# Is what Pat Robertson said correct?



## Claudiu (Jan 14, 2010)

I meant to post this yesterday when I saw it on a twitter post (now its on the Yahoo! from page). Anyways, is what Pat Robertson said correct? 

Here's the video (comment is made at 0:30):
[video=youtube;f5TE99sAbwM]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f5TE99sAbwM[/video]


----------



## toddpedlar (Jan 14, 2010)

Pat Robertson is a fool and an embarrassment to the church. It's a pity he has as large an audience as he does.


----------



## Andres (Jan 14, 2010)

I was under the impression that we (the whole world) are all under a curse.



> And to Adam he said, "Because you have listened to the voice of your wife and have eaten of the tree of which I commanded you, 'You shall not eat of it,'cursed is the ground because of you; in pain you shall eat of it all the days of your life; thorns and thistles it shall bring forth for you; and you shall eat the plants of the field. By the sweat of your face you shall eat bread, till you return to the ground, for out of it you were taken; for you are dust, and to dust you shall return." - Gen 3:17-19



I know I certainly am deserving of punishment and destruction. It's only by His grace and mercy that my home isn't ravaged by earthquakes or any other calamity.


----------



## Curt (Jan 14, 2010)

Ditto to both posts above.


----------



## DMcFadden (Jan 14, 2010)

toddpedlar said:


> Pat Robertson is a fool and an embarrassment to the church. It's a pity he has as large an audience as he does.


 
Am I seeing a trend with Yale Law grads? Or is it the New York Theological Seminary degree? Maybe it is his SBC ordination?

I'm voting for failed prophecies:

* Robertson predicted that the end of the world was coming in November or October 1982.
* In May 2006, Robertson declared that storms and possibly a tsunami would hit America's coastline sometime in 2006.
* On the January 2, 2007 broadcast of The 700 Club, Robertson said that God spoke to him and told him that "mass killings" were to come during 2007, due to a terrorist attack on the United States
* In October 2008 he said that "we have between 75 and 120 days before the Middle East starts spinning out of control."

Still in January of 20089 he did predict that a recession would occur in the United States that would be followed by a stock market crash by 2010.


----------



## TimV (Jan 14, 2010)

My favorite is his supporting China's one child per family law, which had nothing to do with his financial interests there, but only to his deep commitment to covenant theology.


----------



## Rich Koster (Jan 14, 2010)

I thought it was a pitiful summary. Jesus made a comment about Galileans & some people a tower fell on. It would be wise if Pat read Luke 13:1-5 and meditated on that passage.


----------



## AThornquist (Jan 14, 2010)

If that wolf gets on my property I'm going to shoot it.


----------



## etexas (Jan 14, 2010)

DMcFadden said:


> toddpedlar said:
> 
> 
> > Pat Robertson is a fool and an embarrassment to the church. It's a pity he has as large an audience as he does.
> ...


 Evan on the last point he is wrong, a Market correction is a better term, and while a few little bumps are around, most agree: Including Warren Buffet who putting money where his mouth is is swinging major Capitol into the Market!


----------



## calgal (Jan 14, 2010)

TimV said:


> My favorite is his supporting China's one child per family law, which had nothing to do with his financial interests there, but only to his deep commitment to covenant theology.


 
Forced abortion = ok? Pat Robertson is a complete raving moonbat. And he glorifies atheists really well.


----------



## ChristianTrader (Jan 14, 2010)

I don't have a problem with his statement. Righteousness exalts a nation, always has and always will. Now I do not know the history of Dominican Republic vs. Haiti so I don't know how accurate his contrast is. Pointing out that evil things happen to good Christians does not refute the point. Even looking at Israel, there were good folks when Israel was defeated and enslaved etc. Bad things happening can be a blessing in disguise if people use the situation to evaluate their lives and turn to God.

Also the opening question is whether or not Pat is correct on this topic, not whether or not he was wrong on 36 of the last 35 things he has said.


----------



## ChristianTrader (Jan 14, 2010)

Joshua said:


> Hermonta, it's my opinion that he's implying that the Haiti disaster is a result of this "pact" that Haiti made with the devil while under French rule. The devil doesn't cut deals, and I'd like to know how Pat was privy to such a conversation anyway.


 
I think it is more charitable and more reasonable to take it that the disaster is a result of "their living up to their end of the deal". If it was all in the hands of Satan then why leave the possibility open to revival and saner days ahead. It also seems that he is referring to some relatively open secret about why witchcraft etc is so prevalent there. As I said, my history of that region is not comprehensive but such a turn of events I find plausible.


----------



## Claudiu (Jan 14, 2010)

Joshua said:


> Who cares? He's so full of nonsense. Seems ole Pat thinks the devil's got authority to bargain over souls.  If I were an unbeliever and thought Pat Robertson was an accurate representative of what Christianity taught, I'd never become one. Praise God, though, he's not.


 
Unfortunately many non-Christians do look at him as an accurate representation of what Christianity teaches.


