I watched 180, a documentary by Ray Comfort, this morning. You may have heard of it by now, as it was linked on Challies.com a couple of days ago. Tim noted that he wished Comfort had done a better job of getting to the gospel, and Phil Johnson concurred (see the comments below in the previous link for an explanation of both Tim’s and Phil’s concerns).
I agree with their assessments, as far as they go, but I would go farther. As a piece of pro-life propaganda (not a bad word), 180 is very good. As a presentation of the gospel, it’s a wreck. How bad is it? It’s so bad that Charles Finney could give it a loud “Amen!” The essence of Comfort’s gospel is this: you’ve sinned; you’ve been judged and found guilty; Jesus died for your sins; repent and trust in Christ. He quotes John 3:16 and says, “What you’ve got to do is repent. Turn from your sins, trust in Jesus. God’ll give you everlasting life; he’ll forgive your sins.” Dear Readers, that is not the gospel. John 3:16 is not the gospel. It is gospel, but not the gospel. No single verse is.
Comfort brings sinners under condemnation by demonstrating their guilt under the law, and does it well. This is a necessary part of the gospel, to be sure. But sinners’ primary problem is not guilt. Their main problem is that they are dead in sin (Ephesians 2:1). Dead men cannot, and will not, repent just because Ray Comfort crafts a seamless argument proving their guilt, and tells them they must repent. They must be born again, and they will not be born again as a result of repenting. No, it is just the reverse: they will repent as a result of being born again.
Comfort’s gospel, as presented in 180, depends upon the sinners’ response to Comfort’s well-crafted argument. There is no word at all of the sinners’ helplessness and need to entirely give up on their own efforts to be righteous. They are not led to believe that they are no good at all (Isaiah 64:6), simply that they are not good enough. And as Finney would say, all they need do is turn from their sin to Christ. They must “put on Christ,” and according to the parachute analogy Comfort uses, they can do it. They are able. In his own words, “there is something you can do.”
Ray Comfort is no Pelagian, as Finney was, but he needs to think through his gospel presentation and how well — or how poorly — it reflects the clear biblical doctrines of original sin, human depravity, and regeneration.
1 Now there was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews; 2 this man came to Jesus by night and said to Him, “Rabbi, we know that You have come from God as a teacher; for no one can do these signs that You do unless God is with him.” 3 Jesus answered and said to him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.”
4 Nicodemus said to Him, “How can a man be born when he is old? He cannot enter a second time into his mother’s womb and be born, can he?” 5 Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. 6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. 7 Do not be amazed that I said to you, ‘You must be born again.’ 8 The wind blows where it wishes and you hear the sound of it, but do not know where it comes from and where it is going; so is everyone who is born of the Spirit.”
—John 3
TrackBack URL: http://www.thirstytheologian.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/1899
Share this post:
Posted in:
Link · 25 Comments · 0 TrackBacks
← Previous · Home · Next →
25 Comments:
#1 || 11·09·30··06:11 || Jason
You said what I was thinking after watching the video. I was having this very discussion with another pastor this week. Comfort does an excellent job presenting the Law that pierces, but his Gospel presentation is weak, to put it kindly. To paraphrase Luther, we must preach the Law in all its sterness and the Gospel in all its sweetness. I hope that he does think about how he preaches the Gospel, because it is the Gospel that saves, not the Law.
#2 || 11·09·30··06:29 || donsands
Good word David.
Ray is a good brother, but he needs to dig into the deep things of the Word, doesn't he. I like him very much, and he is an example for us in that he cares about lost souls, and goes and tries to reach people.
Yet, why doesn't he see John 3, as you have here, and Ephesians 2:
"And you were [are] dead in the trespasses and sins.... But God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which he loved us, even when we were [are] dead in our trespasses, made [can make] us alive together with Christ—by grace you have been saved—...."
#3 || 11·10·03··07:50 || Jamison
I think you make a good summary, but you leave off with no solution to the problem. I live in Las Vegas and my church and I evangelize with the Living Waters model. We are reformed, but just as Jesus with the rich man, we present repentance as something the man can do (parable: selling and following) but the only determining factor if they will is if they are born again. The Lord commands us to preach repentance as: "the Lord commands you to repent and believe the Gospel!"
