The Narrow Path Ministries

Unfortunately, Robertson is probably echoing the sentiments of many evangelicals.


http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/01/0 ... sezuz.html

The US Anti-Defamation League also piled on Robertson's "outrageous and shocking" comments.

"His remarks are un-Christian and a perversion of religion. We would hope that good Christian leaders would distance themselves from Pat Robertson's remarks," the ADL said in a statement.

"It is pure arrogance for Robertson to suggest that he has divine knowledge of God's intent and purpose based on his interpretation of scripture."

How true are the words from the article. I have a few friends, who by the way are distancing themselves from me, who believe as Robertson does. These friends have an internet voice and this frustrates me to no end at how dangerous their statements are.

This is so sad. It is true that this reproach upon the church is related to dispensationalism, but Robertson's error was simply one of poor biblical exegesis. Of course, poor biblical exegesis and dispensationalism feed off of one another—dispensationalism arises from poor exegesis, then it inspires poor exegesis in its continuing defense.

Robertson's mistake was, no doubt, one that only a dispensationalist would make, but it is not one that every dispensationalist would necessarily make, based upon the system. True, all dispensationalists share a common error in their understanding of biblical prophecies about Israel, but they would not necessarily have to agree with Robertson's interpretation of Joel 3:2. Robertson says:

"The prophet Joel makes it very clear that God has enmity against those who, quote, 'divide my land.' God considers this land to be his."

What is wrong with this statement? Just about everything. The statement in Joel is condemning those (either the Assyrians, the Babylonians, the Romans, or all of the above) who scattered Israel among the nations, and divided up Israel's real estate for and among themselves. Neither Ariel Sharon, nor the United States, nor the United Nations, did that with Gaza, as I understand it. Therefore, Joel's prophecy can not be talking about any of these political persons or entities.

On the other hand, the prophets said that the "dividing of the Land" was a consequence that God brought upon Israel for their rebellion against Him (Amos 7:17/ Micah 2:4). If there be some crime in the division of the land of Israel among Israel's enemies, it is even more a punishment for earlier crimes, and the Bible says it is God's doing.

According to scripture, the blame lies upon the people in Israel who reject God. Since the modern State of Israel officially rejects God and His Messiah, why would it not be more proper to view the dividing-off of Gaza as God's bringing the stated consequences upon apostate Israel for this rejection? Such a conclusion fits the facts of history and of prophecy—and requires minimal speculation.

Robertson gives, as his reason for objecting to the division of the land of Israel, "God considers this land to be his." Actually, God considers the whole earth to be His (Psalm 24:1) and has promised it all to Abraham and his Seed [Christ] (Rom.4:13/ Psalm 2:8).

It is true that God considers the land of Canaan/Palestine/Israel to be His Land, but this tells us little about whether He would like pagan Jews or pagan Gentiles to live on it. God told Israel it is not their land, but His (Lev.25:23), and that, if they were rebellious against Him, He would expel them from the land as surely as He had expelled the previous tenants (Lev.18:24, 28).

Robertson is a brother, I believe, and like all brothers in the Lord, I acknowledge his right to interpret the Bible according to his own conscience—but since he is wont to make controversial public statements in the name of Christianity, I would sure like to see him interpret the scriptures with a greater respect for context and other exegetical considerations.

In addition to poor exegesis, it is poor logic - the classic post hoc fallacy. A happened before B, therefore A must have caused B. Hal Lindsey, in a glorious moment of chest thumping, writes an "I told you so" column.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/artic ... E_ID=48226

He really went out on a limb by predicting that something might happen to an elderly, overweight man who has a somewhat stressful job.

In the midst of the typical bluster of propchecy pundits who declare that disasters occur because of land dealings in Israel, I always ponder why it is that God doesn't act prior to geopolitical movement. In other words, why didn't God "off" Sharon before the Gaza withdrawal? Pardon the crude language, but that is essentially what many dispensationalsists intimate when they speak on these things.

Sad too, is that my wife and I were wondering how long it would take for endtimers to speak out about Sharon. We are never disappointed.

Steve, David Hocking has now referred to the "hatred" expressed by "replacement theolgians". This is typical, but I wanted to ask you (or anyoone else) if you see a new generation dispensationalists on the horizon - a younger set of futurists who have a public voice. It seems with the increasing distance from 1948, the expansion of the European Union, and failed predictions by futurists, that dispensationalism is waning. Especially if the baton is not being received by those attempting to pass it.

Regarding:

This is typical, but I wanted to ask you (or anyoone else) if you see a new generation dispensationalists on the horizon - a younger set of futurists who have a public voice. It seems with the increasing distance from 1948, the expansion of the European Union, and failed predictions by futurists, that dispensationalism is waning. Especially if the baton is not being received by those attempting to pass it.

See the thread on Progressive dispensationalism here:
http://www.wvss.com/forumc/viewtopic.php?t=376

It seems that some dispensationalists, finding traditional dispensationalism untenable, are drifting towards more preterism in their eschatology.

Makes you wonder if the demise of dispensationalism looming on the horizon.

Regarding Mr. Robertson, I cringed when I heard his comment being reported on the news. In all brotherly love and respect for Pat, I do wish he would consider Matthew 12:36 before he issues public comments.

Regarding Mr. Robertson - Amen, schoel

Here is some interesting reading on Dispensationalism,

http://www.truthortradition.com/modules ... ew_topic=2

Jesusfollower wrote:Here is some interesting reading on Dispensationalism,

http://www.truthortradition.com/modules ... ew_topic=2

Typical Dispensational stuff there. Most stunning is the claim that there was no church until Acts 2!

And that the predictions Jesus made in Matt 16:28 and Matt 24 were incorrect because the "Grace Administration" has delayed Christ’s coming and Kingdom. This administration, since it was a mystery (or should I say "secret") Christ did not know about it so it threw the time frame all out of whack.

Ironically, Christ Himself started the Church.

Jesus was a minister to the Jews and talked to Jews, Romans 15:8
Now I say that Jesus Christ was a minister of the circumcision for the truth of God, to confirm the promises made unto the fathers:

Clearly the Church started on Pentecost, That is when everything changed, without a dispensational point of view it is impossible to reckon the scripture without many contradictions. I think maybe you should read more of those commentaries before making such a statement, disregarding The position without fully understanding it. Your choice.

Crusader?