Connor wrote: Romans 10:17 So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.
This is a very encouraging text to get the word of God into a sinner's mind and heart. But Connor, the difficulty is getting certain sinners to read the New Testament. Some might, many won't. Besides which, if a sinner was to start at Matthew's Gospel, he may well get the wrong idea as to what he must do to have his sins forgiven.
One thing that impressed me about the Chick Tracts is that not only will people read them from start to finish, but the tract is always full of the word of God, which means that God can use them to bring in faith, because "faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the word of God". I've given out a Chick Tract and watched as someone read it straight away, fascinated. And then they came back for another one. That's the sort of power they have.
I have myself written some thirty tracts for mine own use, and printed them myself, and given them out myself, thousands of them. So I'm not arguing from an armchair.
Gospel, no compromising though, Tell me have you ever tried reading the message. There's God's word the truth and if they don't like it,stiff , cos that's what it is, not a more understandable format for the youth of today or whatever. I ain't gonna be held responsible for repackaging the word of God.
There are a huge number of people in the world today for whom giving a NT or Gospel of John would avail nothing. Nor would even a most excellent gospel tract like those I have used written by John Ryle.
Chick Tracts, for all their faults, will be read. That is the important thing. That is what we want to see. A seed planted in the heart. The world we are living in is different now to what it was ten years ago, and we must needs consider the communication we employ. If we wish to see souls saved, we really do need to consider who and what we are dealing with.
We fill gift bags for anyone who needs a little help on their way, and put the KJV Bible and/or NT that we purchase from the Dollar store. Also tracts from Chapel Library which are sound in doctrine and Christ exalting.
Connor wrote: John, you can't be serious, I never said tract distribution was against the Bible, I said chick tracts were not the choice tracts to use, if fact I am in the process of writing a tract myself, don't be putting me in a category that I'm not in, the your last comment can be called snowballing, saying a bunch of fancy words to impress people, you avoided my point concerning chick tracts, all I said was that I wouldn't use chick tracts, I never said using tracts is evil and wicked. Just because I reject a certain type of tract does not mean I reject all tracts.
No worries Connor, and I apologise for misreading you. When you said, "I can't see Jesus passing them out after the Sermon on the Mount, I thought you meant any tract. But now I see you mean the Chick Tracts. Sorry.
Of course, Jesus never gave anything out after any of his sermons, so there is no biblical precedent there to follow. However, I see nothing wrong with a little tract, which is planting a seed in a heart.
Have you been singing:
I'm so happy, and here's the reason why Jesus took my burdens all away - hey
well glad to know I'm not the only one regarding the chick tracts. passing out bibles sounds like a great idea, a tract that is about Christ's work! what has He accomplished? Who is He? Why did He have to die on the cross?
SF from TX wrote: Connor, gotcha. Thanks for the clarification. I agree with you. As for John he was being saracastic I suppose. Must of thought my questions were dumb. John, I only buy bibles that use cursive font thank you very much
Connor wrote: John UK from Wales wrote: "Hi SF, I think Connor meant that tract distribution is unbiblical, in the same way that using printed Bibles is unbiblical." I'm not sure what you mean by that, please clarify that, because I use printed bibles.
Hi Connor, a lot depends on your stance regarding principle. Some churches operate on the Regulative Principle and Sola Scriptura. Thusly, if something is not commanded in the Bible, it is not done. So when you posted:
"however I now question is the approach Biblical? I can't see Jesus passing them out after the sermon on the mount, or Paul at Mars Hill or Peter...well he may have, anyway can we, with a pure conscience use these when they seem not to be approved in the scriptures? I would recommend some of their resources, and I don't doubt that people have been saved by reading these illustrated tracts, but is it Biblical?"
So you see that I imagined you were under the Regulative Principle, and we can only do what the Bible tells us to do, because God doesn't speak to anyone any more.
Well you can apply that to printing: no biblical precedent. Or amplification. Or Christian Bookstores. Etc. That's all.
Connor wrote: SF, I just mean chick tracts, I think that to illustrate God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit is unbiblical. Also just compare the chick tract to Peter's message on the day of Pentecost, to Steven's message in Acts 7, or Paul's message concerning the unknown god, they don't quite match up, and some of the illustrations in chick tracts are immodest, unnecessary and seductive. I love using tracts as long as their biblical, I read a tract (not a chick tract) where it only talked about the love of God, it never mentioned the holiness of God, the authority of God, anything like that, I would not use a tract that just talks about love, it must talk about sin, righteousness and judgment.
Connor, I agree with your assessment concerning Chick tracts. Some of them seem quite cartoonish and juvenile. Their illustrations of the Godhead are blasphemous.
for one.... some of his tracts are heavily Zionistic (ie Scofield, felon). the gospel of Christ spans all races folks. the gospel tract should be the same good news to the Arab and the Jew and European, and should never be beholden to the political schemes of the day..... hence Americas policy of deteriorating societies in ME for how many decades now? .... the same reason why JMac should repent of defending the neocon wores, being a spokemsan for the church, so to speak on Larry King LIve. Its the same disease that plagues the American church and why she is under judgment (see Orlando). "reaping what you sow".
because am I not hearing insinuations that there are bigger players involved in these things? that somehow certain groups are given shelter to do things? is this not the same thing we saw in Syria and Libya?
for most lost in this, will just consider what I'm saying rambling.
Consider the seed of Abraham, folks, the seed of Abraham is Jesus Christ, children of Abraham are so by faith, not race.