Today, we return to the series on Ben Wallis. Before getting into it I want to reiterate how Ben continually denies his ignorance of our faith, but Hanna did an absolutely wonderful job of making it clear that Ben is not being totally honest here and I would also like to firmly point out that the mere fact I am having to answer these 8 objections/questions proves his ignorance. If in his initial response to Childers he had wanted to argue these points that would have been fine. But he simply asks what on earth these things mean. But all of these points are things Christians have been teaching, defending, and clarifying for centuries. His complete lack of knowledge on these points proves our contention. He will undoubtedly repeat what he has repeated numerous times, namely that he is not an expert in Christian theology, but he does understand the basics. But again, these are basic doctrines and are hardly points of deeply intricate theology.
Today, I will be covering numbers 5 and 6. Number 5 is “What does it mean to ransom us?” God’s justice and holiness lead inexorably to His intense wrath towards sin, a wrath that cannot simply be put aside. Our sins deserve to be punished and therefore they must be punished. We owe God this debt. However, in the case of the elect, God pays that debt in their stead by becoming flesh and taking upon Himself His own just punishment. Once this is done our debt has been paid and in that sense we have been ransomed. The idea of ransom here is simply an analogy. It is not intended to be pressed too far. It simply means that God has paid our debt the way someone might pay the debt of a slave who was made a slave because of his debt.
Number 6 is “How is having Jesus tortured a moral example; isn’t it an example of immorality?” As has been said so many times, God did not have Jesus tortured. Jesus is God and voluntarily became flesh in order to voluntarily take our punishment upon Himself. This was a tremendous sacrifice and therefore His willingness to do so shows His unfathomable love, grace, and mercy towards His people and that of course is the ultimate moral example. It shows us to also be loving, gracious, merciful, self-giving, and to sacrifice ourselves for others.
Ben
May 4, 2018 at 3:18 amThis is what Hanna had written earlier, which seems to be what you’re referring to here: “I don’t want to argue with you but it has been shown quite a few times by multiple people that you really don’t understand our teachings. God has no literal child. Not everyone is adopted as God’s children automatically. God didn’t torture Jesus, Jesus sacrificed himself.”
This was my reply, slightly truncated to correct an error she alerted me to: “I didn’t say…that everyone is adopted as God’s child automatically. I said that God had Jesus tortured, not that he tortured Jesus himself. I didn’t deny that Jesus sacrificed himself.”
So, it’s fairly clear that Hanna has badly misrepresented me. Very badly. Why you think such gross misrepresentation constitutes doing “an absolutely wonderful job,” I don’t know.
Hanna
May 4, 2018 at 3:50 amI am done trying with you.
Dan Jensen
May 4, 2018 at 4:32 amBen, we have all tried so hard to be so patient with you here and I have told you, and I meant it, that I really appreciate you coming into a “hostile” environment and being generally respectful. But Hanna did do a fantastic job of pointing to your gross inconsistencies and denials. She didn’t get edgy or rant the way I’m prone to do, she just literally quoted your own words to you. You only admitted the one example because you had so explicitly contradicted yourself. And while the other examples are not as explicit, it is clear to anyone with an open mind that she showed you your inconsistency and you are just mad about it. So don’t come on here and say that she has misrepresented you, and very badly at that, because she did no such thing.
I won’t hit on the first example she gave because you admitted it. But in the second example she quoted you as saying, “Aren’t we God’s children anyway?” I accidentally slightly misquoted you at one point and I apologized for it, but because of that I am being extremely cautious. So I went back and triple checked and those were your exact words. You may say that you didn’t use the word adoption in that context, but give me a break. Your clear point is that we are already God’s children, by adoption or otherwise, and the point that all of us have been making to you over and over and over again is that shows your complete ignorance of basic Christian theology. Christian theology has always taught that we are all NOT God’s children and that’s precisely why the cross was so necessary! That was clearly Hanna’s point and was most certainly not a misrepresentation.
In her third example she quoted you as saying, “Rather, that God abused Jesus is a *consequence* of Christian doctrine.” Again, I triple checked and those were your exact words. And you can say that you don’t mean by this quote that God tortured Jesus, but He simply had Jesus tortured, but the key point is that you are making God culpable for this torture and that is an absolute misrepresentation of Christian theology. Again, for the umpteenth time, Jesus is God Almighty Himself and voluntarily took upon flesh so that He could voluntarily sacrifice Himself for us. That in no way constitutes abuse, it is self-sacrifice.
Start dealing with my actual arguments in my actual articles instead of nit-picking over words. We have all shown that your initial statements on Childers’ website showed tremendous ignorance. Just admit that, correct yourself, and then make actual legitimate arguments against Christianity and all of us can begin to make progress. But any time we start to get close to that you say you just don’t take these things seriously. Then why go on websites like mine and Childers’? You clearly do take these things seriously. So stop with the lame vacuous arguments and start making your case and we can talk.
Dan Jensen
May 4, 2018 at 5:39 amAnd just to clarify, no I was mainly referring to her quote where she just literally quoted your own words back to you.
Hanna
May 4, 2018 at 3:49 amThat was a very good explanation of God’s ransom. Thanks Dan!
Dan Jensen
May 4, 2018 at 5:32 amThanks Hanna and as always you are so welcome!
Eric Goodwin
May 4, 2018 at 5:23 amI sadly decided to stop responding to Ben’s arguments in the last article simply because he had changed his argument so many times that discussion was no longer productive! A true earmark of a poor argument is bouncing from point to point without taking the time to prove any of them and this has become Ben’s tactic.
U.S. Patriot
May 4, 2018 at 5:37 amMan I so agree Eric. This guy Ben is quite the character. He could say he’s wearing a shirt that’s the darkest color and all would get he means black and if you say you said you was wearing a black shirt Ben he would freak out and would be like I never said black I never said that word you are misrepresenting me so badly. Whatever dude.
Ben
May 4, 2018 at 6:37 amI said from the outset that I didn’t want to debate. What I *did* want to do was make clear my positions and try to correct any misrepresentations of me. Well, that has turned into a debate all its own, hasn’t it?
I don’t know what else to say at this point. I’ve tried to be clear, to no avail. Maybe I’m just really bad at communicating these things. But as much as I’d like to keep trying to clarify, I’m not optimistic that it would help, or serve any purpose even if I was successful. I enjoyed some parts of our conversation, so thank you for that.
Dan Jensen
May 4, 2018 at 7:03 amNah Ben, you have just really been proven wrong and that’s just that. You keep saying you know what you’re talking about, we keep showing you don’t, and you just don’t want to admit that. And I saw that you were at it again on Childers’ website where you tried to make a comment regarding McDowell and showed once again that you literally haven’t the foggiest idea regarding the issues that are being discussed. Your comments showed that you had no idea about what McDowell was arguing and then you have the audacity to say that you found him insincere. I would venture to guess that you have probably read almost nothing on textual criticism. Am I wrong?
Ben
May 4, 2018 at 8:48 amOf course you are wrong. But it really doesn’t matter, as I have nothing more to say at this stage.
Dan Jensen
May 4, 2018 at 1:08 pmThe fact that you are bowing out proves that I’m right. If you had a scintilla of knowledge regarding textual criticism you wouldn’t have made such an inane argument regarding what McDowell said. Ben you seem like a nice dude and so on some level I feel bad being so firm, but these issues matter big time and so when you behave the way you do we have no choice but to call you out.