Testing the Spirits: Why the Continuing Church of God Fails the Biblical Standard

 

Introduction: The Call for Discernment

In a time when new theological movements frequently emerge, Christians must remain steadfast in discerning truth from deception. The Continuing Church of God (CCOG) presents itself as a restoration of early Christianity, claiming to uphold the original teachings of Christ and the apostles. However, upon closer examination, its doctrines and practices reveal significant departures from orthodox Christian faith. This article explores the origins, history, and theology of the CCOG, highlighting why it diverges from biblical Christianity and why believers should approach it with caution.

Origins and History

The Continuing Church of God was founded by Dr. Bob Thiel in 2012. Thiel, a former member of the Living Church of God, established the CCOG after claiming to receive divine revelations affirming his prophetic role. (1) The group identifies itself as the Philadelphia remnant of the Church of God, tracing its spiritual lineage to the early Christian church.

The CCOG asserts that mainstream Christianity has deviated from the original teachings of Christ, positioning itself as the true continuation of the faith. It emphasizes prophetic interpretations, end-time warnings, and adherence to Old Testament laws, including dietary restrictions and Sabbath observance.

While the Church of God tradition has historical roots in the Worldwide Church of God, founded by Herbert W. Armstrong, the CCOG represents a further splintering of this movement. Armstrongism, known for its unique eschatological interpretations and strict observance of Mosaic laws, profoundly influences the CCOG’s teachings. (2) However, unlike groups affiliated with the New Apostolic Reformation (NAR)—which emphasize modern apostles, charismatic gifts, and dominion theology—the CCOG follows a distinct theological path rooted in Armstrong’s legacy rather than NAR’s charismatic framework.

Theological Divergences

The theology of the Continuing Church of God significantly diverges from orthodox Christianity in several key areas:

1. Binitarianism vs. Trinitarianism

Unlike mainstream Christianity, which affirms the Trinity—Father, Son, and Holy Spirit—the CCOG adheres to binitarianism, recognizing only the Father and the Son as distinct persons in the Godhead. This rejection of the Holy Spirit as a distinct divine person contradicts centuries of Christian doctrine upheld by Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant traditions.

2. Legalism and Old Testament Practices

The CCOG insists that Christians must observe Old Testament laws, including circumcision, dietary restrictions, and strict Sabbath observance. This legalistic approach conflicts with the New Testament teachings of grace through faith (Ephesians 2:8-9), where salvation is not dependent on adherence to Mosaic Law but on Christ’s redemptive work.

3. Prophetic Claims and Eschatology

Dr. Bob Thiel claims to have received divine revelations, positioning himself as a prophetic figure. The CCOG places heavy emphasis on end-time prophecy, often interpreting global events as signs of imminent tribulation. While biblical prophecy is an essential aspect of Christian faith, the CCOG’s speculative interpretations and self-proclaimed prophetic authority raise concerns about theological accuracy and spiritual manipulation.

4. Rejection of Mainstream Christian Doctrines

The CCOG rejects many foundational Christian doctrines, including the immortality of the soul, traditional views on hell, and the concept of salvation by grace alone. Instead, it promotes a unique interpretation of biblical eschatology based on Armstrongism. (3)

Why Christians Should Exercise Discernment

By rejecting the Trinity, enforcing legalistic adherence to Old Testament laws, promoting speculative prophetic claims, and straying from core Christian doctrines, the Continuing Church of God presents significant theological concerns. Scripture explicitly warns believers against this kind of distortion:

"But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, a curse be on him!" (Galatians 1:8, CSB).

Conclusion: Standing Firm in Biblical Truth

As Christians, we are called to test every teaching against the Word of God (1 John 4:1). While the Continuing Church of God claims to uphold biblical truth, its theological framework diverges significantly from the gospel of Christ. Believers must remain steadfast in sound doctrine, rejecting movements that distort the message of salvation and impose legalistic burdens.

In a world filled with spiritual deception, let us hold fast to the truth of Scripture, relying on the guidance of the Holy Spirit and the wisdom of the Christian community. Discernment is not merely an intellectual exercise—it is a spiritual safeguard against error.

