First, I would like to thank Roy Runyon for accepting my offer to answer his challenge to a written debate. We have agreed on the rules of the debate and so far everything has been cordial. It is my prayer that it will remain gentlemanly throughout this debate.
My worthy opponent has presented the paradigm of the Preteristic belief, I believe, accurately. It is my job to now rip it to threads, burn it and bury it in the yard. (Just kidding Roy, I can’t help it, I’m a comedy writer) Seriously, it is my job to refute what Roy has presented. As I said before, I think he did a wonderful job of presenting what Preterist believe, maybe not every Preterist, but I think it covers the mainstream train of thought.
In the outset, let me first inform you that I’m going to agree with a lot of what Roy has presented. However; I will disagree in his interpretation of those verses that we do agree on. You will see what I mean as we move along.
I’m not inspired and I would hope that Roy will admit the same thing. We are just men who study the Bible and have come to a fork in the road. Roy has gone one way, and I’m heading down a different path. We have our courses set on two different headings. I think Roy would agree with that, along with everyone who takes the time to follow this debate.
It is so important that each one of us make the right decisions; ours souls will depend on the road we choose to travel. I am always encouraging folks to make their faith, their faith. It doesn’t matter what some man or woman believes to be the truth. You have to decide for yourself. I believe most people would agree that I’m right and Roy’s wrong OR Roy’s wrong and I’m right (sorry Roy I did it again). Seriously, one of us is correct and one of us is wrong or we are both wrong. We can both be wrong, but we cannot both be right.
Each one of us has to decide what we are going to believe; not just in this discussion, but in every religious conflict. It is my prayer that you will honestly weigh the evidence put before you and if you think that Roy is presenting the truth then jump on his wagon. If you think that I am presenting the truth, then climb in my boat. If you think we’re both wrong then jump on your horse and ride away. Please make up your own mind. Below is Roy’s proposition. He is affirming it and I am denying it.
Roy’s proposition:
"The scriptures teach that the Second Coming of the Son of man was to occur during the first century AD."
Defining my proposition:
By "The Scriptures" I mean the 66 books of the Bible;
By "teach" I mean the scriptures clearly elucidate emphatic and unequivocal promises/prophecies;
By the "Second Coming" I mean Christ's only promised return of the Son of man coming in/with the clouds of heaven, with His angels, in His own glory, and in the glory of the Father, at the sound of the great trumpet, at the judgment and the resurrection of the just and unjust, bringing salvation with the creation of the New Heavens, New Earth, and New Jerusalem, when the first heavens, earth and old physical Jerusalem and the Jewish temple were destroyed in AD 70, when the first covenant/law of Moses and the prophets was completely fulfilled;
By "was to occur" I mean, was Divinely predicted and promised;
By "during the first century AD" I mean the time period of AD 1 – AD 100, primarily in/by the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70, as opposed to yet in our future.
I believe that the Second and Final coming of Christ was indeed promised, but I believe that coming will be a literal, physical and visible coming that every eye is going to witness (Acts 1:9-11; I Thessalonians 4:13-18; Revelation 1:7). To believe His second and final literal coming is yet in our future harmonizes with other scriptures that speak of that day and hour. Please look at: John 5:28-29; Matthew 24:36; and II Peter 3:3-12. You have to be the one that decides if these passages are literal or figurative. Do they mean exactly what they say, or are they symbolic of something else. I believe every passage in this paragraph is literal. You are free to decide what you will. One day you’ll have a chance to explain all your choices to God (Matthew 7:21-23).
Roy makes this point in his affirmative:
Jesus told the Pharisees that if they did not understand the words of Moses and the prophets, they could not understand His words (Joh.5:47). The fact that the same holds true even today cannot be denied, as the entirety of the Futurist paradigm rests solely upon a superficial, Hellenistic-based interpretation of the New Testament, devoid of its Hebraically-rooted structure in the Old Testament.
I agree with this point up until Roy writes, “…as the entirety of the Futurist paradigm rests solely upon a superficial, Hellenistic based…”
Roy, I don’t even know anyone by the name of Helen, I had an aunt by that name, but she has been gone for some time. I quoted scripture above. I didn’t quote Helen, Abigail or your granny. I quoted scripture. You are free to say what I believe is based on Helen or concrete or a bar of soap; that is your business, but I quoted scripture. I would urge anyone that is following this debate to check it out for themselves. Also, you need to go back and read John 5 and this time read at least vs. 45-47. Jesus is saying that if you had BELIEVED Moses that you would also BELIEVE Me. He did not say UNDERSTAND, He said HEAR, if you won’t LISTEN to Moses, you won’t LISTEN to Me. You need to go back and fix this!
