Good Person Test Reformed.

Status
Not open for further replies.

xirtam

Puritan Board Freshman
Ray Comfort is popular for street evangelism. I have been using his method for some time, but I do notice areas in which he is obviously Arminian.

1) What is a better "way" for evangelism?

and/or

2) How could the "good person test" be improved so that it is biblical?


In Christ,
 
Hey Andrew,

It is based on Proverbs 20:6, " Many a man proclaims his own loyalty (goodness), But who can find a trustworthy man?" Ray Comfort uses this as an entry point to ask the people if they believe that they are good enough to go to heaven. Most believe that they are and that is when he usually uses at least four of the ten commandments to give the "bad news" before the "good news" of the Gospel:

1) Q: How many lies have you told? A: ...a lot. Q: What do you call someone who tells a lot of lies? A: ...a liar.

2) Q: Have you ever stolen anything big or small? A: yes. Q: What do you call someone who steals? A: ...a thief.

3) Q: Have you ever hated anyone? Jesus said that hate is murder. A: yes.

4) Q: Have you ever lusted after another person? Jesus said lust and adultery are the same. A: yes


Q: So, you are a lying, thief, murderer and adulterer at heart. You are not a good person, you are like the rest of us. If you died today, would you be guilty or innocent of breaking God's law?

A: guilty.

Q: What do you deserve heaven or hell?

A: hell

Q: Does that concern you?

A: yes.

Q: Then wouldn't it be wise to repent and trust in Jesus Christ?




Andrew, it goes something like that, but the idea is to show the person their wretchedness through the law of God.


I'll link some videos. I really enjoy evangelizing, but I would like to know:

1) IF there is a better way.

and/ or

2) If the "good person test" needs to be changed in some way.


Thank you for your question. Here are a few videos to help you get a better idea of their "method".

a) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TCSUKIhjevo
b) NeedGod.com
c) Living Waters University: Katie - YouTube -If you follow this link, there are 100s of examples of Ray Comfort
d) www.180movie.com has it at the end
e) http://www.geniusthemovie.com/ so does this
 
I started a conversation last week by asking if the person ever wondered what was wrong with people in the world—everybody upholds a standard to which they never measure up. I went into how everyone is flawed, including myself and the man to whom I was speaking. Then I asked, "Have you ever heard the gospel explained before?" Then I explained the gospel and how I believe Jesus was the answer to my sin, the world's, and his. There are many segues that can be used. I don't use a planned method. My goal is to deliver the gospel. I have used a variety of ways to get on the topic. It feels more natural to me and I hope people feel like they are in a conversation with me rather than an interrogation.
 
Thank you for your question, Jon.

This is something that I am gathering and have not put my thumb on yet, but Ray Comfort places the emphasis on man and does not seemingly support the idea of election. I mean, I say that because he never mentions such things. I am a million miles away and do not know him personally, so I can only speak from writings and videos. Although, I have some of his material and he does support the likes of Finney. Take Tony Miano for instance. They were partners. He is a Calvinist from what I gather and they approach the same method differently.

In reality, I'd like someone to tell me this method is perfectly faithful and I'll be on my merry way, but there does seem to be something missing. Another thing that a friend of mine has noticed is that Ray does not mention his own (present) sin. He mentions that he "had" broken the commandments, but a Christian is someone who lives in holiness and does not do those types of things. Then again, I heard him say on Hell's Best Kept Secret, that a Christian hates sinning verses not sinning at all. This could be a evangelism tactic, to keep the pressure on the sinner, but it also makes me wonder about his theology.

Mr. Comfort has been talked about on the Puritan Board. I am not knocking him. I think that he does have a love for the lost and he has helped me in many ways.

My hope is to

1) find the best way...

and/or

2) tweak "the good person test" method, if it needs tweaking.

In Christ,
 
I started a conversation last week by asking if the person ever wondered what was wrong with people in the world—everybody upholds a standard to which they never measure up. I went into how everyone is flawed, including myself and the man to whom I was speaking. Then I asked, "Have you ever heard the gospel explained before?" Then I explained the gospel and how I believe Jesus was the answer to my sin, the world's, and his. There are many segues that can be used. I don't use a planned method. My goal is to deliver the gospel. I have used a variety of ways to get on the topic. It feels more natural to me and I hope people feel like they are in a conversation with me rather than an interrogation.

This is true and I agree. Thank you, again.

In Christ,
 
I use the WOTM but have just modified it to make it more Reformed. We need to remember that Ray has given us a basic outline for the Gospel. Build upon that outline and modify it for your situation and theology.

You are correct about Ray not being Reformed. I know him personally, and while he is a good brother he does need to tighten up his theology.
 
