Book review: Hell’s Best Kept Secret, by Ray Comfort
Whitaker House, 1989
192 pages
Amazon.com link
Modern Evangelism Neglects the Law
In Hell’s Best Kept Secret, Ray Comfort explains why traditional evangelical methods of preaching the gospel result in an eighty to ninety percent backslider rate. Modern evangelism preaches a man-centered gospel, presenting Jesus as the answer to worldly problems: come to Jesus and you’ll have a happy, fulfilled life. So what is Hell’s best kept secret? The preaching of the Law. Without an understanding of the seriousness of sin, the sinner still views himself as a pretty good person. Unless and until the sinner experiences a genuine conviction of sins, his conversion is a false conversion. Without conviction, there can be no repentance; without repentance, there is no saving faith.
The Four Step RCCR Method of Witnessing
Comfort explains a four step method for witnessing to unbelievers.
- Relate - Begin by making smalltalk or by discussing something mundane. The idea is to take a genuine interest in the person you’re talking to. Engage them in conversation and put them at ease.
- Create - Find an opportunity to swing the conversation to spiritual matters. Giving someone a tract can be an easy method to do this, or you can do something as simple as asking “Do you have a religious background?” If you are alert for opportunities, you can work it into the conversation naturally:
Let’s suppose that you’ve been discussing with a friend the problem of increased violence within our society. You decide to swing to the spiritual by saying, “What this nation needs is a return to Christian principles.” [page 93]
- Convict - Use the Ten Commandments to lead the sinner to an understanding of the seriousness of his sin and of its consequences.
- Reveal - When you see evidence of conviction of sins, then you reveal the good news of the grace offered by Christ’s sacrifice.
The step that modern evangelism skips is the conviction step. This is an incomplete presentation of the gospel. Without preaching the Law, the sinner does not know he is in danger of eternal punishment. Once he understands the Law, his sin is revealed to him, and he understands the need for a savior.
Conviction of Sin vs. Fire and Brimstone
It is critical that the sinner understand that the consequences for sin are reasonable. If you just preach fire and brimstone without explaining the Law, the sinner may turn to Jesus out of fear of hell, but he won’t really believe that he deserves hell. He will be a bitter convert, and there will be no genuine repentance.
Jesus and the Woman at the Well
Comfort relies heavily on the story of Jesus’s encounter with the Samaritan woman at the well to lend support to his witnessing methods. He uses it as an illustration of the RCCR (Relate, Create, Convict, Reveal) method of evangelism. Essentially, he develops his whole theory of evangelism from this story. While the RCCR method is compatible with Scripture, it is not reasonable to draw an entire theory of witnessing from this one story. That’s neither the purpose nor the intent of the biblical account, and for Comfort to interpret it that way raises some questions about his handling of Scripture. However, the RCCR method of witnessing is still in accordance with scriptural principles and should not be discounted just because Comfort defends it poorly.
The Parable of the Sower
More troubling is Comfort’s interpretation of the parable of the sower. He interprets the parable as an illustration of false converts vs. true converts. That is, a false convert will appear to believe, but when persecution comes, his true unbelieving nature will be revealed. A true convert will flourish under persecution. The conclusion Comfort draws is that a new convert should not be sheltered, but should immediately be exposed to trials and persecutions so that he might grow in faith (if he is a true convert) or fall away (if he is a false convert.) Unfortunately this is contrary to most of the New Testament teaching. The New Testament is composed largely of letters written to various churches, to encourage them in their faith, to teach them how to live righteously, to flee from temptation, and to warn them to guard their faith. Comfort, on the other hand, seems convinced that a true convert needs none of this.
Follow-Up
That brings us to the concept of follow-up. Ray Comfort uses the story of the Ethiopian eunuch as proof that following up on a new convert is unbiblical.
Follow-up is not Biblical. It’s not. You check it out. You won’t find follow-up in Scripture. You can find feeding, nurturing, discipling, but you’ll not find following new converts. … The Ethiopian eunuch was left without follow-up. Why? Because if he’s genuine, he’s going to last, if he’s false, he’ll wither and die.
