Ray Comfort – Way of the Master is not WOTM

TBN is undeniably a strong proponent of blending the New Age movement and Paganism with a Christian mindset, as demonstrated in the infamous Kenneth Copeland Interview “Praise-a-Thon” programme on TBN in April 1988.

• Kenneth Copeland: “I was shocked when I found out who the biggest failure in the Bible actually is.”
• Paul Crouch: “Okay.”
• Kenneth Copeland: “You know, everyone you ask will say, ‘Who’s the biggest failure?’ They’ll say, ‘Judas.’ Someone else will argue, ‘No! I believe it was Adam.’ But what about the devil?”
• Paul Crouch: (Sound of amazement)
• Kenneth Copeland: “The devil is the most consistent failure. But he’s not the biggest in terms of material failure and other areas. The biggest failure in the whole Bible is God… Wait, wait. Don’t you turn that set off! You listen to us. I told you… Now, you sit still for a minute. You know me well enough to know I wouldn’t say anything I can’t prove by the Bible.”

This bold statement caused controversy, and another significant issue arose when Dr. Martin contacted Kenneth Copeland by mail, confronting him on this matter. Unfortunately, Dr. Martin’s responses from Copeland “were neither kind nor receptive,” showing the uncharacteristic refusal to address concerns with humility or sincerity.

Following the broadcast of Copeland’s outrageous claim, a conversation took place with Paul Crouch on TBN, further raising questions about Copeland’s prophecy. “We’re still questioning what was said about that prophecy. That prophecy never mentions the Son of God; it never says anything about the Son of God.” (Crouch) “What did it actually say?” “It said, I did not claim to be God!” That’s all it said.” (Crouch) “In other words, in so many words, you’re right—nowhere in the New Testament does he literally get up and (Copeland interjects: “preach and say I am God”) say, ‘I AM God’, did he? Now I stand corrected.” (Ed. Note: It doesn’t matter what Copeland thinks he did; the real question is, what did Jesus think He did?)

It is crucial to understand that TBN, in its widespread influence, has propagated heretical teachings, false prophecies, and engaged in compromising ecumenism. Notable examples include the public collaboration of Paul Crouch with the Pope, as well as support for Islam, among other contentious issues. Such partnerships demonstrate a deliberate disregard for the doctrinal integrity expected of Christian ministries.

In 2005, 2007, and 2008, the Winning in Life conference, run by Ray Comfort’s associate Robb Thompson, exemplified further associations with questionable figures. Robb Thompson, the senior pastor of Family Harvest Church, has been linked to various controversial figures, including John Bevere and his wife, Lisa. Robb Thompson’s ministry even sent out invitations for speakers to the 2005 conference, which featured Ray Comfort. Unfortunately, Ray Comfort shared the platform with heretical and apostate false teachers such as John Avanzini, Mike Murdock, Kenneth Copeland, Gloria Copeland, and Jesse Duplantis. This alarming display of endorsement for teachers known for prosperity gospel and other unbiblical teachings raised concerns among many who viewed the event.

In 2007, Ray Comfort again shared the platform with notorious false teachers, including Rick Renner, Jesse Duplantis, John Avanzini, and Mike Murdock. These men have been widely criticised for their unbiblical practices, doctrines, and manipulative methods of fundraising.

In 2008, at an Inspiring Excellence Conference, Ray Comfort once again shared the platform with John Avanzini, Jesse Duplantis, Mike Murdock, and Rod Parsley, all figures whose theological views have been called into question by many within the Christian community for their promotion of wealth-based gospel and other heretical teachings. The repeated associations with such figures raised serious doubts about the doctrinal stance of those involved.

Then, in August 2009, Ray Comfort further compromised his position when he aligned himself with the false prophet and ecumenist Pat Robertson. Known for his controversial ecumenical views, Pat Robertson has often advocated for compromising biblical truth in the pursuit of unity with various religious groups, making his collaboration with Comfort another example of troubling theological alliances.

Addressing the Allegation of Guilt by Association

To argue that the concerns raised about Ray Comfort’s associations with individuals like Kenneth Copeland, Pat Robertson, and others are not merely instances of “guilt by association,” but rather a legitimate critique based on doctrinal integrity, we need to focus on several key points that highlight the importance of discerning both the company one keeps and the theological implications of those associations.

1. Theological Integrity: The Power of Influence

The argument against “guilt by association” assumes that one’s beliefs and teachings are not influenced by the people they choose to partner with. However, within Christian teaching and Scripture, there is a strong emphasis on the importance of sound doctrine and the company one keeps, as it can affect not only personal beliefs but also the broader ministry one represents. The Apostle Paul warned against associating with those who “teach another gospel” (Galatians 1:8), and 2 Corinthians 6:14-18 highlights the incompatibility of light with darkness. It’s not merely about personal relationships but the potential for false teaching to spread when one shares platforms with individuals known for promoting heretical doctrines.

Ray Comfort, as a prominent figure in the Christian world, has a responsibility to be careful about the associations he maintains publicly, as they can send mixed messages about his doctrinal stance. The question then becomes not about guilt by association but about whether Comfort’s partnerships reflect his tacit approval or endorsement of teachings he might not explicitly uphold. Even if Comfort does not personally espouse the prosperity gospel or other problematic doctrines, his public affiliation with those who do raises concerns about whether he is indirectly validating those views by sharing a platform with them.

