# Any thoughts on Chick Tracts



## Blue Tick

What are you thoughts on Chick Tracts? Before a became reformed I used to hand them out all the time. However, I wouldn't use them now for there blatant violation of the 2nd commandment.


----------



## Devin

While one or two of them might be not be objectionable, the majority of them aren't really worth the paper they're printed on. They seem to produce more laughs than anything.


----------



## rmwilliamsjr

*What are you thoughts on Chick Tracts?* that there is no thought in Chick Tracts.


----------



## MrMerlin777

Personally, I think they're good for a quick laugh.


----------



## jaybird0827

Blue Tick said:


> What are you thoughts on Chick Tracts? Before a became reformed I used to hand them out all the time. However, I wouldn't use them now for there blatant violation of the 2nd commandment.


 
Not to mention the 3rd.


----------



## elnwood

He puts too much emphasis on praying the prayer, but overall I like most of them.

I don't see them as violating the second commandment. If you take the second commandment that strict, you would have to "not make any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth," i.e. all representative art is banned. So I think what is forbidden is not the likeness, but the worship of said likeness.

How do they violate the third commandment?


----------



## jaybird0827

elnwood said:


> He puts too much emphasis on praying the prayer, but overall I like most of them.
> ...
> How do they violate the third commandment?
> ...


 
For instance, Chick booklet titled Who Loves You? See also Larger Catechism questions 111-114.

Check out some of the statements that begin with the words "Who loved you so much that ..." How does the writer know this? How can the writer presume to know that any particular person picking up that tract and reading it is numbered among Christ's elect? What about Esau? What about Pharaoh? What about Judas? I believe this falls under the category of misinterpreting, misstating, or misrepresenting God's word.


----------



## LadyFlynt

Avoid them like the plague.


----------



## ChristianTrader

Two thoughts:

1)They are very very hard on Rome. Those who hold that the Anti-Christ is Rome have found their material and especially some of their reprints very helpful.

2)They are heavily against easy believerism.

Here is an example. Four Angels Not saying it is the best tract ever laid down, or that I would necessarily hand it out, but it really ain't that bad.

CT


----------



## Contra_Mundum

elnwood said:


> I don't see them as violating the second commandment. If you take the second commandment that strict, you would have to "not make any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth," i.e. all representative art is banned. So I think what is forbidden is not the likeness, but the worship of said likeness.



The strictness of the second commandment has nothing whatever to do with pictures or representations in general of creation, of imagination, etc. If there is no intent to represent God, then a misuse of some depiction, or of God's creation itself (Rom. 1:23-25), is solely the sin of the abuser. God had animal and vegetable and angelic depictions right in his tabernacle and temple! So the point of the commandment is the making of representations of God--DON'T, EVER. It's a flat prohibition.

Of course, the 2nd commandment is given regarding worship. The commandments are intercontextual, and need to be read, comprehended, and interpreted as a unit. (1) There is One God; (2) you start to understand him in the way that you think about him and worship him. Man was created to have uninterrupted God-consciousness. Sin starts in the mind, the second God departs our consciousness. Who would ever sin unless he had persuaded (deluded) himself God was not watching, and would not call him to account? Scripture calls it "forgetting God" (e.g. Deut. 6:12; Ps. 9:17; 50:22; Jer. 23:27).

Here's the grand question: *How can anyone think non-worshipful thoughts of the Lord Jesus Christ, and not sin?*

Every single thought of God is a religious thought, an act of worship, or else it is sinful since it fails to give him the honor that is his due. How can a _believer_ have a non-reverent thought about God? That concept is an oxymoron if ever there was. 

The whole point of idolatry is _representation_. The golden calf is an ideal test-case. None of the people there at the foot of the mountain thought that the calf *was* Jehovah, but represented him (Aaron ordered a feast to Jehovah--Ex. 32:4-5). Likewise, the prophets of Baal on Carmel (1 Ki. 18) were after the attention of their god, who had his own temple in Samaria (2 Ki. 10).

