Home
Runyon's 1st Affirmative Andrews' 1st Negative Runyon's 2nd Affirmative Andrews' 2nd Negative Runyon's 3rd Affirmative Andrews' 3rd Negative Runyon's 4th Affirmative Andrews' 4th Negative
Andrews' 1st Affirmative Runyon's 1st Negative Andrews' 2nd Affirmative Runyon's 2nd Negative Andrews' 3rd Affirmative Runyon's 3rd Negative Andrews' 4th Affirmative Runyon's 4th Negative Andrews' 5th Affirmative Runyon's 5th Negative
MY SUMMATION
CONTACT PAGE

ANDREWS' THIRD AFFIRMATIVE

I knew my opponent wouldn’t do it. I knew he couldn’t do it. All I wanted was one of two answers to a couple of passages. I think he tried to answer one, but he went to Dan and Bethel and got lost on the way back. All he had to do was identify a few passages as literal or figurative. I knew it wouldn’t happen. He had 3000 words and he couldn’t get it done. All I wanted was four of his 3000, and then he could use the rest explaining his reasons. But I knew as I was asking that it was an exercise in futility.

I promised my opponent that I would deal with John 5:25ff. I will now do that. I will make one slight alteration to his questions about John 5:25ff, I am going to back it up a verse and deal with John 5:24-25 and 28-29. He missed part of this. Here is what Jesus said:

John 5:24 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.

25 Verily, verily, I say unto you, The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live. (Bold and underline emphases are mine)

Pat replies: My opponent is out of focus. He needs to back up a little and then take the picture. Just back up one verse and you’ll get the entire picture in the picture…(?)

Whoever these dead people in verses 24 &25 are, they can hear AND believe. They will pass from death to life if they hear AND believe. They will come into no condemnation if they hear AND believe. Dear reader, pay very close attention to that last clause in verse 25, “…and THEY THAT HEAR shall live. Peruvian Professors in Paraguay would call this a qualifying clause. Only those that hear will live. If you don’t hear, you don’t live.

Now we will contrast those dead folks with these dead folks in John 5:28-29:

John 5:28 Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which ALL that are IN THE GRAVES shall hear his voice,

29 And SHALL COME FORTH; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation. (Bold and underline emphases are mine)

Roy wrote this in his first negative, but by now, I imagine he is wishing that he hadn’t: ”… Observe the same literary pattern in John 5:25ff, “Verily, verily, I say unto you, The hour is coming, AND NOW IS, …Patrick, what do you call it when the dead LIVE? Is that not resurrection? Did Jesus not clearly say the hour is coming AND NOW IS for the dead to live? Isn’t that resurrection? Just because you presuppose “the RJUJ” to be literal-physical-visible in our future is not proof! Your presuppositional opinion does not trump what Jesus, Daniel, and Paul clearly said!

Pat Replies: Read the paragraph above again and notice that my opponent is screaming that verses 24- 25 is talking about a literal resurrection, from a literal grave. He builds the foundation of his doctrine on this error. He wants it to be a literal resurrection of a literal corpse from a literal grave. This is the reason why I have spent so much time on figurative and literal language in my past arguments. He cannot comprehend the difference in the two. This is why he bases his doctrine on John 5:25 and claims it is a physical, bodily resurrection that would happen in the first century.

Pat continues: My opponent has never been more wrong in his life. His entire doctrine stands or falls on this one point. In verse 25, Jesus is speaking about dying to sin and passing into life spiritually. This is the same thing that Paul was teaching in Romans 6:1-4. It’s talking about HEARING AND BELIEVING Christ and then crucifying the old man of sin, burying him in the waters of baptism and rising up to walk in newness of life.

Pat continues: Jesus said, “Marvel not at this…” Marvel not at what? Marvel not at the fact that those who hear and believe the words of Christ will pass into life. Why should we not marvel at a spiritual resurrection? Because, as great as that event is; there is something even greater coming. Marvel not at the first one, but rather marvel at this. Marvel not at this, because there is a greater resurrection coming. In this resurrection, ALL that are in the graves shall hear His voice. It doesn’t matter if they believed or not, because, ALL that are in the graves shall HEAR His voice, and ALL shall come forth…not just those who heard and believed. Every grave on earth will be emptied. Every person will be physically resurrected, and that event did not occur in our past; it will occur sometime in our future.