2. The Nature of False Teachers and Their Influence

Critics often argue that Ray Comfort’s associations with figures like Kenneth Copeland, who is known for promoting the prosperity gospel, are not coincidental but indicative of an ideological alignment, or at the very least, a failure to publicly distance himself from falsehood. The doctrine that Copeland and others like him preach goes beyond mere disagreement on secondary theological issues—it is a distortion of the gospel itself, focusing on material wealth and physical health as signs of God’s favour rather than the true message of repentance, salvation, and the cross.

In 2 Peter 2:1-3, the Bible warns that false teachers will arise, secretly bringing destructive heresies. It is not enough for Comfort to merely say that he disagrees with these teachers—his failure to publicly denounce their false teachings, especially while sharing platforms with them, leaves open the possibility that his audience may be confused or misled into thinking these teachers are legitimate Christian voices. The issue is not guilt by association, but rather the doctrinal compromise or ambiguity that may result from these partnerships.

3. The Biblical Call for Separation from Falsehood

The Bible is clear about the importance of separating oneself from falsehood, even if it means not engaging in public associations with those who propagate false teachings. Romans 16:17 advises believers to “watch out for those who cause divisions and put obstacles in your way that are contrary to the teaching you have learned. Keep away from them.” Similarly, 2 John 1:10-11 says, “If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not take them into your house or welcome them.” The Bible does not suggest that one can innocently associate with false teachers without risk. The doctrine we hold must be defended, and this requires both a rejection of falsehood and a firm stance on biblical truth.

Ray Comfort’s public participation in events alongside these figures, without clear and vocal opposition to their false teachings, places his credibility in question. It is not enough to simply share a platform and avoid doctrinal confrontation; there is a biblical responsibility to distance oneself from teaching that distorts the gospel, especially when that teaching is as dangerous and far-reaching as the prosperity gospel or ecumenism.

4. The Risk of Confusion Among Followers

Another key point to address is the impact of these associations on Ray Comfort’s followers and the broader Christian community. While Comfort may not personally hold to the beliefs of Kenneth Copeland or Pat Robertson, his participation in events where these individuals are given a platform sends a confusing message to his audience. As a leader, Comfort’s actions are scrutinised by those who look to him for guidance. The line between sound teaching and heresy is sometimes subtle, and when a well-known figure like Comfort shares a platform with false teachers without clear distinctions or rebukes, it becomes harder for the average believer to discern what is true and what is false.

This is particularly dangerous for newer or less mature Christians, who may not have the theological training to critically assess the beliefs of those they follow. Comfort’s failure to speak out against the heresies of those he associates with, coupled with his repeated engagement with them, risks leading people into doctrinal confusion or, worse, error. This is not about judging Comfort’s personal beliefs but rather about assessing the effects of his public ministry.

5. Scriptural Example of Shunning False Teachers

Finally, it’s important to consider the example set by Scripture itself. In 1 Timothy 1:20, Paul speaks of “Hymenaeus and Alexander, whom I have handed over to Satan to be taught not to blaspheme.” Similarly, in 2 Timothy 2:17-18, Paul warns about the damage done by false teachers whose words “spread like gangrene.” In these cases, the Apostle Paul did not simply tolerate these individuals or allow them to remain in fellowship; he publicly condemned their actions and distanced himself from them. This biblical approach shows that association with false teachers is not a neutral act—it carries consequences both for the teachers and for those who partner with them.

Comfort’s continued public affiliation with figures who teach a different gospel undermines the biblical call to expose and rebuke false teachers. Instead of merely assuming that these associations are guilt by association, it is more appropriate to view them as legitimate concerns over the integrity of Comfort’s ministry, given that Scripture makes it clear that one cannot simply ignore or gloss over dangerous doctrines without accountability.

the issue is not one of “guilt by association” but rather a biblical concern for doctrinal purity. Ray Comfort’s repeated involvement with teachers who promote unbiblical and heretical views raises valid questions about his commitment to the gospel message. The charge is not one of association alone, but of potentially endorsing, or at the very least failing to reject, dangerous doctrines that could lead others astray. The Bible calls us to be discerning, to protect the integrity of the gospel, and to distance ourselves from falsehood. Comfort’s failure to make clear separations between himself and those who spread such heresies is a matter of serious concern, not of unwarranted guilt.

As clearly shown in the video above, Way of the Master has, without any repentance, aligned itself with TBN and other teachers known for promoting heretical doctrines. This troubling association raises serious concerns about the doctrinal integrity of Ray Comfort and his ministry. I strongly urge anyone reading this to reconsider their involvement with Ray Comfort and the Way of the Master ministry, as it appears to be increasingly compromised.

On 27th May 2014, I was confronted with a deeply unsettling quote from Ray Comfort, one that he attributed to the renowned preacher Charles Spurgeon. The quote, which is displayed below on the right, is quite revealing of Ray Comfort’s approach to discernment. Spurgeon’s words regarding discernment—“Discernment is not knowing the difference between right and wrong. It is knowing the difference between right and almost right”—are profound and necessary for guarding the truth of the gospel. However, Ray Comfort’s own actions stand in stark contrast to these words.

