Tracts & Ray Comfort

[pawnraider]

Not sure if this is the place to ask this but here goes. If you use tracts, which ones or whose do you use?

Frank.

[Shawn Cuthill]

There has been some discussion about tracts in another topic - here. There is a consensus that Ray Comforts tracts are the best, Jack Chick's tracts can be off the wall, but some of them are good, there are also some good ones from Gospel Folio Press.

What are some of your favorites?

[Mr. Bill]

I'm listening to a message of Ray Comfort's as I type this, and he clearly proclaims the false gospel of Lordship salvation. According to Comfort, we're not truly saved if we haven't repented (which he incorrectly defines as turning from sin rather than the biblical definition of changing one's mind), and the evidence for not having repented is our works. So if you aren't manifesting good works or fall into some sin pattern or even "make provision for the flesh," you haven't been truly saved, according to Comfort. How can anyone ever have assurance of salvation under this scheme?

His butchering of scripture is notable, as is the absense of grace. We would be well-served to avoid this false teacher.

[a beautiful soul]

I'm listening to a message of Ray Comfort's as I type this, and he clearly proclaims the false gospel of Lordship salvation. According to Comfort, we're not truly saved if we haven't repented (which he incorrectly defines as turning from sin rather than the biblical definition of changing one's mind), and the evidence for not having repented is our works. So if you aren't manifesting good works or fall into some sin pattern or even "make provision for the flesh," you haven't beeb truly saved, according to Comfort. How can anyone ever have assurance of salvation under this scheme?

His butchering of scripture is notable, as is the absense of grace. We would be well-served to avoid this false teacher.

Might I suggest something?

Biblical repentance includes BOTH turning from sin AND changing one's mind (agreeing with God) regarding sin.

You can have assurance of salvation by EXPERIENCING God's forgiveness AND accepting HIS GIFT OF RIGHTEOUSNESS (Romans 5:17) -- in other words -- when you wholly (completely) identify with Christ and His death on the Cross, you will find spiritual freedom and you will find yourself not making "provision for the flesh".

SANCTIFICATION comes by FAITH, just like SALVATION comes by FAITH.


Just a thought.....

mg

[Mr. Bill]

I listened to another Ray Comfort tape and have been researching him a bit more. The impetus for his ministry is "false conversions," i.e. people who walk an aisle and make a commitment but soon thereafter backslide and fall away and show no interest in spiritual things. His solution is to preach the law to them before preaching Christ. And if people see how they've offended God, their commitments will be genuine and will stick because they will have been made for the right reason.

Let me say that I agree with Comfort in a few critical areas. I agree that most Christian conversions are false conversions. I also agree with Comfort's use of the law in showing people why they need a Savior. He correctly argues that the true basis for the gospel is need (i.e. you've sinned against God and face future judgment) and not benefit (i.e. you need Jesus in your life to give you true joy and happiness).

While Comfort identifies a real problem, unfortunately his solution is only partially correct. It is true that we need to show people the bad news before telling them the good news. People need to see themselves as God sees them: helpless, hopeless, and Hell-bound. This change of mind is what biblical repentance is.

But instead of discarding the erroneous notion of commitment salvation entirely, he simply adjusts it, so rather than being saved by walking an aisle and making a commitment to serve Jesus, you're saved by walking an aisle and making a commitment to avoid sinning. All of which is making a deal with God. All of which is salvation by works. All of which denies grace. All of which is offensive to God. All of which is a false gospel.

It is notable that Comfort doesn't feel strongly enough about eternal security to make it part of his statement of faith (see link below). A correctly understood gospel--salvation by grace alone through faith alone on the basis of Christ's finished work alone--mandates eternal security. On the other hand, if one is trusting in one's works or "commitment" to perform works or to live a certain way to save, then salvation cannot be assured, and the doctrine of eternal security is either negotiable or is denied.

http://www.biblicalevangelism.com/statementmain.html


Also, for what it's worth, Jack Chick proclaims a false works-based gospel too. At the end of each tract, he variously asks sinners to:

1. Confess Christ (on the basis of Romans 10:9, which is not a "salvation verse")

2. Be willing to turn from your sins (Which sins? And if you commit sins after you're saved how can you say you were willing to turn from them?)

