Does WOTM place people under the mosaic law?

I’d say that it is impossible to put someone under the Law as Deuteronomy 5 seems to indicate the Law was a covenant given at a specific time to a specific people and for a specific purpose:

Then Moses summoned all Israel and said to them: "Hear, O Israel, the statutes and the ordinances which I am speaking today in your hearing, that you may learn them and observe them carefully. "The LORD our God made a covenant with us at Horeb. The LORD did not make this covenant with our fathers, but with us, with all those of us alive here today. The LORD spoke to you face to face at the mountain from the midst of the fire, while I was standing between the LORD and you at that time, to declare to you the word of the LORD; for you were afraid because of the fire and did not go up the mountain. He said, 'I am the LORD your God who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery. You shall have no other gods before Me…”

Man cannot alter God’s covenant, and God will not alter His Covenant. Whoever told you man can put people under the Law is mistaking.

Insofar as Ray Comfort's use of the Law, however, there are many issues which has been discussed in depth before (with you agreeing that Comfort had gone too far in his doctrine).

 

As I said, I don't think it correct that anyone try to place another "under the Law" so I agree that your friend is mistaking. BUT here are a few concerns I have about Ray Comfort and TWOTM (only a few as we've gone through this in the past). The reference pages are from Ray Comfort's book "The Way of the Master":

Ray Comfort teaches that “[t]hey are false converts who ‘ask Jesus into their hearts.” (14) He rightly determines a need for repentance but wrongly points to the Law of Moses in the Ten Commandments as the missing link between true and false conversion in evangelism. These are false converts because accepting the gospel “they didn’t pass through the jagged-edged teeth of the Law of God.” (276)

Romans 1 Paul, a bond-servant of Christ Jesus, called as an apostle, set apart for the gospel of God, which He promised beforehand through His prophets in the holy Scriptures, concerning His Son, who was born of a descendant of David according to the flesh, who was declared the Son of God with power by the resurrection from the dead, according to the Spirit of holiness, Jesus Christ our Lord, through whom we have received grace and apostleship to bring about the obedience of faith among all the Gentiles for His name's sake, … For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith; as it is written, "BUT THE RIGHTEOUS man SHALL LIVE BY FAITH."

OK. Look at the bolded verse (Romans 1:16). What, according to Scripture, is the power of God? The above (the NASB) says it is the gospel itself. We could even look back at what was just said and say it is the gospel in that Jesus is declared the Son of God with power by the resurrection.

How many of you here believe that the power of the gospel message is the Law?

This is what Comfort teaches of Romans 1:16 in that the power of the Law must open our eyes before the light of the gospel can be of any benefit (pg 165) and sinners must be converted by the power of god which is the Law (219). If you were not humbled by the power of the Law you are a false convert. The “power of the Law” must prepare the heart for the gospel (302).

Compare this with Paul’s words, and decide for yourselves. I believe Ray Comfort misuses Scripture and misunderstands the nature of the Law. But I also believe he has a gift for evangelism that he is just misusing at this time. God will still use the man if He desires.

 

And that is why I do not use anything by Ray Comfort.

Part of it has to do with a difference in emphasis, I believe, between you and I. I do not claim to be an evangelist, nor am I a street preacher. I preach to churches and I teach, and in seminary my focus was theology. While you may look at how a program may communicate to others I have a tendency to look at the doctrine itself (what is being communicated).

Sometimes I try to reel this in a bit (to overlook poor doctrine for a good cause). But it is very hard for me to do, and Mr. Comfort's teaching exceeds liberties I am inclined to grant. I think if Mr. Comfort had remained within his gifting as an evangelist perhaps my view of him would be different, but as it stands his doctrine itself is more wrong than I would be comfortable allowing - even just as a program for church evangelism.

That said, within the ministry of a church I am not opposed to street-preaching (although I do question its effectiveness). I am also by no means opposed to using the Ten Commandments, or even the Law, to explain sin. I'm not opposed to using the law manifested in the consciences of men, or even - to be honest - to assume that this law is something already known by all mankind (as Paul claimed).

In other words, I object to Ray Comfort's doctrine and not his methods. I've watched some of his videos on college campuses and thought he did a good job at both communicating the gospel and getting people to think.

 

Actually, I have done a study on street preaching (and stump preaching). All preaching trusts the sovereignty of God, and all evangelism trusts the sovereignty of God in salvation....all biblical preaching and evangelism, that is. But at the same time one looks for God to affirm the gifting (the faithful will bear fruit, not might or maybe). In other words, God does not call people to obedience for obedience sake. We are called for His glory.

That said, I'm looking at a few books on revivals. Not sure where I'll begin, but am sure (depending on the era) that it will include street preaching.

 

Although I very much like Edwards, he wouldn’t be my pick for a study on street preaching. I was thinking more of those who preached in the open air because that was the primary way of public address...like Whitefield.

There is a danger of misrepresentation here, so I want to be careful. What some consider street-preaching is not the same as the street-preaching back then. Times have changed, but at one time you stood on a corner and spoke to address a public audience (people would gather to listen as this was a normal part of culture, whether preacher or politician).

So there is a break between the street preachers of the past and the street preachers today (public ministry events and services excluded, of course). We can’t compare a man standing on a street preaching today with Whitefield’s preaching of the past because the venue is different.

Another distinction, however, is between street-preaching as a ministry of the church and the street-preaching movement. The first utilizes the gifts of God towards accomplishing kingdom work with the preaching but one part of a larger ministry (as an illustration, think of the tip of the spear). The second is a false ministry divorced from the Body and ultimately works to undermine the church itself. The wonderful part is that God uses both of these, but only blesses the first.

 

When God gifts men He gifts churches. Maybe you are the only one in your church called to preach. If so, you still need to do this within the ministry of your church. We are accountable to our church, we are members of one Body with Christ as its Head....not lone rangers. If you can't work in that way, then perhaps you have misunderstood your calling.

Don't get me wrong, I am not saying not to witness - or even not to preach.

 

All I know is that God gives evangelists to the church, not to the world to work independent of churches. One man on his own just doesn't fit the description of a true ministry. If that helps, I'm glad I could offer something. If not, well, sorry but that's all I have on that topic.

 

Jonathan Edwards - You mean the man who discipled MANY in his own home? The man who maybe street preached but also personally sat down at the table and even housed people in his own home to teach them and help them to grow in the faith?

 

But that's not what Scripture says....that's the problem here. If the church is not good enough then that's God's problem because it is the church that He established, founded, and gave the ministry of reconciliation.

In other words, I find it difficult to believe that we must be unfaithful in order to be faithful.

 

So, who is right? Todd Friel or God's word?

Ephesians 4:11 He gave some to be apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, shepherds and teachers;

And this illustrates your problem. You put the words of men above the word of God!