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:
 
 We thank you for your interest. We hope you will study further with us. There are a couple of 
 things that I did not have room to address in reference to Dan's first affirmative. I will take it up 
 here and then proceed to his second affirmative.
 
 From Dan Billingsly's First Affirmative
 
 Billingsly:
 When anyone rejects Christ's truth of the New Testament in Acts 2 through Revelation 22 and 
 believes the devil's lie that Christ's old covenant teaching of the law of Moses in MMLJBC is New 
 Testament doctrine, they stand condemned. (emphasis mine-TWB)
 
 Benton: 
 Brethren, this is where Dan stands. He believes that all of us who sincerely believe that MMLJ are 
 in the New Testament "stand condemned". He thinks we have "fallen from grace". He believes we 
 will be damned. However, regardless of what he believes about us, his job is to prove his 
 proposition. We will remind Dan to keep his focus on proving his proposition.
 
 We ask, did Dan PROVE the following?:
 
 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.
 
 Remember: He is not affirming that these books "describe" events that happened during the Old 
 Testament age. He is affirming that the BOOKS themselves are Old Testament BOOKS. Were 
 there "four books....before the cross"? Absolutely not! We ask the reader to judge whether Dan 
 proved this proposition that says there were "four books....before the cross".
 
 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: 
 The implication, again, is that since these chapters "describe" something after the death and 
 resurrection of Christ and before the New revelations that came (beginning on the Pentecost of 
 Acts 2), then these chapters do not "belong in either testament". What Dan continues to miss is the 
 fact that these chapters were all written, along with their whole books, AFTER that Pentecost 
 because people in the New Testament age needed to be reminded of Jesus' "many infallible 
 proofs"(Acts 1). People in the New Testament age needed to read of these many signs 
 (Jno.20:30,31) of Jesus in order that they could believe in Him and have eternal life.
 
 Dan would butcher the Bible so that there are not two covenants: the first (Heb.9:1ff) and the 
 second. He would have several chapters and verses in NEITHER testament. All of his efforts are 
 fabrications of his own imagination. The Spirit-led Christians who wrote MMLJ wrote their 
 WHOLE books as "ministers of the new covenant"(2 Cor.3:6). They all wrote AFTER the Old 
 Testament was fully nailed to the cross, which Dan admits in his second affirmative.
 
 Dan's Bible
 As we have studied the arguments that Dan advances in support of his proposition, we have 
 decided that his Bible does not divide into two covenants as Hebrews 9 describes. Dan's Bible 
 would look like this:
 
 1. Gen.1 - Ex.19 are the "first covenant".
 2. Ex.20 - Matt.27, Mk.15. Luke 23, Jno.19 are the "second covenant"
 3. Matt.28, Mk.16, Luke 24, Jno.20,21, and Acts 1 are not records of any covenant.
 4. Acts 2 - Rev.22 and - deleting ALL REFERENCES TO ANY EVENTS BEFORE 
 PENTECOST such as Acts 2:16-32; 3:13,14,15,18,22-26; Acts 7; 13; Heb.11, and Gal.4:4 and 
 many other verses- are the THIRD covenant.
 5. The scattered verses above that refer back to anything that was said or happened before the 
 Pentecost of Acts 2 either goes into NO testament, the first testament, the second testament, but 
 cannot be in Dan's THIRD testament (Acts 2 -Rev.22). His third testament has a lot of holes in it 
 in more ways than one.
 
 The reason this is so, is because of the logic he uses to argue his case. Can you imagine picking up 
 his Bible to see how he has cut and pasted things to fit into the "different covenant" categories? 
 His Bible will not have "the first covenant"(Heb.9:1ff) and then "the second covenant". Why? 
 Because his theory is: 1) that one covenant cannot "describe" things that happened earlier than its 
 own declaration of covenant law, and 2) the earlier events cannot have relevance and application 
 to the covenant document describing those earlier matters. For example, the Passover of Ex.12-13 
 cannot hold relevance and application to the Israelites who afterwards came under the Sinai 
 covenant. Why? Because Dan says that earlier "descriptions" cannot be part of the covenant. The 
 Israelites after Sinai cannot use Ex.12-13 as authority for their Passover observance, according to 
 Dan's reasoning. Who can believe it? 
 