Ray Comfort has often cited the importance of discernment, particularly when it comes to distinguishing between truth and error. Yet, when it comes to ecumenism and his alliances with groups and individuals promoting unbiblical teachings, he fails to apply this very standard of discernment to himself. This is particularly disturbing because Spurgeon’s teaching on discernment emphasises the importance of recognising even subtle distortions of the truth—what he called “almost right”—which is exactly the issue at hand with Comfort’s associations. Instead of holding fast to clear biblical truth and rejecting heretical teachings, Comfort has increasingly compromised, endorsing and sharing platforms with figures who have distorted the gospel message.

This contradiction is both troubling and hypocritical. If Comfort truly believes in the importance of discernment as Spurgeon describes, why does he not apply it to his own actions and associations? How can someone who quotes Spurgeon on discernment continue to partner with individuals and organisations that openly promote false teachings? The answer seems to lie in the uncomfortable reality that Ray Comfort has become entangled in ecumenical efforts that blur the lines between truth and error. His public associations with figures who propagate the prosperity gospel, ecumenism, and other heresies demonstrate a lack of clarity in his own understanding of biblical truth.

To illustrate the extent of Ray Comfort’s compromises, let us take a closer look at some of the significant instances where he has blurred the lines between truth and error:

1. Partnerships with TBN and Prosperity Teachers: One of the most significant areas of concern is Ray Comfort’s ongoing involvement with TBN (Trinity Broadcasting Network) and its affiliates, which have long been associated with prosperity gospel teachers like Kenneth Copeland, Jesse Duplantis, and Gloria Copeland. These teachers are known for their unbiblical emphasis on wealth and health as signs of God’s blessing, which distorts the true gospel of salvation through faith in Christ alone. Ray Comfort’s participation in events where these teachers are featured, without clear and vocal opposition to their teachings, raises serious questions about his commitment to sound doctrine.
2. Involvement in Ecumenical Movements: Comfort’s increasing participation in ecumenical efforts, where he seeks to bridge divides between various religious groups, further complicates the situation. The Bible warns against compromising the truth of the gospel for the sake of unity (2 Corinthians 6:14-18). Yet, Ray Comfort has repeatedly aligned himself with groups that water down the core truths of the Christian faith in favour of a more inclusive approach to religion. This is not just a matter of a difference in style or preference; it is a direct undermining of the biblical mandate to hold fast to the truth and to avoid false teachings.
3. Lack of Discernment in His Collaborations: Despite his frequent appeals to discernment, Ray Comfort has failed to exercise the same caution when it comes to the people he chooses to collaborate with. Whether it is sharing the stage with well-known false teachers or endorsing individuals who have openly compromised the gospel, his actions betray a disregard for the very principles of discernment that he claims to uphold. This raises a significant question: If Comfort is unwilling to apply discernment in his own ministry, how can he effectively teach others to do the same?

It is important to note that this is not an attack on Ray Comfort as an individual, nor is it an attempt to judge his heart or motives. However, it is a necessary call for accountability regarding his public ministry and the potentially harmful effects it can have on those who follow him. The Bible is clear that teachers and leaders in the church have a responsibility to guard the flock from false teachings (Acts 20:28; Titus 1:9). When a teacher fails to do so—especially when their associations with false teachers are public and repeated—it becomes a matter of concern for the body of Christ as a whole.

Ray Comfort’s failure to distance himself from these false teachings and his ongoing associations with those who promote them is not merely a matter of guilt by association, but rather a failure to exercise the biblical discernment he claims to value. His actions contradict the very essence of what he teaches about discerning truth from error. The reality is that these compromises are leading many believers into confusion and potentially into error, as they may not fully recognise the doctrinal dangers of the individuals with whom Comfort associates.

Therefore, I strongly encourage anyone who values sound doctrine and the integrity of the gospel to carefully reconsider their involvement with Ray Comfort and the Way of the Master ministry. The repeated compromises, failure to apply biblical discernment, and questionable partnerships should not be ignored. It is time to heed the warning of Scripture, which calls us to avoid those who distort the gospel, and to separate ourselves from teachings that do not align with the clear truth of God’s Word (Romans 16:17; 2 Timothy 3:5).

In conclusion, Ray Comfort’s actions speak louder than his words. Despite his frequent appeals to discernment and his use of Spurgeon’s quote, his associations with heretical teachings and ecumenical movements reveal a troubling pattern of compromise. It is essential for all Christians to exercise biblical discernment and to avoid the temptation of compromising with error in the name of unity or outreach. For the sake of the truth of the gospel, I urge you to prayerfully consider the implications of continuing involvement with Ray Comfort and the Way of the Master ministry.

Ray Comfort Says “For our partnership with the Salvation Army” 

Published on 7 May 2012
Ray Comfort & Stuart Scott are in Hollywood with The Salvation Army open air preaching on the corner of Hollywood and Vine.

Papal Visit to the UK, 2010

In 2010, as part of Pope Benedict XVI’s visit to the United Kingdom, the Salvation Army’s leadership, including Commissioner Betty Matear and Commissioner John Matear, publicly expressed their support for the Papal visit, further strengthening their ties to ecumenical movements that blur doctrinal lines. A British Christian, known for their ecumenical stance and support for pro-homosexual rights, reported that “Commissioner Betty Matear of the Salvation Army and the Presidents of the ecumenical group Churches Together in England, have welcomed Pope Benedict XVI’s visit.” This statement is reflective of the Salvation Army’s growing involvement in ecumenism, which raises serious concerns for those who hold to a biblical understanding of the gospel.