3. Pray a prayer (which isn't found in the Bible)

4. Invite Jesus into their lives/hearts (again, there isn't a single verse in the Bible that supports this)

We should avoid his tracts too.

[WhiteFox]

I have incorporated Ray Comforts Message into one of my messages (Why Does God Allow suffering). The second Left Behind film incorporates it. Billy Graham and Before he died Bill Bright responded to his criticisms. You can tell in some of their messages. I spoke with the founder of the CE program and He admited that the CE program (Christianity Explored like alpha) is based largely on the persuasion of Ray Comfort.

Jesus didn't come to give you a brain formulae to intelectually assent to. He came to demand your discipleship. Mark 8 tells us that he chose disciples that they might preach. The Great commission tells us to preach the gospel to all nations and create disciples. There is no other option than being invited to be a disciple. In the word disciple is the word discipline. Jesus did not call any to be undisciplined head knowledge ascenting people. He called for absolute commitment. He demanded demonstration of that comittment at times. ie sell all you have. or believe and be baptised to demonstrate the seriousness of obedience which he commands.

The old Testament Psalmist (119) says "If I regard iniquity (sin) in my heart he will not hear me." God knows your heart. He doesn't analyse whether you have a formulae right. He accepts or rejects you based on your commitment to him which must be demonstrated by repentance.

2 Cor 7:10 says repentance leads to salvation.

Repentance is what is missing in many head knowledge people today. We have many arrogant, rebellious people who are too fat and comfortable to get around to being disciplined followers. They act like that is not what they were called to. Revelation 4 says that the last church will be full of people like that, that make the Lord Jesus Christ sick to his stomach and make him wish to puke them out. (See Church of Laodocea).

I am convinced there are at least 50 ways to explain the gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ. And Ray Comforts explanation is one of them that must be incorporated into our message for today.

You can find my message on why does God allow suffering at my site under AUDIO and Our Messages.

http://bibledoor.no-ip.org

and you can find a link to Ray Comforts ministry under my blog site.

http://bibledoor.blogspot.com


Ray,

[Shawn Cuthill]

I am convinced there are at least 50 ways to explain the gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ. And Ray Comforts explanation is one of them that must be incorporated into our message for today.

Not sure what you mean here by "50 ways to explain the gospel".

[Anthony]

You know, in our little assembly, we call Mr. Bill "the gospel bulldog." That apparently translates into the online world, as well.

It's not one bit surprising that the issue of "repentance" causes such a stink amongst believers. The word's been argued over for years now, eh? Let me just write that we may be doing ourselves a disservice by putting a straight-jacket on the word "repentance" (or any other word in scripture, for that matter). Careful attention has to paid to the context in which any word is found, because context can change the connotation of a word, sometimes drastically.

Nevertheless, when it comes to the issue of justification, we must take great care to preserve the clear doctrine of grace. God's grace is either appropriated apart from works, or it is not. There can be no middle ground.


A few things:

... when you wholly (completely) identify with Christ and His death on the Cross, you will find spiritual freedom and you will find yourself not making "provision for the flesh".

I found this statement a little confusing, and am hoping I am misunderstanding it. Is there a way to "partially" identify with Christ and His death on the cross?? According to Paul (Romans 6-8; Ephesians 1+2), this "identification" is something that happens instantaneously and "completely" upon our acceptance of Christ as our Saviour. We are identified with Christ, and in spiritual union with Him. This is not something that strengthens or lessens... only our understanding and appropriation of it does.

SANCTIFICATION comes by FAITH, just like SALVATION comes by FAITH.

Amen. Sanctification is a part of salvation (as defined broadly), so naturally, that would follow.

The second Left Behind film incorporates it. Billy Graham and Before he died Bill Bright responded to his criticisms. You can tell in some of their messages.

Are those associations supposed to inspire trust in Comfort's material?? Oh man!

Red Flag! Red Flag!

Jesus didn't come to give you a brain formulae to intelectually assent to. He came to demand your discipleship.

Agreed, but hey - Jesus came for a few reasons, not just to "demand discipleship." Jesus came because He wanted to. Jesus came because His coming had been ordained by the Father. Jesus came because He was obediant to the Father. Jesus came to call His nation back to their God (repentance?). Jesus came to offer His people their promised kingdom. Jesus came with a sword to divide households. Jesus came into the world to save sinners.