Pat continues: Dear reader, please go back to the fourth paragraph above and note how much emphasis my opponent places on John 5:25ff. He actually wrote those things. He can’t un-write them, unless he repents. It will reside in this debate for perpetuity. It’s there now for the entire world to see. He has built his doctrine on a misunderstanding of the scriptures.

Dear reader, I urge you to go back, study what’s been written by me and my opponent and compare it against the scriptures and decide what Jesus is teaching. In verses 24 and 25, is He referring to a physical, literal, and bodily resurrection from a literal grave, or is He contrasting something that is great to something that’s even greater, in verses 28-29? To be forgiven of our sins on this earth and in our life here is something great, but coming forth from physical death from a literal grave and spending eternity in heaven with God is a much better resurrection.

Pat continues: Dear reader, once you see that these five verses are talking about two separate resurrections and then realize how much emphasis my opponent places on his error, then you can compare that error to everything that Preterist believe. They are all making the same mistake in every argument they stand for. They don’t study; they just repeat what they’ve heard.

Pat continues: I tell people all the time, “YOUR FAITH HAS TO BE YOUR FAITH’. You study just these five verses and that will give you all the evidence you need. You will see how Preterist (70AD believers) use the Bible to confuse folks. Look at what my opponent said about me in the paragraph above, and then you make the decision as to who is approaching the scriptures with “presuppositional opinions”.

Pat continues: After my opponent reads this he can blow water out of his head like a whale if he wants to. He can explain how high the clouds are, how many years “imminence” is or he can quote Daniel 12:1-2. I don’t care what he does. Everyone else is going to see him for what he is. They will see what his priorities are. Number one on his list is Roy Runyon, number two is his false doctrine, number three are his buddies; number four are his loved ones and somewhere down the list is where God resides.

Roy you better wake up; you better look inside your own heart about these five verses that you have built your doctrine on. When you see the truth, don’t ignore it; think about what you are doing to everyone you love. I hope and pray you will just give theses five verses your undivided and unbiased attention. I would cry tears of joy if you would return to your first love. Roy, I have admitted to being wrong twice in this debate; is that something you can do, or is it full speed ahead into more error?

My opponent keeps demanding that I show him a scripture about the resurrection of the just and the unjust somewhere in the Old Testament other than Daniel 12:2. I have told him numerous times that I didn’t see the need for Jesus quoting the prophets. But I’m growing weary of the whining and I present these two verses below for his consideration. He can tangle them up like fifty sets of ear buds if he wants to; that is going to be his mess to unravel.

Mark 12:26 And as touching the dead, THAT THEY RISE: have ye not read in the book of Moses, how in the bush God spake unto him, saying, I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob?

27 He is not the God of the dead, but the God of the living: ye THEREFORE DO GREATLY ERR. (Emphasis is mine, Pat)

My opponent wrote this in his second negative; “…so that he (that’s me, Pat) can interpret the language of his proof-texts literally, i.e., in 2 Peter 3 “…for instance, “the heavens” would mean the material cosmos, and “the earth” would mean the big blue marble we live on, as opposed to let’s say, the inhabited land of the Roman Empire.”

Pat replies: I am tempted to not even comment on this. However; I can’t pass it up. He finally got around to letting us know that he believes that II Peter 3:8-12 is Figurative. By that, he implies that this passage is symbolizing the melting and dissolving of the inhabited Roman Empire. How many times have I written that you cannot take a literal passage and make it symbolic of something else? This is exactly what my opponent has done. There is nothing in II Peter 3:8-12 that forces anyone to take it figuratively.

Pat continues: What my opponent has done here in this passage is what he and all Preterist do with every literal passage they come across. They say “Hocus Pocus” and now it is a figurative passage. Its literalness is now symbolic of something else that is literal. Once again, your faith has to be your faith. You read II Peter 3:8-12 and see if you can find the inhabited Roman Empire in there. If you can, then you can also see Disneyland, Dollywood and “Dilbert’s Deli Weiner Wagon.”

Still Pat writing: Roy attempts to prove that its Dilbert’s Deli Weiner Wagon that’s going to melt with fervent heat. He thinks he’s found his answer in the Greek word and definition of the word “elements” in II Peter 3.

Roy writes and cites this: “The Greek term rendered "elements" (KJV) is "stoicheion" which is used 7 times in the NT; twice in this passage.”

Pat continues: Admittedly this is only one definition of many, but it’s not the definition I want you to see; it’s my opponent attempt to circumvent its application to the cosmos and the big blue marble we live on.

