Jump to content
Evolution Fairytale Forum
Sign in to follow this  
hooberus

Creation Tract

Recommended Posts

I like to pass out/ leave tracts. One that I really like is called "Biblical Catastrophism and Geology" by Henry Morris. Copyright 2003. Its 22 pages long on high quality paper approx. 5 by 3 inches. Its suitable for readers for most ages groups including college students (I have placed many on cars at our local community college). The tract discusses in fair deatail the flood of Noah, geologcial implications and evolution as well. If you order 100 or more they cost drops to .25 each. Available from ICR.

 

This tract is more expensive that the ICR "Brainwashed" tract (.15 per 100). However, I feel that its content (and quality of printing) is worth the difference.

 

I also include a creation, salvation tract that I wrote myself with the ICR tract. If anyone would like either one or both let me know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Side 1. (The tract starts with a picture of a phylogenetic tree from an evolution library book -the same as in the following link):

 

http://library.thinkquest.org/19012/media/treeolif.jpg

 

 

Evolutionary theory states that all life on earth evolved by means of a single family tree (see above). Thus man is said to have ultimately descended from lower creatures such as extinct apes (which themselves supposedly descended from other creatures, etc.). Such a scenario places creatures such as reptiles, amphibians, and fish as being in mans ultimate family tree. For both Biblical and scientific evidence against evolution write the address on back of this paper.

 

Real family trees found in Genesis, show that all people descended from two original people which were created by God (Father, Christ the Son, and Holy Spirit) and not descended from fish. Even at a low rate of population growth, it would only take 4,000 years to produce todays population from two original people.

 

 

“And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul . . .†1 Corinthians 15:45

 

The sin of Adam brought death upon those descended from him (all of us).

 

“Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:†Romans 5:12

 

“For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;†Romans 3:23 “For the wages of sin is death; . . .†Romans 6:23

 

“But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.†Romans 5:8

 

“Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand; By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain. For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve: After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep. After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles. And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time.†1 Corinthians 15:1-8

 

“For the Son of God, Jesus Christ, who was preached among you by us, . . . For we preach not ourselves, but Christ Jesus the Lord; . . .†2 Corinthians 1:19-4:5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Side 2.

 

“That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed. For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him. For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.†Romans 10:9-13

 

You can be saved now (born again). Call upon the Lord Jesus (who is the Lord God) to save you: Lord Jesus I am a sinner. I believe that you shed your blood and died on the cross for my sins and that you rose from the dead. I receive you as my saviour. Save me Lord by forgiving me of my sins and giving me everlasting life.

 

“ . . . Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.†Acts 16:31

 

There is only one God. The one God exists in the form of three persons. The Lord Jesus is one of those persons, and thus He is Lord and God (John 20:28). Jesus bore our sins in his body (Isaiah 53; 1 Peter 2:24). His body was raised (John 2:19-22; Luke 24:39) and ascended into heaven, where He is the God-man at the right hand of the Father. (see also Acts 4:12; Acts10:43; 13:38; Romans 5:15-18; John 3:16; John 14:6; 1 Tim. 2:5)

____________________________________________________________________

 

The gospel of Christ is centered on Jesus Christ, his death on the cross, his burial, and his resurrection. Many times people confuse our human works with the gospel. These works center on us. These things cannot save us, only Jesus can. The gospel is what Christ did for us, not what we do for him.

 

We cannot save ourselves by trying to turn from our sins and stop sinning, because before we are saved we are dead in sin (Ephesians 2:1). That is why Christ died for us sinners (Rom. 5:8). Write for a booklet on the biblical meaning of repentance.

 

Water baptism does not wash away sins. The blood that Jesus shed on the cross is what washes us from our sins (Ephesians 1:7; 1 John 1:7; Revelation 1:5). Water baptism is separate from the gospel: “For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; . . .†Romans 1:16 “For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect. For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.†1 Corinthians 1:17-18

 

Trying to keep God’s laws and commandments cannot save us. God’s laws show us that we are sinners: “Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.†Romans 3:20

 

Works, such as commitments, trying to serve God, or make him master over our lives cannot save us: “For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast.†Ephesians 2:8-9

__________________________________________________________________

 

Rock layers do not represent “millions of yearsâ€ÂÂ

 

Tract closes with diagram of soft sediment deformation same as: http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/...oss_Section.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I may be making a few changes in the future- if anyone has any suggestions let me know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I may be making a few changes in the future- if anyone has any suggestions let me know.

