Debate Teacher Reacts LIVE | Bart Ehrman vs. Michael Brown: The Bible and Suffering

But if my three children are disobeying me, I don't starve them to death and refuse to give them water and kill them, which is what

Amos says God did. I would like to know then what you'd say to three people. Middle -aged man just diagnosed with terminal cancer, someone suffering in grinding poverty, and a young mother who just lost her child in a freak accident.

Bart Ehrman versus Michael Brown on God and suffering. Join me. We are going to do this thing live.

And welcome back to a live episode of Debate Teacher Reacts. My name is Nate Sala, and this is

Wise Disciple, where I'm helping you become the effective Christian that you were meant to be. Can everybody see me?

This is live. Hey, y 'all. How we doing today? Well, yeah. Did I mention how grateful

I am to all of you who helped me get to 50 ,000 subscribes? Come on. That is absolutely insane.

I just can't believe it. I still can't believe it, but I thank y 'all for subbing, and I praise

God that you are with me, all right? Real quick, don't forget to check out the merch shop where you can get cool hoodies like this.

Here's your disciple hoodie there, where the definition of a disciple comes directly out of Luke 640.

I don't know if you can see that there. That might be another video for another time, how the Church has largely forgotten what a disciple really is.

Everybody should go look up Luke 640 after this video. Anyway, all right, in this episode, let's look at a debate that was requested,

I think, right at the very beginning, and I never got around to it, and that's really bad of me. But the wait is over.

This is Bart Ehrman versus Michael Brown. The title of the debate is a question, which, if you've watched me before, you know how

I feel about debate titles in the form of a question, okay? The question is, does the

Bible provide an adequate answer to the problem of suffering? Now, I went ahead and what

I usually do is I watch the opening speeches and the first rebuttals, okay? You should definitely watch the whole debate as well.

I'll provide a link for that in the notes below, but we're going to zoom in on cross -examination, where all the magic happens.

So let's go ahead and go there right now. Okay, so Michael, my first question to you.

You have talked about how the Bible is harmonious and consistent in its portrayal of suffering.

I want to read two passages, and I want you to tell me if you find these harmonious and consistent. Okay, so this is good.

Dr. Brown mentioned that the Bible was harmonious in his opening statement, and this was part of his answer to the debate question, and so Dr.

Ehrman will now press into that and see if there are any errors in Dr. Brown's claim. Proverbs 10, verse 3.

The Lord does not let the righteous go hungry, but he thwarts the craving of the wicked. And Proverbs 12, 21.

No harm happens to the righteous, but the wicked are filled with trouble. In contrast,

Ecclesiastes 7, verse 15. In my vain life, I have seen everything. There are righteous people who perish in their righteousness, and there are wicked people who prolong their life in their evil doing.

And then 8, 14. The righteous people are treated according to the conduct of the wicked, and wicked people are treated according to the conduct of the righteous.

I would like you to explain to me how those blanket statements are consistent with each other.

Joyful. So, I saw Dr. Brown chuckling because this isn't a great question.

It would have been much more effective had Dr. Ehrman posed two passages from, like, within the same book of the

Bible, but instead he chooses Proverbs and Ecclesiastes. I mean, these are certainly within the same genre, all right?

So, this isn't way out of bounds. Two wisdom books, you know? But Proverbs and Ecclesiastes have two entirely different points to make, you know?

Two different goals in mind to communicate. So, let's see how Dr. Brown handles the question.

The first, I find it fascinating that you quoted Ecclesiastes 7, 15 twice, and I quoted it once, so we've actually quoted that passage three times tonight.

The most important thing for me, Bart, is that whether you look at this as an inspired book or editors putting this together, that they wanted us to have all of these books.

The ultimate people that were involved in saying we recognize this as sacred scripture wanted us to have these different voices.

So, I'm looking again at a symphony versus a cacophony. So, what I learned through the book of Proverbs is that it's giving general principles of wisdom throughout.

So, if you will just look at the principles of wisdom, which sometimes are talking about divine intervention, but sometimes just talking about everyday life, you will find that the principles laid out are true.

That those that follow biblical guidelines of morality will live longer lives. That if you don't drink, if you don't sleep around, if you're not a violent person, you know, you can factor things in.

You get online and you factor in your lifestyle and it'll tell you live longer. So, there's the general wisdom of Proverbs that gives universal promises, but it would be easy, and I fully agree with you,

Bart, it would be easy to extrapolate from that, that nothing ever goes wrong, okay, from those universal principles.

Therefore, there are other voices that are then raised by God's wisdom and the biblical authors that say, you know, it doesn't always look like that.

In your book, you treat Ecclesiastes, but again, it's kind of mind -boggling to me that you leave out the entire conclusion to the book, which is, yeah, you know, you look at this, you look at this, some things don't seem to make sense, but bottom line, you've got to fear

God and keep his commandments, for this is the whole duty of man and this is the whole meaning of life. So, I find...

Yeah, so, here's the end of Ecclesiastes, just for your reference. Right at the end here,

Ecclesiastes chapter 12, verse 13, the end of the matter, all has been heard, fear

God and keep his commandments, for this is the whole duty of man, for God will bring every deed into judgment with every secret thing, whether good or evil.