Commissioner John Matear, the Territorial Commander of the Salvation Army, made the following comment regarding the visit: “We hope that Pope Benedict’s visit will help the churches come together to proclaim the good news of the Kingdom in word and deed.” While the intention behind such statements may seem charitable, the reality is that the involvement of the Salvation Army with such ecumenical gatherings ultimately undermines the biblical call for the Church to remain separate from false teachings.

The Action of Churches Together in Scotland also welcomed the Papal visit, with Lieut-Colonel Alan Burns, Scotland Secretary for the Salvation Army, expressing, “On behalf of Salvationists in Scotland, I’m pleased to welcome Pope Benedict XVI. His visit, coinciding with the feast of St Ninian, will give Christians throughout the nation an opportunity to collectively celebrate the life and work of the Churches throughout the ages.” While these words may seem to promote unity, they inadvertently suggest that the Church of Rome, with its deep-rooted doctrinal errors, is a valid partner in the gospel work—something the Bible clearly rejects.

Salvation Army Commissioner Betty Matear was also quoted as stating that she hoped the Papal visit would be a source of encouragement to all of England’s churches. Following the Pope’s visit to Westminster Abbey, where evening prayer was celebrated, Commissioner Betty Matear was invited to participate in a dinner and discussion hosted by the UK Government. This event involved Roman Catholic cardinals and bishops, and she described the experience as affirming the critical role of Church and State engagement. She expressed that “it is important that the different parts of the Body of Christ, the Church, talk to one another,” implying that dialogue with the Roman Catholic Church is both necessary and beneficial for advancing the gospel.

Commissioner Betty Matear went on to say, “The recent visit gives us the opportunity to build and strengthen relationships and to be confident in the gospel of grace we share.” While her words may appear innocent on the surface, they reflect a profound doctrinal compromise. The Roman Catholic Church, with its doctrines of salvation, purgatory, transubstantiation, and the veneration of Mary, does not preach the same gospel of grace as the Scriptures. The gospel of grace, according to the Bible, is salvation by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone—not through the sacraments or human works as taught by Rome. To claim that the Roman Catholic Church shares the same gospel is to ignore the fundamental differences that exist between the true gospel of Scripture and the false gospel of Roman Catholicism.

Comment: No, Commissioner Betty Matear, the Church of Rome and the ecumenical movement do not share the same gospel. The teachings of the Pope and the Roman Catholic Church stand in direct contradiction to the teachings of Scripture. The Catholic Church’s false gospel, with its focus on works, sacraments, and tradition, is an abomination before God. To suggest that these differences can be glossed over in the name of unity is a grave error and an affront to biblical truth.

Commissioner Betty Matear also stated, “Together as the Body of Christ, we work to express and understand the common faith we share and how we might live out the gospel of Jesus Christ.” This statement, while seemingly promoting Christian unity, is deeply troubling when examined in the light of Scripture. The Bible does not call believers to seek unity at all costs, particularly when that unity requires compromising the truth. The apostle Paul warns in 2 Corinthians 6:14-17, “Do not be unequally yoked with unbelievers,” and in Romans 16:17, he instructs the church to “watch out for those who cause divisions and create obstacles contrary to the doctrine that you have been taught; avoid them.” The Roman Catholic Church, with its false teachings, is not a valid partner in proclaiming the true gospel of Jesus Christ. The body of Christ is meant to be united around the truth of God’s Word, not around a shared acceptance of false doctrine.

Comment: No, Commissioner Betty Matear, a common faith with the Pope and the Roman Catholic Church is not something that should be sought or celebrated by Bible-believing Christians. The Bible calls us to stand firm in the truth, even if that means rejecting false doctrines and remaining separate from those who promote them. The gospel is not something to be watered down or compromised for the sake of unity.

Commissioner Betty Matear went on to affirm that the Salvation Army is “at the heart of all of this.” She explained that the Salvation Army had recently asked every division to share where they were working ecumenically, and to date, the responses had stretched to a 28-page listing. She noted, “There are no exceptions; in every division there is involvement at every level.” This statement is deeply concerning, as it demonstrates the pervasive nature of the Salvation Army’s ecumenical involvement. Instead of standing apart from false teachings, the Salvation Army has willingly immersed itself in ecumenical alliances, promoting a false sense of unity that overlooks the doctrinal differences that separate true Christianity from error.

In her reference to 1 Corinthians 12, Commissioner Betty Matear said, “The words of 1 Corinthians 12 regarding the Body of Christ describe our interconnectedness, our roles, and God’s desire and design for unity.” While it is true that the Body of Christ is meant to function in unity, this unity is based on the truth of the gospel, not on the compromise of doctrine. To suggest that the Body of Christ can be united with those who do not hold to the same gospel is a misinterpretation of Scripture. The unity Paul speaks of in 1 Corinthians is a unity founded on the truth of Christ’s death, burial, and resurrection—something the Roman Catholic Church distorts through its false teachings on salvation.

Comment: Commissioner Betty Matear, this is false doctrine and pure blasphemy. The Body of Christ is not meant to be united with those who preach a false gospel, and the idea that we should seek unity with the Roman Catholic Church is a direct violation of the clear teachings of Scripture.

 Tents for the local needy children.

The Incompatibility of the Salvation Army’s Ecumenical and Freemasonic Involvements with Biblical Christianity

On 19th March 2009, the Worshipful Master presented a cheque to the Salvation Army, a donation facilitated by Wor. Bro. Dawson. This donation was intended to help purchase two new tents for the Salvation Army’s ‘Guarding and Legions Activities’ group. This group works to provide underprivileged children with the opportunity to experience the outdoors through regular camping trips, offering a much-needed break from their challenging socio-economic situations. The donation was matched by the Board of Benevolence through their ‘Dollar for Dollar’ subsidy.