I use the WOTM but have just modified it to make it more Reformed. We need to remember that Ray has given us a basic outline for the Gospel. Build upon that outline and modify it for your situation and theology.

You are correct about Ray not being Reformed. I know him personally, and while he is a good brother he does need to tighten up his theology.


Thank you, Josh. How do you go about, "building upon the WOTM outline and modifying it for your situation and theology"?

In Christ,
 
I'm not sure the doctrine of election has much of a role in what is said in evangelism. Rather it gives the speaker great hope that if this person is one that God has called to himself, that person will have ears to hear and eyes to see.

As for a typically "reformed" approach to evangelism, two thoughts come to mind: first, that no worldly philosophy can be internally self-consistent. (So you can ask lots of questions about what a person believes and nudge him toward seeing the emptiness of his approach and the hope of the gospel.) Secondly, start where God starts: that we are creature made to be in relation to our creator and are hopelessly fallen away from that relationship.
 
I use the WOTM but have just modified it to make it more Reformed. We need to remember that Ray has given us a basic outline for the Gospel. Build upon that outline and modify it for your situation and theology.

You are correct about Ray not being Reformed. I know him personally, and while he is a good brother he does need to tighten up his theology.


Thank you, Josh. How do you go about, "building upon the WOTM outline and modifying it for your situation and theology"?

In Christ,

I mostly change it around the issue of the atonement. I also don't use Ray's question, "What does that make you?" But instead say something like, "What do you call someone who lied (etc)?"
 
I find the WOTM system to be woefully lacking in it's approach to evangelism. I think the Arminianism that you are feeling is exactly the major flaw in his presentation: that he elevates reason over God. Further, at almost any point the person can simply deny a premise and the WOTM system fails. All a person really has to say is: "that argument is valid if you believe it is valid", since that is the kind of argument that they present.

Example: The Way Of The Master : Atheism (Part 3 of 3) - YouTube from about 1:20 - 3:50 is a guy that refuses to believe God exists and that the bible is His word. The presenter is only left with the ability to tell him: "well, if you research the bible you'll see that everything I'm saying is true." Not only is that statement not true but it completely lets this guy off the hook for his beliefs. How is Christ proclaimed in this system?

Here is another video where Comfort declares that bananas are the "atheists nightmare": Banana: The Athiests Nightmare. - YouTube

Generally the more reformed approach is the presuppositional method. Here is a trailer for the instructional video "Answer the Fool" which goes into this The Fool Knows Better - YouTube

Also for comparison, here is Greg Bahnsen destroying an atheist in a debate using this method. Dr. Gordon Stein (Athiest) vs Dr Greg Bahnsen (Jesus follower) - YouTube
 
One thing I find weak with this method, is it is low information decisionism. I've heard this kind of approach called "hit and run evangelism". It tries to compress a revelation of Christ into a two minute question and answer system, which is designed to solicit a predetermined answer. It is the "Vulcan" Finneyism that uses logic to get "a decision" from the person being questioned. It quickly defines a person as a lawbreaker, but a whole lot more needs to be added about the person of Christ and why he is our kinsman redeemer, and why we need to recognize him as THE Prophet, Priest, and King.
 
I'm not sure the doctrine of election has much of a role in what is said in evangelism.

I agree. I think the doctrine of predestination and election should not be handled with great wisdom. Concerning predestination:

WCF 3:8, The doctrine of this high mystery of predestination is to be handled with special prudence and care...

I know someone who used to evangelize by exposing the lost to this doctrine right from the get-go. I don't know that anyone on the board uses this method, but I think it is a horrible way to speak to those without light. I would suspect many would answer something similar to Romans 9:20, "Why hast thou made me thus?"
 
Could you point out the Arminian aspects of Comfort's method?

Some of his materials make me suspect his theology isn't Reformed. His training course uses Ezekiel 33:6

But if the watchman sees the sword coming and does not blow the trumpet, so that the people are not warned, and the sword comes and takes any one of them, that person is taken away in his iniquity, but his blood I will require at the watchman’s hand. (ESV)

as motivation to witness; you're held responsible for someone going to hell if you fail to witness to them. Also, his million dollar bill tract uses the words, "[Have you lied, stolen, or cursed?] ... The Bible warns that if you are guilty you will end up in Hell. That's not God's will."
 
Could you point out the Arminian aspects of Comfort's method?

Would this be another example?: page 32 of his The Way of the Master for Kids: Teaching Kids How to Share Their Faith says, "Jesus died for the whole world." and quoted "[Jesus] died for all." 2 Corinthians 5:15.


