Alistair Begg and transgender weddings

Alistair is being pragmatic thinking that extending kindness will leave the door open for dialogue and witnessing. He is not saying he agrees with or condones such unions and I thought he made this quite clear.

I disagree with Alistair Begg's position and concur with what others are saying that your presence at such a "wedding" implies your approval of the union and this is not something I would not wish to stand before God and give account!

I listen to RefNet on a regular basis where his "Truth for Life" program is regularly featured but took notice that he is not currently on their schedule so I guess that RefNet gave them the boot as well - albeit quietly.

I personally would not break fellowship with him over this matter. He gave some bad advice but it is a position for which we may agree to disagree.
 
Baptist Renegade said:
Alistair is being pragmatic thinking that extending kindness will leave the door open for dialogue and witnessing. He is not saying he agrees with or condones such unions and I thought he made this quite clear.
Click to expand...

I agree. As I said at the beginning of that article, I don't find fault with his sexual ethics. Only the application.

He is indeed being pragmatic, but to a fault. If you want to build bridges to unsaved family members, there are other occasions to do that which won't implicate yourself in moral compromise.
 
abcaines said:
But... But... But... Doesn't that Scottish brogue mean he's a reliable teacher?
Click to expand...
don;t know about that one.... ..only know a few scots who speak the brogue...... and i only see them once a year during the festival.... .. but i wouldn;t be surprised to find glenlivet in his pantry.... they all have it in theirs... ...they even bring it to the festival - the 12 year old kind.... ...you can always tell they been hitting it when their piping starts sounding weird..... ...is that what they are saying about beggs recent pipes?.... hmmmm maybe there;s a fifth somewhere in the advice he;s putting forth?...:sneaky:
 
ALAYMAN said:
Lol, I'm okay with you challenging Begg, but Mohler, that's another fanboy beast altogether...


View attachment 5149

But I pretty much agree with your take on Begg's mistake, so I ain't in the least bout to turn green. ;)
Click to expand...
I'll still listen to both Begg and Mohler and when it is time for me to disagree with them, I will disagree and life will go on.
 
Baptist Renegade said:
I'll still listen to both Begg and Mohler and when it is time for me to disagree with them, I will disagree and life will go on.
Click to expand...
If you disagree with Mohler then you should get saved young man.






😁
 
But the BIG question is:
Will he or will he not be dis-invited to the Shepherd's conference or not!
 
ALAYMAN said:
Never.

TULIP is thicker than water.


😁
Click to expand...
Just because someone believes in the TULIP as Spurgeon did doesn't make one a heretic. It is the extremists on both sides that presents a problem. Honest God-fearing Calvinists and Arminians alike try to explain (and failing misrably) how the sovereignty of God in salvation coincides with man's responsibility. John R. Rice who published the Sword of the Lord would print Spurgeon's sermons but censored anything he didn't like. He sanitized Spurgeon's sermons of anything that had to do with Calvinism and refused to allow other fundamentalists to see both sides of the controversy. I actually despised Calvinism because that is what I was taught. It reminds me of how Curtis Hutson sanitized the Sword of the Lord hymn book of anything that had to do with repentance. That was real heresy.
 
Last edited:
biscuit1953 said:
Just because someone believes in the TULIP as Spurgeon did doesn't make one a heretic. It is the extremists on both sides that presents a problem. Honest God-fearing Calvinists and Arminians alike try to explain (and failing misrably) how the sovereignty of God in salvation coincides with man's responsibility. John R. Rice who published the Sword of the Lord would print Spurgeon's sermons but censored anything he didn't like. He sanitized Spurgeon's sermons of anything that had to do with Calvinism and refused to allow other fundamentalists to see both sides of the controversy. I actually despised Calvinism because that is what I was taught. It reminds me of how Curtis Hutson sanitized the Sword of the Lord hymn book of anything that had to do with repentance. That was real heresy.
Click to expand...

I use humor a lot when I don't want to discuss the more serious side of things. My response to Starlifter was a minor way of using levity to take a shot at Calvinists, but it was mostly in the spirit of getting a cheap laugh. I'm not a Calvie, but wasn't really trying to use that post to make a statement about Calvinism, other than how tribes generally stick together.

And by the way, I had a similar experience to what you described. In my formative IFB burgeoning fundamentalist years there was a person who was highly influential in my growth that told me that Spurgeon wasn't really a Calvinist. When I did my own research and found out he actually was, I was disappointed that I was misled by him. It made me realize that sometimes well-intentioned people can be wrong in their way of sharing both sides of an issue.
 
Starlifter said:
But the BIG question is:
Will he or will he not be dis-invited to the Shepherd's conference or not!
Click to expand...

Phil Johnson called Begg's gaffe out, though not specifically by name, at a recent conference he spoke at (toward the end):


I'd like to see them keep him, with the proviso that the controversy doesn't get glossed over. But I'll bet there have been some discussions over at GCC.
 
