Is Ravi Zacharias a Fundamentalist?

AMEN, Dr. Bob!

 

I must agree with Scott J here. RZ adheres to fundamentalist Christian beliefs.

 

I must agree with Scott J here. RZ adheres to fundamentalist Christian beliefs. </font>[/QUOTE]Yes, John V, but he is not a Fundamentalist in the historical sense. He is NOT a separatist, which characterized Fundamentalists by complete separation from cooperation with unbelievers and heretics in evangelistic efforts. No historic Fundamentalist would have shared that platform with cultists (i.e. Mormons). What is your definition of a historic Fundamentalist? IMHO, Ravi is a Neo-evangelical. Do you know what that is? Please tell me.

[ December 13, 2004, 07:17 PM: Message edited by: paidagogos ]

 

Scott, do you understand the difference between Fundamentalist, Evangelical, and Neo-evangelical? Then, you'll have to explain your thinking because you have just cut across the lines making all understood definitions meaningless. Furthermore, your expressed opinion just doesn't jive with Fundamentalist beliefs. Yes, there's a vast difference between Paul at Mars Hill and Ravi in Mormon Tabernacle. Not seeing the differences, IMHO, is lack of discernment.

 

Indeed, the main problem with Mormonism is the fact that their christ is not our Christ. But beyond that, everything else in their denomination is built upon lies. I don't think any of us could deny that here. They do not see their "christ" as "the" Son of God... Merely "a" son of God. Yes, that's right. They teach that Jesus Christ and Satan are brothers, with many other siblings, that were spawned from God and his many wives.

They do claim that they hold the King James Version of the Bible as having no error, yet their own Book of Mormon contridicts it, and they hold to the teachings of that book before they hold to the Bible.

It is very odd that people would be deceived by things that to us seem so clearly unscriptural, even evil. I suppose all we can say is that Satan does indeed have them blinded. Let us pray that God may open their eyes.

"I have become all things to all men that I might by all means save some."

If God uses Ravi to reach these people, then who are we to argue against God? Perhaps he should have pointed out more clearly the differences between their christ, and our Christ, but actually, that is between himself and the Lord.


- Window Wax

 

Wow. Had not heard about this. White is right on, read the article. Makes me think of ECT all over again.

Dr. Bob, right on!

 

Seperatism is not a fundamtalist prerequirement. Many who adhere to the title are indeed separatists, but they are not synonymous.

 

Seperatism is not a fundamtalist prerequirement. Many who adhere to the title are indeed separatists, but they are not synonymous. </font>[/QUOTE]Then, you don't understand what a historic Fundamentalist is! It's rather like calling every good and moral person a Christian.

 

Letter from Ravi regarding the Mormon Tabernacle event.... Why not just take him at his own word?

_________________________________________________


Many have asked how the invitation to the Mormon Tabernacle came about. Ten years ago, I was invited by the philosophy department at Brigham Young University to deliver a series of lectures on atheism and theism, a comparative study. At that time I also presented a defense of the Christian faith. Much has transpired in the intervening years as evangelical Christian scholars and Mormon scholars have held discussions on their differing faiths. Sometime ago, a group of about 150 churches and academic institutions under the leadership of Greg Johnson of Standing Together invited me to speak in defense of the Christian faith at a series of open forums on university campuses in Utah. Greg then suggested that perhaps the LDS church would open the Tabernacle for a major presentation by an evangelical Christian.

With that in mind, Greg and Bob Millet (from the faculty of Brigham Young University) approached the First Presidency with the idea and to everyone’s surprise, they graciously agreed to extend an invitation to me. Greg and Bob came to my office in Atlanta to discuss with me what this meant and how we should go about this. Needless to say, I had a lot of questions on the “why” of such an invitation. What it boiled down to was that they were interested in hearing from an evangelical Christian about what lay at the heart of our faith. I asked for two personal conditions. One, that I be given the privilege of selecting the subject and two, that I bring someone to provide the music. They gladly granted both. But even after that I hesitated till several key evangelical leaders and professors from across the country wrote and urged me to accept the invitation to speak at the Tabernacle. After much prayer and reflection, I did. I selected the subject: The Exclusivity and Sufficiency of Jesus Christ. I asked Michael Card if he would come and provide the music.

November 14th was the historic moment. The last time an evangelical Christian had spoken there was in 1899 when D.L. Moody spoke. I have to say the entire weekend was one remarkable event after another. I had a personal meeting with the First Presidency. I did open forums at Weber State University and at the University of Utah. The climactic meeting at the Mormon Tabernacle was packed with an overflowing crowd. What a night it was!

From all over the world I have received numerous messages of encouragement and appreciation. Anyone who hears the tape will know the clarity of the message presented. Only the Lord gave such enablement.

