Jesus Christ Is Lord

That every knee should bow and every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father!

Et Tu Ravi Zacharias? Why Participate In Universalist Pluralist National Day Of Prayer?

Posted by Job on April 24, 2008

The outstanding Christian apologist and scholar appears to be giving into the false god of political ecumenism universalism. Baal worship? Looks like. Face it people, after the evangelicals joined hands with the Roman Catholic cult of worshiping dead people and the hosts of heaven, joining hands with every other fruit, nut, and devil worshiper on the planet was soon to come, especially if you are coming together for something other than Christ, and that can either be right wing flag waving conservative politics, or liberal “social justice” politics. Please click on and study these five links, which includes Ingrid Schlueter’s analysis of the situation and responses from Ravi Zacharias’s ministry, to see how easy it is to defend the indefensible when Jesus Christ alone exits the scene. 

Ashamed of Jesus at the National Day of Prayer?

If You Gain the Culture and Lose Your Soul…

An Update

Dr. Zacharias Ministry Responds in Email to Reader

Finally what this is all about, and what Zacharias is withholding from people:

The Powerful Name of Jesus

It is not part of the six, but nonetheless a worthwhile read: Eternity-Driven Ministry

Outstanding quotes from Ingrid Schlueter: “Stealth Christians now? This is what happens when Rick Warren’s Three-legged stool model of societal transformation brings the state together with the church. The church must rid itself of “partisan” or “biased” language to gain acceptance. What would the United States government think of Jesus’ biased language,”Repent and believe the Gospel!”?”

Ravi Zacharias’ ministry now says, in writing, that they participate with all who seek to pray for our country. That would obviously include Buddhists, Sikhs, Muslims, Jews, Mormons, Wiccans and anyone else who prays to a false god. Which “god” does not appear to be a concern.”

I have to admit, I started to wonder about Zacharias when he all but endorsed Mormon Mitt Romney for president by saying that it was OK for Christians to vote for him because “he was right on the issues.” But I chose to let it pass, thinking that Zacharias was applying the “wise Turk (Muslim) versus foolish Christian” axiom of Martin Luther. In reality, Luther’s statement does not apply to Romney because A) Romney is a craven repulsive liar and manipulator (meaning that he is NOT a wise Turk) and B) Romney was using his campaign – and would have used his presidency – to force people to regard Mormonism as Christianity. As a matter of fact, a great many conservatives started doing just that in order to get him elected … declaring him “Christian for political purposes.” 

Now Zacharias knew these things, but I was supposing that the fellow simply hadn’t thought about their implications, again giving him a pass. Now, it really does look like my giving him a pass was unjustified. Please, let us all pray that Zacharias and those aligned with him would begin to care about who it is they hold hands with and assemble in the name of (if you cannot mention Jesus Christ then you are not gathering together in the Name of Jesus Christ, and if you will not mention Jesus Christ your motive is not to serve God). If Zacharias really cared about this nation, he would stand firm with the gospel. Instead, by doing this, he is leading more and more Christians into political universalist apostasy and taking this nation ever closer to perdition, because more Christians following after political apostasy means less people worshiping God in spirit and in truth!

People, you cannot serve two masters. This political ecumenism is not only sending Christians to the lake of fire, but it is paving the way for the anti – Christ, the beast. So folks who are following after this dominion theology created by the Roman Catholic Church that tells people that we can redeem this nation through politics and culture (and that the gospel has to be sacrificed for a time because of expediency’s sake) need to realize that instead of “saving” the country, you are giving it over to Satan in the most effective and wicked way possible.


11 Responses to “Et Tu Ravi Zacharias? Why Participate In Universalist Pluralist National Day Of Prayer?”

  1. I really liked Ravi. This is truly disappointing. I gotta do more reading on this.

  2. I used to really hold Ravi Zacharias in rather high regard. I used to also think the National Day of Prayer was a Christian thing. Even posted favorably about it on my blog a couple years back.

    But more recently, the Lord helped me better recognize the movements of Baal type activity. The 2 Timothy 3:1-5 list of things to avoid. Including those “holding to a form of godliness, although they have denied its power”. I’ve had to draw closer to the admonishment of 1 John 2:22-23 and working harder to avoid anyone who is talking about something of “God” while denying and/or ducking the name of His Son. Because if they don’t have the Son, they don’t have God.

    As I’ve been in this process, I noticed that Ravi Zacharias often does more to defend deism than Christianity. I’m not saying that is his goal, but that’s what often seems to be the result. He’ll often speak of debating atheists and he goes into their methods of philosophy, to debate there is a God using their measures and standards. It really becomes a philosophy debate. I just noticed in all that the Son of God was not being mentioned very often. And so I decided to listen to Zacharias a bit less.

