Did Ravi Zacharias Persevere in the Faith or not?

TibiasDad

Well-known member
Let's say, for example, that you drive a 2.5 litre car that gets 20 miles to the gallon. And that you drive that car because "gas" is as cheap as it is. And gas is as cheap as it is because the US government ensures, through war and installation of US facing "governments" that it shall be that cheap.

American Super Consumptive Lifestyle is built on the back of what your government does. And that's true, even if you aren't the most consuming of the consumers. I reject you're only having a vote. You can also not partake in the fruit of your government. But you inevitably do - because that's just your society and you'll measure yourself against it. What use you're being "not so bad" if your socieity is a bloated, war-mongering one?

Now I don't want to go hard. I'm a Westerner so enjoy the same kind of "riches at another expense" that you do (although the US does tend to max things out in this regard. Like, Supersize Me...)

The point is that your sin is so deeply embedded you don't even realise it. We are utterly corrupt and being saved doesn't deal with that corruption. Its changes status. And there are things we wouldn't countenance doing once saved. But don't kid yourself - you ain't really working all that hard on your sin. Not if you live in the West and partake of all the West has to offer.




I suppose I'm dealing in relativity. Or perceived relativity. I'm suggesting that you have blood on your hands. I mean, real, direct sweat blood on your hands. You just don't appreciate it at this point s'all.

I think perhaps you are projecting your own sense of guilt on me and America in general. I do appreciate your thinking and understand your perspective. You do not know what I drive or how I drive, whether I recycle or not. I would drive a hybrid if I could afford it. Is there more we can do as individuals, probably yes, but we are not personally responsible for this sins of our governments. Besides, the actions you call sins have many positive benefits for people all over the world!

Doug
 

Our Lord's God

Well-known member
The point is that your sin is so deeply embedded you don't even realise it. We are utterly corrupt and being saved doesn't deal with that corruption. Its changes status. And there are things we wouldn't countenance doing once saved. But don't kid yourself - you ain't really working all that hard on your sin. Not if you live in the West and partake of all the West has to offer.
Your "status" will be irrelevant on Judgment Day.

...because of your stubbornness and unrepentant heart you are storing up wrath for yourself in the Day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God, 6 who will render to each person according to his works: 7 to those who by perseverance in doing good seek for glory and honor and immortality, eternal life; 8 but to those who are selfishly ambitious and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, wrath and indignation. 9 There will be tribulation and distress for every soul of man who does evil, of the Jew first and also of the Greek, 10 but glory and honor and peace to everyone who does good, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. 11 For there is no partiality with God.... 16 on the Day when God will judge the secrets of men through Christ Jesus according to my Gospel. Romans 2

like the Holy One who called you, be holy yourselves also in all your behavior; 16 because it is written, “You shall be holy, for I am holy.” 17 If you address as Father He who impartially judges according to each one’s work, conduct yourselves in fear during the time of your sojourn.
1 Peter 1:16-17

...
 

York

Active member
Your "status" will be irrelevant on Judgment Day.

...because of your stubbornness and unrepentant heart you are storing up wrath for yourself in the Day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God, 6 who will render to each person according to his works: 7 to those who by perseverance in doing good seek for glory and honor and immortality, eternal life; 8 but to those who are selfishly ambitious and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, wrath and indignation. 9 There will be tribulation and distress for every soul of man who does evil, of the Jew first and also of the Greek, 10 but glory and honor and peace to everyone who does good, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. 11 For there is no partiality with God.... 16 on the Day when God will judge the secrets of men through Christ Jesus according to my Gospel. Romans 2

Romans 2 is part of an argument running from Roman 1:18 to Romans 3:20. The argument (basically) states that there is no salvation (or righteousness) to be obtained by law, that a man will be judged by what he does and will be found wanting wrt the law.

Romans 3:20 is the conclusional statement of that whole piece. We're all bunched if relying on law.



At 3:21 he commences with a solution to that problem: "but now a righteousness from God, by faith". Announcement of the gospel of salvation by faith, in other words..

-

You are trying to apply a piece of scripture, which has no bearing to a saved believer, to a saved believer. That's an out of context application, in other words.
 

York

Active member
I think perhaps you are projecting your own sense of guilt on me and America in general.
America is by far the most consuming nation on Earth. And American style consumerism has been exported around the globe by US corporations. I'm not saying the US is totally guilty. I'm saying that they are the guiltless. Rape and pillage has always happened but the US are current champions in that regard



I do appreciate your thinking and understand your perspective. You do not know what I drive or how I drive, whether I recycle or not. I would drive a hybrid if I could afford it. Is there more we can do as individuals, probably yes, but we are not personally responsible for this sins of our governments.