Two pages later (page 34) it says, "If we turn from our sins and trust Jesus, God will forgive us." and then they quote, "Whoever believes in [Jesus] will receive [forgiveness] of sins." (Acts 10:43).

The following page says, "When we obey God's Commandments, we show that we love Him." and quote, "If you love Me, keep My commandments." (John 14:15).
 
That's not God's will.

Is there any Comfort in an uninvolved God whose hands are tied? Sounds deistic. If God is not sovereign, this whole thing is a sham and I am doomed.

I guess it is good that he is telling people about Jesus and their sin. If God uses weak vessels like me, then He can use Comfort. He even used a Pentecostal preacher to preach the gospel to me. Praise God that He uses weak vessels.
 
The thing about evangelism methods is that I'm sure all of them have worked on somebody somewhere, even the really bad ones. God uses odd things to draw people to Himself sometimes.

That being said, I don't think that method would have worked on me. I'd just be like, "Seriously, calm down, dude. Are you supposed to be on some kind of medication? You are starting to get really paranoid."

And if I were to be called upon to give a more thorough explanation than that nothing is as black-and-white as all that. Even the Bible calls people righteous--like Zechariah and Elizabeth--so there has to be some sense in which even God considers people righteous (He called them that Himself, so I don't feel like I can argue with that). Common sense says that some people are pretty decent folks at least in a community sense. The question is whether that sort of 'righteousness' can SAVE people. A person may not be as depraved as he could be, but he is still a sinner. I think everyone realizes this. The hard part is realizing the holiness of God, so that even the prophet Isaiah (undoubtedly a decent enough guy on an average day) cried out that he was a man of unclean lips.

When we are comparing ourselves to each other, we can come off looking not so bad. It's when we look at God that the difference between light and darkness jumps out at us. Personally, I'd like to see evangelism methods point more at Jesus than at ourselves. But again, I'm sure his method has worked with somebody.
 
I started a conversation last week by asking if the person ever wondered what was wrong with people in the world—everybody upholds a standard to which they never measure up. I went into how everyone is flawed, including myself and the man to whom I was speaking. Then I asked, "Have you ever heard the gospel explained before?" Then I explained the gospel and how I believe Jesus was the answer to my sin, the world's, and his. There are many segues that can be used. I don't use a planned method. My goal is to deliver the gospel. I have used a variety of ways to get on the topic. It feels more natural to me and I hope people feel like they are in a conversation with me rather than an interrogation.

This is good, Jon. Would there be a need to stress repentance as well? I ask that coming from the WOTM method. They are also very conversational too, but I totally agree with what you are implying.

In Christ,
 
I'm not sure the doctrine of election has much of a role in what is said in evangelism. Rather it gives the speaker great hope that if this person is one that God has called to himself, that person will have ears to hear and eyes to see.

As for a typically "reformed" approach to evangelism, two thoughts come to mind: first, that no worldly philosophy can be internally self-consistent. (So you can ask lots of questions about what a person believes and nudge him toward seeing the emptiness of his approach and the hope of the gospel.) Secondly, start where God starts: that we are creature made to be in relation to our creator and are hopelessly fallen away from that relationship.

Thank you. Would there be a need to "open up the Ten Commandments" as the WOTM does and the WCF places a lot of emphasis?

In Christ,
 
I use the WOTM but have just modified it to make it more Reformed. We need to remember that Ray has given us a basic outline for the Gospel. Build upon that outline and modify it for your situation and theology.

You are correct about Ray not being Reformed. I know him personally, and while he is a good brother he does need to tighten up his theology.


Thank you, Josh. How do you go about, "building upon the WOTM outline and modifying it for your situation and theology"?

In Christ,

I mostly change it around the issue of the atonement. I also don't use Ray's question, "What does that make you?" But instead say something like, "What do you call someone who lied (etc)?"

Hey Josh, could you explain what you mean or what you would say in regards to "the issue of the atonement."

The friend that I mentioned earlier, says that he likes Tony Miano's approach because Tony always stresses his own sin, rather than the "What does that make you..." thingy. Is this what you are saying? Are you talking about easing off of them (I don't mean not being biblical), by giving them some "breathing room"?


In Christ,
 
I find the WOTM system to be woefully lacking in it's approach to evangelism. I think the Arminianism that you are feeling is exactly the major flaw in his presentation: that he elevates reason over God. Further, at almost any point the person can simply deny a premise and the WOTM system fails. All a person really has to say is: "that argument is valid if you believe it is valid", since that is the kind of argument that they present.

