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 THIRD AFFIRMATIVE

Let's lay aside doctrine temporarily and notice this point: in Terry's first Negative, in responding to my Affirmative, he said, "One of Roy's serious flaws in argument is his claim that there are no verses that talk about the 'end of time,' just some that talk about 'the time of the end,'" (emphasis mine).

In my second Affirmative, I said, "I never mentioned 'the time of the end'!"

Terry responded in his second Negative by saying, "He says he never mentioned 'the time of the end.' I didn't say he did(#1)," (emphasis & number mine).

Dear readers, by any man's measure, religious or not, that is a lie!

Let's talk about ethics and debate protocol:

My third question was, "Is Christ's coming at "the end" in 1Cor.15:24 synonymous/parallel with Mat.25:31ff, 1Th.4:14ff and 2Th.1:7-9?"

Terry responded: "The 'end' in 1 Cor.15 is regarding the end of mortality, while Matt.24:1-33 speak to the end of Jerusalem and temple system..."

I said Terry "reconstructed my third question by inserting his own passage into it!"

Terry, who is in the Negative, meaning he is to answer my questions/arguments according to his agreement to debate rules, said, "He falsely claimed (#2) that I "reconstructed his third question" by " inserting my own passage into it." I didn't even quote his question, much less "reconstruct" it. I merely answered it, and he didn't like the answer," (italics & number mine).

Dear readers, do you see the chicanery here? My question was about Mat.25:31ff; Terry responds by inserting Matt.24:1-33 into his 'answer,' and says because he didn't quote my question, he hasn't reconstructed it? A quote is not a quote if the statement isn't quoted verbatim, therefore he couldn't have quoted my question with his substituted passage in it; this makes his 'answer' a response to a reconstruction of my question.

Audience, surely in your minds you must wonder why Terry is blatantly refusing to answer my question. Terry not only has utilized the classic Futurist he-didn't-like-my-answer deflection, he has breached his agreement (#3) to this debate, and, lied three times! Is this the kind of 'teacher' you want to continue placing your trust in to represent what you believe? Are lies and subterfuge necessary to accurately represent your Faith? If so, then you are wasting your time in pretense of being a Christian.

To be a Christian is to be Christ-like; Peter said that Christ "did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth," (1Pet.2:22). In this context, Peter associates guile with hypocrisy and evil speakings (1Pet.2:1). Among other things, Jesus grouped guile (dolos - deceit) with adultery, murder and blasphemy, pointing out that these "evil thoughts" proceed out of a man's heart (Mar.7:21-23) "and defile the man." To say that I'm disappointed in Terry's deceitful and obfuscatory behavior would be a gross understatement. Terry's behavior is a serious reflection on how he handles the Word of God, "deceitfully," (2Cor.4:2), and is like " many which corrupt the word of God," (2Cor.2:17). Keep this in mind when you see Terry accuse me of using the hermeneutic of assertion, and ignoring passages.

As Terry attempted to negate my statement that, "the NT is the Holy Spirit's exegetical clarification of the OT," I demonstrated that he redefined the term "fulfill"; from his example of Mat.2:15/Hos.11:1, he hopscotched from indirect fulfillment, to saying, "I submit that if Roy fails to recognize that scriptures may be 'fulfilled, in more than one way..." (emphasis mine). So as I showed you the definition of the original term, and asked Terry how something crammed full could be filled fuller, after accusing me of being deceitful, he has now backpedaled (flip-flopped) his objection by saying what he really meant was his example from Hos.11:1 was typological, with which we can agree; however, Terry even contradicts the hermeneutic of typology!

The judgment of Babylon was typological of the judgment on Jerusalem in AD 70, which is throughout the Revelation, of which Terry correctly admits in his first Affirmative of the Baisden/Benton debate, where he said, "In Revelation 17 we have the great harlot (Jerusalem) put down. She was the 'great city' that had earlier been called 'Sodom' and 'Egypt' (Rev.11:8), and now was further called 'Babylon' (Rev.18:10)"; however, in his second Negative of that debate, he said, "Finding that He also came in a judgment on Jerusalem in a representative judgment by means of the Romans..." and Terry asserted that the second coming, "...will be personal and literal and did not take place with the representative coming in judgment on Jerusalem in AD 70..." (Ibid. emphasis mine).

Since the judgment of Babylon was typological of the judgment on Jerusalem, then of WHAT was this judgment a type (representative)? Dear readers, this perfectly illustrates how Terry handles the word of God deceitfully, because there's no such thing as a type pointing to a type, which points to yet another type! There is only type and anti-type, i.e., the type, and the fulfillment: e.g., the Ark/church; Noah's flood/baptism; the earthly tabernacle/heavenly temple.

Terry desperately attempts to distract you from my argument (taken from the OT passages listed in my first Affirmative) with his shotgun-hermeneutic of citing Psa.102:25-26/Isa.51:6/Mat.24:35/Mar.13:31/Luk.21:33/Heb.1:10-11, and asking, "Why didn't Roy's hermeneutic include this?" Terry's flippant remarks will soon be regretted, due to his fatal (correct) admission that Psa.102:25-26/Isa.51/Heb.1:10-11 are parallel. The reader is tasked with diligently reading the entirety of each of these chapter-texts as space here will only allow some pertinent highlights.

