Comfort has some really good things to say about the gospel and how insufficient the contemporary presentation of it usually is. However, from my limited exposure to him I can think of a couple of trouble spots:

1) I have one of his messages to unbelievers on tape called "The Evidence." In it he says that he can't prove Christianity to anyone, but only present them with evidences (he somehow distinguishes between evidence and proof; I forget how) and then leave it up to them to evaluate the evidence and decide for themselves whether is is reasonable, compelling and true, or not. He then goes on to provide a series of typical evidentialist material, wrapped up with a gospel presentation.

2) Comfort, in explaining his methodology, says that the reason that only 7% of people who "get saved" actually "stay saved" is because they don't realize the seriousness of the gospel, because it's been reduced to a self-help message, and therefore they have no trouble casting it away at their convenience if it doesn't work.

He says that if we really preached the gospel, explaining the law and God's judgement, this paltry "success rate" wouldn't be the case, because out of helathy fear of judgement people would cling to the cross and stay there.

While these statements may be partially true, I recall no acknowlegement on his part that the 93% fall away because they were never really saved in the first place, or that if someone hears the true gospel, believes, and does not fall away it is not because they are somehow choosing to stay (however noble their reasons) but because they have truly been saved and salvation, by definition, will be worked to completion.

(Latin phrase goes here.)