More heresy… *UPDATE*
Posted by Phil Miller on Apr 24th, 2008
2008
Apr 24
Since Ravi Zacharias is now labeled as an apostate, I’d thought it would be apropo to point out some more apostasy from another elder statesmen of evangelicalism.
“The hallmark of an authentic evangelicalism is not the uncritical repetition of old traditions, but the willingness to submit every tradition, however ancient, to fresh biblical scrutiny, and, if necessary, reform.”
John Stott
Looks the Emergents have gotten their claws in another one…
***UPDATE (by Chris L)***
For those who might not understand where Ingrid’s article references Ravi Zacharias as being apostate, please see the graphic below:
______________
It is hard to find a ‘charitable’ reading of this to suggest otherwise.
April 24th, 2008 at 10:35 am
I wonder when the folks at worldview weekend kick Ravi off their site? They cozy up to Ingred, Silva, Comfort and many other “watchmen” that there is no way they can have an apostate on the side. Sheesh, these folks are unreal.
April 25th, 2008 at 5:54 am
Do the words “apostate” or “apostasy” appear in Ingrid’s article?
April 25th, 2008 at 8:20 am
Bud - She has it categorized under “Apostasy Alert” and “Abominations”
April 25th, 2008 at 9:14 am
Mrs. Schlueter says “is refusing to pray in the name of Jesus Christ in his prayer posted on the official NDP website.” That makes it sound like he was asked to and refused.
“Contrast that betrayal of Jesus Christ” - She doesn’t say he compromised, or we understand his intentions but…, or we strongly disagree with this approach, no, she says a betrayal of Jesus Christ. That can surely mean apostacy.
April 25th, 2008 at 9:18 am
Speaking as one enemy of Jesus to another, buck up Ravi, with enemies like us, Jesus doesn’t need friends.
April 25th, 2008 at 9:26 am
Apostacy is a very strong word to throw around. It hurts me on the inside to hear it used too much.
April 25th, 2008 at 1:44 pm
Hi Chris L:
You wrote: “Bud - She has it categorized under “Apostasy Alert” and “Abominations”
Stephen King’s book, “The Stand” is categorized under your blog’s Recommending Reading list. Should I immediately interpret that as your being in favor of the destruction of the world? Of course not.
Dictionary.com defines the word “apostate” as “a person who forsakes his religion.” The Bible defines it as “falling away” and to “depart from the faith” (2 Thessalonians 2:3; 1 Timothy 4:1-2).
Words are important…
In Christian love,
Bud Press
April 25th, 2008 at 1:53 pm
No Bud, you should interpret it as “Recommended Reading” as that’s what its categorized under, just as you should interpret Ingrid’s categorizing Ravi as apostate and abominable as apostate and abominable.
If only fundies would take words seriously and interpret literally rather than metaphorically.
April 25th, 2008 at 1:54 pm
An apple is red, and orange is orange.
Different.
April 25th, 2008 at 2:39 pm
Actually, Bud, it is on my Recommended Reading list as “Favorite Fiction”, so I would expect that you would categorize me as believing that “The Stand” is Fiction.
In the same manner, if someone were to categorize Ravi Z’s involvement in the NDP under “Abominations” and “Apostasy Watch” that they believed Ravi was committing apostasy and participating in an abomination.
Let’s compare apples to apples and oranges, please. [It's no wonder discernmentalists like Ingrid and yourself have such a hard time piecing together basic things like logic...]
April 25th, 2008 at 2:44 pm
My apologies - I just re-read the parenthetical at the end of my last comment, and it reads much more harsh than what was intended…
April 25th, 2008 at 2:49 pm
Hi Chris L:
My point is that Ingrid’s article did not contain the words “apostate” or “apostasy,” nor did it contain the words “dipstick” or “flange-head” or “stuck in stupid.”
When reading an article (or a blog post), it is important that we not assume or imply something that isn’t there.
Words are important, and can be used to lead or mislead…
In Christian love,
Bud Press
April 25th, 2008 at 2:54 pm
“Let’s compare apples to apples and oranges, please.”
OK. An apple is a red or golden or green fruit grown on trees.
A orange is an orange citrus fruit grown on trees.
An apostate is one who has left the faith.
Someone who has preached the gospel in many hostile situations, travelled the world and had his life threatened because he preached Jesus, and who has spoken repentance and Christ to millions but made a mistake is…is….well….a mistake maker like all of us.
Someone who uses that kind of mistake to bring attention to her “out of the kitchen” experience, and who posts spurious pictures and facts about a sixteen year old girl but will not come down from her ivory microphone long enough to apologize, someone who seeks out the personal sins of others so she can construct another gossip article, is…is…well…an accuser.
That is an accurate comparison of rotten apples and oranges.
April 25th, 2008 at 2:54 pm
Bud,
I am wondering how one should interpret Ingrid classifying the story as an “Apostasy Alert”? Ingrid wasn’t really “implying” anything there.
April 25th, 2008 at 3:03 pm
Chris L:
Apology accepted.
Bud
April 25th, 2008 at 3:43 pm
Bud,
I’ve updated the article to reflect where Ingrid labeled Mr. Zacharias as being apostate.
Now, it is interesting that you wrote:
I will be sure to file that re: Matthew 23:2-3.
So, for example, if I were to apply this verse in real life:
Let us say that I were to read a book in which the author is describing the canonization of scripture in the Fourth Century (Synod of Hippo, Councils of Carthage, etc.), and how, when we say that we have faith in the truth of the Bible, that we are also having faith that God led the men who canonized its book.
Would I be violating the principle you stated if I decided to take a snippet of this section of this author’s book and declare that he denies Sola Scriptura? By doing this, would I “assume or imply something that isn’t there”, and would that be a violation of Biblical principal?
April 25th, 2008 at 3:59 pm
Chris L-
I’m waiting for the ODMs to say, well, it’s an alert, like a warning. Like when there is a weather alert by the National Weather Service. It doesn’t mean there is bad weather, it means there might be bad weather. So, Ravi might be apostate.
I’m learning to think ODM. And I feel much more stupid.
April 25th, 2008 at 4:13 pm
I agree, words are important and we should not imply what is not there. In fact, that is why blogs use categories, because they have meaning and can help assign meaning to so there is less misunderstanding.
Since Ingrid created a category called “Apostasy” and posted against Ravi under that category… a simple employment of literal/plain meaning leads to “Ravi is promoting apostasy.”
In contrast, you say she did not use the word “stupid” - which is correct, therefore if we claimed she called Ravi stupid you would have a good argument. But as it is, you don’t.
Neil
April 25th, 2008 at 4:22 pm
Wow. The issue is what Ravi did, what should he have done, and in what verbiage should we approach this. At the rsik of eliciting incoming myself, I would never agree to construct a prayer and abide by the “no Jesus” parameters.
But the word apsotate is as strong as it gets. I am looking for Ravi to substantiate his apostate status by going to a Hannah Montana concert!
April 25th, 2008 at 5:01 pm
Hello everyone:
Let’s get back to basics. Please allow me to put things in terms everyone can hopefully understand.
1. Matt B posted his “Ravi’s Apostate?” notation, and stated “This has obviously been a bad week for Slice and Ingrid’s self declared ‘gift’ of discernment. The writer filed this post under ‘Apostasy Alert’, effectively declaring that Ravi has fallen away from the Christian faith” (note the words “effectively declaring”).
2. The headline to this thread states, “More heresy…*UPDATE*.” The intro to this thread states, “Since Ravi Zacharias is now labeled as an apostate…” (note the words “now labeled as an apostate”).
3. I wrote and simply asked, “Do the words ‘apostate’ or ‘apostasy’ appear in Ingrid’s article?” (note that I didn’t say headline or category, but “article.”)
Now, please allow me to simplify my original question: Where do the words “apostate” or “apostasy” or, that “Ravi has fallen away from the Christian faith” appear in Ingrid’s article?
Indeed, words are important. They can lead, mislead, build-up or destroy.
Thank you for allowing me to post in this blog.
In Christian love,
Bud Press
April 25th, 2008 at 5:15 pm
“Indeed, words are important. They can lead, mislead, build-up or destroy.”
Ya think?
Bob, if you posted something that was a lie about a teenage girl would you apologize because words can lead, mislead, build-up, or destroy? Or would you say:
“I will not apologize for linking to stories from major media that are presented as fact.”
Let me paraphrase: If I lead people with my links to slanderous lies I take no responsibility.
Yep, words are important. BTW - you Christian tone is duly noted and appreciated.
April 25th, 2008 at 5:17 pm
Bud,
We don’t block/delete comments from anyone (though we reserve the right to delete outright blasphemy and vulgarity).
To address your question:
If you look at the screenshot I attached, the word ‘apostasy’ and ‘abomination’ BOTH appear in the article (as labels at the top). These are not some random-associations unrelated to the content of the article’s body, but they are a part of the article (which includes the headline, the categorization, the body, the timestamp, the author, etc.).
In short, Ingrid chose ‘apostasy alert’ and ‘abomination’ as the taxonometric description of the article she wrote, which reasonably infers that the content could be categorized as an ‘abomination’ and ‘apostasy’. She labeled it this way.
Now - it seems very much that you are straining a gnat but swallowing a camel here, missing the overall point being made. (or, in layman’s terms, ‘majoring in the minors and minoring in the majors’).
Now, I would like to revisit the advice you gave previously and the question related to it, which you have not yet answered:
If I were to apply this advice in real life:
Let us say that I were to read a book in which the author is describing the canonization of scripture in the Fourth Century (Synod of Hippo, Councils of Carthage, etc.), and how, when we say that we have faith in the truth of the Bible, that we are also having faith that God led the men who canonized its book.
Would I be violating the principle you stated if I decided to take a snippet of this section of this author’s book and declare that he denies Sola Scriptura? By doing this, would I “assume or imply something that isn’t there”, and would that be a violation of Biblical principal?
April 25th, 2008 at 5:41 pm
Bud,
Not that I’m giving ground to your unfounded argument - but there is a sense that we employ terms like “heresy” in an obviously hyperbolic sense - in direct contrast to ODM’s who banter it around in regards to anyone with whom they disagree.
Neil
April 25th, 2008 at 5:42 pm
The bottom line is, you objection is moot to the thesis of the post - that Ingrid’s attack on Dr. Zacharias was shameful.
Neil
April 25th, 2008 at 5:46 pm
Bud,
Furthermore, in your comments above you imply something happened from 1. to 2., that Ravi went from being “effectively declaring” to “labeled” - same thing.
Ingrid declared and labeled Ravi as an example of apostasy.
Neil
April 25th, 2008 at 5:51 pm
Perhaps as an example to the silliness of the hair you’re trying to split:
If one of your ‘discernment’ targets had an article on the inerrency of scripture and he categorized that article under ‘fiction’ and ‘cults’, would you not consider this to be evidence of anti-Christian writings?
April 25th, 2008 at 6:25 pm
Uh, I guess I’m having trouble understanding where Bud is coming from. I must be a little, uh, hungry. Could someone explain to me what part of this he isn’t getting? I mean, logic wasn’t my best subject, but even I can see what the point is. Why can’t he? Or is it me?
I think Bud is playing you guys. Chris, I don’t want to be, uh mean or anything, but you are using a ‘C’ to spell your name. You know that right? Just checking.
jerry
April 25th, 2008 at 6:30 pm
Neil - may I suggest a defined and substantial difference between “heretic” which implies objectionable teaching and “apostate” which implies rejecting the faith?
April 25th, 2008 at 6:49 pm
[...] night that I was sleeping so I guess that means I am advocating, uh, sleep.) But the point is that words mean things. Words are not devoid of content even when they are ripped out of their context. So all those [...]
April 25th, 2008 at 8:12 pm
I want to thank Bud Press for pointing out how close the readers of SoL look at the articles. I suppose they follow up an look at the sources before they come and defend Ingrid to see if what is said is true of not…
Again thanks!
iggy = )
April 25th, 2008 at 8:31 pm
Sometimes when I catch up on these threads, I start feeling like I’m taking crazy pills. It kinda freaks me out.