The TGC-Bruxy Inerrancy ‘Debate’

This is the way the world ends
This is the way the world ends
This is the way the world ends
Not with a bang but a whimper.

Thus ends T. S. Eliot’s immortal poem. And thus ended the short and superficial ‘debate’ between Bruxy Cavey and The Gospel Coalition (TGC) Canada. Continue reading

Perfectly Communicating Error?

In “Seeking Clarity with Bruxy Cavey” (Sept 10, 2018), Paul Carter asks: “So you believe that the words of the Apostle Paul are authoritative and inspired?” The response comes as follows:

Yes, I see Paul’s writings as authoritative in that normative Protestant sense. Paul might not be perfect – only Jesus is! – but God has inspired Scripture to perfectly communicate what God wants it to say (ibid). Continue reading

How Not to Align with Inerrancy

In a recent post on his blog (see here), Bruxy Cavey has affirmed this proposition from Tyndale University’s Statement of Faith:

INERRANT: “the Bible is ‘the authoritative written Word of God, inspired by the Holy Spirit, inerrant in all that it teaches’.” [1]

INERRANT, he remarks, is “a statement I have been happy to align with.” If align means “affirm to be true,” we can happily agree. Continue reading

‘Whoever’ (of the Elect) Believes: A Reply to Bignon and Gibson

Consider

3:16 (a) God so loved the world, that he gave his one and only Son, that (b) whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

On his Dividing Line podcast of March 27, 2018, James White, Director of Alpha and Omega Ministries, suggested that my Calvinist renderings of the underlined expressions in 3:16 engender such “fundamental errors” that there was no need for him to examine (the details of) the actual dilemma I posed in “Calvinism’s Gospel Tautology.” Here I am indebted to my friend Guillaume Bignon and to James Gibson (hereafter, B&G) for having descended into those details (see here). I think they push the discussion forward admirably. Continue reading

Matthew 18:15 and the Moralistic One-Upmanship Move

According to Notre Dame historian, Mark Noll, the scandal of the evangelical mind “is that there is not much of an evangelical mind.” Nowhere is this more evident than in evangelicalism’s growing fear and discomfort with intellectual disagreement. Contemporary postmodern evangelicalism pronounces against it. Disagreement conjures up the image of factions, divisions, and broken relationships. And this is a ‘bad witness’ to the world. Continue reading

Is False Scripture Useful?

Paul says to Timothy that “All Scripture is God-breathed…and useful” (2 Tim 3:16). Recently, I’ve noticed some pastors and professors claiming that even if what God breathes out is flatly in error, that shouldn’t deter us from using it. It comes from God and it contains errors. Nevertheless, says Bruxy Cavey, “You should use it, it’s really useful! Try it sometime, really useful book!” (link). Scripture might be false (and no doubt is in many places), but it’s useful all the same. Our question is: Is Bruxy right? Continue reading

Does the Bible Forbid Defending Its Inerrancy?

In the past few posts (see here, here, and here), we’ve looked at this idea that the Bible isn’t authoritative; only Jesus is. The Bible isn’t perfect and error-free; only our Saviour is. At first glance, these assertions have the ring of piety. Unfortunately, the least bit of probing exposes the painful fact that they are supported by demonstrably invalid arguments. That is, they aren’t supported at all. Continue reading

Does Defending Inerrancy Discredit Christ?

Some bible critics have claimed that defending the Bible’s inerrancy “discredits Christ.” It does this, we’re told, “by taking qualities of Christ – his sinless perfection – and trying to attribute those to Scripture“ (Bruxy Cavey). Now of course any true Christian will affirm that Christ is sinless and perfect. Inerrantists go one step further; they “take” this property of sinless perfection and “give” it of the Bible. And this, the critic insists, is a problem. Well, how so? Continue reading