Thursday, July 24, 2008

Ray Comfort and the Doctrine of Separation

As the Ray Comfort saga unfolds, my friend Pastor Ken Silva of Apprising Ministries and Ingrid Schlueter of Slice of Laodicea has called upon Ray Comfort either to separate and not go for this conference, or to warn the Word-faith wolves. Coram Deo has responded by stating that we should not place any conditions for the preaching of the Gospel, upon which I replied based upon an exposition of Mk. 10:17-22 that sure, there are no preconditions for the preaching of the Gospel, but we MUST preach the Gospel in such a way that the Gospel is understood.

Up till now, I have not been discussing the issue with regards to the doctrine of separation which Pastor Ken has been mentioning quite a lot, and that is because I was waiting for Ray Comfort to get through the conference, or at least his slot for the conference to pass, so as to give him the benefit of the doubt. Now, the conference is more or less over, and the fallout has began since Comfort did not truly share the Gospel in the way that Jesus did and the false 'gospel' of the Word-faith cult (which is antithetical to the Gospel) was not addressed. I cannot say I am surprised, and although I may sound cynical, it is to be expected since that is the way of human nature, which thus bring in the doctrine of Separation.

The emergence of the New Evangelical movement in the 1950s/60s rejected the historic Protestant and Fundamentalist doctrine of Separation and through this, reap the bitter fruits of compromise and apostasy in the coming generations. They regarded the doctrine of Separation as being something that was bad; in that it was restricting the good that the church could possibly do if we just jettison it and compromise in various areas so that the Evangelical movement can have a larger platform and wider crowd to minister to. At least that was the intention of the founders of the New Evangelical movement, which was never about doctrinal compromise but about allowing some leeway in ministerial associations etc. so that "we can win more people for Christ". The commands of God in 2 Cor. 6:14-18 and other texts were therefore disregarded in the name of pragmatism and mostly a true desire to expand the work of Christ's kingdom. After all, God does not keep from His people any good thing, right? How can He begrudge me when I am sacrificing much for the growth of Christ's Kingdom?

The doctrine of separation is therefore regarded as restrictive, like the command that God gave to Adam and Eve not to eat of the fruit of the garden of the knowledge of good and evil. And just like Adam and Eve, Man is always tempted to believe the lie that God's commands are not good. Yet, the commands of God are always for our benefit, and the command of separation from heretics in ministry likewise, which Ray Comfort demonstrates negatively.

So why does God tell us to separate from heretics and even compromisers in certain instances? God told us to do so primarily because it will smudge our testimony for Him before God (2 Jn. 11) and Man, of which Comfort now is smudged because of his association with the Word-faith heretics in that conference. This could very well not be, however, if Ray had confront and denounce their heresy in that event, which he didn't. The reason? The fear of Man, which all of us suffer from. It is simply extremely impolite to attack your host and fellow speakers as heretics and call them to repentance in their own territory, not to mention the wrath you will engender from these people. And let's face it: nobody likes to make themselves hated.

It is because of this reason that God gave us the command of separation which is to be obeyed even with regards to preaching of the Gospel, for He knows our weaknesses. So should there be any conditions for the Gospel to be proclaimed? No. But can you proclaim the Gospel the way Jesus did it? A cursory glance through the Gospel accounts will make it very clear that any ordinary person would not want Jesus to be his/her guest, because Jesus will probably offend someone with the Truth just as He offended the Pharisees who were dining with Him (Lk. 11:37-44) and in fact also the one who invited him. How rude! As it can be seen, Comfort did not do it Jesus' way, and therefore becomes a negative object lesson as to why we should obey God's command of Separation.

Through this episode therefore, we can see the reason why God gave us this command to be separate from heretics and compromisers in their compromising. God commands this of us for our good, yet we refuse to obey and reap the rotten fruits of compromise. Comfort, through participation in such events without speaking out against the Word-faith cultic teachings, have lent legitimacy to their beliefs through his silence as if they were no big deal. Furthermore, Comfort is leaving the flock there exposed to soul-damning heresy which could destroy their faith in Christ. What a horrible thing to do! One sin begets another sin, and in this case, the sin of compromise by Comfort begets the sin of leaving people under the teaching of soul-damning heresy without correction!

