The law did not tame or mortify the flesh. If it were able to do so, there would be no reason to depart from what works successfully. “If it ain’t broke, it don’t need fixed”. All that Mr. Ray Comfort did was stay within the bounds of elective crimes. And thinking that one passes from death to life by simply avoiding elective crimes, is still under the law, or using the law for deliverance. One cannot pass from death to life while still “doing what he does not want to do and not being able to do what he desires in terms of achieving the righteous state, which is the righteousness that is arrived at apart from the law, and certainly is apart from the criminal code of elective crimes and the mere avoidance thereof. All that Mr Comfort mentioned in his “gospel under a minute” were intentional evil desires, in the attempts to make the case that all men are guilty of intentional evil desires, and therefore are deserving of a wrathful death or Hell. When Mr. Comfort only mentions elective crimes that come from a person with an evil heart, and that passing from death unto life is the avoidance of those evil intentions, “his gospel has not stepped one step beyond the works that are of the law and that man can do himself”, and therefore Mr. Comfort’s “gospel” does not include the subordination or mortification of the flesh. Nor is it able to do so. The law was weak or ineffective because of the corrupt overbearing fleshy nature. Thus, by only mentioning elective crimes and intentional evil desires and the “repenting” of those avoidable things, his deliverance has not left the bounds of the law. One cannot repent of what is not his own fault, or his own elective choice to do. This is why we are not commanded to repent of being slaves to things and desires beyond our control and ability to resist experiencing. One does not pass from “death to life” by seeking the “righteousness” that is of the law. (zoe as opposed to zao). Romans 10:15 For Moses describeth the righteousness which is of the law, that the man which doeth those things shall live (zao) by them. Repenting of desiring to commit adultery, robbing banks, giving up drinking, or fighting and thieving does not result in zoe. Simply being not found in elective crimes or not dying in intentionally evil elective crimes, does not result on zoe. Nor is it zoe when one “zao’s”. Simply avoiding elective crimes and evil intentions does not subordinate or mortify the biological sin nature. Otherwise, Paul would have said “for the very things I want to do I do and the very evil that I hate I do not do. Therefore, I do not need rescue. Everything is just peachy keen.” This is why it also says in Romans 10:4 For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth, which more accurately spoken is “Christ and faith in him results in the righteousness state that the law was shooting for, and actually mortifies the fleshy nature. And one can live the zoe life in this zao life”. Those who love the brethren have passed from death unto zoe, and those who have the son have the eternal zoe life and live it here.
Mr. Comfort’s gospel only speaks of avoiding intentional evil desires, not “dying” whilst doing those things and not repenting of those elective crimes. Thus, Mr. Comfort’s “gospel” seems modeled for only criminals and is about avoiding elective crimes for the purposes of avoiding Hell. So one could ask if Hell is the punishment for those crimes? Double jeopardy should come to mind at this point, as Mr. Comfort said that Christ suffered the punishment for those elective crimes, yet they will be punished with Hell if they “die while having evil intentions and acts”. What is fascinating is that “their deaths while committing such criminal offenses” is not seen as a punishment in itself. Roman’s 6:23 was not written to, about, or was to be applied to all men. It was written to the believers in Rome, some of which were getting back into committing adultery, robbery (the very things Mr. Comfort spoke of and only applied to the “unsaved man”), which is why he said what he said to the believers in Rome: “the wages of sin is death”. It is a judgment of physical death by the criminal court of God.
21 Thou therefore which teachest another, teachest thou not thyself? thou that preachest a man should not steal, dost thou steal?
22 Thou that sayest a man should not commit adultery, dost thou commit adultery? thou that abhorrest idols, dost thou commit sacrilege?
