Ehrman’s Problem 20: Everything But the Kitchen Sink

In my last post I pointed out that Ehrman begged the question for his major argument as to why the apocalyptic argument didn’t help us answer why God allows suffering. In this post I will address his next two arguments. I titled this post, “Everything But the Kitchen Sink,” because, frankly, his arguments appear rather desperate.

Here’s his second major argument against the apocalyptic answer (259-260):

Moreover, the fervent expectations that we must be living at the end of time has proved time after time—every time—to be wrong. It is true that those who suffer can find hope in the expectation that soon all things will be transformed, that the evil they experience will be destroyed, and that they will be given their just reward. But it is also true that this expected end never has and never will come, until for whatever reason, the human race simply ceases to exist…. They tell us that events in the Middle East, or in Europe, or in China, or in Russia, or in our own country are fulfilling what was predicted by the prophets of long ago…. Most obvious is the problem that everyone who has ever made a prediction of this sort—every single one of them—has been absolutely and incontrovertibly wrong.

There are two things wrong with this. One, although it is true that an unseemly number of people have predicted when the Second Coming would occur, Jesus was unambiguous in Matt. 24:36-39, 42 that the day is unknown:

But concerning that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father only. For as were the days of Noah, so will be the coming of the Son of Man. For as in those days before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day when Noah entered the ark, and they were unaware until the flood came and swept them all away, so will be the coming of the Son of Man…. Therefore, stay awake, for you do not know on what day your Lord is coming.

Those people who have precisely pontificated their prognosticated of the Parousia have done so in spite of Jesus saying even He didn’t know! To say that Christianity is false because some of its adherents have erred is no more than guilt by association.

Two, and this is rather obvious, just because Jesus hasn’t come yet doesn’t mean that He isn’t still coming.

Ehrman’s third argument (I can’t call it “major”; it’s tiny) is that “this kind of perspective tends to breed religious complacency among those who ‘know’ what the future holds and are unwilling to examine their views critically. There are few things more dangerous than inbred religious certainty” (260). This is silly. Is it possible for people to become complacent about what they believe? Sure. But that’s every bit as true for atheists and agnostics as it is for Christians. That some people stop examining things critically tells us nothing about the truth or falsehood of their beliefs—it just tells us about them.

Ehrman’s fourth and last argument against the apocalyptic view (it’s tiny too) is that, “‘knowing’ that all things will eventually be made right by a supernatural intervention can lead to a kind of social complacency, an unwillingness to deal with evil as we confront it here and now…” (260).

Frankly, I’m surprised that Ehrman would even bother bringing these last two up because he knows very well (I would hope) that the truth or falsehood of a particular position isn’t decided by how some people respond to it! In fact, he has committed the argumentum ad consequentiam (appeal to consequences) fallacy. Just because a belief has good or bad consequences doesn’t make it true or false. For example, some Christians argue that atheism is false because it is a socially destructive belief. Now, I agree that atheism is socially destructive, but that doesn’t, of itself, tell me whether atheism is true or false. Likewise, finding out that you have terminal cancer may be devastating but that doesn’t tell us anything about the truth of whether you have terminal cancer. Thus these last two Ehrman arguments are no arguments at all.

Nonetheless, I’m absolutely convinced that the opposite of Ehrman’s fourth argument is true: those who really, truly believe that Jesus is coming back remember Jesus’ warning in Matt. 25:44-46: “Then they also will answer, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to you?’ Then he will answer them, saying, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to me.’ And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.’” As C. S. Lewis said, “If you read history you will find that the Christians who did most for the present world were precisely those who thought most of the next. It is since Christians have largely ceased to think of the other world that they have become so ineffective in this.”

James 1:27: “Religion that is pure and undefiled before God, the Father, is this: to visit orphans and widows in their affliction, and to keep oneself unstained from the world.”

Amen.