Alistair Begg actually gave advice that promoted actions that were inline with affirming the lifestyle of the gay couple, such as attending to prove you are not a bigot or intolerant and taking a gift, no less. MacArthur is simply saying don't transgress your conscience, but there is no going above and beyond to support their sinful lifestyle, just to prove that Christians are not hateful, by participating, and giving approval, such as Begg was advising!.
I think you complicated the message! Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe you are simply saying the point is it is wrong for Christians to show approval or perhaps support tolerance towards sinful activity. In this case, Same Sex marriage, if I am wrong, please correct me.
I think it was wise and considerate of him to clarify and make the distinction bc I can see how his original answer could have been misunderstood. Thx for standing uncompromisingly on the Word! 😊
It’s good that he clarified his answer, but I also think his original statement was clear enough. I was a little surprised that people actually took it the wrong way, but now there should be no confusion.
G'day, Servant! I think that MacArthur could/should have qualified his initial statement, i.e., something like, "It's a sin to bake a cake for a gay wedding if you are made aware that it's for that specific purpose," v. baking a cake and a same-sex couple buys it and doesn't tell you what it's for, just like buying any other food or merchandise at your restaurant or shop.
@@lindacowles756As someone getting on in years, what I think I hear is often hilariously variant from what was actually said. MacArthur is significantly older than me. He obviously misunderstood the question the first time because he did not answer it as it was asked; and when it was repeated with elaboration later, his new answer was the opposite of Begg’s.
Good video. This is what I commented on Caleb's new video. I see what he did as stirring up division: Addressed to iThinkBiblically: Now when do you intend to repent of your public slander against other RU-vidrs who did not create a video that you believe they should create? It is very sinful to stir up division and attempt to create a controversy (Titus 3:10). I cannot speak for other channels but I have standards as to what I deal with in my ministry that I apply equally ("equal weights and measures" Prov 11:11). I was shocked and disheartened to hear about the Alistair Begg incident. I did not want to do a video on it but felt that I needed to as the situation unfolded because my audience really appreciates Begg. He is one of the preachers that I have highlighted on the channel. I prayerfully decided that I would not do a video addressing him specifically but did prepare a “5 Reasons Why a Christian Should Never Attend a Gay Wedding” video. I wanted to give Alistair Begg and Truth for Life time to respond. (the same standard that I apply for John MacArthur and Grace to You). I did not do an Alistair Begg video until he had a chance to respond. I had just prepared clips of Begg’s preaching to use in future videos and decided to put a pause on that and see how Begg would respond. My ministry is a Bible teaching ministry and has a primary focus on the positive proclamation of God’s Word. But this intersected directly with my audience that I am shepherding in some capacity. I waited and watched as others jumped in left and right doing videos. Once he doubled down on his statements rather than recant or clarify, and he was dropped from a major radio network because of it, it was evident that we were dealing with a larger issue. It has now become a controversy. I refuse to take part in creating controversies. I have responded to this major controversy (which does not involve John MacArthur) in order to help my audience process the circumstance. I was shocked and disheartened to find out that such a faithful expositor of God’s Word (someone that I have been recommending as a solid Bible teacher and have highlighted on my channel) was now making a case for building bridges and taking risks to reach a specific group of sinners (those indulging in lgbt sins). There is a big difference between ministering to those during a controversy and creating a controversy (aka: stirring up division). Your RU-vidr friend commented on my video with the same kind of presumptions and accusations that you declared in your video. If I was asked a simple question about whether I intended to make a video about John MacArthur, I would have answered but since his comment was accusatory, presumptuous and not even really directed at me (but rather was sowing discord amongst my audience), I ignored it. I don’t have time to get into the MacArthur stuff but I definitely disagree with the answer that he gave, “in the moment” nearly a decade ago (7 years ago) but he is not encouraging believers to go bake cakes for gay weddings. He even made it clear in his 2017 answer that nobody should be forced to do such a thing against their conscience. I wondered if he would answer the question differently today and figured that he wasn’t thinking through everything that goes into baking a cake (decorating, having a same-sex cake topper, etc). It’s not like selling a watch. And sure enough, that’s exactly what played into why he answered it the way