So, representations exist to put a person in mind of his God. But here (Ex. 20:4-5; Deut. 4:15-19) God forbids _exactly_ that! Only at the furthest end of stupidity inflicted by the practice of idolatry does the god and the wood or stone become absolutely localized. Animism is one terminus of religious devolution. We are to guard ourselves against idolatry by rejecting it in it's germinal state, not merely in its grosser forms.



So, if you agree with this understanding of the 2nd Commandment, when you see an "alledged" picture of Jesus, an obvious icon of a dove, bearded old deity, or other representation of any person of the Trinity, how should you respond? You ought to flee. You ought to respond in some similar denying fashion:

"That is not God. I refuse to let that thing put me positively in mind of my God who has forbidden any representation of his person. I refuse to think of him under that or any representation, for I must not be put into the least frame of worship by such thoughts; and any thought of God is automatically a religious or irreligious thought. *Therefore*, in this moment I will think of him negatively and verbally ONLY as _The God Who by His Word Forbade Such Depictions_. In those thoughts can I escape (1 Cor. 10:13) the sin of idolatry."


----------



## ChristopherPaul

I never heard of these tracts until this thread. By looking at some of the tracts that have been posted, these are quite extreme.

Someone should make a "chick-esque" tract on violating the second commandment and send it to them.

Perhaps Vic Lockman could make one.


----------



## elnwood

Contra_Mundum said:


> The strictness of the second commandment has nothing whatever to do with pictures or representations in general of creation, of imagination, etc. If there is no intent to represent God, then a misuse of some depiction, or of God's creation itself (Rom. 1:23-25), is solely the sin of the abuser. God had animal and vegetable and angelic depictions right in his tabernacle and temple! So the point of the commandment is the making of representations of God--DON'T, EVER. It's a flat prohibition.
> 
> Of course, the 2nd commandment is given regarding worship. The commandments are intercontextual, and need to be read, comprehended, and interpreted as a unit. (1) There is One God; (2) you start to understand him in the way that you think about him and worship him. Man was created to have uninterrupted God-consciousness. Sin starts in the mind, the second God departs our consciousness. Who would ever sin unless he had persuaded (deluded) himself God was not watching, and would not call him to account? Scripture calls it "forgetting God" (e.g. Deut. 6:12; Ps. 9:17; 50:22; Jer. 23:27).
> 
> Here's the grand question: *How can anyone think non-worshipful thoughts of the Lord Jesus Christ, and not sin?*
> 
> Every single thought of God is a religious thought, an act of worship, or else it is sinful since it fails to give him the honor that is his due. How can a _believer_ have a non-reverent thought about God? That concept is an oxymoron if ever there was.
> 
> The whole point of idolatry is _representation_. The golden calf is an ideal test-case. None of the people there at the foot of the mountain thought that the calf *was* Jehovah, but represented him (Aaron ordered a feast to Jehovah--Ex. 32:4-5). Likewise, the prophets of Baal on Carmel (1 Ki. 18) were after the attention of their god, who had his own temple in Samaria (2 Ki. 10).
> 
> So, representations exist to put a person in mind of his God. But here (Ex. 20:4-5; Deut. 4:15-19) God forbids _exactly_ that! Only at the furthest end of stupidity inflicted by the practice of idolatry does the god and the wood or stone become absolutely localized. Animism is one terminus of religious devolution. We are to guard ourselves against idolatry by rejecting it in it's germinal state, not merely in its grosser forms.
> 
> 
> 
> So, if you agree with this understanding of the 2nd Commandment, when you see an "alledged" picture of Jesus, an obvious icon of a dove, bearded old deity, or other representation of any person of the Trinity, how should you respond? You ought to flee. You ought to respond in some similar denying fashion:
> 
> "That is not God. I refuse to let that thing put me positively in mind of my God who has forbidden any representation of his person. I refuse to think of him under that or any representation, for I must not be put into the least frame of worship by such thoughts; and any thought of God is automatically a religious or irreligious thought. *Therefore*, in this moment I will think of him negatively and verbally ONLY as _The God Who by His Word Forbade Such Depictions_. In those thoughts can I escape (1 Cor. 10:13) the sin of idolatry."