I don't see your need for qualifiers in that. I.e. "wait, before you repent you must fully understand how you are dead in your sins."
I am open to correction, I want to present the gosepl in the most God honoring, God glorifying way. If the WOTM model is wrong, then how would you share the Godpel with an unbeliever in a 5-10 minute conversation?
Thanks.
#4 || 11·10·03··08:18 || David Kjos
Short answer: you can’t.
#5 || 11·10·03··12:58 || Jamison
I don't expect you to pander to me when I nag for more of a response, but can not an unbeliever be converted through open air preaching, one on one conversations or gospel tracts? If not, then how? Must they go to "members classes" and sit through many sermons explaining many of the doctrines of the burch first?I'm a little frustrated now because I feel like I'm being told I'm doing it wrong, but then you don't give me the right answer.
Perhaps you an do another post or direct me to a place that explains how you think evangelism should be done biblically.
Thanks for your time in reading this!
#6 || 11·10·03··16:23 || David Kjos
Jamison,
In no way do I mean to say that your efforts are worthless. I’m just saying that you can’t present the full gospel in 5–10 minutes. It’s too much to expect that you can lead a total stranger to Christ in one short conversation. That doesn’t mean you shouldn’t have those conversations. Each encounter may be one part of the 1 Corinthians 3:6 process that that leads to salvation. But while you’re at it, don’t fall into the typical Arminian evangelist’s desperation to “close the deal.” Preach the Word, but leave conversion to the Holy Spirit working through the Word.
What I have against Ray Comfort’s method (as seen in this video) is that it apparently depends upon intellectual arguments, while ignoring of the need for regeneration. Convincing folks that they are sinners is easy. Convincing them that they need to repent is not much harder. But breathing life into a dead man is impossible. You might be a great apologist with even more persuasive skills in argumentation than Ray Comfort, but you can’t raise the dead.
You’ll notice that none of the individuals in the 180 video expressed anything like a sorrow that produces repentance (2 Corinthians 7:10), but only the admission that they were guilty according to the conditions stipulated. That’s a far cry from genuine repentance and faith. I think that’s because they’ve been told what God expects vs. what they’ve done, but still have no concept of who God is vs. what they are.
#7 || 11·10·03··18:01 || Jamison
David,
Very well said. And that is how I view my conversations exactly. I perceive that we really do see it similarly, in the sense that we know that some people might have the lightning strike of understanding and repentance, and others will need their hearts worked over by the Holy Spirit. I think to a degree the WOTM evangelists understand this as well. Such as Tony Miano and formerly of WOTM Todd Friel. They understand the need for regeneration, but they give the gospel (as I do) trusting that God will either regenerate immediately or on another day as another means of grace is given to the unbeliever.
The method is certainly not perfect, but it's a hard balance to strike between not wanting to intellectually persuade someone, and not pursuing them enough. Did not Paul in Acts contend with the Jews and proving from the scriptures that Jesus is the Christ? There is nothing wrong with crafting an intelligent argument, as long as we do not rely on them to save, when they cannot.
Thank you for your responses. They have helped me. May God continue to bless your ministry.
-Jamison
#8 || 11·10·03··18:02 || Jamison
Also, anyone reading the meta, forgive my horrendous typos. I was typing on an iPhone, and they are evil.
Jamison
#9 || 11·10·04··08:04 || David Kjos
No trouble at all. Keep up the work, and don’t get discouraged by unseen results.
#10 || 11·10·05··06:19 || Jerry
It seems to me that William Carey received this same type of criticism. Acts 17:30.
#11 || 11·10·05··06:44 || donsands
What do you mean Jerry? If you don't mind me asking.
#12 || 11·10·05··07:23 || Stephen
I believe what Jerry means is that God can and has used 5-10 minutes presentations of the Gospel to regenerate the spiritually dead. Carey was renowned for his tracts which led thousands to repentance and faith in Jesus Christ, the fruit of which is seen even today in Burman.