Example: The Way Of The Master : Atheism (Part 3 of 3) - YouTube from about 1:20 - 3:50 is a guy that refuses to believe God exists and that the bible is His word. The presenter is only left with the ability to tell him: "well, if you research the bible you'll see that everything I'm saying is true." Not only is that statement not true but it completely lets this guy off the hook for his beliefs. How is Christ proclaimed in this system?

Here is another video where Comfort declares that bananas are the "atheists nightmare": Banana: The Athiests Nightmare. - YouTube

Generally the more reformed approach is the presuppositional method. Here is a trailer for the instructional video "Answer the Fool" which goes into this The Fool Knows Better - YouTube

Also for comparison, here is Greg Bahnsen destroying an atheist in a debate using this method. Dr. Gordon Stein (Athiest) vs Dr Greg Bahnsen (Jesus follower) - YouTube

Hey Roy, I think that I agree with what you are saying, which is why I wrote this post. But I wonder something. Ray Comfort stresses the idea of getting to the sinners conscience where we know right from wrong. Is this the proper place where we ought to be aiming? Does he make a valid point in that the conscience is a good place to converse with the person? He does say that the Holy Spirit does the converting. Ray says he is just trying to show that they are not good in God's sight. I'm not defending per say, but just clarifying what I have heard him say.

If not by that reasoning, what way would you suggest is better to elevate "God over reason" rather than "reason over God"(if I even know what it means)? To be honest, I do not consider myself to be all that intelligent. It took me a long time to figure out what "conscience" is and any talk of reason and logic often times has me scratching my head.


Thank you for the links. I have watched the first one a couple of times. I am slow. And I am almost finished the debate. Very good stuff!

In Christ,
 
One thing I find weak with this method, is it is low information decisionism. I've heard this kind of approach called "hit and run evangelism". It tries to compress a revelation of Christ into a two minute question and answer system, which is designed to solicit a predetermined answer. It is the "Vulcan" Finneyism that uses logic to get "a decision" from the person being questioned. It quickly defines a person as a lawbreaker, but a whole lot more needs to be added about the person of Christ and why he is our kinsman redeemer, and why we need to recognize him as THE Prophet, Priest, and King.

Sir, I agree. I was listening to one of Ray's clips the other day and the guy was in a hurry to leave. Ray said something like, "Oh, just stay two minutes and get right with God."

Although, he says that he does not believe in the "Sinner's Prayer", he is often quick to get people to repent, trust, and pray. You are onto something, because I have been listening to him for a while and have listened to a lot of his teachings and when he approaches someone and they say that they understand everything within just a few minutes, I think that they must be very smart or I am really a dumb fella.
 
I think that were I an unbeliever, I would find it cheesy and patronizing for someone to try to use a copied-and-pasted "evangelism technique" on me instead of just talking with me about their faith. As has been discussed here numerous times before, evangelism as such is the domain of the ministry of the gospel. That being said, inasmuch as sharing one's faith with one's family and acquaintances is a lawful and beneficial thing to do, when occasion arises, I think it should be a sincere conversation (culminating normally in an invitation to Church), not a technique learned on the Internet.

Thank you, Austin. I was always skeptical about "methods" to evangelism, but I was at the same time concerned (fearful, worried, afraid) of not sharing my faith properly. How would do you go about sharing your faith to an unbeliever? Do you share your faith to strangers? Are we even to share our faith to strangers as evangelism implies?

In Christ,
 
Could you point out the Arminian aspects of Comfort's method?

Some of his materials make me suspect his theology isn't Reformed. His training course uses Ezekiel 33:6

But if the watchman sees the sword coming and does not blow the trumpet, so that the people are not warned, and the sword comes and takes any one of them, that person is taken away in his iniquity, but his blood I will require at the watchman’s hand. (ESV)

as motivation to witness; you're held responsible for someone going to hell if you fail to witness to them. Also, his million dollar bill tract uses the words, "[Have you lied, stolen, or cursed?] ... The Bible warns that if you are guilty you will end up in Hell. That's not God's will."

Hi David, do you believe that the million dollar gospel tracts are a bad idea (false teaching, heresy even)? What about their other material? I see what you say about "That's not God's will.", but would we be able to say that "for the elect is it not God's will." I'm just asking.

In Christ,
 
That's not God's will.

Is there any Comfort in an uninvolved God whose hands are tied? Sounds deistic. If God is not sovereign, this whole thing is a sham and I am doomed.

I guess it is good that he is telling people about Jesus and their sin. If God uses weak vessels like me, then He can use Comfort. He even used a Pentecostal preacher to preach the gospel to me. Praise God that He uses weak vessels.

Jon, I agree with you again. But that is not the point of my post. I would like to know 1) of a better way to share my faith and/or 2) to improve the "good person test", if need be.

In Christ,
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top