This is a mistreatment of Scripture. The story of the Ethiopian eunuch is not about follow-up. In fact, the Bible is silent on whether there was any follow-up. Comfort interprets that silence to mean there was no follow-up. Such a conclusion is warrantless. He would do well to heed Thomas Campell’s motto: “Where the Scriptures speak, we speak; where the Scriptures are silent, we are silent.” In the story of the Ethiopian eunuch, the Bible is silent about follow-up but Ray Comfort speaks about it at length. Comfort’s methods risk leaving a new convert without the resources to grow in understanding and faith. Considering that most of the New Testament is letters written to various churches to teach them and encourage them to grow spiritually, I’d say that follow-up is very biblical. We can’t just leave new believers without any help. They can easily be misled by false teachers.
Calvinism
Ray Comfort believes in the Calvinist idea of once-saved always-saved. This perhaps explains why he values follow-up counsel so little, and why he is so eager for a new convert to immediately experience trials and persecution. After all, if he’s really saved he can’t be lost, and if he isn’t saved then his hypocrisy will be exposed. But even with a once-saved always-saved view, would it not be better for a false convert to receive follow-up counsel and sound biblical teaching before he is exposed to persecution that might drive him from the church? It might be that teaching that brings him to the point of true conversion.
The Main Point
The issues of Ray Comfort’s interpretation of Scripture and his belief in once-saved always-saved are secondary to the main point of Hell’s Best Kept Secret. The main idea of the book is the preaching of the Law to bring conviction of sin. In this, Ray Comfort is absolutely correct. One can agree with him in this matter while disagreeing with his interpretation of parables and with some of his doctrine. (And of course, if you’re a Calvinist then you probably agree with his doctrine, you dirty heretic.)
Joel Osteen
Sorry, it was appropriate, plus it seems I have to mention him in every thread.
You can find feeding, nurturing, discipling, but you’ll not find following new converts.
What exactly is the difference here? I thought following up with new believers IS feeding, nurturing, discipling. Although I would agree that new believers should be challenged right away as well (if anything, to prove that life with Christ in this world will not always be easy).
This was an excellent article. Really thorough. I regret that I have not adequately researched comfort outside of evangelism. However, I am not surprised with this analysis.
I have been thoroughly convinced and impressed with Way of the Master and the principles in Comfort’s style of evangelism. I use it whenever I evangelize, and the wider understanding of compassion and concern for unbelievers challenges me to evangelize more in general (regardless of the method).
Contrasting conviction with fire and brimstone was needed.
I had no clue that Comfort did not believe in follow up, but I had suspicions of his Calvinism and that is a natural articulation thereof.
The indirect review of once-saved-always-saved - a position I hold very strongly, has also challenged me to consider my strong views on free-will as well. I have not viewed these beliefs as incompatible before. This also coincides with your statement on free-will in a recent forum thread.
In essence, I would say that free-will requires a choice to accept the gospel and the actions that follow (repentence, etc…) - as in signing a contract. However, I would argue that the contract is not exactly revocable (you can’t “unrepent” of sin, for example). I don’t see Jesus’ sacrifice as somehow being “undone” for a person - especially by evil works. Maybe there is some inconsistency here, but it doesn’t jump out to me right away.
Darius said: “Joel Osteen”
I’ll do one better: Ron Paul.
I didn’t say that, Googlebot did.
I have to admit that I disagree with Comfort on a number of points. I have one of his CDs and I saw him on a video tape once. Kenneth makes some of the same arguments I might make. However, I thank God for people like Comfort. At least he is reaching the lost. Most of the Christian world would rather focus their efforts internally or politically. So when someone like Comfort comes along, you’ve got to respect him for getting the job done and working towards fulfilling the Great Commission.
Colin said, “In essence, I would say that free-will requires a choice to accept the gospel and the actions that follow (repentence, etc…) - as in signing a contract.”
In regard to salvation, it just seems the “choice to accept the gospel” and all that that implies for one’s future actions is being talked about apart from faith. For example, I could, in theory, choose to verbally acknowledge my law-breaking sins, decide to turn away from my sinful ways, and “accept Jesus” just because I know I should, or my mom thinks I should, or some body will like me better if I do, or, or, or. All of that could happen without faith, without me really believing anything other than it is something I should do. Has no one here had the experience (apart from religion) of choosing to do something even if your head or heart didn’t believe or agree? After all, I can sign a contract I don’t really agree with.
My point is to get people to look at the salvation experience as an inward thing, not so much just doing the external things that Ray Comfort makes look so easy.