Bruce, I just don't see it in the second commandment. Just from the text, it's about depicting things in creation and worshipping them. Nothing specifically about representing God. Or Jesus. Or the Holy Spirit.


----------



## JasonGoodwin

Devin said:


> While one or two of them might be not be objectionable, the majority of them aren't really worth the paper they're printed on. They seem to produce more laughs than anything.


Not to mention that it appears that he makes up the facts as he goes along. Also, some of the books he sells are not only lacking in scholarship, but they are extremely mean-spirited as well. Seems like the two (or three) go hand in hand. (The Riplinger book on Bible Versions is a prime example. David Cloud would love her for that!)


----------



## elnwood

jaybird0827 said:


> For instance, Chick booklet titled Who Loves You? See also Larger Catechism questions 111-114.
> 
> Check out some of the statements that begin with the words "Who loved you so much that ..." How does the writer know this? How can the writer presume to know that any particular person picking up that tract and reading it is numbered among Christ's elect? What about Esau? What about Pharaoh? What about Judas? I believe this falls under the category of misinterpreting, misstating, or misrepresenting God's word.



Possibly. But I think that God does love the ungodly, although not in the same ways that he loves the elect. It's not as simple as "God loves the elect, God hates the non-elect." See D. A. Carson's _Difficult Doctrine of the Love of God_.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

Brother Don,

If your reading of the second commandment is correct, then there is no essential difference between 1)--have no other gods, and 2)--don't make any other gods. I think that's a serious misreading of the text. The 2nd Commandment needs to move us along to the next step, namely what is and is not proper worship for the One God.

I wish I were more convincing or persuasive. If you (or others) are interested, beside the exposition of the law found in the Larger Catechism, there are a number of excellent expositions of the law by some outstanding Puritan exegetes, such as Thomas Watson, or even earlier by John Calvin. Later teachers in the same vein have been pretty consistent.

God bless your studies in his Word.


----------



## Devin

JasonGoodwin said:


> Not to mention that it appears that he makes up the facts as he goes along. Also, some of the books he sells are not only lacking in scholarship, but they are extremely mean-spirited as well. Seems like the two (or three) go hand in hand. (The Riplinger book on Bible Versions is a prime example. David Cloud would love her for that!)



Indeed, Jack Chick is a card carrying member of the more whackier wing of the KJVO movement, among other things. He may have a few tracts that aren't so bad, but I don't think it's worth digging through all the worthless tracts to get to the good ones.


----------



## jaybird0827

elnwood said:


> Possibly. But I think that God does love the ungodly, although not in the same ways that he loves the elect. It's not as simple as "God loves the elect, God hates the non-elect." See D. A. Carson's _Difficult Doctrine of the Love of God_.


 
Don, you missed my point. You cannot tell just any one "Christ died for you." because there are no Scriptural grounds to make such an inference. You can say "Christ died for sinners. You are a sinner. If you believe, then you will be saved." There is a difference.

Matthew 1:21, Acts 13:48, Acts 17:30-31.


----------



## Pergamum

Chick Tracts are more likely to either show the worst in Christianity or else convert someone to a false belief. I hate to use the word, but I despise them. Back when I was seeking, I collected a few of these things as proof of the stupidity of Christianity.


----------



## toddpedlar

jaybird0827 said:


> Don, you missed my point. You cannot tell just any one "Christ died for you." because there are no Scriptural grounds to make such an inference. You can say "Christ died for sinners. You are a sinner. If you believe, then you will be saved." There is a difference.
> 
> Matthew 1:21, Acts 13:48, Acts 17:30-31.



Precisely. And this is the trouble with almost all tracts I've ever seen (which is why I never seek them out to hand out... of course whether tract-passing is a proper fulfillment of the Great Commission is a different story entirely), even those which are otherwise alright in their presentation. Why we feel as though we have to sell Christ with the line "God loves you" and "Christ died for you" I don't know. 

"Christ died for you" is something, as Jay points out, that you simply cannot say at random to a person on the street. You just don't know that. "God loves you" is another thing that isn't appropriate to say - because even if it is true in ANY sense that God loves every person (he does HATE Esau, after all - that "loves less" interpretation of Romans 9 is simply WRONG) you don't know in a given case whether a person is loved with electing love by God. Yet when we proclaim to someone that "God loves you", electing, saving love is PRECISELY what the person hears us saying. We are in error when we say something that is true in one limited sense, but know the hearer hears in a way that MAY NOT be true. We are thus in danger of bearing false witness, and at best we are saying something misleading with "God loves you" just as much as we are by saying "Christ died for you".

I like Jay's approach. It is the Biblical gospel after all - Christ died to save his people from their sins and reunite them to a relationship with God. Believers in Christ are his people. All people are born in a broken relationship to God. Will you believe in Christ and therefore be saved?"

Todd


----------



## toddpedlar

trevorjohnson said:


> Chick Tracts are more likely to either show the worst in Christianity or else convert someone to a false belief. I hate to use the word, but I despise them. Back when I was seeking, I collected a few of these things as proof of the stupidity of Christianity.



That's ok, Trevor. I'll say it. I despise them.  

Seriously, though - anything that attempts to deal with the serious matter of a person's soul's ultimate destiny in goofball comic book form is highly problematic from the get-go.


----------



## jaybird0827

toddpedlar said:


> Precisely. And this is the trouble with almost all tracts I've ever seen (which is why I never seek them out to hand out... of course whether tract-passing is a proper fulfillment of the Great Commission is a different story entirely), even those which are otherwise alright in their presentation. Why we feel as though we have to sell Christ with the line "God loves you" and "Christ died for you" I don't know.
> 
> "Christ died for you" is something, as Jay points out, that you simply cannot say at random to a person on the street. You just don't know that. "God loves you" is another thing that isn't appropriate to say - because even if it is true in ANY sense that God loves every person (he does HATE Esau, after all - that "loves less" interpretation of Romans 9 is simply WRONG) you don't know in a given case whether a person is loved with electing love by God. Yet when we proclaim to someone that "God loves you", electing, saving love is PRECISELY what the person hears us saying. We are in error when we say something that is true in one limited sense, but know the hearer hears in a way that MAY NOT be true. We are thus in danger of bearing false witness, and at best we are saying something misleading with "God loves you" just as much as we are by saying "Christ died for you".
> 
> ...
> Todd


 
 Appreciate the encouragement. I'm very thankful to be under the sound teaching and shepherding that serves as a source for what I said.


----------



## LadyFlynt

I wouldn't dig for the "good ones" for more than just the time. Chick has become known for "hate, racism, etc" throughout unbelieving circles. You could have one of the "good ones", they see Chick's name on it, and you can forget it.


----------



## elnwood

Contra_Mundum said:


> Brother Don,
> 
> If your reading of the second commandment is correct, then there is no essential difference between 1)--have no other gods, and 2)--don't make any other gods. I think that's a serious misreading of the text. The 2nd Commandment needs to move us along to the next step, namely what is and is not proper worship for the One God.
> 
> I wish I were more convincing or persuasive. If you (or others) are interested, beside the exposition of the law found in the Larger Catechism, there are a number of excellent expositions of the law by some outstanding Puritan exegetes, such as Thomas Watson, or even earlier by John Calvin. Later teachers in the same vein have been pretty consistent.
> 
> God bless your studies in his Word.



I'm not sure if you're understanding my view, because I agree with you that the second commandment specifies what is not proper for the worship of God.

"You shall not make for yourself a carved image -- any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; you shall not bow down to them or serve them." -- Exodus 20:4-5a.

The second commandment is about forbidding the making images of earthly things (i.e. a golden calf), saying that it is God, and worshipping it.

This is quite different than using a drawing of Jesus talking to children and using it in Sunday school. No one is confused whether the picture is actually God, and no one is worshipping the picture. If there is a biblical argument against this, I don't know of one, and I certainly don't see it in the second commandment.


----------



## elnwood

toddpedlar said:


> Precisely. And this is the trouble with almost all tracts I've ever seen (which is why I never seek them out to hand out... of course whether tract-passing is a proper fulfillment of the Great Commission is a different story entirely), even those which are otherwise alright in their presentation. Why we feel as though we have to sell Christ with the line "God loves you" and "Christ died for you" I don't know.
> 
> "Christ died for you" is something, as Jay points out, that you simply cannot say at random to a person on the street. You just don't know that. "God loves you" is another thing that isn't appropriate to say - because even if it is true in ANY sense that God loves every person (he does HATE Esau, after all - that "loves less" interpretation of Romans 9 is simply WRONG) you don't know in a given case whether a person is loved with electing love by God. Yet when we proclaim to someone that "God loves you", electing, saving love is PRECISELY what the person hears us saying. We are in error when we say something that is true in one limited sense, but know the hearer hears in a way that MAY NOT be true. We are thus in danger of bearing false witness, and at best we are saying something misleading with "God loves you" just as much as we are by saying "Christ died for you".
> 
> I like Jay's approach. It is the Biblical gospel after all - Christ died to save his people from their sins and reunite them to a relationship with God. Believers in Christ are his people. All people are born in a broken relationship to God. Will you believe in Christ and therefore be saved?"
> 
> Todd



I am not convinced that Christ did not die for the non-elect in any sense. I think that it is possible that Christ died for the non-elect in order to offer them salvation, even though they were not appointed for eternal life and will not accept salvation.

For example, John 3:16 says "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only-begotten Son; that whosoever believeth on him may not perish."

John Calvin's commentary on this verse says:


> _That whosoever believeth on him may not perish._ It is a remarkable commendation of faith, that it frees us from everlasting destruction. For he intended expressly to state that, though we appear to have been born to death, undoubted deliverance is offered to us by the faith of Christ; and, therefore, that we ought not to fear death, which otherwise hangs over us. And he has *employed the universal term whosoever*, both to *invite all indiscriminately* to partake of life, and *to cut off every excuse from unbelievers*. Such is also the import of the term World, which he formerly used; for though nothing will be found in the world that is worthy of the favor of God, yet he shows himself to be reconciled to the whole world, when he *invites all men without exception* to the faith of Christ, which is nothing else than an entrance into life.



Calvin clearly states that "whosoever" is all men without exception. Now, I'm not certain that his interpretation is right, but I would not dismiss Calvin so lightly.

You are right that if an unbeliever interpreted "God loves you" as an electing love, there is a potential for misunderstanding. But I tend to think that when most unbelievers hear "God loves you," they think, "God cares about me as a person," not "God chose me before the foundation of the world to believe, be holy, be adopted, etc.," although both are proper uses of the phrase.


----------



## jaybird0827

elnwood said:


> I'm not sure if you're understanding my view, because I agree with you that the second commandment specifies what is not proper for the worship of God.
> 
> "You shall not make for yourself a carved image -- any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; you shall not bow down to them or serve them." -- Exodus 20:4-5a.
> 
> The second commandment is about forbidding the making images of earthly things (i.e. a golden calf), saying that it is God, and worshipping it.
> 
> This is quite different than using a drawing of Jesus talking to children and using it in Sunday school. No one is confused whether the picture is actually God, and no one is worshipping the picture. If there is a biblical argument against this, I don't know of one, and I certainly don't see it in the second commandment.


 
"I have seen an end of all perfection: _but_ thy commandment _is_ exceeding broad." -- Psalm 119:96 (AV)

"The entrance of thy words giveth light; it giveth understanding unto the simple. -- Psalm 119:130 (AV)


----------



## Contra_Mundum

elnwood said:


> I'm not sure if you're understanding my view, because I agree with you that the second commandment specifies what is not proper for the worship of God.


