Has anyone heard of Ravi Zacharias?

[graceNpeace]

How does a belief that a single response to a single question was inadequate invalidate his ministry, much less call for harsh punishment.

The teachings of the RCC are indeed heretical; and for an apologist to equivocate on that is wrong!

We are all wrong occasionally, and when we are; we should be glad to have our error brought to our attention.

In any case; when someone who is in a public ministry makes a glaring error, it is the duty of those who recognize the error to call it to the attention of those who are less grounded.

Whatever your views are you are agreeing with someone who is conducting a kangaroo court throwing as much mud as possible in the hope that just little bit might stick in order to justify his appalling conduct!

The bottom line is that he could not afford to make these accusations were HIS identity publicly known.
He is hiding behind his anonymity and appealing to everyone else to condemn RZ based on lies, slander and innuendo on the internet.
RZ himself has not committed any of the transgressions that he has been accused of in this thread!

 

[MarcR]

Whatever your views are you are agreeing with someone who is conducting a kangaroo court throwing as much mud as possible in the hope that just little bit might stick in order to justify his appalling conduct!

The bottom line is that he could not afford to make these accusations were HIS identity publicly known.
He is hiding behind his anonymity and appealing to everyone else to condemn RZ based on lies, slander and innuendo on the internet.
RZ himself has not committed any of the transgressions that he has been accused of in this thread!

Whatever your views are you are agreeing with someone who is conducting a kangaroo court throwing as much mud as possible in the hope that just little bit might stick in order to justify his appalling conduct!

I would hope you know me better than that.

Even the people who often disagree with me don't accuse me of jumping on bandwagons.

My comments both on the forum and off are my own; and I am not responsible if some hothead happens to occasionally agree with something I say.

 

[graceNpeace]

Whatever your views are you are agreeing with someone who is conducting a kangaroo court throwing as much mud as possible in the hope that just little bit might stick in order to justify his appalling conduct!

I would hope you know me better than that.

Even the people who often disagree with me don't accuse me of jumping on bandwagons.

My comments both on the forum and off are my own; and I am not responsible if some hothead happens to occasionally agree with something I say.

Marc, I am sorry, it is the other way around!
You explicitly said that you were in agreement with Bladerunner.

Bladerunner did not happen to agree with you - you stated you were in agreement with him!
And yes, he is a hothead, and yes, he is conducting a kangaroo court!

 

[MarcR]

Marc, I am sorry, it is the other way around!
You explicitly said that you were in agreement with Bladerunner.

Bladerunner did not happen to agree with you - you stated you were in agreement with him!
And yes, he is a hothead, and yes, he is conducting a kangaroo court!

Not quite:

I said that failure to cite RCC heresy as cultic is WRONG! {my own thoughts }

I then acknowledged that Blade said it first. {in fact he did} I further said that RZ's failure to identify and denounce RCC heresy tends to vindicate Blade's position. {in fact it does! Blades criticism of RZ was a soft stance on the RCC. At the time I thought his position was founded on misunderstanding definitions. I am now persuaded {not by him} that he has better grounds than I suspected. In your stated opinion, " he is a hothead, and yes, he is conducting a kangaroo court!" I have never shared that opinion.

 

[graceNpeace]

Not quite:

I said that failure to cite RCC heresy as cultic is WRONG! {my own thoughts }

I then acknowledged that Blade said it first. {in fact he did} I further said that RZ's failure to identify and denounce RCC heresy tends to vindicate Blade's position. {in fact it does! Blades criticism of RZ was a soft stance on the RCC. At the time I thought his position was founded on misunderstanding definitions. I am now persuaded {not by him} that he has better grounds than I suspected. In your stated opinion, " he is a hothead, and yes, he is conducting a kangaroo court!" I have never shared that opinion.

Here are your exact words:

IMO this seems to vindicate Blades impression of RZ. Equivocation and Apologetics don't mix well.

Seems that you have fallen down the same rabbit-hole of guilt that you accuse RZ of.
Apparently now, what you said before was not exactly what you meant...

Furthermore, as I stated before, Bladerunner is throwing ANY bit of mud to try and see what sticks - the dubious accusation of being soft on the RCC was just the latest in a disgusting litany of unsubstantiated accusations.