that he did at that time. I reached out to Phil Johnson and he emailed me the same statement that you read. I was surprised that he was so accessible. All you had to do was ask but now you’ve influenced over 20,000 viewers that weren’t aware of the situation to get worked up with the same energy against John MacArthur and treat it the same way as someone (Alistair Begg) who is actively promoting an agenda to take more risks and build bridges to the lgbt community (by attending a gay / trans wedding at times). He has even tried to make his case biblically now using Luke 15 and “love your enemies.” He has tripled down as of this moment on this belief. He has stated that it is a belief that is coming from a personal conviction. He has held this dilemma since 1999 as I demonstrate in my first video on the issue. I make the case that his compromise is coming from a compassionate heart that is seeking to reach the lost (it’s just a worldly view of love and compassion). The two situations are as different as night and day when you really get down to it. One man answered a question incompletely “in the moment” when asked. Another man intentionally promoted the idea of going to gay / trans weddings as a way to reach lgbt individuals and is now attempting to make a biblical argument for it. One is an insufficient answer from 7 years ago and another is a very recent controversy that has now made mainstream news and LGBT activists are writing about it and applauding it. This is a watershed moment in Evangelicalism. There is a reason why the entire internet is obsessed with it. It’s a big deal. We had major splits over CRT, there are factions regarding Dominionism and now the next major issue will be a split over LGBT agendas in the Church. For some reason (I’m just going to take a wild guess), I don’t think that you would be calling out a faithful small town pastor who said something wrong 7 years ago and declaring that every other Christian RU-vidr that made a video about Alistair Begg should do a video about him. You should really apologize for stirring up controversy and making presumptions about other people on RU-vid. These are some important verses to prayerfully consider: "As for a person who stirs up division, after warning him once and then twice, have nothing more to do with him, knowing that such a person is warped and sinful; he is self-condemned." (Titus 3:11) "There are six things that the Lord hates, seven that are an abomination to him: haughty eyes, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood, a heart that devises wicked plans, feet that make haste to run to evil, a false witness who breathes out lies, and one who sows discord among brothers." (Proverbs 6:16-19) “With his mouth the godless man would destroy his neighbor, but by knowledge the righteous are delivered.” (Proverbs 11:9) They’re just Bible verses. I’m not saying anything more than what God’s Word says. I forgive you but believe that you and the other RU-vidr behaved very sinfully in your stirring up division in an attempt to create controversy. I hope you’ll consider my comments before you delete them. God bless!
You’re so dishonest!! You’ve twisted this. In that court case a baker was asked to KNOWINGLY bake a cake for a gay wedding… MacArthur knew the question here. He even reworded it back. It was at the time of the gay baker case, and that was the context within which it was asked. You think his statement was convincing that he didn’t understand the question? He said it was a conscience issue, so clearly he knew this wasn’t something that was questionable (at best). Then he calls it an act of love and kindness (just like Begg’s claim). This is so wrong!
There was law case about such a matter in Northern Ireland some years ago when a baker refused to take an order to bake a cake . I It was reported on at length at the time and may be of interest to your discussion.
This is wrong! We didn't have an issue with MacArthur's statment beecause as you said we knew his stance and overlooked the statment until Alistair Begg made his remarks and doubled down. Revisiting MacArthur's statement, we see that he did answer wrong and even Phil Johnston's statment shows that they believe it is wrong to bake a cake for a gay wedding. So MacArthur's answer was wrong, however, Phil Johnson side stepped the issue, says the question and answer were ambiguous and did not address his actual statment on recorded video that "it is not sin to bake a cake for a gay wedding". Re-read the statement and you will see that he says Jmac said "it's not wrong to bake a cake for homosexuals" - that's a lie! And he also says that Jmac gave "the right answer" - that's called doubling down, not admiting wrong and taking ownership - "what I said or how I worded it was wrong" is the right response. So what's the difference between them both? One doubled down all the way, one doubled down half way and said he would be more clear next time.
Absolute nonsense. JMac simply clarified that supplying items not knowing how they will be used is not sin, however if it is used to knowingly promote or celebrate a sin, then that would be. JMac isn’t a baking professional, he wasn’t thinking an hour adding figurines to the top etc. Begg telling a grandma to attend a rainbow wedding which is in full knowledge of the sin, is wrong.