No? If you wear clothing produced in killer sweatshops when there is no hiding corporate responsibility for maintaining these sweatshops you are not guilty. Are you nuts?!!

You know your government ensures resources flows are obtained/maintained through murder. Yet you have no culpability when you consume products arising from this murder?

I'm not asking that you know that this specific litre of gas has a drop of blood on it. You know the overall issue of US government and US corporation destruction of people and planet in the maintenance of world (consumptive) systems.

What happens is that you turn a blind eye to this because you feel you have no choice. But it is largely lifestyle choice that gives no choice.

But there is a choice: reject consumption, campaign against your government, give up all these comforts that are built on blood. Give up everything and follow him .. in other words. But you don't. And neither do I.

My point is not to condemn you (given I do the same things). The point is to demonstrate the depths of our own sin: we happily and merrily partakes in the killing and suppression and rape and threading on millions of our fellow man so that we can enjoy a life a comparative blissful luxury.

Ravi doesn't seem so guilty when you consider we are all guilty.







Besides, the actions you call sins have many positive benefits for people all over the world!

Like if they didn't get $1 a day slaving away to make our clothes they'd be worse off? Why are they as badly off as they are?
 

ReverendRV

Well-known member
America is by far the most consuming nation on Earth. And American style consumerism has been exported around the globe by US corporations. I'm not saying the US is totally guilty. I'm saying that they are the guiltless. Rape and pillage has always happened but the US are current champions in that regard
TibiasDad said:
I think perhaps you are projecting your own sense of guilt on me and America in general.
I remember when I used to Work at the Atlanta Airport loading planes for Fedex. We used to meet in a room before we were dispatched, and there was one man named Godwyn. He was from Africa and he always got on everyone's nerves because he talked about how evil America was 'in the eyes of the world'. One day he brought in his paper where he got an 'A' on a college paper, or however a professor grades an assignment, about how America is bad. He had a Paper that said he was right, and probably a Degree that said he was right; but was he right? I suppose that if Godwin lived in the days of King Solomon and was unloading barges from the Queen of Sheba, he would have also been right; or would he have been? God Decreed Solomon would be Rich, so would Godwyn have been fighting against God?
 
Last edited:

York

Active member
I remember when I used to Work at the Atlanta Airport loading planes for Fedex. We used to meet in a room before we were dispatched, and there was one man named Godwyn. He was from Africa and he always got on everyone's nerves because he talked about how evil America was 'in the eyes of the world'. One day he brought in his paper where he got an 'A' on a college paper, or however a professor grades an assignment, about how America is bad. He had a Paper that said he was right, and probably a Degree that said he was right; but was he right? I suppose that if Godwin lived in the days of King Solomon and was unloading barges from the Queen of Sheba, he would have also been right; or would he have been? God Decreed Solomon would be Rich, so would Godwyn have been fighting against God?

Somehow I think turning a blind eye to rape, murder and pillage is sin. And the way we underline it being sin is to enjoy the fruits of it whilst at one and the same time knowing (especially in these days of uber connectedness) just how those fruits tend to be obtained.


Receiving stolen goods, in the eyes of the law, is the same as stealing. The law takes the view that without receivers there would be no stealers. The demand creates someone who will supply. So stop demanding...

Now I know it's complicated and that we're born into it and get jaded looking at starving Africans or reading over and over about corporate sociopathy around the globe.

But being born into a sinful world isn't a defence for your sin.

-

I'm just trying to point out that we are steeped in it. Up to our eyeballs in it. It pervades everything we do. So to pick on Ravi or anyone else .. when you yourself are awash with sin?? Speck/plank?

It's odd, s'all.
 

ReverendRV

Well-known member
Somehow I think turning a blind eye to rape, murder and pillage is sin. And the way we underline it being sin is to enjoy the fruits of it whilst at one and the same time knowing (especially in these days of uber connectedness) just how those fruits tend to be obtained.


Receiving stolen goods, in the eyes of the law, is the same as stealing. The law takes the view that without receivers there would be no stealers. The demand creates someone who will supply. So stop demanding...

Now I know it's complicated and that we're born into it and get jaded looking at starving Africans or reading over and over about corporate sociopathy around the globe.

But being born into a sinful world isn't a defence for your sin.

-

I'm just trying to point out that we are steeped in it. Up to our eyeballs in it. It pervades everything we do. So to pick on Ravi or anyone else .. when you yourself are awash with sin?? Speck/plank?

It's odd, s'all.
What is your opinion on the following? If you lived in Solomon's Kingdom, and thought as you do, would you be right or wrong about Israel and Solomon by saying the same thing you said here?
 