----------



## Claudiu (Jan 14, 2010)

Joshua said:


> Hermonta, it's my opinion that he's implying that the Haiti disaster is a result of this "pact" that Haiti made with the devil while under French rule. The devil doesn't cut deals, and I'd like to know how Pat was privy to such a conversation anyway.


 
Thats what I was trying to figure out, if Haiti did make a deal with the devil?


----------



## Claudiu (Jan 14, 2010)

toddpedlar said:


> Pat Robertson is a fool and an embarrassment to the church. It's a pity he has as large an audience as he does.


 
Pity indeed.


----------



## TimV (Jan 14, 2010)

You make a pact with the devil every time you tolerate a corrupt official, let your daughter sleep around, don't give to the church, cheat your neighbor, hire a witch to hex an enemy and take God's name in vain. You don't have to be a theonomist to see a correlation between cultures that practice a higher level of morality and cultures that have more money, and better building codes. Quakes, droughts and plagues have greater impacts on countries with lower standards of morality. It's a no brainer, at least for anyone who's followed history (or the news). Lack of rains in Somalia have a different effect than lack of rains in California, and even in Nevada drug lords can't murder state officials at will and without consequences.

I just hope people keep in mind that we're not as moral as many of us think, and remember that as Christians we have obligations to Christianize society.


----------



## au5t1n (Jan 14, 2010)

I have a hard time believing a country "full of resorts" is more moral than a poverty-stricken neighbor.


----------



## AThornquist (Jan 14, 2010)

The ungodliness of Haiti and the United States differ not in measure but mode.


----------



## Claudiu (Jan 14, 2010)

Tim: What I was trying to get at is if Haiti _literally_ made a pact.

I see where you are coming from with your response. [-]But you probably misunderstood the tone of my question[/-]. *[EDIT: I didn't ask my question properly. Sorry]*. I wasn't asking if the quake was a result of the pact. Actually, what I was trying to ask is if a pact (a literal one, done consciously) was even made in the first place. That's it. 

Even if a pact was made, that doesn't make us or Haiti's neighbor more moral, as you and Austin have mentioned.


----------



## Claudiu (Jan 14, 2010)

Joshua said:


> Of course y'all knew what I meant when I said _pact_.


 
Sorry if I didn't make it clear :/


----------



## TimV (Jan 14, 2010)

I'm not sure how a geographic area can make a pact. If there was a pact made by people truly representative of the Haitian people, yes, I really do think that would make a difference. "And all the people said, "His blood shall be on us and on our children!"". But without a good understanding of Haitian history, I'll wait for someone knowledgeable to chime in, and in the mean time assume Roberson's full of it as normal.


----------



## au5t1n (Jan 14, 2010)

TimV said:


> I'm not sure how a geographic area can make a pact. If there was a pact made by people truly representative of the Haitian people, yes, I really do think that would make a difference. \"And all the people said, \"His blood shall be on us and on our children!\"\". But without a good understanding of Haitian history, I'll wait for someone knowledgeable to chime in, and in the mean time assume Roberson's full of it as normal.


 
I read they had a voodoo service to a voodoo deity involving a pig sacrifice when they were planning to drive out the French, but it seems "pact with the devil" is Robertson's interpretation of that.

Edit: Here is an interesting article about Haiti's history: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1243016/ANDREW-MALONE-Rape-murder-voodoo-island-damned.html


----------



## Gloria (Jan 14, 2010)

cecat90 said:


> I meant to post this yesterday when I saw it on a twitter post (now its on the Yahoo! from page). Anyways, is what Pat Robertson said correct?
> 
> Here's the video (comment is made at 0:30):
> [video=youtube;f5TE99sAbwM]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f5TE99sAbwM[/video]


 
Right or wrong, he should remember:



> Repent or Perish
> 1There were some present at that very time who told him about the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mingled with their sacrifices. 2And he answered them, "*Do you think that these Galileans were worse sinners than all the other Galileans, *because they suffered in this way? *3No, I tell you; but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish.* 4*Or those eighteen on whom the tower in Siloam fell and killed them: do you think that they were worse offenders than all the others who lived in Jerusalem*? *5No, I tell you; but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish*."


----------



## N. Eshelman (Jan 14, 2010)

They are like evil Covenanters then, eh?


----------



## Claudiu (Jan 14, 2010)

austinww said:


> TimV said:
> 
> 
> > I'm not sure how a geographic area can make a pact. If there was a pact made by people truly representative of the Haitian people, yes, I really do think that would make a difference. \\"And all the people said, \\"His blood shall be on us and on our children!\\"\\". But without a good understanding of Haitian history, I'll wait for someone knowledgeable to chime in, and in the mean time assume Roberson's full of it as normal.
> ...


 
Thanks for the article.


----------



## Ivan (Jan 14, 2010)

DMcFadden said:


> toddpedlar said:
> 
> 
> > Pat Robertson is a fool and an embarrassment to the church. It's a pity he has as large an audience as he does.
> ...



Uh, oh!


