Ray Comfort has a great article on the erroneous phrase, “”Preach the Gospel at all times. Where necessary, use words,” which was not only incorrectly attributed to Saint Francis of Assisi, but also is categorically false in Biblical evangelism.
Saint Francis . . . A Sissy?
- By Ray Comfort
One hundred and fifty thousand children had been on the brink of starving to death, but thanks to the kind gift of a very generous billionaire, every child now had enough food to keep him alive. That gift had arrived in the form of one big check. The horror was now over. It was finished. It was just a matter of distributing the food using the few relief workers we had. Without them to get the food to the children, there would have been many more deaths.Some days later, a frantic worker burst into the camp and cried, “Some of the relief workers have stopped distributing food. Masses of children are dying!”
Why would the workers stop when there was plenty of food? It didn’t make sense. The distraught man said, “It’s because one of them held up a sign that said, ‘Feed the starving children. Where necessary, use food.’ That has caused some of the workers to simply befriend the starving children without giving them food. It’s insane!”
The first time I ever heard of Saint Francis of Assisi was back in 1965. It was during the surf movie “The Endless Summer.” Four surfers who were chasing the sun discovered the perfect wave, at a place in South Africa called “Cape Saint Francis.” The sight of the perfect wave excited me beyond words.
The Unspeakable Gift
The next time I heard of him was when I heard that he said “Preach the Gospel at all times. Where necessary, use words.” That statement upset me beyond words, because it was a philosophy that I knew sounded deeply spiritual . . . to those who were spiritually shallow. It made as much sense as “Feed starving children. Where necessary, use food.”
On 16 July 1228 Francis of Assisi was pronounced a saint by Pope Gregory IX. That’s a long time ago, so it’s a little late for questions, but if I could I would like to find out why anyone would say such a strange thing? Was it because he was fearful to use actual words to preach the truth of the Gospel? Or was it because he thought that people would see that he had good works and hear the message of salvation without a preacher, something contrary to Scripture’s “How then shall they call on Him in whom they have not believed? And how shall they believe in Him of whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear without a preacher?” (Romans 10:14).
Whatever the case, 800 years since Francis we have many who profess faith in Jesus, and are no doubt using this popular philosophy to justify being speechless. To them salvation truly is an “unspeakable” gift.
Recently someone told me about a conference where 100,000 Christians gathered to worship God. When I asked if they were exhorted to go out and preach the Gospel to every creature, it was no surprise to me that they weren’t. Instead, they were exhorted to live a life of worship. Again, that sounds spiritual, but you can’t worship God without obedience to His Word, and His Word commands us to preach the Gospel to every creature.
I regularly meet those who think they can obey the Great Commission without using words. When they hear the Gospel preached that are usually offended and say things like, “I appreciate what you are saying, but I don’t like the way you are saying it.” With a little probing, they are the relationship folks, who think preaching the Gospel means building relationships with the lost, and never mentioning words like “sin,” “Hell,” and “Judgment Day.” They think that real love is to withhold the Bread of life from those that are starving to death. Remember that Jesus said, “Whosoever therefore shall be ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation; of him also shall the Son of man be ashamed, when he comes in the glory of his Father with the holy angels” (Mark 8:38, italics added).
According to the dictionary, a “sissy” is “a timid or cowardly person.” From what I understand of Saint Francis, he was no sissy. He was a loving man who was not afraid to use words when he preached. He wasn’t frightened to preach repentance to a sinful world. However, there have been times when I could have been called that name. I have felt the grip of fear and have wanted to drop words such as sin, Hell, repentance and Judgment Day when I have preached to sinners. I don’t want to come across as being unloving or judgmental, but I fear God more than I fear man. So when God’s Word tells me to use words, I use words, despite the consequences.
Listen to the Apostle Paul’s sobering warning to his hearers: “Wherefore I take you to record this day, that I am pure from the blood of all men. For I have not shunned to declare unto you all the counsel of God” (Acts 20: 26-27). Perhaps he spoke about being free from their blood because he was familiar with God Himself warning Ezekiel of his responsibility to warn his generation: “When I say to the wicked, ‘You shall surely die,’ and you give him no warning, nor speak to warn the wicked from his wicked way, to save his life, that same wicked man shall die in his iniquity; but his blood I will require at your hand.” (Ezekiel 3:18, italics added).
