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

RUNYON'S FIRST NEGATIVE

I’d like to remind the readers that of the 13,500 words in my Affirmatives, every argument I presented was simply a reiteration of what each text says, precisely, unaltered and in context, while the bulk of Terry’s responses have been “I think...” “if,” “it may be,” “it could mean this, or it could mean that...” “not necessarily,” “there’s nothing special,” and, “in a way” distractions. These are blatant obfuscations purposely designed to manipulate the texts into meaning something other than what they specifically say, which disorients the minds of the readers. For example, Terry said, “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...” (italics mine).

IF my positing the resurrection of the just and unjust (RJUJ) in AD 70 “means the church was spiritually dead until AD 70,” then Terry’s positing the RJUJ in our future means the church is spiritually dead now, and will remain dead until his mythological end of time! Thus, Terry impales himself on the illogic of his own distraction.

Terry excerbates his blunder:

I pointed out that Terry said in the Baisden/Benton Debate (BBD), “The Romans did not stop fighting against God in Christ in AD 70,” while he also said the kingdom, “was only further displayed” in AD 70 “as Jesus brought the Roman armies under His control and brought the Jews and their house down,” (emphasis mine).

Demonstrating that Terry’s blunder has Jesus using the Roman armies to fight against God, Terry accuses me of twisting his words, but then says, “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,” (emphasis mine).

Now, Terry says, “the Romans were the representation of God bearing down on Jerusalem,” and has Jesus bringing “the Roman armies under His control” to “fight against the Lord’s church”! He made his blunder even worse! If “the Romans [representing God] did not stop fighting against God in Christ” and intensified “their fight against the Lord’s church” then anyone who can see through a ladder can see that Terry’s farcical subterfuge has Jesus using the Roman armies to fight against Christ, God Himself, and the church! But, this is merely the tip of the proverbial iceberg!

Terry avers that Dan.2:44 wasn’t fulfilled until “way after AD 70”; but Dan.2:44 predicted the everlasting kingdom would break in pieces all these kingdoms TOGETHER, (Dan.2:35); so when (per Terry) “the Romans [representing God] did not stop fighting against God in Christ” but intensified “their fight against the Lord’s church” (the everlasting kindgom), Terry’s convoluted duplicity not only has “the God of heaven setting up the everlasting kingdom” (Dan.2:44), “way beyond AD 70,” worse still, he has the Lord’s church engaged in a physical warfare to destroy the physical Roman Empire! After all, his ‘evidence’ that “all things written” (Luk.21:22) were not fulfilled by AD 70, is his assertion that Dan.2:44 wasn’t fulfilled until “way after AD 70” as he applies that prophecy to physical Rome.

Terry’s specious “kinds-of-comings”:

Terry’s “NUH-UHH” hermeneutic and Straw Man argument does not disprove the fact that in the Olivet Discourse (OD) (Mat.24:30-31), Jesus quotes the SOMC prophecy from the context of Dan.7:10-14 as I have demonstrated beyond refute:

Dan 7:13 “the Son of Man, Coming with the clouds of heaven...” (NKJV)

Mat 24:30 “the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven...”

This one-and-only prediction of the SOMC in the clouds of heaven, with His angels, for the Opening-Of-The-Books-Judgment, posited by Divine interpretation/application in Jesus’ generation proves my proposition and simultaneously disproves Terry’s proposition.

Terry tries to stymie the force of this argument with his “different-kinds-of-comings” quibble by saying, “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?” (emphasis mine). This is patently false and misleading! Terry has been using the ambiguous term Lord of the NT as a deceptive segue to Jehovah coming in judgment against nations in the OT; however, he now has no qualms of asserting that Jesus came in judgment against “Israel, Egypt, Babylon, etc.”

“Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself,but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise. For the Father loveth the Son, and sheweth him all things that himself doeth: and he will shew him greater works than these, that ye may marvel. For as the Father raiseth up the dead, and quickeneth them; even so the Son quickeneth whom he will. For the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son:” (Joh.5:19-22).

Since Jesus says the Father has bestowed all judgment to the Son, then Jesus could not have come in judgment against “Israel, Egypt, Babylon, etc,” prior to being given the prerogative of judgment; therefore, it was the Father who came in judgment upon “Israel, Egypt, Babylon, etc., earlier,” and the Father shows the Son all His judgment-comings, and the Son would come in judgment in “similar manner.” (Enter 2 Peter 3!)

