Billingsly/Benton Debate on The Gospels

 
 
 Proposition: 
 The Scriptures teach that the four books of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John -- before 
 the cross, belong to the Old and not the New Testament.
 
 Affirm:  Dan Billingsly
 Deny: Terry Benton
 
 Benton:
 I appreciate the good that can be done by seeing two sides of an issue discussed fairly and 
 hopefully intelligently and brotherly. I appreciate the fact that Dan has convictions that he feels are 
 important for all to hear about. I will take up his arguments and answer them because I too believe 
 that what I have to say about his arguments are important for all to hear.
 
 His Proposition 
 Dan's proposition says that at least most of the four gospels do not even belong in the New 
 Testament. He holds that they "belong to the Old" Testament. The amazing thing about this 
 proposition is that the four writers: Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John ALL wrote their books 
 AFTER the Old Testament was nailed to the cross. If these books "belong" to the Old Testament, 
 then they were all about 30 years too late. They were all "ministers of the New Testament" (2 
 Cor.3:6). As ministers of the New Covenant, working after the Old had been nailed to the cross, 
 they really could not have been writing Old Testament books. Dan will have to prove that they 
 were writing Old Testament "books". He cannot rest his case on history "described" in those 
 books. Acts 7 "describes" some Old Testament period events. That does not make Acts 7 a chapter 
 that "belongs to the Old Testament".
 
 I want our readers to understand that an Old Covenant book can describe pre-Sinai-covenant 
 events without losing its relevance to that covenant. For example, the history "described" in 
 Genesis through Exodus 19 are pre-Sinai-covenant events. But, the BOOKS of Genesis and 
 Exodus "belong to the Old Testament". The history of Israel's promises, family tree, land 
 promises, Messianic promises, and background for the covenant were all important parts to be 
 included IN the covenant itself. Genesis-Exodus 19 do not "belong" to some earlier covenant than 
 the Old Testament. They are part of the Old Testament. It is not enough to argue that they 
 "describe" pre-Sinai-covenant matters. What has to be done is this: prove that these books and 
 portions of books do not BELONG in the Old Testament. While Dan does not affirm such 
 directly, it is only logical that he be consistent with his argument and do so
 
 Faulty Premise And Conclusion
 
 Dan's major premise can be stated like this:
 
 When a book, chapter, or verse "describes" something that happened during an earlier testament 
 period, then said book, chapter, or verse "belongs" to that earlier TESTAMENT.
 
 His minor premise would then look like this:
 
 Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John (hereon out MMLJ) "describe" lives and events lived under the 
 Old Testament.
 
 His conclusion then becomes:
 
 Therefore, MMLJ "belong" to the Old Testament.  
 
 There is a big problem with his major premise that nullifies any validity to his conclusion. Take a 
 look again. "When a book, chapter, or verse "describes" something that happened during an earlier 
 testament period, then said book, chapter, or verse "belongs" to that earlier TESTAMENT." He is 
 not affirming, in his proposition, that New Testament BOOKS "describe" things that happened 
 under an Old Testament PERIOD OF TIME. He is affirming that any descriptions of Jesus' life 
 lived during the Old Testament period must, of necessity, become an Old Testament BOOK, 
 chapter, or verse. He is not saying that MMLJ describe Jesus living His life under the Old 
 Testament. He is saying that the BOOKS of MMLJ belong to the Old Testament. His proposition 
 is about what BOOKS belong to which Testament. Consider again his proposition:
 
 The Scriptures teach that the four BOOKS of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John -- before the cross - 
 belong to the Old and not the New Testament.  
 
 Major Flaw In The Proposition
 
 There were NO BOOKS of Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John BEFORE THE CROSS. All were 
 written years after the cross. So, the proposition cannot stand. The dilemma of Dan's proposition is 
 that he will not be able to prove it as it is presently worded. To try to do so will have him 
 affirming:
 
 1. That Matthew wrote his book before the event of the cross. 
 2. That Mark wrote his book before the event of the cross. 
 3. That Luke wrote his book before the event of the cross. 
 4. That John wrote his book before the event of the cross.  
 5. That MMLJ wrote books that belong to the Old Testament.  
 
 He is not affirming that the books of MMLJ merely "described" the life of Christ lived during the 
 Old Testament period. His proposition says that the BOOKS (of MMLJ) "belong to the Old 
 Testament". I want the reader to keep this clearly in mind, because if you fail to see this distinction 
 now, you will probably get lost in the rhetoric as the discussion proceeds.
 
