Law and Gospel Tract

[The Plain Jane]

Hey there. I plan to publish this little piece some day, but it still needs work and I wanted some comments on it. I have a dream of publishing it into a little Gospel tract. Like, how can I improve on it, how can I be more concise, more clear, etc. Here it goes:

In the Bible, there are two majorly distinct, yet related teachings: They are Law and Gospel. Before I being, here are a few of many verses that distinctly talk about these two teachings in cause you want to look them up.

*Law—what it does: always demands, declares us guilty, brings death, and damns us

Verses: Romans 3:20, Romans 3:10-12, James 2:10

*Gospel—what it does: never demands, declares us forgiven, gives life, and saves us

Verses: John 3:16-17, John 10:27-28, Romans 1:16, Romans 5:1, Romans 5:6-10, 1 Corinthians 15:3-4, Galatians 2:16, Ephesians 2:8-9, 2 Timothy 1:10

The Law of God is three-fold, it has three major purposes; however, I’m only going to focus on one purpose, and I’ll share the other two later. The Ten Commandments (Exodus 20:1-17) are God’s Law, the “dos and don’ts” of Christianity. In His famous Sermon on the Mount, Jesus explained how we are to obey these commandments. (Matthew Chapter 5) He then wraps up the sermon with, “You shall be perfect, just as your Father in Heaven is perfect.” (Matthew 5:48) We are to obey these commandments perfectly in thought, word, and deed. God made us in His image and we are to reflect that. (Genesis 1:26) So here is the bad news: We can not obey these commandments perfectly. Our ancient parents lost that image of God when they sinned, and they passed their sin on to us (1 Corinthians 15:22).

One may think “I’ve never committed murder.” But even a hateful thought against your neighbor is the same as murdering him in God’s eyes. (Matthew 5:22, 1 John 3:15) To lust is the same as committing adultery. (Matthew 5:28) We all have broken these commandments and deserve punishment for it; the Bible says if we say we have no sin we deceive ourselves. (1 John 1:8) The Law is written on our hearts and our conscious bears witness to it. Ever felt guilty about something? That was your conscious bearing witness to the Law. (Romans 2:15) This all boils down to two things: We are sinners, and God hates sin—He banished Adam and Eve from Paradise because of their sin, (Genesis 3), He destroyed Sodom for their sin (Genesis 19:1-28), and the wages of sin is physical death (Genesis 2:17, Romans 6:23). We are sinners and, we deserve Hell for it.

The Good News is that God doesn’t leave us with just His Law. He also speaks to us through His Gospel. In the Law, God diagnoses our problem: We are sinners and deserve punishment. In His Gospel, He offers the cure, which is forgiveness and life. Notice how Romans 6:23 not only presented God’s Law (the wages of sin is death), but it also presented God’s Gospel (the gift of eternal life is in Jesus Christ our Lord). Jesus, the God-man, obeyed the Ten Commandments perfectly—He was without sin, yet tempted just as we are tempted. (Philippians 2:8, Hebrews 4:15)

Everyone knows that Jesus died on the Cross. But knowing that isn’t enough to save you, even if you confess Jesus died for you. The soldiers that nailed Jesus to the Cross, knows he died on the Cross but that didn’t save them. Why did Jesus die on the Cross? Why did Jesus obey the Ten Commandments perfectly? He not only did these things for you, He also did these things to grant you forgiveness. Because He obeyed perfectly, He stands in our place for it. Because He died on the Cross, bearing our sin, He took our deserved punishment unto Himself. What happened at the Cross is this: God declared you the saint, and Jesus the sinner (2 Corinthians 5:21). An exchange of sorts happened: Christ clothed us in His righteousness, so that we can be holy and blameless in God’s sight, so that our sins may be forgiven. When God clothed Adam and Eve, (Genesis 3:21) that was symbolic of God forgiving their sin and clothing them in righteousness. Jesus’ words are spirit and they are life (John 6:63). For this reason God tells us to listen to Jesus (Matthew 17:5)

Well I think that wraps up Law and Gospel. The Law kills and convicts us of our sin, and the Gospel offers the remedy, the cure for our sin and that is forgiveness.