@@AfricanSheep Yes, that is also what their statement said - it's wrong to support or contribute to a sinful celebration. Which is also what makes his original statement wrong that "it's not a sin to bake a cake for a gay wedding". Well, according to you and them, it is contributing to a sinful celebration and is wrong because you know that it's going to be used for that purpose. But he is not taking ownership for making that comment.
@@AfricanSheep I think we all agree that selling generic/premade items is not sin, but that wasn’t the question. The problem isn’t with the bad answer that Jmac gave; it’s the blatant hypocrisy of his people not calling him out like they do other people. People criticized Joel osteen for not being direct when Oprah asked him about gay marriage. He disagreed with it but his answer wasn’t good enough for some.
This is so DISHONEST!! You’ve twisted this. In that court case a baker was asked to KNOWINGLY bake a cake for a gay wedding… MacArthur knew the question here. He even reworded it back. It was at the time of the gay baker case, and that was the context within which it was asked. You think his statement was convincing that he didn’t understand the question? He said it was a conscience issue, so clearly he knew this wasn’t something that was questionable (at best). Then he calls it an act of love and kindness (just like Begg’s claim). This is so wrong!
i think the issue is in the follow up and clarification. He clarified what he meant.everyone makes an error whether knowingly or unknowingly, nobody is perfect so what comes into play is what u say after u realize your error. If he says he had not understood the question previously and clarifies his answer, we cannot condemn him, only God knows his heart. the issue would have been had he not clarified his doctrine
Yes there is a difference , John MacArther comes across as arrogant, and Alister Begg comes across as humble , both love the Lord , no question about that ,
All I’m hearing is you don’t like MacArthur and that’s fine, you don’t have to I’m just wondering how what he said contained any arrogance. Begg calling everyone who doesn’t agree with him as pharisees with homosexual tendancies is hardly the epitome of humility though.
Oh how I wish the brethren who have passed judgement would read the whole context and message of AB. You have ascribed to him things he never said or believed. I have pastored for 50 years and there ARE other sides to some issues. I think some here would rather drive people to hell than to lead them to the gentle shepherd.
I strongly disagree with you - that is merely your own opinion based on your personal dislike of John Macarthur. It's not a biblical principle nor is it biblical teaching. We could rightly accuse you of being judgemental and biased.
It is very upsetting to see everyone turn on Allister!! He has proved to be faithful!! I see where he is coming from and I am sure a lot of Christians have even while disagreeing with a grandchild or child’s lifestyle never want that child to feel unloved by a grandparent!! I hate to see all of the Christian channels throwing a faithful pastor in hell over his humble opinion when he is clear also of his stance on homosexuality!!
Good thinking AND Christian love. I share your concern. We Christians may find ourselves in a circular firing squad if we cannot allow difference of opinion.
Opinion over Scripture. That’s where I have the rub. My opinion doesn’t matter in light of Scripture. How can a Christian celebrate the sin of a loved one? Could she not showed love by not going? It’s God’s job to reconcile relationships not us.
@@shelbysittig1047Yes. I can love my granddaughter who wants an abortion to which she knows I object, without driving her to the clinic to obtain one. I love GOD and His Word far more than any earthly relation.
Fidelity to scripture does not allow previous positions to be used as cover for current error. A few obvious considerations for this conversation. There is no biblical difference between selling the cake and decorating the cake. The difference stated in this dialogue was that one is in support and celebration, while the other is simply an act of commerce. Here on earth where we live, the purpose of a cake is to celebrate. With few exceptions, humans buy cakes to celebrate. Selling one, then, is participating in the celebration actively or passively. So now the real question is, does sin enter by way of figurines on the cake? Indeed not. And this takes the body of Christ into deeper waters than most are comfortable swimming. In any case, good conversation.
So if someone comes into your shop to buy an item, do you interrogate them to find out who will be using/consuming the item and what it will be used for? What if you sell beds? Do you demand to know if the person buying it is married first? And if not they need to tell you who will sleep in it?
Not to strain at the obvious, but of course you cannot know who is using the bed and how. You may not realize it, but you are making my point. It would be just as illogical and unbiblical to think sin starts when the baker places figurines on the cake, but not before. That line of thinking also assumes the person is being truthful no matter what question you ask. Here’s the point, the cake question, if applied to any other business would disallow believers from selling anything and this hits at why God judges all of us based on what none of us can see…the heart.
