Begg's viral clip badly misrepresents the way to Paradise.
Who is Alistair Begg? His Ligonier profile.
This following short clip of Alistair Begg's preaching was from Matt Smethurst, the The Gospel Coalition's (TGC) Managing Editor.
The video can be found here:
Note how popular this "gospel" is. 429 Retweets. 1765 Likes.
Begg's "gospel" really tickles the ear well.
In contrast, Kevin De Young rightly preached that without striving for holiness, Christians will not see the Master and inherit eternal life. No holiness. No heaven. 1 Retweet. 7 likes.
Protestants are generally uncomfortable affirming that judgment is according to works.
Then no reply.
Alastair Begg's Ligonier colleague has represented the thief on the cross more accurately than he has.
Sinclaire B. Ferguson, (Reprint 2017), Devoted To God, pg 10, Versa Press:
The dying thief - justification without sanctification?
But what about the dying thief - the criminal who turned to Jesus at the end of his life and asked for a place in his kingdom? (Luke 23:39-43) Surely he is the illustration par excellence of a man who was justified without being sanctified? He had no time to be sanctified.
In fact, this anonymous penitent turns out to be a powerful proof of the principle: no sanctification, no justification - no changed life, no changed status. For his justification was demonstrated by an immediate transformation. How so? He confessed his own sinfulness; he recognized Jesus' lordship; his attitude towards him changed from despising him to respecting him; he prayed. Even more than this, he defended Jesus and rebuked his companion for the vitriol he heaped on his new-found Master. In the last moments of his life he demonstrated that he was a justified believer who was already in the process of being sanctified and prepared to see the Lord in Paradise.
I wish I could give unqualified praise to Sinclair's writing on the thief on the cross, but here comes the typical Protestant confusing self-contradictions.
He (the thief on the cross) was not justified on the basis of his sanctification but on the basis of God's free grace. But neither was he justified without being sanctified.
God's favour (free grace) is a transformative salvation that powerfully re-creates the spiritually-dead-unrepentant-walking-in-sins man (Eph 2v1-3) into a spiritually-alive-repentant-walking-in-good-works man (Eph 2v4-6). Such a transformed-saved man is headed for eternal life to enjoy God's immeasurable kindness (Eph 2v7). Eph 2v8-9: This transforming-salvation happened when one believes the Good News, it did not happen as a result of doing works in order to be transformatively-saved. Transformative-salvation is God's work. No man can claim credit and boast. Eph 2v10: The reason why God transformatively-saved believers is to enable us to do good works prepared for us to do. God's transformative-salvation is meant to fulfill his purpose of choosing us to be holy and blameless before him (Eph 1v4).
Notice that God's favour executed sanctification. This is God's favour-empowered-transformative-salvation (Eph 2v1-10). It is illogical for Ferguson to write He (the thief on the cross) was not justified on the basis of his sanctification but on the basis of God's free grace. God's favour (free grace) caused that sanctification! So why deny that the thief was justified on the basis of God's favour-empowered-sanctification? It just doesn't make sense! And then Ferguson rightly ends off: But neither was he justified without being sanctified. Why the self-contradiction? Protestants are always uncomfortable with saying that Christians need to be sanctified in order to be justified on Judgment Day (declared righteous). At some point, they must must must somehow muddle it up or contradict themselves.
I just wish Alastair Begg would not misrepresent the way the thief on the cross was finally saved. His was a way way way off the mark misrepresentation. And I wish his colleague, Ferguson, would not contradict his own mainly (but not entirely) true interpretation.
Hopefully Begg's Twitter account manager conveys the message to him and Ferguson's unofficial profile owner somehow gets it to him too.
Begg's "gospel" clip is very popular with Protestants. It was comical but not Biblical. And no one who believes that "gospel" will find it funny anymore on Judgment Day. There will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.
Jer 5v30-31: An appalling and horrible thing has happened in the land: the prophets prophesy falsely, and the priests rule at their direction; my people love to have it so, but what will you do when the end comes?
The Protestant "gospel" is a different gospel. Let those who preach a different gospel be anathema! Be warned reader, those who believe a different gospel have deserted God.
Gal 1v8-9: 8 But even if we or a Messenger from heaven should preach to you a Good News contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be anathema! 9 As we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone is preaching to you a Good News contrary to the one you received, let him be anathema!
This is not a word game. It concerns eternal life or death.
Dear reader, see for yourself how the Protestant "gospel" is a different gospel:
#1: Man-made Protestant tradition "Imputed Righteousness of Christ"
#2: A top Protestant scholar, D.A. Carson, tries to defend this man-made tradition, in his essay, "Vindication of Imputation".
Yet it can be rebutted in just 10 pages: https://tinyurl.com/Faith-Is-Obedient-Work
#3: The Anti-Christian Lawless "Gospel" of (Dis)grace - Eph 2v8-9 ripped out of context (YouTube video): https://youtu.be/Vofm7BYrzRs
All the major pieces of the puzzle regarding justification, faith and good works are put together in a non-contradictory system in 6 pages:
Soteriology 101 - How to be saved from sin & death: https://tinyurl.com/Salvation-from-sin-death
Comments