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”
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”
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”
Today 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”
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.
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”
God is the supreme and ultimate authority in all things. He is our creator, king, judge, and saviour. He has revealed Himself to all people in a certain way in nature and innately in our consciences and reasoning capabilities (Rom 1:18-23, 2:15), and more fully in the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments (2 Tim 3:16,17, 2 Pet 1:21) , and in Jesus Christ – the second person of the Trinity who became one of us (John 14:9, Heb 1:2). So, can God – possessor of all authority who is omnipotent, cannot lie, and cannot deny Himself – be separated in any degree from what He has said? For two millennia Christians have recognized that this is impossible. Unfortunately there are many who have tried to argue otherwise. Bruxy Cavey is one.
Continue reading “Bruxy’s Fabricated Distinction: Following Jesus and Not the Bible”
Recently Bruxy Cavey delivered a sermon on the Anabaptist view of Scripture in which he explained that Anabaptists emphasize following Jesus over following the Bible. In this post I want to tackle one of Bruxy’s Scriptural supports for his view. Continue reading “Bruxy vs Peter: The Authority of Scripture”