That answer from John MacArthur was brilliant the first time I heard it and Alistair Begg has made his position FULLY known regarding lgbtq. Fully known.
@@Wise_Son I agree that attending a same sex marriage isn't any more of an endorsement than Naaman attending a Temple service to the deity RIMMON. 2 Kings 5:18 KJV [18] In this thing the LORD pardon thy servant, that when my master goeth into the house of Rimmon to worship there, and he leaneth on my hand, and I bow myself in the house of Rimmon: when I bow down myself in the house of Rimmon, the LORD pardon thy servant in this thing. She already said that she isnt in agreement and has made that known.
@@Wise_Son Im not saying that she should, I just feel like is it that hard of a concept to grasp that her presence isn't necessarily an endorsement of the fake marriage but more of an affirmation of love and dedication to a stewardship that is her ministry to her grandson? (Of course, given that SHE feels that way) Is attending the best way? The only way? Absolutely no way? I do not know but to say that attendance is an absolute endorsement seems like an either or type of fallacy. 🤷
Whatever happened to allowing each person to be subject to their own conscience before their lord and master? I have long suspected that the church was judgemental, but I do wonder how to live in the kingdom of God and have any individual conscience at all. As I understand scripture, we are all to work out our own salvation with fear and trembling. So, if your conscience is tormented by going to that wedding, then you should not go. But you far outstretch your place to live in judgement of those who do go. I am very troubled by the attacks on my brother Alistaire Begg. Truly legalism lurks just beneath the surfaced of the evangelical church.
@@paulvail2850 Long story short, you can go to Hell because of guilty by association, you know same sex marriage is an abomination, so if you attend one, you're going to Hell with those homosexuals, because you approve of their sin and have pleasure in it. So even though you're straight and not gay, you're going to Hell with them because you support their sin. Enough said.
I don’t remember Jesus encouraging sin. He ate with sinners but always told them go and sin no more. That’s my example not a man’s opinion taken as gospel.
I think we have to be careful because some people are going to take this and run with it actually the wrong way well I think I can share the gospel with someone without actually having to sit down and eat a meal with them. Because if someone see me sitting with a gay person and I'm eating with them in some ways that's like sharing a covenant meal with someone. Sharing the gospel is what we ought to do but at the same time we have to be very careful!
Cory. Your channel, insight and wisdom is never to be apologized for!! Your ministry is EXACTLY what heretics need to fear and believers need to hear!!! I love what you’re doing 🙏
@@AfricanSheep I’ll be selling butter. Whatever they use it for after it leaves the shop is on them. If they explicitly say it’s to celebrate sin I’ll be forced to refuse service.
This is so dishonest…he twisted this. In that court case a baker was asked to KNOWINGLY bake a cake for a gay wedding… MacArthur knew the question here. He even reworded it back. It was at the time of the gay baker case, and that was the context within which it was asked. You think his statement was convincing that he didn’t understand the question? He said it was a conscience issue, so clearly he knew this wasn’t something that was questionable (at best). Then he calls it an act of love and kindness (just like Begg’s claim). This is so wrong!
Has John MacArthur ever publicly expressed repentance for suggesting that one could receive the mark of the beast and still attain salvation? Unlike stating "scripture says," he framed it as "I think." This raises questions about why his statement is considered acceptable while Alister Begg was accused of false teaching for saying "I suggest that you should go and bring a gift, etc." Begg didn't preface his suggestion with "scripture teaches." It appears there's a double standard at play here. I'm a fan of John MacArthur, but I can't help but notice inconsistencies in how certain teachers are scrutinized on RU-vid.
Other differences, McAtthur was addressing homosexual " wedding" as a business. Begg a "transexual wedding " as a personal statement. The second is even worse depravity and much more approval.
Agree with you. I have been hoping for AB to come forward and clarify his statement as did JM. Unfortunately he isn’t humble enough to see any thing wrong with what he said. May God have mercy.
Are u sure that AB “isn’t humble enough…”? Could it not be that he firmly believes that he gave appropriate advice? Regardless as whether the advice AB gave is correct or not (I don’t believe it was correct), let’s not play God by assigning motives to a person’s actions. After all, “man looks on the outward, God looks upon the heart”. Just saying…
Matthew 5:46-48 NKJV For if you love those who love you, what reward have you? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? And if you greet your brethren only, what do you do more than others? Do not even the tax collectors do so? Therefore you shall be perfect, just as your Father in heaven is perfect.