No brother, I'm pretty sure I do understand it. My question stands: How does one have any thought of God that isn't worshipful? So, given our natural propensity for idolatry any thought we have of God must be within the bounds he prescribes.



> "You shall not make for yourself a carved image -- any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; you shall not bow down to them or serve them." -- Exodus 20:4-5a.
> 
> The second commandment is about forbidding the making images of earthly things (i.e. a golden calf), saying that it is God, and worshipping it.


I am going to provide a little exegesis here. Hopefully it will further the discussion.

1) There are several clear and distinct elements of this command that comprise the whole;

2) Whatever translation that is above, it isn't especially literal, not the best for exegesis.

The 2C says 1) don't make "carved images" which in context cannot be a general prohibition on artwork (because the Tabernacle itself contained art); and in fact the words (one word in Heb) are in reference to the creation of idolatry, a specific term--the representation of any god, but here especially of the One God.

And the following words make the matter clearer: 2) _nor_ (there is the vav-conjunction) make "*any* likeness" or "form" at all, a general term. This addition is emphatic; the "dash" used in the above translation is abominably misleading. And again the context (see command 1) demands that we comprehend an "of him" or "of Jehovah" in connection; Moses commentary in Deut. 4:15 uses the same word "likeness/form," making what is implicit here explicit.

See, this passage has already addressed the central issue of this debate. *Thus far, six words into the Hebrew text, the command is an absolute prohibition of any visible representation of Jehovah, who is the Triune God.* 1) No obvious idolatry, AND 2) no forms whatsoever--just in case it was suggested that "this FORM is not for _idolatrous_ purposes." Do you see how the elements of the text move forward, adding data, clarification, answers to objections?

The following independent clause "don't bow or serve" is expansionistic, and certainly not _limited to_ these two terms or activities. If you aren't to make them or reference them, then you certainly aren't to worship at them or by means of them in any way, for Jehovah is not to be brought to mind _at all_ by use of images.

The purpose of _any_ image of a god is to put one in mind of that god. And to be in mind of one's own God is to be in a worshipful attitude, by definition. Does it make any sense at all to teach children (of all people!) about God using pictures of him, and then tell them not to think about God under those representations? What will come to their impressionable minds when the preacher says, "let us bow our heads and PRAY TO GOD"?



> This is quite different than using a drawing of Jesus talking to children and using it in Sunday school. No one is confused whether the picture is actually God, and no one is worshipping the picture. If there is a biblical argument against this, I don't know of one, and I certainly don't see it in the second commandment.


Brother, just begin to understand the 2C as the Jews understood it--and then ask the question whether pictures of Jesus _violates_ the 2C, at the very least your argument will take on an entirely different form. I do not share your sanguine attitude toward the results of using said pictures. Perhaps instead of endorsing said usage until convinced of its wrongness, it might be better to refrain from such usage until it is clear the Bible doesn't forbid it, yea rather enjoins it.

You say a SS picture of Jesus is different. What have you said here that cannot be used to justify a crucifix? When you say "no one is confused," and yet admit that these are impressionable children, who supposedly need these pictures, now you are making it the responsibility of their parents and teachers to teach them to further divide their thoughts--between what should put them in mind of God and his things, and what should not. That, to me, is a recipie for confusion if ever there was one.

I could say more, but hopefully wisdom holds my tongue. Don't take my word for it, Don, even my references to the biblical text above. I think you should study the 2C (even the whole decalog), and read several trustworthy Reformed expositions of the passage before you conclude there is nothing there.


----------



## Herald

I would never hand out a Chick tract. But I am reminded of the words of Paul:



> Philippians 1:18 18 What then? Only that in every way, whether in pretense or in truth, Christ is proclaimed; and in this I rejoice, yes, and I will rejoice.



This is not to justify the using of bad theology. I just want to point out that God can use any means at His disposal to call a sinner to repentance. It is no excuse for those who know better to compromise the truth, but not even compromised truth will keep God from doing what He pleases.