All right? Real quick, a lot of you asked me the question, Nate, what program are you running when you read the Bible? Lagos, and I love

Lagos. So, maybe I'll have an announcement about Lagos here upcoming. But anyway, that's just for your reference, let's go ahead and jump right back into the debate here.

The wisdom literature gives many promises, just like Psalms, of protection, of deliverance, and many here could stand up and attest to that,

I could personally, but it doesn't always work out like that all the time, so the Bible provides balancing voices that say, sometimes things seem to go the other way, they seem inexplicable, the same

God is explaining both, therefore we look to him. Which, Ecclesiastes is a very existential book, it's a book forcing its reader to reflect on the temporary nature of life.

By the way, I'm not saying anything that is just what Christians say, I mean, anybody who's read the book knows this,

I'm sure Bart Ehrman knows this, too. It is an existential book, and it's forcing the reader to wrestle with the seemingly random ways that life occurs without God.

But because God exists, the author concludes, again, I showed you the end of the book, everything will be judged, everything will be made right.

Remember that word, judge, in the Hebrew? It includes more than just a judge in a court adjudicating, as if it's just punishment is being passed along in judgment.

It also includes the notion of salvation, putting things right that once were wrong, and so the ending of the statement of Ecclesiastes actually echoes the rest of the teachings in the

Tanakh, just like in the Proverbs, so there is no inconsistency. Do I have a follow -up?

If you would prefer, if you like. I guess I just want a yes or no answer on this.

It sounds to me like what you're saying is that when Proverbs makes these statements, that the

Lord does not let the righteous go hungry, but he thwarts the craving of the wicked, it sounds to me like you're saying that he's wrong.

No, I'm certainly not saying that, Bart. What I am saying is that, since I'm looking at Scripture as inspired, that these voices are telling us different things.

Proverbs is giving us a general rule that we see, and if we follow God's ways, we will see protection and deliverance over and over and over.

Sometimes things happen inexplicably that seem to contradict that, and that's why these other voices are there in Scripture.

Again, I find it surprising that you can fault these editors for putting these books together and saying we accept all of these as God's voice.

It was not a contradiction for those that received them as Scripture. For centuries, people didn't find contradictions, but anyway,

I think we're over. So this started out as potentially a good move for Ehrman, and then it just fizzled.

You know? Ehrman does not pass the intellectual Turing test.

In other words, he doesn't understand the text of Scripture the way that the adherents to it do, and so when he tries to critique the

Scripture, these end up amounting to a bunch of hits and misses because the

Jew or the Christian simply says, well, that's not how the Bible is read and understood. You know?

This is exactly what atheists do, by the way, when Christians misrepresent their views.

And when they do it, they're right to get defensive. They say, wait a second, that's not what

I believe. You're attacking a straw man. Ehrman says the

Proverbs contradict Ecclesiastes because of these two passages. Brown simply says, you misunderstand these books.

If Ehrman is right and Brown is wrong, he needs to do way more than just press him on this.

But as it stands, Brown's answer is basically every biblical scholar's answer.

So this is just a swing and a miss for Ehrman. Over our questioning time. So my question for Dr.

Ehrman, I didn't come on this subject independently.

I came on this subject because you've written about it, and as I told you over lunch, I found the most moving parts of your book when you share about your own experience and the struggles you had in faith.

And as passionately as I've differed with you, I absolutely don't criticize you for losing faith over the issue of suffering.

But since you really took offense to my statements about taking God and the world to come away and losing hope,

I would like to know then, based on your understanding of things, what you'd say to three people.

Middle -aged man just diagnosed with terminal cancer. Someone suffering in grinding poverty.

And a young mother who just lost her child in a freak accident. What answer would you give to those three distinct people?

Interesting question. And it's an interesting move by Dr. Brown because on the one hand, considering the title of the debate, it is not incumbent upon Dr.

Ehrman to provide his own answer to the question of suffering. The only thing technically that he needs to do is argue why the

Bible does not provide an adequate answer. On the other hand, Dr. Brown has done something rhetorical here.

He's asked a rhetorically powerful question. This is something akin to...

We went through this before. Dinesh D'Souza asked Ehrman in a previous debate. And I reacted to it,

I think. But he basically did the same thing. Like, what is your better answer? And it forces the interlocutor to either take the bait and answer the question or avoid it, right?

Either way, the audience is watching. So, let's see what Ehrman does. That's a great question.

And I think that the best thing that one can do with somebody's suffering is to do what

Job's friends first did when they came to see Job. They didn't say...

They didn't give him an easy answer. They didn't say, God is testing you.

They didn't say, God is punishing you. They didn't say, there's a greater purpose here.

And there's a reason, Job. You lost your ten children. Just trust God. They didn't give easy answers.

What they did is they sat in silence with him for days. And I think that's what you do with people who suffer.

You suffer with them. If you can, you try to alleviate the suffering.

But the last thing you do is give them an easy answer. For example, an answer that says, well, they're better off now in heaven.

Well, actually, that's not very helpful, I think, to somebody who's just lost a child.

