Critique this gospel tract.

Status
Not open for further replies.
I'll be pointed because namby-pamby criticism never helped any writer...

The tract is theologically sound but lacking in joy and enthusiasm for the gospel.

Jesus hasn't merely solved a theological problem. He has saved us, bringing great gladness and relief to the heart. The tract reads as if the author loves theology but isn't necessarily in love with Jesus. You need to let loose and allow your joy to spill out much more. Hemingway said good writing means you open a vein. You need to let the hope that is within you bleed out onto the page.

Keep at it! Writing is hard but ultimately rewarding and important work.
 
Thanks for the critique, Jack.

I have changed:
Q. I have repented and believed. Now what?
A. If this is truly the case, you have been “born again.” Praise God! Now, just as a newborn baby is to grow and be nourished, those who are “born again” need to grow and be nourished in the faith (its tenets). This is done by being discipled, which is growing in relationships with other matured believers, studying the Bible, and learning how to let the Bible interpret itself. Contact me if you would like to be discipled or learn more.
Click to expand...
To

Q. I have repented and believed. Now what?
A. If this is truly the case, you have been “born again.” Glory to God, alone! Now, just as a newborn is to grow and be nourished, those “born again” need to grow and be nourished in their relationship with God. This can be done by growing in love, joy, peace, and knowledge of the Lord through prayer and study of His word, as well as fellowship and discipleship with other mature believers. Contact me if you would like to be discipled.
Click to expand...

Better, or no?
 
Last edited:
I think it's less a matter of adding a few words about love and joy and more an issue of overall tone. I'm not sure how I'd change it, exactly. I think that's something you need to find in yourself. It just sounded theologically precise but emotionally flat.

When I start writing that way I need to take a break, maybe exercise and think about what gets me excited about the topic, or try explaining to a friend what gets me excited about it... and then use that as a springboard to write with more excitement, from the heart. It may take several days before it comes to me. I don't know if any of that will work for you, but it does seem to me that you need to let your heart show through some more.
 
Good start, James. I think you have done a good job on identifying the key areas that need to be communicated. It's hard to be concise, isn't it?

A few thoughts:

It sounds like you are going out on your own without any sending or oversight of the church. If someone is interested, they would be coming under your personal oversight instead of joining the church and coming under the discipline of a body structured and organized according to scripture (i.e., congregation, elders, deacons, presbytery etc.).

I also think the heaven/hell question needs work. The terrors of hell are not only due to mere separation from God's kindness, but also due to God's active punishment and wrath.

Your description of repent is incorrect.

A few other minor points: "thrice holy" will probably not mean anything to the unbeliever; the use of the word "imputation" is probably not necessary either. The use of "God's law" alongside "Christ's commands" will probably cause confusion.

A tract is probably not the place to refer to the term "metaphysics".

Keep working on this, brother. Let us know when you have made your next draft!
 
Tim,

Thanks for your feedback.

Regarding the Heaven/Hell section, I mainly placed this Q&A here to dispel the overemphasis in current evangelism and common American thought that the gospel is merely "get out of hell" card, the crux of the matter being merely your eternal destination. You are correct in that I did not touch on the aspect of "positive" wrath on behalf of God, but I believe it still gets a valid point on the subject across and dispels a common myth.

I would appreciate if you would elaborate your objection of my defining of "repent." I believe the current definition is contextually derived from Acts 2:36-38 and its broader context. I also further qualify "repentance" in the last sentence of the answer by saying: "True “repentance” will also bring a natural desire to obey Christ’s commands and a remorse for abiding sin habits."

I have removed "thrice."

I changed "Christ's commandments" to "Christ's teachings."

The use of the word "metaphysical" saved me from having to write at least a whole extra sentence, which I currently don't have the room for. If those for whom that specific Q&A was addressed for don't understand it, they should then question the god of their intellect which they worship instead of the Creator.

I constantly update the same link in the OP, so feel free to refresh it and critique again.

Thanks brother.
 
I was referring to this definition:

repent (confess and believe that Jesus is who he claims he is: Lord and Christ),
Click to expand...

Why not just keep it simple?

repent (turn away from your sin)
 
pbc561 said:
Tim,

I take gotquestion.org's view of the NT meaning of repentance: What is repentance and is it necessary for salvation?
Click to expand...

So you're taking a huge exception to the Confession?

Of Repentance Unto Life.

I. Repentance unto life is an evangelical grace, the doctrine whereof is to be preached by every minister of the gospel, as well as that of faith in Christ.

II. By it a sinner, out of the sight and sense, not only of the danger, but also of the filthiness and odiousness of his sins, as contrary to the holy nature and righteous law of God, and upon the apprehension of his mercy in Christ to such as are penitent, so grieves for, and hates his sins, as to turn from them all unto God, purposing and endeavoring to walk with him in all the ways of his commandments.

