Has anyone heard of Ravi Zacharias?
- Thread starter onlinebuddy
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
I have to side with Vic on this, because what you say here about identical views struck a chord with me.
Signing a document with RCC leaders or questionable ministers makes the signers look unified. To me, that's letting our good be evil spoken of.
Imagine if you signed a document that was going on the news, and you discover too late that Kenny Copeland, Creflo Dollar, and Rick Joyner signed it too. You can't ask for an eraser once it's done.
Signing a document with RCC leaders or questionable ministers makes the signers look unified. To me, that's letting our good be evil spoken of.
Imagine if you signed a document that was going on the news, and you discover too late that Kenny Copeland, Creflo Dollar, and Rick Joyner signed it too. You can't ask for an eraser once it's done.
But what if the document happened to be about something completely innocuous,
like what kind of food to serve in school cafeterias?
Would it really matter which aberrant religious leaders also like jello and pizza?
Would agreeing about applesauce or chocolate milk really affect your Christian witness in any way?
No.
I think we can make a logical case that the critical issue is really about WHAT we are agreeing on,
rather than the simple fact we DID AGREE on something.
I believe this is the same point R.C. Sproul was making in the article which was linked.
It's not about being in agreement about "something"...
it's about being in agreement about something as critical as the gospel.
Last edited:
I'm just going to point out a few thing about apologetics, and logic in general... this may give a different perspective.
1. "he gets along well with people of various ideologies"
An apologist is SUPPOSED to have discourse with those OUTSIDE the faith.
This generally includes being polite to them.
2. "he never challenges or speaks against any church or denomination"
An apologist deals with people OUTSIDE of the faith.
Many of them refuse any kind of denominational debate, because it's a waste of their time... it is NOT what they do.
Some think doctrinal debate is unimportant.
However, many apologists feel it IS important, but they refrain from it anyway because it is a HUGE distraction from their actual calling.
Also, it just isn't practical.
It unnecessarily closes a lot of doors in reaching the lost.
There are many reasons to be polite and refrain from doctrinal debate...
I'm doing it RIGHT NOW.
3. "he gets along well with catholics as well as TV evangelists"
Where precisely in the Bible does it say we shouldn't get along with people?
Where precisely does being polite, or even associating with someone, make YOU guilty of their misdeeds?
Being "polite" isn't a sin, and "Guilt by association" isn't a sin.
"Guilt by association" isn't even a tenable argument, and even if it was, we've yet to establish any significant association.
4. "makes me wonder if he's really a Man of God, or just a great orator"
This is a false dilemma.
It isn't necessary that he be one or the other.
He might be both; he might be neither; he might be something else entirely.
But we certainly don't have to pick one over the other, as if they are antithetical and mutually exclusive.
5. Finally, Ravi Zacharias doesn't work for me, and it's not my job to account for his motives, or defend him... but at this point in time, most of the arguments against him in this thread have been kind of weak.
If he robs a bank tomorrow... I'll be happy to change my views.
1. "he gets along well with people of various ideologies"
An apologist is SUPPOSED to have discourse with those OUTSIDE the faith.
This generally includes being polite to them.
2. "he never challenges or speaks against any church or denomination"
An apologist deals with people OUTSIDE of the faith.
Many of them refuse any kind of denominational debate, because it's a waste of their time... it is NOT what they do.
Some think doctrinal debate is unimportant.
However, many apologists feel it IS important, but they refrain from it anyway because it is a HUGE distraction from their actual calling.
Also, it just isn't practical.
It unnecessarily closes a lot of doors in reaching the lost.
There are many reasons to be polite and refrain from doctrinal debate...
I'm doing it RIGHT NOW.
3. "he gets along well with catholics as well as TV evangelists"
Where precisely in the Bible does it say we shouldn't get along with people?
Where precisely does being polite, or even associating with someone, make YOU guilty of their misdeeds?
Being "polite" isn't a sin, and "Guilt by association" isn't a sin.
"Guilt by association" isn't even a tenable argument, and even if it was, we've yet to establish any significant association.
4. "makes me wonder if he's really a Man of God, or just a great orator"
This is a false dilemma.
It isn't necessary that he be one or the other.
He might be both; he might be neither; he might be something else entirely.
But we certainly don't have to pick one over the other, as if they are antithetical and mutually exclusive.
5. Finally, Ravi Zacharias doesn't work for me, and it's not my job to account for his motives, or defend him... but at this point in time, most of the arguments against him in this thread have been kind of weak.
If he robs a bank tomorrow... I'll be happy to change my views.