When someone thinks that they can feed starving children and not use food, that’s their business. But when their philosophy spreads throughout the camp, it becomes an unspeakable tragedy. If we become passive about the Great Commission because we are more concerned about ourselves than the eternal well-being of others, we may be able to hide our motives from man, but not from God. He warns, “Deliver those who are drawn toward death, and hold back those stumbling to the slaughter. If you say, ‘Surely we did not know this,’ does not He who weighs the hearts consider it? He who keeps your soul, does He not know it? And will He not render to each man according to his deeds?” (Proverbs 24:11-12).
There’s an interesting irony to this story. After a little research I came across a quote about the famous saying. It is from someone who had been a Franciscan monk for 28 years–and had earned an M.A. in Franciscan studies. He co ntacted some of the most eminent Franciscan scholars in the world to try and verify the saying. He said, “It is clearly not in any of Francis’ writings. After a couple weeks of searching, no scholar could find this quote in a story written within 200 years of Francis’ death.” (1.)
So if it wasn’t Saint Francis who said not to use words, who was it? Who is it that would like to see the truth of the Gospel hindered from being preached to every creature? That doesn’t need to be answered.
The time is short. The laborers are few. Please, cast off your fears and equip yourself to preach the Gospel with words. They are necessary.
Filed under: Church Life, Devotions, Emergent Church, Evangelism, Purpose Driven Madness, Seeker Sensitive




Odd how a good call to live a righteous life can be twisted to “don’t speak the gospels.”
The time is short. The laborers are few. Come away from the Pharisaic life, and live righteously. Otherwise one is unfit to preach the gospel.
Who is Ray Comfort? Is there any chance we can convert him?
Ed,
Living in Christ is about faith and faith alone. Sola fide. If your pastor has convinced you it’s about bake sales and helping old ladies, then you are being led astray.
If you think action is about bake sales and helping old ladies, I encourage you to read the Gospel of Jesus. Jesus encouraged action, healing, helping.
So did St. Francis.
I am sorry you find the life of a righteous person “being led astray.”
God has good works prepared for us to do (meaning those already in Christ) as part of conforming us to the likeness of Christ by bringing us to the point of putting others before the self willingly out of a love for God expressed, like the word teaches, as obedience.
Unless you understand this, you will be condemned to eternal damnation. The false gospel of socialist liberalism will not help you when it is time for your judgement.
St. Francis of Assissi was no “socialist liberal.” The Gospel is not “social liberalism.” Get over yourself.
The Bible is perfectly clear about this. Jesus died to save you from your sins, Ed. Justification is by faith alone. To claim otherwise is heresy and will cause you to burn in the fires of hell.
I don’t know much about St. Francis, other than he is trotted out all the time by commie libs. You are not a true Christian!
# Romans 3:28: “Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith apart from the deeds of the law.”
# Romans 4:5: “But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is reckoned as righteousness.”
# Romans 5:1: “…having been justified by faith…”
# Romans 11:6: “But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works, otherwise grace is no longer grace.”
- Romans 14:23: “…and everything that does not come from faith is sin.”
- Galatians 2:16: “Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.”
“I don’t know much about St. Francis, …”
Clearly.
“You are not a true Christian!”
Wow. Amazing how you can discern so much from a few words on a blog. Such pride and arrogance to believe that you, just a miserable sinner like the rest of us, can make decisions about someone else’s salvation.
“Justification is by faith alone. To claim otherwise is heresy and will cause you to burn in the fires of hell.”
Actually that’s a heresy itself, called pelagianism (or its weaker cousin semi-pelagianism), the idea that humans can save themselves through their own faith. You’re missing a key component that salvation is indeed by faith alone through Grace alone. Our faith is a not created by us, but is a gift to us through God’s good Grace.
If you’re going to quote these doctrines, you should at least understand them. It’s called the doctrine of “election”, look it up.
The point of the post was that there is no evidence that St. Francis said this phrase, and that the phrase is ridiculous regarding salvation. Just as it would silly to say,
“Brush your teeth, and if necessary, use a toothbrush,”
so the same can be said about evangelism without words.
tr
@Alan,
Perhaps you would like to explain to us how faith alone (meaning faith apart from works, as Andrew’s context clearly shows) is an abominable heresy? Did he ever say “humans can save themselves through their own faith.” I see it nowhere.
@Andrew,
I will have to side with Alan in saying that you should not be condemning a brother to hell simply because he SEEMS to put an uncomfortable emphasis on social justice. Have you considered that you and he might simply be speaking past each other? Not everyone perfectly represents their own views with their words.