P.S. I told you I’d share the two other uses of the Law. The first use of the Law is to provide a curb, to control violent outbursts in society, the government. (Romans 13:1-4, 1 Timothy 1:9) The second purpose is the one I just shared with you, to be a mirror and convict us of our sin. By the Law comes the knowledge of sin (Romans 3:20) The third use of the Law is to be a guide for Christian living. (Ephesians 4:22-24) The power to live according to the Law comes from the Gospel. Mind you we are still sinners, it’s just that we’re saints at the same time!


In Christ and Him alone,
Jane

[Flux]

Hi Jane,

I admire the effort you seem to have put into this to find a way of sharing your faith. I don't mean to be negative, but I think tracts like these don't work very well, at least in my country of New Zealand. I think it would do well if you gave it to Christians, but I'm not sure whether it would do so well if you gave it to non-Christians. If I were a non-Christian in my culture and someone gave that as a tract to me when I was walking past, I'd probably briefly glimpse over it, think, "oh it's another one of these silly things", perhaps read a few lines aloud in a funny voice to my friend, and then throw it away when I got round the corner.

I think there are a few reasons why a non-Christian won't really take this tract and the millions of others like it seriously. Imagine for a moment that I'm a non-Christian skeptic reading it:

• I don't believe the bible is much of an authority, so verse references mean nothing to me
• I have no reason to respect your opinions apart from the actual opinions themselves - and when they don't seem to make much sense there's not much chance that I'll take them seriously
• I've read countless others like it before, that mention the same key-words, and they didn't mean much to me either
• I don't even believe there is a hell, so I'm hardly scared about going to it
• Hence, this tract seems to give answers to a problem I don't think I have

Perhaps it might get some people's serious attention, but I think it would do so much more if it addressed issues that are what people are concerned about. Non-Christians aren't concerned about the afterlife, religious doctrines or beliefs that don't make sense - and saying "you should be concerned about them" isn't going to persuade them. Non-Christians are hurting because their parents fought that morning, or they just broke up with their boyfriend because he cheated on them, or they're still struggling to deal with their parent's divorce... Non-Christians are concerned about the pain and troubles of this life, not about what they see as irrelevant religion.

So imagine how they might react to something that address these hurts and might help it - a different way of life in a community of people who love them and support them. That sort of Christianity might get people's attention. Indeed, in my experience it is this sort of thing that does get non-Christian's attention - and their interest. It may not be the standard gospel tract - but it might help you connect a bit more strongly with non-Christians. If people experience Christianity, then they are a lot more interested in finding out why Christians are like they are, do what they do and believe what the believe.

I hope that's helped you more than it's hindered you. Good luck!

[Zguy28]

Plain Jane, have you ever looked at the tracts from Living Waters/Way of the Master?
http://www.livingwaters.com/
They are written by Ray Comfort (who BTW is from New Zealand). I use them all the time.

They use the Law to convict the sinner of their sin, then give the Gospel.

I'm pleased to hear someone using the Biblical method of evangelism.

Law to the proud, Grace to the humble.

[James Peter]

I'm with Flux. It doesn't work in the real world. It is also highly questionable whether that is the 'biblical model of evangelism'. Certainly when dealing with Jews who acknowledged the authority of the Law Paul and Jesus appealed to the Law to convict them but when dealing with gentiles? I doubt it. As Flux said, unless the authority of the Law is acknowledged then it has no power to convict.

[Flux]

Plain Jane, have you ever looked at the tracts from Living Waters/Way of the Master?
http://www.livingwaters.com/
They are written by Ray Comfort (who BTW is from New Zealand). I use them all the time.

They use the Law to convict the sinner of their sin, then give the Gospel.

I am from New Zealand and have listened to Ray Comfort. He debated Christianity with an atheist philosopher at university and started talking about Law... the reaction of the non-Christians in the crowd was far from feeling convicted. I've also received some of his tracts, as have some of my non-Christian friends. When I said that non-Christians would probably rubbish a presentation of the gospel like this, I had in mind my observations of how I've seen people respond to Ray Comfort's gospel presentations. His approach may have worked a few decades ago, but it doesn't seem to work any more.

Given my theological study, I'd go even further than James Peter and say that such presentations are built on theological ideas which I consider to be highly questionable both in themselves and in their similarity to what the early church taught as the gospel. However, these views I hold are currently being debated among biblical scholars, and I think the majority of them would still support the ideas behind such gospel presentations as orthodox.

[James Peter]

When I said that non-Christians would probably rubbish a presentation of the gospel like this, I had in mind my observations of how I've seen people respond to Ray Comfort's gospel presentations. His approach may have worked a few decades ago, but it doesn't seem to work any more.

