Moody Bible Institute and Wheaton owe Bart Ehrman an Apology

Why are we supposed to care what Bart Ehrman thinks about Christianity, philosophy, church history, or Christian doctrine? How does being a textual critic turn one into an expert in these other areas? None of us can help the fact that poor Mr. Ehrman went off to seminary with a lot of evangelical/fundamentalist baggage regarding what the Bible was supposed to be, was thoroughly disabused of that baggage by his professors, and then because his faith was in a book, decided to place his faith in himself (agnosticism) instead.

That he has decided to turn his unfortunate experience into a platform for criticizing a minority modern form (fundamentalist) of Christian hermeneutics and understanding of the Bible should be seen for what it is, some sort of internal therapeutic exercise that we should give all the attention it deserves, which is very little.

Maybe Mr. Ehrman would stop if Moody and Wheaton would just apologize. Moody, Wheaton, how about it?

This entry was posted in Bart Ehrman, Bible, Christianity. Bookmark the permalink.

1 Response to Moody Bible Institute and Wheaton owe Bart Ehrman an Apology

  1. Burk Braun says:

    Why care? You should care because what Ehrman says makes sense- thus far and no further. And if other people think he makes sense even if you do not, you should do some hard thinking about how to marshal evidence rather than ad hominem polemic.

    Why are his skills and thoughts relevant? Because Christianity, church history, and Christian doctrine all derive directly from the text that he knows inside and out, including its historical context. If those texts are loaded with misinterpretations, mistranslations, fabrications, forgeries, and errors, that would seem to have a bit of an impact on the derived theology.

    And if Ben Witherington (can I call him Ben?) prattles on about he is also an eminent scholar and came to diametrically opposite conclusions, one has to ask whether he, in turn, makes sense. He opens with a peon to evidence and logic, which is odd coming from your camp. But that aside, he goes on to state theology that simply makes a mockery of your concept of god:

    <>“Suppose however that God has not pre-determined all things? Suppose God chose to create us in his image with a measure of freedom of choice, the power of contrary choice? Suppose God relates to us relationally and not on the basis of divine decrees? Suppose the vast majority of suffering in the world is a result of human misbehavior or stupidity or sin?”<>These are a series of suppositions in direct contradiction to the whole idea of an omnipotent, all-pervasive, and all-creating deity, which supports all at all times, as I believe your somewhat mystical and pantheistic formulation has it. And while I would find it hard to weigh suffering, just as much comes from nature and the human condition (e.g. death itself) as comes from other people. Insofar as we have been “given” free will, god has washed his hands of us. If we have free will to commit genocides and holocausts, sometimes indeed with god gleefully urging us on, and at other times by god himself via floods and other cataclysms, then, quite simply, one smells a rat.

    Like

Comments are closed.