Since McCree79 asked about it, I'll go ahead and point out Comfort's problems in the area of pneumatology (the study of the Holy Spirit). IMO, this book has an even poorer pneumatology than The Way of the Master.
There are several mentions of the Holy Spirit in passing (p. 74, etc.). Also, once again he briefly acknowledges the role of the Holy Spirit in convicting sin on p. 296. However, in Comfort's mind the Law (meaning only the Decalogue in his mind, though the term also means "OT") convicts of sin, and he says so on p. 171 about Peter's sermon in Acts 2: "Only after the Law convicted them of their sinfulness did Peter offer them grace (v. 38)." This is a false statement. Nowhere in the Bible does it say the Law convicts of sin. It is the Holy Spirit who convicts of sin, though He may use the Law.
On the page before he quotes a paragraph from a book by Jim Cymbala, Fresh Wind, Fresh Fire, in which Cymbala writes, "With the gracious manifestation of God's Spirit in the Upper Room, the disciples encountered their first audience" (p. 170). In answer, Comfort writes, "The inference is that the key was the empowerment of the Holy Spirit. This is true. However, we have the same Holy Spirit toda, yet we rarely see such a harvest of souls. Why not? Simply because Peter properly prepared the ground upon which he was sowing. His audience was composed of 'devout men' who were gathered at Pentecost to celebrate the giving of God's Law on Mount Sinai" (ibid).
Do you see what Comfort is saying? He is teaching that the power of the Holy Spirit is not as important as using the Law in evangelism. Furthermore, he is confusing the indwelling of the Holy Spirit with the filling of the Holy Spirit--two different things indeed. We all have the indwelling Holy Spirit. We are not all filled with the Spirit, something absolutely vital to evangelism. But Comfort's perspective is that of the Charismatic, that the fullness of the Spirit means tongues speaking, not power for evangelism.
So, as I said, Comfort's pneumatology has gotten worse, not better, contrary to my hopes.
There are several mentions of the Holy Spirit in passing (p. 74, etc.). Also, once again he briefly acknowledges the role of the Holy Spirit in convicting sin on p. 296. However, in Comfort's mind the Law (meaning only the Decalogue in his mind, though the term also means "OT") convicts of sin, and he says so on p. 171 about Peter's sermon in Acts 2: "Only after the Law convicted them of their sinfulness did Peter offer them grace (v. 38)." This is a false statement. Nowhere in the Bible does it say the Law convicts of sin. It is the Holy Spirit who convicts of sin, though He may use the Law.
On the page before he quotes a paragraph from a book by Jim Cymbala, Fresh Wind, Fresh Fire, in which Cymbala writes, "With the gracious manifestation of God's Spirit in the Upper Room, the disciples encountered their first audience" (p. 170). In answer, Comfort writes, "The inference is that the key was the empowerment of the Holy Spirit. This is true. However, we have the same Holy Spirit toda, yet we rarely see such a harvest of souls. Why not? Simply because Peter properly prepared the ground upon which he was sowing. His audience was composed of 'devout men' who were gathered at Pentecost to celebrate the giving of God's Law on Mount Sinai" (ibid).
Do you see what Comfort is saying? He is teaching that the power of the Holy Spirit is not as important as using the Law in evangelism. Furthermore, he is confusing the indwelling of the Holy Spirit with the filling of the Holy Spirit--two different things indeed. We all have the indwelling Holy Spirit. We are not all filled with the Spirit, something absolutely vital to evangelism. But Comfort's perspective is that of the Charismatic, that the fullness of the Spirit means tongues speaking, not power for evangelism.
So, as I said, Comfort's pneumatology has gotten worse, not better, contrary to my hopes.
Last edited:
