Ray Comfort vs. Hyles's method of Evangelism

I :love2: it! :laugh: :thumbs:

 

Using the Ten Commandents is essential. People need to understand their failure and we are all sinners. Psalm 19:7 "The law of the LORD is perfect, converting the soul". Adding the 10 Commandments to "Roman's Road" or "Share Jesus Without Fear" witnessing methods would make them more complete.

 

This is absolutely true! The two men mentioned in the OP are not putting forth contradictory gospels, or even mutually exclusive methods. They simply differ on jumping off points. Ive heard Jack Hyles preach, and as an individual he does not preach "easy-believism". Ive heard him talk about the conviction from the Holy SPirit about sin in the lost person's life.
WOTM says the same thing.....they just use an OT concept, and probably draw it out a little longer than most "Hylesers" would nowadays.

Much of the problem is simply when people, individual soulwinners, try to take shortcuts in an attempt to write down a name on a convert slip.

 

Consider this.

Following your logic- "For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved," (Rom. 10:13).

Because Romans 10:13 says nothing about "faith" or "believing" then one is left to understand that faith has nothing to do with calling upon the name of the Lord to be saved.

Let's take your verse- "And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house," (Acts 16:31).

No mention of confessing or acknowledging sin. All one has to do is believe, but have no sense of having offended a holy God and under the curse and penalty of sin. Those things are not in the verse, yet they are essential for a lost man to grasp so that will come to an understanding of his need for salvation.

Did you consider the meaning of Acts 16:32, "And they spake unto him the word of the Lord, and to all that were in his house." Is it possibe that in the home Paul expanded the gospel message and there they believed and received.


LM

In Defense of the Gospel

 

Repentance

JJump:

“And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem,” (Luke 24:47).

“And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent,” (Acts 17:30).

“The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance,” (2 Peter 3:9).

Those verses do not limit the scope of repentance to a national perspective; it is universal.

To suggest that repentance is not necessary for the reception of eternal life is counter-biblical. Furthermore, no repentance is the pathway to the Easy-Believism interpretation of giving out the gospel.

Because the word “repent” does not appear in every salvation text does not man repentance is not a necessary component for salvation. “Repent” never appears in John’s gospel. For that reason some men claim that repentance is not part of the gospel, in spite of dozens of other appearances of the word throughout the New Testament.

LM

In Defense of the Gospel

 

Bapmom, I love you sister, but I will have to disagree with you. The problem with the easy-believism comes from the top down, not the bottom up. When churches start having 'Soul-Winning Banquets' and giving out awards for the folks who turn in the most convert slips that puts pressure on the soul-winners to produce.

I see the same thing happening on the mission field. Pastors want to judge missionaries by their quantity rather than their quality. I know for a fact, a shameful one at that, that some missionaries pad their numbers to make themselves look productive. It hurts one's pride to go for several months or even years without seeing a convert, but that is just the fact in many places of missions work.

I have gotten a little 'gun-shy' and don't push for decisions like I once did. Don't misunderstand me, I still try for a decision but the moment I see or sense that the person I am dealing with is feeling pressured I back off. I can see that in the past I pushed some folks and 'won the battle but lost the war.'

 

No.

My pastor, S.M. Davis, was a close friend of Jack Hyles and John R. Rice both, and our church absolutely does not teach easy believism!

What's wrong with the Roman's Road as long as each verse is expounded upon and discussed???

The method of 'soul winning' should depend on each individual you witness to, with the leading of the Holy Spirit.

 

Lou let's not follow any man's logic. Let's just let Scripture speak. Scripture says we are saved by God's grace through faith. Acts 16:30-31 says believe and you will be saved, not possibly or maybe if you continue on in some sort of salvation process.

Repentance is not necessary for salvation, because it is an act of man. It is man that does the turning away. That would be salvation not by grace, but grace plus works, which makes it no grace at all.

Repentance is not necessary for the payment of sin. God requires death and shed blood and that is it.

As for your Romans 10 text that is written to already saved individuals. So the question is what does "saved" mean to an already "saved" people when they are to call on the name of the Lord. Calling on the name of the Lord for salvation is something that only saved people can do, but that's a different topic. Eternal salvation is not the context there. That' why the Roman Road is not a very good witnessing tool. Although it can be and is used a lot it really only adds to the confusion of the issue, because the majority of Romans is dealing with a salvation for an already "saved" individual.

Well to an extent that is a true statement. However "eternal" life is not really a very good translation of the word. It would be better understood "age-lasting" which is a more accurate translation of the word, especially when used in conjunction with life. The life that was being spoken of in the gospel accounts is life for the kingdom, which is 1,000 years in length.

No repentance is just the plain message of eternal salvation that the Bible presents. So you can call it whatever you like I suppose, but eternal salvtion is easy. You believe and you are saved. I'm not sure what is supposed to be difficult and hard about that.

Repentance is necessary for salvation, just not eternal salvation.

Repentance is a part of the gospel of the kingdom. It is not a part of eternal salvation, because the only thing required there is faith in The Substitute Who died on your behalf a sinner. Anything added to that simple gospel of grace through faith is "counter-biblical."