Because a few decades ago, and today in certain...more isolated communities... the authority of Scripture was pretty much accepted universally. In the West at least most people were nominally Christian and so it was pretty much ingrained in them that the Bible was True even on a subconscious level. Today that just isn't true.

I'd agree with Flux that the Law-Gospel schema is in itself unsound but even so I think it is almost certain that when dealing with Jews both Jesus and Paul quoted their Law (note how Jesus in John usually calls it 'your Law' not 'the Law' or 'our Law'). In the same way it seems that when debating with Gentiles Paul was happy to draw upon Gentile Philosophers and Playwrites to support his view. If he were around today I bet you he'd be drawing on quotes from famous individuals and popular films to support his presentation of the gospel rather than (what his audience at least would see as) a dusty old text with neither relevance or authority.

A good argument takes somebody from where they are to where you are. If you start with something they don't believe then you'll not convince them. Paul may claim to not be a professional philosopher and rhetorician but he was certainly educated as both and pretty good.

[Zguy28]

I am from New Zealand and have listened to Ray Comfort. He debated Christianity with an atheist philosopher at university and started talking about Law... the reaction of the non-Christians in the crowd was far from feeling convicted. I've also received some of his tracts, as have some of my non-Christian friends. When I said that non-Christians would probably rubbish a presentation of the gospel like this, I had in mind my observations of how I've seen people respond to Ray Comfort's gospel presentations. His approach may have worked a few decades ago, but it doesn't seem to work any more.

Given my theological study, I'd go even further than James Peter and say that such presentations are built on theological ideas which I consider to be highly questionable both in themselves and in their similarity to what the early church taught as the gospel. However, these views I hold are currently being debated among biblical scholars, and I think the majority of them would still support the ideas behind such gospel presentations as orthodox.

Because a few decades ago, and today in certain...more isolated communities... the authority of Scripture was pretty much accepted universally. In the West at least most people were nominally Christian and so it was pretty much ingrained in them that the Bible was True even on a subconscious level. Today that just isn't true.

I'd agree with Flux that the Law-Gospel schema is in itself unsound but even so I think it is almost certain that when dealing with Jews both Jesus and Paul quoted their Law (note how Jesus in John usually calls it 'your Law' not 'the Law' or 'our Law'). In the same way it seems that when debating with Gentiles Paul was happy to draw upon Gentile Philosophers and Playwrites to support his view. If he were around today I bet you he'd be drawing on quotes from famous individuals and popular films to support his presentation of the gospel rather than (what his audience at least would see as) a dusty old text with neither relevance or authority.

A good argument takes somebody from where they are to where you are. If you start with something they don't believe then you'll not convince them. Paul may claim to not be a professional philosopher and rhetorician but he was certainly educated as both and pretty good.

I've got a question for you.
If you throw out the Law approach to evangelism, how do you explain sin to people who aren't saved?
What do you tell them it (sin) is?

How do you tell them it is wrong? Or the consequences? Or why Jesus had to die because of it?

Please elaborate on your preferred evangelistic methods.

[JackC]

I've got a question for you.
If you throw out the Law approach to evangelism, how do you explain sin to people who aren't saved?
What do you tell them it (sin) is?

How do you tell them it is wrong? Or the consequences? Or why Jesus had to die because of it?

Please elaborate on your preferred evangelistic methods.

Perhaps by waking people up to the actuality of their suffering while existing in this world, we would wake them up to their imprisonment and need for redemption.

The ego is always self seeking.



Jack

[Zguy28]

Perhaps by waking people up to the actuality of their suffering while existing in this world, we would wake them up to their imprisonment and need for redemption.

The ego is always self seeking.



Jack

How would you use that to witness to somebody like Bill Gates or Donald Trump, or just any rich person?

How would you "wake up" those who have everything by the world's standards?

[JackC]

How would you use that to witness to somebody like Bill Gates or Donald Trump, or just any rich person?

How would you "wake up" those who have everything by the world's standards?

Like Jesus said, it is difficult for a man with all the riches of this world to enter into the Kingdom, but not impossible, should he awaken to the imprisonment of his soul.

The greatest treasure of this world is nothing compared to the riches of the Kingdom, but if one is content with the treasures of prison life, even with all the inherent suffering, then it is difficult for any desire for the Kingdom, for freedom, to arise within him.