At first glance, the donation and the Salvation Army’s efforts in providing these children with enriching experiences may appear admirable, and they are on the surface. The heart of these camps—offering children respite and outdoor opportunities—is a commendable initiative. However, for the Bible student, the true concern is not merely the outward appearance of charity, but the deeper theological and spiritual implications of the Salvation Army’s involvement in ecumenical partnerships, particularly with organisations that contradict biblical teachings.

The Problem with Ecumenism: A False Unity

Ecumenism, the movement aimed at fostering unity between various Christian denominations and even non-Christian religious groups, has become a prominent aspect of the Salvation Army’s activities. At the heart of the gospel is the truth that salvation is found only in Jesus Christ and that true unity can only be formed around this truth (John 14:6). However, ecumenical movements often lead to doctrinal compromise, as they focus on superficial unity at the expense of sound biblical doctrine. The Salvation Army has embraced a broad ecumenical stance, which includes associations with groups that hold to teachings contrary to biblical Christianity, including the Roman Catholic Church, liberal Protestantism, and Freemasonry.

The Bible commands believers to be cautious about forming alliances with those who do not uphold the gospel of Christ in its purity. In 2 Corinthians 6:14, the Apostle Paul writes, “Do not be unequally yoked with unbelievers. For what partnership has righteousness with lawlessness? Or what fellowship has light with darkness?” The term “unequally yoked” refers to the idea of forming a partnership that is spiritually incompatible. The ecumenical movement promotes an unhealthy unity with groups that do not hold to the gospel of grace, and the Salvation Army’s participation in such partnerships directly contradicts this biblical command.

The focus of ecumenical alliances is often to downplay doctrinal differences in favour of social and political unity. Yet, the Bible teaches that Christians must separate themselves from those who do not adhere to the gospel of salvation through Jesus Christ alone (Romans 16:17). Paul wrote, “I appeal to you, brothers, to watch out for those who cause divisions and create obstacles contrary to the doctrine that you have been taught; avoid them.” The Salvation Army’s refusal to avoid such partnerships poses a serious danger to the clarity and integrity of the gospel message.

The Issue of Freemasonry: Unbiblical Practices and Doctrines

Freemasonry, an organisation with occultic and secretive roots, is another area where the Salvation Army’s affiliations raise serious concerns. Many of its officers and leaders have been linked to Freemasonry, a society that operates on principles that are fundamentally incompatible with biblical Christianity. Freemasonry teaches a universalistic, works-based approach to spirituality and salvation. It offers a form of “enlightenment” that is not rooted in Scripture, and its secret rituals and oaths involve invoking false spiritual forces and practicing idolatry, which is strictly condemned in the Bible (Exodus 20:3-5).

In Freemasonry, there is a belief that salvation is accessible to anyone, regardless of their religious beliefs, through the pursuit of moral perfection and enlightenment. This teaching stands in direct opposition to the biblical doctrine of salvation by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone (Ephesians 2:8-9). Jesus Himself declared, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me” (John 14:6). The message of Christ is exclusive—there is no other way to salvation. Yet Freemasonry teaches that there are multiple paths to spiritual fulfilment, which is a false gospel.

The Bible warns against engaging in secret societies and participating in activities that promote occultic practices. In Deuteronomy 18:10-12, God condemns occult practices such as divination, sorcery, and seeking spiritual enlightenment outside of Him. Freemasonry, with its secret oaths, rituals, and the worship of a ‘higher being,’ falls squarely within this category. The Bible warns that such associations are spiritually dangerous and that believers should have no part in them.

The Salvation Army’s ongoing involvement with Freemasonry—despite its charitable works—casts a shadow over its mission. While many people within the Salvation Army may have good intentions and engage in helpful outreach, the involvement in an organisation that espouses teachings contrary to the gospel is not something that can be ignored. Jesus repeatedly warned against compromising with falsehoods, even if the intentions behind them seem good. In Matthew 7:15-20, He cautioned, “Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves. You will recognize them by their fruits.” Freemasonry, despite its outward appearance of doing good, is spiritually destructive, and the Bible makes it clear that we are to separate from such influences.

Charity without Compromise: The Call to Separate from Falsehood

The Bible makes it clear that charity and good works, while important, should never be the basis for doctrinal compromise. In 2 Corinthians 6:17, Paul instructs Christians to “come out from among them and be separate, says the Lord, and touch no unclean thing.” This separation is not a call to abandon love or charity but to avoid being yoked with falsehood. It is possible to show kindness to the world, to care for the needy, and to do good works, but this should never come at the cost of aligning ourselves with false teachings.

The Salvation Army’s charitable work, such as providing tents for underprivileged children, is valuable in itself, but it must be viewed in light of the broader theological issues. The organisation’s continued participation in Freemasonry and ecumenical movements does not align with the gospel of Jesus Christ. The Bible clearly teaches that we must separate from those who uphold a false gospel and instead stand firm in the truth of God’s Word (Galatians 1:8-9). While outwardly appearing charitable, the Salvation Army’s ecumenical alliances undermine the purity of the gospel and lead people into spiritual confusion.