I was especially taken aback when I read in his Statement of Faith that he believed in the "holy catholic church." He is not a catholic, and yet says he believes in the holy catholic church. That sounds confusing to me.
If a person says he believes in the "holy catholic church," doesn't it mean that he endorses the beliefs, traditions and practices of the catholic church?
hi there
i haven't been keeping up, so i apologize if this has already been stated.
the meaning of catholic there is universal, or general. the 'holy, catholic church' is composed of all who have ever or will ever trust in Christ, Who is the foundation of this church; His church.
it's not the Roman Catholic Church, you see? though i can understand where the confusion comes in, if you're unfamiliar with the meaning of the word.
It is most likely, as others have pointed out, that by "catholic" with a lower case "c", he was probably referring to the "church universal". This simply means he believes that anyone, in any denomination, who has truly accepted christ as their savior, is part of the body of Christ.
If this is what he meant, and it probably is, then he isn't agreeing with Roman Catholic Doctrine at all, he's just saying that God saves you based on your personal relationship with Christ, not on your denomination.
I agree that this sounds pretty weird to most of us, because most protestants no longer use this terminology.
But in many scholarly and academic circles, this kind of terminology is still very common.
I don't think it's wise to hold up any man so highly we make an idol of him, and assume he can do no wrong.
All men are just men.
On the other hand, it's not wise to attack a man over misunderstandings.
It doesn't hurt us one bit to try and look at things fairly and reasonably.
I might personally think it was a mistake that Ravi signed some particular thing, or said some particular thing; while also being able to appreciate his ministry overall.
It doesn't harm us to think things through.
And as I said earlier, if he robs a bank tomorrow, I'll change my views.
: )
It is part of the Westminster Confession of Faith.
Drawn up by the 1646 Westminster Assembly as part of the Westminster Standards to be a confession of the Church of England, it became and remains the "subordinate standard" of doctrine in the Church of Scotland and has been influential within Presbyterian churches worldwide.
For more than three hundred years, various churches around the world have adopted the confession and the catechisms as their standards of doctrine, subordinate to the Bible.
The Westminster Confession of Faith was modified and adopted by Congregationalists in England in the form of the Savoy Declaration (1658). Likewise, the Baptists of England modified the Savoy Declaration to produce the Second London Baptist Confession (1689). English Presbyterians, Congregationalists, and Baptists would together (with others) come to be known as Nonconformists, because they did not conform to the Act of Uniformity (1662) establishing the Church of England as the only legally approved church, though they were in many ways united by their common confessions, built on the Westminster Confession. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westminster_Confession_of_Faith
Drawn up by the 1646 Westminster Assembly as part of the Westminster Standards to be a confession of the Church of England, it became and remains the "subordinate standard" of doctrine in the Church of Scotland and has been influential within Presbyterian churches worldwide.
For more than three hundred years, various churches around the world have adopted the confession and the catechisms as their standards of doctrine, subordinate to the Bible.
The Westminster Confession of Faith was modified and adopted by Congregationalists in England in the form of the Savoy Declaration (1658). Likewise, the Baptists of England modified the Savoy Declaration to produce the Second London Baptist Confession (1689). English Presbyterians, Congregationalists, and Baptists would together (with others) come to be known as Nonconformists, because they did not conform to the Act of Uniformity (1662) establishing the Church of England as the only legally approved church, though they were in many ways united by their common confessions, built on the Westminster Confession. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westminster_Confession_of_Faith
This very post that you have written , points to the main issue at stance. The truth upon the Gospel. This is the critical blow that the adversary intended. But Sproul along with myself & others on this particular thread , have examine these things carefully whether they are truth or error.
Maxwel this is the way the Adversary operates , take this huge example by the Beast on October 31,2017 .
Link to Article there very own words :
The Pope’s great Evangelical gamble | CatholicHerald.co.uk
Somewhere in Pope Francis’s office is a document that could alter the course of Christian history. It declares an end to hostilities between Catholics and Evangelicals and says the two traditions are now “united in mission because we are declaring the same Gospel”. The Holy Father is thinking of signing the text in 2017, the 500th anniversary of the Reformation, alongside Evangelical leaders representing roughly one in four Christians in the world today.
Here is the main dish , the issue , all belivers will have to deal with from this point forward. Stand for truth or be partakers with this fallen world.
I truly belive this has open not only your eyes but anyone reading this thread , to a very sinister plot that the adversary himself has crafted. But this is not the Peace Jesus Christ has given us.
Shalom
Maxwel this is the way the Adversary operates , take this huge example by the Beast on October 31,2017 .