In this same Paragraph Roy also wrote:
Until the serious Bible student realizes that the NT is Holy Spirit's exegetical clarification of the OT, the true meaning of the Hebrew scriptures will never be properly understood, and thus, the words of Jesus and His apostles will always be misconstrued.
Roy did not supply any scripture for this statement and I don’t know where this statement, as it is written here, is taught in the scriptures.
I am already at 1200 words, so I am going to pick up your arguments that come after your proposition.
DANIEL 2:44 …I agree that this prophecy was fulfilled.
Daniel 2:35…your statement “Then Grew” is not in this verse. I do understand why you think it reads that way. It has to fit with your belief that the church, the kingdom of God, began to grow on Pentecost and had grown into a tree by 70 AD. My Bible says, “IT BECAME A GREAT MOUNTAIN”, it does not say, “then grew into a great mountain. I guess we can just put that off aunt Helen and her stupid Paradigm. Roy, this is something else you need to go back and fix.
Daniel 7:7-14 I agree with these verses, but not your interpretation of them. In the first place, these passages in Daniel are highly figurative and you cannot take a bulldozer and push them in to any old place you like. Notice the phrase, “night visions”. You got horns talking and a lot of similes, i.e. hair AS white as snow, eyes LIKE the eyes of man, whose garment was white AS snow, hairs of His head LIKE pure wool, His throne was LIKE fiery flame, etc. etc. Notice the simile in verse 13; “one LIKE the Son of Man”. You believe that this was the Son of Man and I believe it was LIKE the Son of Man.
Da 7:13 I saw in the night visions, and, behold, one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days, and they brought him near before him.
14 And there was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages, should serve him: his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed.
I believe all of these passages are saying just what they mean. I cannot help that you have changed the wording of some of them to fit into your new doctrine. I believe that the Lord’s Kingdom, the Church was established during the days of that fourth kingdom and that it will last forever. Just like Daniel prophecies. But I do not take highly figuratively visions and passages and cram them into something I want them to say. Roy that is what you have done. You’ve taken highly figurative passages and put them out there and now you got them contradicting literal passages, the way you have interpreted them. That is a big, “NO-NO” as they say in Peru.
You are free to interpret it that way. That’s your business. I’m not the one following (except in the first part of this debate) you and I’m not going to stand before God in (the literal) Judgment Day (that you don’t believe in) and give an account; that’s all on you. I believe that Jesus received all power and dominion before He ever ascended back to heaven (Matthew 28:18) and I believe that when the end comes, He will deliver up the kingdom that He rules over to the Father (I Corinthians 15:24; I Peter 3:22).
Roy wrote this in his first affirmative:
What is studiously avoided by futurists, but absolutely critical to note is, this Danielic prophecy is the only prophecy of the Son of man coming with the clouds of heaven, with His angels, at the judgment; therefore, when Jesus speaks of the Son of man coming, He is quoting citing from this one-and-only source text.
My initial thought to this argument is “Who cares”? If futurists studiously avoid this then I would pat them all on the back and say, “Good job guys, now let’s go and eat some bologna sandwiches”. Talk about a straw man. This isn’t even a dust man. It doesn’t matter if Eve talked about it or if nobody talked about it. Jesus IS THE WORD (John 1:1 ff). He didn’t have to say, “I’m doing this because Moses said I could, or Noah was thinking about it”. He is the Son of God, Christ the Lord. Why in the world is it so important to you that Jesus quotes Daniel? If He didn’t quote him at all, it wouldn’t matter to me. If He had just said what He said, I would still believe Him.
Mt 16:27 For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works.
28 Verily I say unto you, there be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.
I really am surprised when Preterist quote theses two verses every forty-five minutes as if this proves their position. They really ought to look in Haggai or II Chronicles for a new rally around verse. The Preterist don’t really believe these verses go together. They say they do and that we don’t but it’s the other way around. I haven’t even filed for divorce on these two verses. I admit they require some study, but I haven’t divorced them. The fact that I believe they are still married takes care of a lot of your arguments on divorcing these two verses. Therefore, I can skip over them unless you want to phrase your statements differently.