The Bible student must recognise that it is not enough to simply support charitable efforts if those efforts are promoting false doctrines and compromising the gospel. Jesus did not come to merely teach moral lessons or improve social conditions; He came to proclaim the truth of the gospel, calling all people to repentance and faith in Him as the only way to salvation (John 3:16-18). Christians are called to uphold the integrity of the gospel, even when it means rejecting associations with organisations that promote a false or diluted message.

while the Salvation Army’s charitable work, such as their donation of tents to children in need, may seem commendable, it must be viewed within the context of their broader doctrinal compromises. Their ongoing participation in ecumenical movements and their involvement with Freemasonry cannot be ignored, as both of these contribute to a false unity that undermines the truth of the gospel. As Bible students, we are called to be discerning, not only in our actions but also in our associations, ensuring that we remain faithful to the truth of God’s Word and uphold the purity of the gospel.

The Apostle Paul warned believers to “test everything; hold fast what is good” (1 Thessalonians 5:21). We must examine the fruits of organisations and movements, not only their outward acts of charity, but their alignment with biblical truth. The Salvation Army, despite its charitable works, has compromised on essential doctrinal matters. As followers of Christ, we must stand firm on the gospel and avoid any form of partnership that seeks to water down or distort the truth of God’s Word.

The Compromise of Ray Comfort: A Critical Examination of His Associations with Billy Graham, Franklin Graham, and TBN

In a pivotal moment in 1967, Dr. Billy Graham delivered a profound statement at Belmont Abbey College, North Carolina, declaring, “The gospel that built this school and the gospel that brings me here tonight is still the way to salvation” (Gastonia Gazette). At face value, this statement aligns with the biblical gospel of salvation through Jesus Christ alone, a message that is central to Christian faith. However, this proclamation must be understood in the context of Billy Graham’s broader theological positions, which were increasingly shaped by ecumenical principles and a willingness to embrace partnerships with groups that do not hold to core Christian doctrines.

At the time of Billy Graham’s visit to Belmont Abbey College, Rev. Cuthbert E. Allen, the executive vice-president of the college, wrote, “I have followed Billy Graham’s career and I must emphasize that he has been more Catholic than otherwise… Billy Graham is preaching a moral and evangelical theology most acceptable to Catholics” (Personal letter, reproduced in Billy Graham and the Church of Rome, by I.R.K. Paisley, Appendix. Document No.3). This statement is troubling, as it suggests that Billy Graham’s message, which many viewed as evangelical, was largely palatable to Roman Catholics. However, the doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church diverge from biblical Christianity in critical areas, especially concerning salvation, the nature of Christ, and the role of the Church.

The ecumenical spirit that Billy Graham embraced throughout his career, particularly his willingness to cooperate with the Roman Catholic Church, sets the stage for a deeper investigation into Ray Comfort’s ministry. Ray Comfort, a prominent figure in contemporary evangelicalism, has publicly aligned himself with the legacy of Billy Graham, even partnering with figures such as Franklin Graham, Billy Graham’s son, who continues to propagate a similar ecumenical vision. This raises an important question: why has Ray Comfort chosen to associate himself with individuals and organisations whose theological positions are often at odds with orthodox Christianity?

One of the key concerns in examining Ray Comfort’s associations is the apparent lack of discernment in his partnerships. Comfort has been a vocal proponent of biblical discernment in the past, encouraging Christians to be cautious about the teachings they embrace. Yet, when it comes to his relationships with figures like Franklin Graham and organisations like TBN, Comfort’s actions seem to contradict the very principles of discernment that he once espoused. The Bible warns against the dangers of false teachers and encourages believers to be vigilant in guarding the purity of the gospel (Galatians 1:6-9). Yet, by partnering with individuals and ministries that compromise the gospel message, Comfort risks undermining the integrity of his own ministry.

The situation becomes even more concerning when we consider the financial aspects of Ray Comfort’s ministry. Comfort’s organisation has been criticised for charging high prices for gospel materials that could be obtained elsewhere for much lower costs, or in some cases, for free. The exorbitant pricing of resources designed to spread the gospel raises ethical questions about the true motives behind Comfort’s ministry. Is the purpose of his work genuinely to spread the message of salvation, or has it become more of a business venture aimed at financial gain? The Bible speaks out against the love of money and warns that those who serve the gospel should not do so for profit (1 Timothy 6:10; Titus 1:11). Yet, Comfort’s pricing structure and his associations with organisations that engage in questionable financial practices—such as TBN, which has long been criticised for its prosperity gospel teachings—suggest that there may be more at play than just a desire to serve God.

Furthermore, the partnership between Ray Comfort and TBN is particularly troubling. TBN has become notorious for its promotion of the prosperity gospel, a heretical teaching that distorts the biblical message of salvation by making it a means to material wealth and physical health. This theology is a direct contradiction to the gospel of Jesus Christ, which calls Christians to deny themselves, take up their cross, and follow Christ (Matthew 16:24; Luke 9:23). By lending credibility to TBN, Comfort inadvertently supports a network that has been responsible for spreading false and harmful teachings to millions of viewers. TBN’s endorsement of prosperity gospel preachers, who distort the nature of the gospel for financial gain, calls into question the legitimacy of any ministry that chooses to partner with the network.

