Featured Church never got back with me regarding evangelism

No need. Got the training at my church years ago from Kirk and Ray.

 

Well I'm plugging through WOTM and I keep choking on all of the odd unsubstantiated and false assertions he makes:

Page 74:

"God, the Father, sent His Spirit to search for a bride for His only begotten Son. He has chosen the Ten Commandments to carry this special message."

"The true convert comes to the Savior simply to satisfy the demands of a holy Law."

Page 75:

"If the Law of Moses did not demand death for sin, Jesus would not have to die."

 

"Just a critic"?

I am reading thoughtfully and carefully. You seem to be alleging that I am being unfair. I have not made a final evaluation. I'm watching him make his case, but he seems to be building it on a false foundation.

I don't think he is evil or dishonest, but he seems to be marshaling scripture to prove his premise instead of expositing scripture to reveal its truth.

I just don't want you to be surprised if I am not converted to WOTM thinking/methodology.

I'm reading them. Just because they are quoted doesn't make them right. Moreover, I don't really have many issues with the quotes. Mr. Comfort's writing is what concerns me.

 

My viewpoint on the book just took a shift.

One of the obvious places where Paul didn't use "the Law" in his preaching was in Athens (Acts 17).

Yet on page 83 (in the midst of a clam that both Jesus and Paul ALWAYS used the Law in evangelism), Comfort writes:

"Paul did the same, as seen at Athens, when he used the essence of the first and second Commandments to reprove the Athenians idolatry..."

I reread the very familiar passage and Paul did not reference the Law at all. However, he did use knowledge of God found in the first two commandment (as well as everywhere else) in his proclamation of the gospel.

If I give Comfort the benefit of the doubt and shift my understanding of using "the Law" to mean the use of biblical knowledge, then I have no quarrel with him except that I wonder why he wrote the book. If that's his point, then he's really speaking only to those persons who love the teaching of people like Joel Osteen. That also completely undermines his lengthy exposition regarding the lack of concern about Christians demonstrating spiritual maturity by evangelizing.

If I hold to the idea that he actually had a point in the first 80 pages other to discredit prosperity preachers, then I have to conclude that Comfort is not above twisting scriptural examples to fit his mold (kind of like the previously mentioned woman caught in adultery being brought to the feet of Jesus by "the terror of the Law" instead of the crowds as John 8 clearly teaches).

 

He has taken the role of a theologian to straighten out the way we evangelize. His message needs to be evaluated on the basis of his theology, since he is claiming his way to be the biblical way - indeed, THE Way of the Master.

I'm not looking for deep theology, I'm looking for correct theology and methods.

You have just conceded that he is wrong and his methods are suspect. Why are you condemning churches that don't fall in line with the WOTM(sic)?

 

Is Comfort a Calvinist? Doesn't write like one. He seems too concerned about ensuring mental assent to conviction of sin rather than the Spirit's conviction. Moreover, his method is eager to "seal the deal" instead of partnering with God for a longer journey of conversion in evangelism.

They do if he builds his case in them, as he seems to be doing.

 

Not really. The message of John the Baptist. Jesus, and the disciples that Jesus sent out was "Repent, for the kingdom of God is at hand."

Repentance was a change of mind/orientation toward God and away from the way one had been living their life (even religious life). It did not necessarily have anything to do with sin, although it often did.