Any thoughts on Chick Tracts

Blue Tick · #1 (**permalink**) 12-27-2006, 11:48 AM

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 · #2 (**permalink**) 12-27-2006, 12:00 PM

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 · #3 (**permalink**) 12-27-2006, 12:39 PM

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

MrMerlin777 · #4 (**permalink**) 12-27-2006, 01:00 PM

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

jaybird0827 · #5 (**permalink**) 12-27-2006, 01:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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.

Not to mention the 3rd.

elnwood · #6 (**permalink**) 12-27-2006, 01:58 PM

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 · #7 (**permalink**) 12-27-2006, 02:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by elnwood

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 · #8 (**permalink**) 12-27-2006, 03:08 PM

Avoid them like the plague.

ChristianTrader · #9 (**permalink**) 12-27-2006, 04:47 PM

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 · #10 (**permalink**) 12-27-2006, 06:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by elnwood

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. Dt. 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; Dt. 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 · #11 (**permalink**) 12-27-2006, 07:18 PM

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 · #12 (**permalink**) 12-27-2006, 08:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Contra_Mundum

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. Dt. 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; Dt. 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 worshiping them. Nothing specifically about representing God. Or Jesus. Or the Holy Spirit.

JasonGoodwin · #13 (**permalink**) 12-27-2006, 09:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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.

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 · #14 (**permalink**) 12-27-2006, 10:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jaybird0827

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 · #15 (**permalink**) 12-27-2006, 10:31 PM

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 · #16 (**permalink**) 12-27-2006, 10:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JasonGoodwin

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 · #17 (**permalink**) 12-28-2006, 03:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by elnwood

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 · #18 (**permalink**) 12-28-2006, 06:52 AM

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 · #19 (**permalink**) 12-28-2006, 07:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jaybird0827

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 · #20 (**permalink**) 12-28-2006, 07:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by trevorjohnson

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 · #21 (**permalink**) 12-28-2006, 09:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by toddpedlar

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.