- Joined
- Apr 18, 2012
- Messages
- 1,247
- Reaction score
- 156
- Points
- 63
Is what John MacArthur said in this video clip any different than what Alistair Begg said?
Is what John MacArthur said in this video clip any different than what Alistair Begg said?
MacArthur has never worried about alienating the populace by his doctrinal stances, he doesn’t go by the zeitgeist for his positions, so we know that he believes this about the gay cake baker issue legitimately and conscientiously. He reframed it as a religious liberty issue, much like the battle against the state he undertook with the COVID shutdown. I don’t know if that was an intentional sidestep of the question but I agree with the YouTuber that he might be likely to reverse field if asked that question again.Is what John MacArthur said in this video clip any different than what Alistair Begg said?
I believe that wedding cakes is purely a matter of conscience. If a Christian baker believes that by baking the cake, he or she is giving sanction and approval to the "union," then they should refuse. If they just see it as providing a "service" and are able to remain neutral, who am I to say?Is what John MacArthur said in this video clip any different than what Alistair Begg said?
In such a light, would it be acceptable to skip the wedding and make an appearance at their reception? From this standpoint, I think you could "Wish them all the joy and happiness in the world" and still not give approval to their union right?Somewhat. MacArthur likens baking a cake for a gay wedding to serving a gay couple dinner in a restaurant--in other words, the baker is simply supplying goods or services. While I happen to disagree, for reasons I've outlined before, if you assume the premise that providing goods or services is morally neutral, the role of a caterer and the role of a wedding guest are still different.
MacArthur also frames the question in terms of freedom of religion and the government compelling forms of expression against one's conscience. Again, I disagree that a wedding cake is a morally neutral form of expression that a Christian baker ought to freely bake. But MacArthur is therefore answering a different question than Begg did, and so there should be no surprise if he comes up with a different answer as well.
And while this YouTube video came out today, I have no idea how old the MacArthur clip is. Maybe it's several years old, and he's thought through his position more thoroughly since. At face value, he's also wrong.
I think we need to promote the following slogan:I believe that wedding cakes is purely a matter of conscience. If a Christian baker believes that by baking the cake, he or she is giving sanction and approval to the "union," then they should refuse. If they just see it as providing a "service" and are able to remain neutral, who am I to say?
The fact of the matter is that you have gay activists seeking out such people with a "conscience" rather than finding some ordinary average joe who does not have a conscience either way and would be more than happy to bake them a cake.
The absolute bottom line is that one should not be forced to violate their conscience in order to remain in business!
I'd still have a problem with that. I cannot, will not acknowledge such a union. A gift, whether it be a physical gift or my presence, is by definition a gift to both.In such a light, would it be acceptable to skip the wedding and make an appearance at their reception? From this standpoint, I think you could "Wish them all the joy and happiness in the world" and still not give approval to their union right?
Could this possibly be what Alistair Begg was trying to convey all along??? If I were backed into a corner like he is right now, I would see this as my way out and say "Yeah, that is exactly what I meant! Go to their reception, bring a gift, and wish them the best! Of course the "best" you would have in mind would be that they come to Christ in repentance and faith and forsake this ungodly lifestyle!
I'm thinking this would be a matter in which we could disagree though and not cancel each other? Should Alistair Begg be kicked off the airwaves if this were actually his position?I'd still have a problem with that. I cannot, will not acknowledge such a union. A gift, whether it be a physical gift or my presence, is by definition a gift to both.
We are not to grant "God's speed" to preachers of a false gospel. How then are we to do the same by celebrating an illegitimate union?
I have plenty of friends who are wrong on this... What's one more?I'm thinking this would be a matter in which we could disagree though and not cancel each other? Should Alistair Begg be kicked off the airwaves if this were actually his position?
Alistair Begg is a CALVINIST!!! This alone should make the haters bristle!!!I have plenty of friends who are wrong on this... What's one more?
I've not listened to Alistair Begg for some time. I came across something else, years ago where I disagree with him... I can't remember what it is... But I haven't written any station managers about him yet.
You must remember... I dabbled in Calvinist teaching for about a dozen years. While I don't tow the Calvinist line lock stock and barrel, I do appreciate its teaching when it comes to the sovereignty of God and the fact that I have nothing to take credit for when it comes to my redemption or my perseverance.Alistair Begg is a CALVINIST!!! This alone should make the haters bristle!!!![]()
The big problem with Hank Hanegraaff is that he decided to become chrismated into the Eastern Orthodox Church. I think that after that, he pretty much dropped off the face of the earth which was bad for him but good for Christianity. He went off the cliff but was not able to take too many others with him.You must remember... I dabbled in Calvinist teaching for about a dozen years. While I don't tow the Calvinist line lock stock and barrel, I do appreciate its teaching when it comes to the sovereignty of God and the fact that I have nothing to take credit for when it comes to my redemption or my perseverance.
I used to listen to Hank Hannegraaff. He's the one who got me interested in apologetics. I was dismayed when I discovered he had slid into preterism. I thought how could he? But after reading up on covenant theology, I can see where he would take such a position the same way a dispy can slide into hyper dispensationalism.
In matters of sovereignty vs free will or dispensationalism, I have found CC to strike a pretty fair balance.
"The Harm Principle" sports the following quote: "Your liberty to swing your fist ends just where my nose begins.” A proverb often used by the left to club conservatives over the head...We own a shirt embellishment business. Little League uniforms, VBS shirts and the like. I was making some traction with one off custom designs, and had a small but regular customer base. The arguments around the cake baker opened up the question as whether I would be able to decline to design messages that went against my core beliefs. I wasn't only thinking of messaging for LGB things but any messaging/groups that I didn't agree with like Planned Parenthood. What about vulgarities or sexual innuendo, risque images on up to full nudity? This is what is known as the chilling effect.
Somewhat. MacArthur likens baking a cake for a gay wedding to serving a gay couple dinner in a restaurant--in other words, the baker is simply supplying goods or services.