Why You Should NOT Support “Audacity” - Critical Review

Update (7-12-15)

Ray Comfort and Living Waters have both banned me from their page for posting this article. Read the article that Ray Comfort does not want you to see!

Introduction

Recently, I was able to watch Ray Comfort’s new upcoming film “Audacity” which deals with the subject of homosexuality. The official website synopsis is below:

“From Living Waters, creators of the award-winning TV program “The Way of the Master” and the hit movies “180” and “Evolution vs. God,” comes the powerful film “Audacity.” Executive produced by TV co-host and best-selling author Ray Comfort (Hell’s Best Kept Secret, Scientific Facts in the Bible), this film delivers an unexpected, eye-opening look at the controversial topic of homosexuality.

Peter (Travis Owens) is an aspiring comedian encouraged by his friend Ben (Ben Price, Australia’s Got Talent finalist) to perform at the local comedy club. But stage fright isn’t Peter’s only fear. When confronted with one of today’s most divisive issues, he feels compelled to speak, but can he? Challenged by his coworker Diana (Molly Ritter) to defend his convictions about homosexuality and gay marriage, will he have the courage to stand for what he believes—even at the risk of losing a friendship? And how will he respond when faced with a harrowing life-or-death experience?

“Audacity” uses a unique approach to address a very sensitive subject in contemporary society. Regardless of your views on homosexuality, you’ll gain fresh insights and a new perspective.”

This film has received a lot of commendation and praise from a lot of big Christian ministries. After watching it, however, something has to be said about it’s complete lack in Biblical truth. I will not be reviewing the acting (although I thought it was good) since the film is not about acting, but about trying to communicate Biblical truth to a lost and dying world.

Bible Version

The first concern is what Bible Peter is reading. I know with the overall message of the film, this is but a small criticism especially with souls at stake. Honestly, if this was the only flaw, I would promote the film. But it wasn’t the only flaw, nor the biggest (which I will show later). Regardless, Peter reads to himself out of the New American Standard Bible in his tablet while conversing with Diana. After Diana finds out what it is (a Bible), she asks if Peter believes what it says. He responds, “Yeah, every word.” But Living Waters with Ray Comfort does not believe that there is any Bible on earth that is pure in every word. They certainly don’t believe the NASB is the pure words of God (for they commonly use the New King James Version). Rather, they believe that the original manuscripts of the Bible (which no one has, we only have copies) were inspired. Ray Comfort claims he believes they have been preserved (the readings, not the actual manuscripts), but never tried to explain where we can get a copy of this fully preserved infallible Bible he speaks of. Furthermore, he’s contradicting himself by using The Scofield Bible as his personal reading Bible, using the NKJV as his ministry Bible, and using the NASB in his film. The Scofield and NKJV are based on the Scrivener Textus Receptus whereas the NASB is based on the 26th edition of the Nestle-Aland Greek Text. The two texts have very different readings and words in many places. All one has to do to see this is pick up a NKJV and go to the New Testament and see how many times it says in the footnotes, “NU Text says this...” It’s almost in every page where they differ. So no, Peter does not really believe every word of his NASB. I’m glad he doesn’t, otherwise he would think that God can be deceived.

Dreams and Visions

The second concern is the film has Peter having a dream that symbolizes that he has to tell sodomites (the biblical term for homosexuals is “sodomites”, after the sin of Sodom, so I’ll refer to them as such) about the gospel otherwise they’ll go to hell. First of all, you don’t need a dream to tell you that - only scripture, “Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.” “Effeminate” in English means a man acting like a woman (aka, a sodomite, or homosexual). Those who are effeminate will not inherit God’s kingdom. Second, someone might easily interpret this dream as a vision given by God to Peter. But God doesn’t give visions to anybody - His final word is His book (The King James Bible).