Last edited:
biscuit1953 said:
Just because someone believes in the TULIP as Spurgeon did doesn't make one a heretic. It is the extremists on both sides that presents a problem. Honest God-fearing Calvinists and Arminians alike try to explain (and failing misrably) how the sovereignty of God in salvation coincides with man's responsibility. John R. Rice who published the Sword of the Lord would print Spurgeon's sermons but censored anything he didn't like. He sanitized Spurgeon's sermons of anything that had to do with Calvinism and refused to allow other fundamentalists to see both sides of the controversy. I actually despised Calvinism because that is what I was taught. It reminds me of how Curtis Hutson sanitized the Sword of the Lord hymn book of anything that had to do with repentance. That was real heresy.
Click to expand...
I thought they started editing and censoring Spurgeon sermons long after Rice went to glory!

No, this crowd does not allow for a fair examination of any position that disagrees with theirs. They just "Circle the Wagons" and attack anyone who do not look like them!

And for the record, Calvinists and Classic Arminians often agree more than they disagree and have far more in common with each other than do the sloppy "Once-Saved-Always-Saved" Babtists who pretty much ceased learning beyond the 8th grade! Feel free to tell Leighton Flowers and his ilk that I said so! :cool:
 
Baptist Renegade said:
I thought they started editing and censoring Spurgeon sermons long after Rice went to glory!

No, this crowd does not allow for a fair examination of any position that disagrees with theirs. They just "Circle the Wagons" and attack anyone who do not look like them!

And for the record, Calvinists and Classic Arminians often agree more than they disagree and have far more in common with each other than do the sloppy "Once-Saved-Always-Saved" Babtists who pretty much ceased learning beyond the 8th grade! Feel free to tell Leighton Flowers and his ilk that I said so! :cool:
Click to expand...
I was watching a documentary on the Pikeville murders in Ohio recently and the man accused of killing eight members of a family was said to have always preached that "you only need to get saved one time and then you can go rob a bank or kill someone and go back home and get forgiveness." One of his relatives said that. That is the major problem with the phrase "once saved always saved." Even though I have used that phrase in the past I believe "perseverence of the saints" describes salvation much better. A man can believe like the devils and go straight to hell. Hyper-Dispensationalists reject the book of 1 John because they believe it is a tribulational book that teaches faith plus works just as they reject the books of James through Revelation for the same reason. John 2:23-25 says that when they saw the miracles which Jesus did they believed in his name but Jesus did not commit himself to them because he knew what was in man. Their belief was nothing more than a head belief that accepted the facts concerning Jesus but that didn't affect their hearts. Just like the seven sons of Sceva they looked upon Jesus as nothing more than a lucky charm.

Those who espouse "easy believism" and going about shouting "once saved always" even if there is no fruit at all in their lives have decieved themselves. The apostle Paul told the Corinthians of whom many were living sinful lives to examine themselves as to whether they were in the faith. They need to know themselves how that Jesus Christ is in them except they be reprobates or had failed the test (2 Cor 13:5). Although we can't separate the wheat from the tares, we should warn those who claim to believe in Jesus that one day when they stand in the day of judgment and talk about all the many wonderful works they have done in Jesus' name, they may hear the most frightening words of "I never knew you."

Jesus said In Mark 13:5 that the key to all parables was the sower and the seed. When the gospel is preached there will always be true and false conversions. You have the foolish and wise virgins, the good and bad fish, the wheat and tares, etc.
 
biscuit1953 said:
I was watching a documentary on the Pikeville murders in Ohio recently and the man accused of killing eight members of a family was said to have always preached that "you only need to get saved one time and then you can go rob a bank or kill someone and go back home and get forgiveness." One of his relatives said that. That is the major problem with the phrase "once saved always saved." Even though I have used that phrase in the past I believe "perseverence of the saints" describes salvation much better. A man can believe like the devils and go straight to hell. Hyper-Dispensationalists reject the book of 1 John because they believe it is a tribulational book that teaches faith plus works just as they reject the books of James through Revelation for the same reason. John 2:23-25 says that when they saw the miracles which Jesus did they believed in his name but Jesus did not commit himself to them because he knew what was in man. Their belief was nothing more than a head belief that accepted the facts concerning Jesus but that didn't affect their hearts. Just like the seven sons of Sceva they looked upon Jesus as nothing more than a lucky charm.

Those who espouse "easy believism" and going about shouting "once saved always" even if there is no fruit at all in their lives have decieved themselves. The apostle Paul told the Corinthians of whom many were living sinful lives to examine themselves as to whether they were in the faith. They need to know themselves how that Jesus Christ is in them except they be reprobates or had failed the test (2 Cor 13:5). Although we can't separate the wheat from the tares, we should warn those who claim to believe in Jesus that one day when they stand in the day of judgment and talk about all the many wonderful works they have done in Jesus' name, they may hear the most frightening words of "I never knew you."

