if what I taught by the Gospel of Christ is true, then she will be one of the churchgoers who ends up in hell, and that's what this is all about.
He goes on to imply that anyone who rejects this doctrine is "prideful" and hasn't truly repented. One of the main proofs he gives for this argument is that the "false churches are filled with joy, which shows they haven't truly repented. Chris states the following concerning this:Again, there's the word "imply," and there is no implication in the book. I speak plainly and directly. The implication is her opinions and feelings, but she does not want to say that openly because her critique will not seem as "professional" if she tells the whole truth.
"There are many who join church buildings and profess 'joy in the Lord,' but Jesus taught that such people who quickly receive the Word of God with joy have no root in themselves, meaning that they were never saved because they did not receive the words with tears of grief over their sin. Jesus taught about this in what is known as 'The Parable of the Sower.'"This is a quote from my book. It is correctly stated, and it is correct doctrine.
The Parable of the Sower nowhere states that "joy" was the core foundation,Notice that she makes this statement, but does not quote the Parable of the Sower. Allow me to do so:
But he that received the seed into stony places, the same is he that heareth the word, and anon with joy receiveth it; Yet hath he not root in himself, but dureth for a while: for when tribulation or persecution ariseth because of the word, by and by he is offended.
-Matthew 13:20-21The word 'anon' means "quickly," and so a person who quickly receives the word of God with joy, instead of tears of godly sorrow, are those who have no root in themselves because they were never humbled before God. And here is a correlating verse from Mark to clarify:
And these are they likewise which are sown on stony ground; who, when they have heard the word, immediately receive it with gladness; And have no root in themselves, and so endure but for a time: afterward, when affliction or persecution ariseth for the word's sake, immediately they are offended.
-Mark 4:16-17This woman is rejected this doctrine that Jesus taught, and so instead of outright saying she rejects it (because that would make her look bad), she instead tries to change the meaning of it, to deceive others. This likely indicates that she received the word with gladness, but never came to godly sorrow, and that is a pattern I have seen in many people, namely that the few who have been humbled to repentance (i.e. godly sorrow) love Christ's doctrine here, but those who have not, hate His doctrine, and refuse to acknowledge it.
neither was it an indication that they have no root within themselves; this is quite a stretch.Christ literally said, word-for-word that they "have no root in themselves." I cannot make this any clearer, but this woman rejects Christ's doctrine, and that's why she hates my book.
Chris goes on to imply that if you cannot accept this teaching, then you do not hear God's voice.Again, she said, "implies" instead of "here is where he said this, and I quote." It's all about how she feels, not what is true. (Pro 28:26)
This argument is not only unbiblical, but is a logical fallacy in appeal to popularity--i.e., The false church is doing X, therefore X is wrong.I'm going to attempt to unravel the knot she just tied because there are a number of things wrong with what she just said. After I do this, I'm done reviewing this woman's critique because if she started out deceiving people, then the rest of her review is going to be a waste of my time. (Col 4:5)
First of all, an appeal to popularity means that you are arguing the following:
--A lot of people do X.
--Therefore, X is the correct thing to do.
She is taking an inverted meaning of the "appeal to popularity" fallacy, which is not really a correct usage of it because the basis of appeal to popularity is following the masses. The masses, or at least, the mass majority of churchgoers, do not follow or believe the doctrine I'm teaching because Christ said FEW (not many) would find the way to eternal life. (Mat 7:13-14)
Next, she arguing that I am looking to church building tradition for the basis of what I teach. That is false. I have never done that. She's claiming that I look for whatever church buildings do, then I do the opposite. Those who listen to my teachings know that's not true. What I do is look at a church building tradition, and simply ask if that's what we in the New Testament church were taught to do. If we were not taught to do that, then I throw it out, but if we were taught to do those things, then I hang on to them. For example, we are taught to pray often, and so I hang on to that tradition that was set for us by the early church doctrine, despite the fact that many churchgoers pray under false pretenses. However, when it comes to things like tithe, such things were never commanded in the New Testament, and so I throw it out. The point is that I am basing these things on Scripture, whether or not we were taught these things by Christ and His apostles in the Bible, but she is asserting (not by evidence, but by her personal feelings) that I'm just walking against the wind because I don't want to follow everyone else, which is not true, and if that were the case, then why has she supposedly been listening to me teach for years without sanctifying herself from my ministry?
So she said I was using an appeal to popularity, which was not true, then used the fallacy wrong, and then claimed I was using the incorrect fallacy she didn't understand, which was not true in the first place. Again, it was a twisted knot of a sentence, and most people won't catch it. This woman is becoming more deceptive as she continues, and I have a lot of red warning signs flashing in my mind that this woman believes she is justified by her works, which means she's one of those people who is going to hell because she was never humbled to godly sorrow. If any of you would like to continue reading her critique and respond to it, the link is at the top, and I would encourage you to do so, but only if you have read the book. (If you have not read it, there is no point in responding.)
In short, this woman wrote this critique because she does not want anyone reading this book, and it's all of her selfish motivation, in order to justify herself. If any of you have read the book and want to help combat that problem, you can always go to Amazon to write a review of your own; it would help to silence the mouths of deceptive women like this.
https://www.amazon.com/dp/1089322461A final note: I think I might know who this woman is, but I could be wrong. I just occurred to me. I'll let you guys decide. Here is the link from the Wild Emails section:
http://www.creationliberty.com/forum/index.php?topic=667.0Maybe I'm wrong, and these two women are separate and have nothing to do with each other. It's just that... why was the joy the issue one of the first objects she raised? Seemed similar. Tell me what you think.