It may be that, one, suffering will eventually awaken the person, or that, two, the person has no soul to be redeemed.

Either way, Jesus teaches us not to dally with such individuals - not waste our time, caste pearls before swine - trusting, and leaving them in the hands of God.

[I apologize for stretching this beyond the purpose of this thread and the limitations of this forum.]





Jack

[James Peter]

I've got a question for you.
If you throw out the Law approach to evangelism, how do you explain sin to people who aren't saved?
What do you tell them it (sin) is?

How do you tell them it is wrong? Or the consequences? Or why Jesus had to die because of it?

Please elaborate on your preferred evangelistic methods.

I'll paraphrase something that was said to me at some point and stuck (probably at an evangelism training conference back when I was still a youth worker)...

"People already know that they are sinners, they are broken and lost. They don't need to be told that, what they need to be told is that they are loved."

You don't need the Law to show people that their lives are full of things that they regret doing, things which have harmed others and themselves. People, especially those who need the Church most, are generally more than aware of their inadequecies and problems. What they need is the solution - God who loves, God who forgives, God who heals and saves.

Oh and if you really do need to convict non-Christians of sin (not that thats our job anyway) then I'd suggest that looking at specific things which they have done which they know are wrong or which you can explain why they are wrong (e.g. help them understand why stealing is wrong at a level beyond 'Because the Bible says...') is far more effective. Its all about being understandable. If you're talking to a 12 year old boy of average intelligence then quoting Scripture at him will be less effective than having an open and frank conversation.

[Zguy28]

Like Jesus said, it is difficult for a man with all the riches of this world to enter into the Kingdom, but not impossible, should he awaken to the imprisonment of his soul.

The greatest treasure of this world is nothing compared to the riches of the Kingdom, but if one is content with the treasures of prison life, even with all the inherent suffering, then it is difficult for any desire for the Kingdom, for freedom, to arise within him.

It may be that, one, suffering will eventually awaken the person, or that, two, the person has no soul to be redeemed.

Either way, Jesus teaches us not to dally with such individuals - not waste our time, caste pearls before swine - trusting, and leaving them in the hands of God.

[I apologize for stretching this beyond the purpose of this thread and the limitations of this forum.]

Jack

Are rich sinners any different than poor sinners in God's eyes? Are not they all lost?

[Zguy28]

I'll paraphrase something that was said to me at some point and stuck (probably at an evangelism training conference back when I was still a youth worker)...

"People already know that they are sinners, they are broken and lost. They don't need to be told that, what they need to be told is that they are loved."

Again, tell that to Bill Gates or some rich porn movie actor. That's one of the reasons relative subjectivism is so rampant. There is no conviction.

You don't need the Law to show people that their lives are full of things that they regret doing, things which have harmed others and themselves. People, especially those who need the Church most, are generally more than aware of their inadequecies and problems. What they need is the solution - God who loves, God who forgives, God who heals and saves.

Pay attention to what I said. Law to proud, Grace to the humble. The Gospel is nonsense to those who think they don't need salvation.

Oh and if you really do need to convict non-Christians of sin (not that thats our job anyway) then I'd suggest that looking at specific things which they have done which they know are wrong or which you can explain why they are wrong (e.g. help them understand why stealing is wrong at a level beyond 'Because the Bible says...') is far more effective.

How can you know that about a stranger on the street? How would you explain stealing as wrong without Christ? You need to be careful not to believe morality can be taught separate from Christ.

Its all about being understandable. If you're talking to a 12 year old boy of average intelligence then quoting Scripture at him will be less effective than having an open and frank conversation.

This is the reason there is such an apathy in the church.

Anyway, you didn't really answer my questions.

Go out into the suburbs of Washington DC (where I live) or up to Capital Hill and tell me if you think people regret their sins such as stealing or adultery or murder like you said. Then get back to me.

[The Plain Jane]

Hey.

I just skimmed the first two replies, I don't have much time to read everything. I will in due time though.

I agree. Tracts wouldn't appeal to non-Christians. I'm a Christian and *I* think the Chick tracts are silly, haha. But then, I don't go for decision theology.

[Zguy28]

Hey.

I just skimmed the first two replies, I don't have much time to read everything. I will in due time though.

I agree. Tracts wouldn't appeal to non-Christians. I'm a Christian and *I* think the Chick tracts are silly, haha. But then, I don't go for decision theology.

If tracts aren't for non-Christians, then who are they for?