What is this all about?

I can only assume that, having visited this website and particularly this page, you would want some idea as to what this website is and what it aims to achieve. Beginning with what this website is not and then explaining what it actually is, I hope "the What" becomes clear.

What this is not

This is Not a Defence

Contrary to what some seem adamant on forcing, this is not a defence of the late apologist, Ravi Zacharias. For starters, who am I —and who is anyone, for that matter—to defend anyone else as it pertains to the heavenly realm? The Apostle Paul writes to Timothy, “For there is one God, and one mediator also between God and mankind, the man Christ Jesus.” John writes in his first epistle, “My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin. And if anyone sins, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous.No, this is not a defence because I cannot even defend myself as a sinner before Him who is righteous, who is Holy, who is perfect.

The second reason why this is not a defence is because for it to be so, one would beg to ask the question, before whom am I defending? Certainly not before God. We already established that I don’t qualify to even defend myself before God—none of us qualify in that regard. Before whom then? If you’re thinking “the public” then I would ask you, since when have they become the judge? They are one and the same those who called out, “Crucify Him!” when Pilate asked what he should do with Jesus Christ. They were the ones who stoned Stephen. They are the ones who, today, still hate the truth and run after evil. No, not before the public. To whom then? His friends, his family? They knew the man a thousand times more than I ever did and at a much deeper level. It remains then that for it to be a defence, I am left with no one before whom to defend the man and so it would otherwise be a pointless exercise. 

So when I am left with nothing that qualifies me to defend and no one before whom I need to defend, the last question that we need to ask is, is there at least a reason that requires a defence? If a wrong has indeed been committed then no defence ought to satisfy but if no wrong has been committed then no defence is necessary.

When what we have on one side is a grossly biased and opinionated report based on rumours from unnamed people — remember, no evidence has been shown, only rumours of such evidence — and then on the other side, perhaps also, a grossly biased testimony from the family of the accused, we cannot be certain that wrong has indeed been committed.

If Ravi Zacharias indeed is guilty of every sin that he is being accused of then who can defend those sins? We do not and cannot and will not and ought not defend sin regardless of how small or how large. That does not rob the man of his salvation. That is not how salvation works. His repentance and his heart are a matter which only God can understand and know. Let Him deal how He sees fit.

On the other hand, if Ravi Zacharias is innocent on every account then what exactly would I be defending?

“If a wrong has indeed been committed then no defence ought to satisfy but if no wrong has been committed then no defence is necessary.”

What this is

This is a Torchlight

Just a mere torchlight shedding some light to areas that seem to be completely forgotten, or rather purposely hidden, by many in so-called Christian circles. It has been shocking to see what well-known preachers are willing to say and do in order to shift the limelight away from their own private lives.

It is not my intention to pass judgement nor to shed light on anyone’s private life. I simply want to point our attention to real truths that many are choosing to avoid. Worse, many sins are being justified with the excuse that it is for a good cause.

There is never a good cause for sinning nor is there any justification for it. Sin is sin, whether it is sexual in nature or mere gossip and slander. We ought not take part in either.

[More to come]

Pin It on Pinterest