Marc, you have given support to a kangaroo court.
Frankly, right now, you remind of Saul in Acts 7:58.
Yes, he never cast a stone himself, but he was as guilty of Stephen's murder as if he had thrown them all himself.

I think, as a sensible and honourable man, you need to explicitly and decisively separate yourself from Bladerunner and his agenda.
Right now Bladerunner has laid his coat at your feet in order to stone Ravi Zacharias.
Are you going to allow this to continue or are you prepared to take action?

 

[MarcR]

Here are your exact words:


Seems that you have fallen down the same rabbit-hole of guilt that you accuse RZ of.
Apparently now, what you said before was not exactly what you meant...

Furthermore, as I stated before, Bladerunner is throwing ANY bit of mud to try and see what sticks - the dubious accusation of being soft on the RCC was just the latest in a disgusting litany of unsubstantiated accusations.

Marc, you have given support to a kangaroo court.
Frankly, right now, you remind of Saul in Acts 7:58.
Yes, he never cast a stone himself, but he was as guilty of Stephen's murder as if he had thrown them all himself.

I think, as a sensible and honourable man, you need to explicitly and decisively separate yourself from Bladerunner and his agenda.
Right now Bladerunner has laid his coat at your feet in order to stone Ravi Zacharias.
Are you going to allow this to continue or are you prepared to take action?

As I see it:

My total exposure to RZ and his teachings has been what I have learned on this thread.

I would still defend RZ against the slanderous attack in that ugly video; but Blade had no part in that.

Blade expressed his opinion that RZ was unsound by reason of a soft stance on RCC heresy.

After watching the video posted by Adstar, RZ's own words persuaded me that Blade's opinion was justified.

NEITHER BLADE NOR I have advocated any penalty for RZ's failure to denounce RCC heresy; hence there is no court at all (kangaroo or otherwise).

I am not seeking to invalidate RZ's ministry; nor have I said anything to indicate any such intent.

For an apologist to refrain from exposing RCC heresy in response to a direct question is wrong because the definition of an apologist demands that he do so. This assessment is based on RZ's own words; NOT hearsay or inuendo!

You have many worthwile things to share when you respond from your mind instead of your emotions.

I suggest that you try to approach the forum from a more detached viewpoint.

 

[graceNpeace]

As I see it:

My total exposure to RZ and his teachings has been what I have learned on this thread.

I would still defend RZ against the slanderous attack in that ugly video; but Blade had no part in that.

Blade expressed his opinion that RZ was unsound by reason of a soft stance on RCC heresy.

After watching the video posted by Adstar, RZ's own words persuaded me that Blade's opinion was justified.

NEITHER BLADE NOR I have advocated any penalty for RZ's failure to denounce RCC heresy; hence there is no court at all (kangaroo or otherwise).

I am not seeking to invalidate RZ's ministry; nor have I said anything to indicate any such intent.

For an apologist to refrain from exposing RCC heresy in response to a direct question is wrong because the definition of an apologist demands that he do so. This assessment is based on RZ's own words; NOT hearsay or inuendo!

You have many worthwile things to share when you respond from your mind instead of your emotions.

I suggest that you try to approach the forum from a more detached viewpoint.

With respect you are utterly wrong!

I do not understand why you would want to defend Bladerunner.
Yes, we all know that he was not the author of that disgustingly slanderous video, but he most definitely posted it to support his view of RZ.
Repeating slander is slander.
If slander is levelling untrue and unjust accusations against a person then so is repeating those very unjust and untrue accusations in support of a view that in this case RZ is a scoundrel.

Furthermore he went on and on making unfounded accusations including the suggestion that all we had to do was to conduct a Google search to discover that, indeed, according to all the 'evidence' that RZ was indeed a scoundrel.

Now we come to the unbelievable position that it is apparently valid to vindicate Bladerunner position based on what RZ did not say!

The fact you do not feel that anything you have heard or read invalidates RZ's ministry you have written that it does vindicate Bladerunner's position and his goal is definitely to try and destroy the reputation of RZ.
Why else embark on such a crusade in the absence of any plausible evidence?