Terry offers more of his textual reconstruction by saying, “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.” In the BBD Terry said this text “shows that they would see Him descend as they saw Him ascend,” and, “They saw Him literally leave, ascending into the clouds out of sight, and He will come back in the same way into sight,” (emphases mine).

Firstly, Terry rips 1Jn.3:1-2 out of its context of “the parousia” (1Jn.2:28) which was in its “last hour” (1Jn.2:18), which Jesus clearly posited during His generation, (Mat.24:3,27,34,37,39). Terry’s total disregard of the context, and reading himself into the “we” of John’s text, is pure eisegesis!

Secondly, Terry’s conscience has become so seared to altering what these texts actually say that it’s second nature to him.

Acts 1:9-11:

Terry ignores the chronological flow of what the text actually says, reconstructing it to accommodate his presupposition. Notice:

How did Jesus go up into heaven? Obscured from their literal-physical-visible sight by a cloud as Terry admits. The angels did not say that Jesus “will come back in the same way into sight,” nor did they say that He will descend in the same manner in which you saw him taken up from the earth. The angels said that Jesus would return [from heaven] in like (not exact same) manner as they saw him go into heaven, i.e., obscured in the clouds. The scriptures state that the Son of man would come “in” “with” and “on” cloud(s); nowhere does any passage ever say He would come “out of” (ex ek) the clouds! (cf. “a voice came out of the cloud,” Mar.9:7).

This is a blatant reconstruction of the text. Terry also stated in the BBD: “So, there is a ‘manner’ of coming like His destruction of Egypt, Sodom, Babylon, and Jerusalem. But there is the ‘manner’ of coming like when He ascended. That is the coming where He literally descends as He ascended. This is the Second coming that is to be literal as His first coming,” and, “The first was when Jesus came personally in the flesh in a visible and literal way, and the second will be when He comes personally in a visible and literal way as when He left,” (emphasis mine).

Attempting to refute a different argument, Terry is caught up (pun intended) in yet another HUGE self-contradiction saying the Philippian brethren were “already in the spiritual body of Christ but were looking forward to their lowly body being changed to become like HIS immortal, glorified body,” and, “The disciples had seen Him in His mortal flesh but had not seen Him in His IMMORTAL AND GLORIFIED state. That change happened in the ascension when taken out of their sight,” (caps his, italics mine).

Terry needs to explain how Jesus will return visibly, “literal as His first coming...personally in the flesh in a visible and literal way,” in a spiritual body! I will remind the audience that Christ’s spiritual body is the church (Col.1:24; Eph.1:22-23), and that Paul said “there is one body” (Eph.4:4), while Terry assumes Christ has two bodies.

I would also urge the readers to realize that:

Terry admits that Mat.24:3-34 was fulfilled in/by AD 70, however, he attempts to avoid the force of Jesus’ words (Luk.21:22) by asserting, “The ‘all things written’ is talking about ‘all things written about the fall of Jerusalem,’” (BBD, emphasis mine). I won’t dwell on the fact that this is yet another blatant reconstruction of what the text actually says by putting a whole phrase in Jesus’ mouth, but we will work with Terry’s admission in my Negatives.

“And at that time shall Michael stand up, the great prince which standeth for the children of thy people: and there shall be a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation even to that same time: and at that time thy people shall be delivered, every one that shall be found written in the book. And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt,” (Dan.12:1-2). Note the double “at that time” time statement which ties the Opening-Of-The-Books-Judgment to the time of trouble (TOT)!

The significance of this remarkable prediction is, it’s the only prophecy of a resurrection of both the just and the unjust, and, Daniel ties it to the deliverance of everyone written in the book, i.e., the Opening-Of-The-Books-Judgment at the time of the end (Dan.12:4,9,13). Since Jesus came to confirm the promises made to Old Covenant Israel (Rom.15:8), and Paul’s doctrine of the resurrection was from Moses and the prophets, then when Jesus and Paul speak of the impending RJUJ (Joh.5:28-29; Acts 24:14-15), they are citing from this one-and-only RJUJ prophecy.

In the portion of the OD which Terry admits was fulfilled in/by AD 70, Jesus quotes from this one-and-only RJUJ prophecy saying, “For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be,” (Mat.24:21). Note Jesus’ “For then” time statement, whose antecedent is, “When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand:) Then let them which be in Judaea flee into the mountains...For then shall be great tribulation, &etc.,” (Mat.24:15-16,21).