 

That's a great question. The problem with using the Roman Road as a witnessing tool is that the majority of the context of Romans is not eternal salvation. So while it is possible to use the Roman Road to witness it is not a very accurate tool and it certainly leads to confusion in some areas. It's been a long time since I looked at the Roman Road, but I believe one of the steps in the Road is to call upon the name of the Lord. And eternal salvation is not about calling on the name of the Lord. Eternal salvation is about believing what has already been done on our behalf - sinners.

And what happens is when the Roman Road is used for eternal salvation the real context of Romans is lost and never taught to the new Christian. Which again only leads to problems after eternal salvation is taken care of.

 

I really don't disagree with you on the emphasis placed on numbers. I think there's often too much award-giving based on numbers seen saved rather than numbers of doors knocked on or numbers of tracts passed out. I suppose it comes from the notion that the numbers automatically follow the amount of time spent in the "field", but that I think can really be a misconception.

I too find myself backing off quicker than I used to. Still, I think there are good points in both methods, and I don't believe they are mutually exclusive (Romans Road vs WOTM, I mean).

 

When I lived in another town than I lived now I went to a church where we went soul winning every Saturday and sometimes on Thursdays. We would lead in any given week at least 15 to 25 souls to the Lord. This was using the Jack Hyles and/or the Roman Road method. Out of the 25 per week maybe one or two would show up to church. Out of the 8 or so per month that would come to church maybe one would follow the Lord in baptism and become a member.

When I moved to where I lived now. The church I attend is really into the Ray Comfort method. You are taught not to press for a decision. But just present the Gospel. Out of the hundreds of people we talked to, only about 5% wanted to pray. Out of those only one followed the Lord in baptism and became a member.

The percentage of truly saved people is about the same. I would venture to guess, and this is only a guess, that at a Billy Graham meeting the percentages of all those people coming down to make a decision only a small percentage actually are really saved.

My point is that many are called but few are chosen. Use any method you can, just get out there and witness. Those that are chosen will be saved! Those that are not won't.

 

I see that no one on this thread has yet discussed the methods of John R. Rice, though Truth Seeker has been asking. So I'll chime in here.

First of all, John R. Rice often clearly emphasized repentance in his sermons and ministry, so the accusation that sometimes crops up that he taught the so-called "easy believeism" is without substance. He taught that repentance and faith were part of the same process of salvation. For example, he wrote: "One who repents, that is, has turned from rebellion and unbelief to trust Christ, has believed, of course. One who trusts in Christ has necessarily turned his heart from rebellion and rejection of Christ and so has repented" (Dr. Rice, Here Is My Question, p. 248).

Secondly, John R. Rice's method of personal soul-winning was completely different from the Romans Road taught by Jack Hyles. It must be remembered that John R. Rice was winning souls before Jack Hyles was born. Rice influenced Hyles, not vice versa.

Dr. Rice's method has been preserved for posterity in a 30 minute movie made by the Rice family and some of the Sword of the Lord staff in 1955 entitled, "Bringing In the Sheaves." (I was 4 at the time, and played a 4-year-old boy. :smilewinkgrin: ) In the movie, a young lady moves to Chicago and stays with the Rices while she looks for a job. At the end, after various incidents showing how the Holy Spirit was convicting her of sin, John R. Rice leads her to Christ.

Dr. Rice mainly used two Scriptures to give the Gospel, John 3:16 and Isaiah 53:6 (sometimes more from Is. 53). With John 3:16, he would have the prospect put his or her own name in the verse to emphasize God's love for that person, thus: "For God so loved John, that he gave his only begotten son, that if John would believe...."

John R. Rice did not normally have people pray to receive Christ as Savior. Instead, he would pray himself for them to be saved, and then tell them with heads bowed, "If you are now trusting Jesus Christ as Savior, please take my hand...." When they did that, he would then say, "Now why don't you pray and tell the Lord thank you for saving your soul."

 

Brother JoJ,

I knew you'd probably see this thread and I was looking forward to hearing what you had to say about John R. Rice's methods. I guess it's been too long since Ive read his books, I had forgotten that he did that with John 3:16 and Isaiah. Ive done the same thing, but couldn't remember who I'd gotten it from.

Thank you!

 

It runs in the family. My Mom led me to Christ using John 3:16 in this way.

God bless. :wavey:

 

J. Jump,

You say,

I disagree.

EVERY person are commanded to be repent. That is the gospel.

In Ezekiel 33:9 says, "Nevertheless, if thou warn the wicked of his way to TURN FROM IT; if he do not turn from his way, he shall die in his iniquity; but thou hast deilvered thy soul."

It tells us very clear, we are responsible to warn them of their sins and hell. Tell to repent from their sins, But, first explaining them about Jesus Christ, why He have to died for us, and tell them the good news that Christ rosen from the dead. Tell them, they are on the way to hell because of sins. If they hold with their sins till death, they would be already in hell. So, they have to repent of their sins, and realize that, Christ died for our sins. Believe in Christ, asking for forgive and receive him.

