“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished.”
Matthew 5:17-18, ESV
Fundamental to the Christian faith and a constant theme throughout the New Testament is that Jesus Christ fulfilled God’s law on behalf of sinners. This fact is absolutely essential to the gospel. A “gospel” which denies Christ’s fulfillment of the law is not the Christian gospel, but another gospel. Unfortunately there are professing Christians, including Pastors and other leaders, who deny Christ’s fulfillment of the law.
Of course, you are not going to hear too many professing Christians come out and explicitly reject the notion that Christ fulfilled the law. If they were to do that, their error would be exposed rather quickly. Instead, their denial is implicit in their teaching.
This is the case with Bruxy Cavey. If you asked Cavey directly whether Jesus fulfilled the law he would probably answer in the affirmative. But what good is mere formal affirmation of this truth if in the rest of his teaching he directly contradicts his affirmation? Here are three specific teachings espoused by Bruxy Cavey that fundamentally deny Jesus Christ’s fulfillment of God’s law.
A few months ago under the TGC Canada banner, Pastor Paul Carter of First Baptist Church in Orillia, Ontario undertook an interview series with Bruxy Cavey with the stated purpose of seeking clarity from Cavey on a few of his teachings (Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Analysis and Recommendations). Following the first article of the series I wrote this article to communicate some of my concerns with the goal of setting the record straight with someone I consider to be a brother. Chief among my concerns were that clarity was not being reached at all, and that Carter had simply not done his homework. All of my interaction with Pastor Carter up to this point had been cordial and respectful, and I thought that maybe I could demonstrate the weaknesses I saw, having researched and studied the teachings of Bruxy Cavey for a couple of years myself. I sent him the article that I had written, received from him a quick bit of feedback in the form of a DM on Twitter (also respectful), then immediately found myself blocked by him on all social media. That’s fine with me, it’s his prerogative to decide who he will interact with on social media. No big deal. The problem with being blocked from interacting with him on a personal level is that in order to air the issues I see, I have to do it in a much more public way. Hence, this post.
This will be my final post reviewing Brian Zahnd’s trip to The Meeting House. We’ll take one final look at some comments made in the “Meeting House Round Table” podcast Zahnd recorded with Bruxy Cavey then I want to move on to some other important things in the weeks to come.
In my last post we were examining comments from Zahnd and Cavey regarding their doctrine of Scripture. We saw that Brian Zahnd sits and communes with spiritual entities which laugh along with him as he rejects the veracity of Scripture (you can’t make this stuff up), and that he is simply embarrassed by what Scripture actually teaches. Continue reading “Bruxy Cavey Interviews Brian Zahnd 2”→
This is the fouth part of my review of Brian Zahnd’s teaching at The Meeting House. For some context, you can read Part 1, Part 2, and Part 3. In this series I am reviewing Zahnd’s sermon and a Roundtable podcast he participated in during his visit to The Meeting House.
His sermon was called “Bad Idea: The Bible Trumps Jesus” in which he argues for an incoherent view of Scripture. To Zahnd, the Bible is inconsistent, contradictory, and contains erroneous “assumptions” about God. Because of this, he advocates that we interpret all of Scripture through the lens of Jesus.
In this post I’m going to address something Zahnd says which, frankly, frightens me.
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.
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.
The 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”→