Pat Robertson at it again.

Status
Not open for further replies.

Anton Bruckner

Puritan Board Professor
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2005-08-22-robertson-_x.htm
Pat Robertson calls for assassination of Hugo Chavez
VIRGINIA BEACH (AP) "” Religious broadcaster Pat Robertson suggested on-air that American operatives assassinate Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez to stop his country from becoming "a launching pad for communist infiltration and Muslim extremism."
'We have the ability to take him (Chavez) out, and I think the time has come that we exercise that ability,' Robertson said.
By Gene Puskar, AP

"We have the ability to take him out, and I think the time has come that we exercise that ability," Robertson said Monday on the Christian Broadcast Network's The 700 Club.

"We don't need another $200 billion war to get rid of one, you know, strong-arm dictator," he continued. "It's a whole lot easier to have some of the covert operatives do the job and then get it over with."





Chavez has emerged as one of the most outspoken critics of President Bush, accusing the United States of conspiring to topple his government and possibly backing plots to assassinate him. U.S. officials have called the accusations ridiculous.

"You know, I don't know about this doctrine of assassination, but if he thinks we're trying to assassinate him, I think that we really ought to go ahead and do it," Robertson said. "It's a whole lot cheaper than starting a war ... and I don't think any oil shipments will stop."

Robertson, 75, founder of the Christian Coalition of America and a former presidential candidate, accused the United States of failing to act when Chavez was briefly overthrown in 2002.

Electronic pages and a message to a Robertson spokeswoman were not immediately returned Monday evening.

Venezuela is the fifth largest oil exporter and a major supplier of oil to the United States. The CIA estimates that U.S. markets absorb almost 59% of Venezuela's total exports.

Venezuela's government has demanded in the past that the United States crack down on Cuban and Venezuelan "terrorists" in Florida who they say are conspiring against Chavez.

Robertson has made controversial statements in the past. In October 2003, he suggested that the State Department be blown up with a nuclear device. He has also said that feminism encourages women to "kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism and become lesbians."
 
When evangelicals like Pat, speak on what the government should or should not do, while wearing the robes of a Christian minister, they are being Theonomical :D
 
Originally posted by Slippery
When evangelicals like Pat, speak on what the government should or should not do, while wearing the robes of a Christian minister, they are being Theonomical :D

Is Pat a minister? What denom is he ordained in? Not looking to further anything, but just a curious question...
 
Originally posted by Slippery
When evangelicals like Pat, speak on what the government should or should not do, while wearing the robes of a Christian minister, they are being Theonomical :D

Understand the point, but that argument loses force when I respond with something like

That is the fallacy of appealing to the (non-causal) consequences of belief. Also, such a charge is easily "reversible."
 
Originally posted by Draught Horse


Understand the point, but that argument loses force when I respond with something like

That is the fallacy of appealing to the (non-causal) consequences of belief. Also, such a charge is easily "reversible."
In the least his statements can be interpreted as theonomical, and I think it suffices that point. Pat is very political and his basic point of view is to restore "Godliness and a Christian Heritage", to the WhiteHouse, least God smite us for departing from Him.

Don't know, but that sounds mighty theonomical to me, or is there a basic level of righteousness a nation can achieve to appease the wrath of God, without being a full fledged Theocracy.
 
Originally posted by Slippery
Originally posted by Draught Horse


Understand the point, but that argument loses force when I respond with something like

That is the fallacy of appealing to the (non-causal) consequences of belief. Also, such a charge is easily "reversible."
In the least his statements can be interpreted as theonomical, and I think it suffices that point. Pat is very political and his basic point of view is to restore "Godliness and a Christian Heritage", to the WhiteHouse, least God smite us for departing from Him.

Don't know, but that sounds mighty theonomical to me, or is there a basic level of righteousness a nation can achieve to appease the wrath of God, without being a full fledged Theocracy.

Let's be serious. The guy is a charismatic dispensationalist (at least on the end times). He by definiton cannot be theonomic. :tombstone:

If we continue this line of thought I can play "guilt by association; non-causation, therefore causation" fallacy game too with embarrassing results.

[Edited on 8--23-05 by Draught Horse]
 
When evangelicals like Pat, speak on what the government should or should not do, while wearing the robes of a Christian minister, they are being Theonomical
The last thing i want to see is people disrobing before they enter the political arena ;)
 
Originally posted by Draught Horse
Originally posted by Slippery
Originally posted by Draught Horse


Understand the point, but that argument loses force when I respond with something like

That is the fallacy of appealing to the (non-causal) consequences of belief. Also, such a charge is easily "reversible."
In the least his statements can be interpreted as theonomical, and I think it suffices that point. Pat is very political and his basic point of view is to restore "Godliness and a Christian Heritage", to the WhiteHouse, least God smite us for departing from Him.

Don't know, but that sounds mighty theonomical to me, or is there a basic level of righteousness a nation can achieve to appease the wrath of God, without being a full fledged Theocracy.

Let's be serious. The guy is a charismatic dispensationalist (at least on the end times). He by definiton cannot be theonomic. :tombstone:

If we continue this line of thought I can play "guilt by association; non-causation, therefore causation" fallacy game too with embarrassing results.

[Edited on 8--23-05 by Draught Horse]

I thought he was Post-Mill?I`ve heard him talk about how rediculous the Pre-Mill view was.
 
