Some Questions concerning Ray Comfort's Evangelistic Methods

Today, I listened to an awesome message by Paris Reidhead entitled: The Right use of the Law http://64.34.176.235/sermons/SID0116.mp3. In this message, Bro. Reidhead talks about the difference between having a recollection of sin and being truly convicted of sin. His point was that everyone has a recollection of sins committed, but recollection is not the same as being convicted. He says that being convicted of sin is to not only admit that you are guilty of sin, but to also realize the enormity of the crime of sin and to have a sense of the punishment it deserves. He goes on to say that the church is full of those who have a recollection of their sin but have never experienced any true conviction of sin. He says this is due to a lack of pastors and evangelist correctly using the law to prepare hearts for the gospel. The preaching of the law should not only define sin (stealing, lying, ect.), but it should also show the real crime of sin (rebellion against a holy God). Once this has been properly done, then the gospel can be presented as the means to turn the rebellious heart back to God.He also says that when sinners are only caused to recollect their sin instead of being convicted of it, their rebellion cannot truly be broken. The result of which is only a spurious conversion at best, and that for the purpose of escaping hell rather than seeking restoration with God for His sake.Now having laid some groundwork, I come to the reason for my post: Are guys like Ray Comfort properly using God’s law in their evangelism? Please don’t get me wrong, I don’t mean to judge or sound negative, but as I’ve listened to (and read) some of Ray’s stuff, I’ve had a few red lights go off. Please let me explain.Ray’s whole deal is to use the law to get people to recollect their sins, (i.e., “have you ever stole anything?…ever told a lie?…ect.). He seems to have developed an evangelistic method or formula that uses the law, but does his method really bring conviction of sin or does it only result in recollection?Another problem I have with Ray’s method is that he presents the basis for repentance as “to escape from the wrath to come,” at least in the presentations that I’ve heard. Isn’t this the same as saying, “Come to Jesus to escape hell”? That’s clearly a legal basis for desiring salvation. Shouldn’t the basis for our accepting God’s offer of salvation be restoration to right relationship with God, regardless of what happens to us on Judgment Day?As I said earlier, I don’t mean to sound negative, but as I listened to this message today, I couldn’t help but wonder about Ray’s ministry. Has anyone else noticed this? Could it be that I’m over-scrutinizing our brother’s method?Peace,Billy

Here's a couple of previous threads that touched on this Billy:Law and evangelismray comfort?

Billy, what is your method of evangelism?

I think it is always important to just remind ourselves that there is no "method" or "plan" of salvation. Reidhead wrote a book called "Finding the Realities of God" which asks "While insisting on a plan of salvation, has the Person of Jesus Christ been neglected?"In my thinking, I had to draw a line between our methods of evangelism and His Plan of Salvation. Sometimes we dont understand how someone can come to Jesus asking for healing and have her sins forgiven. It doesnt fit into either of those two methods of evangelism.At some point our responsibility ends and the Holy Spirit's starts. We can't walk someone through every step and make them feel exactly what they need to feel, or know what they need to know. To quote Reidhead again: "Salvation is revelation". We must just be open to the Holy Spirit and ready to do as He leads, so He can use us to bring people to Christ. In regard to "escaping the wrath to come" I think there is enough in the bible to back that motive up (its half the story: 1. saved from hell and 2. into God), but not quite enough to make it the only way to go. (Why did the woman have her sins forgiven because of her faith? We didn't see conviction there, it was more like humanism. This grace we have been given is scandelous!) Having said all that, I think in essence Comfort and Reidhead are both onto the same thing: Christianity is not about being happy or our satisfaction, and you can use the law in evangelism, and it is biblical and it works!God bless :-)

Just a quick add-on before dinner... Ray’s whole deal is to use the law to get people to recollect their sinsA little clarity might be useful here, having watched most of the way of the master series, I'd have to say it's probably a little different.His whole deal is to use the law to convince them of their sinfulness. He does this by example of a few laws which are proved by recollection.At least thats how I always saw it... :-)