We must consider those brief sermons presented by the Apostles in Acts which led thousands to repentance. How many of us were born again in an instant, having heard a little of the Gospel and only understood it in part? I know that I, for one, am an example of such a one.
#13 || 11·10·05··07:34 || Ryan Phelps
I'm struggling to see the issue here.
-How would you present the gospel in 5 minutes?
-Isn't it likely that Comfort realizes his argumentative prodding is only meant to make them think? Surely he knows that, even if they claim Jesus as Lord right there, they may not actually go on following him.
-Isn't it also likely that Comfort is simply doing the good work of planting and watering, knowing also that God will give the growth?
-This idea that it's necessary that you make plain the "you're dead in your trespasses" theology baffles me. Yes, it is absolutely true. But is this absolutely necessary to assert when presenting the gospel?
-So you're saying that it isn't enough to convince people that they are sinners and they need to repent and trust on Jesus?
-You say, "The essence of Comfort’s gospel is this: you’ve sinned; you’ve been judged and found guilty; Jesus died for your sins; repent and trust in Christ." You think this is a deficient explanation of the gospel to someone who doesn't know it? In other words, will a person be saved if he/she responds to this truth? Will he/she be forgiven and given the righteousness of Christ?
#14 || 11·10·05··08:03 || Kurt Strassner
David,
This is my first time on the blog (I linked from Challies) ... and I am not coming to stir up an argument. Just an observation.
I hold all five points of TULIP firmly ... and agree with you that regeneration, depravity, etc. are part of the gospel, and not to be forgotten. But there is a difference in explaining the whole gospel for someone's understanding, appreciation, etc. (say in a sermon, a Sunday School class, or a NT epistle) and, on the other hand, preaching Christ on the streets of Jerusalem, Athens, or L.A.
Are those people in Comfort's video depraved, and in need of regeneration before being able to do any of the things he asks of them? Absolutely! But does he need to explain depravity and regeneration in order for them to be regenerated? The preaching of Jesus (Mark 1, Luke 15) and the apostles (Acts 2, Acts 16, Acts 17) would seem to indicate not. Many sermons by men like Lloyd-Jones, Spurgeon, etc. would demonstrate the same point. The truth is that regeneration happens when Christ, sin, repentance, and faith are preached ... even if the person being regenerated and coming to faith doesn't realize all that is happening to him (yet)!
In short, one need not understand regeneration in order to be regenerated! It's true that the epistles make much of these things other vital gospel truths. But remember that these letters and truths were almost wholly written down for believers, after the fact.
I think, then, that Comfort got it pretty much right. He was not out and about L.A. talking to Christians, and acting as though all that happened when they came to Christ was a mere decision. He was preaching to unbelievers who simply needed to repent and believe ... and who, under such preaching, very well might be regenerated.
I say we applaud Comfort for his boldness (and for clearly calling for repentance!) rather than critiquing the fact that he did not say the very same things that Peter, Paul, and Jesus often didn't say in their own evangelistic preaching.
Finally, if I can say this without sounding mean-spirited ... I think it is this kind of critique that often leaves us Calvinists with a bad name, and even derails us from being as aggressive as someone like Comfort is with the good news of Jesus.
#15 || 11·10·05··08:22 || Brad
Interesting insights! My two questions:
1) Could you write out a dialogue in which the gospel was properly presented?
2) How does Comfort's presentation compare to the evangelistic sermons in the N.T.?
Thanks!
Brad
#16 || 11·10·05··11:27 || Stephen
Mr. Kjos, it might be profitable to slowly read Acts 2:14b-40 out loud, while timing yourself to see how long it took Peter to present the Gospel to unbelievers while the Holy Spirit brought them to genuine repentance and faith in Jesus Christ (see vs. 41, about 15 seconds worth of reading).
#17 || 11·10·05··12:57 || David Kjos
More on this mess here.
#18 || 11·10·05··14:02 || donsands
I am not even sure exactly when i did become a Christian quickened in His grace. I think I may have even been a "Cornelius" for a time. I was saved in 1984-85. I really think the say a sinner's prayer and you're saved routine is very dangerous. Can God save a dead soul in 10 seconds? Absolutely.
