James White Vs. Bart Ehrman

[Thinkingstuff]

I was reading Alpha Omega's transcripts to the debate between Dr James White Vs. Bart Ehrman. And I wonder what people thought of this debate or if anyone witnessed it to give an overall impression of their views. I haven't completed reading the whole transcript but it seems that Dr. White has only a half objection to the 9 different points Erhman pointed out. Thoughts about this debate?

 

[Eric B]

Never heard of Ehrman, but looking him up, it seems he is a kind of textual critic who believes the Church changed the Bible somehow.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bart_D._Ehrman

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Never heard of Ehrman, but looking him up, it seems he is a kind of textual critic who believes the Church changed the Bible somehow.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bart_D._Ehrman

He was one of Bruce Metzger's Top Students with regard to textual critism. He claims to have been born agian in his early 20's then became agnostic as he got into studying scriptures. He's writen several books. Misquoting Jesus, God's problem, and Jesus interupted are a few. He was invited to debate Dr. White with Alpha Omega ministries. I'm reading the transcripts and at times it looked tenuous with Dr. White.

 

[Deacon]

Erhman's a brilliant teacher.

There are a couple of his lectures on YouTube.
He had a great education.
He's worked with some of the best, most renouned scholars.
He's even pastored a church.

Sadly somewhere in his walk,he lost his faith.

I picked up one of his books (used) called "God's Problem" where he describes his tragic tale.

Rob

 

[lori4dogs]

Bart Erhman gives his reason of why he once was a born-again evangelical and pastored a Baptist church and eventually left Christianity on youtube:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2aw51zojnQA

 

[gb93433]

Listening to Ehrman on some other talks I find that he is a product of German Rationalism's thinking that many dispensationalists have bought into. If he had done his homework and been challenged by other he would have come up quite different. I find his wordss to be slanted toward his own biases and does not address men like Moises Silva.

One who knows God cannot deny Him.

 

[Grasshopper]

For $6 you can listen to the entire debate:

http://www.aomin.org/catalog/produc...d=868&osCsid=0021098666b32a9cea2844b0eba043df

 

[Marcia]

About 3 or 4 yrs. ago, I saw Bart Ehrman in a debate/discussion at SE Baptist Seminary with two profs from SE Baptist Seminary and Dr. Norman Geisler. Ehrman has bought into a lot of flawed criticism of the Bible, that was soundly refuted by others, especially by Dr. Geisler.

 

[Marcia]

Here on YouTube, you can watch for free a 2 hr. 12 min. debate on the resurrection of Jesus between William Lane Craig (whom I've met) and Bart Ehrman.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FhT4IENSwac&feature=related

Enjoy!

 

[BobRyan]

Bart Ehrman debated a friend of mine at the close of one of his classes at Chappel Hill where he is head of the philosophy and religion department. Ehrman is a very skilled agnostic - good at dodging points that do not fall his way - and bringing up his own list of points that cannot be answered in a 3 minute side step. He certainly knows how to "play the audience" - I will give that to him.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[gb93433]

Bart Ehrman debated a friend of mine at the close of one of his classes at Chappel Hill where he is head of the philosophy and religion department. Ehrman is a very skilled agnostic - good at dodging points that do not fall his way - and bringing up his own list of points that cannot be answered in a 3 minute side step. He certainly knows how to "play the audience" - I will give that to him.

Pride has gotten the best of him.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Pride has gotten the best of him.

Do you think? I'm not certain. Maybe your right. Maybe he had his preconcieved notions challenged time in again as he studied. I think he is an interesting study based on his experience. A proclaimed born again believer now agnostic. I'm not sure what to think about him. How many here blame his discipline of textal criticism for this loss of faith?

 

[Amy.G]

Do you think? I'm not certain. Maybe your right. Maybe he had his preconcieved notions challenged time in again as he studied. I think he is an interesting study based on his experience. A proclaimed born again believer now agnostic. I'm not sure what to think about him. How many here blame his discipline of textal criticism for this loss of faith?

1 John 2:19 They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us.

 

[gb93433]

Do you think? I'm not certain. Maybe your right. Maybe he had his preconcieved notions challenged time in again as he studied. I think he is an interesting study based on his experience. A proclaimed born again believer now agnostic. I'm not sure what to think about him. How many here blame his discipline of textal criticism for this loss of faith?

My study of textual criticism never challenged my view of a responsive, alive, God who works in mighty ways that never fail.

Rationalism did a lot to make me question the theology of those around me until I began to realize they were attempting to explain God in a rational, predictable, way. When I began to think about who God really is I began to realize that I could not come close to explaining God. When I began to realize that, I began to ask my rationalistic friends and leaders to explain God. Then when they would give me strange looks and no words. Then allowing them to save face I followed up with another question. I asked them to explain love in a rationalistic way. We all know when someone loves us but we cannot explain love. We can explain how it makes us feel and what happens to us in terms of results but we cannot explain love.

Knowing that about 98% of the people in the early church could not read, it challenged my thinking and to think about that point by itself. When I consider the mysteries of the faith and seeking God's face instead of His hand I began to think about how the early believers followed God and they could not read. They had a relationship with the responsive living God who answered their prayers and not pages in a book.