They have got Jesus literally coming for the last time in the first century, because Jesus said that some would see Him coming in His kingdom in their lifetime. However; it is against the rules to jump off your figurative horse and land on your literal horse half way through the race. You will get penalized for that.
If these two verses are talking about Jesus’ literal, physical and visible coming (My affirmative) in 70 AD, then by default “every man will be rewarded according to his works”. I’m a man and so was my daddy, but neither one of us had anything to do with destroying the temple in 70 AD. So far as I know neither one of us has ever even been to Portugal.
So you have to decide dear reader, Is Jesus saying that everyone including your great great grandchildren who haven’t even been born yet was judged according to their works in 70 AD, or is it possible that these two verses might mean something else. If you hang around for my first affirmative I can point out some things that will clear this up, God willing.
Roy’s three questions:
My three questions for Patrick:
1) Were the children/sons of the kingdom cast out in the first century?
2) Was the great tribulation (Mat 24:21) fulfilled in the first century?
3) Since Peter is reminding his readers (the Diaspora) of what the holy prophets predicted as he quotes from the law of Moses, where does the LOM predict the end of time?
# 1. I’m not trying to get around this question, but I don’t know what you’re asking. Clear this up for me and you can ask me four questions on your next affirmative.
#2 Yes, of course; I’m a Capricorn, not a Premillennialist.
#3 See Roy, you’ve built a textbook straw man, and he is falling apart. Where did you get that Peter wrote only to the Jews? If he did, then why would you cite I Corinthians 4:17? How can you harmonize Paul preaching the same in every church, but Peter only writing to the Jews? Do you really believe that I and II Peter don’t apply to us today? If it doesn’t, then why is it still in your Bible? It’s against Federal Laws for you to be quoting from someone else’s mail. Wanna borrow my penknife (Jeremiah 36:23)?
This is the straw man’s wife, where does it say that Peter had to quote from the Law of Moses on everything he taught? Did he also have to tell the Diaspora about the virgin birth prophesied by Isaiah (7:14)? Did he have to quote the prophecies about John, the voice of one crying in the wilderness? Did he have to quote from Micah 5:2 to teach them about Bethlehem? If not, why not?
You really need to find a quite spot in your house and write down all the things that are not in the Law of Moses that have been recorded by inspiration that we believe in. I’ve never heard of Moses speaking of the Lord’s Supper. I’ve never heard of taking up a collection to send to needy saints from Moses, and yet we do it. Where in the law of Moses does it command or teach us that we are to carry the Gospel into all the world?
Please don’t let “types and anti-types pop in your head that is not what I’m talking about. The truth of the matter is this; Moses didn’t have a clue about the gospel, the plan of salvation, the work of the church and many other things. In fact, not even the angels in heaven knew what was would be revealed in the times of the apostles. Even Peter himself knew, see the verse below, that Revelations were ongoing up until that which was perfect would come (I Cor. 13:8). I guess this means Paul knew it too.
I Peter 1:12 Unto whom it was revealed, that not unto themselves, but unto us they did minister the things, which are now reported unto you by them that have preached the gospel unto you with the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven; which things the angels desire to look into.
The truth of the matter is this. What Peter wrote to the Diaspora or the Athenians had nothing to do with the Law of Moses. It simply doesn’t matter if something was there or if it wasn’t. Peter was inspired. It didn’t matter if he quoted from Rahab or not, whatever he bound on earth would be bound in heaven and whatever he loosed on earth would be loosed in heaven. I’m not making this up; Jesus told him that in Matthew 16:19 and 18:18. Peter didn’t have to read the Torah to preach everything he taught. He couldn’t preach against other scriptures, but he didn’t have to quote from the Law of Moses on everything he wrote and taught.
2Ti 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.
I hope my worthy opponent believes that Peter was inspired by the Holy Spirit and that the things he wrote were God Breathed. If he doesn’t then we need to be debating a different topic. The bottom line is this: It doesn’t matter if or when or how or whether or not Peter quoted Moses, Noah or Shadrach and Abednego. What he wrote was inspired. That’s why I believe that this world is going to come to a fiery end (II Peter 3:7-12). This is literal.
My three questions for Roy:
1. Is the Kingdom of God, the Kingdom of the Lord, The Kingdom and The Church synonymous terms?
2. Has everyone been resurrected from their graves per John 5:28-29?
3. When and where will every tongue confess and every knee bow to Christ per Romans 14:11?