----------



## tlharvey7 (Jan 14, 2010)

i think to understand the statement, you have to understand the language/bad theology.
this is all wrapped up in the "spiritual mapping" "spiritual stronghold" (Loren Cunningham/ John Dawson teachings)
it's all utter nonsense, and i cannot believe that i was having to explain these things to non Christians @ work today.


----------



## ChristianTrader (Jan 14, 2010)

Joshua said:


> Hermonta, it's my opinion that he's implying that the Haiti disaster is a result of this "pact" that Haiti made with the devil while under French rule. The devil doesn't cut deals, and I'd like to know how Pat was privy to such a conversation anyway.


 
If one accepts the idea that there are real witches etc. with real power, doesn't one have to accept the idea of a pact with darkness to get that power? The only way outside of that is to believe that Satan grants power for free.


----------



## Zenas (Jan 14, 2010)

Pat Robertson is an idiot.


----------



## jason d (Jan 15, 2010)

He is Word of Faith so that is why he can prove these people have been cursed simply because they are poor. He says that in so many words even in this video, though it is subtle, but that is all over his theology. So gross that theology.


----------



## blhowes (Jan 15, 2010)

Joshua said:


> blhowes said:
> 
> 
> > Imagine if his theology reformed, he recanted, and he used the 700 Club show to 1) explain what he recanted of and why, and 2) used the show to explain his newfound reformed beliefs.
> ...


----------



## SolaScriptura (Jan 15, 2010)

Not sure if it was literally a "pact," but Robertson was making reference to the Bois Caiman, which is the "most historically important" voodoo ceremony in Haiti's history. At that ceremony, the spirit Ezili Dantor possessed some voodoo priestess, they sacrificed a pig, and pledged to fight for the liberation of Haiti... It marked the beginning of the Haitian Revolution.

You can read a little about it on Wikipedia, but if you want to read a very detailed an intruiging article about the event and its ongoing significance to the cultural identity of Haiti, read this article from the Stockholm Review of Latin American Studies.


----------



## ChristianTrader (Jan 15, 2010)

Joshua said:


> ChristianTrader said:
> 
> 
> > Joshua said:
> ...


 
So when you spoke of deals with the devil, you were only implying about those that are formally written and notarized? If so okay, my point was that there are real deals whether or not, one has the proper paperwork to prove it.

Next, Unless you are going to deny that Satan has real power and grants real evil power to those who adhere to his wishes, I have no idea to what you are objecting.

Next, Isn't the calling for days of prayer and supplication based on the ability to read negative Providences?

Lastly, if one assumes that the world is not completely random as far as good weather, catastrophes etc. is concerned, then one should be able to read Providences. Now one can say that X or Y is a bad reading of providence but in principle there should not be any objection to the act of doing such.

CT


----------



## Claudiu (Jan 15, 2010)

SolaScriptura said:


> Not sure if it was literally a \"pact,\" but Robertson was making reference to the Bois Caiman, which is the \"most historically important\" voodoo ceremony in Haiti's history. At that ceremony, the spirit Ezili Dantor possessed some voodoo priestess, they sacrificed a pig, and pledged to fight for the liberation of Haiti... It marked the beginning of the Haitian Revolution.
> 
> You can read a little about it on Wikipedia, but if you want to read a very detailed an intruiging article about the event and its ongoing significance to the cultural identity of Haiti, read this article from the Stockholm Review of Latin American Studies.


 
This is roughly what I was looking for. Thank you so much for the article.


----------



## ChristianTrader (Jan 15, 2010)

Joshua said:


> Hermonta,
> 
> I'm speaking specifically about Pat saying that the Devil _said_ such and such and so forth, while the Haitian people said such and such so forth to the Devil. I'm also trying to figure out _how_ Pat linked the 2010 earthquake to this so called pact with the Devil made back in the day. As for the calling of days of prayer and supplication for negative providences occurred, I still don't see how that equates to an indication as to _precisely and specifically linked_ reasons _why_ said negative Providence has happened. We know that all catastrophe, sickness, etc. is _ultimately_ a result of sin, but we're not privy to the specific and immediate reasons why a negative Providence has happened, unless it's been revealed by Scripture. I think that's presumption, and that is what I mean by reading Providence. I certainly don't believe the world to be completely random and I certainly believe every movement of a molecule is due to the Providence of God. But I disbelieve the notion that we should presume as to why specific acts have happened if we don't have the knowledge thereof. When negative providences happen, we can certainly make application of them as _reminders_ of the destruction of sin, but we can't presume that the Haitian earthquake was a direct result of the aforementioned pact. The secret things belong to the Lord our God. It's fine to make general application and reminders from bad providences or good, but never to say that _such and such_ is *precisely* what this or that providence means, since that's not really info to which we're privy.


 
Pat didn't link it to the pact, he linked it to the living under the pact for the past couple centuries. Going back to the actual clip, can you understand it as saying, if they had a revival a few centuries ago, such catastrophes would still be in play? Do you understand him as saying, "Go ahead and have a revival and turn from such wickedness but God still hates you and nothing will change?"


