Center for Biblical Theology and Eschatology
Public Debate with Bart Ehrman in Seminaries: A Bad Decision
by Jim Elliff
|
Last week a debate was held in a close-by conservative seminary between Dr. Bart Ehrman* and another apologist. I won’t mention the name of the school or the apologist, though I am free to, since I hope this little piece will be useful for a variety of situations yet to come.
Why is it wrongheaded to set up such a debate with Ehrman in a seminary, or, for that matter, any unbelieving skeptic?
First, because Ehrman is a false teacher and we are forbidden to give such men a forum to express their views.
The Bible doesn’t treat false teachers kindly. It is one thing to talk with a skeptic who is asking questions to know the truth, or who is confronting you in public, but it is quite another thing to invite and pay a false teacher to come to your turf in order to present his views in an open forum.
Inviting a false teacher to present his errant views in order to persuade students and the public is like allowing a gunman to shoot randomly out into an audience of military personnel because it is assumed the troops have body armor. For one thing, body armor cannot shield against all shots, and for another, there are many people attending who have no armor at all. At last week’s debate, for instance, there were many people from the public who were not even believers. Some young people also attended, and some seminary students who are not yet prepared for the effects of doubt-producing verbiage.
We overestimate how well some seminary students can shield themselves. Some are new, having no real background in apologetics. They’ve read a couple of Chuck Swindoll books and My Utmost for His Highest, but really know precious little up to this point. I know that several students from a nearby secular college also attended, some of which were unconverted. The assumption was that they would see Ehrman lose the debate and the Christian view would triumph. It didn’t happen. Now the work in evangelism by the friends who naively brought them is that much harder.
Here are a couple of reminders about how we are to treat false teachers:
If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your house or give him any greeting. (2 John 1:10 ESV)
I appeal to you, brothers, to watch out for those who cause divisions and create obstacles contrary to the doctrine that you have been taught; avoid them. For such persons do not serve our Lord Christ, but their own appetites, and by smooth talk and flattery they deceive the hearts of the naive. (Romans 16:17-18)
Second, because the minority position almost always gains some followers regardless who wins the debate.
When you have a sizable crowd it almost goes without saying that someone will be convinced of the false views of the false teacher. You may sense an overwhelming approval of the debate by many who love the give and take, but fail to take note of the quiet student or outsider to the seminary now stricken with doubt about the Scriptures. Ehrman’s presentation might be all that is needed to move him over the line. In the reverse, it is precisely for this reason that I do think it is useful for a sound Christian apologist to debate an unbelieving scholar in his venue—like Ravi Zacharias might do.
Third, because debates are not always won on the basis of truth alone.
We don’t need to comment much here, because you understand how this works. Ehrman clearly won the debate by the account of several attending. He simply won it by his cleverness and expertise at debating. His opponent, the believer, was well able to defeat him with the truth, but missed his opportunities in several places, giving credence to the idea that he was a better writer and lecturer than debater. In fact, this is the second time Ehrman won a debate at the same seminary, but against a different Christian opponent. What does that do for our witness? Though I have no question in my mind that our position on the reliability of Scripture is the right one and can withstand Ehrman’s arguments soundly, our side was out-debated.
Fourth, because many of the listeners will not have the opportunity to sort out confusing aspects of the debate with professors or knowledgeable persons.
The seminary students may have the benefit of hearing what their professors have to say about the debate. Long and detailed answers may satisfy any lingering confusion. But the guest who will return to her apartment to sort through the issues privately, or even the seminary student who does not have more classes that day, may be affected by the Ehrman challenges for years.
Fifth, because doubt is insidious.
One seminary student who has now graduated told me that he occasionally had huge doubts about Scripture and God. They were not there often, perhaps only for a few difficult days or weeks once every year or two, but they were so strong that he found himself almost smothered by them when they came. This was a leading student, chosen as one of the best preachers of the seminary. Doubt is insidious. Like a drop of ink added to gallons of water, it can ruin everything. It is the fly in the perfume. We are naïve to think that, being free from doubts ourselves, others do not deal with them regularly.
When a man like Ehrman speaks, doubt-producing statements may be forever lodged in people’s minds, causing trouble when least expected. It only takes a tiny amount of doubt for some people to be destroyed. A weak person might believe his doubts rather than believe his beliefs. Paul spoke of some teachers who were able to “upset the faith of some” (2 Timothy 2:18) because of their unscriptural view. Surely we should not pay Bart Ehrman for the privilege of doing that.
One friend of mine said that upon visiting one of the Baptist Seminaries in another State he was told, “We’re not here to tell you what to believe.” But truth by definition is dogmatic. And professors are to profess it. Students are not to blindly believe it, but to study the Scriptures for themselves to see if what is stated is true. It is one thing for two believers to debate over certain aspects of the Scripture as men who both wish to believe and do what the Word says—like a charismatic with a non-charismatic, a premillenialist with a postmillenialist, or a Calvinist with an Arminian. But to invite false teachers to have the same access is naïve. There will always be some loss, and often not much, if any, gain.
| Jim Elliff is the president of Christian Communicators Worldwide. Through this ministry Jim, and a team of communicators, train leaders, teach the Bible, and evangelize, both overseas and throughout the United States. He is the author of several books, and writes regularly for three CCW websites: CCWtoday.org, BulletinInserts.org and WaytoGod.org. Jim is also one of several pastors of Christ Fellowship of Kansas City, a network of congregations meeting in homes in Metro Kansas City. |