----------



## Irishcat922

Love em' hate em'! Love the Art work, hate the theology.


----------



## elnwood

Bruce, I will ponder the second commandment issue some more. The argument detailed in Deuteronomy 4:15 is persuasive.

However, I am not persuaded that "likeness" refers to Jehovah's likeness because it seems from a plain reading that the likeness is of the things in heaven, earth, water, etc., and not of God. Also, if it refers only to depictions of Jehovah, then it would not address, say, Baal worship (although obviously the first commandment forbids this).

As far as the bible version is concerned, it is the New King James version, generally considered a reliable and literal translation.


----------



## toddpedlar

elnwood said:


> I am not convinced that Christ did not die for the non-elect in any sense. I think that it is possible that Christ died for the non-elect in order to offer them salvation, even though they were not appointed for eternal life and will not accept salvation.
> 
> For example, John 3:16 says "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only-begotten Son; that whosoever believeth on him may not perish."



Yes... anyone and everyone who believes will not perish. This isn't a universal atonement.




> Calvin clearly states that "whosoever" is all men without exception. Now, I'm not certain that his interpretation is right, but I would not dismiss Calvin so lightly.



That's right, neither would I. "whosoever" does in fact mean who so ever. Whoever believes will be saved, period dot, end of story.

This still has absolutely nothing to do with what God intended with the sacrifice of His Son.




> You are right that if an unbeliever interpreted "God loves you" as an electing love, there is a potential for misunderstanding. But I tend to think that when most unbelievers hear "God loves you," they think, "God cares about me as a person," not "God chose me before the foundation of the world to believe, be holy, be adopted, etc.," although both are proper uses of the phrase.



I believe you're being a bit over-charitable with respect to the unbeliever's hearing. What an unbeliever hears when you say "God loves you" is "God doesn't want me to die and go to hell". You can't say that to people indiscriminately - you may very well be talking to a person whom God absolutely will send to hell, and desires nothing else but that destiny for that person. What you can say indiscriminately is that one must believe on Christ to be saved, for He is the only Way, Truth and Life.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

Don,
I should have looked at the NKJ. I had several others handy old and new, and none of them had left off the conjunction. I don't think the NKJ translators clarified at all. 

God bless your studies.



This is not to pile more on you, but mainly for others reading this thread. Exegetes such as Calvin and K&D (handy tonight) make both "image" (lit. carved, adj. subst.) and "likeness/form" together a double accusative (im. *and/or* lik., or as K&D: "*indeed*, any lik."), modified by the three "of that's". So, the _depiction_ of whatever "thing" (in heaven, earth, water) applies to either/both image or likeness.

The point I tried to make was that in context, _whatever_ the depiction ends up looking like, it is alledged to have Jehovah as the ultimate reference. In other words,, don't make an idol (everyone knows idols are for worship, generally) or any form, "of ME" (Jehovah, ref. final word of previous sentence, lit. "face of me"). For example, expand the idea to read: "don't take that which is in heaven," say a _bird_--"and make unto you an idol of me, _or any_ form of me. I'm not succeptible of representation according to your imagination."

Any _other_ god (Canaanite, Egyptian, Babylonian, you name it), idol form or otherwise, has already been dismissed in the first commandment. Jehovah must not be idolized or represented at all, and least of all "bowed down to or served" (principal or major acts, outward and inward) like those other gods, whether under their exact depictions (like a calf), or by anything else that comes to mind; because that's a service really being done "to them," to that in heaven, on earth or under water (at the least it is divided worship). God rejects it as unworthy will-worship.

So this brings us back to the question: Can the One God be considered at all, ever, in any way, that is not worshipful? At the least, the letter of the command indicates that he is in no way to be represented or conceived contrary to his express dictate, and certainly not worshipped thereby, due to his jealousy.


----------



## JoeRe4mer

Blue Tick said:


> What are you thoughts on Chick Tracts? Before a became reformed I used to hand them out all the time. However, I wouldn't use them now for there blatant violation of the 2nd commandment.