    I still respect the man, but I dare say it seems he at times is neglecting to mention his first love.

  3. Job said

    Independent Conservative:

    Well, you kind of hit the nail on the head. It is why I am suspicious of the whole apologetics thing to begin with. I used to be very much into it and had great respect for C.S. Lewis and people like that, but my attitude turned when I read a book on church history and saw that apologetics was not a part of ancient Jewish thought or practice, and this includes Jewish Christians. Now you did have some Hellenized Jews that used apologetics to defend Judaism i.e. Josephus and Philo. But on the Christian side, apologetics was developed totally by the Gentile Christians: the Greeks and Romans. Another thing, it was done by the cultured, educated, upper class Gentile Christians, not the underclass. Initially, the goal was to lessen the persecution by combating lies surrounding Christianity, such as the claims that communion consisted of child sacrifice, cannibalism, and orgies. Then came the notion that apologetics was a useful evangelism tool. Quickly thereafter it was elite Christians that had been educated and well versed in Greek pagan philosophy being upset that the other elite Romans were looking down on them for having adopted the strange simplistic backwards religion of the uneducated underclass.

    Even the idea of using Greek pagan philosophy to describe Christianity was a major concession that angered a lot of Christians. Also, the apologetics crowd gained support for their side by claiming Tertullian and Irenaeus as their own, when the truth is that guys like that were making polemics against heretics, defending the church against threats from WITHIN, rather than convincing those WITHOUT the church that they were as smart and cultured as the pagans were.

    But since it was a goal of convincing unbelievers that they were as smart as they are, they had to use the constructs, techniques, terms, etc. of pagan philosophy, and they had to discard things that they knew pagans would never accept. So it was not only syncretism, but also compromise. These days, the primary purpose of the field is to A) make Christians feel better about themselves and their faith, B) make a case for Christians to continue to be included in the public square and in elite institutions, and to a much lesser extent C) an evangelism tool that causes “conversions” using a limited, socially acceptable portion of the gospel by intellectual assent rather than through faith after Holy Spirit conviction. It urges Christians to allow the human rational mind and emotions of the unbeliever, the soul of the unbeliever, to take the place of the Holy Spirit in conversion when the Bible clearly tells us that an unbeliever has no comprehension of and is dead to spiritual things. The unbeliever makes a rational, intellectual, moral, emotional “decision” based on the strength of arguments and the conviction of the apologist rather than responding to the call of the Holy Spirit through faith.

    So for me, the primary use for apologetics is that they do a very good job of explaining doctrines and putting the faith in the proper historical and social contexts … they do excellent scholarship! But even there, I use it after the fashion of Tertullian and Irenaeus: to oppose heretics as opposed to preaching to unbelievers. That is why I like The Way of the Master and Bill Keller. Those guys do not use apologetics, philosophy, etc. AT ALL when speaking to sinners, just a direct presentation of the gospel and what will happen if you do not accept it. Any intellectualism that they engage in, such as Ray Comfort’s contending against evolution, is when they are speaking to people that are already believers.

  4. Job,

    Do you know about Ray Comfort’s debates with a group called “Rational Response”? (It’s easy to find on YouTube.)

    That’s some of the apologetics work (debating heathens who have rejected the gospel so many times they want to stand up and have TV show debates) that I think we both see as being a bad idea.

  5. Job said

    Independent Conservative:

    You know what? Last year, I posted Ray Comfort’s response to criticism that he and Kirk Cameron received from Christians over their performance debating atheists on Nightline. The Christians were wanting Comfort and Cameron to use all of these sophisticated apologetics arguments against the atheists that are common parlance. (The amazing thing is that if you look at a lot of modern apologetics, it actually is deism. Intelligent design is nothing but scientific and philosophical deism! So, the goal is to use logic to get the person to assent to the possibility of a creator of some sort, not the God of the Bible. I stopped promoting the “intelligent design” angle when I read an ATHEIST state that intelligent design had nothing to do with the creation account in Genesis and was forced to admit that he was right … but now more and more in the evangelical broadcasts and in books and such you hear them refer to God as “the Great Designer.”) Comfort said that he and Cameron discussed it, prayed over it, and decided that using the best use of their time on national television was evangelism, repeated presentations of the gospel message, rather than apologetics, and that if “losing the debate” (which virtually everyone, including Christians, concludes that they did, and which Comfort did not deny) meant winning one viewer as a convert or at the very least inspiring and motivating more Christians to be bold in sharing their faith, then it was worth being viewed as having been whipped in the debate according to the public imagination.