A significant theological issue that arises in relation to Billy Graham and his son Franklin Graham is their position on Mormonism. Both Billy and Franklin Graham have publicly stated that Mormons are Christians, despite the fact that the Mormon Church teaches doctrines that are in direct opposition to biblical Christianity. The Mormon Church denies essential aspects of the Christian faith, including the divinity of Christ, the doctrine of the Trinity, and the necessity of salvation by grace alone. These are non-negotiable tenets of the Christian faith that cannot be reconciled with Mormon theology. By affirming Mormons as Christians, the Grahams endorse a position that diminishes the exclusivity of the gospel and fails to distinguish between true Christianity and a false religious system. This is further exemplified in Billy Graham’s controversial statement that “people can be saved outside of Christ Jesus,” a teaching that is blatantly contrary to the teachings of Scripture (Acts 4:12; John 14:6).

Ray Comfort’s continued partnership with Franklin Graham and his endorsement of organisations like TBN must be viewed in light of these theological compromises. It is clear that Comfort’s associations with figures and networks that espouse a watered-down or distorted gospel undermine the very message he claims to uphold. The Bible warns that those who teach a false gospel or who lead others astray should be avoided (Galatians 1:8-9; 2 John 1:10-11). The question, therefore, must be asked: Is Ray Comfort’s ministry aligned with the teachings of Scripture, or has it become entangled in a web of theological compromise?

The call for Christians to separate from false teachers is not an act of judgment or condemnation, but rather a necessary step to preserve the purity of the gospel. As Christians, we are called to stand firm in the truth of God’s Word, to be discerning in our relationships, and to ensure that our ministries reflect the true message of salvation through faith in Jesus Christ alone. The apostle Paul urges believers to “test everything; hold fast what is good. Abstain from every form of evil” (1 Thessalonians 5:21-22). Ray Comfort’s failure to apply this principle in his partnerships with Billy Graham, Franklin Graham, and TBN calls into question his commitment to the truth of the gospel.

In conclusion, Ray Comfort’s continued associations with figures like Franklin Graham and his involvement with TBN reflect a troubling trend of compromise within his ministry. By aligning himself with individuals and organisations that espouse a distorted version of the gospel, Comfort risks leading others astray. The gospel of Jesus Christ is not a message that can be watered down or compromised for the sake of popularity or financial gain. As Christians, we must remain vigilant and discerning, ensuring that our ministries reflect the truth of Scripture and uphold the integrity of the gospel.

References

1. Gastonia Gazette, November 22, 1967.
2. Paisley, I.R.K. Billy Graham and the Church of Rome, Appendix. Document No.3.
3. Holy Bible, Galatians 1:6-9; John 14:6; Acts 4:12; 2 John 1:10-11.
4. YouTube Video, “Billy Graham – People Can Be Saved Outside of Christ Jesus,” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lCgpUPHkgc8.
5. Apprising Ministries, “Ray Comfort and Franklin Graham on TBN’s Praise the Lord Tonight,” May 30, 2014, https://apprising.org/2014/05/30/ray-comfort-and-franklin-graham-on-tbns-praise-the-lord-tonight/.

Billy Graham believes people can be saved outside of Christ Jesus:
This lie is clear here: 1:32 min: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lCgpUPHkgc8

The Theological Errors of Ray Comfort: A Critical Examination of Lordship Salvation and Doctrinal Compromise

Ray Comfort is a well-known figure within contemporary evangelicalism, primarily for his Living Waters ministry and his contributions to evangelistic outreach. His popularization of practical apologetics and the “Way of the Master” method of evangelism has influenced a broad audience. However, Comfort’s theological perspectives, especially his endorsement of Lordship Salvation, warrant a critical examination. This doctrine posits that true salvation requires not only faith in Christ but also a commitment to forsake sin, conflating the fruit of salvation with its root. Additionally, Comfort’s involvement in ecumenical movements and his ambiguous stance on various theological controversies raises serious concerns about his doctrinal orthodoxy. This paper seeks to explore the theological errors present in Comfort’s teachings, with a particular focus on his understanding of salvation, his use of Scripture, and his doctrinal affiliations.

The Doctrine of Lordship Salvation

At the heart of Ray Comfort’s theology lies the controversial doctrine of Lordship Salvation. This doctrine asserts that faith in Christ alone is insufficient for salvation unless it is accompanied by a decisive change in lifestyle—specifically, a turning away from sin. Comfort and other proponents of Lordship Salvation argue that true repentance involves a change in both mind and behaviour (Comfort, 2003). Comfort’s stance on repentance reflects a significant departure from the classical Protestant understanding of the doctrine, which maintains that repentance is primarily a change of mind about sin and God’s provision for salvation (Mark 1:15).

Comfort’s interpretation of repentance and faith stands in contrast to the historic Protestant doctrine articulated by the Reformers, such as Martin Luther and John Calvin. In his Institutes of the Christian Religion, Calvin famously defined repentance as a “turning to God with the whole heart” but did not equate repentance with moral perfection (Calvin, 1559). Instead, repentance is an acknowledgment of sin and a turning towards faith in Christ for forgiveness. Comfort’s insistence that repentance involves forsaking sin as a condition for salvation misrepresents the nature of biblical repentance and implicitly introduces a works-based element to salvation.

Furthermore, Comfort’s interpretation of repentance aligns more closely with a form of legalism, in which moral reform is seen as a necessary precondition for divine approval. The danger in this perspective is that it misrepresents the biblical gospel of grace. The New Testament clearly teaches that salvation is a gift received by faith, not a reward for moral transformation (Ephesians 2:8-9). The Apostle Paul emphasizes this point in Galatians 2:16, where he writes, “A person is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ.” To demand a change in behaviour before one can be saved is to add works to the gospel, undermining its central message of grace.

Comfort’s Misinterpretation of Matthew 7:21-23

A key passage that Ray Comfort frequently uses to support his Lordship Salvation doctrine is Matthew 7:21-23, in which Jesus warns that not everyone who calls Him “Lord” will enter the kingdom of heaven. Comfort interprets this passage to mean that salvation requires not only professed faith in Christ but also a life free from sin (Comfort, 2003). He writes, “These are perhaps the most frightening verses in the Bible. Vast multitudes of professing Christians fit into the category spoken of here. They call Jesus ‘Lord,’ but they practice lawlessness” (Comfort, 2003). Comfort argues that the failure to live a righteous life is a sign that one’s faith is not genuine, thus condemning them to eternal separation from God.

However, this interpretation is problematic when considered in its broader biblical context. Matthew 7:21-23, when read alongside verse 20, makes clear that the issue is not one of moral perfection but of rejecting God’s will for salvation. Jesus says, “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of My Father who is in heaven” (Matt. 7:21, ESV). The will of the Father, as revealed in Scripture, is that all people believe in Jesus Christ for salvation (John 6:40). Jesus is not condemning those who continue to struggle with sin but those who reject the gospel entirely.

The correct interpretation of Matthew 7:21-23 aligns with the biblical doctrine that salvation is based on faith in Christ, not on works or moral perfection. As John 6:40 states, the will of the Father is that “everyone who looks on the Son and believes in Him should have eternal life.” Comfort’s interpretation of this passage misrepresents the biblical gospel by suggesting that salvation is conditioned upon an ongoing moral transformation, rather than the initial act of believing in Christ.

The Biblical Understanding of Repentance

A critical element in understanding the error of Lordship Salvation is a proper understanding of repentance. The doctrine of repentance, according to Scripture, is a change of mind about sin and a turning to faith in Jesus Christ for forgiveness (Mark 1:15; Acts 20:21). The Greek term for repentance, metanoia, literally means a change of mind, not a change in behaviour. This distinction is crucial in understanding salvation and avoiding the errors associated with Lordship Salvation.

Comfort’s failure to distinguish between the root and fruit of salvation leads him to conflate repentance with moral perfection. In contrast, the New Testament presents a different view: while true repentance will naturally result in a changed life, the initial act of repentance is not a moral overhaul but a decision to turn from sin and trust in Christ (Romans 10:9). To demand a changed lifestyle as a condition for salvation is to deny the sufficiency of Christ’s atoning work, which is available to all who believe, regardless of their past or present struggles with sin.

David J. Stewart, a vocal critic of Lordship Salvation, summarizes this theological error succinctly: “Lordship Salvation is the unbiblical teaching that a person MUST cease from a sinful lifestyle to be saved. Nothing could be further from the truth” (Stewart, 2020). Stewart’s critique aligns with the teachings of the Apostle Paul, who underscores that justification is by faith alone, apart from works (Romans 3:28).

Comfort’s Ecumenical Affiliation and Doctrinal Ambiguity

In addition to his theological error regarding Lordship Salvation, Ray Comfort’s ecumenical associations raise further concerns. Comfort has publicly supported figures such as Franklin Graham and Ravi Zacharias, both of whom have been involved in ecumenical dialogues that seek to unite Christians with adherents of other faiths. For instance, Franklin Graham’s support of interfaith initiatives like the “Hope Together” campaign, which promotes unity among Christians, Muslims, Jews, and other faith groups, undermines the exclusive nature of the gospel message (Graham, 2019).

Comfort’s endorsement of such figures and his unwillingness to take a definitive stance on divisive theological issues, such as the charismatic movement and predestination, reflect a troubling commitment to maintaining unity at the expense of doctrinal purity. When asked about his views on contentious theological topics, Comfort reportedly stated, “I don’t have an opinion because I don’t want to divide the Body of Christ” (Comfort, Living Waters). While this may seem like a desire for peace, it ultimately undermines the importance of clear doctrinal teaching, which is essential for maintaining the integrity of the gospel.

The Apostle Paul, in 1 Timothy 6:3-5, warns against those who “teach a different doctrine” and refuse to adhere to “the sound words of our Lord Jesus Christ.” Comfort’s reluctance to engage with such teachings betrays a failure to uphold the doctrinal purity that is essential to the Christian faith.

Ray Comfort’s endorsement of Lordship Salvation and his theological affiliations raise significant concerns about his doctrinal integrity. His teachings on repentance, salvation, and the Christian life misrepresent the biblical gospel by conflating faith with works and introducing a legalistic requirement for moral transformation. Furthermore, his participation in ecumenical movements and his doctrinal ambiguity reflect a concerning willingness to compromise biblical truth for the sake of unity. As Christians, it is essential to uphold the gospel of grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone, and to be vigilant against teachings that obscure or distort this central truth.

In light of the biblical evidence, Lordship Salvation represents a serious theological error that has the potential to lead many astray. Christians must remain steadfast in their commitment to the biblical doctrine of salvation, which affirms that eternal life is a gift received by faith in Jesus Christ and is not contingent upon moral perfection or behavioural reform. As the Apostle Paul writes in Ephesians 2:8-9, “For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast.”