What did Jesus do?

[blessedwife318]

I don't think so. Evan does not seem to think through his different theologies and how they intersect with each other. He has been arguing that unbelievers are under the Mosaic law for a while now and has also stared threads trying to defend his pretrib dispensation view.
I pointed out to him when he had a thread on MacArthur's The Gospel According to Jesus that MacArthur does not agree with TWOTM but as per the norm that was ignored. He is not willing to critically think through his ideas.
What I find ironic is that he goes even farther then WOTM leadership and I know for a fact that he got into arguments with 2 people with in TWOTM organization and ended up getting banded from a WOTM FB group that I am in.
I know Evan will laugh at this but I think that TWOTM has some good things to say but Evan takes them too far, especially when he puts their writings on the same level as scripture and just hands out rabbits when that is pointed out to him.

 

[Rippon]

Evan just hands out rabbits when that is pointed out to him.

Well, at least he hasn't handed out spiders, snakes, rats and weasels.

 

[blessedwife318]

Well, at least he hasn't handed out spiders, snakes, rats and weasels.

Don't give him ideas

 

[JonC]

Back to the OP, I suppose my question is whether or not the ends justify the means.

I have read “What Did Jesus Do?,” and throughout the book I cannot help but conclude that Comfort started with a thesis and simply tried to gather support wherever he could find it. Don’t get me wrong, I believe Ray Comfort to be a godly man who is being used greatly by God for Kingdom work. I think that his method can be effective, and I agree with many of his observations. But just like Jonathan Eldredge (“Wild at Heart”), Comfort is just left of biblical here (as John MacArthur points out, there are areas where WOTM theology needs to be strengthened). While in practice I applaud Comfort’s method, I cannot help but cringe at his misuse of Scripture. This is where, for example, Evan got the idea that Paul was convicting his audience under the Mosaic Law in Acts 17 (when you get through the smoke screen on pages 79-81, you quickly realize that Comfort has no support for his conclusions…this is why Evan could only repeat Comfort’s statement and not provide biblical support – there was none).

I know that our theology is not perfect (we are, after all, imperfect men and women). There is the potential for error in any of these works and programs. But how discerning should we be? As a church, do you believe we should use or allow “What Did Jesus Do?” be taught in study groups?

My opinion is that we can learn from people like Comfort, but that we are responsible for error that we introduce. While we may be right individually to consider Comfort’s words and views, it would be wrong to introduce them to a congregation. I do not know his (Comfort’s) educational background, but “What Did Jesus Do?” is poor theology and poor exegesis. But realize that his focus was on evangelism and not Scripture itself. So I can take what is said in the book with a grain of salt and appreciate Comfort for the ways in which God has used him, but at the same time I believe he has exceeded his gifts and written a book that never should have been published.

http://www.onemilliontracts.com/pdf/what_DID_Jesus_do.pdf

 

[blessedwife318]

Back to the OP, I suppose my question is whether or not the ends justify the means.

I have read “What Did Jesus Do?,” and throughout the book I cannot help but conclude that Comfort started with a thesis and simply tried to gather support wherever he could find it. Don’t get me wrong, I believe Ray Comfort to be a godly man who is being used greatly by God for Kingdom work. I think that his method can be effective, and I agree with many of his observations. But just like Jonathan Eldredge (“Wild at Heart”), Comfort is just left of biblical here (as John MacArthur points out, there are areas where WOTM theology needs to be strengthened). While in practice I applaud Comfort’s method, I cannot help but cringe at his misuse of Scripture. This is where, for example, Evan got the idea that Paul was convicting his audience under the Mosaic Law in Acts 17 (when you get through the smoke screen on pages 79-81, you quickly realize that Comfort has no support for his conclusions…this is why Evan could only repeat Comfort’s statement and not provide biblical support – there was none).

I know that our theology is not perfect (we are, after all, imperfect men and women). There is the potential for error in any of these works and programs. But how discerning should we be? As a church, do you believe we should use or allow “What Did Jesus Do?” be taught in study groups?

My opinion is that we can learn from people like Comfort, but that we are responsible for error that we introduce. While we may be right individually to consider Comfort’s words and views, it would be wrong to introduce them to a congregation. I do not know his (Comfort’s) educational background, but “What Did Jesus Do?” is poor theology and poor exegesis. But realize that his focus was on evangelism and not Scripture itself. So I can take what is said in the book with a grain of salt and appreciate Comfort for the ways in which God has used him, but at the same time I believe he has exceeded his gifts and written a book that never should have been published.

http://www.onemilliontracts.com/pdf/what_DID_Jesus_do.pdf

Thanks for the link, when I have more time I will read it in depth but just a cursory skim shows that you are correct especially on Acts 17 which you gave the page numbers for.

Now I'm one of those weird people who thinks that Bible Studies in churches should actually you know study the Bible. Now if a group wanted to use this book as a practice in critical thinking and examining books in light of the Bible and dive into some of the passages that are used and see if what Ray Comfort says matches up with what the Bible says then that would be different. But even then I would not want to spend a whole quarter on it.

Another thing I noted is that he spends a lot of time trying to make John 16:8, 9 say anything else but that man is judged for not believing in Christ. I noticed that in the following pages he totally ignores Romans 1 which makes it clear that Everyone knows about God and that there is no excuse. Instead he spends his time on analogies that are not found in the Bible. He uses human logic to make his case not Biblical exegesis.
pages 67-70.

 

[Van]

Thanks JonC, your link to the actual book made this thread something more than fault finding!

I have just skimmed over the first chapter, and Mr. Comforts effort to connect the Law - lets define that as whatever is applicable to guide us toward Christ - with the gospel, as if the gospel did not include "you are a sinner facing eternal damnation and in need of a savior."

 

[Jordan Kurecki]

I like Ray Comfort's method of evangelism, but I do agree he is off on a some things.

I've seen a quote by him him that says if you struggle with lustful glances that you never repented and are not saved.

The guy leans to Lordship Salvation and makes no room for the carnal christian

 

[JonC]

I think part of the problem is that Mr. Comfort projects his own underling agenda into Scripture. Instead of realizing that various sects within Judaism shared a preoccupation with righteousness under the Old Covenant, Mr. Comfort views Jesus’ mention of the Law as an external application (convicting them under the Law). Not, mind you, that this is necessarily a huge leap off the mark in terms of Israel (they were under the Law), but the error is magnified when applied to a Gentile audience. He stretches the text to come up with an intention that matches his own. I am thankful that many have been reached through his ministry, but I am also hopeful that those reached will come to a more mature faith and biblical understanding. I have to admit that, like blessedwife, I think adult studies need to be centered on Scripture rather than lessons. I am deeply concerned that biblical literacy has declined in our churches. So my own reaction to Comfort’s error may be exaggerated (I cannot fathom knowingly allowing error into the ministry).

I do find it interesting that WOTM methodologies are foreign to NT evangelism. It is even more troubling that someone would compose a book explaining how everyone in the Bible used the method. But at least the gospel is being preached.