----------



## ChristianTrader (Jan 15, 2010)

Joshua said:


> No, I don't.


 
Alright, then we are on the same page. I think because he does not link it to a single event, his statement differs from Piper's statement. Piper was more along the lines of "Friday, you did X evil, so therefore next Tuesday night, a tornado hit." Pat instead was along the lines of "You have embraced Satanism for two centuries, the other half of your island has not. You have experienced catastrophe after catastrophe, the other half of your island has not. Come to your senses." I think this is a much stronger case than what Piper attempted to make. Now if you disagree with him still, that is fine, but I do not think that such a position is prima facia crazy.

CT


----------



## jlynn (Jan 15, 2010)

AThornquist said:


> If that wolf gets on my property I'm going to shoot it.


----------



## Confessor (Jan 15, 2010)

I was thinking about this today, and here are the points I considered:

-We are all deserving of hellfire due to our sin.
-The Bible speaks of God's judging nations, granting them temporal blessings for legal obedience and curses for disobedience (Deut. 28). Also, throughout other books, such as Isaiah, God overthrows nations and kings for their ungodliness. This would seem to imply more than just a case of "you're all sinners, and I choose to judge sinner X" -- it would imply some specifically _wicked_ sin(s).
-Temporal prosperity is spoken of as a concomitant of godliness (Psalm 1:1-3). Since this is obviously not a universal promise, it must still be spoken of as a general trend.
-Jesus said that those who were slain by Pilate or at the tower at Siloam were not worse sinners; it was only by divine grace that the same had not befallen other Gentiles (Luke 13:1-5).
-There is a delicate balance between interpreting God's Providence and peering into the secret things of God (Deut. 29:29) that we must strive to uphold, by God's assistance.

This would seem to indicate that, on a national scale, even if we cannot pinpoint some specific deed they did, we can yet ascribe the calamity to God's righteous judgment on a nation. It is not just the fact that the Haitians were sinners, but that there is something peculiarly notorious about their corporate godlessness.

This seems almost like a copout, but Luke 13:1-5 does not speak of national sin, and therefore it seems that it would not act against the above thesis.

Any thoughts? I'm not presently trying to assert conclusions but to explore the issue.

EDIT: I made my post more charitable towards Robertson in light of Hermonta's clarification in post #43.


----------



## a mere housewife (Jan 15, 2010)

> -Jesus said that those who were slain by Pilate or at the tower at Siloam were not worse sinners; it was only by divine grace that the same had not befallen other Gentiles (Luke 13:1-5).



It's also interesting (something that was pointed out in a sermon by Justo Gonzalez) that the parable of the barren fig tree comes right after this. The fig tree was given another year, and extra care, not because it was producing so much fruit and was so much better than other trees -- but because it was producing none; all the extra things it had lavished on it were in an effort to make it fruitful, and judgment would come on it unless it did begin to bear fruit. When I hear of calamities now I think mostly that we who have not experienced such terrible disasters should take this to heart.


----------



## Pergamum (Jan 15, 2010)

Is national covenanting in general a farce? 

...Even when the Scottish do it?


----------



## SolaScriptura (Jan 15, 2010)

Pergamum said:


> Is national covenanting in general a farce?
> 
> ...Even when the Scottish do it?


 
You go too far, sir, too far!


----------



## SolaScriptura (Jan 15, 2010)

cecat90 said:


> SolaScriptura said:
> 
> 
> > Not sure if it was literally a \\"pact,\\" but Robertson was making reference to the Bois Caiman, which is the \\"most historically important\\" voodoo ceremony in Haiti's history. At that ceremony, the spirit Ezili Dantor possessed some voodoo priestess, they sacrificed a pig, and pledged to fight for the liberation of Haiti... It marked the beginning of the Haitian Revolution.
> ...


 
No problem. I thought your question deserved to be answered!


----------



## Wayne (Jan 15, 2010)

Joshua said:


> Of course y'all knew what I meant when I said _pact_.


 
Pact: 1. Neatly folded and put away; 2. All zipped up and ready to go; 3. Full to over-flowing; 4. Stuffed to the gills.

Yep. Got it.


----------



## Claudiu (Jan 15, 2010)

Wayne said:


> Joshua said:
> 
> 
> > Of course y'all knew what I meant when I said _pact_.
> ...



Idk you are being serious or not but...That's _packed_ you are talking about. 

This is
pact |pakt|
noun
a formal agreement handshake between individuals or parties.


----------



## Wayne (Jan 15, 2010)

Where is Josh when I need him?


----------



## Claudiu (Jan 15, 2010)

Wayne said:


> Where is Josh when I need him?


 

I guess I'm just not picking up on your guys posts.


----------



## tt1106 (Jan 15, 2010)

Although I don't think Pat is able to harm the cause of Christ. I still wish he would keep his mouth shut. -Captain Obvious


----------



## Wayne (Jan 15, 2010)

Claudiu:

We get bored and take pokes at each other. 

