Featured Church never got back with me regarding evangelism

As I wrote previously, I am doing exactly that. I am giving the book a fair reading, but I am quite unconvinced. You need to realize that there is an extremely good chance I am going to disagree with his conclusions and it won't be because I have been unfair or don't understand the book. He has already made a number of unsupported assertions and doesn't give any indication that he is going to back them up. Among them are:

1.) The point of the gospel is to make it to "Heaven." (This seems to be assumed, not spelled out.) There has been no discussion of the kingdom of God - the major theme of Jesus - and the bigger picture of what God is doing with humankind.
2.) "Go through the books of Acts and see if you can find any of the disciples telling sinners that God loved them and had a wonderful plan for their lives. Instead, they confronted their hearers as guilty criminals - enemies of God who desperately needed righteousness." (WOTM, page 31) While it is true in some circumstances (usually for the Jewish audiences), it is not at all true for the Gentile audiences.
3.) The woman caught in adultery who ended up before the feet of Jesus (John 8:3-11) was apparently brought there by the "terror of the Law" instead of the scribes and Pharisees as the scripture states. As Comfort claims, "I doubt she would have fallen at the feet of Jesus without the terror of the Law having driven her there. Thank God that it awakened her and caused her to flee to the Savior." (WOTM, page 51) That's simply twisting the story a bit to make it fit into the point he is trying to make, since Jesus inconveniently did not use the WOTM presentation in that passage.

 

Beyond looking them up, you need to think about whether or not they are true.

My mind is wide open, but I also know what the Bible says and teaches. From what I have seen so far, Comfort is a little off target. He is trying to figure out why conversions are not what they should be and he has come to the conclusion that many of the modern methods of presenting the gospel are not quite right... I agree. He then asserts that the way to do it is by ensuring that people get convicted by the Law (he seems to be looking for an emotional response, not just the conviction of the Spirit) instead of a realizing that the call of Jesus is into discipleship into Kingdom life.

That's not an argument. Comfort points out that the popularity of a method does not have any correlation as to whether or not it is correct. I agree with him on that point.

Plenty of Baptist churches are dying or failing in their mission too.

 

I will. You need to think about his assertion that the early church, as recorded in the book of Acts, ALWAYS approached sinners as "guilty criminals." That's simply not true. Moreover, you need to think about why Comfort would distort the story of the woman caught in adultery as being brought to the feet of Jesus by "the terror of the Law" than by an angry mob. Go back and read his words in context (see WOTM, page 51) and see if he is treating scripture properly - even if he is interpreting the mob as personifying "the terror of the Law," which doesn't work for the point he is attempting to make.

 

Did you look up those quotes, like you said you would?

He's given an open mind, you're obligated to give him honest interaction

 

Those are my words. She was brought to Jesus by a mob who was planning to stone her. They put her at the "center of the court." (John 8:3)

Why does he doubt it? It wasn't the "terror of the law" that brought here there. It was a mob of scribes and Pharisees literally taking her there.

But she wasn't brought there by "the Law" at all! It was the scribes and Pharisees.

Where is the Law in His words to her?

"Straightening up, Jesus said to her, 'Woman, where are they? Did no one condemn you?' She said, "No one, Lord.' And Jesus said, "I do not condemn you, either. Go. From now on sin no more."

There's not a bit of "Law" in His words to her.

 

That's not the assertion I'm pointing out. I only quoted that sentence for context to show he is talking about the book of Acts. It is the sentence that follows that statement that is the issue: "Instead, they confronted their hearers as guilty criminals - enemies of God who desperately needed righteousness." (WOTM, page 31)
That is patently untrue.

I understand that is his position, but he has not demonstrated it either. I'm not dealing with that issue yet since it is dependent upon the assertion above - that the only proper way to evangelize is to confront others as "guilty criminals."

So where do you have theological disagreement with Comfort?

As for me, I am fond of the way of Jesus not the WOTM.

 

Okay, we agree about that.

No, it was the scribes and Pharisees. This is the main distortion Comfort makes.

Jesus did free her, but it wasn't like you originally said.

It's besides the point, but it takes two to tango. They brought her to Jesus to put Him in an impossible situation so they could accuse him.

 

the problem is that scripture doesn't teach that. You need to stop trying to divert to a different book because you're not finished with the first one

 

I just can't take this thread

Sent from my SGH-M919 using Tapatalk