6996[/snapback]

Hooberus, I thought your tract was great, it would be hard to improve upon it. What a great idea to hand these out. I really like the whole thing, and thought your inclusion of the summary gospel given in 1 Corinthians 15 was perfect.

 

Perhaps an extra witnessing device could be added to the tract to also reach compromising Christians. The one thing I've personally found, and have heard from others such as Ken Ham, that has been the most effective witnessing tool for Christians who believe in millions of years and/or evolution, is the death before sin issue. Hammering home this one issue has been more effective in bringing Christians to accept a historical Genesis than any other issue I’m aware of. So one possible addition would be to include something like the following:

 

On side 1:

 

“The sin of Adam brought death upon those descended from him (all of us). Before this there was no death, pain, suffering, or disease.”

 

Then perhaps at the end of side 2, in place of, or after “Rock layers do not represent “millions of years”, if it could fit:

 

Evolution teaches millions of years of death, disease, and suffering with no end in sight. But the Bible says death is a temporary part of history brought into the world by our sin. Christ called death the last enemy that will be destroyed (1 Cor 15:26), and finally that:

 

“God will wipe away every tear from their eyes; there shall be no more death, nor sorrow, nor crying. There shall be no more pain, for the former things have passed away." Rev 21:4

 

Again, thanks for sharing your tract. What size sheet are you able to fit it on?

 

Fred

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Again, thanks for sharing your tract. What size sheet are you able to fit it on?

 

Fred

Thank you Fred as well for your comments and suggestions. The tract is 4.25' x 11.0' front and back.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not fond of tracts. Particularly Chick Tracts. I wonder if that guy's aware that he portrays all unbelievers as stupid & ugly, but all Evangelical Christians as perfect in every way?

 

I also wonder if he's aware that reality does not work that way.

 

So, I guess for advice, I'd say, "Whatever that guy does, don't do it." Also don't assume that your readers don't know anything about Christianity or Christian apologetics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not fond of tracts. Particularly Chick Tracts. I wonder if that guy's aware that he portrays all unbelievers as stupid & ugly, but all Evangelical Christians as perfect in every way?

 

I also wonder if he's aware that reality does not work that way.

 

So, I guess for advice, I'd say, "Whatever that guy does, don't do it." Also don't assume that your readers don't know anything about Christianity or Christian apologetics.

35376[/snapback]

I love Chick tracts! ;) They are entertaining, even if the contents are inaccurate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not fond of tracts. Particularly Chick Tracts. I wonder if that guy's aware that he portrays all unbelievers as stupid & ugly, but all Evangelical Christians as perfect in every way?

 

I also wonder if he's aware that reality does not work that way.

 

So, I guess for advice, I'd say, "Whatever that guy does, don't do it." Also don't assume that your readers don't know anything about Christianity or Christian apologetics.

35376[/snapback]

 

What is a "chick tract", and what does it have to do with this thread?

 

And, just because you think you know about Christian Apologetics, doesn't necessarily mean you understand (or attempt to understand) anything about Christian Apologetics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Never heard the term before, so I googled it. This Jack Chick fellow's got websites dedicated to hating him. Not foolproof, but it's a pretty reliable indicator.

 

Can we hijack this thread and talk about him instead? Please Please Please Please Please

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Never heard the term before, so I googled it. This Jack Chick fellow's got websites dedicated to hating him. Not foolproof, but it's a pretty reliable indicator.

 

Can we hijack this thread and talk about him instead? Please Please Please Please Please

35404[/snapback]

Well, we can easily break it down CTD. Hooberus had a innocent enough posting here talking about a tract he liked, and one he handed out with it. Not only did Admin3 and Fred Williams comment on it, but they encouraged Hooberus by adding constructive criticism and reinforcement as well.

 

Then comes Lithp, a relative newcomer (and possible sock account?), who adds ads nothing to the discussion but a negative spin of his dislikes and a Ad hominum attack against this Chick fellow.

 

Then comes Jason78 supporting this thread derailment in support of this Lithp fellow.

 

I think that about sums it up.

