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?