III. Although repentance be not to be rested in as any satisfaction for sin, or any cause of the pardon thereof, which is the act of God's free grace in Christ; yet is it of such necessity to all sinners, that none may expect pardon without it.

IV. As there is no sin so small but it deserves damnation; so there is no sin so great that it can bring damnation upon those who truly repent.

V. Men ought not to content themselves with a general repentance, but it is every man's duty to endeavor to repent of his particular sins, particularly.

VI. As every man is bound to make private confession of his sins to God, praying for the pardon thereof, upon which, and the forsaking of them, he shall find mercy: so he that scandelizeth his brother, or the Church of Christ, ought to be willing, by a private or public confession and sorrow for his sin, to declare his repentance to those that are offended; who are thereupon to be reconciled to him, and in love to receive him.
Click to expand...

Article V makes it clear that the divines did not take the definition of repentance as "to change one's mind about Christ" only -- it applies to individual sins as well. It seems that "to change one's mind about Christ" would be better described in the category of saving faith.

Repentance is important and distinct from faith/belief, though both are gifts/graces of God.

Of Saving Faith.

I. The grace of faith, whereby the elect are enabled to believe to the saving of their souls, is the work of the Spirit of Christ in their hearts; and is ordinarily wrought by the ministry of the Word: by which also, and by the administration of the sacraments, and prayer, it is increased and strengthened.

II. By this faith, a Christian believeth to be true whatesoever is revealed in the Word, for the authority of God Himself speaking therein; and acteth differently, upon that which each particular passage thereof containeth; yielding obedience to the commands, trembling at the threatenings, and embracing the promises of God for this life, and that which is to come. But the principle acts of saving faith are, accepting, receiving, and resting upon Christ alone for justification, sanctification, and eternal life, by virtue of the covenant of grace.

III. This faith is different in degrees, weak or strong; may be often and many ways assailed and weakened, but gets the victory; growing up in many to the attainment of a full assurance through Christ, who is both the author and finisher of our faith.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
davenporter, I don't disagree with what the confession says about it. I just believe that if repentance unto salvation is defined predominantly as forsaking all sins (not just the sin of unbelief) it can come across as literally justification by works or entire sanctification. It makes no sense to believe that one must, without regeneration, put parts of the flesh to death in order to be justified. It seems clear to me that once one has been renegerated, he has also traveled the ordo salutis up until adoption, thus has been converted (repented) and is justified. Then can one godly sorrow and forsake sin via sanctification.
 
pbc561 said:
davenporter, I don't disagree with what the confession says about it. I just believe that if repentance unto salvation is defined predominantly as forsaking all sins (not just the sin of unbelief) it can come across as literally justification by works or entire sanctification. It makes no sense to believe that one must, without regeneration, put parts of the flesh to death in order to be justified. It seems clear to me that once one has been renegerated, he has also traveled the ordo salutis up until adoption, thus has been converted (repented) and is justified. Then can one godly sorrow and forsake sin via sanctification.
Click to expand...

To me it seems you do disagree with the Confession. The Confession calls repentance unto life "an evangelical grace", that is, a gospel grace. The Confession does illustrate repentance as a change of mind, but it is not simply regarding Christ. (You are mixing repentance and faith! they are different!) The way the Confession illustrates repentance is as, upon apprehension of how the sinner has transgressed God's law, a grief over, hatred for, and turning away from sin and seeking to walk in the way of God's commandments (Article II). Article III makes it clear that repentance cannot be trusted to bring any satisfaction for sin (it does not result in justification by works), but declares "yet is it of such necessity to all sinners, that none may expect pardon without it." As repentance is an evangelical grace, we do not earn our salvation by it, but God grants it to us as an essential element of the gospel.

After you are regenerated, you are given the gifts of saving faith and saving repentance. Thereupon, you are justified. Repentance is a critical part of the ordo salutis, and the definition matters.

Your (or at least the website's) definition of repentance is fundamentally different from the definition of repentance in the Confession. The article you referenced seems to have dispensationalist leanings, wherein they attempt to remove repentance from the gospel (i.e. "Easy-believism") by re-defining saving repentance to mean the same thing as saving faith. In fact, they recommend a work by Ryrie (that should be an instant red flag for any Confessional Reformed Christian).
 
I am not conflating faith and repentance. I am simply saying that repentance in the context of Acts 2:36-38 is dealing with the specific sin of a rejecting of Jesus as Lord and Christ. Repentance starts there, along with a subsequent "grief over, hatred for, and turning away from sin" as you mentioned. I do not find consistent with Scripture for the word "repent" to be used as merely as general command to an unregenerate for moral reform in order to be justified. The thought of it turns biblical anthropology and sanctification on its head. That is all I am trying to avoid. I understand that the word is used in non-salvation contexts but when it comes to salvation, it only makes sense for it to mean a change of mind predominately regarding the Lordship and Messiahship of Christ, and inexorably, sin.
 