Just B.N. Seeley.


----------



## Claudiu (Jan 15, 2010)

Wayne said:


> Claudiu:
> 
> We get bored and take pokes at each other.
> 
> Just B.N. Seeley.


 

Haha, I'm slowly picking up on that. You know how it is on the internet. I tend to be a visual person, I think that would be normal for a conversation, so when I can't see someone I get confused sometimes because I can't see facial expressions, tone of voice, etc. :/


----------



## Narnian (Jan 15, 2010)

ChristianTrader said:


> Also the opening question is whether or not Pat is correct on this topic, not whether or not he was wrong on 36 of the last 35 things he has said.



Actually I believe it is very relavent. Robertson thinks he is a prophet. One of the signs of a prophet is he speaks the truth. Robertson has not meet that standard with his 35 or so predictions to date. Therefore he is not a prophet of God. And as a result is most likely wrong and should be ignored.


----------



## blhowes (Jan 15, 2010)

Have you heard Whoopy Golderberg's reaction to Pat's comments?

[video=youtube;0QIKIR5-wXk]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0QIKIR5-wXk[/video]


----------



## Pergamum (Jan 15, 2010)

Pergamum said:


> Is national covenanting in general a farce?
> 
> ...Even when the Scottish do it?


 
Anyone?


----------



## SolaScriptura (Jan 15, 2010)

blhowes said:


> Have you heard Whoopy Golderberg's reaction to Pat's comments?
> 
> (Pardon my edit, but I saw no need to have her face repeated on this thread. Once is enough! Bandwidth and all that, you know? - Mod.
> Meanwhile your point is well taken, Ben.)



These women are even more foolish than Pat Robertson. Pat's comments about Haiti's past were historically correct. Listen to these 4 worldlings pontificating on so many topics of which they know nothing.


----------



## Claudiu (Jan 15, 2010)




----------



## ChristianTrader (Jan 15, 2010)

Pergamum said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> > Is national covenanting in general a farce?
> ...


 
I don't think it is a farce at all. I think one will come close to it if they just assume that nations rising and falling is not a random thing.

CT


----------



## Pergamum (Jan 15, 2010)

ChristianTrader said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> > Pergamum said:
> ...


 
So you agree with Pat?


----------



## Wayne (Jan 16, 2010)

Pergy:

First, farce is definitely not an appropriate word to use.

Second, I don't understand what is going on here. Are you trying to draw some connection between Robertson's claim and the Scottish Presbyterian practice of national covenanting? As if a denial of Robertson's claim necessarily implies a denial of the old Puritan practice of national covenanting? Help me here.


----------



## Pergamum (Jan 16, 2010)

If God honors national covenanting then a national curse then would be possible, right?


----------



## Confessor (Jan 16, 2010)

Pergamum said:


> If God honors national covenanting then a national curse then would be possible, right?


 
First, although I don't know much about national covenanting, it seems that Biblical evidence would be needed to show that God no longer deals with nations corporately.

Second, a distinction can be made between declaring that God has punished a nation for some sort of sin, and declaring for which specific sin God has punished a nation. I don't know much of Haitian history, but if it is true that satanism has been often practiced in a nation, then it seems sensible to view the calamity as a particular judgment of God.

Of course, none of this means that we should not assist those affected by it, but we also shouldn't ignore the judgment aspect of it, if it is Biblically warranted. That's what the council of humanists led by Whoopi were doing.


----------



## Pergamum (Jan 16, 2010)

So Pat Robertson is correct? And if so, why should we be mad at him for saying the truth?


----------



## Confessor (Jan 16, 2010)

I'm a bit skeptical about linking it back to a particular event, but if Robertson is referring to the trend of a nation, then yeah, I would say he is correct, and we shouldn't be mad at him for saying it.


----------



## DMcFadden (Jan 16, 2010)

Factual correctness about an ugly strain in Haitian culture spoken at a time of catastrophic disaster and unspeakable human loss does not exactly sound the right note. It is no more helpful than telling a family who just lost their son in a motorcycle accident "I told you so. Motorcycles are too dangeous."

The superstition and Vodoo inherent in much of Haitian culture will -- along with generations of dysfunctional societal practices -- make it very difficult to "rebuild" Haiti. Yes, there are consequences for turning one's back upon the Lord. Generational implications abound. But, only a fool would draw attention to it on national television while the bodies are still being counted. This is a time to weep with those who weep and stand in solidarity with our fellow human beings in their misery.



> There were some present at that very time who told him about the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mingled with their sacrifices. And he answered them, "Do you think that these Galileans were worse sinners than all the other Galileans, because they suffered in this way? No, I tell you; but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish. Or those eighteen on whom the tower in Siloam fell and killed them: do you think that they were worse offenders than all the others who lived in Jerusalem? No, I tell you; but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish."



John Piper sounded the right note after the collapse of the bridge a few years back when he drew attention to the Luke 13 text and suggested that the appropriate message for us all in times of such divine warning is pretty simple: "unless you repent, you will all likewise perish." An evangelist with a national audience might do well to follow the example of Jesus in times like these.