It's true; Jesus did not only come to give us "a brain formulae to intelectually assent to." But one of the things He came to give us is our justification, which can ONLY be appropriated by faith. Faith is believing, and is naturally accompanied by the cessation of merit-seeking works.

Mark 8 tells us that he chose disciples that they might preach.

Are you insinuating that all 12 Apostles of Christ were lost before Christ called them to follow Him; and that it was only after they agreed to be "disciples" that they became justified before God? If so, why?

Jesus did not call any to be undisciplined head knowledge ascenting people.

Yeah, the "gospel" entails many things. There's a lot that goes with it, really, but...

He called for absolute commitment.

... that's where you really fall off. I liked what Mr. Bill wrote, when he referred to "the erroneous notion of commitment salvation... you're saved by... making a commitment to avoid sinning. All of which is making a deal with God. All of which is salvation by works. All of which denies grace."

You bring nothing to the table when it comes to God! You are morally bankrupt, and incapable of pleasing Him. The very BEST of what you can perform is as useful as dog crap (Philippians 3:8), and as wonderful as a used maxi pad (Isaiah 64:6) before the eyes of our Holy God. Therefore, any "commitment" is utterly useless to Him. He knows we can't keep it. We can't even keep ourselves - He has to keep us!

In fact, it could be argued that such "absolute commitment" is the same as swearing. Concerning this Christ taught: Again, you have heard that the ancients were told, "you shall not make false vows, but shall fulfill your vows to the LORD." But I say to you, make no oath at all, either by heaven, for it is the throne of God, or by the earth, for it is the footstool of His feet, or by Jerusalem, for it is "the city of the great King." Nor shall you make an oath by your head, for you cannot make one hair white or black. But let your statement be, 'Yes, yes' or 'No, no'; anything beyond these is of evil. Let's leave these oaths and commitments behind us and, having said "yes, yes" to Him, walk by faith in Christ.

He demanded demonstration of that comittment at times.

I would agree that God at times tests our faith (and calls for demonstrations of it), but He does not predicate our justification upon "commitment," or "demonstrations of commitment;" which is the crux of the matter. Consider father Abraham, declared righteous (i.e. justified: Genesis 15:6; Romans 4:3; Galatians 3:6), decades before his faith was truly tested in the offering of Isaac his son (Genesis 22:1-12), by simply believing what God said.

Has so muched changed since then?

He accepts or rejects you based on your commitment to him which must be demonstrated by repentance.

Nothing could be further from the truth - and this is exactly the problem with this kind of "commitment gospel!" Do you fully realize what this statement is suggesting?

The Lord God Most High accepts NO MAN on ANY BASIS other than the Person and work of the risen and glorified Lord Jesus Christ. Our commitment doesn't do SQUAT! We're not saved by any commitment. We're not saved by faith in "faith alone," either. We are justified BY GRACE appropriated to us THROUGH FAITH. PERIOD.

2 Cor 7:10 says repentance leads to salvation.

If you look at the context (vs. 6-11), you might find that this instance of "salvation" probably does not refer to justification, but has more of a sanctifying/preserving connotation (for examples of this, see Romans 5:9-10; 1Timothy 2:15).

We have many arrogant, rebellious people who are too fat and comfortable to get around to being disciplined followers.

Amen!

Of course, we also have many arrogant, rebellious people who are too busy pulling themselves up by the bootstraps, in their own effort(s) to please God, to simply consider [them]selves to be dead to sin, but alive to God in Christ Jesus (Romans 6:11). They forget that [they] have been crucified with Christ; and it is no longer [they] who live, but Christ lives in [them]; and the life which [they] now live in the flesh [they] live by faith in the Son of God, who loved [them] and gave Himself up for [them] (Galatians 2:20).


May God grant them repentance leading to the knowledge of the truth, that they may come to their senses and escape from the snare of the devil, having been held captive by him to do his will (2Timothy 2:25-26).

[sunshine]

It's interesting to see so many different versions of the gospel coming to light here. There's the gospel of the kingdom, Paul's gospel (which he calls "my gospel"), and the everlasting gospel of Rev 14:6. I love Paul's explanation of his gospel in 1 Cor 15:1-4. Repentance never seems to play any part of his gospel (nor should it, in my view) if, indeed, salvation is by just believing something, wholly apart from works.
Perhaps this is why Paul issues such a strong warning in Galations 1 concerning those who would tamper with his gospel.