Expressions of Divine Duality: Exploring God's Love and Hate in Biblical Hebrew

In the complex tapestry of theological language, the divine attributes of love and hate invite deep, reflective inquiry. The apparent paradox between these two emotions in Scripture has long puzzled readers who, based on modern English usage, view “hate” as an unmitigated rejection or even malicious hostility. Yet, in the ancient context of biblical Hebrew, the word translated as “hate”—sane (שָׂנֵא)—carries a range of meanings that extend beyond our contemporary understandings. It is this nuance that compels scholars and believers alike to reconsider how divine passion is expressed in the sacred texts.

The Hebrew term sane is not a mirror image of the modern concept of hate. Rather than denoting unbridled animosity, sane has historically connoted a deliberate diminution of love—a “loving less”—that marks a moral and relational distancing. In poetic and covenantal contexts, this linguistic device is employed to illustrate a choice: to adhere to a divine standard or to turn away from it. For example, Psalm 5:5 proclaims, “You hate all who do wrong,” a declaration that, on close examination, should be understood as God’s intense rejection of unrighteousness rather than an impulsive personal vendetta. Even Jesus’ challenging words in Luke 14:26, which compare familial love with the totality of commitment required to follow Him, resonate with this nuanced usage. (2)

Ancient Israelite culture intertwined linguistic expression with broader social and covenantal responsibilities. Love and hate were not merely emotional states but were intimately connected to actions and allegiances. The language of Scripture reflects a community in which moral choices were visually and poetically delineated through contrasting expressions—drawing a vivid line between that which fosters divine communion and that which leads to spiritual estrangement. In this framework, sane becomes a marker of dedication: to “hate” in this sense is to shun the corrupting influence of sin, affirming one’s loyalty to a higher, sanctifying love.

This interplay between divine love and hate comes sharply into focus within the covenant relationship between God and His people. Throughout the Hebrew Bible, passages such as those in Malachi highlight a God who expresses deep affection for those who pursue righteousness while simultaneously rejecting what is contrary to His will. Here, the dynamic is not one of capricious emotional volatility but of a passionate commitment to moral and spiritual integrity. The language of sane thus functions as both a diagnostic and a directive—it reveals the heart’s disposition while guiding believers towards the kind of love that aligns with divine purpose. 1

Modern interpretations often risk oversimplifying this rich linguistic heritage by equating all instances of “hate” with a generic, modern hostility. Yet the ancient Hebrew perspective challenges us to distinguish between relational estrangement and the corrective, purifying force of divine judgment. God’s denunciation of sin through the language of sane is inseparable from His overarching love—it is an expression meant to awaken, reform, and ultimately restore. This understanding offers a counterpoint to contemporary narratives that depict God’s wrath as inherently punitive; instead, it invites us to see divine anger as a necessary and constructive element of His redemptive plan.

Ultimately, the narrative of divine love and judgment converges on a message of profound redemption. God loved us so deeply—even while we remained in a state of enmity with Him—that He sent His Son, Christ, to die for us in our sin. This act is the supreme demonstration of a love that does not abandon us in our brokenness. Instead, it is a love that transforms, raising us up to conform to His holy image and granting us spiritual life that reflects our true, intended identity. In His redemptive plan, the tension between love and hate is resolved: what may appear as divine “hate” is in fact a passionate commitment to eradicate sin and cultivate the fuller, more vibrant love that He envisions for humanity. (3)

It is in the depths of this divine drama that we find an invitation to explore further. How do these ancient linguistic nuances inform modern understandings of justice, holiness, and redemption? In reexamining God’s language, we may uncover broader implications for contemporary ethical discussions, the role of moral indignation in the public sphere, and the transformative power of unconditional love. Such reflections encourage not only scholarly debate but also personal growth as we seek to embody the love that overcomes enmity—a love that calls us to leave behind the paralysis of sin and become the living image of the Creator’s grace.

Servant Leadership, Not Shelter: A Biblical Approach to Authority

Introduction

Bill Gothard’s (the founder of the Institute in Basic Life Principles/IBLP) “Umbrellas of Authority” promises a divine shelter—a protective canopy under which believers are assured safety and order. However, a closer examination reveals tensions between this promise and the biblical call for dynamic, accountable, and servant-led leadership. Yet beneath this appealing metaphor lies a tension with Scripture’s call for dynamic, accountable, and servant-hearted leadership. In what follows, we will critically unpack this teaching, examining how its rigid model of uncritical obedience clashes with the biblical vision of mutual responsibility and transformative grace. By deconstructing its assumptions and exploring alternative, biblically grounded images of community, we invite readers to reimagine authority in a way that truly reflects the balance of freedom and accountability found in the Gospel.

I. The Theological Premise of “Umbrellas of Authority”

Bill Gothard’s framework presents authority as a divine “umbrella” under which believers find protection, safety, and order. According to this teaching, as long as one remains beneath the licit human authorities—whether in the family, the church, or other social structures—one is safeguarded from the attacks of evil. Proponents argue that by obeying God-ordained human authority, chaos and spiritual harm can be prevented. However, a closer examination of Scripture reveals that while the Bible indeed teaches respect for leaders (e.g., Hebrews 13:17, Ephesians 5-6), it does not support a formulaic guarantee of protection that unconditionally elevates any human authority to a near-sacrosanct status. Instead, Scripture consistently portrays authority as being contingent upon servant leadership, accountability to God, and mutual submission among believers. (1)

II. Biblical Accountability Versus Uncritical Submission

At the heart of the “Umbrellas of Authority” concept is the assertion that stepping outside the confines of one’s designated area of authority exposes one to spiritual attack. Nonetheless, the Bible does not advocate for blind or uncritical submission when leaders fail in their duties. For instance, the New Testament calls on elders to shepherd the flock with humility and casts severe warnings against abuses of power (1 Peter 5:2–3; 1 Timothy 5:20). Gothard’s model, by contrast, risks establishing a rigid hierarchy that minimizes the importance of legitimate grievance and accountability. When authority is perceived as an impermeable shield, any dissent—even if based on genuine spiritual or moral concern—is often misattributed to a lack of submission. This creates a milieu where error or abuse is not adequately addressed, betraying the biblical call for leaders to be both servant-hearted and accountable to the larger body of Christ. (2)

III. The Danger of Misapplied Complementarianism

While proponents of Gothard’s teaching might appeal to biblical passages endorsing complementary roles within the family and church (such as Ephesians 5 and Romans 13), the “Umbrellas of Authority” concept stretches these passages into a dogmatic formula. In contrast to the intended biblical meaning—which emphasizes order, mutual care, and the ultimate authority of Christ—the teaching risks reducing complex human relationships to a simplistic “chain of command.” This not only distorts the biblical vision of a community of believers who mutually serve one another, but it also devalues the biblical mandate for discernment. Instead of fostering a healthy dynamic in which leaders are to be lovingly corrected when they err, the teaching can inadvertently become a tool for perpetuating dysfunctional or even abusive leadership structures.

IV. Scriptural Foundations for a Dynamic Understanding of Authority

Scripture welcomes a view of authority that is dynamic and relational rather than static and authoritarian. Jesus himself demonstrated a model of leadership that was about service, sacrifice, and mutual accountability—not an aerial command system that isolates believers under an unchallengeable umbrella. The metaphor of the “body of Christ” (1 Corinthians 12:12–27) richly illustrates this point. In this analogy, every member is interconnected and indispensable; leadership is exercised through love, care, and collaboration rather than enforced obedience. Accountability flows in all directions—upwards to Christ, laterally among peers, and downward in the nurturing of those still growing. This model emphasizes that true protection and spiritual safety come not from an imposed structure, but from a community that reflects the self-giving love of its Savior.

V. An Alternative Analogy: The Body, the Tree, and the Tapestry

Rather than viewing Christian life as a shelter under an impermeable umbrella of authority, believers might better conceive of their communal life through alternative analogies:

1. The Body of Christ: Just as the human body is composed of many different parts that rely on each other for proper function, the Church is a dynamic system where each member—regardless of rank—is essential. In this model, every believer is simultaneously a leader and a follower, accountable to Christ and to one another, thereby preserving both freedom and discipline in Christ’s service.

2. A Tree with Intertwined Roots: Imagine a tree whose strength and vitality depend on its intertwined root system. In this analogy, Christ is the root source of life, and all believers are connected in a mutually supportive network. When one branch suffers, the entire tree is affected, and mutual care propels the community toward holistic health rather than blind deference to a singular branch of authority.

3. An Intricate Tapestry: Consider the Church as a masterfully woven tapestry, where each thread contributes to the integrity and beauty of the whole design. No single thread dominates; rather, every strand—whether leader or follower—plays a vital role, with texture and pattern emerging from their interdependence. This perspective underscores that authority, when rightly understood, is a shared and evolving responsibility, inviting every believer to contribute to the common good.