BTW, I once watched one of his evangelism videos and I was appalled about how frivolous and superficial he made the “accept Jesus” thing look. God is not someone to be toyed with (and for that matter, neither are people) and the Holy Spirit cannot be manipulated at our whims. If we didn’t make salvation look so “easy” then maybe there wouldn’t be so much falling away or false converts. Bringing someone to salvation is almost always a long process that takes time (preparing the ground, planting, watering, before someone gets to do the harvesting–to use a biblical analogy).
Thainamu, how did Comfort treat salvation frivolously? I’ve seen the whole Way of the Master series, and beyond some cheesiness of Comfort and Cameron, I thought the videos were really solid. Bringing people to salvation can be lightning quick or take years. Look at the story Kenneth mentioned, the woman at the well. If a person is convicted of their sin and shown the way to freedom from sin, they can respond immediately. I haven’t seen Comfort show that salvation is “easy” (beyond the fact that all it takes is repentance of sin and public acknowledgement of Christ’s lordship). Perhaps the most difficult part is admitting that you are a sinner, not your own god, and turning your will over to God.
I am no expert on Ray Comfort. The one time he came to visit our church I was changing poopy diapers in the nursery.
I’m only remarking on one short video I saw where a flippant teenage boy goes from sinner to saint in about two minutes after admitting he told a lie so he must be a liar.
I’m not going to say that a salvation cannot take place in less than two minutes. However, if that were to happen, someone did the ground preparation, planting, and watering long before that two-minute harvest.
Maybe as a thinking person, I’d expect that it takes more than two minutes to understand the salvation message, even if you had no other issues holding you back.
“Maybe as a thinking person, I’d expect that it takes more than two minutes to understand the salvation message, even if you had no other issues holding you back.”
I don’t want to comment on Comfort’s methods since I applaud his efforts to reach the lost. However, I know that a person can be born again in a relatively short period of time. I think if we look at the evangelistic accounts in the book of Acts, we see people getting saved in that manner. I’ve seen it first hand many times. Maybe not in two minutes, but certainly within ten or fifteen. In situations where the power of God is clearly manifest, people respond quite quickly. The Gospel is the power of God unto salvation; it bypasses the intellect and pricks the heart. The methods by which the message is delivered is really just secondary.
However, here is a “method” (don’t really like using that word here) that I know works quite well.
1. Explain Adam and Eve and their sin that came upon the whole human race.
2. Explain that God made a law that without the shedding of blood there is
remission of sin.
3. Explain that Jesus was the sinless Son of God, born of a virgin, who
demonstrated God’s love by forgiving sin and healing the sick.
4. Explain that he willingly laid down his life so that he might reconcile
sinful man back to God.
5. Explain that he rose from the dead and ascended into heaven.
6. Explain that all who believe in Jesus and call on his name will receive
eternal life.
7. Give God the opportunity to confirm the word with accompanying signs by
praying for the sick.
This is an abridged version of something I have seen in action. This method (argh!) doesn’t involve reasoning with people. It just presents the Gospel in a simple enough way so that faith can be developed. Faith comes by hearing the word of God, and by grace through faith people are easily saved and healed.
Oh, and obviously…
8. Lead them in a confession of faith in Christ.
Chris Austere said: “8. Lead them in a confession of faith in Christ.”
Ray Comfort doesn’t do this, or at least he discourages it. He says that if a person needs to be lead in a confession, then that person is just going through the motions. A truly convicted sinner will cry out to God with his own words. It may not be the stereotypical sinner’s prayer, but it will be genuine. If he understands the gospel, he doesn’t need the crutch of someone leading him in a formulaic prayer.
I’m not so dogmatic. I think there can be a time and a place for leading someone in a so-called sinner’s prayer. But I think Comfort is right to be wary. Just having someone repeat a prayer doesn’t make that person saved.
Thainamu said: “I’m not going to say that a salvation cannot take place in less than two minutes. However, if that were to happen, someone did the ground preparation, planting, and watering long before that two-minute harvest.”
I agree completely. The Way of the Master videos probably give the wrong impression. (I’ve only watched one or two, and I thought they gave a pretty skewed perspective. They only show the really powerful/exciting witnessing encounters.) I’ve listened to a number of the Way of the Master Radio broadcasts. Usually Ray Comfort does at least one segment where he witnesses to someone live on the radio (he has “fishers” out on the streets to find someone who is willing to call into the show to talk to him.)