Jesus said In Mark 13:5 that the key to all parables was the sower and the seed. When the gospel is preached there will always be true and false conversions. You have the foolish and wise virgins, the good and bad fish, the wheat and tares, etc.
Click to expand...
Minor irrelevant correction, but it’s Piketon (in Pike County Ohio), not Pikeville, which is in Kentucky. The Pike County massacre happened basically in my back yard. My wife taught one of the surviving members in elementary school. While it’s true that there was an undercurrent of warped doctrine akin to easy believism in their form of practiced religion that is an oversimplified view of their worldview. The best way to understand them and their worldview is to think about the movie Deliverance. Rampant sexual abuse ran through the family tree. Marginal Christianity at best, more likely just a sham and cover of respectability for their carnality, fostered by the fairly religious matriarch of the family.
 
ALAYMAN said:
Minor irrelevant correction, but it’s Piketon (in Pike County Ohio), not Pikeville, which is in Kentucky. The Pike County massacre happened basically in my back yard. My wife taught one of the surviving members in elementary school. While it’s true that there was an undercurrent of warped doctrine akin to easy believism in their form of practiced religion that is an oversimplified view of their worldview. The best way to understand them and their worldview is to think about the movie Deliverance. Rampant sexual abuse ran through the family tree. Marginal Christianity at best, more likely just a sham and cover of respectability for their carnality, fostered by the fairly religious matriarch of the family.
Click to expand...
Yes, you are correct. It is Pike County. I Live close to Pikeville, TN and have actually worked there. It was senior moment. I will give a personal example of dealing with "easy believism." I retired about three years ago but I worked at a chemical plant for 12 years before I retired and worked with a man everybody called "Worm." He was about one of the most vile individuals I have ever worked with. He literally could not put together two sentences without some foul language coming out. He would go to the breakroom and talk about the pornographic movies he watched and how he got drunk every weekend. He got kicked out of a bar one night after getting drunk and stripping down naked. That is just who he was. One day I was talking with him and he told me he was going to heaven when he died because he "believed in Jesus." I told him that just because he claimed to believe in Jesus didn't mean he was a Christian. About three months before I retired he came into work and started going around the warehouse and various work areas telling everyone he got saved. He came to me personally to tell me about his conversion experience. He had an aunt who invited him to a Church of God meeting and that is when he met the Lord. He was such a different person no one would have believed the change unless they had seen it. Everyone doesn't have the same salvation experience and may even struggle with past sins but there will be a change if God has truly changed their hearts. In the parable of the Sower and the Seed, the only place it took root was in the good ground and produced various degrees of fruit but any seed that fell on good ground produced some fruit. Too many times we are guilty of affirming people in their sin and making them feel comfortable about their salvation because they prayed a prayer or went down to an altar when they were ten years old. If they have any doubts about their salvation they are told to write down in their Bible the date they went down to the altar. That is the biggest problem I see attending a homosexual "marriage" and supporting it with gifts. I read about a woman who married a dog. Should a Christian go to that wedding to build bridges?
 
Last edited:
biscuit1953 said:
I was watching a documentary on the Pikeville murders in Ohio recently and the man accused of killing eight members of a family was said to have always preached that "you only need to get saved one time and then you can go rob a bank or kill someone and go back home and get forgiveness." One of his relatives said that.
Click to expand...
This is the bitter fruit of such a sloppy doctrine. It is exactly what certain Baptists actually teach and believe.
biscuit1953 said:
That is the major problem with the phrase "once saved always saved." Even though I have used that phrase in the past I believe "perseverence of the saints" describes salvation much better.
Click to expand...
I like what RC Sproul has to say about this. "Perseverance of the Saints" gives one the impression that it is up to the believer to persevere and "endure to the end" when it is actually the "Perseverance of God" where God keeps and preserves his own. Those who are Christ's will endure to the end but will do so not of their own power but by the power of God.

Those who are in Christ will bring forth spiritual fruit (30, 60, and 100 fold, etc.) and may fall into sin at times but will not live in continual, habitual, and unrepentant sin. Those who claim to be "Christian" and numbered among those in the (local) Church should be warned and subject to "Church Discipline" if they are openly sinful and defiant in their actions.
biscuit1953 said:
Jesus said In Mark 13:5 that the key to all parables was the sower and the seed. When the gospel is preached there will always be true and false conversions. You have the foolish and wise virgins, the good and bad fish, the wheat and tares, etc.
Click to expand...
Most (if not all) of Jesus's parables speak of false converts who "Think" they are saved but are not. This is also the primary message of all the OT Prophets (Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Etc.)! It is definitely not something to take lightly, this is for certain!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top