 

Maybe we should get back to the original content of Hooberus’s post now, and let Lithp and Jason78 open up their own rant thread about Jack Chick tracts. Who, by the way, must be doing something right to elicit such ire from the staunch atheist crowd.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd forgotten about the antics of Mr Comfort. I particularly enjoyed the good person comic and the atheist test.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Then comes Jason78 replying to the post of Lithp above.

35405[/snapback]

There. Fixed that for you.

 

Maybe we should get back to the original content of Hooberus’s post now, and let Lithp and Jason78 open up their own rant thread about Jack Chick tracts. Who, by the way, must be doing something right to elicit such ire from the staunch atheist crowd.

35405[/snapback]

I wasn't ranting. I said I enjoyed Chick tracts. How on Earth did you get ire from that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd forgotten about the antics of Mr Comfort.  I particularly enjoyed the good person comic and the atheist test.

35413[/snapback]

Yeah, I enjoy his teachings. They work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I use tracts but not Chick Tracts, they're well, kind of lame.

 

Here are the kind I use:

 

http://www.livingwaters.com/index.php?opti...id=8&Itemid=199

35406[/snapback]

Those tracts look like they would be effective Adam. But I wouldn’t sell Chick’s tracts short. They’ve been pretty effective themselves for quite a long time now. Good evidence of this is the hate most atheists hurl at him. This is the “reliable indicator” CTD was speaking of (I think).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Those tracts look like they would be effective Adam. But I wouldn’t sell Chick’s tracts short. They’ve been pretty effective themselves for quite a long time now. Good evidence of this is the hate most atheists hurl at him. This is the “reliable indicator” CTD was speaking of (I think).

35530[/snapback]

I have good friends who are loving fire breathing Baptists ;) and they use Chick Tracts. They have a whole wall of them at the church. I wouldn't discourage anyone from using them, I would agree with the vast majority of their content but I don't care for them for personal use.

 

I guess their main benefit is that they are laid out in a story format. With the premises and conclusions conveniently laid out. I'm always more interested in getting past the tract to a dialogue so ice breakers make more sense for me because I want conversations.

 

I also feel that Jack Chick himself is a bit of an isolationist when it comes to the body of Christ. He has come down hard on fellow believers in areas that I think are divisive and not brotherly. Walter Martin is one of my all time favorite apologists and his specialty of cult apologetics was priceless in our era. Jack Chick and Alberto Rivera judged Martin harshly because of their disagreement of how to approach and discuss the issues of Roman Catholicism. Sometimes it seems that Chick's warfare is against flesh and blood and not against powers and principalities.

 

Please don't get me wrong. We all have feet of clay so I'm not Judging Jack T. Chick. I'm simply being open with the fact that I question some of his methods and how he has positioned himself and it shows in some of the tracts. I'm still sure we'll be dancing on the streets of gold together when it's all said and done. :)

 

That's my fallible opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have good friends who are loving fire breathing Baptists :lol: and they use Chick Tracts. They have a whole wall of them at the church. I wouldn't discourage anyone from using them, I would agree with the vast majority of their content but I don't care for them for personal use.

 

I guess their main benefit is that they are laid out in a story format. With the premises and conclusions conveniently laid out. I'm always more interested in getting past the tract to a dialogue so ice breakers make more sense for me because I want conversations.

 

I also feel that Jack Chick himself is a bit of an isolationist when it comes to the body of Christ. He has come down hard on fellow believers in areas that I think are divisive and not brotherly. Walter Martin is one of my all time favorite apologists and his specialty of cult apologetics was priceless in our era. Jack Chick and Alberto Rivera judged Martin harshly because of their disagreement of how to approach and discuss the issues of Roman Catholicism. Sometimes it seems that Chick's warfare is against flesh and blood and not against powers and principalities.

 

Please don't get me wrong. We all have feet of clay so I'm not Judging Jack T. Chick. I'm simply being open with the fact that I question some of his methods and how he has positioned himself and it shows in some of the tracts. I'm still sure we'll be dancing on the streets of gold together when it's all said and done. :)

 

That's my fallible opinion.

35532[/snapback]

Hey Adam,

 

I'm only familiar with the tracts, not the individual. Thanks for the information :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey Adam,

 

I'm only familiar with the tracts, not the individual. Thanks for the information  :)

35620[/snapback]

Your welcome.

