-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Is Ray Comfort Wrong In WOTH?
- Thread starter Yeshua1
- Start date
We repent and believe, here I agree. But if you mean we inventory our lives and make ourselves suitable for salvation, then I would say that this goes too far. We don't go through and surrender all of our sins in order to be saved as much as we simply repent and believe (otherwise no one would be saved...we still struggle with sin after salvation as we bear our cross daily...struggle with the flesh...etc.). Sin is a manifestation of our nature, and it is from our own sinful natures that we repent and believe in the name of Jesus. This is, I believe, why we can speak of the "old man" or our old nature which creeps up in our daily lives. That said, I don't think you can have belief without repentance.
No way. He is not Calvinist and one can't be a Calvinist and claim the LAW is the ONLY way to witness, but Ray brings sinners to the law which is a great starting point.
Thousand Hills
Active Member
Ray's critics multiply like rabbits !!! :smilewinkgrin:
Please explain how one cannot be a Calvinist and claim the Law is the only way to witness. I do not understand the link you are making here.
I don't think that Ray Comfort teaches what the OP suggests...or I misunderstand either Comfort or the OP...but we cannot serve two masters.
thisnumbersdisconnected
New Member
Comfort's philosophy incorporates the questionable doctrine of Lordship Salvation as it is wrongly understood by many. That is it teaches an unbiblical requirement for lost sinners to literally forsake the act of sin as a prerequisite to salvation. That's impossible, though of course that statement all by itself is going to draw ire. But it is nonetheless true. Seventh Day Adventists and the Nazarenes teach that nonsense, too, and then to justify their claims, redefine sin as being only willful, conscious acts that are preplanned and carried out with delight. In other words, if sin isn't "emotional" it isn't sin. That's garbage, and is very much along the same lines that Comfort teaches.
He also expects one to enumerate every single sin they've ever committed in order to "properly" be saved. Do you remember all your sins? I sure don't. That doesn't mean I haven't repented of them. What I have repented of is the nature of sin itself, that I will not seek comfort, pleasure and self-satisfaction from within, but that I will seek all those things from God. In other words, I will love. If I love Him and love others, as Jesus said, I've fulfilled the requirements of the Law.
Last edited by a moderator:
Please don't encourage him. :laugh:Comfort's philosophy incorporates the questionable doctrine of Lordship Salvation as it is wrongly understood by many. That is it teaches an unbiblical requirement for lost sinners to literally forsake the act of sin as a prerequisite to salvation. That's impossible, though of course that statement all by itself is going to draw ire. But it is nonetheless true. Seventh Day Adventists and the Nazarenes teach that nonsense, too, and then to justify their claims, redefine sin as being only willful, conscious acts that are preplanned and carried out with delight. In other words, if sin isn't "emotional" it isn't sin. That's garbage, and is very much along the same lines that Comfort teaches.
He also expects one to enumerate every single sin they've ever committed in order to "properly" be saved. Do you remember all your sins? I sure don't. That doesn't mean I haven't repented of them. What I have repented of is the nature of sin itself, that I will not seek comfort, pleasure and self-satisfaction from within, but that I will seek all those things from God. In other words, I will love. If I love Him and love others, as Jesus said, I've fulfilled the requirements of the Law.
So...in summery he teaches to that we bring ourselves to a state of sanctification in order to be saved (God forgives our past sins as long as we take care of our present sinfulness)?
thisnumbersdisconnected
New Member
Yep. That's exactly what he teaches. Except, if you put it that way to him, he will deny it. But when you break down what Comfort says, that's all that's left. He even preaches a dichotomy of there being no such thing as a "sinner's prayer" but then urging those who wish to receive Christ to pray, "Lord forgive me my sins [name all of them] ... "
Last edited by a moderator:
He take on this is that in order to have biblical salvation, one must be willing and actual do repent of all of their known sins when they come to Christ, so no one really saved would go back to being a heavy drinker, do drugs, etc!
seems that he has tied into a theology that in some ways gets the concept of sauctification/justification reversed!
thisnumbersdisconnected
New Member
As well as denying progressive sanctification while denying he denies it!
Ray Comfort uses the Law (specifically the Decalogue) to reveal to the individual that they are a sinner under God's just condemnation. There is no practical way of itemizing our sins in order to repent of each one. Instead the sinner repents in a general way; turning from his life of sin and placing his complete trust (faith) in Christ. In this way repentance is not a separate act in the ordo salutis (order of salvation), but rather part-and-parcel of saving faith itself. From everything I have seen and heard from Ray Comfort he does not teach contrary to that.
It is not true, it is an intentionally misleading characterization.
thisnumbersdisconnected
New Member
Rev, I'd think by now you'd see what Comfort teaches, what many on this board call "Lordship Salvation" is not what you describe. They aren't even close. Unless you have suddenly decided that no one can be saved without enumerating every single sin they've committed since the cradle before they can be acceptable to Christ -- unless you've decided regeneration and justification precedes belief and repentance -- your explanation of Lordship Salvation is valid. What they claim is not.
he seems to hold that inless a sinner gas repented/confessed/and forsaken all of his past sins, was not really saved!
he gives NO margin for a person to still have unresolved sin issues have to deal with after salvation!
Don't make accusations against a person (9th commandment violation) without being able to provide evidence.
thisnumbersdisconnected
New Member
His doctrine is the evidence. That's been documented throughout the thread.
convicted1
Guest
"inless a sinner gas repented?"
Brother, please use 'spellcheck' so we can properly glean from your posts. Thanks in advance...
ETA.......Brother TNID.....Brother Yeshua1 used that superfluos word "that" in the quoted post in here....go get'em tiger.....
What you are asserting others believe is in fact in grave error. It is time for some integrity in representing others positions.
convicted1
Guest
:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbs: