# An 'un-holy' tract?



## SarahM (Jun 26, 2010)

Today, I was passing out some tracts at the Arch. I was using various tracts (e.g. cards with Arch trivia and Million/Trillion Dollar Bill tracts).

The trillion dollar tract has a drawing of President Obama. Most people smile when I give them one and ask for more. Well, one guy took one, walked away and then came back. He handed me the tract and wanted to know what the message on the back had to do with Obama and a Trillion dollars. I told him it was an 'ice breaker.' He was quite irritated and told me it was 'un-holy.' What do you all think about using such 'ice breakers' that have the gospel message? I am just wondering if this man maybe just didn't like the President and that set him off. I don't know. I have other kinds of tracts with Rutherford B. Hayes on the front and various celebs and most people get a chuckle out of the 'bills.'

Here is a picture of the Obama bills: Presidential Million Dollar Bill | Living Waters


----------



## Jared (Jun 26, 2010)

I guess some Christians think of Obama as the antichrist, but the tracts aren't for believers but unbelievers.


----------



## Willem van Oranje (Jun 26, 2010)

SarahM said:


> Today, I was passing out some tracts at the Arch. I was using various tracts (e.g. cards with Arch trivia and Million/Trillion Dollar Bill tracts).
> 
> The trillion dollar tract has a drawing of President Obama. Most people smile when I give them one and ask for more. Well, one guy took one, walked away and then came back. He handed me the tract and wanted to know what the message on the back had to do with Obama and a Trillion dollars. I told him it was an 'ice breaker.' He was quite irritated and told me it was 'un-holy.' What do you all think about using such 'ice breakers' that have the gospel message? I am just wondering if this man maybe just didn't like the President and that set him off. I don't know. I have other kinds of tracts with Rutherford B. Hayes on the front and various celebs and most people get a chuckle out of the 'bills.'
> 
> Here is a picture of the Obama bills: Presidential Million Dollar Bill | Living Waters


 
I can sympathize with what he said, considering that on one side is basically a joke and on the other is the most important message they will ever read. It is more than a little discongruous. I wouldn't mind telling a joke to break the ice and then transitioning, but with that bill there is absolutely no transition to go from "joke time" to "now let's talk serious." Personally, I prefer the eye-pleasing Scripture verse tracts from the Trinitarian Bible society and the meaty chapel library tracts.


----------



## SolaSaint (Jun 26, 2010)

I have no problems with tracts and have handed out plenty in my life, but this one seems a little offensive and I'm afraid will push some away from the gospel. Remember 1 Pet 3:15 ends with "with gentleness and respect."


----------



## TimV (Jun 26, 2010)

> The Bible warns that if you are guilty you will end up in Hell. That's not God's will. He sent His Son to suffer and die on the cross for you



I'd be more concerned about the bad theology


----------



## Jack K (Jun 26, 2010)

Reasons why some people will see this tract as disrespectful, and therefore "un-holy."

1. It uses the image of a real person (President Obama) who probably would not agree with its message or appreciate his image being used this way. Sure, he's the president so you can get away with it, and in a sense this sort of thing comes with the job, but it really isn't showing him _respect_.

2. It's "bait and switch." A person takes it thinking he's getting a fun novelty, and instead gets hit with a message about sin and hell. Forget that it also points him to Christ, it still feels rude to the recipient and he thinks he's been suckered.

3. It makes the recipient feel like he's the object of an evangelism project instead of a person being cared for. I know you _do_ care. But that guy who confronted you probably felt like he was just on the receiving end of a Jesus advertisement. Jesus deserves better than a gimmicky ad blurb, and so does that guy.

That said, I want to encourage you to keep spreading the gospel. I wouldn't use this tract. But truth be told, all too often I don't spread the gospel at all, so you still have me beat.


----------



## TaylorOtwell (Jun 26, 2010)

One of my favorite alternatives to the Living Waters tracts is the "Two Ways to Live" tract from Matthias Media.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Scott1 (Jun 26, 2010)

Please don't be discouraged in giving out tracts, and witnessing in this way. It's the "Lord's work." (literally and figuratively).

And one doesn't have to do it perfectly, subjectively or objectively "right" for God to use it. People are going to be offended at the gospel, and God's demands on them, no matter what. The flesh and the devil will make sure of that.

Offense is something God often uses in human beings to identify sin.

As a practical matter, I would stay away from things that distract. So for example, a contemporary figure ought not be on a bill which he is not on in real life unless there is something relevant about it. Thought provoking, yes, even "offensive" for Christ or righteousness, but not incidents that will distract. It's not that kind of change we need.


----------



## MLCOPE2 (Jun 26, 2010)

I prefer the personal relationship track.


----------



## Andres (Jun 26, 2010)

I prefer just talking to people if one really feels like they must share something. The problem with this kind of ministry (confronting complete starngers) is that it leaves no place for follow-up/discipleship. I suggest establishing _relationships_ with co-workers, neighbors, and other people. Pray for them. Love them. Invite them to come to church with you. If you attend a biblical church, the gospel will be faithfully proclaimed so your friend will hear the gospel. Then afterwards you can discuss the message with them and answer any questions. For a wonderful example of this type of "witnessing" see these threads in order:

I am seeking opinions...
Please say a prayer for Patrick 
Good news to share about Patrick
Wonderful News! 

Notice the dates and how it was a months long process, rather than a one-time, brief encounter.


----------



## larryjf (Jun 27, 2010)

He may have thought the content was about Obama or something. Did you tell him it was a Gospel track?
Perhaps he meant that it was wrong to give him a Gospel track "in disguise" as it were.

If that's the case, it's easily fixed by saying "can i give you this gospel track?"
Then they know what you are trying to give them.


----------



## Kassie_Blair (Jun 27, 2010)

I don't think it had anything to do with Obama. The Gospel is offensive to non-believers; it tells them they are going to hell because they are not good people. I know "Christians" who have been offended by the Way of the Master gospel, because they were called out on being a liar and a thief and well a law breaker of all 10 commandments. It doesn't matter how gracious we present the Gospel it will bring about offense and it will be rejected. I would say keep handing them out. I one time gave out the same tracts, but the ones with Spurgeon on them to some nominal Catholics. They told me that the tracts were unholy because it was "money" and money is the root of all evil. (Talk about misquoting verses and taking them out of context lol) After that they threatened to rape and murder me. And all I did was hand the tract to them, explain what was on the tract, and then proceed to share the Gospel with them on THEIR consent. You are going to encounter people who cannot handle the Truth, which unfortunately is most people. So, I say keep on tracting lol... I know the pun is kinda cheesy. We are called to share the gospel with everyone, not just people we have established a relationship with. I believe it was John Wesley who went on a two day carriage ride and said that he was not going to share the gospel with anyone unless he felt irrevocably compelled by the Holy Spirit to share the gospel with someone. He never shared the gospel in those two days; and he is said to be one of the greatest evangelists of all time. This was a man who shared the Gospel with everyone he met. So, I say don't be discouraged, just keep on living out your faith moment by moment and continue to pray for the lost souls that you share the gospel with. It is all about just being faithful to plant the seed.


----------



## Willem van Oranje (Jun 27, 2010)

Andres said:


> I prefer just talking to people if one really feels like they must share something. The problem with this kind of ministry (confronting complete starngers) is that it leaves no place for follow-up/discipleship. I suggest establishing _relationships_ with co-workers, neighbors, and other people. Pray for them. Love them. Invite them to come to church with you. If you attend a biblical church, the gospel will be faithfully proclaimed so your friend will hear the gospel. Then afterwards you can discuss the message with them and answer any questions. For a wonderful example of this type of "witnessing" see these threads in order:
> 
> I am seeking opinions...
> Please say a prayer for Patrick
> ...


 
Tract distribution to strangers has its cons, but it also has its pros: meeting people you otherwise wouldn't, getting a message to someone who may not have time to talk or listen, or even just as a conversation starter. I've had people who seemed busily on their way to somewhere stop and talk to me for 30 mins or more on a public sidewalk when I started by handing them a tract. So I think that this sort of thing definately has its place. As far as "follow-up", it's quite simple. Make sure to put labels or stamps on all the tracts with contact info/web address from your church (with the elders' approval, of course.)