[a beautiful soul]

Peace

[Anthony]

While reading your entire post, Anthony, I realized you not only understand what happens to a person when they are saved, but you also reckon it to be true.

Careful, MG. I am susceptible to flattery...

The problem is that we are not taught that sanctification is a part of salvation. They are treated as two separate occurrances in a believer's life. This, of course, is wrong.

Well... I would have to say there is a sense in which sanctification is separate from salvation. Sanctification (if we're referring to progressive, conditional sanctification; i.e., "spiritual growth") is a part of salvation, but is still a distinct concept.

Think of the Trinity. Jesus is fully God. The Father is fully God. Yet Jesus is not the Father. He is distinct from the Father.

In a similar way: Justification is salvation. Sanctification is salvation. Glorification is salvation. Even deliverance from physical harm can be "salvation." BUT(!) justification is not sanctification. They are distinct concepts, and must be understood as such, biblicallly.


Of course, I don't know what's going on at your assembly, so I can't rightly comment on that.

[Anthony]

Since this discussion was originally started concerning tracts, I guess I'd better comment on the subject (considering we've successfully hijacked the thread). I don't use tracts. Never really have. I'm not the greatest evangelist in the world, either, but... tracts just always seemed kinda cheesey to me. But that's just one man's opinion! If you find them beneficial in spreading the word of God's salvation, hey - go for it.


Regarding Ray Comfort - I've never once read a tract from him (that I know of), so I can't speak intelligently on that specific matter. However - he does have some issues that would concern me enough to seriously think twice before using his materials.

For instance; while perusing his site (Living Waters), I ran across his FAQ's.

[Sorry. Don't have much time to do any superindepth research on the guy. But I just had to mention this.]

Anywho, these 2 bits I'm sharing, I found entertaining, funny, sad... all the way back around to funny again. Ready?



Frequently Asked Question # 1:
"I have just read The Way of the Master -- and I am scared that I'm not saved."

I'm still giggling over this one. Ray Comfort's number one, most frequently asked question is, "now that I've read this popular book of yours - one of many you're trying to spread like the plague - I'm doubting my very salvation in Christ, and need you to tell me what to do."

How rich! Does anyone else see the gut-busting irony in this? I couldn't make this stuff up. It's on his website (you can read it for yourself).

Now I'll admit, I have never sat down and read this book (though I did skim through it a bit, here). However - I'm not sure I really need to, considering Mr. Comfort is up front about the most common reaction to it. Apparently, a great part of his ministry is to instill doubt. Even after they read his work, people still have to come to him for clarification on whether or not they're saved. Nice.

And how does Mr. Comfort respond? By pointing out the facts of the gospel on which our faith is to rest? By explaining how our God has justified us and reconciled us to Himself forever through Christ's sacrificial death? [this is where it goes from funny to sad]

NO!

He gives the doubting inquirer a list. A list largely comprised of things to do. Mr. Comfort's "recipe for success" is as follows:

Read your Bible every day . . . without fail. Every day. Esteem the Word more important than your food (see Psalm One).

Obey what you read.

Cultivate a tender conscience.

Never doubt any of God's promises.

Obey the Great Commission (see John 14:21).

Now, while the "ingredients" in this "recipe" may be quite beneficial to a believer, the most important ingredient is missing: the central message of the gospel. What Paul called the things "of first importance" (1Corinthians 15:1-4). Nowhere in this recipe (as you can see for yourself) is anything about the cross, Christ's death, His substitutionary atonement, imputation of righteousness, justification, reconciliation, identification, etc.; and what better to communicate to a doubting believer (or possibly a lost "pew-warmer") than these very things??

Instead, Mr. Comfort places the reader's focus on their self and their works: what I'm doing, how much scripture I'm reading, the sins I'm confessing, the gospel messages I'm sharing, etc. With apologies to Mr. Comfort, anything that places focus on one's self instead of the Saviour is nothing more than a recipe for disaster.

[Anthony]

The 2nd little bit I'd like to share, is good ol' #9 on Ray Comfort's Frequently Asked Questions list.

"9. Do you sin as a Christian?"

Nothing overtly funny about the question this time, but what is funny is Mr. Comfort's answer. Does he give a resounding 'YES!'? Does he write, "Of course! All the time. I miss the mark of God's perfection every day. Praise Him for His grace on us lowly sinners!"