 Throughout the course of this debate you will see two unequal ideas: 1) MMLJ equal the 
 EVENTS THEY DESCRIBE, and 2) MMLJ equals the BOOKS that describe the events. This 
 difference is very subtle. Let me see if I can clarify this distinction, so that you can see how it 
 works within the fabric of Dan's argumentation. Suppose I take Stephen's sermon in Acts 7 as an 
 example. The argument of Dan, shifted to Acts 7, becomes this:
 
 1. Acts 7 describes many Old Testament events.
 
 2. Therefore, Acts 7 "belongs to the Old Testament".
 
 There is a subtle truth here that depends on how you mean "belongs to the Old Testament". There 
 are two things he could mean: 1) Acts 7 is a chapter out of place. It is a chapter that should have 
 been included in the Old Testament and should have been nailed to the cross. Or, he could mean, 
 2) Acts 7 describes events that belong to the Old Testament period of time. However, the truth is 
 that Stephen was a New Testament speaker and Luke a New Testament recorder of the speech. 
 Acts 7 belongs exactly where it is, in the New Testament. The truth is that New Testament writers 
 and speakers were free to record or recall events of the Old Testament period. The Old Testament 
 was true and provided great examples of applicable truth. There is no rule that says that the New 
 Testament cannot recall Old Testament period events or truths.
 
 This would be even more true of MMLJ. They are New Testament Christians. They write of the 
 Savior and TESTATOR. Like the Old Testament gives its' own prologue in Genesis through 
 Exodus 19, so these New Testament ministers give the prologue to the New Testament as part of 
 the Testament itself. The NEW Testators' life and teachings about the kingdom were not 
 something to write about and then consider them "nailed to the cross". They were written to 
 defend New Testament Christian's faith. They were not written to get people to follow the Old 
 Testament. They were written to get people to follow the Savior of the New Testament age.
 
 Now, let us turn our attention to the arguments Dan used to support his proposition. 
 
 Billingsly:
 THREE QUESTIONS WHICH BILLINGSLY AND BENTON MUST ANSWER:
 
 1. Where do the Scriptures teach that the Old Testament age, revelation and authority of the Old 
 Testament law of Moses (old Mosaical covenant) end?
 
 BENTON:
 
 The law was nailed to the cross (Col.2:14; Eph.2:11-14). MMLJ all wrote after this point to give 
 the new revelation of Jesus Christ to the whole world.
 
 Billingsly:
 2.  Where do the Scriptures teach that the New Testament age, revelation and authority of the New 
 Covenant of Christ begin?
 
 Benton: 
 The timing of the New Testament age, new revelation began on the first Pentecost after the 
 resurrection of Jesus Christ. The RECORD of this is in Acts 2. However, MMLJ were all writing 
 their "Spirit guided" new revelations AFTER the events recorded in Acts 2. Readers, please make 
 note that Dan will keep referring to MMLJBC, as if this portion was revealed separately from the 
 portions AFTER the cross. The fact is that ALL of these books were written AFTER the cross and 
 could not be an additional revelation to be attached to the Old Testament. People responded to the 
 books of Matthew, just as they did to Peter's sermon on Pentecost. In fact, Peter's sermon on 
 Pentecost is simply a short version of what Matthew later wrote in his newly inspired book. 
 MMLJ all were writing to accomplish the same thing Peter was trying to accomplish on the day of 
 Pentecost.
 
 Billingsly:
 2. Are all men today in this New Testament age, alien sinners and New Testament Christians 
 alike, accountable to "all" New Testament teaching?
 
 BILLINGSLY: No. 
 
 BENTON: 
 Yes. All are obligated, but all are not qualified to do certain things until they come into Christ.
 
 Billingsly's ARGUMENT 1.
 Understanding the Bible depends on whether or not one understands the scriptural difference 
 between the Old and New Testaments and when and where the Scriptures -- not the Roman 
 Catholic church -- teach that the Old Testament age really "ends" and the New Testament age and 
 revelation of new covenant doctrine really "begins."
 
 Benton: 
 Dan will claim that Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John wrote books that should append to the Old 
 Testament and be nailed to the cross along with that Old Testament. He simply pretends that the 
 Catholics had something to do with putting these four Old Testament books into the new. This is 
 simply not so.
 