I find Chick tracts VERY disterbing on a lot of levels. First he does not fairly represent the teachings he is trying to refute. Secound he misuses sorce material (primary and secondary) constantly in making his argument. 
Last, I belive many of his tracts teach false doctrine. Here are some I consider to be the worst of the worst.

http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/1000/1000_01.asp

http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0007/0007_01.asp


----------



## ChristopherPaul

Bruce,

I must say I find your posts on this topic to be very edifying and extremely helpful. I appreciate the time you give in offering guidance on such issues.

Prior to this thread I have already been convinced personally to obey the 2nd commandment by refraining from using any images of God. But your work here has greatly reinforced my understanding of this issue.

God bless you and your house.


----------



## Blue Tick

JoeRe4mer said:


> I find Chick tracts VERY disterbing on a lot of levels. First he does not fairly represent the teachings he is trying to refute. Secound he misuses sorce material (primary and secondary) constantly in making his argument.
> Last, I belive many of his tracts teach false doctrine. Here are some I consider to be the worst of the worst.
> 
> http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/1000/1000_01.asp
> 
> http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0007/0007_01.asp



I forgot the "Love the Jewish people" tract. 

Classic Chick at his finest.


----------



## Me Died Blue

ChristopherPaul said:


> Bruce,
> 
> I must say I find your posts on this topic to be very edifying and extremely helpful. I appreciate the time you give in offering guidance on such issues.
> 
> Prior to this thread I have already been convinced personally to obey the 2nd commandment by refraining from using any images of God. But your work here has greatly reinforced my understanding of this issue.
> 
> God bless you and your house.


----------



## elnwood

toddpedlar said:


> I believe you're being a bit over-charitable with respect to the unbeliever's hearing. What an unbeliever hears when you say "God loves you" is "God doesn't want me to die and go to hell". You can't say that to people indiscriminately - you may very well be talking to a person whom God absolutely will send to hell, and desires nothing else but that destiny for that person. What you can say indiscriminately is that one must believe on Christ to be saved, for He is the only Way, Truth and Life.



I'm not sure what you believe about the will(s) of God, but I generally distinguish between the preceptive, dispositional will (sometimes counted as two) and the sovereign decretive will. As in God doesn't want people to sin, but at the same time he decrees it.

So I don't think it is necessarily false to say that "God doesn't want me to die and go to hell" because it is most readily interpreted as his dispositional will, not his decretive will, which would be better phrased as "God has declared that you won't go to hell," which is clearly not the intention of the phrase "God loves you."


----------



## toddpedlar

elnwood said:


> I'm not sure what you believe about the will(s) of God, but I generally distinguish between the preceptive, dispositional will (sometimes counted as two) and the sovereign decretive will. As in God doesn't want people to sin, but at the same time he decrees it.



If one is not of the elect, then I don't see how it can be said that God desires their salvation in any sense. God knows all and has reprobated that
person. God desires the salvation, justification, sanctification and glorification of the reprobate? How so? 



> So I don't think it is necessarily false to say that "God doesn't want me to die and go to hell" because it is most readily interpreted as his dispositional will, not his decretive will, which would be better phrased as "God has declared that you won't go to hell," which is clearly not the intention of the phrase "God loves you."



I honestly don't think it's so clear as you portray it, and again I think you're giving the hearer too much credit in his ability to hear a difference between decretive and dispositional wills of God. The natural man hasn't a clue about those things... when I tell somebody "God doesn't want you to go to hell," I am quite certain that's going to (by and large) be heard as "Let's see - I have a choice to make, and God is putting his vote behind NOT sending me to hell - but I can veto it - my destiny is up to me." Or, he might hear "God loves me and doesn't want me to go to hell. Since he's sovereign, that means I won't no matter what I do." Do we really want to be telling people "God really, really wants you not to go to hell... now don't disappoint him!"?

This isn't reformed - it's not Biblical. It runs completely counter to the sovereignty of God in salvation of man, and gives the hearer a very false impression of his own abilities.


----------

