Scripture is black and white on this issue of practicing sexual sin that those who do will not inherit the kingdom of God and he was accountable to no man, elder , pastor or church , Ravi was a Lone Ranger.
That's why I wanted to call the notion he is in Hell a kind of 'Cancel Culture' regarding Justification through Faith Alone...The point is not to support or approve of the behavior, as I see it.
If we removed the self-righteous from the church, I think some churches would disappear.
It's always good to examine yourself to see if you are in the Faith. I hope no one thinks I'll ever stop believing in Eternal Security, the Perseverance of the Saints version of it; we Persevere by Grace, or else...Well the way I harmonize this is the rejection of grace is a foundation for damnation not based upon our performance of holiness, but upon a free will decision to reject God by no longer allowing grace to be at work. It seems like the same thing as legalism if you look at it superficially, but because the requirements are not based on merit it does not equate to salvation by works of the law.
Under this system I reject all forms of eternal security and I reject the logic that that leads to salvation by works, because a non-sequitur is secretly smuggled into the presuppositions behind the logical objections.
This means that if you are living and pursuing sin actively, I would warn you that you can and will eventually lose your salvation, not because Jesus' atonement is not sufficient for you, or because your sin is "too big" to forgive, but because you will be rejecting the non-meritorious requirements of Jesus' Lordship to allow grace to work in you; this grace is free and you do not earn or deserve it.
This makes the Biblical warnings "real" and not just for show, and also allows the rejection of all forms of self-righteousness as a foundation for merit.
I believe Ravi is in hell and lost his salvation because he rejected grace and decided he wanted sin over Jesus, not because his sin was too big to forgive.
Hopefully something in this will resonate.
He was living the same lie when he made those comments for allot longer than TW lived the lie . Can you say hypocriteI think it would be appropriate to quote from a sermon by Ravi Zacharias himself in this thread.
"Pleasure will come at a cost; for the good pleasure you pay for it before you enjoy it; for the wrong pleasure you pay for it after you enjoy it.... Tiger woods fell into that sorry state in his life which it is so unfortunate for a great golfer like that to have ended up. In that situation he was being quizzed by the media and I think the most ironic question I've ever heard a journalist ask anybody was asked by this journalist of Tiger Woods, how could you lie to so many for so long. When a media person asks you that question I think this is steeped with irony, how could you lie to so many for so long. Woods answered it the only way that I think was reasonable, "You know what," he said, "it's because I first lied to myself." I don't know the man but I'd like to ask him what did you lie to yourself, did you lie that you'd never get caught? A lot of people tell that lie; or did you lie thinking what you did is wherein lay your happiness? Did you find out the lie that that's not the case? God sets up our boundaries for our own benefit. " — Ravi Zacharias, Sermon on TemptationIf Ravi where here now, I believe he would say, don't believe the lie...
But exhort one another every day, as long as it is called “today,” that none of you may be hardened by the deceitfulness of sin.
For all we know, he could have repented when he was near death. We don't know. IF he did not, then I suspect he is NOT in a good place now. It is unbelievably sad what happened to him.Was Ravi a Wolf in Sheep's clothing, and Jesus never knew him; or was he like Saint Paul and he did things he didn't want to do?
I need to know...
And just how did he display the love of Christ to others ?Nobody here is defending Ravi's sins.
We are defending the virtue of brokenness and the recognition that there but for the grace of God go I.
I truly believe I deserve a deeper hell than Ravi Zacharias.
I'm not holy because I'm a better person and tried harder to not be sexual immoral.
I'm holy because God reached down to a sexually immoral person and gave him the forgiveness and grace of a righteousness not my own.
That kind of truth makes me preach against sin out of love instead of looking down at how sorry another person is.
Amen on placing our faith in men.For all we know, he could have repented when he was near death. We don't know. IF he did not, then I suspect he is NOT in a good place now. It is unbelievably sad what happened to him.
This just goes to show us that we should never, ever revere mere human beings, no matter how noble or good they may seem on the outside. They ALL have feet of clay. But it IS safe to revere Jesus Christ.
"allows it' is a different flavour from 'decree' and 'ordain'; which CalvinistsI didn't say a word about Calvinism, I pointed out a fact. God doesn't will evil, but He allows it. ...
Understand what, exactly; that 'allows it', means the same thing as 'decree', and 'ordain'?That isn't something only Calvinists understand....
"allows it' is a different flavour from 'decree' and 'ordain'; which Calvinists
And I’m sickened by those who would come to the defense of a lifestyle marked by secret sins over decades rather than come to the defense of someone who lived a righteous life.
Without holiness no one will see the Lord. Does your walk match your talk ?
Then you should have no difficulty in producing section in the Confession of Faith which distinguishes between 'allows it' and 'decree/ordain'Wrong. You label me a Calvinist, yet I know the difference between what God ordains and what He allows....
One reason I need to know is because if Ravi has always been a Wolf in Sheep's clothing, how did he understand Spiritual things as well as he did? Well, understand them on paper at least...
Then you should have no difficulty in producing section in the Confession of Faith which distinguishes between 'allows it' and 'decree/ordain'
The flavour I referred to in my post was 'decree/ordain' to be consistent with the Calvinism's Confession of Faith; as opposed to your apparent inconsistent 'allow' from the same Confession of FaithI'll stick with the bible....which you seem to need a refresher on.
So are you going to distinguish what 'flavor' you were talking about or keep proving you have no idea what you're arguing against?
Last night I was thinking about former Poster Gadgeteer, and how Righteous Lot foiled him here at CARM. One day he brought up how Saint Peter could ever call Lot "Righteous Lot", because to him he was the worse scoundrel in all of the Bible; and he didn't think he ever Repented because it's not seen in the Bible. Of course I jumped all over that and said it's because of Eternal Security...Well, from my perspective, he was a believer that lost his way. That which he had learned of Christ and the truth would not be forgotten, and he used the same material over and over. Since I believe that a believer can lose his salvation, it is quite possible to have gained such spiritual insight and then fallen away. I think that he really believed what he taught, but his weaknesses overcame and instead of defending to truth, he used the truth as a cover for his own broken character. For this unacknowledged and unrepented action, I fear for him.
How do you know?but there is no way he can have zero repentance and his faith be sincere.
Is that not why CARM setup this forum; is it not to respectfully challenge theologies?In my experience, Peanut, it is very difficult for people to see their own inconsistencies.
It's not a compromise, because you can say what you believe once without constantly tangling about it.
To me this is a sad thread.Was Ravi a Wolf in Sheep's clothing, and Jesus never knew him; or was he like Saint Paul and he did things he didn't want to do?
I need to know...