I do not agree with baptists' method of soul winning. When I was a student at Midwestern Baptist College years ago. One day, we went on the bus for 'Soul Winning Marathon'. I was with student. I watched him witnessing to a young man of Jesus Christ. Then, he asked him, if want to accept Christ, then he nodded his head means 'yes'. Then, student prayed and talked to Jesus FOR young man. I strongly disagree with student. What happened to a yong man? He never come to the church, obibously, he is not truly saved and did not have fruit, because of easy believism method. Sadly, that church is dead. Sorry to saying it. I respect Late Dr. Tom Malone for his faithful working. But I do not agree with that college and church's soul winning method. High percent of people who were "led to Christ' by woul winner, never truly growing in the Lord, do not have truly fruit in them. I doubt most of them are truly saved.

Years ago, I was at International Baptist Church in Brookyln, NY. I noticed an interpreter told to the members, "We are winning the competition of soul winning with First Baptist Church(Hammond, IN)!"

I strongly disagree with baptist churches who are competition each other on the numbers of soul winning. Numbers mean nothing.

One time I went to soul winning banquet hosted by International Baptist Church. I saw a deaf person won the award for the most numbers of souls saved during that year as deaf perosn of the deaf ministry. He claims, won 400 or 500 saved (I cannot remembered the exactly number). Anyway, the another deaf person was depressed. I asked him, what's wrong? He told me, he won the award from last year prior of that soul winning banquet, won 400 souls. But he did not recived it that time.

That was silly.

One time, I was go soul winning with deaf evangelist. I watched him witnessing to a young deaf person. It took about 5 minutes, then he asked her, want to accept Christ? She said yes. Then, he praying and sign(talk) to Jesus FOR deaf person. I strongly disagree with him. I say nothing, and did not rebuke him. I just leave him alone. Let God takes care of him. Also, he asked me to pick and bring her to church. I agreed him. So, I did came to her place, but she was not there. I did came to her place 3 times. But she was not there. Obivously, she is not truly saved, and do not have the fruit.

I do not believe in soul winning by doing 'sinner's prayer' as I talk to Jesus in sign FOR a person. Also, I do not believe in copying of sinner's prayer'. I believe a person should confess of their own mouth or hands(sign) talk to Jesus. I did told them many times, that they don't have to doing fancy talk to Jesus, simple, they know that they are sinner, JUST ask Jesus for forgive and accept, that's simple, not long prayer.

I was saved in my bedroom at my parent's house in August 17, 1988. No one witness me how to become saved. I was saved by reading in the Bible in Revelation myself. Rev. 20:11-15 caused me scary, do not want go to the lake of fire. So, I bow down and talked to Jesus in sign for about 30 minutes. I was rejoiced and go sleep peaceful.

Every baptists who doing evangelism, should telling how to do prayer in short simple way, like as ask to Jesus as 'Daddy'.

I believe many baptist churches failed to doing the right way of evangelism to lost people, because of easy believism. Many people are not truly saved because of no repentance.

Secondly, many baptist churches are FAILED for to discipleship baby Christians, that why they are already astray away and backslidding everywhere today.

Every baptist churches ought to enocurage baby Christians much as often to discipline them growing in the Lord daily. Do not forsake them, that why we already forsake them, they are already astray away. I consider most of them are not truly saved. Sorry to say it.

In Christ
Rev. 22:20 -Amen!

 

What a surprise And actually in re-reading my statement I wouldn't agree with it either. It should actually say repentance is not necessary for eternal salvation. It is in fact a requirement for the salvation of the soul.

This is a correct statement, however the context is the kicker. Gospel simply means good news. Unfortunately modern-day Christendom equates Gospel with Eternal Salvation. When one mentions the gospel they must mention what gospel they are speaking of. Is is the gospel of grace through faith or is it the gospel of the kingdom? Those aren't the same two messages as most would have one to think.

So no repentance is not necessary for grace through faith, because that is apart from works (repentance is a work no matter whether one wants to deny it or not - it simply just is - we can accept that and deal with it Biblically, or we can hold on to church tradition). But yes repentance is necessary for the gospel of the kingdom which is the message of the four gospels and much of the NT as well.

 

WHAT?

J. Jump you can't be serious! You actually separate salvation and eternal salvation? I don't know about you but when I was born again through Grace I was ETERNALLY written into the book of life and ETERNALLY His child. There was no second step to enter the Kingdom of God.

 

Then why all the warnings of falling short?

 

Well again that is what modern-day Christendom would have you believe. Most people believe when they are eternally saved they are automatically guaranteed a position in the kingdom, but Scripturally that just can't be supported.

If you can support it with Scripture then by all means lets see your support.

You are indeed a child of God positionally for all eternity. However only firstborn sons reign in the kingdom. And you can only become a firstborn son through adoption. Adoption has not happened yet. It is a future occurance, and it is not guaranteed.

Again if you can support this statement with Scripture then let's see the support, otherwise it's merely a statement.