I said before and I will say it again:
You have an obligation to decisively distance yourself from Bladerunner and condemn him unequivocally for his conduct.
Otherwise, as it stands, he has placed his coat at your feet while he stones RZ to death...

PS: I am not emotionally blinded in any way. The fact that I am angered by Bladerunner's stupid behaviour and disappointed by yours does not mean that I am not being objective.

 

[MarcR]

With respect you are utterly wrong!

I do not understand why you would want to defend Bladerunner.
Yes, we all know that he was not the author of that disgustingly slanderous video, but he most definitely posted it to support his view of RZ.
Repeating slander is slander.
If slander is levelling untrue and unjust accusations against a person then so is repeating those very unjust and untrue accusations in support of a view that in this case RZ is a scoundrel.

Furthermore he went on and on making unfounded accusations including the suggestion that all we had to do was to conduct a Google search to discover that, indeed, according to all the 'evidence' that RZ was indeed a scoundrel.

Now we come to the unbelievable position that it is apparently valid to vindicate Bladerunner position based on what RZ did not say!

The fact you do not feel that anything you have heard or read invalidates RZ's ministry you have written that it does vindicate Bladerunner's position and his goal is definitely to try and destroy the reputation of RZ.
Why else embark on such a crusade in the absence of any plausible evidence?

I said before and I will say it again:
You have an obligation to decisively distance yourself from Bladerunner and condemn him unequivocally for his conduct.
Otherwise, as it stands, he has placed his coat at your feet while he stones RZ to death...

PS: I am not emotionally blinded in any way. The fact that I am angered by Bladerunner's stupid behaviour and disappointed by yours does not mean that I am not being objective.

Blade had absolutely NOTHING to do with that video. It was posted by Speak2me, who apologized for doing so.

Blade only was concerned with a soft stance on RCC heresy. He never mentioned the use of the salutation Dr.
You are mixing your response to two unrelated posts. You can easily look back and see who posted the video.

 

[graceNpeace]

Blade had absolutely NOTHING to do with that video. It was posted by Speak2me, who apologized for doing so.

I checked and in this one fact your are correct (I have confused this part with Speak2me).

Blade only was concerned with a soft stance on RCC heresy. He never mentioned the use of the salutation Dr.
You are mixing your response to two unrelated posts. You can easily look back and see who posted the video.

Actually that is NOT true.
He posted one of RZ's books as a PDF as proof of his heretical views.
I had not read that particular book and so I actually read the whole thing - there is NOTHING controversial about anything that he says. His views are boringly predictable - for an evangelical.
He also posted two video's also claiming this as proof of wrongdoing.
One of those was a video of RZ explaining why he went and talked at the Mormon Tabernacle - given that I actually took the time to watch it all I can state unequivocally that there was nothing untoward at play here either. RZ states unequivocally that his talk was in the sufficiency of Jesus Christ for salvation - a topic such as this plainly squares up against several heretical doctrines to which the Mormons hold. He certainly did not go there to validate the Mormon church or their doctrines. However, it is plain that the video was posted as 'evidence' that RZ was hypocritically betraying Christian principles.
And the same argument holds for the video that supposedly catches RZ validating the RCC - which he does not!

In the same post Bladerunner also accuses RZ of holding to RCC doctrine - remember his "communion of the saints" argument and his refusal to accept that this had nothing to do with the RCC doctrine of praying to long-dead canonised saints.

In addition, Bladerunner most unequivocally invited me to search the internet in order to dig up all the dirt on RZ that would apparently vindicate his position that RZ was a scoundrel. No doubt the idea was that I would find the same sort of nonsense contained in the video that Speak2me had posted. This was his response to me after I disprovied all his previous allegations against RZ!

I have reread every post on this thread in order to be sure of what I am saying.
I made one error in attributing one post to Bladerunner that was not his.
As for the rest - it is all there in black&white on this thread.

I stand by my assessment that Bladerunner is engaging in character assassination and slander based on the flimsiest of 'evidence'!

So, no Marc, he did not just make a single, somewhat academic, query about something that RZ said in one video. He has made multiple unsubstantiated accusations to try and prove a point.