First, consider Terry's abuse of ellipsis; this literary device supplies a word/phrase (not a doctrine like the Trinity) already present in a text, rather than permitting the insertion of a presuppositional word/phrase (like "' visible' earth") to reconstruct a passage. Terry's [mis]application of ellipsis in 2Pet.3 would have HS saying "the universe of the universe," which is specious and tautological.

Terry stated in his recent Facebook article, "...if the earth that was flooded in Noah's day is reserved for fire (2 Peter 3:6,7,10-12)..." which demonstrates that he assumes the H&E slated for dissolution by fire is the same H&E flooded by water. Taking Terry's assertion on Psa.102:25-26/Isa.51:6, that the H&E shall perish means the visible/temporal H&E shall pass away (per Terry, Mat.24:35/Mar.13:31/Luk.21:33), then this defines Terry's interpretation of perish/pass away as ceasing to exist, which corresponds to his assertion on the text of 2 Peter 3. Now, let's notice what Peter said and apply Terry's asserted ellipsis of "the universe"; "Whereby [the visible/temporal universe] that then was, being overflowed with water, perished," (2Pet.3:6). See the problem?!! (Recall my opening remarks about Futurist's inconsistencies.) Conflating Terry's assertions of these texts has the visible universe flooded with water, and ceasing to exist at the Great Deluge! This is the inescapable illogic of guys like Terry who handle the word of God deceitfully!

Terry further corrupts the word of God by redefining stoicheion from how Peter and Paul applied the term. Since Peter said that Paul spoke of these things in all his epistles (one of my arguments Terry totally ignored), then Peter's use of stoicheion can't be different than Paul's use thereof. Paul uses the Hebrew literary device of inclusio in Colossians 2 using the identical phrase στοιχειων του κοσμου i.e., the elements←(stoicheion) of the world in Col.2:8,20. In this text Paul says, " let no one judge you in food or in drink, or regarding a festival or a new moon or sabbaths, which are a shadow of things about to be ..." (Col.2:16-17). There is nothing more apropos of the LOM than its Jewish feasts! Paul said in verse 20, "Wherefore if you be dead with Christ from the stoicheion of the world..." and he told the Jewish Christians at Rome (Rom.7:1-4) that they "had become dead to the law [of Moses] by the body of Christ..." Since Paul taught the same thing every where in every church (1Cor.4:17), then it's irrefutable that the stoicheion of the world is referring specifically to the elements of the LOM, not the material universe!

As a precursor to what follows, let's briefly consider the proper application of ellipsis. Jesus said, "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, [the law, or the prophets]but to fulfil [the law, and the prophets]. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all [the law, and the prophets] be fulfilled," (Mat.5:17-18).

Since I have demonstrated that Terry is " like many which corrupt the word of God," the reader must wonder why Terry didn't mention this text in connection with the heaven-and-earth-passing statement from the Olivet Discourse! Since Jesus said that until H&E pass, not one jot or tittle of the LOM would pass away, not until all the law and the prophets was fulfilled (note the double "till"); and since Terry avers that the LOM ended at the cross, then we must ask, which H&E passed away at the fulfilling of all the law & prophets?

Terry rips the heaven-and-earth-passing statements out of the contexts of Psa.102/Isa.51 as I will demonstrate.

The context of Psalms 102 is the set time when Jehovah would have mercy on Zion (Psa.102:13);

This is posited at the time when "the heathen shall fear the name of the LORD, and all the kings of the earth thy glory. When the LORD shal l build up Zion, he shall appear in his glory," (Psa.102:15-16);

The Psalmist said this was "written for the generation to come: and the people which shall be created shall praise the LORD," (Psa.102:18); and, that Jehovah looked down from His sanctuary, " To hear the groaning of the prisoner; to loose those that are appointed to death ," (Psa.102:20);

This text and statement is parallel with Isa.61:1-3, from which Jesus quotes verbatim in the Nazareth synagogue declaring, " This day is this scripture fulfilled..." (Luk.4:16-21);

This irrefutably proves that Jesus identified His generation as the generation to come of Psalms 102!

Clearly, the context of this Psalm is the destruction of the old order, and the establishment of the New Creation, i.e., "the people which shall be created," which is parallel with Isa.65:13-19 which likewise is the establishment of the New Creation where Jehovah predicted: "For, behold, I create new heavens and a new earth: and the former←[H&E]shall not be remembered, nor come into mind. But be ye glad and rejoice for ever←[eternal life predicted in the OT]in that which I create: for, behold, I create Jerusalem a rejoicing, and her people a joy. And I will rejoice in Jerusalem, and joy in my people : and the voice of weeping shall be no more heard in her, nor the voice of crying ."

This would also be the time when the name of the LORD would be declared in Zion, "When the people are gathered together , and the kingdoms, to serve the LORD," (Psa.102:21-22), which is parallel with the gathering of Mat.24:31 which Terry admits was fulfilled in the first century!!

