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

BENTON'S FIFTH NEGATIVE

Each premise and assumption Roy brought to the table to prove his proposition has been proven to be either false, unprovable assumption, or irrelevant to proving His proposition is true.

Among Roy's definitions of his proposition he said:

By "Second Coming" I mean after His Ascension, Christ's only promised coming-appearance (Heb 9:28)

at the resurrection of the just and unjust, and the judgment of the good and bad ; -Unquote!

By "second" coming, there must be some comparison to the "first" so that first and second are in some way different from dozens of other comings. We can see dozens of ways the Lord has come or visited His people or visited wrath upon cities and nations. His "glory" was seen in all those comings. So, Jesus' "first" coming was in a way different from the way He came upon Israel, Egypt, Babylon, etc., earlier. How could it be called the "first" when He had come in numerous other ways before? It was first of it's KIND. What kind? A personal and visible kind! When He came in the flesh, it was a personal dwelling with us. When He comes again, it will be personal. "We shall see Him AS HE IS!" (1 John 3:1-2). The angels said it would be a coming "as you saw Him ascend" (Acts 1:9-11). He will come visibly as you saw Him leave. Visible and personal. That is the SECOND of that kind, and that did not happen in AD 70. The coming in AD 70 was like the coming during the Babylonian captivity and like the coming on Egypt and Babylon (Isa.13). Those KIND of comings don't figure into the "first" and "second," no matter how much Roy wants to tie them together. The various visitations of wrath on cities and nations through history do not figure into first and second.

- the resurrection of the just and unjust -

Roy has the just and unjust (Acts 24:15) coming to spiritual life (resurrection) in AD 70. That means the church was spiritually dead until AD 70, and it means the unjust were raised to spiritual life (universalism) in AD 70.

Son of Man Coming in the Clouds and Daniel 7:13

Roy said that Dan.7:13 "can't be the Ascension" of Jesus and he bases this assumption "on the little horn's 3-1/2 year war with the saints". The 3-1/2 war with the saints is not WHEN Jesus went TO the Ancient of Days. Jesus went TO the Ancient of Days at His ascension, and Daniel is showing how things work out when Jesus is king, now how things work when Jesus BECOMES king in AD 70. AD 70 is just one further demonstration of WHO is ultimately in charge. Long before AD 70 Jesus was given all authority in heaven and earth (Matt.28:18) and was already "king of kings and Lord of lords" (1 Tim.6:15), and was already "FAR ABOVE all principality and power" and dominion (Eph.1:20-23). He could not get any more authority and power in AD 70 than He had when God raised Him from the dead and seated Him at His right hand. So, in Daniel's vision this is how the Roman Empire played out under Jesus' Lordship. The Jewish wars with the Romans, the little horn doing destructive work, all played out under the King of all kings, not because Jesus went TO the Ancient of Days when these battles started taking place, but because Jesus had already gone to the Father after His resurrection and ascension, taking His position to "come in clouds" of judgment against Judaism in 67-70 AD and against the beast, the Roman Empire, in days later than AD 70. How could the Harlot (Jerusalem) fair under the coming vengeance of King Jesus? How could the Beast that turned on the Harlot fair under the judgments of King Jesus? Each in their turn would fall under the judgment of King Jesus, and after the fall of the beast, over a 1000 years later, Satan would be cast into the lake of fire, and so would death and hades. Why? Because Jesus took His position with the Ancient of Days at His ascension and ruled. Matt.24:30 does not QUOTE Dan.7:13, and does not show that AD 70 is WHEN Jesus went TO the Ancient of Days. If anything, Matthew 24:30 is showing THAT the Jews would mourn and see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven. They would see this as a sign that Jesus was bringing again what He did before. He came on the clouds of heaven in His judgment on Egypt (Isa.19:1f), on Jerusalem during the BABYONIAN period, and on Babylon (Isa.13). Nobody is denying that the Lord came on Jerusalem in AD 70 with one of those kinds of judgments. What we are denying is that AD 70 was the ONLY such "coming" with clouds, and that it was the SECOND coming of the Lord, and that there is NO OTHER coming where we all SEE HIM AS HE IS (1 John 3:1-2; 1 Thess.4:13-18).

Jesus was given dominion, glory, and a kingdom long before AD 70 (Eph.1:20-22; Col.1:13), and the time came for the suffering saints to "possess" the kingdom (Dan.7:22). What did they "possess" under the horn making war with them and "prevailing" against them? They possessed gloom and despair. What did they "possess" when the Ancient of Days came and judged in favor of the saints? They possessed the kingdom. They regained their grip. To possess something may mean to come INTO ownership of something or it may mean to MAINTAIN what you thought you were about to lose (Webster). In the case of the saints, some were already in the kingdom long before AD 70 (Col.1:13) and were already "kings and priests" (Rev.1:6) even before the tribulations of Revelation panned out into the fall of the great harlot. But under the Beast of Rome, the saints seemed to be going down, losing their ownership of ruling as kings, until King Jesus brought down the harlot, then the beast, and ultimately Satan, death, and Hades. (Rev.17-20). In bringing down Jerusalem, the power and glory of Jesus was seen. In bringing down the beast, the power and glory of Jesus is seen again. And after the long Period and the short period of Satan's release, we will see king Jesus put down Satan, death, and hades permanently. We "possess" the kingdom when realize again and reclaim that we are truly "kings" with Jesus even when times seem temporarily to be working against us. So, Roy flies in the face of clear scriptures that show WHEN Jesus was anointed King (Acts 2:36; Eph.1:20-23), WHEN we were in the kingdom, and when we might "possess" it after we go through dark times. He teaches that the saints NEVER "possessed" the kingdom until AD 70. He misconstrues the context and meaning of "possess" the kingdom in Dan.7 and formulates a doctrine that the saints did NOT possess the kingdom under Jesus in Acts 2. If they did not possess the kingdom in Acts 2, then they were not IN CHRIST the KING, and KING JESUS was not in them, and they were not "kings and priests" under Jesus' Lordship and Kingship.

Roy tried to twist my words in the Baisden debate to mean that JESUS used the Roman army to "fight against God". No! That is not what I said. The Roman armies were fighting against God by fighting against God's people. Jesus was Lord and King during the Roman's bringing Jerusalem down, and afterwards when the Romans turned to intensify their fight against the Lord's church. The Roman's did not stop fighting against God in AD 70, which is what Roy NEEDS the story to show.

Roy is dead wrong about Romans 5:14 meaning that mello in the present tense refers to the coming in AD 70 rather than "is coming" from the standpoint of ADAM. ADAM "IS" the figure of Christ. Does the present tense mean that NOW Adam is the figure of Jesus WHO WILL COME IN THE FUTURE? No! It is speaking from the standpoint of what the typology IS pointing to. Verse 17 -18 show that death came through Adam (the head of a fallen humanity) and the counterpart, Jesus (head over a justified race of men), did the counter work. Jesus was not coming in the future to fulfill the typology of Adam. Jesus already fulfilled that role. Thus, again, "Roy is dead wrong, as is his theology!"

Roy admitted that "the battle of Gog/Magog" happens AFTER the millennium (the 1000 year binding of Satan and during his release for a while) which was long AFTER the fall of the harlot in AD 70 (Rev.17-18). So, Roy has some prophecies in Ezekiel prophesying way beyond AD 70, and that destroys his argument that all things in the OT had to all be fulfilled by the first century. Thus, again, " Roy is dead wrong, as is his theology!"