Or, you'll be rewarded in the long run isn't very helpful to somebody who's starving to death.

I think that, in fact, people who are suffering extreme pain and agony deserve human company and support.

So that is absolutely how I think you ought to deal with people whom you encounter when they're suffering.

Yeah, so in other words, I don't have an answer to the problem of suffering. The answer is, you know, just sit with a person and be with them.

Which, by the way, this is a very good thing to do when someone is suffering. But that's not the question that Dr.

Brown asked. And if you're going to take the bait and answer the question, then you should give a proper response.

Some people, you know, might be impressed with the deflection there, because basically what

Ehrman did was he flipped the arrow around and said, well, I don't think the Bible's easy answers are the way to go either, right?

Okay, great. Well then, what is your answer? And by answer, I mean explanation. Because if there is no

God, how do you explain suffering? What do you explain to somebody so that they can actually get through it well?

It sounds like then the answer must be something like just being intellectually honest, there is no rhyme or reason for what you're going through.

There is no purpose to this, ultimately. That's the bad news if there is no

God. And when you're dead, there is no justice waiting on the other side. Particularly for those who are wronged in this life.

And if that's the answer, if it's close to it, how is that helpful? How does that give people something to hold on to in order to have hope?

Like I said, get through the experience. Ehrman tries to avoid all of this by, you know, flipping it around on Brown and Christianity, but let's see what happens next.

Just a brief response. So to give another perspective on that, of course you sit with the person and you suffer with them, but I can tell the person with terminal cancer that there is hope of being with God forever.

I can tell them there is the possibility of divine intervention. I can tell them that even in the midst of their suffering, that they could grow even as a human being through it.

And that God can give them supernatural comfort in the midst of the pain. I can tell the woman who lost a child in a freak accident that she has the possibility of being with that child forever and ever and ever, which sometimes is the one thing that gets a grieving person through.

Is this a question, Michael? No, it's a statement. Oh, okay, it's a statement that leads to a question.

So I would say there's a profound difference. Yes, there's a profound difference. You give people cheap hope.

In other words, I give them God and reality. You call it cheap hope. I call it God and reality. My father was dying of cancer and a well -meaning evangelical

Christian came in to tell him that he was going to be healed because God was going to heal him. And he anointed him with oil and prayed over him for healing.

And what good did it do? It did absolutely no good. It made my father miserable because he was given an easy answer to what was happening.

And I just don't believe in it. And of course, I didn't give that answer. I said there's the possibility of healing. But as you told me over lunch, your mother didn't lose her faith because she knows she's going to be with him forever.

That's anything but cheap, my friend. That's anything but cheap. I don't, too. So, Ehrman gives again, a rhetorically powerful response.

By the way, I mean, gosh, that's awful that his father went through that.

And nobody should make light of his father's experience. And for Christians who are serious -thinking people,

I think we should wrestle with what that tells us about the Lord. That Ehrman's father went through that experience, wasn't healed.

We need to have some kind of an answer for that. But notice again, Ehrman has not provided his own answer.

Makes you wonder why. Perhaps because his answer gives no hope either.

I mean, if he's going to throw stones, what's his answer that actually accomplishes the things that he critiques

Christianity for? His answer causes actually an experience known as existential dread, which many people do wrestle with and fear.

There is angst and real fear that comes out of understanding on a deep level that a universe with no

God means that we suffer for no reason. That our suffering has no purpose. We come into this world ultimately alone, and we die ultimately alone, and there is no ultimate justice because there is no objective morality in the universe in the first place.

So just set aside whether or not the Bible is true, even if it wasn't true. The Bible's answer is still better than Ehrman's.

Okay, round two. So we're off to a good start. Right. Okay, so I want to talk now about Amos.

Amos indicates that God starved the people.

He brought drought so they had nothing to drink. He brought blight and mildew on their crops.

The locusts he sent devoured their fig trees and olive trees. He sent them pestilence and he killed their young men with the sword.

I want to know whether you believe that God did these things to Israel in the ancient world, and I want to know whether you think

God still punishes people today for their sins, for example by starving them, or by leading to or bringing about epidemics, or bringing about drought, or bringing about military slaughter.

Is Amos saying anything that's of relevance for us today with respect to God bringing punishment for sin?

So it seems like one of the fundamental aspects of Ehrman's approach in this whole debate is to answer the debate question from the perspective of biblical consistency in God's moral character.

In other words, if Dr. Ehrman can show that the Bible is inconsistent then it does not provide an adequate answer to suffering.

And if he can also show that God is morally culpable for suffering an evil, then the Bible does not provide an adequate answer.

I don't know if that's the best way to go about this debate. I think he's doing this because a lot of this, if I'm not mistaken is already written down in his previous books, so he's probably just sort of drawing from his own pre -written materials, but that seems to be how he's attempting to clash with Brown.

Brown can answer these questions, but he can also reframe the discussion by identifying what

Ehrman is trying to do and talk about why it won't work. I think that would actually help him on the debate stage.

Hey, real quick, if you haven't already, would you please consider liking and subscribing to the channel?

