The Way of the Master moment episode use the Law

[JonC]

John MacArthur rightly commends Ray Comforts efforts, agreeing of the use of the Ten Commandments as a summery of God’s law and as a mirror to explain sin. He commends him for his efforts in reaching the world with the gospel and training others to do the same.

I agree with John MacArthur on those points.

But then MacArthur offers some critiques:

“We continue to believe that it is critically important for people training in the Living Waters method to 1) strengthen the gospel content of their presentation so as to be equal to the law, 2) see the law as not simply Ten Commandments, but much more as Scripture reveals, 3) To place particular emphasis on passages such asJohn 8:24where Jesus says they would die in their sins for refusal to acknowledge Him. This is the greatest sin that goes beyond the Ten Commandments in its condemnation extending to every sinner.”

This is my point. Ray Comfort and his ministry needs to strengthen the gospel content so that the gospel is equal to the law. Right now, they focus on the law (and by the law, I mean the Law). Second, MacArthur addresses this constant blending of terms that I find so objectionable. The law is not just the Ten Commandments. Third, Ray Comfort denies that the lost would die in their sins for refusing Christ. He explains this away in “What Did Jesus Do.” He needs to place particular emphasis on passages such as John 8:24…..MacArthur is entirely correct on his critique.

http://thecripplegate.com/john-macarthur-weighs-in/

But there was another place, in a sermon….I’ll try to find it for you, Evan.

Wait!....no I won't...it was your thread, brother. You should be able to find it in hour own history.

 

[Revmitchell]

Second, MacArthur addresses this constant blending of terms that I find so objectionable. The law is not just the Ten Commandments.

This is just being petty

 

[JonC]

This is just being petty

You think it's petty? Serious? Then I suppose you could write MacArthur and complain, or perhaps the seminary professors who actually dare to teach this pettiness.

I'm right here so I can give you my answer. It is no, brother, there is absolutely nothing petty about the distinction. Paul not only makes this distinction, but he builds upon it in the first few chapters of Romans. What you call petty, others (me) call blindness to detail. You would be outraged if someone treated your words as you do Paul's. You've proved as much on this forum. So let's never talk about the Word of God as "petty."

 

[Revmitchell]

You think it's petty? Serious? Then I suppose you could write MacArthur and complain, or perhaps the seminary professors who actually dare to teach this pettiness.

I'm right here so I can give you my answer. It is no, brother, there is absolutely nothing petty about the distinction. Paul not only makes this distinction, but he builds upon it in the first few chapters of Romans. What you call petty, others (me) call blindness to detail. You would be outraged if someone treated your words as you do Paul's. You've proved as much on this forum. So let's never talk about the Word of God as "petty."

Uh I never called the word of God petty. I called this poor characterization of Comfort's position petty. I do not appreciate your false accusation.

 

[JonC]

Uh I never called the word of God petty. I called this poor characterization of Comfort's position petty. I do not appreciate your false accusation.

Oh...my bad. I thought you meant that pointing out the difference between God's law, the Law and the Ten Commandments (which is what MacArthur stated needs to be clarified in Comfort's position) was "petty." Now I have absolutely no idea what you were addressing, but whatever, bro....you are responsible and accountable for yours and that's none of my business.

I will say this. You ask for quotes, I give them from the book, you dismiss and go on. You do realize that Comfort wrote exactly what you stated no one believed....don't you? I don't think you are a Comfortite....but I'm beginning to wonder. But to each his own, brother. I stand on not recommending the book, you give it your endorsement. That’s cool….I guess at least we can form opinions of the other’s ability to discern Scripture.

 

[Revmitchell]

Oh...my bad. I thought you meant that pointing out the difference between God's law, the Law and the Ten Commandments (which is what MacArthur stated needs to be clarified in Comfort's position) was "petty." Now I have absolutely no idea what you were addressing, but whatever, bro....you are responsible and accountable for yours and that's none of my business.

I will say this. You ask for quotes, I give them from the book, you dismiss and go on. You do realize that Comfort wrote exactly what you stated no one believed....don't you? I don't think you are a Comfortite....but I'm beginning to wonder. But to each his own, brother. I stand on not recommending the book, you give it your endorsement. That’s cool….I guess at least we can form opinions of the other’s ability to discern Scripture.

No I am just saying that criticizing the fact that Comfort calls the Ten Commandments God's law without some sort of caveat is absurd and petty. Comfort is trying to reahc lost people not teach them a lot of theology. When he says the Ten Commandments is the law he is not wrong. It is not necessary to also say there is more to the law.

