The Highway Forums General Discussion Open Forum Ravi speaks at the Mormon Tabernacle

Hi Wes,

As the mission field is white unto harvest, new converts are always white unto the works-justification tendencies of Arminianism and Roman Catholicism. I think we would do well, therefore, to be pro-active in teaching the truths of the Protestant Reformation from the outset rather than waiting for some heresy to be invented from within or introduced by an outsider. I don't think that the Reformation teachings are “the deserts” of Christian doctrine, but the essential pure milk of the Word. If so, then what better time to teach these truths than from the beginning?

It did not take long for the Judaizing missionaries from Palestine to prey upon recent converts with another gospel. Therefore, I think we should correct the natural tendency toward heretical and humanistic / secular thought prior to any infectious cancer taking root. In light of this, my advice would be that when we teach the A,B,C’s of the ecumenical creeds, we don’t beg any questions. When we teach that "Jesus suffered under Pontius Pilot, was crucified, died and was buried…” why should we avoid interpreting this gospel-truth in light of particular redemption? That Jesus died and rose again for the justification of his people, is the “L” of TULIP and the good news. That's my <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/my2cents.gif" alt="" />

Blessings in Christ,

Ron

Hi Ron,

I'm not suggesting setting aside the creeds or confessions we Reformers cherish. If you'll notice I was responding in this thread to the narrow view Speratus is promoting. In his replies about the statement of faith published by the Ravi Zacharias organization he insists the document is flawed. However based on his comments even the Apostle's Creed and the Nicene Creed are inadequate.

My point about the differences in ministry here in the Western world as opposed to third world countries is that we live in a post church, post modern, society. Many here can fight about doctrinal truths while not relating to different cultures and religious backgrounds. I'm in no way suggesting we compromise Calvinism but I'm saying you just don't start out with the Canons of Dort when the Apostle's Creed makes an adequate confession of faith unless you want to split hairs.


Wes

Wes,

I think I got your point on my first read of your post. I just can't go along with what you're saying. I don't think that Dort is splitting hairs. I think it's essential Christian doctrine. Nor do I think that the creeds are adequate, yet they're a great starting point. Why leave the meaning of the atonement open for anyone's interpretation? In the like manner, what does it mean that we believe in one baptism for the forgiveness of sins? I would start and finish with the Reformed confessions, but that's just my opinion. I'm just curious, how long do you think we should we wait until we tell a new convert that he's totally depraved? <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/bananas.gif" alt="" />

Grace and Peace,

Ron

Ron,

It appears that you and I are talking past each other. I didn't say Dort was splitting hairs, those are your words. I was suggesting that the Apostle's Creed was a starting point unless one wanted to split hairs. Which when I read your reply apparently you agree. I realize that the creeds are not a complete study of God, just a starting point that helps define the Christian faith. Furthermore, I've indicated that I'm not suggesting making any compromise to Calvinism so why would you interpret that I'm suggesting leaving the meaning of the atonement open for anyone's interpretation? I cherish the Reformed creeds, confessions, and catechisms. I'm in no way suggesting departing from anything in them. I'm addressing a starting point, not a graduation point. Which when I read Peter's reply in Acts 16:30.31 to the question, "What must I do to be saved?" his reply was, "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved, you and your household." Would you accept a simple confession of faith like this one? His reply was simple, yet profound. Certainly further instruction and training will follow.

Let me ask you a practical question. If you were in Japan sharing your faith with a Buddhist, or in the Middle East talking with a Muslim where would you start explaining the Christian faith?


Wes

Hey Wes,

Please note that I am trying to discuss how we should treat Christians, not the unconverted. Please read my first post once again, which speaks of new converts, etc.


In your estimation if one wants to “split hairs” he would go beyond the creeds and discuss Dort. Accordingly, for you Dort is splitting hairs.


First, I appreciate that you embrace Reformed soteriology. However, it would seem to me that if you are willing to leave it at “Jesus died and rose again”, then you’d be in agreement with any Roman Catholic, hence the creeds are not adequate to define the gospel.


I’m fully aware of what you are saying. I just disagree that the five points should be a graduation point. Don’t get me wrong, they are often treated as such but I think this is an enormous error, hence my lament. Why is the plight of man’s depravity and the grace of God’s salvation a graduation point?


Woe, woe, woe. First off, I would not accept a profession of faith without inquiring into the two natures of Christ etc. Mormons and JW’s believe what is quoted above. More importantly, however, is that we were discussing whether the five points should be considered basic teaching for the converted believer, not the unconverted hopeful who we would like to see converted. NO, I would not advise that we explicate the five points of Calvinism to the unconverted, but that was never in question.


I would state God’s person and holiness along with man’s condition and God’s remedy in Christ. “Whosoever” would be stated and electing grace would not be mentioned. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/ClapHands.gif" alt="" />

I'll ask you again, How long do you think we should we wait until we tell a new convert that he's totally depraved?

In His Grace,

Ron

If I may jump in here? To me, a person is not and will not be genuinely converted until they have some knowledge and sense of their "total depravity". The ONLY biblical reason why anyone is converted is because they have come under conviction of their 1) sinfulness, 2) sins and 3) guiltiness before God.

Mark 2:17 (ASV) "And when Jesus heard it, he saith unto them, They that are whole have no need of a physician, but they that are sick: I came not to call the righteous, but sinners."

Luke 18:10-14 (ASV) "Two men went up into the temple to pray; the one a Pharisee, and the other a publican. The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, God, I thank thee, that I am not as the rest of men, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this publican. I fast twice in the week; I give tithes of all that I get. But the publican, standing afar off, would not lift up so much as his eyes unto heaven, but smote his breast, saying, God, be thou merciful to me a sinner. I say unto you, This man went down to his house justified rather than the other: for every one that exalteth himself shall be humbled; but he that humbleth himself shall be exalted."

It seems to be more than clear to me, that Jesus is emphasizing both the objective truth that men are sinners before God AND that those who will be saved are those who have come to realize this fact within themselves. This truth is brought out in so many other passages of Scripture, that it would be difficult to post them all here. However, if one is still not convinced of this, here are but two more examples, Matthew 11:28-30; Luke 15:11-32.

So, to iterate my position and to answer your question, which I am fully aware that it doesn't represent that which you believe, a true convert will already have a some knowledge and sense of his total depravity and it is upon that foundation that one should build, i.e., become discipled into a fuller knowledge and deeper sense of it.

In His Grace,

Agreed.


Agreed.



Agreed.

Jeff,

My point is that all new converts are prime candidates to learn of TULIP.

Blessings in Christ,

Ron

I noticed nobody responded to that update.

It was from someone who is Reformed in his theology that attended the event.

In case you didn't see it, here is one section on Ravi.



Tom

Tom,

That's all well and good, i.e., that Zacharias, at least in this other man's estimation, delivered a sound description of man's depravity. However, what is missing, at least in the quote(s) you have provided, is what Zacharias said concerning how a man can overcome this depravity. As you well know, this is one area where most go astray. The biblical answer of course, is IF God should show a depraved sinner mercy and by His grace regenerate Him so that he/she is enabled to desire Christ, then and only then will they believe upon Him Who was and is the incarnate God. This radical transformation of nature is of course, a SOVEREIGN work of God which a sinner cannot initiate in any way, shape or form, e.g., believing upon Christ.

This teaching is one of those that marks out the Reformed Faith from all others. As for what Ravi Zacharias actually said at that conference, only those who were there or heard recordings of his talk actually know. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

In His Grace,

But doesn't God help those who help themselves? <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/shrug.gif" alt="" />

Seriously, I think most Arminians would say that they agree with total depravity, {totally in fact}.<img src="/forum/images/graemlins/rofl.gif" alt="" /> It's just a shame they don't understand what it means!<img src="/forum/images/graemlins/confused.gif" alt="" />

Blessings,

Ron

I just got off the phone with someone from Ravi's ministry.
I told them that their statement of faith was too generic to know where they stood. The person responded that they do this because they do not want to get into the Arminian vs. Calvinist debate; they are more of an apologist ministry.

I for one, based on what they said to me could not support them.

Tom

<img src="/forum/images/graemlins/scratchchin.gif" alt="" /> Now what I would have asked the person on the phone is what the ministry is making an apologetic for? If it isn't Arminianism, and it isn't Calvnisim, then what "truth" are they defending? <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/rolleyes2.gif" alt="" />

Pilgrim

Those questions came to mind, however I got the feeling by her answers, that I was wasting my breath if I pursued this issue more than I already did.
However, if someone wants to pursue it, here is the number they can reach them.
770-449-6766

Tom

Speratus,

I'm a bit confused by your point. Elswhere you stated:


I don't see that the creed you sited meets your other requirement of confessing that Jesus remains man. Can't someone who confesses this creed equally believe that Jesus is God and man (now) but will not be throughout eternity? The creed you quote speaks of the present, but is it a perpetual present? I'm not trying to give you a hard time; I am just trying to point out that it's hard to pass under such scrutiny. I don't think that Ravi's statement about the incarnation may be manipulated to imply something that he clearly does not say. Nor should the creed be twisted into saying such a thing.

Ravi stated:


Unless Ravi changed the meaning of who "he" is, Jesus is still God and man in one person. I don't think it is fair to require of Ravi that he need to be more explicit than he has been. Don't get me wrong, it would have been nice had he aligned himself with the historic creeds of the church, but I don't think it was necessary.

Peace,

Ron

Ron,

To put the best construction on Ravi's motives, he did not intend to include in his ministry those who teach that Christ cast off his humanity and did not truly rise from the dead. But those false teachers have no problem saying that Jesus, according to His divinity, rose from the dead and is seated at the right hand of God.

No creed can guard against every heresy. But no creed should be written in such a way as to confirm a popular heresy.

Note: I also put the best construction on Ravi's refusal to enter the Arminian/Calvinist debate even though my experience is that most ministries that refuse to enter the debate are Arminian.