----------



## Confessor (Jan 16, 2010)

DMcFadden said:


> Factual correctness about an ugly strain in Haitian culture spoken at a time of catastrophic disaster and unspeakable human loss does not exactly sound the right note. It is no more helpful than telling a family who just lost their son in a motorcycle accident "I told you so. Motorcycles are too dangeous."


 
Yes, I was wrong in saying we shouldn't be mad at him for saying it. He was speaking the truth unseasonably and thereby breaking the ninth commandment.


----------



## Wayne (Jan 16, 2010)

Pergy: I am not saying that Robertson was right. Nor do I know much about national covenanting, other than that its practitioners were generally men of high theological knowledge and moral character. That is sufficient initial basis for not ruling the practice out of hand without further study. Robertson on the other hand speaks from a deficit theological foundation.

To affirm Dennis' comment above, there is truth and then there is knowing when to tell someone the truth. To speak the truth in love often means knowing _when_ to speak.


----------



## jogri17 (Jan 16, 2010)

There are so many problems even from an historical perspective and theological perspective to what Robertson said. First there was no national swearing allegiance to Satan. Yes it is true that Voodu is a false religion and its very in the national psyché of the people. And is it possible that the intellecual elite of Haiti were participants in it and they were the driving forces in the French Rebellion. But this does not mean that it is a voodu nation where every single person is a partipant. The DR also has strong Voodu influences in it (though not to the same extent) and yet it has its own huge problems and while financially better off than Haiti, the sex trade hurts its children just as much as in its poorer neighbor. Second of all, we cannot know why God ordains things to happen and it does us no good to think about it. We must just accept providence and respond in such a way that the Law of God requires. To try and blame a naural disaster on anything other than the natural order and the fall of adam is in essense idolatry because we claim to know the mind of God outside of what he has revealed in Scripture. My friend went to Haiti last year to help teach in a school there (she speaks french) created by a reformed/evangelical church. Here is the before and after pic: 
Login | Facebook

It is not for us to know the reason why but it is for us to obey God and to love, to preach, to serve. If you have not donated money yet, I encourage you to do so. And please do not listen to your political heroes and please listen to the Word of God and help.


----------



## Claudiu (Jan 16, 2010)

Wayne said:


> Pergy: I am not saying that Robertson was right. Nor do I know much about national covenanting, other than that its practitioners were generally men of high theological knowledge and moral character. That is sufficient initial basis for not ruling the practice out of hand without further study. Robertson on the other hand speaks from a deficit theological foundation.
> 
> *To affirm Dennis' comment above, there is truth and then there is knowing when to tell someone the truth. To speak the truth in love often means knowing when to speak.*


 

I think you guys make a good point.


----------



## ChristianTrader (Jan 17, 2010)

DMcFadden said:


> Factual correctness about an ugly strain in Haitian culture spoken at a time of catastrophic disaster and unspeakable human loss does not exactly sound the right note. It is no more helpful than telling a family who just lost their son in a motorcycle accident "I told you so. Motorcycles are too dangeous."



I not sure how I can disagree with your analogy any more than I do. First off, one can make a case for motorcycles, no one can make a case for Satanism. A better analogy, A devastated man whose wife left him and took the children, and one says "you do know that she left because you beat her and cheat on her." And then everyone pounces because the lack of sensitivity. Or perhaps this one: A person who openly and defiantly does drugs for 15 years, suddenly dies from a massive heart attack, and someone points out, "You do know that drug use is deadly, right."



> The superstition and Vodoo inherent in much of Haitian culture will -- along with generations of dysfunctional societal practices -- make it very difficult to "rebuild" Haiti. Yes, there are consequences for turning one's back upon the Lord. Generational implications abound. But, only a fool would draw attention to it on national television while the bodies are still being counted. This is a time to weep with those who weep and stand in solidarity with our fellow human beings in their misery.



If one wants to disagree with what Pat said, that is completely fine, but I think the out of season talk is a copout. If one believes that 100k or so people are dead due to willful ongoing Satan worship, when is the proper time to say something? Pat didn't say that one should not send money, and he even spoke of hopefully good coming out of it in causing a revival and turning away from witchcraft and to the gospel.



> > There were some present at that very time who told him about the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mingled with their sacrifices. And he answered them, "Do you think that these Galileans were worse sinners than all the other Galileans, because they suffered in this way? No, I tell you; but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish. Or those eighteen on whom the tower in Siloam fell and killed them: do you think that they were worse offenders than all the others who lived in Jerusalem? No, I tell you; but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish."
> 
> 
> 
> John Piper sounded the right note after the collapse of the bridge a few years back when he drew attention to the Luke 13 text and suggested that the appropriate message for us all in times of such divine warning is pretty simple: "unless you repent, you will all likewise perish." An evangelist with a national audience might do well to follow the example of Jesus in times like these.



