Augustine Refutes BIC Canada Leadership (and other Errantists) – Part 2

maxresdefault

In my last post I demonstrated that Bruxy Cavey, Doug Sider, and Darrell Winger espoused a common lie in their podcast “Inerrancy, Authority, Tradition and the Bible” when they said that that the concept of biblical inerrancy was a relatively novel doctrine in church history. We saw that Augustine, writing near the end of the fourth century, argued for the inerrancy of the Scriptures in the same way that inerrantists do today.

I wanted to share one more example of Augustine’s belief in biblical inerrancy. This one is found in his disputation with Faustus the Manichean, Book 11.

Continue reading “Augustine Refutes BIC Canada Leadership (and other Errantists) – Part 2”

Advertisements
Augustine Refutes BIC Canada Leadership (and other Errantists) – Part 2

Augustine Refutes BIC Canada Leadership (and other Errantists) – Part 1

maxresdefault

It’s common for modern day theological liberals, progressive Christians, and others to claim that the doctrine of inerrancy is a fairly novel doctrine. They will often trace it back to the nineteenth century as a recent invention of fundamentalists to fight liberalism. The claim that the doctrine of inerrancy is a novel doctrine is very common among those who reject it and still wish to be considered to be consistent with what Christians have believed down through history.

Recently, in a podcast called “Inerrancy, Authority, Tradition and the Bible” (video here), Bruxy Cavey held what is called a “Meeting House Round Table” to discuss his denomination’s view of Scripture. I plan on posting a review of the whole podcast soon, but for now I want to briefly touch on one aspect of it.

Cavey’s guests were Doug Sider, Executive Director of BIC Canada, and Darrell Winger, Executive Pastor of The Meeting House. In their rejection of the inerrancy of Scripture both Sider and Winger claimed that inerrancy was new, invented to combat liberalism in the nineteenth century.

Continue reading “Augustine Refutes BIC Canada Leadership (and other Errantists) – Part 1”

Augustine Refutes BIC Canada Leadership (and other Errantists) – Part 1

Bruxy Cavey’s Egalitarian Argument: The Anatomy of a Bible Twisting

Bruxy Cavey recently completed a series called “Bad Ideas” at The Meeting House. It was a series of teachings on ideas that Cavey says can corrupt a proper understanding of the Christian faith. The first message in the series was called “Bad Ideas #1 – God Is Male“, in which he refutes the idea that God is actually male.

bruxy-god-is-male-bibletwist

It must be said that many of his points were legitimate, true points while others were disputable. He is primarily refuting the notion that God is a “big man” with no attributes that we would view as feminine. This main point is undisputed. In this post I am not going to engage the entirety of the message but with the way he handles Scripture and the resultant reasoning he employs to answer a specific question regarding male and female roles in the churches as far as leadership.

Continue reading “Bruxy Cavey’s Egalitarian Argument: The Anatomy of a Bible Twisting”

Bruxy Cavey’s Egalitarian Argument: The Anatomy of a Bible Twisting

Bruxy Cavey and Inclusivism: Utter Gospel Confusion – Part 2

sheep-and-goats

In my last post (it’s been a while, I know) I documented that Bruxy Cavey embraces the idea that there are people in this world who will die with no knowledge of Christ whatsoever and yet be justified in the sight of God. Bruxy appeals to Matthew 25:31-46 to justify this, claiming that the sheep Jesus ushers into eternal life are those who worshipped Jesus although they knew nothing about him. Their service to the poor and less fortunate is received by Jesus as worship. I pointed out that not only is this not what Matthew 25 is teaching, but that Bruxy’s view amounts to justification by works for these sheep.

Well, after my post, Bruxy preached this view yet again at The Meeting House, and wrote a follow-up blog post over at his blog. In Bruxy’s post he doubles-down on his unbiblical view of Matthew 25:31-46, and attempts to explain how his view is not one of works salvation. Let’s examine what he has to say. Continue reading “Bruxy Cavey and Inclusivism: Utter Gospel Confusion – Part 2”

Bruxy Cavey and Inclusivism: Utter Gospel Confusion – Part 2

Bruxy Cavey and Inclusivism: Utter Gospel Confusion

inclusivismThe Gospel of Jesus Christ is, by nature, exclusive. By this I mean that, according to the Scriptures, the Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only means by which anyone can have peace with God. Jesus taught that nobody comes to the Father except through him (John 14:6). John tells us that those who believe in Christ have life, but those who do not believe bear the wrath of God (John 3:36). Paul tells us that by faith in Christ we have peace with God because we are united to Christ, justified, and reconciled to God through his death (Romans 5:1-10), and that those who are not believers indwelt by the Holy Spirit do not belong to God and cannot please him (Romans 8:1-11). Continue reading “Bruxy Cavey and Inclusivism: Utter Gospel Confusion”

Bruxy Cavey and Inclusivism: Utter Gospel Confusion

In My Place, Condemned He Stood – Bruxy Cavey’s Denial of Penal Substitution Refuted

agnusdei_448x280Today I am sharing a sermon I heard recently.

In My Place, Condemned He Stood” is preached by Pastor Carl Muller of Trinity Baptist Church in Burlington, Ontario. In this sermon, Pastor Muller responds to those who would deny the doctrine of Penal Substitutionary Atonement, such as Bruxy Cavey of The Meeting House. In fact, Bruxy’s erroneous statements that Penal Substitutionary Atonement is a novel doctrine that “goes beyond Scripture” are directly quoted as “perhaps the most disturbing example” of those rejecting the doctrine. For more direct quotes from Bruxy on Penal Substitution click here. Continue reading “In My Place, Condemned He Stood – Bruxy Cavey’s Denial of Penal Substitution Refuted”

In My Place, Condemned He Stood – Bruxy Cavey’s Denial of Penal Substitution Refuted

Bruxy Cavey and Paul Hill: Detaching Christ from Scripture

Bruxy Cavey loves to make a distinction between following Jesus and following the Bible. This is a distinction without a difference. Bruxy uses this tactic to justify dismissing those things in the Bible which he deems inconsistent with his own view of Christ (more about this later in this article). I have addressed this false distinction here.

When we imbue the Bible with the place and power that only Jesus should hold, Christ-followers can become idolatrous Bible-followers rather than Christ-followers – and that is a recipe for disaster.” – The Authority of the Word of God in Print and in Person – The Meeting House

To drive this point home, Bruxy uses the example of a Pastor named Paul Hill (see this sermon and The Authority of the Word of God in Print and in Person). Reverend Paul Hill professed Christ and, in Bruxy’s words, was “A very dedicated and passionate evangelical pastor, Paul Hill was committed to the authority of Scripture. He was passionate for God, and followed the Bible as his authority for faith and practice.” Reverend Hill shot and killed an abortion doctor and his bodyguard with a shotgun and found his justification for doing so in the Scriptures, according to Bruxy. Continue reading “Bruxy Cavey and Paul Hill: Detaching Christ from Scripture”

Bruxy Cavey and Paul Hill: Detaching Christ from Scripture