Link to Article there very own words :
The Pope’s great Evangelical gamble | CatholicHerald.co.uk
Somewhere in Pope Francis’s office is a document that could alter the course of Christian history. It declares an end to hostilities between Catholics and Evangelicals and says the two traditions are now “united in mission because we are declaring the same Gospel”. The Holy Father is thinking of signing the text in 2017, the 500th anniversary of the Reformation, alongside Evangelical leaders representing roughly one in four Christians in the world today.
Here is the main dish , the issue , all belivers will have to deal with from this point forward. Stand for truth or be partakers with this fallen world.
I truly belive this has open not only your eyes but anyone reading this thread , to a very sinister plot that the adversary himself has crafted. But this is not the Peace Jesus Christ has given us.
Shalom
Vic,
I'm not a fan of the Roman Catholic Church, or the ecumenical movement.
But the topic isn't really about the Biblical veracity of these larger propositions;
we're really just talking about what MOTIVE Ravi Zacharias had when he signed one particular document.
Determining someone's motive is a very subtle issue.
Therefore, we need to deal with it using much care.
The issue is NOT how we feel about the ecumenical movement, but rather, what exactly was Ravi's MOTIVE when he signed this document.
Very subtle issue.
Albert Mohler also signed the same document, and I doubt anyone would dare accuse him of intentionally supporting the ecumenical movement.
So Albert Mohler at least stands as one example that a person could sign this particular document with some OTHER motive than supporting the Roman Catholic Church and ecumenicism.
What we're talking about here comes down to a matter of intent.
So how might we determine intent?
Before we say that signing one document makes Zacharias a supporter of the Roman Catholic Church and the entire ecumencial movement, we should first look around to see what he has actually said, in his own words, about the ecumenical movement.
If we want to try and determine someone's motive,
we should at least recognize doing that requires some carefulness.
Now, if you want to propose that intent doesn't matter, that's fine, but that leaves you with a pretty weak case against Zacharias.
If you were to say, "Intent doesn't matter. He signed it, and that was wrong", well, then what kind of case does that really make against him?
The most you could assert is that he "lacked wisdom" in "one particular matter" which "some other theologians of high stature agreed with him about".
This isn't a very strong indictment of his character.
So basically, you either need to find some kind of nefarious motive for him signing the document, or you have no real case to make against him.
I am not trying to make an idol of Zacharias, or say he can do no wrong.
But I AM suggesting we use some logic and rational thinking when we go to indict someone.
I'm not a fan of the Roman Catholic Church, or the ecumenical movement.
But the topic isn't really about the Biblical veracity of these larger propositions;
we're really just talking about what MOTIVE Ravi Zacharias had when he signed one particular document.
Determining someone's motive is a very subtle issue.
Therefore, we need to deal with it using much care.
The issue is NOT how we feel about the ecumenical movement, but rather, what exactly was Ravi's MOTIVE when he signed this document.
Very subtle issue.
Albert Mohler also signed the same document, and I doubt anyone would dare accuse him of intentionally supporting the ecumenical movement.
So Albert Mohler at least stands as one example that a person could sign this particular document with some OTHER motive than supporting the Roman Catholic Church and ecumenicism.
What we're talking about here comes down to a matter of intent.
So how might we determine intent?
Before we say that signing one document makes Zacharias a supporter of the Roman Catholic Church and the entire ecumencial movement, we should first look around to see what he has actually said, in his own words, about the ecumenical movement.
If we want to try and determine someone's motive,
we should at least recognize doing that requires some carefulness.
Now, if you want to propose that intent doesn't matter, that's fine, but that leaves you with a pretty weak case against Zacharias.
If you were to say, "Intent doesn't matter. He signed it, and that was wrong", well, then what kind of case does that really make against him?
The most you could assert is that he "lacked wisdom" in "one particular matter" which "some other theologians of high stature agreed with him about".
This isn't a very strong indictment of his character.
So basically, you either need to find some kind of nefarious motive for him signing the document, or you have no real case to make against him.
I am not trying to make an idol of Zacharias, or say he can do no wrong.
But I AM suggesting we use some logic and rational thinking when we go to indict someone.
Last edited:
My thoughts out aloud: - Radical Christianity is not Build on The Rock -
For those that have eyes to see , let us examine these things more carefully . Thee majority will not inherit the Kingdom of God. For they have decided in there heart to befriend the world standards. Instead of holding on firm to The Light that shineth in darkness , The Truth & Faith in Christ Jesus.
Thee adversary is very crafty , and he is aware that if it seems plesant to the eyes & hears sweet to the ears. Thee snare will fulfill it's purpose, and those that are caught will not escape.