Psalm 19:7 "The law of the LORD is perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple.""does his method really bring conviction of sin?"The law must be used rightly. I have the two first seasons of Ray's show on DVD. Kirk and Ray absolutely believe in using the law to bring conviction of sin. Many times over I have seen Ray and others use the law, Scripture, and the person's own words to bring the person to the point of convinction.I have seen at least three different occasions where the individual has began to have tears because of the use of the law. Comfort teaches his method as an outline, but doesn't insist on using only certain one-liners. I have seen them share their personal testimonies, etc. Comfort is big on insisting that we must show people that they have offended God to bring conviction. By this I mean that they don't teach to show the person they have broken the 10 Commandments and then present Christ as Saviour without looking for conviction. They have long, meaningful conversations to ensure the person understands the magnitude of their sins before God, and then they present grace. This is why Comfort teaches that the witness should tell the individual that they will stand before a Holy God in thier sinful state, and be condemned in their present state."Another problem I have with Ray’s method is that he presents the basis for repentance as “to escape from the wrath to come,” at least in the presentations that I’ve heard. Isn’t this the same as saying, “Come to Jesus to escape hell”?"Here are some verses on this:Matthew 3:7b "who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come?"Matthew 23:23 "Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites!...have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone."Luke 10:20b "rejoice, because your names are written in heaven."Acts 17:29-31 "God...now commandeth all men every where to repent: Because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness" Cor 5:11a "Knowing therefore the terror of the Lord, we persuade men"I think Reidhead tried to explain that in the light of humanism, the gospel has in many cases been altered into, 'Accept Jesus and go to heaven' vs 'You have offended God by your wicked works. Repent and believe the gospel."I have heard a Ray Comfort sermon where he quotes directly from Reidhead's sermon, 'Ten Shekels and a Shirt.'If anyone is interested in the particular messages I got my info from, let me know and I will post the sermon or video titles that are downloadable on this site.

"does his method really bring conviction of sin?"Well that all depends if we are working with the Holy Spirit in bringing the person to Christ.This raises an intersting question, does the law have any power apart from the annoiting of the Holy Spirit upon it?

does the law have any power apart from the annoiting of the Holy Spirit upon it? i always thought nothing had power without the anointing of the Holy Spirit? What about John 14:6? I thought unless the Holy Spirit was in it, there was no hope! :-)

Right, Baptism of the Holy Spirit...

I am familiar with the results of a person who witnesses who has been filled with the Holy Ghost, but remember that the disciples were out telling men that they should repent long before the Holy Ghost was given. Jesus also commanded them to preach the gospel to every creature before he ascended. The same chapter says they went forth and preached everywhere.I am not discounting the experience of being anointed by the Spirit of God, but after this experience, the individual does not become some sort of a gospel machine. They still need prayer, and a daily relationship with God. The anointed individuals always say, that I have heard of, that they keep the same message, but have multiplied results. My opinion is that the anointing of the Spirit does not discount searching the Scriptures for the most Biblical method for evangelism. I have yet to hear of someone that was anointed to preach that did not have a burden for the lost. Maybe you could help me out with an opposing view. Do some believe that once you are anointed that the mode of evangelism will then be evident?

Man, look at many of the TV evangelists out there now. Like Robert Schuler of the Crystal Cathedral. He wrote a book stating that it is not necessary to confront people with their sin- you might push them away from the Gospel.What gospel is that that is designed for inherently "good" people, like he dreams of? If you don't understand you sin and your condemnation, how can you understand the Christ?Grace and Peace...

