School of Biblical Evangelism: 25 Lessons: How To Share Your Faith Simply, Effectively, Biblically... The Way Jesus Did

Written by Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron

Narrated by Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron

In this School of Biblical Evangelism study course, you will learn how to share your faith simply, effectively, and biblically—the way Jesus did. Discover the God-given evangelistic tools that will enable you to confidently talk about your Lord and Savior. 

With 25 lessons, this course will help you to prove the authenticity of the bible, provide ample evidence for creation, understand the beliefs of cults and other religions, and learn how to reach both friends and strangers with the Gospel. Tremendous witnessing tool for individuals and for church evangelism classes.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Living Waters
• Release date: Jul 9, 2020
• ISBN: 9781646891603

Reviews for School of Biblical Evangelism

[Excelsior · Rating: 5 out of 5 stars]

Emphasizes that evangelism is the priority for the Christian. Explains that evangelism that offers an enhanced life without conviction of personal sin is ineffective and results in false conversions, and provides a practical way of using the 10 Commandments to overcome this problem.

[Thomas Lorenz · Rating: 3 out of 5 stars]

Some good and much needed teaching on the 10 commandments, but with serious flaws which practically destroy the book and make it useless for recommending it.

Good aspects:

+ Detailed and overall good analysis of the Moral Law
+ Emphasis on the holiness of the Lord
+ Condemnation of abortion and homosexuality

Negative aspects:

- It is stunning, that in a book dedicated to evangelism, no indication of baptism is being found. The Ethiopian Eunuch is mentioned once, and the sinner's prayer as a means to conversion is discussed, but the most important biblical means to conversion - baptism- is not even touched. What a fail.

- Very ambiguous teaching. They teach in the book repeatedly against idolatry, but commit gross idolatry through Spurgeon, quoted at least 30 times throughout the book (it almost feels as if more often than Christ). They undoubtedly put him on the high pedestal which only belongs to Christ, and bow down to him calling him the 'Prince of Preachers'. There is only one prince of teachers, which is Christ.

- Calvinist gong-show. Nearly all quotes (and the book is over saturated with quotes) are from Augustinians / Calvinists / Reformers / Puritans: Matthew Henry, Martin Luther, R.C. Sproul, Spurgeon, Melanchton, M.L. Jones, Wesley, Westminster Confession ...

- An almost entire chapter is designated to the explanation of 'Total Depravity', a core tenet of Calvinism.

- They suggest that a preacher ought to preach 90% Law and 10% Grace. What a terrible balance. We need to teach more law in North America, but not to such an extreme.

- They plainly equate hate with murder. It is correct that Jesus now looks already at the intent, but it is spurious to claim that He equates the effective acting upon hate with hate itself. To a degree yes, but He definitely does not condemn someone who murders, with the exactly same weight as someone who hates. 'Overzealous teachers' would be the designation of Jesus for those authors.

- They repeatedly state that one lie makes you a lier, one adultery an adulterer et al. The Bible surely uses those nouns, but does certainly not mean that those sins are automatically character traits. If we study the Word carefully, we see that Christ would rather use those nouns for habitual, and unrepented sin. Yes, we are all guilty of breaking the law, but their guilt trip seems a bit over the top. This becomes also clear by Comfort's very common misinterpretation, to equate lust -ALWAYS- with adultery, ignoring that the famous verse in reference speaks to a married person and not to a single.

Lust is sinful, but to call out on practically every evangelism someone who has once looked after a woman, an adulterer, is legalism in its worst form. Comfort uses the exactly same approach for consumers of sex videos, he calls them all adulterers. Lust is a severe sin, but the fact that adultery was condemned in the OT by death and fornication not, should have us ponder. It is deeply concerning that 3 well-educated authors do not know those differences, but in the end it is just an instrument they use in order to subdue and prepare the reader to the concept of total depravity introduced at the end of the book, which main purpose is to transform us into extras when it comes to salvation, repeating the false mantra 'you cannot do anything for your salvation, Christ is doing 100%.' The Word says 'work out your salvation with fear and trembling' (Php 2:12).