----------



## Andres (Jun 27, 2010)

Kassie_Blair said:


> I don't think it had anything to do with Obama. The Gospel is offensive to non-believers; it tells them they are going to hell because they are not good people. I know "Christians" who have been offended by the Way of the Master gospel, because they were called out on being a liar and a thief and well a law breaker of all 10 commandments. It doesn't matter how gracious we present the Gospel it will bring about offense and it will be rejected. I would say keep handing them out. I one time gave out the same tracts, but the ones with Spurgeon on them to some nominal Catholics. They told me that the tracts were unholy because it was "money" and money is the root of all evil. (Talk about misquoting verses and taking them out of context lol) After that they threatened to rape and murder me. And all I did was hand the tract to them, explain what was on the tract, and then proceed to share the Gospel with them on THEIR consent. You are going to encounter people who cannot handle the Truth, which unfortunately is most people. So, I say keep on tracting lol... I know the pun is kinda cheesy. *We are called to share the gospel with everyone, not just people we have established a relationship with*. I believe it was John Wesley who went on a two day carriage ride and said that he was not going to share the gospel with anyone unless he felt irrevocably compelled by the Holy Spirit to share the gospel with someone. He never shared the gospel in those two days; and he is said to be one of the greatest evangelists of all time. This was a man who shared the Gospel with everyone he met. So, I say don't be discouraged, just keep on living out your faith moment by moment and continue to pray for the lost souls that you share the gospel with. It is all about just being faithful to plant the seed.



I would be interested to hear your scriptural basis for the above bolded thought, especially how it equates to handing out tracts.


----------



## earl40 (Jun 27, 2010)

Andres said:


> Kassie_Blair said:
> 
> 
> > I don't think it had anything to do with Obama. The Gospel is offensive to non-believers; it tells them they are going to hell because they are not good people. I know "Christians" who have been offended by the Way of the Master gospel, because they were called out on being a liar and a thief and well a law breaker of all 10 commandments. It doesn't matter how gracious we present the Gospel it will bring about offense and it will be rejected. I would say keep handing them out. I one time gave out the same tracts, but the ones with Spurgeon on them to some nominal Catholics. They told me that the tracts were unholy because it was "money" and money is the root of all evil. (Talk about misquoting verses and taking them out of context lol) After that they threatened to rape and murder me. And all I did was hand the tract to them, explain what was on the tract, and then proceed to share the Gospel with them on THEIR consent. You are going to encounter people who cannot handle the Truth, which unfortunately is most people. So, I say keep on tracting lol... I know the pun is kinda cheesy. *We are called to share the gospel with everyone, not just people we have established a relationship with*. I believe it was John Wesley who went on a two day carriage ride and said that he was not going to share the gospel with anyone unless he felt irrevocably compelled by the Holy Spirit to share the gospel with someone. He never shared the gospel in those two days; and he is said to be one of the greatest evangelists of all time. This was a man who shared the Gospel with everyone he met. So, I say don't be discouraged, just keep on living out your faith moment by moment and continue to pray for the lost souls that you share the gospel with. It is all about just being faithful to plant the seed.
> ...


 

Or having an empty cross in front of your church?


----------



## Damon Rambo (Jun 27, 2010)

Andres said:


> Kassie_Blair said:
> 
> 
> > I don't think it had anything to do with Obama. The Gospel is offensive to non-believers; it tells them they are going to hell because they are not good people. I know "Christians" who have been offended by the Way of the Master gospel, because they were called out on being a liar and a thief and well a law breaker of all 10 commandments. It doesn't matter how gracious we present the Gospel it will bring about offense and it will be rejected. I would say keep handing them out. I one time gave out the same tracts, but the ones with Spurgeon on them to some nominal Catholics. They told me that the tracts were unholy because it was "money" and money is the root of all evil. (Talk about misquoting verses and taking them out of context lol) After that they threatened to rape and murder me. And all I did was hand the tract to them, explain what was on the tract, and then proceed to share the Gospel with them on THEIR consent. You are going to encounter people who cannot handle the Truth, which unfortunately is most people. So, I say keep on tracting lol... I know the pun is kinda cheesy. *We are called to share the gospel with everyone, not just people we have established a relationship with*. I believe it was John Wesley who went on a two day carriage ride and said that he was not going to share the gospel with anyone unless he felt irrevocably compelled by the Holy Spirit to share the gospel with someone. He never shared the gospel in those two days; and he is said to be one of the greatest evangelists of all time. This was a man who shared the Gospel with everyone he met. So, I say don't be discouraged, just keep on living out your faith moment by moment and continue to pray for the lost souls that you share the gospel with. It is all about just being faithful to plant the seed.
> ...