 

The only knowledge I have of this, aside from some of the things I've gathered from reading the tracts themselves, is a recording of Walter Martin himself mentioning briefly how he was publicly maligned by Chick and Rivera for his stance of Romanism. Then Walter Martin went on to give the best apologetic I have ever heard between the relationship of protestant teaching and Roman teaching. Martin passed away 20 years ago. He'll be one of the first people I look up in heaven... well, after soaking in worship before the throne, for say about 1000 years, if time can even be stated like that. :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have good friends who are loving fire breathing Baptists B) and they use Chick Tracts. They have a whole wall of them at the church. I wouldn't discourage anyone from using them, I would agree with the vast majority of their content but I don't care for them for personal use.

 

I guess their main benefit is that they are laid out in a story format. With the premises and conclusions conveniently laid out. I'm always more interested in getting past the tract to a dialogue so ice breakers make more sense for me because I want conversations.

 

I also feel that Jack Chick himself is a bit of an isolationist when it comes to the body of Christ. He has come down hard on fellow believers in areas that I think are divisive and not brotherly. Walter Martin is one of my all time favorite apologists and his specialty of cult apologetics was priceless in our era. Jack Chick and Alberto Rivera judged Martin harshly because of their disagreement of how to approach and discuss the issues of Roman Catholicism. Sometimes it seems that Chick's warfare is against flesh and blood and not against powers and principalities.

 

Please don't get me wrong. We all have feet of clay so I'm not Judging Jack T. Chick. I'm simply being open with the fact that I question some of his methods and how he has positioned himself and it shows in some of the tracts. I'm still sure we'll be dancing on the streets of gold together when it's all said and done. :)

 

That's my fallible opinion.

35532[/snapback]

*

I love the one with a guy sitting on a park bench with a couple of sausage with big ears type demons, trying to attract his attention to girls and stuff. Suddenly "ooh look out, the enemy!!" a happy looking guy with a bible, he sits down next to the guy "shrieks and howls ooh no don't talk to him etc" of course the guy gets saved, the last caption shows Luce prodding the demons into the hottest flames for fouling up. :rolleyes:

Won some souls with T.L.Osborn tracts. He's a Yankee Doodle. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like the Chick tracts because they are splashy and attention getting.  I put them in places like hospitals, libraries, gas stations, or wherever I go.  The new one just breaks my heart, until the end of course.

 

http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/1059/1059_01.asp

37293[/snapback]

Personally I find Chick tracts to be too bigotted to be a proper representation of Christianity. He misrepresents the tenets of other religions and basically sets up a stawman in every strip involving them. He does the same thing with evolution, such as in "Big Daddy"...a classic that brings disdain upon Christians where I have seen it discussed on other boards. I find it hard to believe that on balance these tracts do more good than harm.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally I find Chick tracts to be too bigotted to be a proper representation of Christianity. He misrepresents the tenets of other religions and basically sets up a stawman in every strip involving them. He does the same thing with evolution, such as in "Big Daddy"...a classic that brings disdain upon Christians where I have seen it discussed on other boards. I find it hard to believe that on balance these tracts do more good than harm.

56895[/snapback]

No offense, but evolution:

 

1) Does not save people.

2) Does not support the Bible or creation.

3) There are no theistic evolution crusades to bring people to Christ like Billy Graham crusades.

4) There are no theistic evolution Bible studies.

5) There are no theistic evolution tracts to bring people to Christ.

etc...

 

When evolution is mixed with God, denial of doing any work for the harvest of souls for the kingdom is automatically denied. Because if evolution were a driving force for what God did, or how He did it. It would also be used as a subject for salvation. But that is not what we see, is it?

 

Instead we get people who say things like this:

 

It is Christ, in very truth who saves....but should we not immediately add that at the same time it is Christ who was saved by evolution?

 

http://www.salvemariaregina.info/SalveMari...%20Religion.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre_Teilhard_de_Chardin

You see when one mixes evolution with God, God has to take the back seat. And evolution itself becomes god. And the person whom mixes it controls his or her's origins. Making them dictate to God how God did it. Which makes them god which supports humanism and all that goes with it,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×

Important Information

Our Terms