James, how would you use the tract? If it is just be something in a tract rack, that would want something different than, say, handing it out personally.

I like the idea of handing out personally, because, you could tell whoever you are giving it to that you wrote it! You could explain why you wrote what you wrote, why you chose the order, etc., and it becomes more personal and more interesting to the person receiving it. I think it would be an exemplary witnessing tool in that case.
 
The first thing that struck me is lack of scripture references. Ultimately if someone is blessed by this track, providing each question with supporting scripture would be an important thing to equip them with - even if just the citation.
 
Last edited:
Jack K said:
The tract is theologically sound but lacking in joy and enthusiasm for the gospel.

Jesus hasn't merely solved a theological problem. He has saved us, bringing great gladness and relief to the heart. The tract reads as if the author loves theology but isn't necessarily in love with Jesus. You need to let loose and allow your joy to spill out much more. Hemingway said good writing means you open a vein. You need to let the hope that is within you bleed out onto the page.
Click to expand...

AMEN!

I also have an issue with "Essentially, there is nothing you can DO to be saved." Sure, sinners are never told "Accept Jesus into your heart" but also they are never left with "there's nothing you can do." The paragraph sounds (I trust not intentionally) like eternal justification to me- we are never told that we are saved before faith/repentance. Elected, absolutely, but we were also lost children of wrath, just like the rest.

I also thought "I personally keyed it with my own board" was a bit distracting.
 
Last edited:
pbc561 said:
davenporter, I don't disagree with what the confession says about it. I just believe that if repentance unto salvation is defined predominantly as forsaking all sins (not just the sin of unbelief) it can come across as literally justification by works or entire sanctification.
Click to expand...

Why would it? I think you'd have a better case for not speaking as James did in chapter 2, but he still penned them by the inspiration of the Spirit!
 
pbc561 said:
I am simply saying that repentance in the context of Acts 2:36-38 is dealing with the specific sin of a rejecting of Jesus as Lord and Christ.
Click to expand...

But that's not your audience. You aren't talking to 1st century Jews gathered to celebrate the Feast of Pentecost. They needed to know that rejecting Jesus was a sin for which they needed to repent. I'm sure their ears perked up when Peter told them those who rejected Jesus had "lawless hands."

It reminds me of how Jesus dealt with the Rich Young Ruler. The one thing that Jesus pointed out that he lacked wasn't that he didn't believe Jesus is the Messiah (though he probably didn't- or else he would have obeyed). Jesus' answer was, “You still lack one thing. Sell all that you have and distribute to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me.” (Luke 18:22).
 
I would change the "your" i put in red to "the faith given to you by Christ" just so they don't end up thinking they played any part in their salvation.

Q. What can I do to be saved?
A. Essentially, there is nothing you can DO to be saved. But there are two things you will do to evidence that you have been saved by God. That is, after being humbled and broken by hearing God’s law, and being awakened by the wonderful news of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, you will repent (confess and believe that Jesus is who he claims he is: Lord and Christ), and believe (trust God’s promise to save you by His grace through your faith; not trusting in anything else but in Christ alone and His work on the cross to rescue your relationship with God). True “repentance” will also bring a natural desire to obey Christ’s teachings and a remorse for remaining sin.

Also, do you know a lot about other religions or even atheism to debate well with that person? If not, you might find yourself swamped in the debate. I would either take that off the tract or have some great resources to point them towards for them to listen to or read about the subject.
 
MarieP said:
I also thought "I personally keyed it with my own board" was a bit distracting.
Click to expand...

Agreed.

Actually, it started off sounding much like one of Ray Comfort's gospel presentations. Perhaps you could work to find your own voice so this comes off with passion and authenticity? I would also find more scripture beneficial, but I realize this would make the tract longer.

It is so hard to be concise and yet share the message of salvation with those who do not know it!
 
I'd echo the comments from Jack and others, in that it appears a little joyless. If the aim is to evangelise then it's likely that some people may be put of with its overall negative flavour. Your opening paragraph ("A. Man’s problem is that God is good, just, and holy. That is a problem because we are not. The reason we are not is because we have broken God’s law, which is the only absolute standard of goodness. God Himself says that “acquitting the guilty is detestable,” so He can’t let us off.") offers no hope if read in isolation, and some may stop reading at that point. In fact, God HAS let us off through Christ's atonement and his election. God is not a problem to Man - He's the solution to problems we have willingly created.

As someone who was an atheist for many years I have to confess that my first thought might well have been "Well, this is too difficult for me so I won't bother".

