Speaking in tongues need to be defined as the Bible describes it being though, as real unknown language given by God to preach/teach Jesu, not as gibberish personal prayer language!
-
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!
Review of "Hell's Best Kept Secret"
- Thread starter John of Japan
- Start date
- Status
Speaking in tongues need to be defined as the Bible describes it being though, as real unknown language given by God to preach/teach Jesu, not as gibberish personal prayer language!
As long as one does make Lordship Salvation as ONLY way to view this!
The message of the Cross was what the Apostles used though, not the Law primarily...
The Holy Spirit is able to convict sinners apart from the Law, correct?
Your pastor is a wise man.
Therefore, by your own admission Comfort does not obey the Great Commission in Mark, which tells us to preach the Gospel to every creature. When Comfort says to leave them with the Law if they are not humble enough (how does he know this?), he is telling you not to give the Gospel to everyone. He is thus teaching disobedience to the Great Commission.
Correct. But using the 10 commandments is a VERY GOOD way to evangelize.
Thats why I am not in 100% agreement with Comfort.
Well, he does have 2 earned Ph.D degrees! NT theology, and pastoral ministries...
You don't really believe this, or else you have changed your view greatly simply to defend Ray Comfort. Here is what you have on your CERM website in an article from Biblical Discernment Ministries:
"What about the ecstatic speech that is a common phenomenon today? Speaking in tongues as it is practiced today is not Biblical tongues. (We have already established that Biblical tongues refers to foreign languages.) The babblings of today have their origin in the mystery cults of ancient Greece and the Roman Empire, and it was practiced by unbelievers."
Last edited:
Yet you still tout his books and his method, in spite of his terrible pneumatology, his belief in tongues, and his complete failure to prove that we must use the Law to reach sinners )which he does not prove in his book, only using proof texts).
Last edited:
Look in Hell's Best Kept Secret, and tell me where Comfort proves this with a systematic approach to Biblical evangelism rather than just proof texts.
When I have challenged you before on this you said that Comfort proves it but you don't have time, working as you do. So pony up. Where does Comfort prove his thesis?
IF there are valid tongues given by God today , would be real unknown languages given fo the purpose to witness to Jesus, confirming Him... I am open to such in areas on mission field unreached by God yet very much, but not as personal prayer language gibberish Charasmatics have it being!
No way. The only book by MacArthur I recommend is Charismatic Chaos, which if you read you might change your mind about Comfort's books.
The best definition of the Gospel remains that of John R. W. Stott in Christian Mission in the Modern World, pp. 41-54.
Dr Mac is a good author, and love his take on Charasmatic chaos, but think he goes a bit overboard on defending Lordship salvtion...
Al think Francis Schafer had good books on a Chrsitan mindset in culture to have!
Absolutely. "How Should We Then Live" is a classic.
I realize everyone is different, but I am eternally grateful that while I was proud and arrogant, not desiring the Cross, a few faithful believers preached the Cross to me. If they had waited until I was receptive, then I may have never believed because it was the message of the Cross that humbled me and showed me the love of God.
Last edited:
I read a bunch of Schaeffer when I was young, and he was helpful.
Why do you not like other Mac books? Mac has written many good books of which I agree with about 90-95% of what he teaches. Is it because you do not understand Lordship Salvation and reject it?
Thanks for a good laugh. I reject Lordship Salvation because I understand it, not because I don't.
Son, I was thinking about LS and rejecting it way back in 1972, when I was taught it at BJU by Arend ten Pas, one of MacArthur's original sources. (Find him in MacArthur's bibliography.)
I have nine books on both sides of the subject and have read them all. Don't pretend you understand the doctrine until you have read its opponents: Martuneac, Hodges, Ryrie, the pamphlet by Pickering, etc.
Thanks for a good laugh. I reject Lordship Salvation because I understand it, not because I don't.
Son, I was thinking about LS and rejecting it way back in 1972, when I was taught it at BJU by Arend ten Pas, one of MacArthur's original sources. (Find him in MacArthur's bibliography.)
I have nine books on both sides of the subject and have read them all. Don't pretend you understand the doctrine until you have read its opponents: Martuneac, Hodges, Ryrie, the pamphlet by Pickering, etc.
Name the books. Are the 9 in support of the doctrine by MacArthur?
- Status