How does he bring dead sinners to Himself now? I think it takes more than a few minutes. for the majority of the dead sons of wrath He brings to Himself.
Thanks for the info Stephen. That was kind of you to comment.
Have a great rest of a week, and Lord's day!
#19 || 11·10·05··14:21 || StonetoFlesh
I have to agree with the critiques of this critique. Citing Jesus with Nicodemus is fine, but what of the context? Was Jesus demonstrating a model for proclaiming the Gospel, or was He privately teaching a man about the nature of regeneration? You will not find the apostles in practice, preaching the necessity of regeneration. It is the Gospel message proclaimed (repentance and faith) that is the means God uses through His Spirit to regenerate a man. See 1 Thessalonians, Paul knew they were elect because the Gospel came to them with full conviction etc.
#20 || 11·10·06··10:45 || Job
Is this another one of those "regeneration precedes faith" issues? Isn't that doctrine unique to Presbyterians?
#21 || 11·10·06··12:23 || David Kjos
No, it’s unique to the New Testament.
#22 || 11·10·06··15:20 || Job
Sir:
If it is unique to the New Testament, then please provide proof texts concerning regeneration preceding faith. I have not encountered them. I wish to see the scriptural basis for this doctrine so that I might study the issue.
I will also state that this piece of yours seems to run counter to the kerygma of Peter, Paul, Philip etc. as recorded in Acts.
(For the record, I am Particular Baptist, a "5 Point Calvinist" but with infralapsarian leanings.)
#23 || 11·10·06··16:36 || David Kjos
If you’re looking for a verse that says “regeneration precedes faith,” there isn’t one. But it is logically deduced from John 3:1–8, as well as Ephesians 2:1–8. Dead men can have no faith; they cannot believe; they cannot repent.
Regeneration Precedes Faith
A Friendly Heart
#24 || 11·10·06··18:35 || Job
"Dead men can have no faith; they cannot believe; they cannot repent."
That fact, which is plainly recorded in scripture, is not subject to debate. However, it is not the same as saying "regeneration precedes faith", nor does it imply it, logically or otherwise. Salvation only occurs through faith, and 1 Corinthians 12:7-11 reveals that faith is a gift of the Holy Spirit.
Instead, the issue is whether the Holy Spirit first regenerates the dead man and then gives him faith. Take the relevant verses in Romans 10. Verses 8-10: "But what saith it? The word is nigh thee, [even] in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is, the word of faith, which we preach; That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation." This text does not say that salvation comes prior to the belief and confession, but rather quite the opposite. Verses 13-17 read "For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?And how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things! But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Esaias saith, Lord, who hath believed our report? So then faith [cometh] by hearing, and hearing by the word of God." One can hardly say that this text is speaking of those that are saved already, but rather of those who believe the gospel - having been given the capacity to believe by the Holy Spirit and thus respond - and are then saved by this faith.
And Romans 10 therefore goes with the kerygma formula of Acts, such as Peter's sermon on Pentecost. Peter informed the crowd that they were sinners, the crowd (or some thereof) asked "What must we do to be saved" and Peter told them to repent, believe and be baptized. He did not tell them "you must first be born again before you can repent and believe."
I see nothing in scripture that prevents the sequence being the Holy Spirit first granting faith then working regeneration. Quite the contrary, my reading of New Testament texts (as well as of the Old Testament typology) requires it. So, the issue is not that sinners are not dead, or that dead sinners somehow give life to themselves, or that sinners produce their own faith. Instead, it is the doctrine that the Holy Spirit first gives faith and then regenerates.
Now I do agree with you to a point: that genuine repentance only comes when the Holy Spirit first provides faith. The Bible makes that clear, with Simon Magus and others who fell away being examples. But that is as much of your doctrine as I can endorse, because that is the extent which New Testament texts support.
#25 || 11·10·07··05:51 || David Kjos
Job,
Rather than worrying about the timing of regeneration, I suggest you study what regeneration is.
dead = unregenerate
alive = regenerate/born again