Through Divine interpretation, Jesus said His disciples would see the abomination of desolation set up in the land of Judea, in His generation; since this would be when the TOT of Dan.12:1,11 would occur, this would be the time when they must flee to the mountains to escape. Don’t miss these synonymous time statements:

Since Jesus’ interpretation of Daniel’s one-and-only prediction of the Opening-Of-The-Books-Judgment and synchronous RJUJ is Divinely time-stamped to the parousia of Christ, during the generation which would see the abomination of desolation set up in the land of Judea, then what these texts SAY, with no outside interpretation, irrefutably and unquestionably refutes Terry’s proposition, by his own admissions! Be advised that Terry’s “not-necessarily” hermeneutic, manipulative “it may mean this” interpretations, and textual reconstructions, will be nothing more than Straw Men/Red Herring propaganda masquerading as exegesis.

Seeking to dilute the force of this argument, Terry tortures the linguistics saying in the BBD, “The ‘Parousia’ and the ‘elousatai’ are used interchangeably, so there is nothing special about the word ‘parousia’ that must fixate on one thing only. Acts 1:9-11 speak of the coming (elousatai) of Christ that is just as He left,” (emphasis mine). Terry egregiously insults the very basics of grammar by transforming the verb elousatai into a noun, then reconstructs the text by inserting and attaching the definite article (the) to elousatai, which is an egregious abuse of the grammar.

“Parousia,” a singular noun, when referent to Christ by a pronoun (sos, hautou), or with the definite article, (the parousia of Christ) indicates only one thing, i.e., the second Advent of Christ, of which, there was only one! This is admitted by nearly all scholars worth their salt; therefore, Terry’s stab at mitigating the significance of Christ’s (the) parousia by saying, “there is nothing special about the word ‘parousia’ that must fixate on one thing only,” is just fictitious futurist flimflam.

As demonstrated above, Dan.12:1-4 is the only prophecy of a RJUJ inextricably linked to the Opening-Of-The-Books-Judgment, posited in Israel’s last days (Dan.2:28; 10:14) at the time of the end. Since it’s beyond debate that Jesus posited Dan.12:1-2 during the generation which would witness the abomination of desolation erected in Judea, then when Paul quotes the same prophecy during the same generation, saying, “so serve I the God of the fathers,←[Old Covenant Israel], believing all things that in the law and the prophets have been written, having hope toward God, which they themselves also wait for, that there is about to be a rising again of the dead, both of righteous and unrighteous” (Act.24:14-15, YLT), he could not have posited the same RJUJ differently than Jesus’ application. Stated another way, there were not/are not two resurrections of the just/unjust synchronous with the Opening-Of-The-Books-Judgment!

Terry’s facetious resurrection-doctrine is Christian Eschatology, something wholly unbiblical, especially since the Christian age has no last days (Eph.3:21).

This means that Terry is misunderstanding/misapplying, twisting, and completely reconstructing Paul’s use of “mortality/immortality-corruptible/incorruptible,” and therefore, his entire proposition is implausible and eisegetical. The bedrock-error of his myopic Affirmative, in his own words, is his assumption that his proposition “fits the reality we behold with our eyes” (emphasis mine).
This is the flawed basis of all futurist paradigms as they walk by sight and not by faith.

Terry’s questions:

1) When the devil was cast into the lake of fire (Rev.20:10; Mat.25:41,46), and heaven and earth fled away (Rev.20:11; Mat.24:35; Heb.1:10-11), hades gave up the dead (Rev.20:12-14) and the righteous/just inherited the kingdom (Mat.25:34; 1Pet.1:4-5; Luk.13:28-29) while the wicked/unjust were cast into the lake of fire prepared for the devil and his angels (Mat.25:41; Rev.20:15).

2) Implausible.

3) Non sequitur.

4) Implausible.

Terry’s marrying/no-marrying fiasco:

When the Sadducees said to Jesus, “Moses wrote unto US...” (Luk.20:28), to which Jesus responded, “The sons of THIS AGE marry &etc.,” (Luk.20:34), tell us Terry, which age is “this age,” and contextually, are “the sons” Jews, or Christians?

Now, Terry, post-Pentecost, were all baptized penitents considered to be, and called “children of God” (Gal.3:26-27; 4:5-6; Rom.8:14-17)?