As Sproul disapprove upon such a joint decloration , along with myself & others. If these fellowship , gatherings are not in Doctrine , not by The Spirit of God. Then by what spirit other than thee adversary.
Thee deception is much deeper than just diffrent fractions calling themselfs christian. This Ecumenical Movement is not only from the enemy , but will test our walk in Christ. To examine if we have The Armor Of God placed upon us, or we have built our faith on sand , all this while claiming to be Christ like and will not endure when the storm comes.
There is a clash coming , that many will not be able to withstand. Only those that have anchor themselves , with The Truth in Christ Jesus will stand firm & overcome.
This is a call to examine ourselfs , & follow the teaching of Christ The Apostles & Prophets of God. Let us all study God Word to ask for wisdom to gain understanding , along with discernment in these times we are in. So that we may continue on thee narrow path. In Truth & In Spirit and behold Him that saved us from our sin .
Thee calling is assured , for those who will endure to the end , contend for the Faith and establish yourself on The Rock. Moving Forward with a sincere heart towards God .
Shalom
For those that have eyes to see , let us examine these things more carefully . Thee majority will not inherit the Kingdom of God. For they have decided in there heart to befriend the world standards. Instead of holding on firm to The Light that shineth in darkness , The Truth & Faith in Christ Jesus.
Thee adversary is very crafty , and he is aware that if it seems plesant to the eyes & hears sweet to the ears. Thee snare will fulfill it's purpose, and those that are caught will not escape.
As Sproul disapprove upon such a joint decloration , along with myself & others. If these fellowship , gatherings are not in Doctrine , not by The Spirit of God. Then by what spirit other than thee adversary.
Thee deception is much deeper than just diffrent fractions calling themselfs christian. This Ecumenical Movement is not only from the enemy , but will test our walk in Christ. To examine if we have The Armor Of God placed upon us, or we have built our faith on sand , all this while claiming to be Christ like and will not endure when the storm comes.
There is a clash coming , that many will not be able to withstand. Only those that have anchor themselves , with The Truth in Christ Jesus will stand firm & overcome.
This is a call to examine ourselfs , & follow the teaching of Christ The Apostles & Prophets of God. Let us all study God Word to ask for wisdom to gain understanding , along with discernment in these times we are in. So that we may continue on thee narrow path. In Truth & In Spirit and behold Him that saved us from our sin .
Thee calling is assured , for those who will endure to the end , contend for the Faith and establish yourself on The Rock. Moving Forward with a sincere heart towards God .
Shalom
Sure let us be logical on this very thing , the motive , as investigators we should start with the recent track records. Then proceed back to the origin of the case. Now we can assume he was gulliable and did not know what he sign , but if we put markers up from thee present time , tracking backwards mabe perhaps mabe he might give us a clue.
In 2016 there was this Ecumenical Movement called Together 2016 in Washington D.C. , Ravi was a guess speaker , can we truly assume he did not know what he was getting involved with Maxwel ?
[video=youtube;ukFJRJafIK4]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ukFJRJafIK4[/video]
Did he preach against this , or did he give must respect and honor to those that attendant this Ecumenical Movement.
Everyone can clearly see this truth Maxwel even you.
As for Albert Mohler this is difficult for me to write upon , because he reprove to many that church & state must continue to be separate. Unless these men depart themself from such a union , they partake with others in there sins.
My suggestion is that we should write letters to these men , in the hope that God may open there eyes to thee deception. That perhaps they may notice from a diffrent stand point upon what they have sign while there is time left. After all at the end of the day this is about souls , not likes or little green tic tacks on our profiles.
The true Gospel must be upheld , because there is a counterfeit that leads to destruction.
Shalom
In 2016 there was this Ecumenical Movement called Together 2016 in Washington D.C. , Ravi was a guess speaker , can we truly assume he did not know what he was getting involved with Maxwel ?
[video=youtube;ukFJRJafIK4]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ukFJRJafIK4[/video]
Did he preach against this , or did he give must respect and honor to those that attendant this Ecumenical Movement.
Everyone can clearly see this truth Maxwel even you.
As for Albert Mohler this is difficult for me to write upon , because he reprove to many that church & state must continue to be separate. Unless these men depart themself from such a union , they partake with others in there sins.
My suggestion is that we should write letters to these men , in the hope that God may open there eyes to thee deception. That perhaps they may notice from a diffrent stand point upon what they have sign while there is time left. After all at the end of the day this is about souls , not likes or little green tic tacks on our profiles.
The true Gospel must be upheld , because there is a counterfeit that leads to destruction.