23 Thou that makest thy boast of the law, through breaking the law dishonourest thou God?
24 For the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles through you, as it is written.
All that following the Mosaic code of law and avoiding the elective crimes of the Mosaic law results in, is man maintaining his physical zao life by that observance. Eternal zoe life is not attained by that observance. Otherwise, man would be able to brag, but not before God. For he would still be doing what he did not want to do and be fighting a losing battle against a raging sin nature. If the “gospel” or good news is only about escaping punishment and using fear of Hell, depicting all men who ever lived of being full of evil intentions and wickedness, leaving no possibility for those who desire the good yet cannot attain it themselves, and only uses the observances that can be summed up as the law without Christ, AND HIS PROMISE OF DELIVERANCE FROM THE SIN NATURE, WHICH LAST I HEARD WAS GOOD NEWS AND PART OF THE GOSPEL, THEN MR COMFORT IS A LIAR AND SPEAKS INTENTIONALLY TO MISLEAD PEOPLE, WHICH KEEPS THEM IN SUBJECTION TO THE FLESHY NATURE. NO DELIVERANCE OCCURS! There is a reason why “saving them from their sins” makes no sense when you inject bank robberies or intentionally desiring and seeking to commit adultery or the inward evil intent into it. John the Baptist told the people to repent, and that was of intentional evils and lawless acts and to not do them anymore. God told Israel to remove the evil from their deeds, to put away idols, to stop shedding innocent blood and so forth. All of those things are under man’s control. And doing those commands and avoiding those intentional crimes is not “the zoe” or the life eternal. Those who did those commands only maintained their zoa lives by staying out of the dog box or avoiding the woodshed. Even those who did those commands still cried for deliverance, even the deliverance that is in Christ, which frees one from slavery, even the slavery to the flesh, so that one may live the zoe life eternal in this life. This is “the zoe life in Christ” THAT IS GOOD NEWS, which is omitted in Mr. Comfort’s “good news” or “gospel”. And those who only hear Mr. Comfort’s gospel and nothing else, will stand as losers, not overcomers. They will zoa live and die, still doing the sin nature’s bidding. Though they may have mitigation for being deceived by people like Mr. Comfort and his “gospel” which only addressed the flesh to do it, and does not contain “the zoe life”, they will not be standing on the high ground, or be winners. Mr. Comfort is a LOSER who slyly tells people that by the flesh they will pass into the zoe life. But all who are under the law are under a curse, because the law cannot mortify or separate one from the flesh and the slavery to it. “Cursed be any man or angel who preaches a different gospel”. And Mr. Comfort, your’s sure is different, because Jesus Christ did not suffer the punishment that men deserve for intentional evil and elective crimes. He died FOR all men, not in the place of all men. And it is not a “small difference” between the two. They are completely different “gospels”. In fact, one is not a gospel at all. For it is an abomination under the law to punish the innocent. Which holds the higher standard, the law or the giver of the law? FOR GOD IS ABLE TO ACCOMPLISH WHAT THE LAW WAS NOT. AND HE DID NOT ACHIEVE IT BY VIOLATING HIS OWN LAW. CURSED ARE YOU MR. COMFORT, FOR PORTRAYING GOD AS VIOLATING THE LAW IN HIS OWN HOUSE OF LAW. You might want to consider repenting of that, you jackass.
According to God’s perfect and moral law, is it lawful or moral for God to shed innocent blood? If it is lawful and moral to shed innocent blood, then when God judges all men according to the perfect and moral law..all those who shed innocent blood cannot be condemned. For if God were to condemn someone who shed innocent blood, they could charge God with having done the very same crime…what is Ray Comfort’s “God” to say? “I, God, have done the very same thing…but in my case it is different, for I have shed innocent blood for a “good cause”…so that the blood wicked would not be shed”??? So is it a “good thing” that the blood of the guilty not be shed, and is it a “good thing” that the blood of the innocent be shed in “God’s case”…why is it that Ray Comfort’s “god” who sheds innocent blood, and the wicked who shed innocent blood, exactly the opposite and a violation of the perfect and moral law..and yet the wicked are condemned for it but the God who does the same thing is to be praised? (could it be because Ray Comfort thinks he has escaped justice and his own guilty blood being shed?). Isn’t it a conflict of interest for the guilty “to praise” the idea of an innocents blood being shed instead of their own? Ray places himself as being personally involved in the case and gaining a profit by his beliefs. All the wicked who wish to escape facing justice and preventing having their own guilty blood shed, have a conflict of interest and an impure motive for believing and advocating such a “perfect and moral law and religious system”…for one could successfully make the claim that such a “legal system” was designed by the guilty for the express purposes of their own personal gain. Is it not true “Mr. Comfort” that the charge could be made that people like yourself made up the fantasy “perfect and moral law of shedding innocent blood” to “justify” your own personal desires of avoiding having your own blood shed…doing a complete bypass of justice itself?
Do the wicked want to bypass justice? YES! Does Satan want to bypass justice? YES! Does the antichrist want to bypass justice? YES! Do false teachers want to bypass justice? YES! Does Ray Comfort want to bypass justice? Well lets see… “Mr. Comfort, have you ever sought and even bypassed facing justice in your life? Do you presently desire and want to bypass justice? If so, you have an impure motive and are wicked. Tell us the difference Mr. Comfort, between your own desire that you have to avoid facing justice and that same desire that the wicked have to avoid facing justice? Claiming that “God made it that way” will not suffice and is really a change of subject and is a distraction, for I am asking about your own personal desire to avoid facing justice, BECAUSE YOU HAVE TO “WANT IT TO BE THAT WAY” in order to advocate that for yourself. All who advocate that “someone else be punished instead of them” for their crimes…WANT IT TO BE THAT WAY! WHY DO YOU WANT IT TO BE THAT WAY MR. COMFORT AND HOW CAN THAT BE A RIGHTEOUS OR HONORABLE MOTIVE?