 
Uh, because that is what every single person in the book of Acts did (share the gospel with strangers)? The entire book is filled with Paul, Peter, and nearly all the others, standing up before complete strangers and preaching on the street, or confronting those strangers one to one.

As far as the tracts go, this was something that the Reformers and Puritans started. The invention of the printing press allowed such things; Luther's Theses was one of the first!

God's Word is effective, regardless of the delivery method. Preaching on the street, and tracting, is a part of the Reformed tradition. Spurgeon, Whitfield, Knox, and even Luther, preached on the streets. I know people, who God has drawn to Himself, by the use of tracts. Since they are not unbiblical, and in fact, as much as they contain Scripture, ARE Biblical, they can and should be used, as they have been used by the Church in the past.


----------



## Scott1 (Jun 27, 2010)

I don't want to distract from the original post, which assumes the usefulness of using tracts to witness, and is requesting input only on a particular circumstance of that.

Suffice it to say, most of us have had at least one "bad experience" with tracts, e.g. receiving a tract instead of a tip at a restaurant, etc.

Likely also, most of us have had good experiences or at least benign ones with tracts generally.

Most have also had a "bad experience" with someone who professes to be a Christian, or with a particular church, etc. 

This is a given in a fallen world, and something the devil would try to use to block or confuse truth. But those don't negate the purpose of sharing the Gospel through a tract as one way, associating with other Christians, committing to a body of believers, with all the difficulties all of them entail. In fact, we know God uses even the sin, the difficulty toward the end of His Glory.

Realizing corporate worship is the ordinary place where the gospel is taught, and that this is not a direct analogy, I'm reminded of this passage:



> Philippians 1
> 
> 15Some indeed preach Christ even of envy and strife; and some also of good will:
> 
> ...



It's interesting,
on a couple occasions, people who have been most "offended" by some truth, have become the most passionate believers, or confirmed in the truth they once denied.

Such is the story of many of us, by the grace of God.


----------



## Andres (Jun 27, 2010)

Damon Rambo said:


> Andres said:
> 
> 
> > Kassie_Blair said:
> ...


 
The sharing of the gospel by Peter, Paul, and the other apostles was relegated to the office, much as the proclamation of the gospel today is relegated to the office of the ordained teaching elder/pastor. Of course, I am not saying that laity is forbidden from sharing the gospel, just that it is not required of them in the same sense as required of the minister. Along this same line, I am not saying that gospel tracts are forbidden. I do however think that in many circles there is a false movement that every believer is commanded to tell everyone they meet about Jesus. I find this teaching to be without scriptural warrant.


----------



## Kassie_Blair (Jun 27, 2010)

The Great Commission. We are called to go forth into all nations and make disciples of all men. If we were to only share the gospel with those who we have a personal relationship with, what is the purpose of missions within the church? There would be no purpose. Lets not forget the simplicity of the our calling as believers and the gospel message. Did not Christ, Himself call upon strangers to follow Him? As Christians, we tend to think that because there is no direct follow-up that the spreading of the gospel to strangers is fruitless. However, I have friends who I have shared the gospel with by open-air preaching and handing out tracts that witnessed people walk away angry and offended by the message presented and then come back 6 months later and seek forgiveness for treating us with such hostility, because after the gospel was shared with them that day, they began their search for Truth and became believers. Who is to say that the people we pass by on the street are not just as much a part of Divine Providence as those God has placed in our life to have a lasting friendship with?


----------



## Mushroom (Jun 27, 2010)

> The Great Commission.





> Mat 28:18-20 And Jesus came and said to them, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. (19) Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, (20) teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age."


A tract does not a disciple make. Are you baptizing them as well? And teaching them to observe all the He commanded? The Great Commission is to the Church as a whole, and while we all take part in carrying it out, there are differing offices in the administration of it. Not all are called to teach. We are not all qualified to administer the sacrament of baptism. To assume that every member of the Church is required to personally carry out all of the components of the G.C. is error. To assume that any single component is required of all believers is error as well. We are all to participate according to our gifts and callings organically within the Body of Christ. That can take many forms. To say each of us is obligated to share the gospel individually with everyone goes beyond the commission.


----------



## Andres (Jun 27, 2010)

Kassie_Blair said:


> The Great Commission. We are called to go forth into all nations and make disciples of all men. If we were to only share the gospel with those who we have a personal relationship with, what is the purpose of missions within the church? There would be no purpose. Lets not forget the simplicity of the our calling as believers and the gospel message. Did not Christ, Himself call upon strangers to follow Him? As Christians, we tend to think that because there is no direct follow-up that the spreading of the gospel to strangers is fruitless. However, I have friends who I have shared the gospel with by open-air preaching and handing out tracts that witnessed people walk away angry and offended by the message presented and then come back 6 months later and seek forgiveness for treating us with such hostility, because after the gospel was shared with them that day, they began their search for Truth and became believers. Who is to say that the people we pass by on the street are not just as much a part of Divine Providence as those God has placed in our life to have a lasting friendship with?


 


Brad said:


> > The Great Commission.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



When I asked my question here, I must admit your above answer is the the one I expected you would give. I hope you don't think I am picking on you. Brad did a most wonderful job of explaining why we would disagree with this line of thinking. Thank you Brad. I hope that this does not discourage you from your desire to propagate the good news of our Lord and Savior, however I do hope that you will better understand what the great commission is teaching and also understand better the purpose of the church offices that God has ordained.


----------



## Kassie_Blair (Jun 27, 2010)

As I had mentioned before people have become Christians because the tract and sharing of the gospel planted the seed. There is no spiritual gift that is explicit to spreading the gospel. Not all are called to teach, but there is a distinct spiritual gift for teaching. There is not one that says "some are called to spread the gospel". We are all called to preach the good news. What I am saying is that if we limit the gospel and only share it with those we have a personal relationship with, there is no purpose for missions in the church. What I am saying is we cannot limit Divine Providence to those people we encounter on a daily basis. Not all are called to missions, in the sense that we go live in a third world country and share the gospel, but all of us are called to spread the gospel. There is nothing that is gift given in terms of sharing the gospel. Some might be more eloquent then others in their presentation, but the gospel is something we all SHOULD know as believers and be able to give a defense for as 1 Pt.3 states. I am not by any stretch saying that we all need to go on the streets evangelizing. I not once said that. I said we are all called to share the gospel. That could involve me going to the store and sharing it with someone I bump into. As far as the Great Commission, lets compare the Matt to the Mark verses. 

"And He said to them, 'go into all the world and proclaim the gospel to the whole creation. Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned'". Mark 16: 15,16

If they are to become a believer, then yes, I would encourage them to go get baptized and planted in a church. However, as an evangelist you don't always see the fruits of the gospel. There will be times where the person may not believe until months after the gospel was spoken to them, as I have previously stated. I just have a little bit of a problem with saying that all are not all called to share the gospel with those we encounter, when Christ says "go into all the world and proclaim the gospel to the whole creation". This is all-inclusive. It doesn't get much clearer than that. Now, either you believe that verse only applied to the 11 disciples or that it applies to all of us as disciples. There is no middle ground in which you can defend "some" or a portion of believers for these verses to be applied to. So which is it. 

The question that we need to be asking is does the Great Commission only apply to the 11 disciples or all believers?


----------



## Andres (Jun 27, 2010)

Kassie_Blair said:


> As I had mentioned before people have become Christians because the tract and sharing of the gospel planted the seed. There is no spiritual gift that is explicit to spreading the gospel. Not all are called to teach, but there is a distinct spiritual gift for teaching. There is not one that says "some are called to spread the gospel". We are all called to preach the good news. What I am saying is that if we limit the gospel and only share it with those we have a personal relationship with, there is no purpose for missions in the church. What I am saying is we cannot limit Divine Providence to those people we encounter on a daily basis. Not all are called to missions, in the sense that we go live in a third world country and share the gospel, but all of us are called to spread the gospel. There is nothing that is gift given in terms of sharing the gospel. Some might be more eloquent then others in their presentation, but the gospel is something we all SHOULD know as believers and be able to give a defense for as 1 Pt.3 states. I am not by any stretch saying that we all need to go on the streets evangelizing. I not once said that. I said we are all called to share the gospel. That could involve me going to the store and sharing it with someone I bump into. As far as the Great Commission, lets compare the Matt to the Mark verses.
> 
> "And He said to them, 'go into all the world and proclaim the gospel to the whole creation. Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned'". Mark 16: 15,16
> 
> ...