NaturallyBut the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. (1 Corinthians 2:14)We preach to men as if they were conscious they were dying sinners, they are not; they are having a good time, and our talk about being born from above (rv mg) is in a domain they know nothing of. We do not need the Holy Spirit to reveal that immorality is wrong, but we do need the Holy Spirit to reveal that the complacency of the natural life has Satan at its basis. Nowadays we have come to the conclusion that a man must be a down-and-out sinner before he needs Jesus Christ to do anything for him; consequently we debase Jesus Christ’s salvation to mean merely that He can save the vile and sensual man and lift him into a better life. We quote our Lord’s statement that “the Son of Man came to seek and to save that which was lost” (rv) and misinterpret His meaning by limiting “the lost” to those who are lost in our eyes.The natural man does not want to be born again. If a man’s morality is well within his own grasp and he has enough religion to give the right tone to his natural life, to talk about being born again seems utterly needless. The natural man is not in distress, he is not conscious of conviction of sin, or of any disharmony, he is quite contented and at peace. Conviction of sin is the realisation that my natural life is based on a disposition that will not have Jesus Christ. The Gospel does not present what the natural man wants but what he needs, and the Gospel awakens an intense resentment as well as an intense craving. We will take God’s blessings and loving-kindnesses and prosperities, but when it comes to the need of having our disposition altered, there is opposition at once. When we come down to close quarters and God’s Spirit tells us we must give up the right to ourselves to Jesus Christ and let Him rule, then we understand what Paul meant when he said that “the carnal mind,” which resides in the heart, is “enmity against God.”No man can have his state of mind altered without suffering for it in his body, and that is why men do anything to avoid conviction of sin. When a worldly man who is happy, moral and upright, comes in contact with Jesus Christ, his “beauty,” i.e., the perfectly ordered completeness of his nature, is destroyed and that man must be persuaded that Jesus Christ has a better kind of life for him otherwise he feels he had better not have come across Him. If I knew nothing about sin before the Holy Spirit came, then why did He come? If I am peaceful and happy and contented and living my life with my morality well within my own grasp, why does the Holy Spirit need to come in and upset the balance and make me miserable and unfit for anything? It is time we asked ourselves these questions. God’s Book gives us the answer. Thank God, we are coming to the end of the shallow presentation of Christianity that makes out that Jesus Christ came only to give us peace. Thousands of people are happy without God in this world, but that kind of happiness and peace is on a wrong level. Jesus Christ came to send a sword through every peace that is not based on a personal relationship to Himself. He came to put us right with God that His own peace might reign.Oswald Chambers

Hi Billy,He says that being convicted of sin is to not only admit that you are guilty of sin, but to also realize the enormity of the crime of sin and to have a sense of the punishment it deserves. This can only happen if God is utterly exalted in the eyes of the people. I believe that when we lift God up in our biblical discription of Him, and in the lives we live, the Holy Spirit will come when we minister and with Him a great revelation of the majesty of God. God must be exalted in our eyes as we minister and in the eyes of the hearers. This requires that we walk with God in holiness and in a close relationship. It requires that we be continuously filled with the Holy Spirit. There are no formulas for soul winning. There are basic objectives, etc., but there are no real set formulas. What works for one- will not work in another case. Why? Because God is taking a different angle in leading each one to repentance. Each one must be made known that they are sinners and come under true conviction- but there are no set measures as for how this is to come about. Even God's goodness will lead to repentance, etc. God Bless,-Robert

Thanks for all of the responses.Again, please understand that I do not mean to attack Ray Comfort personally; I’m questioning his method. He really seems to love the Lord and I definitely admire the man’s courage to get out on the streets and confront sinners.What got this whole thing started was that as I was listening to Reidhead’s sermon (“The Right use of the Law” http://64.34.176.235/sermons/SID0116.mp3.), he told a story of his early efforts in Africa that reminded of me Ray’s evangelistic method. He said that when he first went to Africa, his method was to go into a village and inquire what the people’s knowledge of God entailed. He then would inquire about their knowledge of sin. To do this, he would ask them if they had ever lied, stolen, or murdered (like Ray does). Then he would explain to them that one day they would stand before God and give an account for the wrong that they had done and they would be punished for breaking His law. Then he would tell them about Jesus dying for them and lead them in a prayer for forgiveness and salvation.But, he went on to say that when he would come back at a later time to check on these new “converts,” he would find that, though they called themselves Christians (actually, they called themselves “the Jesus boys”), their lives would still be the same as everyone else’s in the village who had not prayed to accept Christ. Reidhead’s explanation for their lack of Christian character was that it was due to a lack of conviction at their so-called “conversion.” In other words, they had only a recollection of their sin, but no conviction. They only saw Christ as One who could get them out of trouble, rather than the One who could also get trouble (sin) out of them.Reidhead goes on to say that through this experience, he learned that sinners not only need to be reminded of their past sins, but that they also must come to the realization of what sin really is, that it is to put one’s own will in the place of God’s. The sinner must be brought to the place of not only desiring deliverance from the punishment of sin, but also desiring to be delivered from sin itself, because the Holy Spirit has convicted them concerning the evil of it.It’s not enough just to use the Ten Commandments to get a person to recollect their sins, but they must also, through the power of the Holy Ghost, be made to see the evilness of their sin. The Holy Ghost must convince them that they have offended and grieved the Holy Sovereign of the universe. Also, if a person “accepts” Christ only because he is afraid of what will happen (“the coming wrath”) if he doesn’t, then he will only continue to “accept” Christ as long as he can be made to fear “the coming wrath.” God may use the fear of punishment to get the sinner’s attention, but it is only “the kindness of the Lord” that can lead to true repentance. For true repentance is nothing less than turning from supreme love to self to supreme love to God, and that is only possible through a revelation of God’s love, not His wrath. Wrath may wake us up, but only love can convert us.As for what method of evangelism I use (as I was asked in an earlier post on this thread), I do not ascribe to any particular method. I try to be led by the Holy Spirit in each individual situation. Personally, I try to witness from a basis of God’s right on our life, rather than from a basis of man’s need for salvation. It doesn’t really matter whether a person realizes they need Jesus or not, the real issue is that God deserves to be honored as God in each and every one of our lives.God bless,Billy