It really does help me get the message out to more and more people. If you feel like I've earned that sub, which

I understand takes time, okay, well then definitely hit the button, the like button, and let's share this around so more and more people know about what we're up to here.

Alright, let's go back. Yes, first I would say categorically

God did those things to Israel as written, and it was a consequence of sin. As I said,

Israel was a unique nation on the planet. If we're going to look at what the prophets are saying, the prophets believed fully that God chose

Israel out of all the nations, revealed himself in a unique way to Israel, spoke from heaven to them, and to whom much is given, much is required.

So yes, God did those things, and he did those things to show the evil and consequence of sin.

He did not do it arbitrarily, any more than someone's put in prison life without parole. Arbitrarily, it was a consequence of sin, and God did it to turn his people back to him so that many more could live.

I say I have no problem with the fact that God brings judgment because I understand him to be perfectly just, and when

I see his revelation of love and mercy, I understand that what he does, he does ultimately for our good.

The idea that all punishment is wrong, to me, is very odd. If we had no punishment in our society, if we had no discipline in our society, there'd be utter and sheer chaos.

There's also the biblical principle that we reap what we sow. For example, someone who abuses themselves with alcohol can die of cirrhosis of the liver without God intervening directly in any way.

As for today, the book of Job, again, tells me how to look at things.

It tells me not to judge the person's suffering and say to them, you must be a guilty sinner because you're suffering.

It tells me don't judge God and say you must be doing all these horrible things because we simply don't know.

You inform me, Bart, that I don't know enough to tell you about yourself, yet you've told me about Job and how he felt.

Obviously, I felt I know how Job would feel, but I'm basing it on what's written in Scripture. If I see suffering in the world today, you can laugh at that answer, but the end of the book of Job tells us

Job's sentiments of the whole thing. I go by that. I'm not going to try to psychoanalyze something that's not there. I'll go by what's written if I'm talking about Job.

If I see suffering today, then I use what Jesus said in Luke 13 and I say, are those people any more wicked than anyone else that they suffered, died in an earthquake, mudslide?

We're not dealing with theocracy today, therefore we can't take Amos' words and apply them to universal suffering today. So when

I see suffering, I say, I don't know the cause of it. Let's do everything we can to bring mercy and help in the midst of it. So some of you might be wondering why

Dr. Brown presupposes in his answers that the Bible is true. Right?

He just speaks like a Christian up there, you know? And I'm sure that upsets a lot of atheists and skeptics that are watching, because they're probably thinking, yeah, but when is he going to try to prove that any of these silly fairy tales are real, right?

You know, talking about Sky Daddy and solving problems when none of that actually is the case isn't helpful, right?

Here's the thing. The reason why Dr. Brown does not defend the historicity of Scripture or the truthfulness of Christianity is because, number one, that's not what this debate is about.

It's about providing an adequate answer to suffering. And as Dr. Brown has been pointing out from the beginning, the

Bible teaches that suffering can produce redemptive qualities. Persevering and enduring through suffering are good things.

That's what the Bible teaches. Are those good answers to it? I mean, I think a lot of nonbelievers can say yes, right?

Because everyone recognizes that that is true. But the other reason he probably doesn't give an apologetic defense of the

Bible is because Dr. Ehrman did not argue that God does not exist as part of his main contentions, negating the debate topic either.

Okay? So if he didn't bring it up, it's not necessary for Dr. Brown to. All Dr.

Brown has to do is show that the Bible gives adequate answers to the problem of suffering.

That's literally the way the title of the debate is worded. Perhaps answers that provide people hope and a way to get through the suffering and endure it.

That's why he's answering in these particular ways. I certainly agree with that. But I mean, when you say that we need punishment because otherwise we'd sink into chaos.

Absolutely. I'm a firm believer in punishment. But if my three children are disobeying me,

I don't starve them to death and refuse to give them water and kill them. Which is what

Amos says God did. I guess I heard a question behind the statement which would be this.

God forbid one of our children would commit a horrible crime, but if they did, if they raped and molested someone, beat them to death, they might go to prison for the rest of their life.

In some places they might even suffer the death penalty. So God was not punishing Israel in this severe way because they just didn't make their bed and brush their teeth.

You're talking about he's talking about murder, he's talking about shedding of innocent blood, he's talking about massive injustice and oppression of the poor.

Because of that, judgment did come. Dr. Brown, now you may

So if you're wondering who I think is winning at this point, so far, actually,

I hesitate slightly because I think Dr. Ehrman is more rhetorically powerful in his statements.

And then Dr. Brown is more substantive in his responses. And so this forces you into an interesting dichotomy as a judge.

What is more important? Rhetorical force or substantive argument? Ideally, the better debater incorporates all of these things on the stage all at the same time.

But if I had to choose, I'd have to go with substance over rhetoric. Right? I mean,

I hope you would as well. Again, in my opinion, a lot of this simply comes back to the title of the debate.

Who is answering the question better? Who is challenging their interlocutor better? I think right now, and maybe this will change, but I think

Dr. Brown has the advantage. All right? But let's keep going. Let's see what happens. ...proceed with a question propounded to Dr.