In order for the New Creation to be established, then as Isaiah said, "the former [heavens-and-earth (supplied by ellipsis)] shall not be remembered, nor come into mind," this harmonizes perfectly with, " Of old hast thou laid the foundation of the earth: and the heavens are the work of thy hands. They shall perish, but thou shalt endure: yea, all of them shall wax old like a garment; as a vesture shalt thou change them, and they shall be changed: "

This exegesis demonstrates irrefutably that the context of Psalms 102 is not the EOT and Terry can't hit the broad side of the eschatological barn with his shotgun distraction! Oh but there's more!

Psalms 102 is a foundational text in the Hebrews epistle, and in Heb.8:8-12, Paul quotes from Jer.31:31-34, posited when Jehovah would "make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah"; thus, the context is the reuniting of both houses of Israel and the new everlasting covenant. Terry avers this was fulfilled at the cross, which is another fatal admission. Here's why: in this same context of the new everlasting covenant with the house of Israel, Jeremiah's next stroke of the pen is, "Thus saith the LORD, which giveth the sun for a light by day, and the ordinances of the moon and of the stars for a light by night, which divideth the sea when the waves thereof roar; The LORD of hosts is his name: If those ordinances depart from before me, saith the LORD, then the seed of Israel ALSO shall cease from being a nation before me for ever ."

Jehovah said that IF (no conditionality) the sun, moon and stars cease, then the seed of Israel will also cease from being a nation, demonstrating that the everlasting covenant with the seed/house of Israel would never cease, just as surely as the sun/moon/stars will not cease.

Again, this demonstrates unquestionably that there's no EOT predicted in the OT. My argument is that you can't claim that the EOT is predicted in the OT while arguing that the OT ended at the cross. Terry completely ignored this argument?

As stated above, Terry asserts the world is passing away of 1Jn.2:17 resuscitates his dead paradigm, but once again, Terry corrupts the word of God by ignoring the context. John begins this chapter with "My little children," reiterates that statement in vs.12-18, then again in v.28 making the entire chapter an inclusio. Terry's own words eviscerate his assertion and expose his false doctrine, as he just admitted that "it was indeed the last hour of Judaism." What exegetical evidence does Terry provide that authorizes him to divorce the world is passing away from it is the last hour of Judaism? He asserts, with no proof whatsoever, that if "the world" is Judaism which passed in the first century, then all worldly lust should also be gone (conflating his comments from the Baisden/Benton debate), but this doesn't even make good nonsense! If the world is still passing away today as Terry argues, then some (2000 year's worth) of the worldly-lust should have also passed away, but can anyone prove that any of the lusts have passed away? I will assert that they have gotten worse! This is the flip side of his objection and it doesn't work, BIGLY!

Terry attempts to evade these exegetical arguments by asserting that "such things as the sun and moon" (Psa.89:36-37) are "temporary" (2Cor.4:18), but this is a double blunder!

Firstly, refer to my first Affirmative, and look again at this text: Jehovah swore a covenant with David that his seed (Messiah) would be established for ever, (Psa.89:3-4), reiterated in Psa.89:27-29; in the verses cited by Terry we re-read the following: "My covenant will I not break, NOR ALTER the thing that is gone out of my lips. Once have I sworn by my holiness that I will not lie unto David. HIS SEED SHALL ENDURE FOR EVER, and his throne as the sun before me. It shall be established for ever as the moon..." (Psa.89:34-37); Terry, who is like many which corrupt the word of God, reads this passage and says, "Nah, the sun and moon, though perpetual, are only temporary."

The force of this text is ungetoverable! If the sun and moon are temporary, then so is Jehovah's sworn covenant, and so is Messiah! This is the inescapable conclusion from a man already exposed of lying to you, and now has made God a liar trying to support his presuppositional opinions.

Secondly, in Terry's paradigm, the eternal building/house of God in the heavens is the immortal tent, i.e., the (assumed) glorified/immortal body each Christian will receive at the resurrection. This would of necessity make "the earthly house of this tabernacle...in which we groan," the mortal/fleshly body, (2Cor.5:1-3).

Paul said, " While we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen: for the things which are seen are temporal; but the things which are not seen are eternal. → FOR← we know that if our earthly house of this tabernacle were dissolved, we have a building of God, an house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens ."

The term "for" is gar. Defined, it means, "properly assigning a reason (used in argument, explanation or intensification..." (Strong's). You see dear readers, Terry is so distraught from my arguments that he is willing to contradict his own paradigm as well as the text (linguistically) and the context. By his own Facebook comments, the unseen/eternal would be the "immortal tent," while the things seen/temporal would be the mortal/flesh-body, but Terry inserts a totally different subject into this verse, even contradicting his own false paradigm!

Apparently Terry was pretty apprehensive of this debate to handicap me from his first Negative by not answering all of my questions; however, I've forced him into the shadows of ambiguity (Tit.1:2) to infer maybe/perhaps God promised the EOT before the ages of time began.