faith of a father. examining the faith of Bart Ehrman

My father John Singleton
As I read Ehrman's biography I could not help notticing that He had attended Moody Bible Institute. My father attended school there as did my grandfather and a few other relatives. In fact ehrman, had attended moody at the exact same time period. looking at Ehrman biography he is the father of two. As my father is as well.
John Singleton went to Moody to pursue ministry. Unfortunately while away at school his wife at the time divorced him. Which in those days was unacceptable. He would do some time as a youth minister. He went on to Campbellsville university and met my mother. he considered going to Boyce college but instead married my mother and focused on getting employment. I was born a year later. My father would raise me and later my brother. My mother became a school teacher and they are together to this day. my father got active at church and helps lead in several ministries. Including ministry to the elderly, youth and foreign exchange students. Me and my brother have dedicated our lives to ministry.



What is true saving faith?
One issue that must be addressed here above all is the scriptures teaching concerning the perseverence of the saints. WHile I may deal with Ehrman's liberalism. The largest issue is surroundingthe doctrine of perseverance of the saints. Ehrman claimed he was a believer, yet he left the faith. Did Ehrman truly believe?
If one believes then they will be born again. leading to the fruits of the spirit.
Titus 3:5Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;
Romans 8:9But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.
galatians 5:22But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, 23Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law.
24And they that are Christ's have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts.
So after one is born again faith is a product of the Holy Spirit. So if his faith were the product of God one may assume Ehrman would not lose either faith or salvation.
John 10:28And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand. 29My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand.



This would also lead to spiritual discernment
1Corinthians 2:14But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. 15But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man. 16For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? but we have the mind of Christ.

"I prayed (lots) about it. I wrestled (strenuously) with it. I resisted it with all my might. But at the same time I thought that if I was truly committed to God, I also had to be committed to the truth. And it became clear to me over a long period of time that my former views of the bible as the innerrant revelation from God were flat out wrong. My choice was to either hold on to views that I had come to realizewere in error or to follow where I believed the truth was leading me. in the end it was no choice. If something was true, it was true; if not, not." preface xi
Now my basic instincts when I read this is "bologna". But I do not read minds. So I must assess his philosophy. Here Ehrman concludes the scriptures to be "flat out wrong". Could this be a sign that he did not possess illumination of the Holy Spirit?


If you hold to sola scriptura then why do you reject the Bible?
If Ehrman was truly a conservative Bible believing Christian. He would hold that the only way to know God was through the scriptures. If this is the case then to reject the Bible is the equivalent to rejecting God altogether. Ehrman eventually does denounce Christ and God. So ehrman never truly understands christ as lord.
If he did, he would know the Bibles teaching on truth and not be decieved.


8:32And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.
14:6Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.
matt 5:18For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
Here we see in order to have a basic understanding of truth we must understand that god is the truth and this truth is understood through the mediation of jesus Christ. Once He sets up the parameters that the bible is infallible in it's authority, then that is the truth and it is never a lie.

19For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.
20Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?
21For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.
22For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom:
23But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness;
24But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God.
25Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men.
So If ehrman was a believer he would know that Christ was the truth. That he taught the scriptures to be true and that man's wisdom is inferior to God's Wisdom. So whenever science or philosophy contradict the scriptures science and philosophy are at fault.
But this is not the faith of ehrman. In fact the power of so-called "science" and "rationalism" seem to have a tyrannical rule over his heart. Yet how can man truly have superior information than God? Does man have authority that is infallible, and indeed authoritative than God?