 
Your first sentence equates to pragmatism and I do not believe pragmatism should ever be our reasoning for doing the work of the Lord. Here is a quote from Kim Riddlebarger from the 5/09/2010 episode of the Whitehorse Inn. I would strongly encourage you and everyone else to listen to this most wonderful episode as it relates directly to the discussion we are currently having. (sorry I cannot post the link as I am at work and the site is blocked)

"_One of the problems with American evangelicalism is the disconnect between the person who is converted and the church. In the NT there is no such category as a person who comes to faith in Christ who is not a member of the local church, [or] the person who professes faith in Christ and then exists apart from the local church. There is no category in the NT for somebody who professes faith in Christ who is not baptized, and there is no category for somebody who professes faith who is not a member of the local church. The preached Word is the primary means of evangelism. They are not brought to Christ, but they are brought to Christ AND into His church where they are nurtured and cared for._ " – Kim Riddlebarger 

As for the answer to your last question, Brad already answered it here.


----------



## Damon Rambo (Jun 27, 2010)

Andres said:


> Damon Rambo said:
> 
> 
> > Andres said:
> ...


 
It absolutely has Biblical warrant! I will let one of my favorite preachers, Mark Dever, answer for me. The following is a clear refutation of what you have stated above...



> * Christ's command to go and make disciples of all nations seems to be given to all His disciples, not just the first twelve (Matt 28:18-20).
> * Look up Acts 8:1-4; 11:19-21. Who is scattered and who stays in Jerusalem? Who preaches?
> * Look up 1Pet 1:1-2; 3:15. Who is Peter writing to? What does he tell them to do?
> * Look up Rom 1:14-15. Is this simply a descriptive passage about Paul's desires as an apostle? Do they apply to us today?
> ...



9Marks :


----------



## SarahM (Jun 28, 2010)

larryjf said:


> He may have thought the content was about Obama or something. Did you tell him it was a Gospel track?
> Perhaps he meant that it was wrong to give him a Gospel track "in disguise" as it were.
> 
> If that's the case, it's easily fixed by saying "can i give you this gospel track?"
> Then they know what you are trying to give them.



No, the guy read the back of the tract and knew it was a gospel tract. Most of the time I tell people (not always), but I say, "Did you get your million/trillion? It has the million dollar question on the back." Some people stop right in their tracks and are confused. They turn the paper over to see what the million dollar question is. Sometimes I let them read it and then ask, " So, do you think you can answer it?" Or I just ask them the million dollar question, "Where will you spend eternity?" 

I try not to be sneaky about what I am passing out. I tell them (most of the time) that it has the gospel message on the back. Out of all my tracts, these are the only ones (million dollar bills with various 'faces') that people come back asking for more. Out of the two hundred or so MDB's that I gave out, I only had one person come back and say something negative about it. 

Now concerning the message on the back, that's another thing. I want to give out the correct gospel. So, if it's not theologically sound, then I need to get something else.

Concerning confronting 'complete strangers' every friend is a stranger before they become a friend. I can become friends with someone in two minutes or less. There are different levels of friendship of course. I am surprised you talked about follow up because those whom God calls He keeps. If God is calling someone to Himself, He will save them whether or not I follow-up or not. I do have an email address I sometimes give to my new friends, and I have emailed them before. 

Thanks for all your comments. It's good to think and be challenged in how we share the gospel. I don't want anything but the gospel to offend, not even a silly Obama tract. =)


----------



## Damon Rambo (Jun 29, 2010)

SarahM said:


> Now concerning the message on the back, that's another thing. I want to give out the correct gospel. So, if it's not theologically sound, then I need to get something else.



The theology is fine, as long as you are Infralapsarian. There are multitudes of Reformed tracts which say essentially the same thing he is critiquing.


----------



## Willem van Oranje (Jun 29, 2010)

Damon Rambo said:


> SarahM said:
> 
> 
> > Now concerning the message on the back, that's another thing. I want to give out the correct gospel. So, if it's not theologically sound, then I need to get something else.
> ...