 

[JonC]

No I am just saying that criticizing the fact that Comfort calls the Ten Commandments God's law without some sort of caveat is absurd and petty. Comfort is trying to reach lost people not teach them a lot of theology. When he says the Ten Commandments is the law he is not wrong. It is not necessary to also say there is more to the law.

I understand. I went the theology route in seminary. It is difficult for me to digest what a pastor may say to elicit a response when it is biblically incorrect. I understand for simplicity's sake that Comfort can say the law and really mean God's moral law as reflected in the Ten Commandments but inclusive of his entire moral character. Like MacArthur, I do not get the impression that is what Comfort believes (especially since he specifically speaks of the Law being given, this Law being a requirement of salvation, and this Law being the "light" that gives substance to the gospel (to effect repentance).

I agree with MacArthur. Comfort has done well, but he needs to tighten his theological grasp on both Scripture and evangelism. We have had conversation on this board that demonstrates the damage that can be done when we are not careful with Scripture. You may say that expressing a correct theology is not as important when working on a popular level....I say it is vitally more important. We disagree.

 

[JonC]

Post the links to Mac and Phil Johnson criticizing Comfort.

Hey Evan. I posted James Johnson's comments and John MacArthur's short critique. I thought I could search here for the old thread, or maybe you could find it easier on your own profile since it was your thread...but I can't find posts past a certain time frame until I get to the really older ones.

All I can say is that I'm sorry I can't find the old thread, and I'm sorry that I am not interested enough to once again research this for you. The Johnson and MacArthur quotes may just have to do. This isn't a topic I really feel inclined to engage. I'll leave you and Rev to the Comfort Club. BTW, I think the Metzger book was better. I enjoyed that one.

 

[evangelist6589]

If I can find it I will when I get home. But both are on the old thread.

In the mean time here are some good observations

http://thecripplegate.com/concerns-with-the-way-of-the-master/

Read that link and not interested in his opinions. I want to read something from Mac or Johnson.

 

[evangelist6589]

Hey Evan. I posted James Johnson's comments and John MacArthur's short critique. I thought I could search here for the old thread, or maybe you could find it easier on your own profile since it was your thread...but I can't find posts past a certain time frame until I get to the really older ones.

All I can say is that I'm sorry I can't find the old thread, and I'm sorry that I am not interested enough to once again research this for you. The Johnson and MacArthur quotes may just have to do. This isn't a topic I really feel inclined to engage. I'll leave you and Rev to the Comfort Club. BTW, I think the Metzger book was better. I enjoyed that one.

Yes the Metzger book was more in depth and even I would admit more careful with scripture. I love and respect WOTM but I won't dare say that Comfort is perfect in his theology. No I don't take as big of an issue to his shortfalls as you. If you can write better books than Ray then please get started and mail me a copy of your book.

 

[JonC]

Read that link and not interested in his opinions. I want to read something from Mac or Johnson.

uhm....the quote that I originally posted when we had this conversation last time is on that link....by John MacArthur.....and it is his opinion......that's what you asked for.

 

[JonC]

Yes the Metzger book was more in depth and even I would admit more careful with scripture. I love and respect WOTM but I won't dare say that Comfort is perfect in his theology. No I don't take as big of an issue to his shortfalls as you. If you can write better books than Ray then please get started and mail me a copy of your book.

Actually, I do believe I could write a better book than Ray. That doesn't mean I should be writing books.

You do make a good point, Evan (I'm not sure you meant to, but you did). Ray Comfort was not writing for theology. My concern is theology. Still, I genuinely believe he should have done a better job, maybe hired someone to check his theology and interpretations, I don't know. But from a biblical stand point there are far too many errors to overlook. From the standpoint of galvanizing people to go witness I suppose it may be sufficient.

And .... this is important so that you don't think I'm just being flippant and dismissive....WE HAVE ALREADY HAD THIS CONVERSATION! Afterwards you even spoke of these things and how you disagreed with the book but it was still a good book. We looked at John MacArthur's comment (in that line, but then from another site) and at one of his sermons when he cautions against Comfort's approach. We looked at Phil Johnson's comment.....we've been here already.

Did something somehow erase everyone's minds when I was gone? Rev is now in the Comfort Club, Evan is asking for what we've already discussed,.....Is Icon still an Arminian or has Skan converted him to Calvinism RoflmaoLaughRoflmao

Again....I really don't care.....I'd rather talk about something important and interesting....something that has a lasting impact...like Star Wars.