    And indeed, the response was brutal. I remember an atheist bragging that the rational response fellows obviously outclassed Comfort and Cameron because the rational response guys were regular folk, amateurs, taking on and overwhelming full time evangelists who had been working for Christ for decades. And lots of Christians stated that Cameron and Comfort did so poorly that it would have been better had they never gone on the air in the first place!

    So it certainly does sound like to me that Comfort and Cameron made a conscious decision to be the very opposite of the people like Origen in the early church (Origen sought and received the praise of pagans as a brilliant thinker for preaching something that is honestly very close to what the Mormons espouse today). Comfort said that he didn’t receive any emails of unbelievers reporting to be saved by their Nightline appearance, but they did receive a lot from believers stating that they were motivated to get out and share the gospel.

  6. John Kaniecki said


    Hi hope you are well. I feel apologetics has a place and that is the enforce the beliefs of Christians.

    Aethiests come up with all sorts of arguments from Darwinism, archeology, and so forth. I have looked into these things and there is an answer or counter argument for everything. I personally see it from the Christian side and believe those. Yet if there were no counter arguments then the Christian would have nothing to stand upon. The fact that there are counter proposals is reassuring.

    But ultimately it comes down to faith. I firmly believe that people are converted by Love and the hearing of the Word of God. You can argue with these people until your blue in the face it’s not going to get you anywhere. For example the entire absurdity that what Darwin proposes. I can argue about the complexity of life and the impossibility of it all just evolving. For example there is the angler fish. This fish can spit water out of its mouth and hit a bug with it. The bug lands on the water and is quickly eaten by the fish. The fish was featured on an anti smoking commerical where it would spit on a cigarette putting it out thinking it was a bug. Now the archer fish has the remarkable ability to adjust for refraction. What is refraction? Put a straw into a clear glass of water. Now look at the side of the glass and you will notice the straw seems broken. This is because of the difference in the density of the water and the air. Now the archer fish can adjust and accurately hit this target. Now how could an archer fish develop? Did a fish just start spitting and then made a miraculous advance to adjust for the refraction.

    I have presented these and other arguements to people who do not believe. They walk away thinking I am ignorant and I walk away thinking they are deceived. In reality it takes more faith not to believe in God.

    But for a new Christian when presented with an argument it would be useful to point them to the books which counters the opposition.

    On another interesting note the surface of the world is covered mostly by sedimentary rock. As oppossed to ingneous and metamorphic sedimentary rock is formed by water and layers of particles settling. This points to a world wide flood. Furthermore if a temperature drops on the Earth an ice age would not develop. Some feel the flood was followed by the ice age.

    I had many books on the subject. Just like knowing about how the Mormons, JW’s or Muslims think it is good to know how those who don’t follow any God at all exists. That way you can approach them in a more meaningful way. But remember I Peter 3:15 and do so with meekness and fear.



  7. Job,

    stopped promoting the “intelligent design” angle when I read an ATHEIST state that intelligent design had nothing to do with the creation account in Genesis and was forced to admit that he was right … but now more and more in the evangelical broadcasts and in books and such you hear them refer to God as “the Great Designer.”

    That is correct, that to assert an “intelligent designer” does not mean someone will embrace the One True God. It only means they’ll consider Him in a mass of false God’s, still not able to find the truth. It might help a Christian in giving them some direction if the person wants to hear the gospel and the Christian wants to explain who God really is beyond that school house effort, but you’re right the effort leaves things too open ended. So it really is not promoting Christ. It’s clear it was not designed for Christ. It’s a jump off point for Baal by its self. Touche, I concede you the point 🙂 .

    I’m not saying Ray Comfort did not evangelize during the debate with “Rational Response”. I’m not critiquing their methods of debate at all. My point, is that perhaps Christians should not be running to have these TV Show debates in the first place. That Christians should consider offering the Gospel message apart from the side-show styled stuff. We know Paul reasoned with various philosophers, Acts 17. And he went to where he could preach freely. He did not give the sermon on Mars Hill as a point and counter point debate. Here’s what I’m thinking, if a guy like Ray Comfort could look at ABC and say “look here’s what we do, I get 30 minutes (or 15 minutes) to say whatever I want, then you can let the other guy say whatever he wants for 30 minutes (or 15 minutes) and that’s all”. Or switch the order, no matter. But preach the gospel without having the heathens being able to easily jump in and try and cut the messages. That sort of debate is not detailed in the Acts of the Apostles, I suspect because God would rather we seek the Mars Hill sermon instead. Even if it’s a group that just likes hearing something “different”, at least they’ll let you speak freely, to get your initial message out. Rather than arranging a back and forth debate with people you know ALREADY know your message and you ALREADY know fully reject it.

    Do you understand where I’m coming from now? I’m not talking about the method selected for debating a group like Rational Response, I’m talking about NOT bothering with a group you know rejects the Gospel and shows up to heckle the message. Instead seek an opportunity to speak freely (including free from heathen’s allowed to cut in continually) and make the most of it instead.

  8. John, all the talk about fishes, how much time did Paul spend talking about fishes?

    The difference with dealing with Mormon, JW, SDA, RC and Oneness doctrine, is that those who know the depths of those doctrines and follow them claim they are part of the church. So with them there is a response given appealing to scripture. And yes knowing what they believe, but reasoning with them from the scriptures is what we do.

    With the fool who claims there is no God (Psalm 14:1 declares them a fool), you’re spending lots of time talking about fishes and things and it’s like dwelling on the creations rather than their creator.

    With Muslims, we probably learn more about their ways than need be at times. But the bottom line in all cases is, either they are ready to hear the gospel or you might as well move on to the next person. We are to be ready to correct those who contradict sound doctrine, but at the same time avoid useless chatter 2 Timothy 2.

    I do know some saints who tarry for years with a certain unbeliever and those people later claim Christ, but in scripture it’s not about continually working on the person who repeatedly rejects the gospel. It’s an example of offering the message and then moving on if rejected. But each must do as the Lord leads.

    Sometimes people ask me why I might continue with a discussion here with someone who rejects sound doctrine. (I’m talking about core things.) I tell them, it’s not for the person rejecting, but the person who wants to know the truth. Because sometimes a while later I get a note from someone who benefited from the discussion. Someone who embraces the truth and is better equipped after the discussion is done. But at the same time, we don’t want to simply spend time having a quarrel.

  9. mellyreed said

    My dear brothers and sisters in the faith,

    A man was walking down a street at night and had no place to go. He was cold and hungry and he was lost. He saw 2 houses next to each other who still had their lights on. One had a cross in the yard but loud angry voices echoing out into the street. He caught part of the conversation. How could he not? The still night air amplified every sound. They were cursing out one of their brothers for having done something they thought he shouldn’t. One said he hadn’t done it. The other said he had. No one was really sure of the facts but they were awfully sure of how they felt about it. The second house had no loud voices, just pleasant music floating above the air. An occasional low voice was heard asking what sounded like a question and then another sounding like it was answering. He thought he heard what sounded like a door shutting very softly as if from a different part of the house maybe farther away from the front where the lights were. And then he looked up just in time to see another light go on in a tiny room near the roof. He smiled as the voices became hushed and gentle while the music continued below. He thought to himself, how dignified. I will go up to that door because I know they will treat me the same way when I enter.

    Dear brothers and sisters, I read a lot of blogs and it makes me wonder whether the writers believe that people who are not of the faith come to read them too. It is for a very good reason that our Master, Jesus, told us to deal with our problems inside the congregation as outlined for us in Matthew chapter 18 and also, entreating each other (again privately and with dignity) as Fathers for older men, brothers for younger, and so on. That congregations will have problems is a given. The Bible speaks of nothing but; it certainly demonstrates our need for God. But to those on the outside, they are like young children who ought not to be “scared” that those of us who should be more mature in the faith (not unlike parents who are to guide,protect, and prepare a young one to be strong)are there to demonstrate how we would treat them once God has drawn them to himself and delivered them to us for care and feeding. Please re-read what you feel honestly inclined to debate about and ask: Will this gain a heart or lose one? Can we not use our god-given discretion to contend for the faith and maintain dignity and honesty? I think we’ll find there is a surpassing way. And God has told us how to handle these things in His Word.

    Let’s all think about this very seriously and prayerfully from now on. Let’s ask the Holy Spirit to help us use these Internet tools wisely and lovingly.

    God bless you,

  10. Mellyreed – I think Jesus expressed an enduring love when he kicked the money changers out of the temple. And I think those looking at it recognized it as the work of the Son of God.

    See the comment on this blog made by an admitted atheist.

  11. Kris said

    You have a very legalistic view of Christianity. Endorsing Romney? Come on. We’re electing the president, not a pastor. Romney may not be Christian, but he has Christian values and a conservative, constitutional platform.

    If you doubt Dr. Zacharias’s fruit then I would suggest that you listen more to his messages. Wasn’t Jesus in the presence of sinners? Didn’t Paul become all things to all men to win them over? Ravi made himself available and accessible to those people at the prayer meeting. Do you even know what he did at the prayer meeting, or are you just disappointed that it shattered your expectations of him? Ravi Zacharias is an EVANGELIST. Being in places where he shouldn’t be is exactly where our freedom in Christ allows us to be. If it clouds your conscience and proves a stumbling block for you, then I am sure he would apologize, but you are accountable for your own faith, and wouldn’t God be even more glorified if he led more people to Christ that day? Please, have a little more grace and judge the character of the man, not his appearance.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: