Pastors loosing their faith

[Jac3510]

So you think a guy who got his undergraduate degree from Wheaton enrolled and studied there the entire time is now making up the fact that he was a Christian because . . . well . . . because he now doesn't believe anymore?

Going to Wheaton, that's well and good. But that doesn't address what I said. Are you contending that everyone who goes to seminary is a Christian or that everyone who claims to be a Christian is one? All I know is that a person (Ehrman) claimed to be a Christian and now claims to be an agnostic. Maybe rereading some of his interviews would change my perspective, in fact I wouldn't doubt that it would (in one way or another, any time you take in new information your perspective should change). But as I've written, someone claiming to be a Christian doesn't necessarily mean a lot, even for those who go to seminary... and I'm enough of a skeptic that I'm not going to trust a claim just because its made and I've given reasons why we could doubt Ehrman's claims.

Now if I'm interacting with a former Christian, I'm not going to say "You're a liar, you never believed!" but I was approaching this from an epistemological perspective, warrant and probability. Do I need to quote myself again?


That isn't to say that it wouldn't be possible to dig up cases where family knew a person to be (at least by all appearances) a devout, passionate Christian who went on to lose his faith. In fact I'm sure you could. But not all circumstances are equal, and I'd certainly object to the idea that I have as much reason to believe Ehrman was devout as I do someone I personally interacted with.


The whole "devout" thing is a rabbit trail that doesn't really touch on the point I was making. The point I was making is that I can trust what I or those I know believe with greater certainty than what a total stranger or someone I know only from his book believes. There are dozens of possible reasons why a person could go to a seminary without believing in Christ or even believing in a god period. If you think otherwise than you haven't been reading the news the last few years (the topic this thread was actually about). Dennett did some collaborations on it, admitted atheists pastoring churches for years for different reasons (not wanting to disappoint family and friends even though they lacked belief, not wanting to part with a paycheck, etc.). That may be the rarer case, more commonly someone could know all the words and motions but still put their faith in something other than Christ. Faith in Biblical Inerrancy is one example. This might strike you as highly improbable (I don't, maybe its more probable that Ehrman is reporting his situation 100% accurately but I don't think its highly improbable that those who claim to be saved may never have been saved) and that we should just take him at his word, but that would yet again miss the ultimate point I was actually making.

In short, being devout doesn't shield you from disbelief, and I bet if you were to ask some ex-Christians about it, they would take offense (rightly so) at the suggestion that the only reason they stopped believing is that they didn't really believe deeply enough.

A word of caution, my friend: the moment you think you can't fall into a sin, you open yourself up to it, up to and including apostasy.

Soon I might be the one taking offense. I never said "the only reason they stopped believing is that they really didn't believe deeply enough", in fact I never even meant to imply it. I never said I was more or less devout than anybody and I don't appreciate the implication or the uncharitable interpretation of what I wrote. All I did was take one specific case and laid out what I know. The kicker is that the point I settled on wasn't even that Ehrman didn't believe, only that I can be more certain of the beliefs of those I know personally. Especially if I knew the person when they actually held that belief.

Well you'll have to forgive me, because I have no idea the point you are trying to make. If all you are saying is that you have more warrant to believe the story of a person you know personally who fell from faith over someone's you read about, then my response is . . . "okay?"

Again, I don't have any doubts that deeply committed Christians go to seminary--conservative or liberal--and through their education lose their faith. I've seen it happen to people, so Ehrman's story does not strike me the least bit as an outlier. He isn't a raving atheist out to disprove God exists. He is a scholar raising some serious problems he sees in those who hold to a faith he claims he once held. As his background is perfectly consistent with the claim that he once held that faith, I have absolutely NO reason to doubt it. For you to suggest as you seem to that we need some special warrant to think he's telling the truth just strikes me as silly. I doubt you require that much warrant of other people when they tell you what they used to think or do or believe. So why the extra requirement when it comes to this?

So I go back to what I said above. If you aren't trying to make a general point about people losing their faith, but if instead all you are saying is that you have more warrant for believing the story of those you know personally, then fine. Obviously you have more warrant in such cases. I don't see how that justifies doubting Ehrman's case, nor do I see what that has anything to do with the general question of the OP of pastor's and others with formal training losing their faith.

[narnia4]

Jac, this is what I was contesting-

I think the Bible makes it clear that real Christians can and do lose their faith, and if you are going to argue that Ehrman was never really saved, well good luck convincing me that you are or I am. I mean, if someone as deeply conservative as Ehrman could lose his faith proving he was never saved, how much more could you or me?!?

My response-

I should have mentioned this right away, but I didn't explicitly say that we should doubt that Ehrman believed the Gospel. What I actually said is-

But not all circumstances are equal, and I'd certainly object to the idea that I have as much reason to believe Ehrman was devout as I do someone I personally interacted with.

But to be specific, I disagree that if I DID have warrant to doubt Ehrman's faith that would also provide warrant to doubt my own. It may seem like a no-brainer of a point, but the first quote above sure makes it sound like that's what you were claiming.

For you to suggest as you seem to that we need some special warrant to think he's telling the truth just strikes me as silly. I doubt you require that much warrant of other people when they tell you what they used to think or do or believe. So why the extra requirement when it comes to this?

I didn't say anything about any sort of "special warrant", I did give a few reasons why one could possibly doubt Ehrman's testimony but that wasn't the point. My point may seem trivial, but the only reason I made it is because of what you said.

I should add that I do hold a moderately skeptical stance when it comes to accepting a person's claims. A claim being made raises the probability that that claim is true, but unless the claim is accompanied by other information there's still room for reasonable doubt. I actually would tend to accept Ehrman's claim, but I'm really not being inconsistent with my epistemological position at all by not just taking a claim like that at face value without further consideration.

[Jac3510]

I disagree that if I DID have warrant to doubt Ehrman's faith that would also provide warrant to doubt my own. It may seem like a no-brainer of a point, but the first quote above sure makes it sound like that's what you were claiming.

I think we're getting our wires crossed. If you have warrant to doubt he really believed in the first place, that wouldn't apply to you who have good reason to believe that you do believe. My point was directed at those who say that Ehrman must never have really believed to begin with. IF that is your theology (not saying that is yours) then shy of good reason to believe that Ehrman never believed, then the fact that he fell away has some serious ramifications on our own assurance.

I should add that I do hold a moderately skeptical stance when it comes to accepting a person's claims. A claim being made raises the probability that that claim is true, but unless the claim is accompanied by other information there's still room for reasonable doubt. I actually would tend to accept Ehrman's claim, but I'm really not being inconsistent with my epistemological position at all by not just taking a claim like that at face value without further consideration.

I would submit to you that a person who makes it a point to attend a very conservative seminary gives strong warrant for accepting his claim that he believed. Is it possible he is lying? Sure. Are there people who attend such seminaries and are really unbelievers? Some, yes. But MOST? No, not at all. MOST people who attend such seminaries are devout, dedicated, and true believers. So it is MOST LIKELY (not guaranteed) that Ehrman's story ought to be accepted. I'd be much more skeptical had he attended a very liberal school. But he didn't, and that tells me something. Again, it provides warrant for accepting the already probable claim that his story was true. For those who doubt it, it seems to me they have to provide some serious reason to overcome that warrant and they have to provide a motivation for such warrant in the first place.

Bottom line -- is it a slam dunk case that Ehrman was a "true believer" prior to losing his faith? No. But nothing is "slam dunk" in that sense. There's sufficient evidence to accept his claim that he was, and I see no reason whatsoever to doubt that claim (shy of theological claims that say that true believers can never fall away).

[narnia4]

Ok I think we're finally coming to some understanding here. I may disagree on a couple of the details regarding Ehrman (which I won't do here because I really didn't intend to get things so sidetracked) but at least we got it straight here what we actually meant, so thank you for the clarification.

But to address the OP again, my bottom line is really that pastors are just humans. Whatever applies to any one believer will apply to a pastor. Sometimes we hold authorities in such high regard that we somehow split "regular people" and "authorities" into two categories. You see it all the time when a skeptic fallaciously infers that because an atheistic scientist may be qualified to talk biology, he's somehow equally qualified to talk philosophy. Now we expect pastors to be able to talk theology because its their specialty, but what I mean to say is that they aren't infallible or near infallible. A pastor does have special responsibilities and the Bible makes it clear that the shepherd who leads his sheep astray isn't in a good spot.

It should be mentioned that this isn't an overly common phenomenon, that's why it makes the news whenever it happens. Take the example of the abusing of children by Catholic priests. Such abuse was less common among priests than among the general population, but more was expected from the priesthood.

So like the famed quote from Spiderman, with great power comes great responsibility.

[Jac3510]

Ok I think we're finally coming to some understanding here. I may disagree on a couple of the details regarding Ehrman (which I won't do here because I really didn't intend to get things so sidetracked) but at least we got it straight here what we actually meant, so thank you for the clarification.

But to address the OP again, my bottom line is really that pastors are just humans. Whatever applies to any one believer will apply to a pastor. Sometimes we hold authorities in such high regard that we somehow split "regular people" and "authorities" into two categories. You see it all the time when a skeptic fallaciously infers that because an atheistic scientist may be qualified to talk biology, he's somehow equally qualified to talk philosophy. Now we expect pastors to be able to talk theology because its their specialty, but what I mean to say is that they aren't infallible or near infallible. A pastor does have special responsibilities and the Bible makes it clear that the shepherd who leads his sheep astray isn't in a good spot.

It should be mentioned that this isn't an overly common phenomenon, that's why it makes the news whenever it happens. Take the example of the abusing of children by Catholic priests. Such abuse was less common among priests than among the general population, but more was expected from the priesthood.

So like the famed quote from Spiderman, with great power comes great responsibility.

I agree that we're coming to an understanding, for
I agree with everything that you said here