Originally posted by Average Joey
Originally posted by Draught Horse
Originally posted by Slippery
Originally posted by Draught Horse


Understand the point, but that argument loses force when I respond with something like

That is the fallacy of appealing to the (non-causal) consequences of belief. Also, such a charge is easily "reversible."
In the least his statements can be interpreted as theonomical, and I think it suffices that point. Pat is very political and his basic point of view is to restore "Godliness and a Christian Heritage", to the WhiteHouse, least God smite us for departing from Him.

Don't know, but that sounds mighty theonomical to me, or is there a basic level of righteousness a nation can achieve to appease the wrath of God, without being a full fledged Theocracy.

Let's be serious. The guy is a charismatic dispensationalist (at least on the end times). He by definiton cannot be theonomic. :tombstone:

If we continue this line of thought I can play "guilt by association; non-causation, therefore causation" fallacy game too with embarrassing results.

[Edited on 8--23-05 by Draught Horse]

I thought he was Post-Mill?I`ve heard him talk about how rediculous the Pre-Mill view was.

Sorry, got him and Falwell confused. My other point still stands--guilt by association fallacy.
 
Originally posted by Draught Horse
Originally posted by Average Joey
Originally posted by Draught Horse
Originally posted by Slippery
Originally posted by Draught Horse


Understand the point, but that argument loses force when I respond with something like

That is the fallacy of appealing to the (non-causal) consequences of belief. Also, such a charge is easily "reversible."
In the least his statements can be interpreted as theonomical, and I think it suffices that point. Pat is very political and his basic point of view is to restore "Godliness and a Christian Heritage", to the WhiteHouse, least God smite us for departing from Him.

Don't know, but that sounds mighty theonomical to me, or is there a basic level of righteousness a nation can achieve to appease the wrath of God, without being a full fledged Theocracy.

Let's be serious. The guy is a charismatic dispensationalist (at least on the end times). He by definiton cannot be theonomic. :tombstone:

If we continue this line of thought I can play "guilt by association; non-causation, therefore causation" fallacy game too with embarrassing results.

[Edited on 8--23-05 by Draught Horse]

I thought he was Post-Mill?I`ve heard him talk about how rediculous the Pre-Mill view was.

Sorry, got him and Falwell confused. My other point still stands--guilt by association fallacy.

It`s very easy to get him and Falwell confused.:lol:They both are the weak images of Christians portrayed in the media.You won`t ever see someone like say RC Sproul invited on the news responding to a certain situation.
 
Originally posted by Average Joey

It`s very easy to get him and Falwell confused.:lol:They both are the weak images of Christians portrayed in the media.You won`t ever see someone like say RC Sproul invited on the news responding to a certain situation.
R.C Sproul is way too profound, biblical and systematic.

He is like a master chef. He takes 4 episodes just to set the table, 4 episodes, to cook the food, 4 hours to serve the food, and 4 hours to eat the food.

Don't get me wrong, I like his methodology, because you grasp what he is teaching thoroughly, but alas, we are Americans hence program to the Fast Food culture.

[Edited on 8-26-2005 by Slippery]
 
Secondly,
Theonomists don't advocate legal authority for killing other nations' leaders. Now, interesting cases can be made for men in the "Judges" period, but I think that falls under "resistance to tyranny led by the lesser civil magistrate" rather than theonomy.
 
Pat Robertson has backed off from his initial statement.

"I didn't say assassination," Robertson said. "I said our special forces should 'take him out.' 'Take him out' could be a number of things, including kidnapping."
 
Originally posted by puritancovenanter
Al Mohler just called upon Old Pat to repent in his minute radio blurb he does.

Good! I'm glad to hear that someone is doing this.

What is wrong with Robertson? Why doesn't he just get off his soapbox find a church, get ordained and preach the gospel and administer the sacraments? I'm telling you; there is GREAT fulfillment in these seemingly 'foolish' tasks. They might not seem great in the eyes of the world but my Lord is pleased with them and that is ALL a Christian needs (not the accolades of me whether they be believers or not).

[Edited on 8-27-2005 by poimen]
 
On Pat Robertson and premillennialism...

From http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/29/032.html
Robertson is one of the most conspicuous examples on the American religious landscape of "premillennialism,"...

From http://www.fountain.btinternet.co.uk/koresh/apoc.html
Pat Robertson responded to pre-millennialist charges by developing a post-millennialist theology. Whilst running for President he spoke of "a vision that will take us past these troubled days"¦ We´re going to see a society that´s a description of the Millennium when Jesus comes back"¦ but these things can take place now in this time" (p. 185). This change only resulted in his alienating the religious right (Jimmy Swaggart has attacked Robertson´s change of views) while the secular media fail to appreciate the implications of his theological shift and continue to quote his pre-millennial statements from the 1980s against him.

From http://graceonlinelibrary.org/articles/full.asp?id=9|21|649
Dispensationalism is a form of premillennialism ...
Media evangelists such as Jerry Fallwell, Pat Robertson, Jack Van Impe, and Hal Lindsey popularize dispensational eschatology today.
 
Pat Robertson

President Chavez of Venezuela stated that no missionaries are allowed to enter Venezuela anymore. The ones that are in Venezuela at the moment will be limited in their activities.

Why?

Pat Robertson was so unwise to state that Chavez should be killed by the USA because of his behaviour.

Solution (to me):

Pat Robertson should repent from his statement and ask for forgiveness from Chavez, this doing on national tv.

Discuss!

PS The source I got this news from is Dutch national tv

[Edited on 8-27-2005 by love2read]
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top