To the critics who objected to my being there, I say that all my life as an apologist I have spoken across wide chasms of thought and virtually to every major religious group, sometimes at the risk of threats and violence. Differences ought not to keep us from carrying the truth to everyone. Must we not graciously build one step at a time in communicating our faith with clarity and conviction? Is it really necessary at the early stages of such openness to “dump the whole truckload of goods,” rather than first gaining a hearing and respect? I have no doubts about the differences between the LDS faith and the historic Christian faith, differences that are deep and foundational in terms of authority. But the proclamation of the living Christ can break down hearts all over the world that we might see ourselves as He sees us and call upon Him and no one else for our salvation. Must not our methods be in keeping with our message? There are numerous instances in Scripture where Jesus went to those of a contrary view and with grace, sowed one small seed at a time. I must also add that the courtesy and graciousness extended to me by every Mormon leader or professor that I came into contact with cannot be gainsaid. My earnest prayer is that the Lord was honored in what happened and that the opportunities that come from this event will multiply. There is no other name given under heaven whereby we may be saved. How we communicate that name is equally important as the message itself if we are to be persuaders of men and women under the anointing of the Holy Spirit.

As you hear the message presented, I pray you will hear the sound of the seed being sown. Only Heaven will reveal the fruit that has resulted.

Ravi Zacharias

 

FYI: It sounds like Ravi Zacharias did a lot of good WITHOUT compromising. Zacharias is an ordained Christian & Missionary Alliance minister. I know many CMA clergyman who would rather be labeled as "evangelical" than "fundamentalist." When did "evangelical" become a derogatory label? Isn't it better to talk about one's views of scripture, etc. than to use these labels? Some evangelicals with conservative theological views immediately think of KJVO folks when they hear the word "fundamentalist." There are probably fundamentalists who also make wrong assumptions when they hear the label, "evangelical."

 

I think their actual claim is that the Bible is correct "insofar as it is correctly translated." This allows them to reject passages that don't line up with LDS beliefs.

As far as the Ravi Zacharias talk in Salt Lake City goes, whatever views we may hold on that and whatever did happen and whatever was said, let's pray that God uses it for His glory and that some seeds were planted!

 

I think their actual claim is that the Bible is correct "insofar as it is correctly translated." This allows them to reject passages that don't line up with LDS beliefs.

As far as the Ravi Zacharias talk in Salt Lake City goes, whatever views we may hold on that and whatever did happen and whatever was said, let's pray that God uses it for His glory and that some seeds were planted! </font>[/QUOTE]What about the harm? Ravi may have led as many poor people to remain in Mormonism thinking that his speech was a tacit endorsement and acceptance of Mormonism. The Mormons are trying hard to portray their cult as simply another sect of Christianity. Perhaps Ravi just played into their hands.

 

I think their actual claim is that the Bible is correct "insofar as it is correctly translated." This allows them to reject passages that don't line up with LDS beliefs.

As far as the Ravi Zacharias talk in Salt Lake City goes, whatever views we may hold on that and whatever did happen and whatever was said, let's pray that God uses it for His glory and that some seeds were planted! </font>[/QUOTE]What about the harm? Ravi may have led as many poor people to remain in Mormonism thinking that his speech was a tacit endorsement and acceptance of Mormonism. The Mormons are trying hard to portray their cult as simply another sect of Christianity. Perhaps Ravi just played into their hands. </font>[/QUOTE]Whatever it's worth, I gotta go along w/ Paid on this one.

 

There are mixed views on this from Christians who were there. So that's why I said we should pray that God uses what was said for His glory. Who knows what the results will be, even if Ravi is used by the Mormons for their own benefit. God has a way of turning things around sometimes.

 

There are mixed views on this from Christians who were there. So that's why I said we should pray that God uses what was said for His glory. Who knows what the results will be, even if Ravi is used by the Mormons for their own benefit. God has a way of turning things around sometimes. </font>[/QUOTE]Yes, God does use all things for His own glory. Even the judgment of the wicked is to the glory of God! However, this is not a justification for us to do wrong that God can be glorified. Paul wrote:"What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound? God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein? (Romans 6:1-2)"

To judge by the results or the possible results is Jesuit reasoning. It is that the ends justifies the means. God simply expects us to be faithful and do what He has mandated. Whenever He commands separation from unbelieving error, He means just that--complete separation (cf. II John). Ravi could be very close to violating the admonition in II John. When God commands, He doesn't expect us to second-guess Him by theorizing what good could come of it. BTW, this is humanistic reasoning where supposed human benefit is placed above the commands of God. Remember that no sinner ever went to Hell who didn't deserve it--otherwise, God would not be just.

 

There are mixed views on this from Christians who were there. So that's why I said we should pray that God uses what was said for His glory. Who knows what the results will be, even if Ravi is used by the Mormons for their own benefit. God has a way of turning things around sometimes. </font>[/QUOTE]Following this reasoning, we cannot be opposed to anything since Christians so-called express divergent views on everything from the Trinity to women wearing pants. Yes, the doctrines of separation are controversial because many don't want to practice it. It is rather like those who “loved the praise of men more than the praise of God. (John 12:43)” However, what some professing Christians think or believe is not to be our standard--our standard is what God has revealed in His Word.