 Billingsly's ARGUMENT 2. 
 Roman Catholic "Heresy" Of 1486 AD:
 Unfortunately...-- arbitrarily inserted an unauthorized New Testament "title page" between the 
 book of Malachi and Matthew o divide between the Old and New Testaments.
 
 BENTON: 
 Putting the "title page" there was right. That is where it belongs. Sometimes the Catholics have 
 been known to do something right. Dan would slice some chapters out of each of the four gospels, 
 and put a title page after these New Testament Christians got to the part about Jesus' death on the 
 cross. He would have us believe that New Testament Christians could not tell the story of Jesus 
 birth and life without their material becoming a part of the Old Testament itself. When they got to 
 the part about the cross, then their lesson became a part of the New Testament. This is what Dan 
 would like us to think.
 
 Billingsly's ARGUMENT 3. 
 Biblical Manuscript Authorities Confirm The Roman Catholic Origin And Erroneous Placement 
 Of The New Testament "Title Page." 
 
 Benton: 
 Dan gives us a bunch of quotes that the "title page" was not inserted into the earlier Bibles before 
 1486. So what? The question is, did Matthew write AFTER the cross? Was He guided by the Holy 
 Spirit to recall the teaching and life of Jesus? And, was this revelation given in the New Testament 
 age? The answer is YES, and the same goes for Mark, Luke, and John. It is immaterial when a 
 "title page" was inserted, OR when chapters and verses were inserted, or when a concordance was 
 added. The fact remains, that these men were "ministers of the new covenant"(2 Cor.3:6), writing 
 long after the cross, and their material is essentially the same material we find in Peter's sermon on 
 Pentecost (Acts 2) and Paul's sermon in Acts 13. Incidentally, Dan, where would you place a title 
 page? 
 
 Billingsly:
 Is this Roman Catholic heresy what brother Benton believes and teaches? Yes! 
 
 Benton: 
 I believe the truth that MMLJ were all ministers of the New Testament, and that regardless of 
 whether Roman Catholics had ever placed a "title page" in between the testaments, I would have 
 placed one there too, not because I agree with any "heresy", but because I agree with the truth. 
 
 Billingsly: 
 4.  The Scriptures teach that the Bible consists of a series of different covenants from Genesis 
 through Revelation, and to understand which books, chapters and verse make up these different 
 covenants is to understand the beginnings and endings of the covenants of the Bible. 
 
 Benton: 
 The Bible TELLS about different covenants, but does not relate them in terms of when a covenant 
 begins at which scripture point. The "first covenant"(Heb.9) is a record that tells Israel of their 
 beginnings and destiny. Thus, the "first covenant" tells of earlier history without thereby becoming 
 a different and earlier covenant. Dan would have us believe that if a description is given of an 
 earlier period, then the description itself ceases to be a part of the covenant the writer is writing 
 under, and becomes a part of the covenant period described. Moses writes the first covenant, and 
 tells Israel important points about their beginnings and their place in God's plan to bless "all 
 families of the earth"(Gen.12:1-4). Dan would have us to believe that because Moses "described" 
 life under a different period, that he was not writing this history as an educational and informative 
 part of the covenant he was writing. This is the basic fallacy of Dan's reasoning.
 
 Billingsly:
 The Scriptures teach that the six chapters of Matthew 28, Mark 16, Luke 24, John 20, 21 and Acts 
 1 all describe the events in the work of Christ after his resurrection and during the fifty days 
 between the end of the Old Testament at the cross of Christ and the beginning of the New 
 Testament in Acts 2
 
 Benton:
 There is no question that Matthew 28, etc., "describes" events after the cross and before the first 
 Pentecost "described" in Acts 2. The fact remains, that MMLJ give us this important information 
 AFTER the events of the cross and AFTER the Pentecost of Acts 2. However, Dan is affirming 
 that MMLJ are writing Old Testament BOOKS. We could say that Acts 7 "describes" events in the 
 Patriarchal and Mosaic ages. Does that mean that Acts 7 "belongs to the Old Testament"?
 
 Billingsly:
 The Scriptures teach that the four books of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John -- before the cross - 
 describe and detail the teaching and end of the Old Testament age and authority of the law of 
 Moses, not the beginning of the New Testament age, revelation and authority of the New 
 Covenant of Christ.
 
