Is Bart Ehrman Saved In 'Hodges-Wilkin' Theology?

[Bob Alkire]

It was interesting, when people at Moody heard he was going to Wheaton they told him not to go there as, to them, Wheaton was too liberal and there were few Christians at Wheaton. When he graduated from Wheaton and told people there he was going Princeton he was told, Princeton is too liberal, there are almost no Christians there.

Looks like they could be correct, if now he says he doesn't believe, might have mixed him up a little.

 

[Maestroh]

Some Substance In Here

This is a HUGE conversation to have and I think we do well entering it with caution and spiritual prudence.

Dr. Bart Ehrman's salvation is definitely something I wouldn't want to be having to determine...that is why it is best left to God to know. I would say that he what he has done to the Gospel and Scriptures (not the same thing) is quite henious and very difficult to reconcile from an orthodox Christian perspective. He should be cast out of any Christian bookstore and church he might himself in and our people be warned that he has left the pack of faithful believers and is dangerous.

Dr. Ehrman did come out of a strong, evangelical background and went to Moody Bible Institute and was quite faithful until he went to graduate school. Then he began wrestling with some difficult questions. Clearly now he says he isn't a believer (even though his wife is a strong Christian who has stayed with him during his struggles.) His spiritual stuggle has been a long time coming, but he has been only been forward about it recently.

I really don't see anything here with which I disagree. Keep in mind that I do not ascribe to the Hodges-Wilkin nanosecond of 'faith' (whatever they think they mean by that) view and I am interested in what those who do would say about this.

I don't know if Dr. Ehrman is or ever was a Christian.

I will throw in with you in agreement here. However - from the GES perspective, he most assuredly WAS and since he WAS, he now IS and will go to Heaven regardless.

He did EXACTLY what they say: he ascribed to the basic facts of the gospel. He believed them. So TO BE CONSISTENT all of the GES folks MUST say Ehrman is a heaven-bound saint.

I deeply struggle with that question and can't reasonably answer it. While I accept and believe completely in eternal security of true believers (I don't buy fire insurance Christianity) Dr. Ehrman's case presents one of the more reasonable points about someone who has tasted the heavenly gift and walked away if there ever was one. It deeply pains me, and I struggle with this topic.

great convo btw

The reason I brought it up was not to cast damnation onto Dr. Ehrman.

It is one thing to do what the GES does and talk in vague terms about 'this person' or 'person A' failing to perservere and yet being saved.

But once you actually APPLY their system to a known agnostic like Ehrman - then they should have the courage of their convictions.

Or they should admit that their theological paradigm of 'the unbelieving believer' is wrong.

 

[Maestroh]

But There's A Problem There

Reckon Erhman would "confess with his mouth that Jesus is Lord and believes in his heart God raised him from the dead?"

Scripture is fairly clear...

You have to understand that according to Pope Hodges (sarcasm intended), this passage has NOTHING to do with eternal life. He covers this around page 196 of "Absolutely Free." I'm at work so I don't have the book in front of me, but let me summarize his arguments briefly:

1) This can't mean eternal life because salvation is 'by faith alone.'

2) Only the saved can 'call upon the name of the Lord' (never mind that Peter told the LOST Jews in Acts 2 to do that)

3) Since John's gospel is the only 'evangelistic gospel' and John never mentions confession, then confession CAN'T refer to eternal life.

Why do I say Pope Hodges? Because I recently did a paper on this very passage. Ryrie doesn't even address it in any substantial detail while Wilkin and Dillow both tell the reader to see Hodges' exegesis in "Absolutely Free" as though he's the final word on the subject.

The late S. Lewis Johnson, Jr., who was on staff with Hodges at Dallas Theological Seminary, took him to task over this and called his work 'voodoo exegesis.'

So to a guy in the GES, your quite valid objection carries no weight because that passage doesn't 'really mean' what 'you think' it must mean.


But you, sir, are correct.

 

[Maestroh]

Thank You

==Well, since he once believed I suppose that they would have to say he is. Of course anyone who holds to a Biblical view of eternal security would quickly realize the error of Wilkin/Hodges. While eternal security is true it is also true that true believers do not walk away from the faith.

What is so very sad is that according to Wilkin's crossless gospel not only is Bart Ehrman saved, so is Marcus Borg, John Crossan, and John Shelby Spong. Each of them believe in Jesus yet they deny the substitutionary atonement and the resurrection. These are things which Wilkin has directly stated that a person does not have to believe in order to be saved. So, according to the heresy of the crossless gospel all of these people may very well be saved. This is just part of the danger of the crossless gospel.

That's exactly my point.

 

[Maestroh]

The Question Is Loaded

does anybody know why Ehrman "changed his mind" and "unsaved" himself ?

As I recall it in "Misquoting Jesus," he had a problem when the whole 'We Are The World' thing went on with justifying how a 'loving God' could allow such suffering as starving in Ethiopia and in the Third World.

He also decided that a 'non-preserved Word' was of necessity 'uninspired.' In essence, he took KJV Onlyism's faulty logic and applied it - backwardly.


My suspicion is that he was like Judas Iscariot, whom Christ called a 'devil' as early as John 6.