NO!

His words:

"I have sinned since I became a Christian -- but it is against my will. I may take the large piece of chocolate cake, or let a lustful thought enter my mind. However, if I sin willfully, then I am a hypocrite and not a Christian at all. The first Epistle of John makes that very clear. When I am aware that I have done something wrong, I ask for God's forgiveness."

He has sinned. Ray Comfort has sinned since becoming a Christian. Holy cow. He doesn't so much anymore, but he has sinned, guys.

What a ridiculous notion - OF COURSE HE SINS!! Ray Comfort sins. He sinned today, and guess what's on the menu for tomorrow? I'll take more sin for $400, Alex. I would even be so bold as to say, when asked a question like this, anyone who would give such an answer (I have sinned...) is quite possibly trying to build up a much holier view of themselves than is actually reflective of reality.


Then he compounds the issue a bit with this notion of "it is against my will," and "if I sin willfully, then I am a hypocrite and not a Christian at all." What Christian does not sin willfully? Do we become demon-possessed when we sin, and therefore we have no control over ourselves... someone else is willing us to sin? Again, a ridiculous notion. If you sin, you have no one to blame but yourself because you chose to allow yourself to succumb to sinning, of your own will.

Now, by way of caveat, there is a (very important) principle in scripture about the believer in Christ sinning, and that it is "sin" living within us that makes us want to sin (hey, we don't get sin-free flesh until we receive our heavenly bodies, people).

In Romans 7:15-21, Paul writes:

For what I am doing, I do not understand; for I am not practicing what I would like to do, but I am doing the very thing I hate. But if I do the very thing I do not want to do, I agree with the Law, confessing that the Law is good. So now, no longer am I the one doing it, but sin which dwells in me. For I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh; for the willing is present in me, but the doing of the good is not. For the good that I want, I do not do, but I practice the very evil that I do not want. But if I am doing the very thing I do not want, I am no longer the one doing it, but sin which dwells in me. I find then the principle that evil is present in me, the one who wants to do good.

So we see that sin dwells in us, and produces sins. HOWEVER, it does not do so without our consent. We allow (will?) sin to operate through us. And that is exactly why Paul writes in Romans 6:12-13, "Therefore do not let sin reign in your mortal body so that you obey its lusts, and do not go on presenting the members of your body to sin as instruments of unrighteousness; but present yourselves to God as those alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness to God."

If Paul tells us we shouldn't "let sin reign," then apparently a Christian can "let sin reign" in their mortal body. And anytime our main focal point is ourselves, or our fleshly desires, or anything else other than our risen and glorified Lord, Christ Jesus, we are laying ourselves on the alter of sin, "presenting the members of our bodies to sin as instruments of unrighteousness." But when we center on Christ, and meditate on Him, we present our bodies a living and holy sacrifice, acceptable to God, which is our spiritual service of worship. And we are not conformed to this world, but transformed by the renewing of our minds, so that we may prove what the will of God is, that which is good and acceptable and perfect (Romans 12:1-2).

All this to say, while there is victory from sin for the believer (by considering ourselves to be dead to sin, but alive to God in Christ Jesus; Romans 6:11), the believer still commits sins by their own choice, by their own will.


I would like to write that these are (obviously) just 2 aspects of this man's ministry. I'm sure the Lord has worked mightily through Ray Comfort - though it may be just as much in spite of him, as it is directly through his teaching. Nevertheless, the popularity of a teacher, or how many people seemed to be saved or edified through him, is by no means the main telltale sign of how biblical he is, and therefore, how much credence we should give him.

We must remember to examine everything carefully (in the light of holy scripture); and hold fast to that which is good (1Thessalonians 5:21).

[Shawn Cuthill]

Thanks for the breakdown Anthony. Aside from the doctinal debate about Comfort, I still think his tracts are quite good. Have you had a chance to review some of them?

[Hannah]

Not sure if this is the place to ask this but here goes. If you use tracts, which ones or whose do you use?

Frank.

This is the best site I know for tracts......

http://www.gnpcb.org/catalog/title/tracts

They are cheap, easy to read, clearly present the gospel and have something to suit and interest everyone.
Plus you can read the entire tract online before you buy.