Shalom
1. If you actually listen to the WORDS in the video clip, instead of making presumptions, and "reading your own presuppositions into the words", you'll find there isn't one single word which can show any evil intention.
The only case you can really make is that you just don't think he should be there.
You can say you feel it is "unwise".
You cannot, from his actual words, conclude any evil intent.
If you just don't like him, or you just don't think he should be there... that's fine.
You're entitled to your opinions, as well as your personal convictions.
But I don't think his actual words, in the above video, have any ability to show evil intentions.
Maybe some other video will surface tomorrow which is horribly damning.
Could be.
But this video isn't it.
2. Consider that apologists generally DO have to conduct their work "out there in world"... out there in the rest of the world which is beyond the realm of their own denominational beliefs... because their job is to reach the lost.
You cannot sit in a pew, in your own church, and reach the lost.
You cannot sit in a pew, in your own church, and do apologetics.
3. Consider that sometimes in apologetics ministry, you find yourself, briefly, on the same side as those with very different beliefs.
How does this happen?
You could be engaged in a public debate on a panel with others who support your main premise, but have different theological views.
Example:
You may be debating against evolution, and you may be doing a public debate on a panel with others who share the same convictions AGAINST evolution.
Your panel (the people on your side endeavoring to disprove evolution) may be Jews, and Catholics, and Mormons.
You may disagree with them theologically, but on the particular issue you're debating today, the theory of evolution, they may be on the same side as you.
This may be a temporary thing which only lasts for one day.
But these things occur in apologetics ministry, and they occur all the time.
Debating against evolution on the same team as a Jewish Rabbi doesn't make ANYONE think you've suddenly become a Jew and given up Christianity.
Nobody watching would ever think this for even a second... it would be ridiculous.
It is very common, in apologetics work, to find yourself on the same side as other faiths when debating VERY SPECIFIC ISSUES.
NO ONE thinks you've suddenly become a Jewish Rabbi because you're agreeing with a Jewish Rabbi about the existence of God, or joining him on a debate panel on this kind of issue.
If YOU have no idea how apologetics are used in the culture at large, that has NOTHING to do with the MOTIVES of some particular apologist... it just means you don't understand much about apologetics ministry.
4. Personally, I would not have been involved in this event, but my personal convictions don't give me magical powers to understand another person's motives.
The fact that I have a personal conviction that attending an event is unwise, does NOT MAKE IT IMPOSSIBLE for someone else to attend the same event with GOOD INTENTIONS.
We are making a huge leap in logic to ascribe evil intentions to someone who makes some different methodological or philosophical choices than us.
5. Christian philosophers and Christian apologists are not necessarily out there doing something you particularly understand... so this will naturally lead to incorrect judgements.
They may be using methodological approaches which seem wrong to you, because you simply have no idea what they're actually doing.
- It is quite possible for an electrician to do some very strange things, which you don't understand, when he comes to rewire your house.
- It is the same with a plumber; you may call him for a broken pipe, and you suddenly find him digging up your front yard with a backhoe... which you NEVER expected.
- It is quite possible for anyone, who engages in some complex skill you're unfamiliar with, to take some unusual approaches you don't understand.
- This may well be the same problem you're having with a particular apologist.
- You may simply have no idea what he's actually trying to do, so you ascribe all kinds of bad intentions to his work.
6. Finally, it really wasn't my intention to be defending Ravi Zacharias, as I don't personally know him, but it DOES seem reasonable to defend against bad logical arguments, regardless of the person in question.
I would NOT, personally, be involved in these particular events he has attended.
However, the fact that I would not attend them... this simply has no logical weight to ascribe bad motives to HIM, when HE attends them.
The WORST thing you can logically ascribe to him would be a lack of wisdom on one particular issue.
And if we were to be more generous, we might just chalk it up to a difference of opinion.
I really dislike defending ANYONE I don't personally know.
I don't know Zacharias, and I'd really rather not be defending him.
We may uncover evidence tomorrow that he's some kind of insane axe murderer, or a space alien, or a giant lizard disguised as a human... I have no idea.
However, I DO feel comfortable defending SOUND REASONING... and just saying that certain arguments aren't good arguments.
And these arguments, that by attending some particular event, which is ecumenical, he has given us VERIFICATION of EVIL MOTIVES... this isn't a sound logical argument.
The most we can logically say is that we have a difference of opinion, or perhaps that he lacks discernment on some particular issue.
7. There is a huge difference in disagreeing with someone, and actually going so far as to ascribe bad motives to them.
As Christians, we're usually very bad at making these distinctions.
Last edited: