# Ravi and LDS



## InevitablyReformed

I recently watched Ravi Zacharias give a sermon at the LDS temple in Utah. I was very disappointed. Mind you, it was a great sermon, but he was talking to Mormons who do not believe in the Jesus Christ of the Bible. I couldn't help but wonder if the fact that they loved his sermon meant that he just didn't shake them up enough. I think he punted. 

Has anyone else seen it? If so, what did you think?
[video=youtube;fDFKybwLvmA]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fDFKybwLvmA&feature=related[/video]


----------



## Simply_Nikki

He kept saying "our Lord" as if the Mormons worship the same Lord as Ravi. Why not have just a formal debate or something? I thought the sermon itself was very good until it cut off =) lol. I don't know what to think of sharing the pulpit in this fashion with a cult. I suppose it is a great opportunity to preach the truth to people who distort the true gospel, surely God could have used it to actually convict some of them to repent and turn away from their heresy, but hmm.. i dunno. I do heart Ravi though. 



InevitablyReformed said:


> I recently watched Ravi Zacharias give a sermon at the LDS temple in Utah. I was very disappointed. Mind you, it was a great sermon, but he was talking to Mormons who do not believe in the Jesus Christ of the Bible. I couldn't help but wonder if the fact that they loved his sermon meant that he just didn't shake them up enough. I think he punted.
> 
> Has anyone else seen it? If so, what did you think?
> YouTube - Ravi Zacharias Speaks at LDS Church Part 1


----------



## InevitablyReformed

I think you have to watch it piece by piece. I don't know how to make it run continuously. I really enjoy listening to Ravi, I was just surprised by the lack of distinction that he made between the Jesus of the Bible and the LDS Jesus.


----------



## Clay7926

Would this sermon happen to be from Christmastime of '05 or '06? I recall that there was a controversy concerning Ravi Zacharias and Michael Card speaking and performing at a LDS service. A number of folks made the same observation about the sermon as you, Daniel, but a number of believers who were there also said that Mr. Card and Mr. Zacharias unashamedly declared the gospel. 

Me...I'm glad you found the sermon in question. I plan to watch and post my thoughts later. See you tomorrow at worship!


----------



## calgal

Ravi did present Christ (Sandra Tanner did make a point of stating that) but Mouw simply was Mouw, bless his heart. I think Mouw's behavior at the service (unacceptable is the kindest word to describe it) was the issue most folks had with that whole discussion. The president of Fuller Sem stated Christians should participate in celebrating the birthday of an idolized heretic (Joseph Smith founder of the mormon cult).  As for me and my household, although there are individual mormons we count as friends, we cannot and will not pray with them unless they confess Jesus as their Lord and Savior (the Great I Am, not the naturally conceived son of an ascended man that the mormons worship as the Christ ).


----------



## staythecourse

> He kept saying "our Lord" as if the Mormons worship the same Lord as Ravi.



Good point Nikki. He should have blasted them ala Paul in Athens, setting them up with their religiosity, worshipping a false God with false prophets, etc. There should have been a clear distinction between the damning false gospel they peddle and the truth in Christ. A simple formula of "we believe... but YOU say...." would have been effective, convicting, and hopefully soul-saving for some there.


----------



## InevitablyReformed

Clay7926 said:


> Would this sermon happen to be from Christmastime of '05 or '06? I recall that there was a controversy concerning Ravi Zacharias and Michael Card speaking and performing at a LDS service. A number of folks made the same observation about the sermon as you, Daniel, but a number of believers who were there also said that Mr. Card and Mr. Zacharias unashamedly declared the gospel.
> 
> Me...I'm glad you found the sermon in question. I plan to watch and post my thoughts later. See you tomorrow at worship!



Hey Henry,

Good to see you on the PB!

I'm not sure how recent this was. I would be interested to see if anyone on the PB is familiar with the circumstances surrounding this sermon (time, purpose, etc.). Maybe someone will bring these things to light.


----------



## DMcFadden

Mouw and Ravi appearing at this "service" raised a good bit of ire on the part of many. Mouw's effort to go out of his way to apologize to Mormons for the way evangelical's have treated them was especially offensive to numbers of the evangelical community. Again, as Gail suggests, it was Mouw being Mouw.


----------



## Reformed Christian

InevitablyReformed said:


> I think he punted.



Wasn't it Ravi on a recent National Day of Prayer who did not end his prayer "in Jesus' name?"


----------



## thywillnotminebedone

Reformed Christian said:


> InevitablyReformed said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think he punted.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wasn't it Ravi on a recent National Day of Prayer who did not end his prayer "in Jesus' name?"
Click to expand...


indeed, click here for the story. still i think Ravi is the man!! my church does events with certain guide lines like this and a lot of people get mad about it. myself included. but there is a time and a place to be all things to all men.


----------



## Herald

DMcFadden said:


> Mouw and Ravi appearing at this "service" raised a good bit of ire on the part of many. Mouw's effort to go out of his way to apologize to Mormons for the way evangelical's have treated them was especially offensive to numbers of the evangelical community. Again, as Gail suggests, it was Mouw being Mouw.



I read Mouw's book, "Calvinism in the Las Vegas Airport" and noticed immediately his almost apologetic view of being a Calvinist. So when I heard that he spoke to the Mormons I was aghast but not surprised. Personally, I can't take the man seriously anymore.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Does anyone know how his address ended? I'm not defending him, per se, but I also wouldn't want to rush to judgment on the basis of 10 minutes of his address.


----------



## InevitablyReformed

North Jersey Baptist said:


> DMcFadden said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mouw and Ravi appearing at this "service" raised a good bit of ire on the part of many. Mouw's effort to go out of his way to apologize to Mormons for the way evangelical's have treated them was especially offensive to numbers of the evangelical community. Again, as Gail suggests, it was Mouw being Mouw.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I read Mouw's book, "Calvinism in the Las Vegas Airport" and noticed immediately his almost apologetic view of being a Calvinist. So when I heard that he spoke to the Mormons I was aghast but not surprised. Personally, I can't take the man seriously anymore.
Click to expand...


Who's Mouw?


----------



## Herald

Richard J. Mouw is the President of Fuller Theological Seminary. He addressed the Momons in Salt Lake City and apologized for the way they have been treated by Christians. I suppose he was trying to remove obstacles in continued dialog with Mormons. Unfortunately all he did was to show his underbelly to a pack of wolves. Had he asked me I would have told him to read the book of Acts before he addressed one of the most heretical cults of our time.


----------



## Barnpreacher

This is the last part of the message.

This is a tough one for me. He obviously preached the true Gospel of Jesus Christ while he was there, but it did seem like he was taking for granted that was the gospel the Mormon's believed as well.

He talked about a "common ground" in the first 10 minutes. I think what he meant by that was they had a common ground in that he had something he wanted to talk to them about and the mormons were willing to listen. I mean, come on now, Ravi is no dummy. Intellectually he is smarter than most of us put together. He knows there are gospel differences. He said as much. I think he was just taking the opportunity to preach the true Gospel of Jesus Christ to a group of people that may never hear the truth (in the manner in which he presented it, anyway).

[video=youtube;KFtV-Am9aik]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KFtV-Am9aik&feature=related[/video]


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Thanks Ryan for including the end of the address. I wish I could say that I was impressed but when you're preaching to a crowd that can say "Amen" to everything you just preached and it still leaves them dead in their sins then I'm grieved.

It's not that the Mormon lacks _a_ Jesus Christ. It's what they think He represents. They'll agree all day long on man's need for Christ but why that need is the difference between eternal life and death.


----------



## Glenn Hendrickson

I agree with the individuals who expressed disappointment in Mouw's apology. He was way out of line. Evangelicals like Walter Martin and the Tanners went to great lengths to study and accurately represent Mormonism. Mouw should have known better.


----------



## DMcFadden

From his days shilling for the McGovern campaign in '72, Mouw has tried to combine evangelical theology and "progressive" politics. His signing of the dialog with Islam document a year or two ago was the same kind of "bridge building" effort (we pray to the same God?). Dr. Mouw has certainly positioned Fuller as the "evangelical" seminary that talks to and with everybody. His commitment to dialogue as a lifestyle is either very commendable or very stupid. But, either way, that is his thing. Whether Mormons, Jews, Mulsims, Emergents, or radical Feminists . . . Dr. Mouw is there for them. Just about the only group I don't hear about getting such special treatment are conservative evangelicals and the confessionally Reformed. But, perhaps I missed an alum magazine or e-mail or two.


----------



## Poimen

I don't have any interest in watching the clip at this point but I do want to share something with you that is relevant to the discussion at hand. A member of my former congregation shared a book with me that was written by a Mormon. It was a doctrinal treatise of some sort and was, in fact, clearer and more biblical than many things written & presented by evangelicals!

One of two things must be true: 1) he wasn't really a Mormon 2) he was a good liar/deceiver. It seems to me that option 2 is the most realistic which is frightening since he sounded so orthodox. 

My point is this: we must preach the gospel in all its purity and optimism. But if we don't challenge and warn people of error and heresy then we really haven't declared the whole counsel of God. Otherwise people go away without being offended, as many were when our Lord and His apostles preached the truth.


----------



## Barnpreacher

Semper Fidelis said:


> It's not that the Mormon lacks _a_ Jesus Christ. It's what they think He represents. They'll agree all day long on man's need for Christ but why that need is the difference between eternal life and death.





Poimen said:


> My point is this: we must preach the gospel in all its purity and optimism. But if we don't challenge and warn people of error and heresy then we really haven't declared the whole counsel of God. Otherwise people go away without being offended, as many were when our Lord and His apostles preached the truth.



Good points, guys. 

Wasn't there a stink about this a couple of years ago? I remember something about it, and I remember struggling to give Ravi the benefit of the doubt back then. I'm still struggling to give him the benefit of the doubt today (concerning this issue), but I'm trying.

I think someone above said it best. This should have been some kind of debate. Instead it was as if Ravi was honored to be there *among* them instead of simply preaching the truth to them. If you're in a situation where you can't declare to someone in a clear and concise way why they are wrong according to the Scriptures then you either should be debating them or you shouldn't be there at all.


----------



## Blue Tick

I was there in the Mormon conference center Ravi gave his sermon. He was articulate, methodical, and clear. In fact it was a clear message, if I remember correctly, of the gospel. It was as if he was addressing Christians but there was no antithesis when he addressed the people. The problem when talking with Mormons is, if terms and definitions aren't defined they'll just agree and nod their heads and say "we believe the same thing". He did not distinguish between the Mormon Jesus and the Lord Jesus Christ. So, the result was a bunch of Evangelicals and Mormons getting together and singing (with Michael Card) praise songs. It was was dishearting in one sense but also encouraging to here the gospel presented to the LDS. 

The most unsettling incident was when Richards Mouw apologized to the LDS for the manner or way in which Christians had or treat Mormons. It was presented in a way that elevated the Mormons to the status of "martyrs" and identified the Christians as unloving. Sure, there are some Christians who are not the best ambassadors for Christ when speaking to (e.g. Salt Lake City Street Preachers) Mormons; but for Richard Mouw to apologize to the LDS was a bit theatrical and sappy.


----------



## mvdm

As an additional tidbit, Mouw used to teach at Calvin College in Grand Rapids. I had him as a professor for an Ethics class. That he embraces broad ecumenicity with just about anyone is no surprise.


----------