4. The Home as a Microcosm of the Kingdom: Biblical authority within the family mirrors these organic, interdependent models. In the household, leadership is not a static, handed-down command but a living, relational mandate. Parents serve as servant-leaders, modeling humility, love, and accountability while engaging in open dialogue with their children. In this setting, authority is exercised through a commitment to mutual growth and thoughtful correction—ensuring that every family member contributes to the health and flourishing of the whole. This model reflects the Gospel’s call for balanced, servant-hearted leadership that prepares each individual to one day guide others with wisdom and grace.

By adopting these analogies, Christians can cultivate a more balanced understanding of authority—one that embraces biblical principles of mutual responsibility, accountability, and the transformative power of Christ’s love. This alternative approach not only retains the value of structured leadership but also safeguards against any misuse of authority that might compromise the freedom and well-being of the community.

In summary, Bill Gothard’s “Umbrellas of Authority” teaching, while rooted in an attempt to order human relationships, strays from the biblical call to servant leadership and mutual accountability. Instead of offering a rigid safety net that risks covering up abuses or neglecting the need for corrective accountability, a model of Christian community—as illustrated by the body of Christ, a tree, or a tapestry—affirms that true spiritual protection arises through shared responsibility, discernment, and the redemptive love of Christ.

Faith Under Fire: Deconversion vs. Disentanglement

A Christian Perspective on the Journeys of Bart Ehrman, Joshua Harris, and Jinger Duggar

Introduction

Faith is often likened to a house—some structures withstand storms, while others crumble when their foundations are shaken (Matthew 7:24–27). The stories of Bart Ehrman, Joshua Harris, and Jinger Duggar illustrate the consequences of rigid fundamentalism when confronted with intellectual and theological challenges. Ehrman and Harris, once staunch believers, ultimately abandoned Christianity when their fundamentalist frameworks proved insufficient. In contrast, Duggar navigated her doubts by disentangling false teachings from biblical truth, preserving her faith while shedding harmful ideologies.

This article explores their journeys, emphasizing the importance of humility in theological understanding, the necessity of refining one’s beliefs, and the dangers of brittle fundamentalism. As believers, our faith should not be an all-or-nothing system—rather, it must be resilient enough to withstand questions and challenges.

Bart Ehrman: The Scholar Who Walked Away

Bart Ehrman, a renowned biblical scholar, once identified as an evangelical Christian. However, his faith unraveled as he encountered textual discrepancies in Scripture and wrestled with the problem of suffering. Ehrman stated, “The search for truth takes you where the evidence leads you, even if, at first, you don’t want to go there.” (1) His fundamentalist upbringing had instilled a rigid view of biblical inerrancy, and when he found contradictions in the text, he felt compelled to reject Christianity altogether. Instead of adjusting his theological framework, Ehrman abandoned his faith, illustrating the peril of an inflexible belief system.

His reasoning reflects the risk of binary thinking: either Scripture is absolutely perfect in the way he initially believed, or it is entirely flawed and unreliable. This rigid framework contrasts with how early Christians wrestled with Scripture. The Bereans, for example, were commended for their diligence in examining the Scriptures daily (Acts 17:11), showing that faith need not collapse under questioning—it can be strengthened through study. Had Ehrman viewed textual criticism as an invitation to refine his understanding rather than a contradiction invalidating his belief, his faith might have evolved rather than dissolved.

Joshua Harris: From Evangelical Leader to Ex-Christian

Joshua Harris, once a prominent evangelical figure, shocked the Christian community when he announced his deconversion. Best known for I Kissed Dating Goodbye, Harris later renounced his teachings and, eventually, his faith. In his public statement, he declared, “By all the measurements that I have for defining a Christian, I am not a Christian. Many people tell me that there is a different way to practice faith and I want to remain open to this, but I’m not there now.⁣⁣” (2)

Harris’s story is particularly relevant to discussions on legalism and performance-based Christianity. His evangelical career was largely built on rigid moral teachings, particularly regarding relationships. However, when Harris began dismantling these earlier beliefs, he didn’t just distance himself from his previous teachings—he walked away from Christianity entirely. His experience highlights the danger of tying one’s entire faith to a particular doctrinal position rather than the core of Christianity: a relationship with Christ.

(Proverbs 16:18) warns, “Pride comes before destruction, and an arrogant spirit before a fall.” When believers assume their understanding of faith is infallible, they risk abandoning the entire foundation when one part is challenged. Harris’s deconversion exemplifies what happens when faith is viewed through a brittle lens, unable to withstand doctrinal refinement. A mature faith recognizes that questioning one's beliefs does not mean abandoning them altogether.