 Benton: 
 This is a totally different proposition from what Dan is supposed to be affirming. No one denies 
 that MMLJ "describe" some things that pertained to the Old Testament age. However, that would 
 not make MMLJ Old Testament BOOKS. (Remember Dan's proposition says these are Old 
 Testament books written by four New Testament Christians). It would simply mean that New 
 Testament ministers often referred to the Old Testament or events that happened under the first 
 covenant. In this case, it is clear that Jesus was working and teaching about the (then) coming 
 kingdom, and the Holy Spirit through MMLJ was "bringing to their remembrance"(Jno.14:26) the 
 things Jesus had taught them. This teaching of Jesus was important to the kingdom, and had 
 important applications to the kingdom. Therefore, the Lord wanted the Holy Spirit to bring up in 
 four books, after Pentecost of Acts 2, the teaching of Jesus relative to the New Testament 
 kingdom. This is why we have MMLJ written long AFTER the Pentecost of Acts 2. 
 
 Billingsly:
 No Old Testament "prophecy" of any Old Testament "prophet" has ever become New Testament 
 doctrine. The "fulfillment" of Old Testament "prophecy" in the revelation of the New Testament is 
 New Covenant doctrine.
 
 Benton: 
 MMLJ write about such "fulfillments" of OT prophecy. As ministers of the New Covenant" (2 
 Cor.3:6), it is all right to believe that "ALL SCRIPTURE" (including the scriptures of the Old 
 Testament) is "profitable for DOCTRINE"(2 Tim.3:16-17). Dan, is this so? or not? Paul was 
 writing to CHRISTIANS and affirmed that ALL scriptures, including the ones that Timothy had 
 learned from his youth, was profitable for doctrine. Where then is this "doctrine" of what is "New 
 Testament doctrine"?
 
 Billingsly:
 5. The Bible must be interpreted by whole or complete covenants -- not by individual "verses" or 
 "topics." .....
 A. The different covenants of the Patriarchal age (Genesis 1 through Exodus 19) must be 
 interpreted by the teaching of those specific Patriarchal covenants and applied only to the 
 Patriarchal people within those covenants in that Patriarchal age.
 
 Benton: 
 The covenant Moses was writing "described" earlier family and individual covenants to stress the 
 point that God had a plan that involved promises of things to come. These descriptions would 
 allow Israel to see their place in God's plan to bless the world. Moses did NOT write Gen.1 
 through Ex.19 and give it to an earlier people. This is all part of the "first covenant"(Heb.9:1ff) to 
 remind Israel of where they came from and where they should be going in God's plan. The 
 Israelites also needed to know or be reminded about how the Passover (Ex.12-13) came to be 
 expected of them. So, Dan is wrong to assume that none of Gen.1-Ex.19 had application to Israel 
 in the covenant Moses was writing.
 
 Billingsly:
 B. The one Mosaical covenant that God made with the house of Israel during the Mosaical age 
 (Exodus 20 through Matthew 27, Mark 15, Luke 23 and John 19) must be interpreted by the 
 teaching within that Mosaical covenant and applied only to the Jews of Israel with whom God 
 made that Mosaical covenant.
 
 Benton: 
 The Mosaical covenant is Genesis through Malachi. Jesus lived under that covenant, and later four 
 New Testament ministers (2 Cor.3:6) described Jesus' life under that earlier covenant. They did so 
 because it was important to New Testament age people to know about Jesus' life mission and 
 teaching regarding the kingdom. It was also important that New Testament age people understand 
 Jesus' teaching about righteousness in the kingdom and about how important Jesus' death was to 
 their salvation, and how important Jesus' resurrection was to their confident expectation in Him. 
 MMLJ did not write to attach more material to the law that had long been nailed to the cross. 
 
 Billingsly:
 C. The six chapters of Matthew 28, Mark 16, Luke 24, John 20, 21 and Acts 1 describe the fifty 
 day period of time between the Old and New Testaments. This was a period when no covenant for 
 justification and/or salvation from sin existed between God and man.
 
 Benton: 
 There is no question about what this portion of the New Testament "describes". What Dan has to 
 prove is that the very process of "describing" pre-Pentecost events makes the very description an 
 additional attachment TO the Old Testament. This he has not, and will not have proven in his first 
 affirmative. Because of earlier discussions with Dan, I know he will not prove it in all of this 
 discussion. He will switch gears and act like a New Testament writer cannot "describe" earlier 
 events without said writing becoming a part of the Old Testament. Watch him carefully on this!
 