@galatiansc4v16,
Enjoyed the post. That phrase has always bothered me. Technically it doesn’t say, “don’t use words,” but that seems to be the idea people get when they hear it. Love your quote about the toothbrush… It’s like… I guess you could say that… but why? Of course you have to use a toothbrush!
Thanks Evan. Amen brother.
tr
“Perhaps you would like to explain to us how faith alone (meaning faith apart from works, as Andrew’s context clearly shows) is an abominable heresy?”
I did explain it clearly, Evan. The heresy is called pelagianism (or semi-pelagianism, depending on how far you go.) These words have historical meaning and the concepts have been seen as heresies for a very, very long time. I’d encourage you to research them if you don’t understand them.
Hope that clears things up! Take care.
Pelagianism – It denied original sin and affirmed the ability of humans to be righteous by the exercise of free will. (dictionary.com)
Alan, brother. Pelagianism is heresy. But I don’t see justification by faith anywhere in the description.
Let me ask you, do you believe you have to earn your salvation? If you say no, then you believe in justification by faith alone. If you say yes, then you will certainly not make it to glory!
Or perhaps you just believe that everyone is going to heaven regardless of faith? That would be universalism, another heresy.
Evan, you seem to be missing the point. Rather than reading a dictionary definition, I’d take a look at some more scholarly articles about these heresies. The reason it IS a heresy is because pelagians and semi-pelagians believe that they can be saved by their own free will. In other words, they believe they make a decision, that they decide to believe, through faith THEY create all by themselves (ie. “I’m going to decide to believe in God and that faith will save me.”)
“Let me ask you, do you believe you have to earn your salvation?”
You seem uninterested in reading what I’ve written. I have already written, “You’re missing a key component that salvation is indeed by faith alone through Grace alone. Our faith is a not created by us, but is a gift to us through God’s good Grace.” Did you read that?
The issue here is not justification by faith alone, it’s that the original comment omitted the key idea “through Grace alone.” If you think our faith is our own creation, rather than a gift from God, you’re mistaken, and so was he. I was pointing out, as he was casting stones at someone for heresy, that his own ideas seem to be heretical because they do not include the importance of Grace.
“Or perhaps you just believe that everyone is going to heaven regardless of faith? That would be universalism, another heresy.”
Continue to speculate on my beliefs if you wish, Evan, but yet again you’re wrong. I believe in unconditional election.
I’d suggest you read Calvin’s “Institutes” to clear up your confusion, particularly Volume 3, Part 12-Part 19.
take care!
Alan,
You are one confused brother, but I now see where you’re coming from. A bit overzealous.
Let’s not call people heretics because they don’t recite the whole Bible every time they open their mouths.
For example: you have never mentioned the resurrection in your comments here. Paul said it was essential (1 Cor 15). You’re therefore a heretic, a resurrection denying heretic.
But that’s ridiculous. You never denied the resurrection, and you shouldn’t be obligated to articulate every major doctrine of Christianity every time you type something. You would say I was crazy for making that assertion about you.
This is exactly what you did against Andrew.
He said justification is by faith alone. He clearly meant NOT BY WORKS, not that he was DENYING grace. Come on, brother.
He said NOTHING about free will or pelagianism or whatever. You made a completely unwarranted accusation. He NEVER said our faith was CREATED by us. You inserted that in there. And you know it.
I was not attempting to assign beliefs to you, as you so gratuitously did to Andrew. Notice how I framed them in questions, and then outlined the consequences of answering them in certain ways.
By the way, by your standard, Paul was a heretic. He constantly mentioned that we are saved through faith without mentioning grace.
I believe you’re a Christian who is simply reacting overzealously to the false teaching you’ve heard. Don’t be so bent on refuting it that you assign beliefs to a person who doesn’t have them, just so you can shoot them down.
“his faith is reckoned as righteousness.” – Rom 4:5
Does this verse DENY God’s grace? No. Then neither does Andrew. So stop accusing him of doing so.
“Let’s not call people heretics because they don’t recite the whole Bible every time they open their mouths.”
LOL
Um, that was EXACTLY my original point, Evan.
I was chiding Andrew for calling Ed a heretic by pointing out that making such a proclamation based on a few words in a blog comment is stupid, at the very least. As I demonstrated in my comment to Andrew, based on only a few words in a blog comment, one might think Andrew is also a heretic. So, he should watch the stone throwing, get the plank out of his own eye, etc.