Brown. Okay. And we have one more round after this? Yes. Okay. Great. In your book, you say that we must improve ourselves, stop being so corrupt and violent and greedy.

Do you really think that human beings can change from our past and present patterns without divine help? Do you have an answer for the depths of evil found in the human race with Hitlers and Stalins and serial killers and child molesters and those who engage in human trafficking and then the corrupt

Bernie Madoffs of the day? Winston Churchill commented to the effect that what was supposed to be the century of the common man saw the common man killing one another in the new and horrific ways.

So as followers of Jesus, we say the human race has fallen. We cannot fully improve ourselves.

We are a fallen race. That's why we need mercy and redemption, and that's why we're looking to a better world.

So I'm not hearing an answer to human evil from your book or from your presentation tonight. What is your answer to human evil, human sinfulness?

Just let's all do better? Okay. That was not a great beginning to the question.

Had Dr. Brown not circled back around and finally restated a simple version of it,

I don't think anyone would have been able to follow what he was really asking. Why? Well, because there were just so many questions there.

Too many questions, if you ask me. But he kind of pulled it together at the end, and it's the same question as before, right?

What's your answer to the problem of suffering and evil? He's asking the question because Ehrman first of all allowed him to ask it the first time, but did not answer it.

And this is where I don't know. We'll just see what Dr. Ehrman has to say.

Well, we certainly all could do better, but I think that maybe you're minimizing human potential.

You're saying that people can't turn around without divine intervention or divine grace, that if somebody is wicked they're not going to become a good person or a helpful person or a useful person unless God somehow does something about it.

Well, first of all, if that's the case, then if in fact it's true that the way wicked people become good people is because God does something with them, then why doesn't he do something with more wicked people?

Once again, Ehrman is not answering the question. He simply flipped the arrow of interrogation around and is now critiquing

Brown's view. If he thinks that something is untoward or inappropriate on the debate stage, he should be able to say that and identify that, right?

But it receives the question, right? Because the first time that he got this question, he said, oh, that's a great question. So he should answer the question.

He's supposed to be giving—this is where he wants to go, which it seems like he does—he's supposed to be giving his own answer to the problem of suffering, but he's not actually giving his own answer.

Why didn't God turn Hitler around if it's all based on God's grace?

Moreover, it is really quite narrow -minded to think that only people who have your particular theological point of view are the ones who can turn from being wicked to being good.

I just finished reading the most recent press release from Doctors Without Borders, which is one of the most fantastic, humane organizations on the planet who have done worlds of good in Haiti as well as other places, not by going in and making some kind of divine promises based on what

God was going to do for these people, but getting down and doing what needs to be done as human beings.

And that's what we need to do. We need to do more of it. We need to take care of the starving people in the world.

We need to take care of oppression in the world. We need to take care of injustice in the world. And appealing to God obviously doesn't work.

Look throughout the history of Western civilization. Western civilization has been dominated by the

Christian Church. Have you noticed that there's been any cessation of suffering throughout the entire course of Western civilization when

God was the answer? So no, I don't think that God is the answer to the problems of evil. I think we are the answers, and we have to do all that we can.

Okay, just so I understand this, and this is out on the table. We are the answer to the problem of suffering, and we need to do all that we can.

Is that really a good answer? Honestly, I'm not talking to, you know,

Barterman fanboys in the chat here. I'm talking to those of you who are on the fence, maybe. Maybe you came to this video genuinely seeking truth, but you don't have a dog in the hunt.

Is that a good answer or not? I'm curious to get your thought. Let me know in the comments.

I don't think it is. I don't even think that's what Brown was asking. Brown was asking for a substantive explanation that, in the same way that Ehrman critiques the content of the message of Christianity, which is that there is a

God, He exists, you will go to heaven if you have a relationship with God, and therefore, through your suffering, what does

Paul say? This momentary and light affliction will produce within us an eternal weight of glory far beyond all comparison.

Right? So, that's the content of the message. What is the content of the message on Ehrman's side?

I don't know. Seems like he is willing to take the question but won't answer it. Ehrman says, well, we're the answer.

That's not an explanation. In point of fact, of course, you'll find around the world it's people of faith who are doing the more and the extra and making the sacrifice.

That's just a given and that's known. And I could point you to cases around the world, but the fact is what you said about Christian civilization proves my point that we remain a fallen race and this world will not see a final solution.

It undercuts your entire point that the solution is to have God in the picture.

When God's in the picture, it doesn't change anything more than when God's not in the picture. First, that's an overstatement and it's false.

I've actually written more about church hypocrisy than you have. I preach about it, write about it continually. But in point of fact, final redemption needs the transition out of this world into a better world.

There's another observation that a person could make, and I don't think this is the proper segment of the debate for this, but it seems like Ehrman doesn't understand suffering.

The wise person recognizes that nobody wants to suffer, right? Nobody wants to experience pain or feel alone and without comfort in all the associated emotional experiences that go along with suffering.

But the wise person, and I don't mean Christians only right now. I'm just talking about somebody who's thought through this a little bit.

The wise person also recognizes the utility of suffering. The lessons that come out of suffering.