Of all the witnessing encounters I listened to, only one of them resulted in an on-the-spot reaction of conviction and acceptance of the gospel. Even that wasn’t the result of that single witnessing encounter–the guy had had plenty of previous exposure to the gospel. So it wasn’t just a single two-minute encounter that brought results.
In fact, almost everybody Ray Comfort talks to (on the radio show anyway) has already heard the gospel many times before. Usually they have some Christian relative or friend who has been praying or witnessing to them for years. I know this because Comfort usually asks them, or they bring it up on their own.
Just because I neglected to say “faith” does not mean it isn’t implied. You’ve run off on an entire tangent here that really isn’t justified based on what I wrote in context. I was talking about the nature of free will - and salvation, not about “faith” versus something else.
I think I half-way understand what you mean here, but I think it is rooted in a real misunderstanding of the point of the method. Other examples have since been provided of a dramatic turn to Christ upon hearing the gospel.
In the same way you may see the “quickness” of WotM as an excuse for an “easy” conversion, I see a reliance on “preparing the ground, planting, watering” as code that Christians use (not always, but I would say often) for laziness and a lack of compassion for the lost and the seriousness of their fate in Hell. You may be neglecting to see the scriptural backing that the law and the prophets is the preparation for the good news.
This could be another diatribe, but the Christian church tends to take these vague broader scriptural ideas like “preparing the ground, planting, watering” and just interpret modern social interactions into them, and stamp the approval of the bible on them based on really rough categorizations. There is no doubt that these abstracts exist, but the church has (and this is true of so many things) reinterpreted these once biblically specified concepts in light of political correctness and cultural norms. For example, “preparing the ground, planting, watering” becomes having non-saved people over for BBQs, playing cards with them, telling them “I’ll pray for you” or some other friendship “evangelism” method that is more about winning friends and influencing people than bringing them to saving faith in Jesus.
This is a really important point. It’s not as if the people who are hearing WotM have never heard of these things. Most of them have even been to church, I’m sure. Only rarely does the conversation actually lead to a sinner’s prayer type situation - and Comfort and Cameron are quite honest about this. This is actually very important, because it is up to the Holy Spirit to save not someone speaking to someone for five minutes using WotM.
Chris, I think your method is decent, but you cannot just explain that there is a law in a very impersonal, abstract sense. The law brings the knowledge of sin, and this must be accomplished for a person to repent. They must understand that they have sinned and broken this law.
It is the difference between telling someone:
“There is a law against speeding in the US.”
versus.
“There is a law against speeding in the US. Did you know that you have been clocked breaking the law, and there is a fine?”
Only then does the gospel and a personal relationship make sense.
“Chris, I think your method is decent, but you cannot just explain that there is a law in a very impersonal, abstract sense. The law brings the knowledge of sin, and this must be accomplished for a person to repent. They must understand that they have sinned and broken this law.”
I respectfully disagree. Romans makes clear the fact that sin came into the human race through the first Adam. We all have sinned because he sinned. Plus I don’t find any biblical basis for using the Law or the commandments as a basis for preaching the Gospel to non-Jews. If it works for someone, more power to them. I just don’t think it is particularly biblical. The law written in the Gentile conscience lets them know they have done wrong (Romans 2:14,15).
I know that many people say sinners are often unwilling to admit that they are sinners. That hasn’t been my experience. Sometimes this is the case, but most often this is just a defense mechanism to the feeling that one is being condemned or accused by someone “holier than thou.” So the problem is not usually (in my experience) that the person is not conscious of his own sin, but rather that he would prefer not to confess it to someone he feels is talking down to him. I think the “sin problem” is best explained by invoking Adam and Eve because, when explained correctly, it makes clear that all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God from the first man on. That includes the whole human race; no one is excluded. I don’t think it is at all impersonal.
The good news is that God made Jesus to be sin who knew no sin. All the punishment for sins was dealt with on the cross. Therefore, we need not be subject to the bondage of sin. Knowledge of this truth produces freedom the law of sin and death.
“Ray Comfort doesn’t do this, or at least he discourages it. He says that if a person needs to be lead in a confession, then that person is just going through the motions. A truly convicted sinner will cry out to God with his own words.”
There is a lot of truth in this, because we all might be aware of situations where someone just prayed the “sinner’s prayer” to get some well-meaning Christian off their back. But I think most people, if they are sincere, can tell if someone is being bullied into something like that.