The questioning of God lead to ehrman's apostasy
2 samuel 13:8And he tarried seven days, according to the set time that Samuel had appointed: but Samuel came not to Gilgal; and the people were scattered from him.
9And Saul said, Bring hither a burnt offering to me, and peace offerings. And he offered the burnt offering.
10And it came to pass, that as soon as he had made an end of offering the burnt offering, behold, Samuel came; and Saul went out to meet him, that he might salute him.
11And Samuel said, What hast thou done? And Saul said, Because I saw that the people were scattered from me, and that thou camest not within the days appointed, and that the Philistines gathered themselves together at Michmash;
12Therefore said I, The Philistines will come down now upon me to Gilgal, and I have not made supplication unto the LORD: I forced myself therefore, and offered a burnt offering.
13And Samuel said to Saul, Thou hast done foolishly: thou hast not kept the commandment of the LORD thy God, which he commanded thee: for now would the LORD have established thy kingdom upon Israel for ever.
14But now thy kingdom shall not continue: the LORD hath sought him a man after his own heart, and the LORD hath commanded him to be captain over his people, because thou hast not kept that which the LORD commanded thee.
Now what does this passage have to do with Ehrman?
Like Saul, Ehrman had good intentions to question the scriptures in search of truth. Just as Saul performed a good deed of making a sacrifice to the Lord. However, He questioned the authority of the very God He worshipped. Much like Erhman who decided that he would find the truth which would be contrary to God. In the end Saul was really betraying his kingdom and his worship was nothing more than sin. In the end Erhman betrayed his God and his biblical scholarship was nothing more than sin. So while Ehrman partnered with the Holy spirit and likely made a covenant with God in Baptism. He did not have the personal relationship with Christ because he had not recieved the Holy Ghost and would as a result not keep the faith and will not recieve the inheretance of the kingdom that he signed up for.


Now Ehrman does not want his method of skepticism to be seen as an upfront assault on the faith he tries to claim that His apostasy was for different reasons.
"And so I did not leave the christian faith because of the inherent problems of the faith per se, or because I came to realize that the Bible was a human book, or that Christianity was a human religion. All of which are true-but it was not what dismantled my acceptance of the christian myth. I left the faith for what I took to be (and still take to be) an unrelated reason: the problem of suffering in the world."pg.277
The problem with this is he had no christian faith at all. Instead he was an existentialist who became an agnostic. Existentialism has a weakness when it comes to the problem of evil. Not christianity.
Christianity teaches that God is a good God and he created a good world. That sin was an invention collaborated between satan and mankind. that evil is the original cause for all death and suffering That evil will all be dealt with in the end. Not to mention that you could join the cause of christ and make a positive difference in the world. Agnosticism is defeated by the problem of suffering because their is no meaning to it. It must assume that it is only a biological mechanism. The result is the massive amount of wrecked lives that we see as a result of drug abuse. So secularism can not answer the problem of evil, nor does it help it.

The crack started by thomism
What we see early in philosophy is a misunderstanding of biblical belief. Thomas Aquinas divides up two categories upon which to understand belief: reason and faith. This would lead philosophy to become devoid of biblical faith and Faith to become devoid of reason. As an existentialist, Ehrman would agree with a faithless skepticism accompanied by an irrational faith. And so We see Ehrman eventually rejects his irrational faith.

The faith of skepticism
Skepticism ultimately leaves itself in the worldview of nihilism. Most skeptics try not go this far down the road and stay simply evolutionist liberals. But if consistent there is no form of assurance in anything. not even in common sense morals or logic. It desolves into insanity.
Because skepticism is an incomplete mental process. It is the act of denial until there is nothing left to deny. There is no such thing as postitively affirming or believing anything! Only temporarily not denying until doubt is once again obtained.

So we are left again with barth slowly losing ground from fundamentalism all the way to agnosticism. Barth's education is in dealing with the Bible so on a professional level his studies have to stop there. Yet if he were a philosopher he leap into the bottumless pit that we call nihilism.


The flaws of empiricism
ehrman's studies are broadly based on an empiricist epistemology. This theory assumes that we are able to obtain all the assurance and knowledge we need based upon evidence in the world.
Now historically both Rene descarte(father of rationalism) and John locke (the father of empiricism) rested their epistemological theories upon theism. An All knowing God who would allow man to obtain knowledge. But without theism and revelation the assurance of either system simply falls apart.
We see ehrman's worldview fall apart in just this way. after he denies revelation he eventually becomes an agnostic.
Empiricism falls apart because we can not verify reality as ultimately true. How do we know with absolute certainty that what we sense is truth and not illusion?
All we know is what we obtain which is not exhaustive of all the facts that are out there.
You can find doctors in every world view. So you could be well educated or a genius and still incapable of coming to a consensus on the truth.
The data of life is so massive that it is easy to pick and choose what evidence you want to rely on.
Not to mention the fact the are never certain if the data you collect is necessarily accurate. People are misled all the time. maybe you had poor perception, missed a key point. Or mayber their is a conspiracy against you being fully every aware.

The inability to interpret due to skepticism
Because skepticism has an inability to make positive affirmations bart finds descrepencies too easily. Never ceasing to treat the author as a rational human being with a rational theme to deliver. Much less the all-knowing God and Lord breathing out the text. Here is his illustration.
"One of my favorite apparent discrepencies-I read john for years without realizing how strange this one is_comes in Jesus' "Farewell Discourse," the last address that Jesus delivers to his disciples, at his last meal with them, which takes up all of chapters 13 to 17 in the Gospel according to John. In john 13:36, Peter says to Jesus, Lord where are you going" (14:5). And then, a few minutes later, at the same meal Jesus upbraids his disciples. saying "Now I am going to the one who sent me, yet none of you asks me, "Where are you going?" (john 16:5) Either Jesus had a very short attention span or there is something strange going on with the sources for these chapters, creating an odd kind of disconnect." pg. 9
John 13:36-16:6
john 13:36

36Simon Peter said unto him, Lord, whither goest thou? Jesus answered him, Whither I go, thou canst not follow me now; but thou shalt follow me afterwards.
37Peter said unto him, Lord, why cannot I follow thee now? I will lay down my life for thy sake.
38Jesus answered him, Wilt thou lay down thy life for my sake? Verily, verily, I say unto thee, The cock shall not crow, till thou hast denied me thrice.
Peter wants to follow Christ in death. Yet Christ knows Peter will not be faithful and denouces him.

14:1Let not your heart be troubled: ye believe in God, believe also in me.
2In my Father's house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you.
3And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive you unto myself; that where I am, there ye may be also.
4And whither I go ye know, and the way ye know.
5Thomas saith unto him, Lord, we know not whither thou goest; and how can we know the way?
Knowing that Christ is the Son of God it is obvious that jesus is speaking about heaven.


John 16
1These things have I spoken unto you, that ye should not be offended.
2They shall put you out of the synagogues: yea, the time cometh, that whosoever killeth you will think that he doeth God service.
3And these things will they do unto you, because they have not known the Father, nor me.
4But these things have I told you, that when the time shall come, ye may remember that I told you of them. And these things I said not unto you at the beginning, because I was with you.
5But now I go my way to him that sent me; and none of you asketh me, Whither goest thou?
6But because I have said these things unto you, sorrow hath filled your heart.
Obviously if you have your Bible open, time has elapsed and more importantly Jesus is speaking ironicly. In otherwords jesus notticed that they stopped asking him. indicating their fear of death. So there is no real contradiction in the discreppancy.
What is amazing is how little effort was requird to explain his favorite apparent discrepency. Ehrman obviously wants to assume the Bible to be irreconcileable. As if the authors were not simply fallible, but incoherent.

How do we stop making more ehrlman's
On one level there will always be those who join the christian faith, yet leave. But church should strive to be more proficient in determining if a new disciple has truly believed. We need to be careful of whom we in the local church baptize. In the early church disciples had to wait at least 3 yrs to join by baptism. Also churches need to reinstate church discipline for those who obviously have not been born again.
As far as schools, schools which teach liberalism as truth should be black listed. Those who are to train in ministry should not go there. If a minister is already well accomplished then he can study under liberals. I took classes in higher criticism and my theology moved to the right. i have a minister freind who did the same. But those who are initialy starting their training need to be brought up in the faith with men with answers. If you should not go to a liberal church why would you go to a liberal school?
Finally schools need to be more consistant. moody though "fundamentalist" taught criticism on a light level denying the preservation of scripture. Once it was agreed that we do not have the original manuscrits then it took ehrman on his down hill slope.
If barth was inculcated with the scriptures concerning preservation. Then shown the agreement of the byzantine manuscripts alongs the 3,000 contradictions among alexandrine manuscripts, could things have been different?


The fruit of my father
My father never desired to be a scholar and never recieved a bachelorette.
My father never acquired Ehrman's fame nor his money. My father has treasure in heaven. And although he probably wishes sometimes that he could borrow some of that treasure to pay off the mortgage, through it all he is a happy man.
Theologically my dad said His views have not fundamentally changed. He said over the years secular systems like evolution have basically fallen apart.
Meanwhile He was exposed to source criticism at campbellsville university. He found that all of the supposed contradictions did not really make the Bible contradict. The variants in the gospels appeared to simply be differences in the style of the authors.

Ultimately Faith though it does not consist of works will produce them. The works of source criticism have led to secularism. It is not a coincidence that Germany"s higher criticism preceded the rise of hitler and his nazis. Indeed