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

rev, you have taken to task Dr. Zacharias on his decision not to offend Jewish members of the audience in an event which was not Christian in the way we understand what a Christian event is.

His decision was so as not to offend.

Paul's decision to circumcise Timothy was so as not to offend.

You and others here seem to be questioning the boldness of Dr. Zacharias in his Christianity and you all want him to always, as a believer, end his prayer with the phrase "in Jesus' Name".

You say he is weak and timid in that he compromised by simply saying "In God's Name".

Why ?

Is the word God, to you, a representation of just any deity ? And to end a prayer in such a way is simply a "generalized" ending, if you will ?

God is Jesus, and Jesus is God, and in his heart, Dr. Zacharias knew Who he meant, and to Whom he offered the prayer. Those in the audience may think that the God in whose Name Ravi Zacharias ended his prayer is the same God as theirs, but they may lack the same personal relationship that Dr. Zacharias has with his God.

Therefore, it is not where the prayer is said, how it is said, and why it was said thusly, but who is praying.

On the other hand, that family you cited in the other thread were doing everything right in accordance to what and how you will probably define faith, as well as how many in this board will define faith.

As a result, their daughter died.

So how come everybody is saying they were wrong. Some want to put them in prison for a long time. They did not compromise, and stood on how they think their daughter's illness should be dealt in and with, and that is in faith and with faith.

It seems to me that unless one acts and thinks in accord and in line with how you think, one is either weak, in error, ignorant, or stupid, as you now imply I am.

As for the circumcision, the motive of Paul, as I see it, is to be of non-offense to the Jews, which is the motive of Dr. Zacharias.

So far, all you have done is to reflect on how ignorant and biblically illiterate I am, and have not dealt with the Scriptures I have given.

 

Nothing new under the sun

This same controversy was encountered in Acts.

Ac 5:40 And to him they agreed: and when they had called the apostles, and beaten them, they commanded that they should not speak in the name of Jesus, and let them go.

I do believe that Jewish pressure did not stop the apostles from speaking in the name of Jesus.

 

Your contention is that Dr. Ravi Zacharias compromised and betrayed the Lord by not ending his prayer with "in Jesus' Name".

I say he is no compromiser, neither did he betray the Lord with the ending phrase he chose to use.

His purpose was not to offend.

Paul's purpose was not to offend.

Whether it was prayer or circumcision that is being discussed here is of no real bearing.

The real issue is boldness and consistency.

Paul could have been bold and consistent with his stance and teaching that everything a believer has and holds on to is by grace and faith, and refused to circumcise Timothy on that ground.

Ravi Zacharias could have bold and consistent with how he, as a child of God, ought to end his prayer.

Both decided to be gracious instead and not offend.

There is nothing unChristian with what Dr. Zacharias has done.

Remember, he was called on to pray in a non-Christian setting.

Beth, he was not called on to preach in the Name of Jesus.

If he was called on to preach and never once mentioned Jesus or the cross then that would be a very questionable act.

But if you have ever heard Dr. Zacharias speak, you would know that is one thing he will not do.

Right now, Dr. Zacharias is being stoned in absentia by people who are supposed to be his brethren, not his enemies.

 

(Mark 8:38) Whosoever therefore shall be ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation; of him also shall the Son of man be ashamed, when he cometh in the glory of his Father with the holy angels.

Is it better to offend man? or God? We cannot take our prayers to the Father except through the Son.



(Acts 5:29) Then Peter and the [other] apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men.

 

So you think he did it out of shame?

 

This is one of the silliest, most petty discussions that I have had the opportunity to observe on this board.

Dr. Zacharias is the most effective Christian apologist with whom I am personally familiar. He is able to go to places that most us would never be invited and speak the truth of the Gospel.

Beware the yeast of the Pharisees!

We are tripping over beams to point out specks of dust.

 

To ask why he is refraining from saying the name of Jesus because of pressure?
What is he in it for? the love offering?

Acts 4:12
Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.

What is he not going to offend the Jews of? Salvation?
Is he going to cause some of them to go to hell through thier offendedness?

What is the point of praying if you are not allowed to do it in Jesus' name?

 

I'm sorry you see Jesus as only a speck.

 

This thread makes the baby Jesus cry...seriously some of ya'll need a break or something...

 

News Flash!!!

Jesus has not been a baby for 2000+ years.

 

It is sad when people follow a syndicated "preacher" rather than go to a local church where they do pray in the name above all others.

I very rarely listen to those who are syndicated, they usually stand just like water does when you pour it out. They are ecumenical for the most part and Zacharias is rigth in there with the whole bunch.

Besides, he even sounds too educated for me!:sleeping_2:

 

aAe you saying that he is ashamed of Jesus?

 

Is this a fact, or just your supposition?

 

Then you should let him know and tell him why you think he erred and should repent.
His contact information is available to anyone who wishes to contact him.
He's a living person able to defend himself, unlike Calvin or Arminius, who are both dead but favorite appetizers by many here.
It would be totally different if the identity of one under criticism on a discussion board such as this is left incognito, especially if such a one is a
professed brother-in-Christ.

I am not picking a fight with you or anyone else, rev. From what I've read of most of your posts I am mostly in agreement with what you say, except this one and some.

But I would speak up in defense of Ravi Zacharias, Chuck Stanley or John Mc'Arthur regardless of their location in the theological spectrum if I am convinced, like now, that the criticism labeled is unfounded and simply a matter of personal preference or an intractable, rigid interpretation of doctrine considered orthodox by those who profer it, just as I would defend any Arminian or Calvinist on this board for the same reason.

 

Are you asking about revmitchell, Paul, or Dr. Ravi Zacharias ?

 

The OP Leads me to think that we're not interested in correcting a "wayward brother," but rather we're interested in stirring up stuff.

The correct course would be to contact Dr. Z, rather than start a thread here.

 

I agree with you Revmitchell!:thumbs:

We do need to remember that the National Day of Prayer is an ecumenical affair and how can we expect things to be any different than they are at these affairs. The theme is never Jesus Christ...instead the theme is "Let's all hold hands and sing Kum Ba Yah"!

The Bible tells us to pray in the Name of Jesus

John 14:13 And whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son.
John 14:14 If ye shall ask any thing in my name, I will do it.

Colossians 3:17 And whatsoever ye do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God and the Father by him.

Before I got saved, I was offended by the Name of Jesus (I am Jewish by birth). We even used the Name of Jesus as a curse word. But that "offense" brought to the cross through the witness of a born again Christian (Gentile). I was saved on March 1, 1974. Perhaps if the Jews are "offended" at the Name of Jesus, some might get saved through that "offense"!

 

But ain't he the same "yesterday, today, and forever?"