And, so, I also stand by my strong suggestion that you need to distance yourself from his position and unequivocally condemn his behaviour.
Remember he is the one who has made the claim that he is the faithful Berean!
Instead his behaviour is just one who is desperately throwing mud-pies in the hope that just one will stick.
I know this is not your approach - yet you are still vindicating him...

 

[MarcR]

I checked and in this one fact your are correct (I have confused this part with Speak2me).


Actually that is NOT true.
He posted one of RZ's books as a PDF as proof of his heretical views.
I had not read that particular book and so I actually read the whole thing - there is NOTHING controversial about anything that he says. His views are boringly predictable - for an evangelical.
He also posted two video's also claiming this as proof of wrongdoing.
One of those was a video of RZ explaining why he went and talked at the Mormon Tabernacle - given that I actually took the time to watch it all I can state unequivocally that there was nothing untoward at play here either. RZ states unequivocally that his talk was in the sufficiency of Jesus Christ for salvation - a topic such as this plainly squares up against several heretical doctrines to which the Mormons hold. He certainly did not go there to validate the Mormon church or their doctrines. However, it is plain that the video was posted as 'evidence' that RZ was hypocritically betraying Christian principles.
And the same argument holds for the video that supposedly catches RZ validating the RCC - which he does not!

In the same post Bladerunner also accuses RZ of holding to RCC doctrine - remember his "communion of the saints" argument and his refusal to accept that this had nothing to do with the RCC doctrine of praying to long-dead canonised saints.

In addition, Bladerunner most unequivocally invited me to search the internet in order to dig up all the dirt on RZ that would apparently vindicate his position that RZ was a scoundrel. No doubt the idea was that I would find the same sort of nonsense contained in the video that Speak2me had posted. This was his response to me after I disprovied all his previous allegations against RZ!

I have reread every post on this thread in order to be sure of what I am saying.
I made one error in attributing one post to Bladerunner that was not his.
As for the rest - it is all there in black&white on this thread.

I stand by my assessment that Bladerunner is engaging in character assassination and slander based on the flimsiest of 'evidence'!

So, no Marc, he did not just make a single, somewhat academic, query about something that RZ said in one video. He has made multiple unsubstantiated accusations to try and prove a point.

And, so, I also stand by my strong suggestion that you need to distance yourself from his position and unequivocally condemn his behaviour.
Remember he is the one who has made the claim that he is the faithful Berean!
Instead his behaviour is just one who is desperately throwing mud-pies in the hope that just one will stick.
I know this is not your approach - yet you are still vindicating him...

He posted 2 video clips: one by John McArthur showing a firm stance on RCC heresy not mincing words about it; and one by Rz taking what he perceived to be a soft stance on Rcc heresy. Both clips were unedited and used only as examples of what he was concerned about. As I see it, a soft stance on RCC heresy is not appropriate for an apologist; and I think he has a valid concern. I did not see anything in the clip he posted that could not be interpreted in RZ's favor; however the clip posted by Adstar did in fact prove blade's assertion to my satisfaction.

 

[trofimus]

Seems that Ravi Z. is quite a controversial topic.

Which is probably also an answer to the OP question about him.

 

[MarcR]

Even if blade is correct about RZ having a softer than appropriate stance on RCC heresy (and I believe he is, though I was not convinced by blade); this does not in any way invalidate RZ's ministry; nor negate the value of what RZ has done in exposing the false teachings of eastern religions and the cults other than the RCC.

In a thread asking what is known about RZ any reasonable concern about RZ's teaching is a valid post.

An ugly slanderous video that is obviously edited and which its perpetrator does not even put his name on has no place on this forum or elsewhere; and I was the first one to call it what it was!

 

[graceNpeace]

Seems that Ravi Z. is quite a controversial topic.

Which is probably also an answer to the OP question about him.

And this is exactly the problem...
Another individual who has decided that because people are making accusations about RZ that there must be truth behind them even though the accusations are utterly baseless!

 

[shittim]

yes indeed, and all the while- does this really keep us walking out what the walk Jesus guides us too?
I don't sense we are keeping His desires in our heart with every thought , word, and deed, as we do so.
I still appreciate Ravi and more so now that I know how much the adversary would send minions to tear him down.

