Review of "Hell's Best Kept Secret"

[TCassidy]

"Σίβυλλα τί θέλεις; respondebat illa: ἀποθανεῖν θέλω"....wow...I don't know where that came from.

I'm not sure.

It is a quote from the T. S. Eliot poem, "The Waste Land" which was, itself, quoting Titus Petronius. The entire quote reads Σίβυλλα τί θέλεις; respondebat illa: ἀποθανεῖν θέλω. It translates as "Sibyl, what do you want?', she replied, 'I want to die."

The "respondebat illa" being, of course, in Latin, in keeping with the greater context of the quote: Nam Sibyllam quidem Cumis ego ipse oculis meis vidi in ampulla pendere, et cum illi pueri dicerent (In fact, with my own eyes I saw the Sibyl hanging in a jar at Cumae, and when the boys said,): Σίβυλλα τί θέλεις; respondebat illa: ἀποθανεῖν θέλω.

 

[HankD]

Charismatics are not all bad. There are degrees and ones like Comfort are the more conservative. It granted many of them are heretical and have a shallow gospel.

evan, actually there is no such thing as a "shallow gospel".

HankD

 

[JonC]

It is a quote from the T. S. Eliot poem, "The Waste Land" which was, itself, quoting Titus Petronius. The entire quote reads Σίβυλλα τί θέλεις; respondebat illa: ἀποθανεῖν θέλω. It translates as "Sibyl, what do you want?', she replied, 'I want to die."

The "respondebat illa" being, of course, in Latin, in keeping with the greater context of the quote: Nam Sibyllam quidem Cumis ego ipse oculis meis vidi in ampulla pendere, et cum illi pueri dicerent (In fact, with my own eyes I saw the Sibyl hanging in a jar at Cumae, and when the boys said,): Σίβυλλα τί θέλεις; respondebat illa: ἀποθανεῖν θέλω.

Three of my favorites (the Cumaenan Sibyl, the poet, and the poem). That was as close as I could get to speaking in tongues humor.

 

[John of Japan]

I disagree with those that speak in tongues or attempt to speak in a sign gift.

The Charismatic tongues teaching is a heresy. It splits churches and destroys lives. By recommending a book that touts it, you are recommending heresy.

But this does not mean they are false converts.

Is this your criteria for recommending a book? "The author is not a false convert, so it's a good book." Really?

So yes I am comfortable promoting Hells Best Kept Secret as the entire book is not abut tongues anyways.

Here's the quote recommending tongues again, on p. 137 of the book: "Don't be afraid of the gifts of the Spirit, particularly 'speaking in tongues....' Keep in mind that tongues have a public and private use. Speaking in tongues in a public church service must have an interpretation; private use of tongues is to enhance the prayer life of the individual believer and does not require understanding. This gift is to strengthen and edify the believer. Read Luke 11:9-13."

In this quote Ray Comfort is recommending heresy, the tongues heresy which destroys churches and individual lives. By recommending the book you have recommended heresy. End of story.

 

[InTheLight]

Charismatics are not all bad. There are degrees and ones like Comfort are the more conservative. It granted many of them are heretical and have a shallow gospel.

Aren't the vast majority of charismatics people that believe you can lose your salvation? So they would deny the "P" in Tulip.

 

[John of Japan]

Charismatics are not all bad. There are degrees and ones like Comfort are the more conservative. It granted many of them are heretical and have a shallow gospel.

I think I have proven that Comfort's Gospel is incomplete, or "shallow" as you put it. Nowhere in this book does he even reference the resurrection of Christ, a huge part of the Gospel. How do the soul-winners in Acts give the Gospel?

Ac 4:2 Being grieved that they taught the people, and preached through Jesus the resurrection from the dead.

Ac 4:33 And with great power gave the apostles witness of the resurrection of the Lord Jesus: and great grace was upon them all.

Ac 10:41 Not to all the people, but unto witnesses chosen before of God, even to us, who did eat and drink with him after he rose from the dead.

Ac 17:3 Opening and alleging, that Christ must needs have suffered, and risen again from the dead; and that this Jesus, whom I preach unto you, is Christ.

And other places. Comfort does not give the complete gospel in this book.

 

[Don]

Pardon my stupidity--how does Luke 11:9-13 support a private use of tongues?

 

[John of Japan]

Pardon my stupidity--how does Luke 11:9-13 support a private use of tongues?

Comfort's point is that if you ask the Father for the Holy Spirit (see v. 13), He will give the Spirit. Now, in Pentecostalism and the Charismatic movement, speaking in tongues is proof that you have the Spirit--never mind that He already indwells every believer. So Comfort wants us to pray for the Holy Spirit to come down, and thus pray to be able to speak in tongues.

This Charismatic doctrine is, of course, nowhere taught in Scripture. The Biblical teaching, which Comfort completely misses in his book as my review shows, is that the power of the Holy Spirit is for boldness and power in proclaiming the Gospel (Acts 1:8, 4:31, etc.).

 

[Yeshua1]

The Charismatic tongues teaching is a heresy. It splits churches and destroys lives. By recommending a book that touts it, you are recommending heresy.
Is this your criteria for recommending a book? "The author is not a false convert, so it's a good book." Really?

Here's the quote recommending tongues again, on p. 137 of the book: "Don't be afraid of the gifts of the Spirit, particularly 'speaking in tongues....' Keep in mind that tongues have a public and private use. Speaking in tongues in a public church service must have an interpretation; private use of tongues is to enhance the prayer life of the individual believer and does not require understanding. This gift is to strengthen and edify the believer. Read Luke 11:9-13."

