This is my response to Bruxy Cavey’s second article in his series, Radical Christians & the Word of God, speaking to his view of Scripture. His article focuses on scriptural inerrancy. My response to his first article on authority is here.
This article has been on the back burner for quite a while. I only recently had an opportunity to finish it.
A number of months ago, Bruxy Cavey wrote a series of articles as a response to public criticism he has been receiving. In reading these articles I realized that they are not written with the purpose of answering the serious concerns that have been voiced regarding his doctrine of Scripture. No, those concerns are not even acknowledged. Instead, Cavey is doubling down on his position, repeating the same bad arguments that have been refuted already, and misrepresenting the controversy as a whole.
Here is my response to Bruxy Cavey’s article, “Radical Christians & the Word of God (Part 2 of 3): Inerrancy”. I’m going to interact with Cavey’s arguments against Scriptural Inerrancy as well as his examples of what he sees as Scriptural errors. It’s a long article, but I wanted to demonstrate in detail just how poor Cavey’s case is here.
Bruxy Cavey recently made the claim that Scripture does not refer to itself as the Word of God. He and other leaders in his denomination are also on record claiming that Scripture doesn’t teach it’s own inerrancy. In this post I am going to tackle these two separate, but inextricably linked issues. Cavey and his friends are just wrong about what Scripture claims for itself.
In some recent material put out by Bruxy Cavey (see here and here), he claims that he agrees with, or “aligns with” the doctrine of inerrancy. That may take some people off guard considering Cavey’s documented history of refuting both the word and concept of inerrancy (partially documented here and here and here). So, what is going on here?
In this post I will hopefully shed some light on what I see Bruxy Cavey doing in his attempts to appear to affirm scriptural inerrancy from the record of his own teaching
I was informed a few days ago by someone who had linked to some of Bruxy Cavey’s teaching videos from Fresno Pacific University for the purpose of criticism that one of the videos he had linked to had been deleted from You Tube. When I got home I checked my own playlist of Bruxy Cavey’s teaching and noticed that several of the videos on that playlist had been deleted.
It appears that all of the Fresno Pacific University videos of Cavey’s teaching there have disappeared. These were the videos that contained some of the most concerning statements from Cavey on the subjects of Scripture, atonement, the immutability of God, homosexuality, and others. Continue reading “Bruxy Cavey Videos are Disappearing from You Tube”→
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”→
Following Brian Zahnd’s message diatribe at The Meeting House (my review starts here), he stuck around to do a “Meeting House Round Table” podcast with Bruxy Cavey. It was an hour-long interview where Bruxy asked Zahnd and his wife to speak on their view of Scripture, pacifism, and atonement theory.
Here I want to examine what Zahnd and Bruxy say regarding Scripture specifically.
In this post I’ll be bringing attention to Zahnd’s statements regarding continuing personal revelation and how that relates to his rejection of certain parts of Scripture.
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.
This is the third part of my review of Brian Zahnd’s teaching at The Meeting House. In this series I will be reviewing Zahnd’s sermon and a Roundtable podcast he participated in during his visit to The Meeting House.
He preached a sermon called “Bad Idea: The Bible Trumps Jesus” in which he argues for an incoherent view of Scripture and it’s relationship to Jesus. 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 his particular view of Jesus. Zahnd later tells us “Jesus saves the Bible from being just another violent religious text”.
Bruxy Cavey and the leadership of BIC Canada apparently thought it would be a good idea to have Zahnd in to address their people. It’s not surprising considering most of the stuff he said I have heard in one form or another from Cavey himself. The statement addressed in this post is certainly something I have heard from Cavey. This is not just a critique of Brian Zahnd, but Bruxy Cavey as well as an indictment on the leadership of BIC Canada and The Meeting House.
I did an overview of the message and addressed a couple issues in the first two posts. This post assumes you’ve read those (Part 1, Part 2)
In this post I’m going to address a specific statement in Zahnd’s sermon. This statement refutes his own position. Furthermore, his view makes nonsense of the text he cites.