 
A part of the tract offends the theological sensibilities of this infralapsarian:

"He sent His Son to suffer and die on the cross for you. You broke God's Law, but Jesus paid your fine. That means He can legally dismiss your case. "

It is presumptive to assume that Christ suffered and died for someone who may or may not be elect. It is worse to tell them that Christ died for them. It would be better and more accurate to say something like this: "Christ died for sinners like you. He is your only hope. God promises that if you trust in Christ, you will be forgiven of your sin, and receive eternal life in him. He is the only and the sure and certain hope of salvation for sinners like us." You could even say, "Jesus paid the fine for everyone who will believe in him." But we cannot say to a perfect stranger, "Jesus paid your fine." We don't know if Jesus paid that person's fine or not. We can only offer what we know to be true.


----------



## dane_g87 (Jun 29, 2010)

Andres said:


> Kassie_Blair said:
> 
> 
> > The Great Commission. We are called to go forth into all nations and make disciples of all men. If we were to only share the gospel with those who we have a personal relationship with, what is the purpose of missions within the church? There would be no purpose. Lets not forget the simplicity of the our calling as believers and the gospel message. Did not Christ, Himself call upon strangers to follow Him? As Christians, we tend to think that because there is no direct follow-up that the spreading of the gospel to strangers is fruitless. However, I have friends who I have shared the gospel with by open-air preaching and handing out tracts that witnessed people walk away angry and offended by the message presented and then come back 6 months later and seek forgiveness for treating us with such hostility, because after the gospel was shared with them that day, they began their search for Truth and became believers. Who is to say that the people we pass by on the street are not just as much a part of Divine Providence as those God has placed in our life to have a lasting friendship with?
> ...


 
What about the Ethiopian eunuch? There was neither follow-up nor any disciple-making...Philip simply shared the gospel (to a complete stranger), baptized him, and went on his way (seemingly) never to see him again. If we could talk to that eunuch today he'd probably say, "Man, I'm sure glad Philip didn't refrain from evangelizing me for fear of no follow-up..?"


----------



## Mushroom (Jun 29, 2010)

> What about the Ethiopian eunuch? There was no follow-up nor any disciple-making...Phillip simply shared the gospel, baptized him, and went on his way (seemingly) never to see him again.


No-one has said that it should never be done this way. But this does not imply that it is the obligation of every Christian to do so. Nor is a single event proof of it being the normative method.


----------



## dane_g87 (Jun 29, 2010)

Right. I'm not saying it's the only way that evangelism should be done, and I'm not saying it shouldn't be done. I'm just pointing out that God works however He pleases, and we shouldn't restrict Him to a specific method or procedure. Salvation itself and the conversion of a sinner is never normative and no method, whether using tracts or building relationships, should ever be considered normative, because it is a supernatural work of God that exhibits more power than the creation of an entire universe. And instead of trusting in tracts, or in a follow-up procedure, we need to be trusting in God who regenerates sinners and keeps His sheep.


----------



## Mushroom (Jun 29, 2010)

dane_g87 said:


> Right. I'm not saying it's the only way that evangelism should be done, and I'm not saying it shouldn't be done. I'm just pointing out that God works however He pleases, and we shouldn't restrict Him to a specific method or procedure. Salvation itself and the conversion of a sinner is never normative and no method, whether using tracts or building relationships, should ever be considered normative, because it is a supernatural work of God that exhibits more power than the creation of an entire universe. And instead of trusting in tracts, or in a follow-up procedure, we need to be trusting in God who regenerates sinners and keeps His sheep.


Well, I would say that there is a normative method, and that is through the Church by the preaching of the Word and administration of the sacraments. God is by no means restricted to that in harvesting His people out of the world. He can use any means He decrees, He used a donkey to rebuke Balaam. But I've not run across any talking donkeys in my travels.