Textual criticism has helped me to get a better understanding of how our Bible came into being, but it has never challenged my relationship with God. It has encouraged me in the sense of seeing God's hand to encourage the preservation of His word so that people might come to a knowledge of Him and make disciples. I think it gives me a real sense of His hand in action and loving people.

Anyone who would declare God does not exist on the basis of intellectual knowledge, does not know God. One can have loads of knowledge and sound good but not know God. Nobody who knows the power and love of God can ever say under the Holy Spirit that God does not exist.

I do not find Ehrman's knowledge to be very good when it comes to textual criticism. I think it is Moises Silva who does an exercise with his students using a text he wrote and corrupted to show how textual criticism is done.

I have had personal experience with an elder of a large church who had left the faith. When I began to deal with him and give him the truth he wanted nothing to do with me. He discontinued the dialog. He was too proud by that time. If he were to take a serious look at what I gave him that meant he would have had to admit doubt in the beginning, and then once he came around then he would have to admit failure on his part to his friends.

In September I met a declared atheist and began a dialog with him. At first he asked many questions but over time I began to challenge his "facts". He realizes now how he had been sucked in and that those people do not know their Bible. He also realizes how easily he was sucked in. I told him that people find what they are looking for. He is now following Jesus and is asking God to give him someone he can disciple. His countenance has changed a lot.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

1 John 2:19 They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us.

I like that passage but could you explain it to me because I have a couple questions about it.

He is the context of the passage:

18Dear children, this is the last hour; and as you have heard that the antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have come. This is how we know it is the last hour. 19They went out from us, but they did not really belong to us. For if they had belonged to us, they would have remained with us; but their going showed that none of them belonged to us.
20But you have an anointing from the Holy One, and all of you know the truth.[d] 21I do not write to you because you do not know the truth, but because you do know it and because no lie comes from the truth. 22Who is the liar? It is the man who denies that Jesus is the Christ. Such a man is the antichrist—he denies the Father and the Son. 23No one who denies the Son has the Father; whoever acknowledges the Son has the Father also.

24See that what you have heard from the beginning remains in you. If it does, you also will remain in the Son and in the Father. 25And this is what he promised us—even eternal life.

1) See as the passage begins with the discourse of Another Christ or Anti Christ. Does the passage mean that these people came into the community already holding to another Gospel to start with like the Gnostics wanting to believe in a dualistic God with the intention to subvert the gospel? Or does it mean that they are not specifically elect? (I guess it could be both but I hope you understand my distinction.
2) if its the latter why is there the encouragement to "remain"? Saying "if it does" (what they heard from the beinging remains with them) "you will remain in the Son and the Father" with the promise of "eternal life"? I mean if its the 2nd or the people are elect and the passage is correctly used in the context you intended it wouldn't verse 24 be irrelevant since the assumption is that since they are elect they will never depart from God? Why say remain? its a given if they are elect that they will is it not? Why then the encouragement?

 

[Thinkingstuff]

My study of textual criticism never challenged my view of a responsive, alive, God who works in mighty ways that never fail.

Rationalism did a lot to make me question the theology of those around me until I began to realize they were attempting to explain God in a rational, predictable, way. When I began to think about who God really is I began to realize that I could not come close to explaining God. When I began to realize that, I began to ask my rationalistic friends and leaders to explain God. Then when they would give me strange looks and no words. Then allowing them to save face I followed up with another question. I asked them to explain love in a rationalistic way. We all know when someone loves us but we cannot explain love. We can explain how it makes us feel and what happens to us in terms of results but we cannot explain love.

Knowing that about 98% of the people in the early church could not read, it challenged my thinking and to think about that point by itself. When I consider the mysteries of the faith and seeking God's face instead of His hand I began to think about how the early believers followed God and they could not read. They had a relationship with the responsive living God who answered their prayers and not pages in a book.

Textual criticism has helped me to get a better understanding of how our Bible came into being, but it has never challenged my relationship with God. It has encouraged me in the sense of seeing God's hand to encourage the preservation of His word so that people might come to a knowledge of Him and make disciples. I think it gives me a real sense of His hand in action and loving people.

Anyone who would declare God does not exist on the basis of intellectual knowledge, does not know God. One can have loads of knowledge and sound good but not know God. Nobody who knows the power and love of God can ever say under the Holy Spirit that God does not exist.

I do not find Ehrman's knowledge to be very good when it comes to textual criticism. I think it is Moises Silva who does an exercise with his students using a text he wrote and corrupted to show how textual criticism is done.

I have had personal experience with an elder of a large church who had left the faith. When I began to deal with him and give him the truth he wanted nothing to do with me. He discontinued the dialog. He was too proud by that time. If he were to take a serious look at what I gave him that meant he would have had to admit doubt in the beginning, and then once he came around then he would have to admit failure on his part to his friends.

In September I met a declared atheist and began a dialog with him. At first he asked many questions but over time I began to challenge his "facts". He realizes now how he had been sucked in and that those people do not know their Bible. He also realizes how easily he was sucked in. I told him that people find what they are looking for. He is now following Jesus and is asking God to give him someone he can disciple. His countenance has changed a lot.