Jesus ate with sinners. He also didn’t partake in their sin instead he said go and sin no more. I’m troubled by how so many seek to defend Begg, is it not God’s job to reconcile relationships? We put too much pressure on ourselves to keep relationships when that’s not our job. In Christ does not father hate son, mother hate daughter, etc because we put Christ above all other relationships. If we refuse to put Christ before all other relationships then do we truly love Him? 🤔
Please refer to the very circumstance a few years ago in Northern Ireland when a gay man took a Christian bakery called Ashers to court for refusing to bake a cake for a gay wedding. This is very different because of how the cake was to be decorated. A plain cake would have been no problem. In the end the court ruled in favour of the Christian baker.
That sounds like they can support our business but we can't support businesses that support their lifestyle even though we don't we're just buying the business product? If the first is not wrong then the ladder can't be wrong!
maybe the question could been answer with " what would jesus had done" ... jesus being the son of god was eating and drinking with the sinners and publicans in his time ... he came for those who are sick ...Matt 9:11-13 And when the Pharisees saw [it], they said unto his disciples, Why eateth your Master with publicans and sinners? But when Jesus heard [that], he said unto them, They that be whole need not a physician, but they that are sick. But go ye and learn what [that] meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice: for I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance. how can you send people to christ when you show no love to them
This video is clearly biased. John MacArthur and Begg are both right, by the way. Begg's context in the whole matter was about showing compassion to a sinner. MacArthur's context is the same with regard to showing "kind gestures" to sinners. However, in both cases, the sinners' immediate concern was about an abominable ceremony they called a "wedding." Yet here it is: Begg's context in the matter got derailed with arguments focused on the sinful celebratory event, alluding to his suggestion to somehow approve this event. But on the other hand, MacArthur got a pass on how immoral the event (which he supports baking a cake for) is to conveniently focus on just the sinner (homosexual) as an ordinary consumer buying a generic cake. Really? So now there's absolutely no need to discuss how bad the event (the wedding) is because it's already understood where MacArthur's stance is on sexual immorality. What about Begg and his already provenly solid and consistent stance about the same? Smh. This whole video is just a cleaverly tailored deflection from saying, "Yeah, I was too hasty in my response about Begg and might have indulged in the sin of slander."
I have NOT HEARD a single one of you take this question to the LORD as you open your Bibles > 🤪 The #1 issue should be in every case: Do not ignore The LORD whose name is JEALOUS > 🤪 So what about Alitair Begg and John MacArthur? Why have they NOT (at the very least) mentioned to us that they asked the Holy Spirit to show them in the Bible what Scriptures He wants them to point out to the rest of us who should also be asking The Holy Spirit the same thing! SERIOUSLY > 🤪 Consider yourselves REBUKED and don't forget to rejoice ALWAYS, to pray without ceasing and to be thankful in every situation INCLUDING THIS ONE > 😇😁😄😃 1 Thessalonians 5:16-19 AMP [16] Rejoice always and delight in your faith; [17] be unceasing and persistent in prayer; [18] in every situation [no matter what the circumstances] be thankful and continually give thanks to God; for this is the will of God for you in Christ Jesus. [19] Do not quench [subdue, or be unresponsive to the working and guidance of] the [Holy] Spirit.
MacArthur acolytes have blinders on. The question was: Is it truly sinful for a Christian business person (for instance a baker, to produce a product for a gay wedding? JMac said, it's not sinful. The question was specific. Why did it take 6 years to correct? Because he got heat for it and it made him look bad. If Begg kept his mouth shut, no one would've said anything. It's appalling that the panel and audience were laughing at this very serious question.
Does he mean that we can bake/sell a cake for a gay/trans person but not design one according to their specifications ? or make provision without endorsing their message.
The act of designing a cake for a gay trans ECT means you are giving an approval for them to get marry and or basically saying that it's okay in God's eye. Versus an original cake that is made everyday with normal decorations excluding anything perverse immoral or unbiblical. Like selling a plate of food in a restaurant that you own to a gay person is okay.
That sounds like they can support our business but we can't support businesses that support their lifestyle even though we don't we're just buying the business product? If the first is not wrong then the ladder can't be wrong!
