#1 || 11·10·05··13:53 || Kurt Strassner

David,

Thanks for this follow up. I hope I am not one of those taking aim at straw men!

Let me simply say that your points re: the presentation of God's character are well taken and agreed upon. I don't doubt that most of your readers (myself included) would prefer MacArthur's tract over Comfort's. Comfort's level of dealing with the law and sin are surely not the deepest form of law-preaching ever heard.

I think the rub is simply that your article seemed to imply that a peculiar deficiency in Comfort's video presentation was that he did not proclaim to his hearer's their inability and need of regeneration which leads to faith and repentance. All I am arguing is that the NT seems to make it demonstrably evident that one must not understand the source of faith and repentance in order to actually repent and believe. When doing evangelistic preaching, it seems clear to me that Jesus and the apostles focused on the objects, rather than the source, of repentance and faith - Christ and Him crucified - and trusted that regeneration would, indeed, happen if this message was preached.

And, in content (though perhaps not in penetrating depth), it does seem to me that Comfort's basic message is along those lines. Christ and him crucified as the remedy for sinners.

Would I like to see him be more thorough in explaining God's character? Sure. That would make his walk through the ten commandments all the more powerful. But do I think his presentation of the gospel is deficient because he doesn't explain how regeneration works, and why? No. Because the very truths he preaches are what, in God's mercy, bring about regeneration!

#2 || 11·10·06··06:27 || Ryan Phelps

+1 Kurt.

It's possible some of us have misread you, and thus the barking at "strawmen." But it's your job to make plain your position where we have misunderstood. This is an open conversation, right?

At the very least, it seems you haven't made it clear how Comfort's gospel presentation is a "wreck." Especially when you say that the "you’ve sinned; you’ve been judged and found guilty; Jesus died for your sins; repent and trust in Christ" structure/content isn't sufficient (which is what the word "wreck" implies). Can you explain how this is insufficient in bringing about "repenting believers"?

#3 || 11·10·06··10:14 || Joshua Ritchie

Ah, man. Did my comment not go through?

#4 || 11·10·06··10:34 || David Kjos

Joshua,
   I don’t see another comment. I try to catch any that get spammed, but maybe I missed yours. It happens. Try again, if you like, and I’ll watch for it.

#5 || 11·10·06··11:00 || Joshua Ritchie

I posted it late last night/early this morning. It said something about waiting for moderation. Oh well.

I don't want to retype the whole thing, so I'll give a brief recap.

I appreciate both GTY's ministry and WOTF ministry in equipping believers. To Ray's defense, I'll only say that Ray's tracts are mostly intended to be conversation starters and reminders of the conversation after the witnessing "session" has ended. Some people may not engage in conversation and may not read a lenghty tract, but it's something...but not everything included in the "riches of grace".

Also, the video is a 33 minute short. I don't imagine that everything included in the shown footage was necessarily the entire witnessing conversation with each person (may it was, but I don't imagine so). I'm guessing that things were edited down for brevity. So, while the footage contains snippets of the witnessing, I don't think it was filmed to necessarily include all of Ray's theology. Most of these tools are used to assist Christians to get out there and share the Word. I don't think they are meant to do all their witnessing and all their sharing of theology.

Regarding GTY's tract. Definitely more substance...no lacking of the idea of regeneration there. But it does lack. It lacks the doctrine of imputation and justifcation--even though faith is mentioned, it doesn't mention imputed righteousness by faith. To me, that is a more necessary doctrine when evangelizing than preaching regeneration. We need righteousness (not just cleansing from sin) in order to stand before a holy God to enter His joy. That was missed in GTY's tract (unless I skipped it somewhere--I tried to read it twice to make sure I didn't gloss over it. If I missed it, I sincerely apologize). Such a crucial doctrine IS necessary when presenting the gospel--but I don't agree that regeneration ALWAYS is necessary...sometimes it is. It case of witnessing should be evaluated on it's own. If it were necessary, Christ would have preached it to the thief of the cross and the rich young ruler. Jonah would have preached it to the Ninevites. And while regeneration is necessary to believe these truths and to repent of sin and to trust in Christ, I'm still not persuaded that gospel witnessing is a "wreck" if that doctrine particular doctrine is not presented. Spurgeon even noted that most, if not all, Christians are born Arminian. It wasn't until decades after my conversion that I rightly understood regeneration. Nevertheless, I was converted without knowing properly this doctrine.

Well, that's all. I'm going to continue to preach as much of the gospel as I can with whomever God allows me to, in whatever time I am alotted. God willing, I'll share some amazing truths. The truths I don't get to share, I'll trust that God will use other believers to keeping planting and watering and God will give the increase.

I pray that everyone engaged in these types of conversation (which are beneficial) will do the same. It's good to love the gospel, but it's not good to keep it to ourselves. God bless you, brothers.

#6 || 11·10·06··12:56 || Joshua Ritchie

Just read Phil Johnson's issue with Ray's saying, "There is something you can DO to be saved."

I think it's an unfair characterization to say that Ray's "DO" is on par with "DO" as in "good works." When the Roman jailer asked Paul and Silas, "What must I do to be saved?" They didn't reply, "Man, you can't do anything...you're dead in your sins...you're unregenerate." Rather they issued the call to "Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved?" Either Paul and Silas are Pelagians and heretics...or they don't see "DO BELIEVE" as any sort of works righteousness. I'm sure Ray sees it the same way.

While there's nothing we can do to be regenerated and while there's nothing we can do to save ourselves...we must "believe" so we can be saved by God. That is essentially what Ray is calling these unbelievers to do...however minimal his gospel presentation might be.