Jinger Duggar Voulo: Disentangling, Not Deconstructing

Unlike Ehrman and Harris, Jinger Duggar faced theological challenges without abandoning her faith. Raised in the strict teachings of Bill Gothard’s Institute in Basic Life Principles, Jingeventually recognized the flaws in her upbringing. However, rather than rejecting Christianity, she sought to separate biblical truth from man-made legalism. She explained, “My faith is as strong as it’s ever been—not because Christianity tells me the right way to live or unlocks some ‘key to success’ but because I can find no one more compelling, more lovely, more hopeful than Jesus.” (3)

Disentanglement requires discernment. As Paul instructs, “Do not be conformed to this age, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind” (Romans 12:2). Duggar embodies this principle by remaining rooted in Scripture while discarding flawed interpretations. Her story serves as an example for believers struggling with doubts or harmful religious experiences. Instead of concluding that Christianity itself is the problem, she examined teachings through the lens of Scripture, reinforcing that faith is not a rigid system but a growing, evolving relationship with Christ.

The Fragility of Brittle Fundamentalism

Both Ehrman and Harris illustrate a common problem in fundamentalist faith structures: an inability to adapt without breaking. Their faith was built on rigid theological systems, and when cracks formed in those systems, they saw no alternative but to abandon belief altogether.

As (Job 11:7) asks, “Can you fathom the depths of God or discover the limits of the Almighty?” The answer, of course, is no. A faith that allows for intellectual humility and continual learning is far more resilient than one that demands absolute certainty in every doctrinal stance.

Conclusion: The Choice Between Deconversion and Growth

Ultimately, the difference between Ehrman and Harris’s deconversions and Duggar’s disentanglement comes down to their approach to doubt. Scripture encourages believers to wrestle with difficult questions rather than flee from them. Faith should not be brittle—it should be tested and refined, as gold is purified through fire (1 Peter 1:7).

A crisis of faith does not have to lead to abandoning belief. Instead, it can be an opportunity to develop a deeper, more resilient relationship with God. In a world where many experience faith struggles, the lesson from these figures is clear: doubt should lead to growth, not rejection. As Jesus says, “You will know the truth, and the truth will set you free” (John 8:32).

Bart Ehrman vs. Bart Ehrman: The Scholar Who Debunks His Own Arguments

 

Introduction

Bart Ehrman, a renowned textual critic and historian of early Christianity, has long been a polarizing figure in discussions about the reliability of the New Testament. His popular-level works, such as Misquoting Jesus, often emphasize the vast number of textual variants in the manuscript tradition, leading many readers to question whether we can truly know what Jesus said or what the original New Testament documents contained. However, among his academic peers, Ehrman adopts a more measured stance, acknowledging that the essential doctrines of Christianity remain intact despite textual variations.

Compounding this inconsistency is Ehrman’s frequent assertion that historians must reject miracles a priori, despite his lack of formal credentials in historical methodology. He also fails to take responsibility for the misunderstandings his popular works generate, even though he is aware that many readers arrive at incorrect conclusions about the reliability of the New Testament. This article critiques Ehrman’s shifting rhetoric from a Christian perspective, highlighting his misleading textual skepticism, his questionable historical claims, and his failure to uphold the ethical responsibilities of a teacher.

Ehrman’s Questionable Historical Claims

Despite his primary academic focus in textual criticism, Ehrman often presents himself as a historian of early Christianity. While textual criticism involves analyzing manuscript transmission and variations, historiography—the discipline of historical methodology—requires different qualifications, such as training in evaluating sources, contextual analysis, and historical synthesis. Ehrman’s formal credentials, including his Ph.D. from Princeton Theological Seminary, are in New Testament textual criticism, not historiography.

Nevertheless, he frequently asserts that historians must approach miracles with skepticism a priori. For example, he has stated:

"Historians cannot establish miracles because miracles, by definition, are the least likely occurrence. If they were the most likely occurrence, they wouldn’t be miracles."