And so should you. Perhaps you might try harder to understand the actual point of a comment, rather than just skimming the surface, looking for something to disagree with? Let’s not forget that, based on a few words in a blog comment, *you* seemed ready to denounce my beliefs as heresy, even when you were only speculating about what I believe (ie. “Or perhaps you just believe that everyone is going to heaven regardless of faith? That would be universalism, another heresy.”)
Pot, meet kettle.
take care.
BTW, Andrew, here’s the key sentence in my original comment, which you seem to have ignored:
Andrew wrote: “You are not a true Christian!”
To which I replied: “Amazing how you can discern so much from a few words on a blog. Such pride and arrogance to believe that you, just a miserable sinner like the rest of us, can make decisions about someone else’s salvation.”
Then I pointed out how his own words could be used to reach the same conclusion about him.
Get it now?
take care
Our church had a baptism service last weekend. After these services, we have a tradition of going to the Dairy Queen down the road for some ice cream and fellowship.
As we were in there this time, we were, as usual, a rowdy bunch. Teens sitting and laughing with adults, black with white, able-bodied and disabled, our beloved daughter with Down Syndrome being loved by everyone. Talking, laughter, joy in one another’s presence. Love, grace-full love.
One little old lady approached Cindy, our pastor, asking if we were a church group. Cindy immediately apologized for being so loud and boisterous.
“Oh, no,” the little old lady said, “it’s just not often that one sees that kind of joyous love and community. It’s beautiful.”
Yes, use words, if needed. But only sparingly.
[...] (H/T: Tony) [...]
I want to comment on what other comments the original quote is compared to. The good news of Christ CAN be lived and witnessed through actions and those actions viewed by others can have a tremendous impact on their lives. To liken that to “Feed the starving children. When necessary use food.” or “Brush your teeth, and if necessary, use a toothbrush.” is juvenile. I would expect those sayings to appear in the center aisle t-shirt stand at the local mall next to the redneck jokes. It seems that beyond just trying to attribute an author to the original comment, that the conversation has deteriorated to the point of arguing whether or not the good news can be shared at all through actions. As someone did mention, it does not say “don’t” use words. There are many who only use the words and their actions betray them and the gospel. Sometimes the words get in the way of the message as I think this entire thread has proved.
Tim,
Certainly it is juvenile, or maybe better, naive, to think that the gospel could be shared without an accompanying “walk” to go along with it. People hate hypocrites and no one is defending living a hypocritical life and preaching the gospel simultaneously.
However, it is also equally naive to think that the specifics of the gospel message can be shared without words. Of course we can share the “love of Christ” to others by actions, but the gospel message that saves souls can only be communicated through words.
Paul makes this point abundantly clear:
..for, “Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.”How, then, can they call on the one they have not believed in? And how can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard? And how can they hear without someone preaching to them? —Rom 10:13-14
Turns out that St. Francis did say something close:
“In Chapter XVII of his Rule of 1221, Francis told the friars not to preach unless they had received the proper permission to do so. Then he added, “Let
all the brothers, however, preach by their deeds.”
http://www.americancatholic.org/Messenger/Oct2001/Wiseman.asp
Hardly the same thing.
Then we’re agreed! I did think Andrew was a bit hasty in that accusation, but I also couldn’t understand why Ed didn’t just say “Yea of course, we’re not saved by our works.”
“And so should you. Perhaps you might try harder to understand the actual point of a comment, rather than just skimming the surface, looking for something to disagree with?”
Whoa buddy, slow down. It wasn’t clear (to me) from your post that your original point was to reduce Andrew’s logic to an absurd conclusion.
Notice how you said “Actually,…” which I interpreted as meaning “not only are you unjustified in condemning Ed, but you yourself are a heretic!” Rather than “If we apply your logic to yourself, we could condemn you also, but that wouldn’t be fair, because we don’t have enough information.”
See how the second is clearer?
When I was speculating what you MIGHT believe, that’s all I was doing. Speculating. No accusing.
“Pot, meet kettle.
”
…
Happy heresy hunting! Buh-bye.
Evan, it has been a while since your last post. To whom is this response directed?
This is pretty clearly a divinely wrought issue – and we have the entire prophetic tradition of Judaism – which balanced against God’s merciful generosity – requires both words and action. There is always a warning bell before divine calamity.
You don’t have to go back too far in Judahite and Israelite history to see that the entire veracity of a prophet comes specifically from there being direct connection between word and action.
If a person claims to preach the gospel but their testimony is not life-giving – then it simply can’t be the gospel, regardless of content. Like-wise, if a person does not recognize that life (and the lack of it) permeates every aspect of our being and existence, then they will fail to recognize all of the opportunities that God has prepared them for in life. If they believe a person can only be weak in knowledge, they will talk a brother’s ears off. If they believe you have to do all the right things they will dogmatize praxis to death.
I’m not particularly a fan of this phrase – I have seen and heard it attributed to St. John Chrysostom – but how ironic if that were the case! There have been numerous times in history where words have proven to be the most essential and vital force in the universe. The key is using them with the understanding that they CREATE and DESTROY worlds – and it is unfortunate that their careless application has caused so much hostility and hatred – to the point that in modern society – well it’s like a nuclear weapon – no one wants to use it unless they have to because it is just that powerful.
And yet, through words God gives life as well – words are never tame – they are the boxes in which we recall our experiences and the lenses of the world. To ignore them or suppress them is surely damaging to the view and interactions a person has with the world.
Jacob,
You write as if you believe that someone is defending the position of “words instead of action,” which to my knowledge, no one has recommended or defended.
The original post was refuting the position of “actions without words,” which is as pointless as a mime.
tr
Mimes mimic action. Action is not pointless.
I think you’ve misunderstood the point all along.
As George Washington noted, words are nothing unless they are backed by noble action and, according to George’s thinking, an entire life dedicated to doing the correct deeds. Washington was the master of action that spoke more than words ever could, such as both times he voluntarily gave up his commands, first of the army, and then of the nation. He had words with each event, but they were superfluous and even contradictory. The actions were heard ’round the world.
That’s what Francis meant. Live a good and godly life always. That is the greatest tool of evangelism. Words are poor seconds, cheap icing on a grand and rich cake.
Ed, you are missing the point. The context of the discussion is evangelism and specifically, the gospel. To give someone the gospel you have to use words. Living out the gospel is required too, but different than telling someone the gospel. Don’t confuse the two. No one is arguing for words and no action, but explaining to tell someone the gospel, words are required. I can’t believe I am having to say that.
tr
Actions are more important. Actions first, then words.
I can’t believe you think salvation is through words alone.
I can’t believe that you think I said that. I didn’t say salvation was through words alone. I said that it is not without words. Big difference.
Of course we have to have to be living a life worthy of giving the gospel in order to witness with credibility. We should not be playing the hypocrite and sharing the gospel.
But once one has the “actions” to be worthy of preaching, they must use words to communicate the gospel. No one can be saved if they do not understand the gospel. Words are required for that understanding to take place.
tr
Stop being fools, all of you – stop it!
Erroneous or not, to say “teach the gospels at all times, if necessary use words” actually means – LIVE as Jesus taught us to live – humility, surrender, love -
And there is no loving God who would make an eternal hell for people – this is nonsense and is evil and was invented after Jesus. To believe in such a horrid thing is to be possessed by something else than a loving God.
And do not respond by quoting things at me to ‘prove’ your mad point of view – God is Love …
listen – “God is Love” “We move and breathe and have our being within God”
So stop all this psychopathic evil nonsense about hell and laws and “what God wants” – wake up. Be Still and know that God is God.
So, please, go out there, and preach the Gospel, and, if necessary, use words as well.
for it is not for you to impose your point of view, to point out errors, to be dogmatic, to burn people at the stake for not understanding, to exile them for not believing what you believe, to ensure that they know they are wrong, – these are the works of evil … they are arrogant and ego-fuelled and come from a desire to prove you are right and they are wrong … and you forget that even Adolf Hitler can be in heaven if he truly wakes up and deeply repents and that the message is about repentance and humility and love – LOVE.
The message is about surrender to the Will of God and Love.
Love.
Br. David,
If hell is a view created after Jesus, how do you reconcile Jesus’ own multiple views describing it?
People who disagree with Jesus on the existence of Hell usually have great sin in their life which prevents them from understanding a God who is love must also hate evil.
The love of God is demonstrated in that He died on the cross for us, not in that he excuses it.
tr
It is quite important to know the origins of ones own religion. For instance, the earliest actual gospel texts that are in existence are 4th century. Although they are known to be copies of copies of copies of copies, we do not have the original texts. However, what we do have is clear instances of later additions – such as, the only explanation of the Trinity is in John and this is not original but added later.
Such as, the earliest gospel text we have (about 365 CE) is a Mark and it has no resurrection, the gospel ends with an empty tomb. The ending now attached was attached centuries later.
Now think about the personality of Jesus – he never blames sinners, only heals them and instructs them to sin no more. He offers love. He offers the chance to be reborn of an open heart. He has humour and great wisdom and compassion. For Jesus to ’send’ people to a hell is completely incompatible with his message, such false doctrines were added later.
How can you not know this? Can you not see that such anger and hate is completely incompatible with authentic Christian belief?
Consider. After judgement day – you are in heaven but one of your children has been consigned to hell, for eternity … does God really expect you to ignore the suffering of your child and to be happy in heaven? Of course not, it is illogical and turns God into a monster – therefore such beliefs can only come from one place – and it isn’t the God that Jesus prayed to – is it.
For the God that Jesus prayed to wasn’t that angry and vicious God of the Old Testament – that God insisted on death for anyone who broke the Sabbath (4th commandment in full – do read it) — so if you think the Bible is the literal word of God and must be believed in its entirety then you must believe that everyone who breaks the Sabbath must be put to death (including you). Now do you believe that? Of course you don’t – which means that you are selective about what you believe, which means that you have invented your own religion in your head – and it is not pleasant but includes a Hell where people burn for eternity …
now you tell me .. is that the vision of Jesus or the vision of Satan?
So I say, Stop! be still, open your hard heart and Know God.
God Be With You.
“The ending now attached was attached centuries later.”
We agree that the tomb was empty. It was empty because Jesus rose from the dead. We know the rest of Mark was probably added later, but it doesn’t change the resurrection account.
We know what the originals said and we know what was added. The system works!
We also know that the Apostle Paul converted from persecuting Christians to being a Christian. Nearly 100% of historians, including secular ones, agree on that along with the fact that he wrote Romans, 1 & 2 Corinthians, Philippians, and more. He recorded the key elements of the resurrection within 20-30 years of the event.
The trinity is identified in many places besides John.
“Now think about the personality of Jesus – he never blames sinners, only heals them and instructs them to sin no more. He offers love. He offers the chance to be reborn of an open heart. He has humour and great wisdom and compassion. For Jesus to ’send’ people to a hell is completely incompatible with his message, such false doctrines were added later.”
That is simply false. Even skeptics like Bart Ehrman concede that we know what the originals said to 99.5% accuracy, and for sure on the parts of Hell.
“How can you not know this? Can you not see that such anger and hate is completely incompatible with authentic Christian belief?
Consider. After judgement day – you are in heaven but one of your children has been consigned to hell, for eternity … does God really expect you to ignore the suffering of your child and to be happy in heaven? Of course not, it is illogical and turns God into a monster – therefore such beliefs can only come from one place – and it isn’t the God that Jesus prayed to – is it.”
Sounds like you are judging God. How do you know it won’t all make sense then?
“For the God that Jesus prayed to wasn’t that angry and vicious God of the Old Testament – that God insisted on death for anyone who broke the Sabbath (4th commandment in full – do read it) — so if you think the Bible is the literal word of God and must be believed in its entirety then you must believe that everyone who breaks the Sabbath must be put to death (including you). Now do you believe that? Of course you don’t – which means that you are selective about what you believe, which means that you have invented your own religion in your head – and it is not pleasant but includes a Hell where people burn for eternity …”
Jesus validated all of the law and prophets down to the last letter. It sounds like you haven’t read the OT. God forgave the Israelites over and over. Jesus talked more about Hell than the whole OT did.
“now you tell me .. is that the vision of Jesus or the vision of Satan?”
Just read the book and find out.
====
I wonder how I missed this post. I wrote a similar bit once – http://4simpsons.wordpress.com/2006/12/14/taking-st-francis-too-literally/
Words without deeds are as ineffective as deeds without words. If someone thinks they are so good that their deeds will convert people then that is beyond prideful. No one is that good.
Jesus used words. Paul used words. The rest of the Apostles used words.
Mark 6:11
Br. David,
Can you elaborate on your last comment? I know Mark 6:11 says “And if any place will not welcome you or listen to you, shake the dust off your feet when you leave, as a testimony against them.”
I mean, you can’t be saying that you’re an authentic believer and we’re not, such that you were here sharing the Gospel and we didn’t welcome you. That would be an incorrect application of the passage and not very mature.