Lordship Salvation

The third concern is with the gospel message presented. In the fictional film, some of Ray Comfort’s real interviews with sodomites are promoted. In them, Ray says to a sodomite who claims to be a Christian (but, of course, isn’t), “You’ve got to repent - turn from all sin. No lying, stealing, adultery, fornication, or homosexuality. You’ve got to turn from all sin.” While the intentions were noble (to point out that a sodomite cannot be a true Christian), the response was unbiblical. Who can turn from all sin? Who can completely stop sinning? Who can completely stop lying, stealing, adultery, fornication, or homosexuality before they even become Christians? No one. In fact, Christians still sin! But they sin less and less each day. It’s a process called sanctification. No one can become perfect - and if we could, we wouldn’t need Jesus! Nowhere in the Bible is anyone called to stop sinning to be saved. Nowhere. This is a false message of Lordship Salvation that Ray has been promoting for years and adds works to the gospel. All one needs to do to be saved is repent (which is sorrow for sinning against God, not a turning from sin) and trust alone in Christ, not in works. Ephesians 2:8-9 says, “For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast.”

In fact, at the end of one conversation, Ray Comfort asks a woman when she will turn from her sins. She said, “Starting today” implying that salvation and repentance is a process, not a one time event. But the Bible teaches that it is a one time event. Look at Ephesians 2:8 again, “For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:”

Compromise of God’s Nature

The fourth concern is with Ray’s compromise on scripture. When asked if he believed Leviticus 20:13, “If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them,” Ray responded, “We aren’t calling for the stoning of gays! We aren’t calling for the stoning of anyone! Think of the woman caught in the act of adultery. They wanted to stone her to death. But she was repentant, she put her trust in Jesus, and He said, “Go your way, and sin no more.”” First of all, Ray is twisting John 8 and the woman caught in adultery. Let’s look at the scripture. John 8:3-5 says, “And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto him a woman taken in adultery; and when they had set her in the midst, They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act. Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou?” This was a trick question.
“In John 8, the religious leaders of Jesus’ day — who Jesus says were the most evil people in history (Matthew 23:35) — brought an adulteress before Jesus. These men claimed to be the great “defenders” of God’s Law, and they claim to be so very concerned about the details of the law, and outraged that they caught a woman in the very act of adultery, so they bring the woman before Jesus to see if Jesus is as passionate a defender of the Law as they are. The Law of God commanded that BOTH the man and the woman be punished (Leviticus 20:10). Yet the man is not there. WITH WHOM was the woman caught in adultery — “in the very act?” Why is the other party not here as well? We can tell already that this whole thing is a fraud and a set-up” (Source: <http://vftonline.org/VFTINC/cp/John8.htm>).
“So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her...And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst.” (John 8:7,9).
“...as they one-by-one slithered away like snakes, leaving only the woman, it became clear that these men were probably the ones who committed adultery with her. Thus the woman could not be stoned under Old Testament law, because there were no qualified witnesses to testify against her (an absolute requirement under the law) (Deut 17:7). Thus the woman could not have been convicted of the crime of adultery under Old Testament law, so it is no wonder that Jesus did not advocate her stoning. Jesus kept the OT law perfectly.” (Source: <http://vftonline.org/VFTINC/cp/John8.htm>).
Of course, someone who doesn’t have a case to execute the death sentence of others cannot do so. This was another masterful response from God Almighty to the tempting scholars and scribes of the day.

Regardless, Jesus was not at all saying that adulterers shouldn’t be stoned (put to death), but that in fact, all of those accusing her had no evidence in accordance with the Mosaic Civil Law. It was only because of the crowd’s adultery and unmet requirements for her stoning that it was illegal to do so. Jesus was upholding the Mosaic Civil Law and it’s commands, not denigrating them. After all, they were Jesus’ own laws for the people of Israel. How should we then treat the Mosaic Civil Law? As an outdated moral code for an unintelligent and intolerant society? That’s what the sodomites and most Christians, tragically, would have you to believe. No, we should uphold the Mosaic Civil Law as the perfect civil law of God. If any nation is to be a Christian nation, it must use God’s civil laws for the country’s civil laws. What better laws of the land could be made than that of God’s laws? Yes, we as Christians should be calling the government to put sodomites to death, as well as adulterers and murderers, just as prescribed in the Mosaic Civil Law. After all, “The law of the LORD is perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple.” (Psalm 19:7). Of course, we are not to kill sodomites ourselves, but it is the job and duty of the government to do so. And if the government should definitely not execute the death sentence on sodomites, can anybody show me in the Bible that we should not do such a thing? There is no such verse in scripture that tells us that if anybody seriously thinks the Mosaic Civil Law is a perfect civil law, they must be intolerant. Only the ungodly say so, and Ray along with many other Christians, has given in to compromise of what the Bible teaches about homosexuality. We as Christians should be calling for the death sentence of gays as the prophetic voice to the government that they are acting ungodly. To say that Jesus broke the laws He was under and that He Himself instituted is to accuse God of being immoral and inconsistent.