 Billingsly:
 D. The New Covenant that Christ has made with the New Testament church (Acts 2 through 
 Revelation 22). .... The New Covenant "plan of salvation" is addressed to alien sinners and applies 
 only to alien sinners (Acts 2). Christ's New Covenant law for the church is addressed to only the 
 church, it does not apply to alien sinners outside the church. ... Brother Benton is going to ask you 
 to believe that New Testament doctrine for Christians also applies to alien sinners before they 
 become Christians. Does Christ require alien sinners to live the Christian life before they become 
 Christians? Benton: Yes! Billingsly: No!
 
 Benton: 
 The New Testament includes all books that inspired Christians were led to write after the Old 
 Testament had been nailed to the cross. Therefore, Matthew through Revelation constitutes the 
 New Testament. The New Testament will be the standard to judge the world. Jesus said His words 
 would judge even those who reject Him. Jno.12:48. As to whether Christ requires an alien sinner 
 to "live the Christian life BEFORE they become a Christian", Dan was not being truthful or 
 careful when he claimed that I would say "yes". I would say that Christ wants alien sinners to 
 become Christians first and then live the Christian life. So, Matthew was written to get Jews to 
 believe and become Christians. Mark was written to get Roman minds to believe in Jesus and 
 become Christians. Luke was writing to Theophilus to get Him to believe in Jesus and become a 
 Christian. John was written to defend the basis for Christian faith in Jesus. None of these writers 
 were trying to continue the Old Testament. They were trying to show why it was most reasonable 
 to believe in Jesus as Christ come in the flesh and the Son of God. Dan thinks they were 
 appending more material to the Old Testament. This is simply not the case.
 
 Billingsly:
 6. There are four simple rules for interpreting any book, chapter or verse in the Bible
 
 A. Which covenant was in force at the time, with whom did God or Christ make the covenant 
 described in the book, chapter or verse, and to whom does this covenant teaching apply?
 B. Who is speaking?
 C. What is spoken?
 D. To whom were they speaking?
 
 Benton: 
 Dan will not apply these rules consistently. For example, Matthew is writing to people in the New 
 Testament age, speaking to them about the life, kingdom teaching, death, burial, and resurrection 
 of Jesus. The same is so with Mark, Luke, and John. He gets lost in the events "described" by 
 these writers, and turns their Spirit-inspired-writings into additions to the Old Testament. Watch 
 him carefully on this point. 
 
 Billingsly:
 1. The Bible cannot be scripturally interpreted by individual "verses" or "topics." ...The truth is 
 that John 3:16 is a verse from the Old Testament law of Moses describing how God "gave" his Son to 
 "save" the old covenant "world" of Israel (Matt. 1:21; 2:6; 15:24; Jn. 12:19).
 
 Benton: 
 No, the "truth" is that John 3:16 states the general truth of Christianity that Jesus was given for the 
 whole world and that "whoever" (Jews or Gentiles) believes in Him can have eternal life. Dan 
 wants to nail this verse to the cross. John wrote it because it was packed with relevance and 
 application to all living in the New Testament age. So, Dan will need to prove that John wrote an 
 Old Testament book and added it to the Old Testament.
 
 Billingsly:
 8. Another common mistake made in interpreting the Bible is to combine all Scripture of the 
 Bible on one "topic" and then teach that it is God's will for men today. 
 
 Benton: 
 I do not know of anyone who does this without regard to the testament from which the scripture 
 came except denominational folk. I do not do this. But, even if I did, it would not help Dan prove 
 his proposition that four Christians wrote Old Testament BOOKS. 
 
 Billingsly:
 Why then do so many like Terry Benton believe that the New Testament age begins and the 
 revelation of New Testament doctrine begins in Matthew 1? Because they have rejected the New 
 Testament truth of Christ and have believed the false doctrine set forth in the 1486 AD Roman 
 Catholic "heresy."
 
 Benton:
 Dan is lumping two different things together: 1) New Testament AGE beginning with the story 
 described in Matthew 1 (which I do NOT affirm), and 2) the revelation of New Testament doctrine 
 beginning in Matthew 1. This is misleading. The doctrine began with Peter's sermon in Acts 2 and 
 LATER the Spirit inspired Matthew to write about the birth, life, kingdom teaching, death, and 
 resurrection of Jesus Christ as part of New Testament doctrine. It has nothing to do with Catholic 
 heresy. It has everything to do with what the Spirit guided the New Testament Christians to write 
 in the New Testament age. Do not let Dan switch issues.
 
 I will reserve further observations about Dan's first affirmative until my next rebuttal. Thanks, 
 dear reader for your interest.
 
 Terry W. Benton