Moving to the second paragraph ("A. God’s law is based on His truthful, faithful, and loving character. If you have ever lied, stolen, used God’s name in vain, hated someone, or had a sexual thought for a non-spouse even once (Jesus equated hating/lust with murder/adultery in the heart), you will be seen as a lying, thieving, blasphemous, murderous adulterer in God’s sight and considered guilty by His law.") I feel like scum and still have nothing to give me hope. Although this may be theologically correct you have to examine the purpose of the piece. If a Christian told me without context that I was a "lying, thieving, blasphemous, murderous adulterer" because I once had a stray thought I'd not be endeared to him, nor would I listen further.

So, content - fine; delivery - needs work.
 
For those of you who say the tract is joyless, I hear you. Are any of you willing to give me some examples of how you would answer some of the questions, or write questions that you think would be better and then respond to them?
 
CuriousNdenver said:
MarieP said:
I also thought "I personally keyed it with my own board" was a bit distracting.
Click to expand...

Agreed.

Actually, it started off sounding much like one of Ray Comfort's gospel presentations. Perhaps you could work to find your own voice so this comes off with passion and authenticity? I would also find more scripture beneficial, but I realize this would make the tract longer.

It is so hard to be concise and yet share the message of salvation with those who do not know it!
Click to expand...
Only the second question was inspirited by WOTM. The first question is inspired by Paul Washer's gospel presentations.
 
I have updated the link in the OP to the latest version of the tract. If you have any new critiques based on it please post them.
 
crimsonleaf said:
God is not a problem to Man - He's the solution to problems we have willingly created.
Click to expand...

Amen!

Some people (I used to be one) think of God the Father as being a stern judge who can't wait to punish sinners and send them into hell, and that Jesus was the good and kind one who stepped in and made it so that God would love us. This doesn't take into account that it was the Father who sent His Son out of love for sinners. Sure, He is thrice holy and must punish sin, but He is also loving and kind and gracious and slow to anger! The entire Trinity was for His people's salvation even from eternity past!

How about beginning with this:

God is our good Creator who gives us life and breath and all things to enjoy. But ever since Adam and Eve, the first humans God created, rebelled against God's wise and kind command to them, we all are born rebels against Him and "dead" in our sins and trespasses. This means we are slaves to sin and cannot please God apart from God's intervention. Indeed, we are separated from Him and deserve His judgment because He is a holy God who must punish our sin. Yet there is good news! Of this same God, one of His prophets once said, "But You are God, ready to pardon, gracious and merciful, slow to anger, abundant in kindness" (Nehemiah 9:17) God sent His Son Jesus to die on the cross, taking the punishment for the sins of all who will believe, repent of their sins, and trust in Him as their Savior and Lord. Because Jesus bore God's wrath, and because He is risen from death and lives to pray for those who trust Him, all those who believe are freed from slavery to sin and instead are children of God who seek to please Him, knowing that they are not saved by their own goodness but because of what Jesus did on their behalf. To be freed from sin does not mean we are perfect, this side of Heaven that is, but it does mean that God gives us a heart that loves Him and His ways, and hates sin, but when we do sin, "we have an advocate with the Father, Christ Jesus the righteous" (1 John 2:1)
 
pbc561 said:
I have updated the link in the OP to the latest version of the tract. If you have any new critiques based on it please post them.
Click to expand...

Much better! (Except the definition of repentance issue, but that's a whole other thread!)
 
Much better. I like how there are some scripture citations now... especially in terms of God's standard and on assurance. Two central issues to obviously provide scripture backing and then scriptural confidence.

I might personally tweak the Q. How can I be assured that Christianity is true? place in the pamphlet. It seems an odd question for the pamphlet to end on. Actually if you take into account the progression one might have reading through the pamphlet... that's a pretty general question at the very end... that would probably be better served towards the beginning.

If you want it as the last question.... you probably should have the answer be something more along the lines of "get into your bible and start washing yourself with the word". It could fit where you have it if the answer was slightly changed.
 
Good tract. My only suggestion is with regard to the "How can I be assured that I have been saved?" portion; just make sure that it's clear that those things you listed are evidence for, not the cause of, salvation. Because ultimately and finally our assurance comes from Christ's work on the cross.
 
I have redone more than half of the tract. How do you feel about this one now? http://maddengurus.com/truth.pdf I tried to make is sound more joyful, less in your face, and I changed the last question since many thought it was out of place or over most people's heads.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

turmeric
  • Locked
Tract (please critique!)
Replies
12
Views
3K
turmeric
turmeric
ChananBachiyr
  • Locked
A Reformed Gospel Tract
Replies
1
Views
4K
ChananBachiyr
ChananBachiyr
P
  • Locked
Adoniram Judson's Gospel Tract, Still Used Today
Replies
9
Views
3K
Andres
Andres
MyCrows
  • Poll
What do you think of my gospel tract?
Replies
7
Views
1K
MyCrows
MyCrows
Eoghan
  • Locked
tract for bookstall
Replies
3
Views
520
Eoghan
Eoghan
Back
Top