The basic issue is whether this passage can be used to show that God no longer judges nations. Unless that is assumed or proven, then I am not sure how this can be used against Pat?

CT


----------



## lynnie (Jan 17, 2010)

Does Jeremiah Burroughs represent classical Puritan thinking, seeing as this is the Puritan board?

I am asking because in the Rare Jewel of Christian Contentment, it seems like he sees a whole lot of things as direct judgment. For example, plague was rampant and he considered it a direct judgment from God because of murmuring and griping discontent among the people. (He appeals to Numbers). He saw a lot of things as direct judgements like fires, etc, and had a strong Old Testament view of how God dealt with England as a nation. It seems to be presented as direct cause and effect. Loss of health and wealth is called an external judgment ( not to be compared with the awfulness of spiritual judgment).

There is an awful lot of judgment terminology for external afflictions. It appears he would certainly call this earthquake one ( although hopefully one used to bring people to repent) . So is this the general Puritan view, or is Burroughs atypical?

edit to add that I think DrMc is right that this is a time to grieve with the sorrowing, and not to blame them on nationwide TV. Jesus healed people first and after that he said " go and sin no more".


----------



## Wayne (Jan 17, 2010)

Basically, yes, Burroughs was in line with much of Puritan thinking in seeing such things as judgments.

Similar sermons and discourses can be found in the American pulpit well into the 19th century. One notable example that comes to mind was a fire in a theatre in Richmond, VA, in which 160 people died. That tragedy prompted sermons from Princeton's Samuel Miller and others, generally using that occasion to denounce the stage and more largely, worldliness.

I think Chris Coldwell included Miller's sermon in an early issue of _The Naphtali Press Anthology_, now long out of print, but issues show up at inflated prices on eBay from time to time.
[Interesting to think of Reformed/Presbyterian publications as investments, but some of those volumes have commanded a good sum in recent years]


----------



## Archlute (Jan 17, 2010)

With the continuing discussion I would point you all to the sermon link on this thread:

http://www.puritanboard.com/f23/light-recent-events-haiti-most-likely-best-sermon-out-there-57760/


----------



## DMcFadden (Jan 17, 2010)

ChristianTrader said:


> DMcFadden said:
> 
> 
> > Factual correctness about an ugly strain in Haitian culture spoken at a time of catastrophic disaster and unspeakable human loss does not exactly sound the right note. It is no more helpful than telling a family who just lost their son in a motorcycle accident "I told you so. Motorcycles are too dangeous."
> ...


 
Hermonta,

Pick my analogy apart if you like. My point was that "I told you so" seldom accomplishes any positive end. Do I believe that Haiti sufferes from self inflicted wounds, some of them tracing to systemic counterproductive economics, a poor work ethic, a series of very bad political decisions by selfish home-grown dictators, exploitation by outside powers, *and* their superstitious idolatry? Sure. But, I still think that Piper's approach (affirm a sovereign God and follow the biblical example for how to interpret disasters via the pericope in Luke) makes the most sense. Of course God can judge nations as Jesus also believed while he was saying the words recorded in Luke. I just think this is a poor time to lead with an "I told you so" point. You don't. I got it.


----------



## lynnie (Jan 17, 2010)

Wayne, thanks for the history!!!


----------



## Wayne (Jan 17, 2010)

Another bit of history, but more addressed to Dennis and Hermonta:

Many of us are learning a lot about Haiti that we never knew. Following the slave revolt that kicked the French out, somehow the French managed to leverage payment of reparations against the new nation. The imposed tab was about $150 milliion USD then or 1.5 billion in today's money. And Haiti worked at paying it off!, finally canceling the debt in 1947. That immense debt kept the island nation from ever really getting established. Another factor in the large mix of problems that nation has seen and experienced.


----------



## Christusregnat (Jan 17, 2010)

National covenants are real. For anyone in doubt, the Old Testament may be consulted.

Peoples can make compacts with Satan or compacts with the living God. It should be noted that there is no neutral ground in this regard, only gradations between the two.

Also, the covenants with God or the devil may be more or less formalized, as a country that allows all religions is informally in a compact with the devil (such as the U.S.) even as Haiti may or may not have been formally so engaged.

Cheers,


----------



## VilnaGaon (Jan 18, 2010)

In 1656 the Black Madonna was crowned the Queen and Protector of Poland by the King at that time. Considering that many Christians myself included, would consider the Black Madonna as having nothing to do with the Biblical virgin Mary, but rather a blasphemous idol and a kind of devil worship, does this mean that Poland is under some kind of covenantal curse like Haiti?


----------



## Pergamum (Jan 18, 2010)

If national covenants are real, who has the power to represent a country before God or Satan? A bunch of Scotish Covenanters? A bunch of voodoo priests? Or the king or civil magistrate? Or can private citizens (do they need a majority)?

Why don't we all on the pb get together then?


----------



## Rich Koster (Jan 18, 2010)

Does it make a difference if you make a pact to worship Satan or just do it every day without the pact? Those who bow to Satan, Allah, Buddah, Mary etc... are all idolaters and worshipping a false deity. By some earlier in this thread assumptions, the Middle East should have been swallowed up years ago along with many other nations.