While skepticism is an essential tool in historical inquiry, Ehrman’s categorical dismissal of miracles is based on philosophical presuppositions rather than objective historical analysis. Many historians argue that supernatural claims must be evaluated within their historical context rather than ruled out in advance. Ehrman’s rigid approach reflects his personal worldview more than sound historical methodology, raising concerns about whether he applies genuine historical principles or simply reinforces philosophical bias.Ehrman’s Popular-Level Skepticism

In Misquoting Jesus, Ehrman famously states:

"What good is it to say that the autographs (i.e., the originals) were inspired? We don’t have the originals! We have only error-ridden copies, and the vast majority of these are centuries removed from the originals and different from them, evidently, in thousands of ways.... There are more variations among our manuscripts than there are words in the New Testament."

This statement, while technically accurate in highlighting the sheer number of textual variants, is misleading in its implications. The vast majority of these variants are minor—spelling errors, word order changes, and other inconsequential differences that do not affect meaning. By emphasizing the number of variants without clarifying their nature, Ehrman fosters doubt about the reliability of the New Testament among lay readers, even though he knows the text remains largely intact.

Ehrman’s Academic Concessions

Despite his popular-level skepticism, Ehrman has admitted in academic settings that textual variants do not threaten core Christian doctrines. In The Text of the New Testament, co-authored with Bruce Metzger, he acknowledges:

"Most of the changes found in our early Christian manuscripts have nothing to do with theology or ideology. Far and away the most changes are the result of mistakes, pure and simple—slips of the pen, accidental omissions, inadvertent additions, misspelled words, blunders of one sort of another."

Furthermore, he concedes:

"Essential Christian beliefs are not affected by textual variants in the manuscript tradition of the New Testament."

These statements reveal a stark contrast between Ehrman’s scholarly conclusions and the tone of his popular works. While he acknowledges that the New Testament text is largely intact, his public-facing books often obscure this fact, leading many to believe that the Bible is fundamentally unreliable.

The Responsibility of a Teacher

A responsible scholar and educator has a duty to ensure that students and readers arrive at correct conclusions based on the best available data. When misunderstandings arise—especially due to misleading rhetoric—it is the educator’s obligation to clarify the truth rather than allow misinformation to spread unchecked. However, Ehrman does not take responsibility for the confusion his popular-level works generate.

Despite knowing that many of his readers walk away believing the New Testament is hopelessly corrupt and that the original words of Jesus are unknowable, he does little to correct this misunderstanding. His academic concessions indicate that he knows such conclusions are not supported by the evidence, yet he continues to allow lay audiences to be misled by his rhetorical emphasis on textual variants. This failure to reconcile his academic integrity with his public messaging raises ethical concerns, as it leads many to doubt Christianity based on a distorted presentation of textual criticism. A more responsible approach would involve openly correcting these misunderstandings and ensuring that both scholarly and popular audiences receive an accurate picture of the reliability of the New Testament.

The Strength of the New Testament Textual Tradition

Christian scholars argue that the New Testament is one of the best-preserved ancient texts. The sheer number of manuscripts—over 5,800 Greek manuscripts, along with thousands of Latin, Coptic, and Syriac copies—allows textual critics to reconstruct the original wording with remarkable accuracy. As Ehrman himself admits:

"Besides textual evidence derived from New Testament Greek manuscripts and from early versions, the textual critic compares numerous scriptural quotations used in commentaries, sermons, and other treatises written by early church fathers. Indeed, so extensive are these citations that if all other sources for our knowledge of the text of the New Testament were destroyed, they would be sufficient alone for the reconstruction of practically the entire New Testament."

This admission underscores the reliability of the New Testament text, contradicting the skepticism he promotes in his popular works.

Conclusion

Bart Ehrman’s shifting rhetoric presents a challenge for Christian apologists and scholars. While his academic work acknowledges the integrity of the New Testament text, his popular books and lectures often cast unwarranted doubt on its reliability. This inconsistency has led many to question their faith unnecessarily. More concerning is his failure to correct the misunderstandings his popular works generate, despite knowing his readers are arriving at erroneous conclusions. A responsible teacher should clarify misunderstandings when they arise, but Ehrman’s reluctance to do so suggests that he prioritizes rhetorical persuasion over academic integrity.

Additionally, his self-identification as a historian raises concerns about his methodological approach. While textual criticism is a valuable discipline, it does not grant expertise in historical methodology. His categorical rejection of miracles as unhistorical reflects philosophical bias rather than objective historical inquiry.

A careful examination of Ehrman’s own admissions reveals that the New Testament remains a trustworthy historical document, preserving the essential teachings of Christianity despite textual variations. Readers should therefore approach Ehrman’s works with discernment, recognizing the difference between scholarly consensus and rhetorical persuasion.