Let us therefore learn to treasure and obey God's command of separation, which is for our good. Let the negative example of Ray Comfort show us the dangers of compromise, that we must learn that disobedience to God's commands always causes destruction to ourselves and others, and good motives are never accepted by God as a valid reasons, ever. As it has been said (in another context): The road to hell is pathed with good intentions.

See also:

Ray Comfort, Sir, You Had the Microphone

Crosstalk: John Avanzini/Word of Faith False Teachings, with end segment on the Ray Comfort issue

No, Ray Comfort the Issue is Not Closed

27 comments:

Rick Frueh said...

DC - I agree completely.

http://judahslion.blogspot.com/2008/07/false-gospel-ii-cor.html

Las5solas said...

Thank you.
This was very helpful.

vincit omnia veritas said...

>"So why does God tell us to separate from heretics and even compromisers in certain instances?" - Daniel

The doctrine of separation is essential for the purity of the church ... and it is timely to press this upon us, especially in this age of compromise.

As you would have known, I came from a line of separatist churches (and I am still an ardent promoter of biblical separation), but there is something that fundamentalists (including myself) find it difficult to interpret - who should we separate from?

The BP churches in Singapore (and the VPP controversy) have made the VPP issue a "heresy" issue, which I disagree completely. I don't believe that brethren in Christ should call another a compromiser/heretic just because they have a different textual theory or version.

And to cut the story short, "who should we call a compromiser?"

Heresy is quite easy to spot, but the problem with separation is often with the "less than heresies" errors.

So who should we separate from? From everybody who disagree with us? From every denomination that practice a different "kind" of baptism, different musical style, different bible version etc etc?

This is the problem many separatist churches faced, and I believe there is no consensus on who these compromisers should be. It all depends on what your doctrinal convictions are :P

VC

PuritanReformed said...

Rick Frueh:

Amen. The worship of Mammon in so blatant that it is only in the midst of the most biblically illeterate Christians can such nonsense flourish. I agree with you: Challenge them to read through Romans to Jude, but will add a caveat: Read it in one setting and continuously without skipping any parts.

PuritanReformed said...

Vincent:

It is true that the doctrine of separation is essential to the purity of the church, but for the individual believer per se, the focus is on their witness before the Lord, and the disrepute they will bring to Christ's name when they compromise the faith in not separating from heretics.

I guess with regards to the issue about the extent of separation, I was thinking that the center of our faith is the Gospel, and therefore we should separate from those who compromise the Gospel in any sense. I sortof doubt that music styles, bible versions etc per se have much impact on the Gospel, as least in general.

Towards being a Gospel-centered Christian.

PuritanReformed said...

las5solas:

You're very welcome. Eh, are you Spanish?

Coram Deo said...

An intriguing piece as usual; thank you for your balanced approach Daniel.

In reading through your article and subsequent comments I was suprised to see that vincit omnia veritas actually raises a point not dissimilar to my initial reaction to the latest developments in this sad episode.

I don't think I need to rehash my position on this whole dust up since it hasn't changed in the least. But now, given the most recent developments, I’m forced to wonder about something.

Using the "Ray Comfort Situation" (as it's come to be known) as a baseline will we now begin hearing outcries to all ministers of the gospel to stop faithfully proclaiming the eternal gospel of grace to everyone everywhere except for open air preaching or else in Reformed/Calvinist venues in order to avoid being perceived and labeled as being "unequally yoked with" and "sharing the platform with" heretics?

Is the WoF movement's "blab it and grab it" prosperity teaching another gospel and therefore heresy and its adherents heretical? Check!

Is hypercalvism's "Don't bother preaching the gospel because God will save who He will anyway so you might be lying to a person if you witness to them telling them that Christ died for them but it could turn out they're not elect so it's not worth the risk" teaching another gospel and therefore heresy and its adherents heretical? Check!