----------



## Wayne (Jan 18, 2010)

Let me say up front that I've never studied the subject of national covenanting, and so I am not here presenting an argument *for* the practice. I am merely presenting some material for further study, if you are so inclined. 

The biggest question is whether such practice is restricted to the nation of Israel? Just because you see something practiced in the Old Testament doesn't mean that practice can be brought into contemporary use. 

As Adam said, national covenants can be found set forth in the Old Testament. The following is ripped from Wikipedia, which will suffice for our purposes at the moment and saves me a bit of work:



> National covenants by the nations of Israel and Judah can be found in texts such as Exodus 19:8, Joshua 24:24-25, 2 Kings 3:3 (Josiah), 2 Chron. 15:8-15, 23:16, 34:31-32, Nehemiah 10:29 and Jeremiah 50:5. National covenants were often associated with times of spiritual renewal or revival.



That entry goes on to mention personal covenants, but it looked weak in the references, so I'll skip it here. Personal covenanting was practiced by a number of the Puritans and early Scottish Presbyterians, including notably Thomas Boston. See his _Works_ for several examples. (I have the suspicion that New Year's resolutions historically derive from the practice of personal covenanting, but I've never researched that idea). 

National covenanting in the "modern" era is perhaps best illustrated by the Solemn League and Covenant in 1643. Prior to that there had been the National Covenant (1638), and there were subsequent re-affirmations too, and these all get ensconced in the Reformed Presbyterian and Associate Presbyterian denominations as doctrinal planks, where to be a member you must affirm those covenants. Membership requirements in some of these groups becomes very lengthy. Some of these groups are dogmatic that these Scottish covenants are still binding on, at the very least, all of the Commonwealth nations, including the U.S.A. I find that argument unconvincing and untenable.


----------



## Wayne (Jan 18, 2010)

To get off of the national covenanting thing, it might be more useful to discuss "national judgments". Andrew Myers has posted this today on his blog:



> Duties of Christians Under National Judgments
> Anthony Hayter, _The Delight of Kings: A Compendium From A Hind Let Loose_ - Gen. 49.21 [ie., a compendium of A Hind Let Loose by Alexander Shields], pp. 26-27:
> 
> A people is bound to preserve the privileges and rights of their parliaments, which are but representatives of themselves, when they act according to the trust committed to them by the people. But when they betray that trust, and engage in conspiracy with the sovereign, the people cannot own such as their representatives, but must regard them as perjured traitors, and therefore as divested of that power and authority which is now returned to the hands of the people. In such case it is incumbent upon the people to secure themselves, their religion and their liberty, in the most efficient way Providence will permit. Their aim should be to extract themselves from the tyranny, and maintain their rights and adhere closely to the fundamental constitutions, laws and practices of their native realm. Evil laws bring in desolating judgments upon a nation; evil laws corrupt the whole body politic, demoralise the people and lay waste their heritage. Their duty, especially that of Christians, under such dispensations is --
> ...


----------



## Wayne (Jan 18, 2010)

One of my "go to" resources is the six volume set, _The Morning Exercises at Cripplegate_. These are gathered discourses from conferences of pastors in late 17th century London. In vol. 4, pp. 585-616, there is this relevant address:

Williams, Daniel, "What Repentance of National Sins doth God require, as ever We expect National Mercies". Text is Hosea 10:12, and I shouldn't be so surprised anymore to find it is online.


----------



## Confessor (Jan 18, 2010)

Rich Koster said:


> By some earlier in this thread assumptions, the Middle East should have been swallowed up years ago along with many other nations.


 
The fact that such nations have not yet received their punishment does not imply that they are not nationally culpable. God can be waiting for the wicked's sins to be "filled up," as with the Amorites, Gen. 15:16.


----------



## Pergamum (Jan 19, 2010)

Who has the power to represent a nation before God? Presidents, Christians, voodoo priests, Scottish covenanters?


----------



## Wayne (Jan 19, 2010)

The world over, for every nation, solely Scottish covenanters have that power. 

Seriously, for the State, the standard answer would be the magistrate. For the Church, the elders. 

Which raises a related topic, not of national covenanting, but of mediatorial prayer. Think of Daniel's prayer on behalf of Israel, or that of Moses "standing in the gap". Here it becomes a bit more cloudy in terms of who may serve in this capacity, and I think any Christian or group of Christians is certainly encouraged and competent to so pray, though they may not in God's eyes have the same place of authority as a body of elders. 

Also related would be praying for healing, as per James 5:13-18. Note there the role and place of the elders of the church.

A sermon by William Jenkyn, "How Ought We to Bewail the Sins of the Places Where We Live?", also in _The Morning Exercises at Cripplegate_, vol. 3, was the first to unpack for me this idea of mediatorial prayer. Once I was aware of it, I then saw that the same doctrine is taught by any number 
of other Puritan pastors and authors.


----------