 

[Amazing-Grace]

Do you support Billy Graham? If NOT then you need to hear some of his sermons.

Everybody has a chink. I myself have many. But in this day and times, one cannot 'mollycoddle' the unbeliever in fear of turning them further away from Jesus. They need to now what they are facing...Very few Churches today, preach or teach bout Hell Fire and Brimstone as my grandfather did in his day.

I said "RUN" in my post trying to get people into looking into Ravi's background and what he actually preaches. In my opinion he comes as close to Bill Graham as I have seen.

What I did not do, was produce link (s) associated with what I believe. Here is one that was originally put out in Dec 2014 and update in February 2016. Ecumenical False Prophet Dr. Ravi Zacharias

There is a plethora of information (good and bad) out there, all one has to do is earnestly look for it.

Do I support Billy Graham? I'm not sure what you mean by "support", I certainly admire and respect him. He has brought thousands to Christ - how could I not?

 

[trofimus]

And this is exactly the problem...
Another individual who has decided that because people are making accusations about RZ that there must be truth behind them even though the accusations are utterly baseless!

Not sure what you are talking about.

I am just describing the fact that many likes him and many do not.

 

[Amazing-Grace]

Do you support Billy Graham? If NOT then you need to hear some of his sermons.

Everybody has a chink. I myself have many. But in this day and times, one cannot 'mollycoddle' the unbeliever in fear of turning them further away from Jesus. They need to now what they are facing...Very few Churches today, preach or teach bout Hell Fire and Brimstone as my grandfather did in his day.

I said "RUN" in my post trying to get people into looking into Ravi's background and what he actually preaches. In my opinion he comes as close to Bill Graham as I have seen.

What I did not do, was produce link (s) associated with what I believe. Here is one that was originally put out in Dec 2014 and update in February 2016. Ecumenical False Prophet Dr. Ravi Zacharias

There is a plethora of information (good and bad) out there, all one has to do is earnestly look for it.

Upon re-reading your post, it has got me thinking..."fire and brimstone" as you call it is all well and good and does reach people but it doesn't reach all kinds of people. You need different styles of evangelism to reach different kinds of people. Here in the UK we call it "Horses for courses". Ravi Zacharias's style is different from Billy Graham's. Ravi is gentle and teaches with a reasoned approach, an intellectual approach. I have even noticed myself that I subconsciously talk to different people about Jesus in a different way - it's called discernment and it is God given. Ravi is a wonderful apologist, I have seen him speak to students and put them at ease, he always acknowledges a good question and treats people with respect. I would say he has an excellent style...but not for everyone any more than Billy Graham is for everyone.

 

[shittim]

well said, i saw him speak to college students, young people some away from home for the first time for a substantial time. who can be lead away easily, he was great and planted the seed of faith in many hearts. His word, will not return void.

 

[MarcR]

It has never been my intention to tear down or criticize RZ.

My concern was that in my view blade brought up a valid concern and was attacked for voicing it.

I defended him even before I fully agreed with him because I believed that even if he was mistaken his post was not worthy of attack.

When I saw the video posted by Adstar, I was persuaded by RZ himself that blade indeed had a valid concern.

In all of this my motive was to defend blade from what I believed to be unwarented attack.

Any criticism of RZ was only tangental to my effort to defend blade.

To make it simple, if blade had not been under attack I would have kept my reservations about RZ to myself.

 

[Crustyone]

I would have to say my favorite radio speaker is Dr David Jeremiah daivdjeremiah.org
Or Chuck Swindol insight.org
These Preachers preach right from Gods Word and then break down the verses to make it fit into our lives.
That I believe is what a preacher should do.
This is the way The Holy Spirit works in lives too.
Right now, Dr Jeremiah is preaching on loneliness which is what we all feel.
Check it out...
Let me know what you think

As you may have noticed, some people here like him and some don't. Just like God provided many gifts, He also provided many styles. You will find some people will find God and Jesus after listening to Joel, some to Ravi, some to Oral, and some to the local pastor. I think that the bible it telling us that each pastor is doing what he should be doing.