Is the Arminian definition of free will which results in the teaching that "you decide" about your salvation heresy and therefore its adherents heretical? Check!

Now I may be accused of "comparing apples and oranges" here, or "setting up straw man arguments" but in fact it's none of this. The points above are logical extensions of "The Ray Comfort Situation" and if - in the LORD - we desire to be faithful and consistent in our demands for ministers of the true gospel to retain their scriptural purity by refusing to "appear with" or "share platforms with", or be "unequally yoked with" heretics then we must include every variety of heretic and all their venues and shun them all equally for the selfsame reasons. To do otherwise would be intellectually dishonest at best and utterly incoherent and irrational at worst.

Are the WoF heretics a particularly smarmy, reprehensible, and repugnant breed of bottom feeders that prey on the weakest and most desperate of souls? YES.

Should true, regenerate, discerning, God honoring Christians be repelled and moved to righteous indignation by the over the top displays of avarice and wickedness perpetrated by these obviously false prophets? YES.

Should the soul damning heresy of the WoF movement be more concerning to true, regenerate, discerning, God than the soul damning heresy of those who cloak their heresy in the language and piety of outwardly religious appearances and "socially acceptable" (but false)religiosity? NO.

It seems to me that at the bottom of the "Ray Comfort Situation" we find a bit of a red herring. You see, WoF'ers are easy, visible and worthy objects of rebuke and scorn, so it's relatively easy to cast stones and hit the broad side of their heretical barn; but sadly in the process a fellow laborer in Christ, our brother in the LORD Ray Comfort was very publicly "stoned" in this particular case.

Because the WoF'ers are such high profile, "in your face" heretics and therefore generate a particularly visceral and emotionally charged response of indignation in the hearts and minds of true believers I'm of the persuasion that a sentimental/selective theology has been and is at work in the "Ray Comfort Situation". Perhaps I'll be persuaded differently if the outcries continue and become consistent - in which case maybe we will look back and recognize "The Ray Comfort Situation" as the starting point of such a "Separation Reformation"; only time will tell.

C.H. Spurgeon's is quoted as saying that had an Arminian lived during the times of: "Augustine, or Calvin, or Whitfield, who in successive ages were the great exponents of the system of grace; or what will he say of those Puritans, whose works are full of them? Had a man been an Arminian in those days, he would have been accounted the vilest heretic breathing;" Maybe today the WoF'ers are the "vilest heretics breathing"? What about tomorrow? Next year? In the next decade?

Again I'll wonder aloud; will we now begin to hear consistent calls upon all ministers of the gospel to stop faithfully proclaiming the eternal gospel of grace to everyone everywhere except for open air preaching or Reformed/Calvinist venues?

Will we now begin to hear consistent loud outcries against the preaching of the eternal gospel of grace in all other venues because to appear thereat is to be considered as tantamount to compromise?

In Christ,
CD

Las5solas said...

No. I'm mexican. :)

This post, -even if it did need to consider other factors-, as it is, gave me the "period" I needed in all this.

I read a post over at CRN, "It is our solemn conviction that where there can be no real spiritual communion there should be no pretence of fellowship. Fellowship with known and vital error is participation in sin." -Charles Spurgeon.

I'm looking for the complete sermon.

Beng said...

As Vincent has said, the real problem is where to draw the line.

"God does not exist."
"Jesus is not the Son of God."

That's easy.

"I'm infralapsarian, but my church is supralapsarian. Furthermore I'm a Premillenialist, but my church teaches postmillenialism. Should I leave?" (Well, actually, I don't know my real position, because I've never looked into it. All I know, as John Newton said, is that I'm a great sinner, and Christ is a great Saviour. But you get the point).

In between there are a great number of degrees of difference. Where do you draw the line? I'm not trying to be funny, it's a real serious issue for me. What's important and what's not important?

PuritanReformed said...

CD:

I think I have made it clear in my previous interaction with you that if Ray Comfort wants to proclaim the Gospel as it should be proclaimed, I will support him. Sadly to say, he did NOT proclaim the Gospel as Jesus would have done, and thus brought disrepute to the cause of Christ.

Does that mean that we shouldn't preach the Gospel "everywhere except for open air preaching or else in Reformed/Calvinist venues "? No, but the main fact is that when you "proclaim the Gospel" at heretical events, the way it should be done is to denounce the soul-damning heresy and call its teachers and adherents to repentance from their heresy, otherwise you haven't truly proclaimed the Gospel to them, protests notwithstanding. That Ray didn't do it shows us what we suspected all along, that this event would lead to Comfort being unequally yoked since he participated at this event as one of them instead of being separate in calling them to repentance from their heresy. And that is why we have advised Comfort not to attend the event, for unless he can attend it as being separate from them, he has violated the command of God in calling us to be separate unto Him from the taint of compromise.

So Comfort's sin is not that of his motives, but his actions. Instead of going there to denounce their heresy and call them to repentance, he did not do so but instead utter "Christianese". I have conveyed this to you previously already and I think you should have understood this point, and not use this again since it is a red herring. Far from it for us to restrict the proclamation of the Gospel, but if anyone including Ray Comfort cannot obey God in being separate from heretics, he has no true Gospel message for these heretics, period, as we have sadly seen during the conference itself.

Your mention of the Arminian heresy does not help you here (and is in fact a red herring), for in its pure unvarnished form, Arminianism IS heresy. The fact today is that Evangelical Arminianism is a shadow of its former self and logically self-contradictory. If the Evangelical Arminian will follow the logical outworkings of his distinctive Arminian doctrines without the inhibitions of Evangelical truths, he will end up in the heretical system of Semi-Pelagianism. History shows us, as Spurgeon mentioned in The Downgrade Controversy, that 'Arminianism leads to Arianism to Socinianism' (paraphrased). So the treatment of Arminians then is perfectly valid then, but is not now. Regardless, there is no parallel with that of the WoF cult, whose teachings are so heretical it makes Arminius and the Remonstrants look like saints in comparison.

PuritanReformed said...

las5solas:

I see. God bless you over in Mexico then. =)

PuritanReformed said...

Beng:

The short answer is "The Gospel sets the standard and draws the line". And no, I know you are not trying to be funny. That you ask this question shows you are struggling with the issue involved, especially in the implementation of this doctrine.

For this, IMO, we should get our priorities right first. The first question to ask is "Is this a Gospel question?", or "Is one side making this a Gospel qustion?". If it is a Gospel question, ie Deity of Christ, Salvation by Faith alone, Substitutionary Atonement, then as you have said, there is no questions over whether to separate from those who hold contrary views. As for others, like infralapsarianism/ supralapsarianism, premillenialism/ amillienialism/ postmillenialism, and sundry other matters, separate is only commanded when one side forces the other to conform under threat of 'excommunication', or that the matter is something that has an immediate impact on the praxis of the Church. For example, it is quite impossible for Presyterians to stay in a Baptist church because the Baptist pastor is never going to baptize the infant of the Presbyterian parents, whereas the other way round is fine since in general Presbyterian pastors do not force Baptists to baptize their infants.

That said, there are always the few "grey" areas. And in this, we must seek the guidance of the Holy Spirit to show us the way forward, because typically these grey areas are due to compounding various aspects of doctrines and praxis. We should also seek out specific advice from other godly Christians where possible too.

Hope this helps.

vincit omnia veritas said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
PuritanReformed said...

Vincent:

private questions can always be emailed to me privately... We will talk about this on Sat...

Las5solas said...

Thanks Daniel.
I was wondering, can I get your permission from you to translate this post to Spanish? You can say no. Of course, I will take no offense if you disapprove.
Thanks again!
Perla

Justin Kane said...

Daniel,

Do you believe these (any of them) are saved?

Coram Deo said...

Hi Daniel,

I guess we're going to simply continue to disagree.

Daniel said:"I think I have made it clear in my previous interaction with you that if Ray Comfort wants to proclaim the Gospel as it should be proclaimed, I will support him. Sadly to say, he did NOT proclaim the Gospel as Jesus would have done, and thus brought disrepute to the cause of Christ."

I guess you're allowed to make assertions Daniel, even if they're based solely on your own opinions, but for the record Ingrid Schlueter who attended part of the conference in question and has listened to the tapes of Comfort speaking at this event is publicly on record at Slice of Laodicea affirming that Ray Comfort DID proclaim the Gospel. Additionally Ken Silva of Apprising Ministries is also on record as stating that Ray Comfort's faithful proclamation of the Gospel has never been an issue throughout this entire matter.

Now I don't think that you're calling Ingrid and Ken liars, and granted it might easily be argued that NO ONE proclaims the Gospel "as Jesus would have done" since He was God incarnate and absolutely sinless and perfect, or else you might successfully argue that Ray Comfort didn't preach the gospel in the manner that you, Daniel, would have personally devised or desired for him to preach, yet these are hardly grounds from which to launch an accusation - as you have done - that Ray Comfort is guilty of "bringing disrepute to the cause of Christ".

Yet this being said based on most of the coverage I've been reading on this matter Ray is clearly guilty of making his brothers and sisters who are weaker in the faith to stumble and this is certainly a matter that should give Ray and all ministers of the Gospel pause for prayerful reflection before the Lord.

Daniel said: "Instead of going there to denounce their heresy and call them to repentance, he did not do so but instead utter "Christianese". I have conveyed this to you previously already and I think you should have understood this point, and not use this again since it is a red herring."

Yes you've said this before Daniel and it's just as wrong now as when you first said it. There's no "red herring" nor is there "Christianese" in play here Daniel, just the facts. You seem to evidence a strange and unbiblical belief that the enemy's "lying power" to deceive the elect (Christianese) is somehow greater than the sovereign omnipotence of the Triune God's "gospel power" to illumine His elect when precisely the reverse is true and scriptural. Do you believe our Lord is sovereign, Daniel? Have faith, brother.

The eternal Gospel of grace is sufficient to perform the good pleasure of the One True and Living God as he uses it to convert hell bound sinners by grace through faith into lively stones fitly joined together to the praise of His glory alone forever and evermore and all the lying wonders and powers of hell can't do one thing to stop Him. This is the God we serve! This is the Lord's doing and it's marvelous in our eyes! It's all of Him and all of grace! How glorious is this truth!

Daniel said: "Your mention of the Arminian heresy does not help you here (and is in fact a red herring), for in its pure unvarnished form, Arminianism IS heresy. The fact today is that Evangelical Arminianism is a shadow of its former self and logically self-contradictory. If the Evangelical Arminian will follow the logical outworkings of his distinctive Arminian doctrines without the inhibitions of Evangelical truths, he will end up in the heretical system of Semi-Pelagianism. History shows us, as Spurgeon mentioned in The Downgrade Controversy, that 'Arminianism leads to Arianism to Socinianism' (paraphrased). So the treatment of Arminians then is perfectly valid then, but is not now. Regardless, there is no parallel with that of the WoF cult, whose teachings are so heretical it makes Arminius and the Remonstrants look like saints in comparison."

This is perhaps your most interesting - and in my view dangerous - logical outworking thus far. If you'll note I was very specific about the very real and present (and heretical) Arminian definition of free will in my original comment. But regardless of that, you're basically giving the modern-day semi-Pelagian Arminianism a "free pass" and are in effect saying, "Hey, they're not that bad!"

Uh...you've got to be kidding, right? I mean, you can't be serious...after all, this is PRECISELY the thrust that I made in my comment that SOME heretics (i.e. WoF'ers) are so noisomely vile that they can tend to cause otherwise well meaning true believers to succumb to an emotionally charged righteous indignation that results in a Biblically myopic overemphasis at the expense of a balanced and scriptural approach and based on your reply it sounds to me as you may have fallen into the trap of sentimental theology yourself.

Based on your reply are you telling me and your readers that you're willing to assign degrees of soul-damning heresy and to categorize some forms soul-damning heresy as "less bad" than other forms of soul-damning heresy?

I pray that you will quickly clarify this final point.

In Christ,
CD

PuritanReformed said...

Perla aka las5solas:

Sure, as long as there is a link to the original post, the translation is faithful to the best of your ability, and credit is given, you can do anything with what I have written.

PuritanReformed said...

Justin:

If by 'they', you mean the WoF teachers, I guess not. If by 'they', you mean the blind sheeple, possibly. If by 'they', you mean Ray Comfort, well compromise does not destroy one's salvation.

PuritanReformed said...

CD:

You said: I guess you're allowed to make assertions Daniel, even if they're based solely on your own opinions, but for the record Ingrid Schlueter who attended part of the conference in question and has listened to the tapes of Comfort speaking at this event is publicly on record at Slice of Laodicea affirming that Ray Comfort DID proclaim the Gospel. Additionally Ken Silva of Apprising Ministries is also on record as stating that Ray Comfort's faithful proclamation of the Gospel has never been an issue throughout this entire matter.

There is an amphiboly here. If by 'proclaiming the Gospel', that is referring to brother Comfort proclaiming the Gospel message fiat, then yes, he has proclaimed the Gospel message. If by 'proclaimg the Gospel', that refers to proclaiming the Gospel in the sense that it connnects with people, then sadly to say, he did not proclaimed the Gospel to the WoF cultists. So there is no contradiction between saying that Comfort both proclaims the Gospel and didn't proclaim the Gospel, depending on which sense of the phrase "proclaim the Gospel" we are talking about.

CD: ... yet these are hardly grounds from which to launch an accusation - as you have done - Ray Comfort is guilty of "bringing disrepute to the cause of Christ"

As I have mentioned, Comfort brought disrepute by not obeying God's command to be separate. And last I read, the doctrine of separations is not something that can be discarded because a person, any person, is doing evangelism. This does not mean that Comfort cannot go there an speak, but if he does, he should do so in a manner consistent with the doctrine of separation, and thus denounce the soul-damning error of the WoF cultists (which Comfort did not do). After all, as I will ask anyone, does Comfort think that the WoF cultists are Christians?

CD: Yes you've said this before Daniel and it's just as wrong now as when you first said it. There's no "red herring" nor is there "Christianese" in play here Daniel, just the facts. You seem to evidence a strange and unbiblical belief that the enemy's "lying power" to deceive the elect (Christianese) is somehow greater than the sovereign omnipotence of the Triune God's "gospel power" to illumine His elect when precisely the reverse is true and scriptural. Do you believe our Lord is sovereign, Daniel? Have faith, brother.

God is definitely sovereign. And most definitely, God can use Comfort's Gospel presentation to bring His elect to Him, even if Comfort uses Warren's "gospel" message. Does that tell us anything about how God wants us to live and evangelize? God has used the 4SL and the Jesus film produced by Campus Crusade to bring many people to Christ, does that mean that those tools are biblically sound and honoring to God?

Let's face it; the ends do not ever justify the means. So what if God is sovereign? Does that mean that just because God is sovereign, and he can use us no matter how dense and disobedient we are to His commands, therefore we should continue on the path of disobedience?

The issue was never whether God can by His sovereign will work salvation despite the delusion of the enemy. THe issue has always been what we are commanded to do according to Scripture. And Scripture has never promoted pragmatism. This pragmatism that you are advancing is the same which motivated the New Evangelical movement in the 1950s/60s, and ultimately led to the current state of rampent compromise and apostasy in mainstream 'evangelicalism' today.

So, by way of comparison, do you think that there is anything wrong for Billy Graham to hold his crusades with liberals and Roman Catholics on board? After all, this is the exact same issue we are talking about with regards to Ray Comfort.

CD: This is perhaps your most interesting - and in my view dangerous - logical outworking thus far. If you'll note I was very specific about the very real and present (and heretical) Arminian definition of free will in my original comment. But regardless of that, you're basically giving the modern-day semi-Pelagian Arminianism a "free pass" and are in effect saying, "Hey, they're not that bad!"

Well, let's set this straight: I oppose the Arminia heresy, and I have opposed even Evangelical versions of Arminianism. That does not mean that I go around denouncing Evangelical Arminians on the street who do not even have an inkling what the entire issue is about. Most of them, and I have Arminian friends, are Arminians not because they are convinced of it, but because they have not thought through the issue, being anti-intellectual and all.

So I will make a distinction between Arminians by choice and Aminians by tradition. I have no qualms about opposing convinced Arminians, and even 'tradition Arminians' on the topic, and I have done so in certain settings.

That said, it must be stated that there is a world of difference between evangelical Arminians beliefs and that of the WoF. And yes, there are degrees of error, for to deny predestination because of not understanding the doctrine is different from denial of Substitionary Atonement for example. Unless you want to embrace the essential equality of all doctrines unto salvation, you likewise must differentiate between so-called "primary doctrines" and "secondary doctrines", so your point is moot.

CD: Based on your reply are you telling me and your readers that you're willing to assign degrees of soul-damning heresy and to categorize some forms soul-damning heresy as "less bad" than other forms of soul-damning heresy?

The heresy in Arminianism has to do with the denial of the doctrine of Total Depravity and of Sola Gratia. Most 'traditiona Arminians' believe in both of these concepts, and therefore are inconsistent in their Arminianism. So they therefore do not believe in soul-damning heresy. WoF cultists however believe in soul-damning heresy, so there is simply no comparison here.

Las5solas said...

Of course!
Anyway, I might just add the link to this post, but thanks for the opportunity. :)

PuritanReformed said...

las5solas:

glad to be of service ;)

terriergal said...

You are right on Daniel. I have been very disappointed at the lack of humility displayed by Comfort in response to his brother Ken and sister Ingrid for trying to lovingly correct him. In one way it seems like he wants to say he did something stupid -- on the other hand he doesn't want to admit they were right. This kind of two-stepping obfuscation/spin-doctoring is NOT what Christians should do in response to a legitimate correction.

PuritanReformed said...

Paula:

when a person is up there, it is hard to admit they are wrong when they are indeeed in error. Sad, but true.

terriergal said...

Coram Deo said ", our brother in the LORD Ray Comfort was very publicly "stoned" in this particular case. "

Stoned? Publicly? It was not public until Ray posted about it!

If being criticized = being stoned well then we all just better take a complete vow of silence I guess lest we offend anyone's feelings.

In the saga, it says that there are things going on 'behind the scenes' that they will not let us know. The implication is we will NEVER know.

So apparently it is left up to our imagination at what kind of circumstances we are allowed to partner with heretics and not refute them. How about if I say if standing for the truth costs me a few dollars, THEN I can shirk my duty? How about a hundred? A Thousand? My house? My family?

What happened to losing all for His sake and the sake of the gospel? What about bearing his reproach gladly?

The whole idea of preserving 'friendship' or 'relationship' with ANYONE in order to win them (other than perhaps your SPOUSE) is completely unbiblical.

terriergal said...

there are no preconditions for the preaching of the Gospel, but we MUST preach the Gospel in such a way that the Gospel is understood.

...
Now, the conference is more or less over, and the fallout has began since Comfort did not truly share the Gospel in the way that Jesus did and the false 'gospel' of the Word-faith cult (which is antithetical to the Gospel) was not addressed.


Another comment from someone who has run the race which seems to dovetail perfectly here.

“If I profess with the loudest voice and clearest exposition every portion of the truth of God except precisely that little point which the world and the devil are at the moment attacking, I am not confessing Christ, however boldly I may be professing Christ. Where the battle rages, there the loyalty of the soldier is proved. To be steady on all fronts besides is mere flight and disgrace if he flinches at that point.” --– Martin Luther

PuritanReformed said...

Paula:

Amen, sister.