Dr. Ravi Zacharias and the National Day of Prayer: Where is the name of Jesus?

Revmitchell please respond to my question

 

you, sir, drip with arrogance.

 

Ah yes...the salient point!

 

Jn 14:13 says nothing about always praying in Christ's name. Therefore I see absolutely no grounds for accusing Brother Zacharias of disobeying Scripture, but there does seem to be some rather heavy-handed legalism going on here.

The Lord's Prayer is absolutely a valid example precisely because he was teaching the disciples how to pray. Clearly the prayer was not his own, but merely an example on behalf of the disciples -- "forgive us our trespasses" would have been blasphemy if Christ prayed it himself.

 

This seems an opportunity to bring up a topic I don't like to start in on out of the blue (or any other color). If we "ask anything in Jesus' name," it will be done for us, says scripture. Then this is addended with "for the glory of God." Alright-- forget praying for old ___'s cancer to be healed, or for ___'s warts to disappear, or for ___ to get a new job with top pay and benefits, and such things... but suppose we pray in Jesus' name for the whole world to be believers in Christ immediately. Then if we take to the streets and ask everybody we see if they are believers, would they all answer "Yes?" If not-- and anyone reading this knows the answer here-- what is it that's wrong?

Are we asking "amiss," or for ourselves and not for God's glory? It doesn't seem so, unless we want to take credit for being the one to have this 'answered prayer.'

Is it because there must be '2 or 3' instead of just one praying that prayer? Well, that's easily arranged, but we know it wouldn't change the outcome (don't we?).

Is it because prayer in Jesus' name cannot 'produce' a miracle? Although I can't say I have seen any miracles produced by any means, if we rule this out, we rule much, or most, of our theology out. Nevertheless, it's also true that Christians tend to call things "miracles" which are debatable as such, and some which definitely are not [like getting cured of the flu].

Is it because the only one, or the only thing, that prayer might change is the person who prays and/or the person(s) who hears (not referring to God)? This one is hard (for me, anyway) to answer. As I said, I have not seen prayer produce a miracle; although from our perspective the sick person getting well, or the rain coming after a drought, may be "answered prayer" if we prayed for such, and this does follow Jesus' words to pray for our needs and thank God for when we receive them. But the question of "does it change God's mind" is one we cannot prove either way. And the same thing goes for the idea that if God intended all along to do something for us that it wouldn't have happened if we hadn't prayed... which brings us right back to the concept that we can only change ourselves by praying.

Is it because we would be asking God to contradict himself, as the Word tells us that WE are to go and teach what Jesus taught in all nations? And if simply asking in Jesus' name for all people to immediately become believers had been a possibility, the apostles would have done that instead of going out and getting beaten and killed making disciples. That brings us back again to prayer changing ourselves-- in this case, inspiring and encouraging ourselves and our brothers and sisters-- instead of being the 'short cut' to God's glory. This answer, I think, is getting there. Jesus did the saving work by his sacrifice, and he continually does it by being our High Priest before the Father. But we don't have any free rides or short cuts. We are still subject to the diseases, the heartbreaks, the persecutions and death of a sinful world. We will share Christ's glory, but we must also share his work. If God didn't give himself a free ride to glory because he gave up his Son, where do we get the idea that he will give us these free rides and short cuts just by saying "...in Jesus' name?"

"In Jesus' name" is not a magic chant that forces God to hear and act on our prayers. It is the designation of the authority by which we pray; the invocating of which is such a greater privilege than we deserve that if we think we can demand more than that, we need a refesher course in the basics of who God is and who we are.

 

So many people are so offended by the name of Jesus Christ that it has become a cuss word to many. God is also used as a cuss word, and yet you never hear anyone use the name of any false god as profanity. People are afraid of offending others by using His name in public.

 

See the verse I posted earlier.

Our authority to bring a prayer request into the presence of God is through Jesus. Why would anyone want to leave Jesus out of prayer.
Compromise.

 

I saw your verse. My point is that if this was the "way" we are to pray, why did Jesus not say this and model this? I think it is a legitmate question.

 

Because Jesus did not need to pray in His own name.
When He told us to ask in His name, He was telling us.

 

So true. I am sad that Ravi would be a part of such a thing. What good is the day of prayer, if the Father is not glorified in the Son. None. Prayers are just empty words, that do no good--just feed the ego of the one doing the praying.

 

If I may answer this Barb. I hope you don't mind. Jesus did tell us to ask in his name..John 16;

"23In that day you will no longer ask me anything. I tell you the truth, my Father will give you whatever you ask in my name. 24Until now you have not asked for anything in my name. Ask and you will receive, and your joy will be complete.

25"Though I have been speaking figuratively, a time is coming when I will no longer use this kind of language but will tell you plainly about my Father. 26In that day you will ask in my name. I am not saying that I will ask the Father on your behalf. 27No, the Father himself loves you because you have loved me and have believed that I came from God. 28I came from the Father and entered the world; now I am leaving the world and going back to the Father."

:jesus:

 

yes

This compromising falls short of the glory of God.

 

I ask this and ask this sincerely.
What is the difference between Ravi Zacharias' not ending his prayer in the Name of Jesus (though He ended it in God's Name which to my mind is one and the same) and the following Scriptural incidents ?

The Jerusalem church's question: why put ye a yoke between us and them ?

In other words, between those who name the Name of Christ, why should there be a division on the means of salvation ? IT IS THROUGH THE GRACE OF THE LORD JESUS CHRIST......whether this is eternal salvation or timely salvation does not matter. Both are by grace.

One chapter later, here is Paul, the great Apostle, the Apostle to the Gentiles, violating what has been agreed upon in the council at Jerusalem, or did he indeed violate the decision ?

Dr. Zacharias was indeed tasked to lead the prayer on this stupid National Day of Prayer (as if there should only be one such day), but the very essence of this national day of prayer is that ALL come. Whether they be 7th Day Adventists, or Baptists, or Catholics, or Muslims, that ALL come and pray.

Jews AND believers, if you will.

He opted to be diplomatic about it, and not offend the Jews, just as Paul opted to be diplomatic about Timothy and circumcise him, to show the Jews that Timothy also, who believed as he did regarding Jesus Christ, nevertheless, submitted to the rituals of his Jewish mother.

WAS PAUL ASHAMED OF CHRIST ?
WAS ZACHARIAH ASHAMED OF CHRIST ?

And as if these incidents were not enough, proceed five chapters later, to Acts 21. Observe Paul submitting himself to the rites of purification along with Jews who had this vow, RIGHT THERE IN JERUSALEM, with the knowledge of James, the pastor of the church whom ALMOST EVERY BAPTIST ON THIS BOARD claims his church originated from, the very church who decreed not to put a yoke around the neck of Gentile believers !

If Ravi Zacharias decided not to be so 'IN YOUR FACE' during that meaningless day he was being diplomatic, like Paul, and fulfilling what Jesus said: "LOVE YOUR ENEMIES". Love doesn't necessarily mean kiss them, and fuss all over them, and bend over backwards and forwards for them so they can do every stupid and evil thing they want to do with you. Love also means not to be an offense !

Jesus could have said, "what ? me, pay tithes ? are you out of your mind ? YOU know who I am, why should I pay tithes ?".

But no, he said : "give unto Caesar that which is Caesar's, and unto God that which is God's".

And who will give God that which is God's ?

His children, His people.

If Ravi Zacharias had been asked to grace a WorldWide Baptists' Convention to give the opening invocation, and he did not end the prayer in Jesus' Name, and gave the reason to be "so as not to offend the reporters here who do not believe", then let us be upset ! That is after all supposed to be a gathering of people of God !

But a stupid National Day of Prayer ? That is not a gathering of God's people.

It is good enough that our Lord is represented by one of His own, everybody knows who Ravi Zacharias is, that is why they invited him.
They know what and whom he stands for.
And that, friends, can hardly be said of many "Christians" and preachers today.

 

There is a thread in one of the forums about parents who prayed while their daughter died of diabetes.

According to the father, it is because he considered it to be a test of faith.
The mother never even considered taking her child to the doctor.

If I may say, I've met "Christians" like these, and there is no one more fervent in ending their prayers "in Jesus' Name" than these types.

So, why is everybody calling it tragic in that thread ? Why are some calling that those parents be put to jail ?

What's the point ?

The point is that it is this brand of Christianity that makes a mockery of the very faith and Name they profess so boldly before everybody.

Along with the IN YOUR FACE type which says you can all fart and burp and throw up and roll over dead if you want, I will end my prayer in Jesus' Name because I am a Christian and I am supposed to do that, and I don't care if you all get offended or mock my Savior, and anybody calling himself a Christian and doesn't end his prayer, in front of unbelievers and nominal Christians, in Jesus' Name is not worthy of the Name.

Those parents are victims of wrong doctrines who might as well have been going to snake handling, poison drinking, getting slain-by-the-Spirit kind of churches (which maybe they are).

And, oh, don't the media like to feast on them !

 

He was not asked to preach.
He was asked to pray.

My argument is on whether or not it is appropriate not to offend unbelievers in a gathering which is not for believers anyway.

Please stay within the context of the discussion, and don't make others out who feel Dr. Zacharias did the right thing to be unobtrusive to be like they were heathen or liberals, and you are the only one who cares about the Savior.

You all used Scripture to condemn a man who was bolder and more effective than some I have heard in tv or radio preaching the Word.

Now I gave you three Scriptures.
Explain away Paul's behavior is the challenge I gave.

Rise up to the challenge.