In our modern/post-modern/existential way of thinking these days, we tend to reject organization and hierarchy in favor of independency and a lone wolf mentality, but that is not the biblical model. We are an organic body, the Body of Christ, with Offices and callings whereby we serve the Lord in the Great Commission. That the Lord has used irregular or extraordinary means to save individuals does not always indicate that those particular means are to be pursued. I was first approached about Christ by drug-addled Jesus freaks. The fact that God used that to draw me to Himself does not infer that being a drug-addled Jesus freak is an acceptable way for a Christian to evangelize. So we need to be careful. 2Ti 2:20 Now in a great house there are not only vessels of gold and silver but also of wood and clay, some for honorable use, some for dishonorable.

Now, personal evangelism and passing out tracts may be perfectly sound methods, but I think it behooves us to strive to be theologically sound in what we say and what the tracts say, and probably the tract thing is best done under the watchful authority of the undershepherds set over us, but the normative aim is to point the lost to the Lord through His Bride. And nowhere is every Christian commanded to use these means.

BTW, in Phillip's case, he was an ordained Officer of the Church, and therefore qualified to administer baptism. I sure hope no laity think to derive from that event that they should be baptising anyone, which brings us back around to the fact that the Church is the normal means whereby the lost are led to Christ. And why Deacons are to be ordained, not 'commissioned', but that's another thread.


----------



## Andres (Jun 29, 2010)

Brad said:


> dane_g87 said:
> 
> 
> > Right. I'm not saying it's the only way that evangelism should be done, and I'm not saying it shouldn't be done. I'm just pointing out that God works however He pleases, and we shouldn't restrict Him to a specific method or procedure. Salvation itself and the conversion of a sinner is never normative and no method, whether using tracts or building relationships, should ever be considered normative, because it is a supernatural work of God that exhibits more power than the creation of an entire universe. And instead of trusting in tracts, or in a follow-up procedure, we need to be trusting in God who regenerates sinners and keeps His sheep.
> ...


----------



## Willem van Oranje (Jun 30, 2010)

Brad said:


> > What about the Ethiopian eunuch? There was no follow-up nor any disciple-making...Phillip simply shared the gospel, baptized him, and went on his way (seemingly) never to see him again.
> 
> 
> No-one has said that it should never be done this way. But this does not imply that it is the obligation of every Christian to do so. Nor is a single event proof of it being the normative method.


 
Good tracts are a much easier and safer way for laypersons to get involved with broad evangelism than say, loud street proclamation. This is one of their strengths. It doesn't take as much guts to hand one out, and the message can mostly be confined to what is in the tract, if the Christian is not entirely comfortable guiding a conversation on the matter. Tracts are a tool that laypeople can use, which do not require much training and preparation. I wouldn't want to put a guilt trip on the congregation by suggesting that they _all_ need to go out on the street and hand out tracts. Neither would I want to put a damper on those young Christians who just can't contain themselves from going out and sharing the joy that Christ has put in their hearts. 

But every Christian is required to be ready to give an answer when opportunities arise. That is where I see a mandate. I don't think that's confined to just close friends.


----------



## Fly Caster (Jul 2, 2010)

SarahM said:


> Today, I was passing out some tracts at the Arch. I was using various tracts (e.g. cards with Arch trivia and Million/Trillion Dollar Bill tracts).
> 
> The trillion dollar tract has a drawing of President Obama. Most people smile when I give them one and ask for more. Well, one guy took one, walked away and then came back. He handed me the tract and wanted to know what the message on the back had to do with Obama and a Trillion dollars. I told him it was an 'ice breaker.' He was quite irritated and told me it was 'un-holy.' What do you all think about using such 'ice breakers' that have the gospel message? I am just wondering if this man maybe just didn't like the President and that set him off. I don't know. I have other kinds of tracts with Rutherford B. Hayes on the front and various celebs and most people get a chuckle out of the 'bills.'
> 
> Here is a picture of the Obama bills: Presidential Million Dollar Bill | Living Waters



My , on your question and the rest of the thread.

There are issues with this tract, and others have pointed them out well. But I applaud what you are doing.

The reply of the Arminian to the Calvinist critical of his methods--"I prefer my way of doing evangelism to your way of not doing it"-- comes to mind. It pains me that we are seen this way, and that our arguments sometimes lend support to this portrayal. I hope that you can find more suitable materials, but I also hope that you wll never be discouraged from sharing the hope that is within you to anyone who will listen.


----------



## SarahM (Jul 2, 2010)

Thanks, Timothy. That's very nice of you to say.


----------