Hi Billy,Yes. I heard Bro. Clendennon say (in a sermon) that men see themselves when they see God. Isaiah 6 is a good example of this. Isaiah was likely a pretty righteous man, but when he saw himself against the backdrop of God's majesty he cried out "Woe is me for I am undone, I am a man of unclean lips and walk among a people of unclean lips..." (para) We need to exalt Him! Keep lifting Him up... lifting and lifting Him up by the declaration of the Word of God and the unction of His Spirit. And when we have exalted Him- sinners cannot help by cry out in some way or another. The fear of the Lord will come upon a people when he is exalted. So often we talk about the people sins and they have no idea who they are dealing with. We have to exalt their maker in their eyes! And when they see Him in contrast to who they are...

It’s not enough just to use the Ten Commandments to get a person to recollect their sins, but they must also, through the power of the Holy Ghost, be made to see the evilness of their sin. The Holy Ghost must convince them that they have offended and grieved the Holy Sovereign of the universe. I think Ray Comfort would probably agree with that statement. Rom 3:20 Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law [is] the knowledge of sin.Rom 2:15 Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and [their] thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one anotherI belive a sinner needs to see his sinfulness and rebellion to God. This is done, I believe, through the Law and the Holy Spirit. You need both.Jhn 16:8 And when he [the Holy Spirit] is come, he will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment:This is interesting:Sin: Rom 3:20 (see above)Righteousness: Rom 8:4 That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.Judgement: Jam 2:10-12 For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one [point], he is guilty of all. For he that said, Do not commit adultery, said also, Do not kill. Now if thou commit no adultery, yet if thou kill, thou art become a transgressor of the law. So speak ye, and so do, as they that shall be judged by the law of liberty. Rom 2:12 For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law;

I think that the issue that is leading people astray is not so much the individual words in evangelism, as 1) preaching around doctinres, and 2) how we react to people who profess faith. While I am an advocate of using the law in evangelism, I am not in opposition to those who don't, provided that they do not preach around repentance and other obvious Biblical teachings. I think where the greater error is, is in the plucking of unripe sinners. I personally think that we should wait on people, whether they have gone forward, raised a hand, or professed faith, to see if they bring forth fruits of repentance. If they don't, we do them a disservice by telling them and others that they are now a Christian.So I don't think Comfort's methods are wrong for not emphasizing the holiness of God above the law in evangelism, any more than I think that someone else is a heretic for emphasizing the holiness of God, His judgment, or hell, over the law, or any other Biblical doctrine. Someone who is attempting to preach a complete, Biblical gospel will emphasize what they see as effective. I think the error is in preaching around subjects (hell, sin, judgement, etc), and in accepting the stony-ground hearer as converted. We should wait, and as Comfort puts it, 'look for fruit.'