Mama Bear Apologetics: Empowering Your Kids to Challenge Cultural Lies, With Hillary Ferrer—The Alisa Childers Podcast #51

Interesting that your concern is guarding against harming “the gospel”. Progressive Christians seem to be more concerned with what harms…people.

Sean, Ehrman and Crossan are both excellent scholars, no question about it. They both do an excellent job of pointing out key facts that often refute the silly arguments of both hyper liberals and hyper conservatives on both sides. But both of them, like all scholars, do an IMMENSE amount of interpreting of these facts and these interpretations are often highly questionable.

What is more, especially with Ehrman, he often does not do as good a job as he should do in making it clearer when he is interpreting and when he is not. For instance, his case for his thesis that Jesus became God in the minds of Christians is full of hypothetical scenarios that often feel like they are becoming "fact" in his book.

Both men reject all sorts of philosophical and theological evidence that demonstrates the traditional Christian position. Therefore, their interpretations while interesting taken alone, should in the end be rejected in light of the greater evidence for the full inspiration of the Bible.

I should also say Sean, that Ehrman is not a progressive Christian and Crossan is not a part of the mainstream of progressive Christian thinkers. I have tried desperately to try to get a mainstream progressive Christian leader to debate me or someone more well known within the conservative evangelical community so as to present the very scenario you say you crave. I have reached out to them individually and to those who set up their speaking engagements. I have offered extremely generous scenarios where all expenses would be paid, a huge speaking fee would be given, we would work around their schedule. we would allow them to pick the moderators, etc., and they have all said no.

I have reached out to Pavlovitz, Merritt, Enns, and Evans before she became ill and passed away. I made it clear that if I am not well known enough I would love to facilitate a debate with more well known people within our community. And again, I did not just reach out to them personally as some random person, I had personal exchanges with those who set up their speaking engagements and often these people seemed excited about the idea at first, but after talking to these leaders I was given a clear no. The fact of the matter is that these leaders know, even the most capable such as Enns, that their case is shoddy through and through.

I hope all of this doesn't sound too harsh but I have been debating with progressive Christians for over ten years, I researched my book on the movement for a number of years, and I published my book on the movement. The book is really starting to pick up and I am scheduled to be on three radio programs soon, including one this week. I am very familiar with the movement and as I make clear in my book, despite all the talk about being all about dialogue, I have consistently found this not to be the case.

I snuck my opinion in there, maybe I shouldn't have. I've done great lengths of research on this, and at this point, I'm pretty set on what I think. However, I am willing to listen to everyone that has spent a lot of time in thought on this matter, including fundamentalists who I disagree with, such as yourself Alisa. My point is this: apologetics by design requires a counterpoint. There are a wide range of opinions on this matter, to include some really bright theologians, and if you are only displaying opinions of people who agree with your contentions, then it comes off one sided and isn't really apologetics.

Sean, Alisa is not a fundamentalist. That term has evolved in our country to mean something that she does not embrace. It is a condescending term used of our community as a way of stopping all debate, the very thing you say you are against. You may have done a great deal of research, but you must not have thought through the issues very carefully because absolutely nothing in Ehrman or Crossan or anyone else comes even close to refuting the case for biblical Christianity. You say we should follow the evidence wherever it leads and you are correct. You should keep seeking as you will see that the case for biblical Christianity far, far outweighs the case for any other worldview.

And it is quite common for podcasts to primarily have folks of like mind on their programs. This does not mean they are not giving the other side a fair hearing as long as the other side is adequately addressed, something Alisa does quite often. And as I pointed out to you, getting the other side to join us in dialogue is not nearly as easy as you make it out to be. Deal directly with her arguments instead of just chastising her for not going about things exactly how you want.

For instance, please tell us what in Ehrman you find so convincing. If you cannot do this then you are just talk.

Who asked you Dan? I think it would be healthy to entertain an opposing point of view Alisa, that’s all I was saying through all of this. If you’ve reached out to others and they have declined that’s fine, but I don’t think that is what you’re saying. In my view point you are a fundamentalist and that’s nothing to be ashamed of or get defensive about I don’t think.

And here's a thought to consider. Do you ask the same of Ehrman that you do of me? Do you write him emails asking him to let conservative Christians give their views on his blog?

I also hope that I did not come off like I was speaking for Alisa. I would never intentionally do so. If we are talking about the original fundamentalists, especially the Reformed and Presbyterian wing led by Machen, then I am as rabid a fundamentalist as there is. I was only trying to say that the way that word is used today describes a belief system that I know from her writings that Alisa most certainly does not hold to.

No one asked me, but it is quite common on blogs to respond to the comments of others even when they are not directed towards oneself. If I said anything inappropriate Alisa would not allow my comment to be posted. If you can't handle debate that's on you. But how can you make such a big thing of accusing Alisa of not entertaining opposing viewpoints when you yourself are so dismissive? And don't act so innocent. You accused Alisa of coming off as weak in her points because she doesn't run her podcasts as you see fit. That is a serious accusation. You were not simply making benign suggestions. I'm sure Alisa has very good reasons for not having opponents on her show, she can speak for herself. But until she does so you should give her the benefit of the doubt and not call her points weak until you have dealt directly with her arguments, which it is becoming quite clear you have no intention of doing.

And the term "fundamentalism" has become in our society a very derogatory term, to act otherwise is simply disingenuous. All conservative evangelicals are quite familiar with the way in which that term is used against us. And as far as your definition we do not hold to a strict interpretation of the Bible. We hold to the historical-grammatical approach to hermeneutics. As far as the literal approach, that is an older label that did not mean what it generally means today. It was largely synonymous with the historical-grammatical method, but it was later abused by fundamentalists and so the term is largely out of favor in our community today. If you had done as much research as you say you have you would know all of this.

Finally, please tell us what from Ehrman you find so convincing.

Dictionaries get definitions wrong all the time. Or they are often overly simplistic given all the historical baggage and nuance that goes into any given definition.

I would be thrilled if Ehrman would debate me. I would be even more thrilled if Alisa would be willing to join me. But Ehrman is an elitist and so I highly doubt he would deign to debate either one of us. On the other hand, I know he loves money and is very cocky and so if offered enough maybe he would. In all seriousness if you could set that up I would be game. I of course can't speak for Alisa on that front.

Progressive Christianity is the term that progressive Christians use openly for themselves? Talk about apples and oranges bro. I for one have no problem being labeled as long as the labels are accurate. I am first and foremost a Christian. I am a historic, orthodox Protestant. I am a conservative evangelical. I am Reformed in my theology. I am old school, confessional Presbyterian. I am a classical apologist. I am amillennial. Labels are fantastic!

Sean, people come on this blog all the time, they come on my blog all the time (although I fully admit I don't get near the traffic Alisa does!), they come on similar blogs all the time, and they start out so confident because why wouldn't they be, after all they are just going to be going against us uninformed fundies, how hard could it be? But then when we start to pull away the cards from the house of cards that is their arguments and the whole thing crumbles, all of a sudden they start vacillating all over the place and saying how they don't want to debate, they don't want to share their views, we are being so mean, etc., etc. You said earlier that you are pretty set in your beliefs and now you are saying that you are not. Which is it?

Professor Ehrman does certainly rock in some ways, not so much in other ways. I agree with you that he is an unbelievably knowledgeable scholar and he has been a massive help to us in the conservative evangelical community in pointing out what we have been saying for so long that the manuscript traditions behind our translations are remarkably accurate.

He is not so awesome because he takes the few examples of highly debatable texts and tries to extrapolate from them all sorts of nonsense. His theory on the evolution of the deity of Christ is riddled with problems. He is often condescending and rolls his eyes in debates with those in our community. And of course he has labored diligently and earned millions of dollars by trying to disprove the truth of the Bible, something that will earn him severe judgment if he does not repent.

Yes I want to dismantle any viewpoint that sets itself up against the Bible. That is what the Bible commands me to do. If that is not your cup of tea then don't come on a blog like this and say that the one who runs the blog comes off as weak in her presentation unless you want to be challenged. Despite the fact that our opponents so often want to label me as arrogant or mean, I do not go around arguing with people in my daily life. I converse with people all the time and don't even bring up my faith. Often people ask me and I simply kindly answer their questions. Often people challenge me very humbly because they are searching and I always patiently explain why the biblical worldview is superior to all others. But on occasion people do become antagonistic and I will not hesitate to fight back when that happens. And on these blogs people often come out swinging, but like to pretend that is not what they are doing at all and so yes I call them out on it. Other times people start out very kind and patient and often I end very well with such people. I'm fine to agree to disagree. But other times they become more and more firm in their defense and so I have to become more and more firm in mine.

The Bible can often be taken literally and when that is clearly the most sound interpretation that is how it should be interpreted. The same is true for any other work. But the Bible often contains material that the author is clearly not intending to be taken literally and in such cases we should not take it literally. The same is true for any other work.

As far as the Joshua text, you are conflating interpretation with fact. The Joshua text is clearly intended to be taken literally. That is how everyone should interpret it. Whether or not the events described actually happened is a separate question. We have abundant evidence for the full inspiration of the Bible, therefore the events did take place irrespective of what direct evidence we have or don't have for the events. As far as what would have happened if the events described occurred, you are imposing a naturalistic worldview on to the Bible, a worldview that the biblical worldview utterly rejects. So this is no argument. God could have kept all of the things you described from happening. It is what being omnipotent means. The events described are miraculous. Joshua is describin