"The elements (στοιχεῖα)

Derived from στοῖχος, a row, and meaning originally one of a row or series; hence a component or element. The name for the letters of the alphabet, as being set in rows. Applied to the four elements - fire, air, earth, water; and in later times to the planets and signs of the zodiac. It is used in all ethical sense in other passages," (Vincent; emp. mine RR).

Pat replies: My opponent makes a big ta-doo about the meaning of the word and how it’s applied. Notice this next quote from him about these verses not meaning what they mean:

Roy writes: “Note the "meaning" (definition) versus what it is "applied" to, i.e., because its being "applied" to "fire, air, earth, & water" does not change the definition and therefore is merely opinion-based presupposition.”

Pat replies: This game of dodge ball reminds me of an event years ago. I was just sitting on the couch reading my Bible. A guy comes up to me and asks, “What cha reading?” I didn’t say anything, I just turned my Bible around and pointed at the verse and he said, “That’s just your opinion.” I’ve heard of this happening to other people, but it honestly happened to me.

Pat continues: Have you noticed how many people in the world, according to my opponent are eaten up with “presuppositional biases and opinions?” It’s a plague, I’m telling you. I have been accused of it a lot of times in this debate, but I have to ask a question about this Greek scholar. Why in the world would a Greek scholar insert a presuppositional bias against a doctrine that wasn’t even around yet? Why would he do that? What would his motive be? This is getting kind of old; my opponent needs to come up with some different excuses when he’s looking for an escape hatch.

Roy asks this question, “…Are the oracles of God made up of cosmic-stardust, magma and sea water?”

Pat doesn’t reply to this: I’m just going let everyone wonder what the Oracles of God are made of.

Roy wrote this, “…based on Patrick’s own rules, especially when considering that such a concept of the destruction of the material universe was never in Hebrew thought…”

Pat replies: A friend of mine told me a few days ago that my opponent and his gang are following Moses and not Christ. I didn’t believe it at first, but now I have to agree. They put more emphasis on Moses and what the Hebrews thought than on the actuality of what Christ said. I don’t care what the Hebrews thought about the destruction of the earth. I don’t care what they were thinking when they were watching the sheep or marching through the wilderness for forty years. I put the emphasis on what Jesus said, not Moses or Bathsheba.

Roy wrote this:

Instead of eisegeting your literal interpretation into these passages, I insist we be scriptural, and as you say, allow the context to dictate what it means. Can you interpret 3 verses out of 2 Peter 3 as the literal/material globe, sun, moon and stars? No, because the context will not allow it. Were the events depicted therein, literal? Yes, but only as the context allows, and the same goes for the other passages you mention.

Pat replies: I am appalled. I have never eisegetted anyone in my life My opponent has committed the cardinal sin with his statements here. He is telling us that we cannot take II Peter 3:8-12 literally because it messes up his figurative scriptures in other places. He has chosen the figurative over the literal. I wish now that I had brought that rule up earlier, oh wait, I did bring it up earlier, about a dozen times. Roy, I knew you weren’t paying attention.

Pat continues: Dear reader, look at his statement above. Is he playing ping-pong or not? He says that we cannot take these verses literally, because the context won’t allow it, but then he says the depictions therein are literal only as the context allows. Friends you cannot miss this. He says that we have to take the passage figuratively, even though the events depicted therein are literal. That is exactly opposite of all the rules of grammar and common sense.

Pat continues: My opponent admits that II Peter 3 is literal but it is symbolic (figurative) of something else that is literal. He even admits that it’s true of all the passages I asked him about. So he has a figurative passage explaining a literal passage that is symbolic of another literal event. Dear reader, please take a close look at what my opponent has done. I knew he would finally get around to it. He has chosen a literal passage and tried to explain it away by having it symbolize some other literal event.

The saddest thing about all this is that he knows what he’s done. That’s why it has taken him so long to finally tell us whether or not these passages were literal. I told you in my second affirmative that he couldn’t answer one way or the other. I was right. He didn’t choose either one, but he also chose them both. A literal passage is figurative in that it symbolizes some other literal event. Dear reader, this is Preterism running naked through the Super Bowl. I mean this literally because it is symbolic of The Cincinnati Red’s whipping the socks off (see that, whipping socks off is literally a figurative expression that denotes and symbolizes running through the Super Bowl and not wearing any clothes.

Roy, there is no way that you can believe what you’ve presented here. I pray that you will open your eyes.