In open air evangelistic situations, particularly in developing nations, it is done this way: after the Gospel is presented, the question is asked, “How many people believe this story about Jesus and want to receive his forgiveness?” When people voluntarily raise their hands, they signal that they are ready and receptive. From there they are led in a confession of faith in Christ. In this way, one is assured that they are not being manipulated.
Chris, we may have a doctrinal difference on original sin. I do not believe that we are punished for Adam’s literal sin (this is not scriptural for many reasons; sons not being punished for the sins of the fathers, etc…), and this is what separates us from God. I believe that Adam’s sin reveals the inherent sin nature of all men, but that each man is separated from God by his own personal sin against God. If we disagree there - we should address that point because everything else divides from there - and we’d be engaging in a futile discussion.
(If we agree that each man is separated from God by his own sin, and that each man needs forgiveness for his own sin to be saved, then please continue).
The conscience is still guided by the law, as the passage cited clearly indicates. The conscience is literally a mechanism by which the gentiles have the law “written on their hearts.” It bears witness within a gentile who previously did not know the law, that the law is true, and condemns them (the evangelist doesn’t condemn them, but the law does, as is echoed by the individual’s conscience).
The law was never meant to be a guideline for a specific people’s government or culture (or to be translated into modern secular laws, as was argued elsewhere by others) but to reveal to humanity what God’s standard is. The law shows all peoples that God cannot be reached by good works.
This is part of a current fad (and if you do not actually subscribe to it, than forgive me, but it is an opportune time to mention it) that sort of generalizes “for all have sinned” as though the abstract notion of “sin existing” is somehow going to convince someone that they need a personal savior (why would they need a personal savior if they themselves have no personal sin?). But Romans 3:23 is quite clear in the original meaning (leaving in the first part of the sentence in 22):
The NLT (of all translations!) uses the accurate greek meaning:
“God’s glorious standard”
That verse literally declares that all people, Jew and Gentile have fallen short of God’s standard - the law.
We only have biblical support for using Adam as a contrast to Jesus (death versus life, etc…) - I know of no support for using Adam to reveal sin. Adam is excellent context for understand the specific, personal nature of sin - and an excellent tool for explaining why consequences (and thus Hell) exist, but it is not a replacement for the law.
This is the good news Chris. If someone walks up to you today and says, “did you know there is a cure for “Lou Gehrig’s Disease? How wonderful that humanity can be free of this terrible disease!” You’ll say that’s great, and go one with your life. But what if he first told you: “look Chris, I have some very sad news. I’ve found out that you have Lou Gehrig’s Disease. I have the medical tests right here that shows that you are facing death.” When he tells you about the cure, you are going to actually understand it and want it very badly. It’s not just going to be a nice thing - it is going to be a life changing understanding for you personally! You were sick, but now you can be cured.
It means nothing to a sinner that “Jesus died on the cross for sin” unless they understand that they themselves are a sinner. Otherwise they see no need to accept Jesus death, repent and have faith.
Hmm. I think I agree and disagree with both of you on some points.
First, I believe there is significant Scriptural warrant for original sin (as defined as Adam’s sin that separates all humanity from God) and not much Biblical support for the concept that if a person is perfect, he will go to heaven even if he doesn’t “accept Christ.”
To cite some Biblical texts to show this more clearly:
1 Cor. 15:21-22 “For as by a man came death, by a man has come also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive.”
Romans 5:12-21 “Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned— for sin indeed was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not counted where there is no law. Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sinning was not like the transgression of Adam who was a type of the one who was to come.
But the free gift is not like the trespass. For if many died through one man’s trespass, much more have the grace of God and the free gift by the grace of that one man Jesus Christ abounded for many. And the free gift is not like the result of that one man’s sin. For the judgment following one trespass brought condemnation, but the free gift following many trespasses brought justification. For if, because of one man’s trespass, death reigned through that one man, much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man Jesus Christ.
Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men. For as by the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man’s obedience the many will be made righteous. Now the law came in to increase the trespass, but where sin increased, grace abounded all the more, so that, as sin reigned in death, grace also might reign through righteousness leading to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.”
As for your claim, Colin, that punishing people for the “sins of their fathers” is unbiblical, how do you explain texts like Exodus 20:5? You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me…
Colin,
I don’t think the idea of personal ownership of own sin is incompatible with that being the result of original sin. Its not either/or; it’s both. Those passages Darius posted speak for themselves. Romans really says it all.