Thats a good response. In the case of Ehrman, do you think he had doubt in the begining and has grown prideful since? Or was there a spark of faith to begin with?

 

[Doubting Thomas]

1 John 2:19 They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us.

This passage is commonly misread as to somehow prove that anyone who apostasizes was never a born-again Christian in the first place. However, that is a conclusion that is not justified from the wording of this passage.

First, of all this passage is describing certain false teachers (ie, "many antichrists" v18--those who deny the Father and the Son, vs 22-23; those who deny Jesus had come in the flesh, v. 4:3) who may in fact never had been true Christians. However, the passage does NOT say that "anyone who ever leaves us shows that they were never of us at one time".

Also, even with these particular folks who left the passage doesn't say:
"They went out from us, but they were never of us; forif they had ever at one time been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were never of us." It simply says that at the time these folks departed (and perhaps for an unspecified time before that), these "were not of us".

That true Christians can depart from God is evident in Hebrews:
"Beware, brethren (ie the same 'holy brethren' the author has been addressing; v.3:1), lest there be in any of you an evil heart of unbelief in departing from the living God: (Hebrews 3:12).

This is consistent with: (1) Romans 11:18-22, in which Gentile believers (who "stand by faith") could be cut off like the unbelieving Jews if they did not continue in God's goodness; and (2) John 15:1-6 in which branches in Christ could be cut off if they did not abide in Him and bear fruit; as well as many other warning about falling away, etc.

BTW--good point, Thinkingstuff, about 1 John 2:24-25.

 

[gb93433]

Thats a good response. In the case of Ehrman, do you think he had doubt in the begining and has grown prideful since? Or was there a spark of faith to begin with?

Thinking about where he went to school and what I have seen I think it started with a rationalistic philosophy and not having his heart set on God. The results of German Rationalism are so prevalent among Bible believing churches. In those churches the Bible is seen as explainable. What happens when even they cannot explain certain things? The people who see that are challenged to explain everything. When there are no answers to satisfy their doubts and curiosities then the question asker concludes that the Bible is wrong and the people's faith is supported by a fable.

A few years I had an ongoing dialog with a former elder of a large Bible believing church in a large city. He claimed to have studied and read lots of books and his questions were not answered. He concluded much the same thing as Ehrman. When I began to point him to the facts he missed and books that would help him, he wanted nothing to do with me any longer. If he had read those books and listened he would have concluded that he was misled. His case was much like those who refuse to believe. They eventually become proud and act like fools. Just look at Judas. I would hate to think that I hid behind ignorance of those I was following to be a fool.

If I threw the entire Bible out I would still have to deal with God as shown in Romans 1. When one refuses to deal with that fact, then their heart is hardened beyond reproof and will be broken. Just look at the O'Hare's. Bill became a Christian and the others got harder and eventually perished. The organization's money was taken and the founder perished.

Just because I do not have all the answers does not mean the things for which I have no answers is a fraud. That is like saying because I do not have the answers to fully understand love therefore love does not exist.

I fully expect Ehrman to get more brazen and see him progress into more of a fool unless he changes and humbles himself.

 

[Marcia]

Maybe he had his preconcieved notions challenged time in again as he studied. I think he is an interesting study based on his experience. A proclaimed born again believer now agnostic. I'm not sure what to think about him. How many here blame his discipline of textal criticism for this loss of faith?

It certainly wasn't textual criticism because those criticisms (that he himself now holds) have been refuted for a long time. I think he seized on this as his excuse to officially leave Christianity and those reasons have nothing to do with textual criticism. I think some people just look for an excuse - a bad experience, not wanting to believe the Bible so they found criticisms of it, or whatever -- because at heart, they do not believe and do not want to believe. We can't know this for sure, but I've seen this before with some people I've dealt with in my ministry. They don't want the truth; they want their truth.

 

[Marcia]

I like that passage but could you explain it to me because I have a couple questions about it.

He is the context of the passage:

1) See as the passage begins with the discourse of Another Christ or Anti Christ. Does the passage mean that these people came into the community already holding to another Gospel to start with like the Gnostics wanting to believe in a dualistic God with the intention to subvert the gospel? Or does it mean that they are not specifically elect? (I guess it could be both but I hope you understand my distinction.
2) if its the latter why is there the encouragement to "remain"? Saying "if it does" (what they heard from the beinging remains with them) "you will remain in the Son and the Father" with the promise of "eternal life"? I mean if its the 2nd or the people are elect and the passage is correctly used in the context you intended it wouldn't verse 24 be irrelevant since the assumption is that since they are elect they will never depart from God? Why say remain? its a given if they are elect that they will is it not? Why then the encouragement?

I think this was a warning to not fall under the sway of the false teachers. Christians can be deceived, as we see over and over again in the NT where believers have been deceived. In my ministry, I have heard testimonies of Christians who as believers got involved in the New Age, the occult, or whatever, and then were convicted and returned to Christ. I know several cases of this, including a few whom I know personally.