Comments on: Why Pat Robertson is unbiblical

By: Bill Baar

Bill Baar — Sat, 07 Jan 2006 13:40:29 +0000

A comment from a Christian friend of mine,

This may come as a surprise to journalists who always define Robertson as “Christian spokesman” or “Christian broadcaster”. He does not speak for or hold a view of Scripture that in any way places him alongside most Christians theologically. He is a dispensationalist. And an embarrassment. More like a sensationalist when the cameras turn on. Dispensationalism briefly defined is: A method of interpreting the Bible that divides history into distinct eras or “dispensations” in which God deals with man in a distinctive way and, in some cases, in which God’s ethical standards change. In other words, God changes to fit each situation.

Christian theologians would say dispensationalists like Robertson have a wrong view of scripture. So why do Christians sit quietly by each time Robertson and his ilk get up before the news cameras and spout doctrine in the name of Christ. I know how embarrassing it is to be painted with his broad brush. Enough already! I’m begging you, all you news people, please. Get someone else as your Christian spokesman. There are so many thoughtful, knowledgeable, scriptural churchmen out there. Find someone else.

I link her here: http://baarswestside.blogspot.com/2006/01/christian-dispensationalism.html

By: Chris Malott

Chris Malott — Sat, 07 Jan 2006 13:27:42 +0000

First, I agree with your comments about Mr Robertson and the Biblical applications you outlined so well. Secondly, I believe Mr Robertson and his program have been used by God to do many great things for the Kingdom. And, the opinions of a 75-year-old preacher, concerning Old testament teachings and current events, is reported as news only because it suits the secular mediaâ€s agenda to report it as news. How do we handle Pat Robertson? We disagree with him publicly and defend him personally as we would our own brother. . . because he is. But surveying the Christian blogs... I fear I may be a minority of one. There is a great deal of frustration out there with Pat. I like your site and will return.

By: rel

rel — Sat, 07 Jan 2006 03:47:09 +0000

I think it's a pretty clear theme throughout the whole Bible that everyone gets what's coming to them. Whether it be yesterday, today, tomorrow, or after the grave. Grace is a gift for those who accept it. And the Bible makes it pretty clear that God does have a plan and that no man knows the mind of God.

By: Bill Baar

Bill Baar — Fri, 06 Jan 2006 19:57:53 +0000

That’s what I was driving at. One reason they listen is because they do believe in a kind of providence. That everything happens for a reason. Robertson was just telling them the reason.

He’s a saavy guy in that respect.

By: duane

duane — Fri, 06 Jan 2006 19:39:42 +0000

Pat Roberson is just a douche. I can’t believe people even listen to what he says anymore.

By: Keith

Keith — Fri, 06 Jan 2006 19:33:23 +0000

One thing missing from Pat’s declarations of God’s punishment. In all the biblical examples, God told His prophets ahead of time. This was not the look back and see God’s hand in disaster that some scholars would like it to be.

Pat would be alright if he were predicting these things based on God’s revelation to him. I doubt that will ever happen.

As it is, he speaks as if he is the voice of One greater than he. I sure hope Pat doesn’t make Him angry for making His Name empty and meaningless.

By: Scott

Scott — Fri, 06 Jan 2006 19:29:52 +0000

Aye, well, then you might find this interesting:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_proven

By: chutney

chutney — Fri, 06 Jan 2006 18:29:46 +0000

Bill, I see a clear conflict between the doctrine of Providence (which has deuteronomistic roots) and the doctrine of Grace. I come from a Wesleyan theological background, and my own Universalism and panentheism comes from a (rather graceful) exagerration of Wesley's doctrine of Prevenient Grace. For me, if prevenient grace is really grace, why would anyone need any other kind of grace? Either god is that in which we live and move and have our beyond, or god isn't that. And if god is, then why would we need anything more? Along that line, few things piss me off more (theology-wise) than a Methodist who believes in Providence.Â Yeck.Â ;-)

By: chutney

chutney — Fri, 06 Jan 2006 18:24:33 +0000

Gotcha, Scot(t). Didn’t know that phrase was a diss of my people. ;-)

By: Bill Baar

Bill Baar — Fri, 06 Jan 2006 18:22:40 +0000

Reward and punishment is one thing, but how do you respond to those who see the hand of providence in things? (And it’s not always Christians). When someone dies, they’ll say it was God’s plan. Not reward or punishment, just the plan. It’s a common belief. Pat Robertson takes heat here, and deservedly so and not just from Liberals –political or religous– but he is in a twisted way expressing a kind of belief held by many, including many UUs I bet, that there is some plan.