Not to belittle any of the other aspects that have been brought up on the debate stage, or the things that we know that are true about real suffering.

It can be extremely awful. But there are virtues that arise, that only arise in response to suffering.

By the way, this was delineated in some of the early medieval theodicies. I think it was Leibniz who said that the virtue of forgiveness, which is a beautiful thing, right?

One of the most beautiful things that human beings can do for each other, to each other, right?

Is to forgive each other. That would not exist if there first was not evil in the world. I mean, if you think about it.

Evil that leads to suffering, right? Self -sacrifice as well, as a virtue, would not exist if there first was not evil that leads to suffering.

And so, wise people can see the utility in suffering. Ehrman just doesn't seem to see it at all.

Like, he appears to have an extreme visceral reaction to suffering, which in my opinion is childish.

It's just a childish response that doesn't see the world in a mature manner. I want to talk in the final question about God's role in suffering.

According to the Book of Revelation, at the end of time, there is going to be a final judgment.

In chapter 20 verses 11 through 15, the great white throne judgment takes place in which books are opened up and a single book of life is opened up.

There is a single book of life because there are far fewer people whose names are in the book of life as opposed to the names of the people in the books.

The books are opened and a judgment happens and everybody who is not found in the book of life is thrown into the lake of fire, which according to Revelation chapter 14 is an eternal punishment in burning sulfur.

Eternally. Non -ending for not billions of years, but billions of years is the beginning.

And this is God's answer to suffering. To throw people into the lake of fire for eternity.

I have several questions about this. Do you believe that's going to happen? As somebody who's just admitted that you think that the

Bible is true. If you think it's going to happen, do you think that it's fair that people are punished for trillions of years on the basis of what they did for, say, 20 years?

And can you imagine some greater suffering than this? And do you think that it's

God who's doing it? So, there... I'm having deja vu because he did this,

I think, before in the debate between Dinesh D'Souza and Bartiman, right? There are way too many questions here for anyone to remember.

Do you even remember? Those of you in the chat right now, live with me, do you remember the first question he asked? I don't either.

So, this is just a mistake to sort of ask, like, five to six different questions, boom, boom, boom, all in a row.

I don't know how well Dr. Ehrman is familiar with debate. I know that he's debated before, right?

But this kind of a thing where, again, you ask, like, five to six questions in a row, this is designed, it seems, to overwhelm your opponent, but not to get them to answer any one of those questions with any real substance.

I just got on Dr. Brown for doing this kind of thing, and now Dr. Ehrman's doing it. So, you know, chances are,

Dr. Brown's not going to answer all of these questions because nobody's going to remember everything Dr. Ehrman just asked.

Let's see what happens. Great questions, and in a sense, the ultimate question, Bart, so I fully agree with that.

A few comments. As to the number of those who will be redeemed, the only specific statement is in Revelation, the seventh chapter, that it's a multitude that no one can number.

Although at another point, the book of Revelation numbers 200 million people in a crowd, so we don't know the extent of God's mercy, except it's going to be far beyond anything that we could dream about.

Will there be a final judgment? Absolutely. Things must be set straight.

There is not much justice in this world. Some say there's no justice in this world. There will be a final judgment.

As to the nature of that, I am not going to draw my conclusions from apocalyptic imagery in the book of Revelation.

I'm going to draw it from the whole of the New Testament witness, which brings to further light what was anticipated in the

Hebrew Scriptures comes to light, as Paul writes to Timothy, that Jesus brings life and immortality to light through the gospel.

The great theme that I see in terms of the punishment is the forfeiture of life, and the forfeiture of being with God forever.

Hence, terms like destruction and perish and cut off. So I don't know...

This sounds like an annihilationist answer. I wonder if Dr.

Brown is an annihilationist. Does anybody know that in the chat? So for those of you who don't know, an annihilationist believes that no one suffers an eternity in hell.

They receive punishment, sure, in hell, but until they are fully destroyed—maybe that's the...

An annihilationist would probably say that better—at which point they cease to exist. And so it sounds like Dr.

Brown is an annihilationist. Maybe... I don't know, but we'll see. The nature of the suffering to come,

I know it's serious enough that with all my heart, Bart, I hope that you don't find yourself judged by God, just like if you believed it was true, you would hope the same for me.

But I do not pretend to know the nature... Do I expect that people are going to be roasted in some eternal frying pan and flipped over forever?

No, that's not the picture I see. That's not consistent with the picture, I understand, of God's justice and goodness. So as to the exact nature of the suffering, the exact nature of eternal punishment, the exact nature of eternal destruction, with these many, many different images used in Scripture, as I said, cutting off destruction—I don't know the exact nature of it, except I know this.

It will be the opposite of life. It will be the forfeiture of life and being with God forever. And God will be absolutely just in that.

And I think when we come up with Dante's infernal picture, that we actually build beyond what scriptural language says.

And you, as a New Testament scholar, are intimately more familiar with the language than I am. Just a follow -up, then.

Well, it is interesting. It's funny he brings that up, because it seems like...

yeah, Ermin is a biblical scholar, you know? He's a New Testament scholar. A skeptic, you know?

A textual critic of the New Testament, but he's a New Testament scholar. It's interesting, because he seems to not have any understanding or appreciation for nuance.

I don't know how to... the biblical genre, right? Do you all see that? He bops around to this and that passage here and there, right?

But then he treats the content of the scripture as if it's this flat, one -dimensional type of communication. And it's not.

Even non -believers recognize it's not. So, to go to Revelation, it is an apocalyptic book with tons of symbolic imagery that every

Christian is going to tell you some aspect of Revelation. Now, the disagreement comes over how much of it, but some aspect of Revelation is not literal, it's symbolic, right?

So, just to do this kind of a thing and to go to Revelation, it sets Dr. Brown up to just say what he's saying now.

This is a highly apocalyptic book. We can't say, therefore, with certainty what the actual referent to the symbolism is when it comes to the depictions of Hell.

Is there punishment? Yes. What type of punishment is it? How long will it last? Well, maybe don't go to Revelation to answer that question.

Maybe go somewhere else. Dante's not coming up with this language, and I'm not coming up with this language. I'm reading what the book of Revelation says.

When you talked about Job, you accused me of not reading what Job had to say, and so I'm just asking you. You're saying now that you actually don't believe that this is true, that this is going to happen.

You don't know what's going to happen, but this is not literally true. It's an apocalyptic book. You understand how

I interpret apocalypse. You interpret poetry as poetry, and narrative as narrative, and history as history, and apocalyptic literature as apocalyptic literature.

It's giving us fearful images of judgment to come, and they are fearful because there's a lot of human sin, and there will be final judgment.

Again, that to me is a good thing, not a bad thing, that God will bring justice, but he is consistent. He is not schizophrenic.

He doesn't send his son to die for us so that one day he can gleefully just roast us and laugh at our suffering.

So I'm looking for the day, longing for the day when God will bring justice and redemption to this earth, and we'll settle things, and it'll be good, and it'll be glorious.

Is there one more? Dr. Brown, your final question for Dr. Ehrman. Okay. Since part of our debate got a bit more personal,

I'd like to follow up on something, and this may seriously give you an opportunity to boast, okay?

So this is not meant as a slam. I was just a little surprised about the good life comment.

If I'm overweight, it's from candy bars, not from caviar. I drive a beat -up

Buick LeSabre. My wife and I live in a little rental car. This is a reference to,

I think, something earlier in, like, I think First Rebuttal, where it seemed like Bart Ehrman was knocking

Michael Brown about his weight. Every book I've written, all royalties go to ministry, because I didn't want to write books for personal wealth or gain.

Our savings account may have $1 ,500 in it, which is about to go to good old Uncle Sam.

And we have chosen to live a certain way so as to put most of our efforts into ministry to help people around the world.

So what I'd like to ask is one, how you've worked out this ethic of drink fine wine, drive nice cars, as you advocate in your book, with the idea that there's so many people suffering, we could alleviate so much more.

Surely we could help one more person by not driving that car. We'd maybe help thousands of people.

So the two -fold question, just how has this worked out in your own life? And two, our grads who've sat under our teaching are now around the world living with the poorest of the poor, giving themselves sacrificially to help alleviate suffering.

What impact does your teaching have on your grads? So in your own life and the lives of your grads, how is this working itself out?

My grads are hedonists who believe in... So this question can only be as effective as Dr.

Ehrman allows it to be. Again, technically, the focus of the debate is not on Dr. Ehrman's answer to the problem of suffering.

It's about whether the Bible's answer is adequate. So to take the bait here and delve into it, he doesn't need to.

But when he does, he sets himself up because he better have a good answer or else he's going to harm his own performance from a rhetorical perspective.

So let's see what he does. I was...

When I was a young evangelical Christian, I was a firm believer in tithing. And even as a very poor person,

I believed in giving away 10 % of my income. I...

At the time, I wondered about that. And in fact, I think I wonder...

I always wonder how much is enough. I give away, frankly, enormous amounts of money.

My concerns are not your concerns in that I'm not interested in Christian ministry. I am interested in poverty, homelessness, and hunger.

Those are... my main interests actually are hunger and homelessness, that I give a great deal of money to.

Hey, praise God for that, you know? And as much as right now, this...

Dr. Ehrman is clashing on stage and... not just clashing with Brown, but just Christianity in general, we all can look at that and say, praise

God. That we should all have that same attitude. God is tremendously concerned with the alien, the orphan, and the widow.

And so, praise God. I mean, that's great. We can affirm that, Leah. But how much is enough?

I don't know what the answer is, and I don't think any of us does, because if in fact the answer is that you should give everything away, then you and I are in the same boat.

So, just to... again, technically, so we understand the question was about the impact that Ehrman had on his students.

That's what Brown was asking about. I was actually referring more to your suit than your...

You see this suit in debates about 10 years old, actually. So, I...

You know, I do see myself as doing good, because I teach in a university where I teach young people.

And one of the goals of university education is to get people to think. And I think it's a very important thing to have thinking people who are going to be the leaders of this country.

Because, frankly, we've had leaders in this country who don't know how to think. And I think that my graduates then do very much the same thing.

Sorry, I'm out of time. I appreciate the comments, and I think there's no reason to follow through any further on that.

But, except to say this, I don't make the distinction that you do between Christian ministry and helping people who are impoverished.

In other words, when our folks work with them, they don't just hand them a track. They're getting in the trenches with them. And helping meet needs.

And that's what I would still put forth, that those who have a hope in God in the world to come will be more willing to sacrifice themselves in this life because they're looking to something beyond it.

But thanks for whatever good you do. I appreciate that. Yeah. There may have been an opportunity, just thinking about it, to tie in the statistics of folks who serve and help the needy in the

Bible's message and teaching related to suffering and hope. Because, you know, the Bible does not disentangle those two concepts.

You know? Suffering and hope. I just, I don't think, you know,

Dr. Brown's not going to go there, and so I think that's the whole debate right there. That's our segment, so we're out of time.

Yeah. Well, anyway, so, hey, closing thoughts here. I will say this.

Heading into cross -examination, I was a little torn. Okay? On the one hand, I found the substance, like I said,

I went back and looked at the opening statements from Dr. Brown and Dr. Ehrman, and then also looked at their first rebuttals.

And I floated. And I found the substance of Dr.

Brown's opening rebuttal to be superior to Ehrman's opening rebuttal. Just in terms of engaging with the debate resolution.

Although, again, these debate resolutions in the form of a question, not great. Right? So, Dr.

Brown did point out, though, as I remember, that millions of people around the world find the

Bible's answers to the problem of suffering to be adequate. Which I think is a great point to make, since we're seeking to address this issue in an objective fashion.

So, Dr. Brown—because, again, the question of the debate for the evening was, does the

Bible provide an adequate answer to the problem of suffering? Okay? Dr.

Brown is essentially counting heads in order to answer— you know, in order to help him answer this question. I think that's a good move.

On the other hand, Dr. Ehrman did a better job laying a framework than Dr. Brown did overall.

And I've said this before in other videos, but whoever lays a better framework more often than not usually wins. Right? A framework is the story that you, the debater, tell the audience about the debate itself and how it should be adjudicated.

Every good debater does this to some degree. Okay? William Lane Craig does this the very best.

He's probably one of the very best at this. Dr. Brown, in his opening, he just jumped right in and just started talking.

Like I said, he's got great things to say, but he doesn't really help the audience by laying a good framework for them.

Dr. Ehrman told the story of the debate better in his opener, in my opinion. He even framed the discussion with his own testimony, which is powerful.

Okay? So, this brings me back to the issue I was wrestling with earlier. This contrast between rhetoric versus substance.

Which is more important? And actually, there's another issue as well. Ehrman, when he shares his testimony, he ends up slipping into making himself the focus of the debate.

So, for example, one of the things Ehrman says in his opener is the Bible provides different answers to the problem of suffering.

And then he says, well, none of them are satisfying to me. Well, wait a second. That's not the debate resolution.

The debate resolution was not, is the Bible satisfying to Bart Ehrman? Right? That's not what the debate was about at all.

The debate is about whether or not the Bible provides an adequate answer to the problem of suffering. You see how when he does this, he makes himself not only the debater on stage, but also the judge of the debate.

This is what Matt Dillahunty likes to do as well. He often says, you know, after his opponents try to make their case and do some yeoman's work in making their own case and trying to poke holes in Dillahunty, all of a sudden he just sits back and he goes, well,

I'm just not convinced. Right? And that's when we all turn into the rock at SmackDown and we scream, it doesn't matter whether you're convinced!

Right? People's eyebrow. Right? It doesn't matter. You're a debater.

You're not the judge of the debate. Right? You're supposed to be making the case for your view. Having said all of that, so that's all just precursor.

I think Dr. Brown won this exchange. I don't know if he did by a nose or by a great there was a great deal of distance between he and Ehrman in terms of if this were a race.

Because for me, it came back to who was engaging the topic question better. And the challenges that Ehrman raised with regard to the inconsistency of Scripture and God's moral character, they were answered by Dr.

Brown. But when Dr. Brown asked for Ehrman's answer to the problem of suffering, Ehrman accepted the question, he gave nothing.

He just tried to flip it around and critique Christianity once again. And so I say Dr. Brown won the debate.

But that's just me. Alright? Now it's your turn. Who do you think won this debate? Let me know in the comments below.

I'd love to get your thoughts. Was that an hour? Come on, guys. This is like, that went by quick.

I really appreciate you. Hey, thanks for watching, everybody. Thanks for continuing to watch.

Thank you to all of you who got us to 50 ,000 subscribes. Listen, I am excited to share some important announcements soon with y 'all.

But just stay tuned to the community tab and to future videos, because it's going to be really cool. If you made it this far, you should definitely consider joining my

Patreon community where you can get early access to videos, exclusive access to videos that I do not post on YouTube.

And you'll get to see new materials that I'm trying out, and you can help me test pilot them, like the new

Bible study series that I'm creating right now for the Patreon community. Just click the link to the Patreon below for that.

As always, I will return soon. Thank you so much for joining me here. But in the meantime,