Gibson and Caviezel discuss the practical problem of filming a crucifixion.
Rich Davis’ recent blog post “How Not to Align with Inerrancy” demonstrates that an affirmation of inerrancy cannot be much of an affirmation if it also insists that there are mistakes in the Bible.
How is that possible, affirming inerrancy and errancy? According to Bruxy Cavey, it comes from an Anabaptist view of what might be described as a form of practical inerrancy: Continue reading
In a recent post, Bruxy Cavey comments:
Jesus-following is our identity as disciples of Christ. We are Christ-ians, not Bible-ians (Acts 11:26). This aligns with what Jesus himself said – “follow me” (Matthew 4:19). It seems to me that this should be Christianity 101 and not at all a controversial idea. 
Can this really be Christianity 101? Continue reading
In a recent post on his blog (see here), Bruxy Cavey has affirmed this proposition:
INERRANT: “the Bible is ‘the authoritative written Word of God, inspired by the Holy Spirit, inerrant in all that it teaches’.” 
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
Consider this 139-character tweet from Bruxy:
“Study the Bible. But follow Jesus. Language matters here because: 1. We are JESUS-followers (Mt 4:19). 2. All authority is HIS (Mt 28:18). 3. History shows that when the Church fails to follow Jesus, it uses the excuse of following the Bible to justify violence.”
This Fall (2018) for the first time, Tyndale Philosophy will be offering a course devoted entirely to the apologetic system of C.S. Lewis. This is one of the required courses for our new BA Philosophy with a Concentration in Christian Apologetics. Topics to be explored include: Lewis’ career as an apologist, the Moral Argument, the famous Trilemma: Lord, Liar, or Lunatic?, as well as Lewis’ views on evil, evolution, pain and suffering, hell, inclusivism, and the Bible.
Here are the course objectives:
In his NDPR review (2018.06.06) of Klaas Kraay‘s Does God Matter? (Routledge, 2018), David Johnson (Yeshiva University) remarks that the chapter Paul Franks and I co-wrote for the volume (see here) is a “nice example of a carefully argued paper in which everything seems to work except the main point.” Well, that doesn’t sound very good. What seems to be the problem? Continue reading
Last week I witnessed one of the most bizarre things in the Christian-social-media-world (other than Christians dogmatically refusing to acknowledge President Trump’s various moral failures): Andy Stanley (yes, that Andy Stanley) has been deemed a “Marcionite.” Having listened to a decent number of his sermons over the years I found this hard to believe. After listening to the sermon in question, I’m now convinced that calling Stanley a Marcionite is so off the mark that it amounts to slander and so, these Christians should repent of it and ask his forgiveness.
The hot-takes on the sermon are numerous, and I don’t have the energy to address them all. Instead I hope to provide a counter to what seems to be the source of the comparisons to Marcion. That seems to have been an article at First Things by Wesley Hill called, “Andy Stanley’s Modern Marcionism.” (UPDATE: I’ve since learned that this post appeared the day before Hill’s, as did this tweet. So, while Hill may not have been the source of the charge against Stanley, given the prominence of First Things, it seems likely he played a substantial part in it becoming widespread.) Continue reading