In this quote Ray Comfort is recommending heresy, the tongues heresy which destroys churches and individual lives. By recommending the book you have recommended heresy. End of story.

That show show us if the movement is of God, as splitting apart the body is not what Jesus/Holy Spirit would be into!

 

[Yeshua1]

Comfort's point is that if you ask the Father for the Holy Spirit (see v. 13), He will give the Spirit. Now, in Pentecostalism and the Charismatic movement, speaking in tongues is proof that you have the Spirit--never mind that He already indwells every believer. So Comfort wants us to pray for the Holy Spirit to come down, and thus pray to be able to speak in tongues.

This Charismatic doctrine is, of course, nowhere taught in Scripture. The Biblical teaching, which Comfort completely misses in his book as my review shows, is that the power of the Holy Spirit is for boldness and power in proclaiming the Gospel (Acts 1:8, 4:31, etc.).

The Holy Spirit indwelling/infilling us, per Paul, produces fruit, and power to live for/witnessing for Jesus, but no tongues to seek!

 

[TCassidy]

The Biblical teaching, which Comfort completely misses in his book as my review shows, is that the power of the Holy Spirit is for boldness and power in proclaiming the Gospel (Acts 1:8, 4:31, etc.).

Amen! What is the sign of being filled with the Holy Spirit? Simple. Boldness in witnessing!

Acts 4:31 And when they had prayed, the place was shaken wherein they were gathered together; and they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and they spake the word of God with boldness.

 

[John of Japan]

Amen! What is the sign of being filled with the Holy Spirit? Simple. Boldness in witnessing!

Acts 4:31 And when they had prayed, the place was shaken wherein they were gathered together; and they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and they spake the word of God with boldness.

Absolutely!

 

[Yeshua1]

Amen! What is the sign of being filled with the Holy Spirit? Simple. Boldness in witnessing!

Acts 4:31 And when they had prayed, the place was shaken wherein they were gathered together; and they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and they spake the word of God with boldness.

And tey also were living in a way that people could see that they knew Jesus, were diiferent from the crowd...

 

[Yeshua1]

Absolutely!

My pastor cals it livng cross cultural in our culture, as we need to be "swimming" against the norms of society, and can only do that successful while Holy Spirit empowers us...

 

[evangelist6589]

I think I have proven that Comfort's Gospel is incomplete, or "shallow" as you put it. Nowhere in this book does he even reference the resurrection of Christ, a huge part of the Gospel. How do the soul-winners in Acts give the Gospel?

Ac 4:2 Being grieved that they taught the people, and preached through Jesus the resurrection from the dead.

Ac 4:33 And with great power gave the apostles witness of the resurrection of the Lord Jesus: and great grace was upon them all.

Ac 10:41 Not to all the people, but unto witnesses chosen before of God, even to us, who did eat and drink with him after he rose from the dead.

Ac 17:3 Opening and alleging, that Christ must needs have suffered, and risen again from the dead; and that this Jesus, whom I preach unto you, is Christ.

And other places. Comfort does not give the complete gospel in this book.

He may have missed this in this book, but who is to say that he missed it in his book "The Way of the Master?"

 

[Yeshua1]

He may have missed this in this book, but who is to say that he missed it in his book "The Way of the Master?"

Hos way though to winessing to tLost is not by preaching the Cross, but the Law?

 

[evangelist6589]

By that logic, I hereby nominate Peter Ruckman as our new #1 author; let's go out and get all of his books!

John (Evangelist) -- evangelism *MUST* necessary follow (be based on) theology. Without the underlying foundation, then what are we spreading? If Comfort's theology is in question, then we must doubly scrutinize his evangelism techniques, which are derived from/based on his theology and understanding.

Comfort knows the basic gospel message and does not get it wrong there. JOJ may disagree, but has JOJ read other Comfort books? Try reading the master manual The Way of the Master.

 

[evangelist6589]

In a post JOJ said that speaking in tongues is heresy and I will disagree. While I am against speaking in tongues I am not going to say for certain that some may not have the gift today. I believe it ceased, but I may be wrong and it may not have. So yes Comfort may be correct in his view on Tongues.

 

[evangelist6589]

Hos way though to winessing to tLost is not by preaching the Cross, but the Law?

Comfort is all for preaching the cross, its just he does not wish to preach the cross to proud arrogant people who do not desire the cross. Rather he preaches the 10 commandments to convict them of sin, and then when they are humble enough, he gives them grace.

 

[evangelist6589]

I think I have proven that Comfort's Gospel is incomplete, or "shallow" as you put it. Nowhere in this book does he even reference the resurrection of Christ, a huge part of the Gospel. How do the soul-winners in Acts give the Gospel?

Ac 4:2 Being grieved that they taught the people, and preached through Jesus the resurrection from the dead.

Ac 4:33 And with great power gave the apostles witness of the resurrection of the Lord Jesus: and great grace was upon them all.

Ac 10:41 Not to all the people, but unto witnesses chosen before of God, even to us, who did eat and drink with him after he rose from the dead.

Ac 17:3 Opening and alleging, that Christ must needs have suffered, and risen again from the dead; and that this Jesus, whom I preach unto you, is Christ.

And other places. Comfort does not give the complete gospel in this book.

This may be accurate. For the complete gospel get the book Nothing but the Truth by MacArthur.