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.”
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
When talking with nonbelievers about the truth of Christianity, itâ€™s important to help them see how the Christian worldview makes the most sense of the things they already believe are true. Essentially, this is employing the same strategy Jesus used when dealing with disagreement.
We can apply the same strategy in our own conversations with nonbelievers. When people confront us with objections to our belief in God, we should do what we can to answer those objections. But, we should also look for ways to demonstrate to them that the Christian worldview makes the most sense of other things they accept as true.
Finish reading this entry at Influence Magazine. ->
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