“For as by the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man’s obedience the many will be made righteous.”
I can see how someone could take this truth and twist it to evade personal responsibility for one’s own actions, but that shouldn’t make the concept unacceptable. People can also abuse their liberty in Christ, but that does not do away with liberty. Have I sinned? Yes. Did my father sin? Yes and all the father’s going back to the original man. We all have. We all need a savior. Look at how Paul preaches the Gospel in Acts 17.
24God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands;
25Neither is worshipped with men’s hands, as though he needed any thing, seeing he giveth to all life, and breath, and all things;
26And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation;
[See how he goes back to Adam when he says all nations he made of one blood?]
27That they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though he be not far from every one of us:
28For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring.
29Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man’s device.
30And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent:
31Because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead.
Darius, maybe I missed this, but I do not see this advocated anywhere in the thread.
As to how I deal with Exodus 20:5? The way God himself declares in Ezekiel 18. That passage clearly qualifies that Exodus 20:5 is not referring to “generational sin” but a “taught sin” - passing down sinful behavior by learning from father to son.
I agree with everything you write here. Most people who claim they believe in original sin (including both yourself and Darius) clearly do not, so I rarely see the need to argue against it. What I find is the case with many who claim to believe it (again, you both fall into this category) is that they believe it nominally, but actually when it comes down to it still believe that a man is personally responsible for his own sins (even if this “came from” Adam - which is not the actual doctrine of original sin).
In other words, everything you say here, though I would call it convoluted - is compatible with my thinking on the origins of sin.
As for Act 17 - he clearly uses Adam in the exact way I prescribe it should be (and as Paul’s other writings confirm) to contrast Christ’s perfection - not to qualify personal/natural sin. Adam’s message alone does not qualify as bringing conviction - Act 17 makes this clear. Paul separately talks about repentence and judgment, having built a foundation of Adam’s rebellion as an example - not to bring up the crowd’s sin.
Ok, maybe I should clarify. Original sin, as I believe it is supported in Scriptures (particularly the passages I mentioned), means that even IF someone was perfect and never sinned (an impossibility outside of Jesus, I know), they would still fall under the curse of Adam. HOWEVER, because everyone is also cursed to be sinful, then such perfection is impossible.
The Original Sin question might be a good one to use to resurrect this thread. In a quick glance over my positions, I think I still generally agree with myself there.
Maybe we could even pull Matt into the discussion again. Guy hasn’t visited in some time!
I should not have used the phrase “original sin” in that post. What I meant was the original sin, not the doctrine of Original Sin. I agree that speaking about Adam is not effective in bringing conviction of sin, but I do think it is effective in helping people understand that Adam was the first Adam and Jesus is the last Adam - a life-giving spirit, that we all came from one blood and that through him sin was passed down. Its a good starting point, in other words. Therefore, the wages of sin are paid by the ransom of Christ’s broken body. The Gospel itself, the message about the life and ministry of Jesus, is effective in bringing conviction of sin. It alone is the power of God unto salvation.
Ray does not believe in once saved always saved. Here is a link http://www.drewmarshall.ca/listen2008.html#080705 15 min into interview.
I just listened to that interview. Ray Comfort says what he always says: those with genuine faith, who have genuinely repented, will never fall away. He does say specifically that “people say I believe in once-saved always saved, which I don’t.” I can only guess that he means he doesn’t subscribe to the belief that Christians can wallow in sin and still end up in heaven if they made a confession of faith at one point in their life. So yeah, there is a distinction. But Ray Comfort repeatedly says that those who respond with genuine repentance for their sins and who put their faith in Christ, those people will never fall away.
Thanks John. That’s a great interview. It is always interesting to hear this stuff debated among Christians.
Chris and Darius, the real question regarding “Original Sin” comes down to whose sins we are punished for. Are we punished for the actions of Adam, or are we punished for our own actions? This becomes important in the case of a salvation confession because if we are only punished for Adam’s sin, there would be no point in repenting of our own sin (but rather of Adam’s). Throughout the New Testament, we see converts confessing and repenting their own sins, not Adam’s sins. That is a pretty key element of the salvation message. As Colin indicates, your posts seem to suggest that this is what you believe as well, though you seem very confused in your understanding of your own beliefs. Adam did make a choice for us as a race, but we all participate in and agree with that choice from the time we are born. We are definitely not being punished for someone else’s sins, but for our own.