What Ray should have said to refute the idea that informed Christians are not for the stoning of sodomites is that we as Christians are under the New Covenant, which is disconnected from the old Mosaic Covenant that had the stoning of sodomites. That command was for the people of Israel and ended with the death of Jesus Christ.

Ironically, this passage of the woman caught in adultery is omitted in the Nestle Aland 26th Edition Greek Text, which the NASB follows. Of course, the NASB is what was being read by Peter earlier. But, the NASB not wanting to be too controversial, instead of following the Greek text and omitting the passage, it simply puts brackets around verses 1-11, and has a footnote saying, “Later [manuscripts] add the story of the adulterous woman, numbering it as [John] 7:53-8:11”. In other words, the NASB translators didn’t think the passage belonged in the Bible and encourage the reader to think likewise, but didn’t have the courage to actually remove it from the text completely. All of this to say that it is ironic that many Christians use this teaching to try and make Jesus go against His own law, yet don’t actually believe it belongs in scripture. Whether or not Ray believes it is inspired scripture is unclear.

No “Homosexual” Before The 1900’s

The fifth concern is the answer Peter gave to the question, “How come the word “homosexuality” hasn’t been in the Bible until a few decades ago?” It is true that the first popular Bible with the word “homosexual” in it was the Revised Standard Version (1971). The King James Bible doesn’t have the word, but two words that means the same thing, “effeminate” (a man acting like a woman or vice versa), and “sodomite” (anyone participating in the sin of Sodom, aka: homosexuality). So the correct answer to the question is: it wasn’t there, but an equivalent word was. However, Peter’s answer has some faults in it. He said, “It is true that the word “homosexuality” wasn’t in there because the word hadn’t been invented yet. It was only in sometime around 1900. But the original Greek word that was in there, that’s the exact equivalent to the modern word of “homosexuality”.” The answer is faulty because it leaves another question open, “what about before 1900? Does that mean that nobody understood that Greek word as meaning “homosexual” until 1900? Does that mean all Bibles before the 1900’s were homosexual tolerant?” Because no reference was made to the English word used before “homosexual” was invented, a skeptic might easily think, “Well, I’m still in the right, because the homosexual intolerance wasn’t always in the Bible!”

Conclusion and Application

At the end of the film, Emeal (“EZ”) Zwayne (the son in law of Ray Comfort), tells the viewer, “We hope that you see [this film’s] potential to reach millions of people all around the world.” There are at least five big biblical concerns with this film. It promotes Bibles other than the KJV, and claims that someone who reads them believes every word of them, when they don’t. It promotes dreams and visions as God’s communication to us today. It promotes Lordship Salvation (which teaches works salvation). It compromises the nature of God as being a law breaker. Finally, it leaves open the idea that pre-1900 Bibles were homosexual tolerant.

So what should we as Bible Believing Christians do? We should warn others about this film. This could be in the form of an independent critical review of the film, or a simple sharing of this article to warn people not to watch “Audacity”. We should not let this film impact people towards unbiblical compromises and works salvation. Instead, we should contact Living Waters and complain to them, using the Bible, that their film is unbiblical. We should ask for them to honestly review it and revise it before it is released to the public. We should also pray that God would cause this film to have no impact on anyone towards works salvation and compromise. We should finally strive to produce more biblically sound films and media that correctly responds to homosexuality in this country.

When the film comes out, just don’t watch it (unless you want to review it and see if my claims are true), and don’t share it to anyone. Don’t support Living Waters by purchasing the film or extra booklets promoted in it until they change their message.