Our Lord's God

Well-known member
Romans 2 is part of an argument running from Roman 1:18 to Romans 3:20. The argument (basically) states that there is no salvation (or righteousness) to be obtained by law, that a man will be judged by what he does and will be found wanting wrt the law.

Romans 3:20 is the conclusional statement of that whole piece. We're all bunched if relying on law.

Sorry but Romans 3:20 is not nullifying Romans 2:13.

At 3:21 he commences with a solution to that problem: "but now a righteousness from God, by faith". Announcement of the gospel of salvation by faith, in other words..

-

You are trying to apply a piece of scripture, which has no bearing to a saved believer, to a saved believer. That's an out of context application, in other words.
 

York

Active member
4PUOISorry but Romans 3:20 is not nullifying Romans 2:13.


It is, if the audience being addressed at Romans 2:13 are those who suppose they will be declared righteous by works - the determination about which lies at Romans 3:20. The Jews thought so. The unbeliever of today thinks so: "I'm not such a bad chap all told. If there is a God then he'll be alright with me"


If you are not the subject of Romans 2:13, that is, if you are not one who is relying on your works for righteousness, then what it has to say doesn't relate to you.

Someone who is born again doesn't rely on his works for righteousness.
 

York

Active member
What is your opinion on the following? If you lived in Solomon's Kingdom, and thought as you do, would you be right or wrong about Israel and Solomon by saying the same thing you said here?

My view on God is that he is constant and finds his fullest expression in Jesus. Therefore: if someone is murdered or raped or stolen from in order to benefit another then that has no place in his scheme (and no, an Israelite bursting into a enemies tent and spearing a mother and her child cannot be done righteously, not even if on God's supposed instruction).


I'm not so familiar with Solomon, but if his being blessed involved the rape, murder or stealing from another - i.e. heaping misery upon others for Solomon's benefit, then that is not of God.
 
Last edited:

Our Lord's God

Well-known member
It is, if the audience being addressed at Romans 2:13 are those who suppose they will be declared righteous by works - the determination about which lies at Romans 3:20. The Jews thought so. The unbeliever of today thinks so: "I'm not such a bad chap all told. If there is a God then he'll be alright with me"

You need to read more closely what it says. Paul doesn't say one thing and then nullify what he said in the next breath.

Romans 2:5-13.16 is about all men being judged by works.

Romans 3:20 is about no flesh being justified out of works of the Law.

If you are not the subject of Romans 2:13, that is, if you are not one who is relying on your works for righteousness, then what it has to say doesn't relate to you.

Someone who is born again doesn't rely on his works for righteousness.
 

York

Active member
What is your opinion on the following? If you lived in Solomon's Kingdom, and thought as you do, would you be right or wrong about Israel and Solomon by saying the same thing you said here?
Interesting expansion on the point I've been making. The context is climate change:


"Older people will have to make sacrifices in the fight against climate change or today’s children will face a future of fighting wars for water and food, the EU’s deputy chief has warned."


The idea that the blood on your hands might actually occur after you die is somewhat sobering!
 

York

Active member
You need to read more closely what it says. Paul doesn't say one thing and then nullify what he said in the next breath.

As I say, he doesn't nullify it in the context of a sustained argument.

If we are allowed to form an idea from from verse as you do, is not:

" For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God’s sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous"

..nullified by...

"Therefore no one will be declared righteous in God’s sight by the works of the law"
 

Our Lord's God

Well-known member
As I say, he doesn't nullify it in the context of a sustained argument.

Is not:

" For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God’s sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous"

..nullified by...

"Therefore no one will be declared righteous in God’s sight by the works of the law"

You should probably translate it correctly first.
 

ReverendRV

Well-known member
It seems his mother and son are still convinced of his innocence and seem to make a few valid criticisms against the RZIM report:


This lady also makes some valid criticisms against the eye witness testimonies:


It's weird feeling like somehow I'm supposed to know the answer to this, so I know what to support... I know Ravi personally helped me, preached true things, and seemed to demonstrate the fruit of the Spirit, but anyone can hide anything. I'd both hate to accuse an innocent man or exonerate a guilty one, and when the man feels like someone emotionally close it's even more personal. Maybe we are not required or suppose to know the answers to these things, but must wait until heaven to truly know. In the light of these rebuttals I think more evidence is needed to be convinced beyond a shadow of a doubt.
Yes, it should cause us all to examine ourselves to see if we're in the Faith. It's one reason I love the Gospel so much; let's always be holding the Hem of his Garment...
 

eternomade

Well-known member
Yes, it should cause us all to examine ourselves to see if we're in the Faith. It's one reason I love the Gospel so much; let's always be holding the Hem of his Garment...
What do you think this "test" is in 2 Corinthians 13:5? How do we know?
 
Top