- Repeated endorsement of the false teacher C.S. Lewis, of Karl Marx and some philosophers.

- Righteous criticism of the Roman Catholic Church, but endorsement of a Franciscan in the book. This is hypocrisy. Once again we see the spirit of Augustine through Calvinists who cry loudest against the Catholic Church (in order to distract from their true spirit), but secretly endorse it wherever they can. No wonder, considering the fact that Augustine was the third doctor of the RCC and the patriarch of Calvinism, and Luther as Augustinian, having continued to practice many of the core tenets of that version of Catholicism after his excommunication and for the rest of his life. The list of Calvinists who are under fire for Catholicism (e.g. Augustine, Tim Keller, Rick Warren et al) is getting longer ...

- Watering down of the Weekly Sabbath through spurious arguments and by interpolating words into Bible verses that are simply not there (they lied by explicitly stating that the word 'Sabbath' is included in both Rom 14:5 and Col 2:16). Very bad theology. One should expect much better from teachers who supposedly have studied theology.

They claim that if you follow the Weekly Sabbath, you are guilty of following the 613 Ceremonial Laws. What a ridiculous claim, one has little to do with the other, apart from the Weekly Sabbath being specified in more detail in the 600+ laws, but essentially being a part of the 10 Moral Laws. No matter if their professors have taught them wrongly in the past, they as teachers have the responsibility to study the Bible continuously. If they teach an entire book on the law, they have to be experts on the law (at least Moral Law) ! But the differentiation between Moral, Ceremonial and Oral Law is not even made in the book, and they have probably never studied it properly.

It is correct that the Bible does not state that we ought to worship on the Sabbath, but I do not know any Sabbath keeper who has a problem with holding the Sabbath on Saturday and going to church on Sunday. There is simply no other option if you do not want to join an SDA. To create now the false dichotomy that Sabbath keepers insist on worshiping on Saturday and that their obedience is based on the opposition to the RCC only, is simply an evil intent of discrediting faithful believers as conspiracy theorists.

It is also a lie that Paul preached on the Sabbath only to Jews. There are several explicit examples where he preaches either only to Gentiles or to both groups on a Sabbath. The Bible even uses the PRESENT PARTICIPLE (continuous / ongoing action) when stating in Act 13:27 and Act 15:21 that the prophets / Moses are -BEING READ- on every Sabbath to both Jews and Gentiles in the synagogues.

Act 20:7 involved an extraordinary teaching in a addition to preceding Sabbath teaching, because Paul was leaving the next day, and 1Cor 16:2 involved an extraordinary collection for the poor in Jerusalem, but both verses are being sold as icebreakers for the 'Lord's Day', properly translationed in Rev 1:10 with a 'day pertaining to the Lord' and most probably meaning the Weekly Sabbath, while John constantly used 'First Day' for Sundays.

Col 2:13-17 is of course also abused as justification, while it reads: "Therefore do not let anyone judge you [judging does not even equal an abolition!] with reference to eating or drinking or participation in a feast ['feast' = clearly Ceremonial Law; no feast included in the 10 commandments of which the Weekly Sabbath is essentially part of] or a New Moon or a [Ceremonial] Sabbath, which are a shadow of what is to come, but the reality is CHRIST."

The same abuse occures in the book with Rom 14:5, which reads: "One person prefers one day over another day, and another person regards every day alike. [...] The one who is intent on the day ["the" = very specific days, no regular Sabbath] is intent on it for the LORD, and the one who eats, eats for the LORD, because he is thankful to THEOS."

The entire chapter of Romans 14 speaks of food (14x 'eat' or 'abstain'), while the Weekly Sabbath has very little-, but the Ceremonial Sabbaths have a lot- to do with food. Another hint is the term 'unclean' (mentioned 3x), constantly relating to Ceremonial Laws in the Old Testament.

We should not only read in context if we are positively biased on a topic, but especially when we are negatively biased, or when we are simply not certain. And we should urgently abstain from cherry-picking individual verses, and from injecting a reading into the text, which is exclusively based on a preconceived belief, rather than getting it from the text itself.