 Dan Defeats His Own Proposition
 
 In Dan's second affirmative he takes up 4,561 words. That's 561 OVER the allotted 4,000 words. 
 In these 4,561 words he mentions "MMLJBC"(Matthew, Mark, Luke, John Before the Cross) 
 some 83 times. I was wondering how I could answer in 4,000 words all the arguments that Dan took
 4,561 words to say. Then it occurred to me that it was very simple. We simply ask, did Dan 
 prove  that there were any BOOKS of Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John BEFORE THE CROSS? No!  
 Even  HE (Dan) admitted toward the end of his second affirmative that "these four Old Testament 
 books were written by inspired New Testament Christians some 30-45 years AFTER ACTS 2"(his 
 words but my emphasis-TWB). If, as HE admits, there were no BOOKS of Matthew, Mark, Luke, 
 and John until some 30-45 years after Acts 2, then he shoots his own proposition and ALL of his 
 own arguments in the foot. Putting his proposition beside his own words we have:
 
 a.  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.
 
 b. "...these four ...books were written by inspired New Testament Christians some 30-45 years 
 AFTER ACTS 2".
 
 There is no way that there can be four BOOKS before the cross, and the same four books be 
 written 30-45 years AFTER Acts 2. Dan's admission is that "New Testament Christians" wrote the 
 four books. His admission is that these four New Testament Christians wrote these books 30-45 
 years AFTER Acts 2. Therefore, Dan's proposition that mentions BOOKS BEFORE THE CROSS, 
 is totally absurd, totally wrong, and totally designed to mislead. In 9 pages, his second affirmative 
 mentions MMLJ "BEFORE THE CROSS" some 83 times. Therefore, on all 9 pages and all 83 
 times, Dan mentions something that did not exist. There were NO BOOKS of MMLJ BEFORE 
 THE CROSS.
 
 Furthermore, Dan mentions several times that Terry is "wrong, wrong, wrong", "quibbling", has a 
 "convoluted misunderstanding" of the Scriptures etc., etc. Of course, Dan is mistaken about that. 
 But, even if I am wrong about anything I have said, it will not rescue Dan from his dilemma. He is 
 in the affirmative. He has to PROVE his proposition that says there were "BOOKS of Matthew, 
 Mark, Luke, and John BEFORE THE CROSS". No matter how wrong I am (which I am not), that 
 will never make Dan's proposition right.
 
 Remember, Dan is not affirming that MMLJ wrote books after Pentecost that describe the life of 
 Christ as He lived it "under the law"(Gal.4:4), books that describe His kingdom teaching, death, 
 burial, and resurrection. If Paul can say it(Gal.4:4), then Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John can 
 certainly describe it too. I would not deny that. Dan is not affirming that Jesus lived his life under 
 the Old Testament and was DESCRIBED by New Testament writers as having so lived. 
 Otherwise, I would not have denied that. Dan's proposition clearly says that these BOOKS were 
 BEFORE THE CROSS. He dug his proposition's grave there. There was NO Matthew, Mark, 
 Luke, and John BEFORE the cross. There were NO BOOKS before the cross. Thus, he cannot 
 prove such a proposition.
 
 Some Important Questions For Dan 
 
 1. "God, who at sundry times and in diverse manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the 
 prophets, Hath in these last days spoken unto us by His Son..." (Heb. 1:1-2). When did Jesus speak 
 these things, if not during His earthly ministry? "How shall we escape if we neglect so great 
 salvation, which at the first was spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed unto us by them that 
 heard Him?" (Heb. 2:3). What things were "first SPOKEN by the Lord?"
 
 2. Was the gospel Jesus preached before the cross (Matt.24:14 -"this gospel of the kingdom") 
 going to be preached in all the world in the New Testament age?
 
 3. Was this same gospel going to include the story of the woman who washed Jesus' feet 
 (Matt.26:13), and was this same gospel going to be preached "in the whole world" after the cross 
 and in the New Testament age?
 
 Dan's "Over 100 Times" Argument 
 
 Billingsly's First Affirmative:
 More than 100 times in MMLJBC Jesus declares that he is teaching the  Old Testament law and 
 prophets. ...(He then gives 3 examples-TWB)...
 
 Not once in MMLJBC does Jesus ever state that he is teaching New Testament  doctrine. .... (Then 
 a few paragraphs later he said:) Our 2nd affirmative will show, by the Scriptures, that every word 
 of MMLJBC relates to the Old Testament, the old covenant law of Moses, ... Dan mentions this 
 again in his second affirmative, Argument 9:2. 
 
 Benton's Reply:
 1.  Jesus never said He was only teaching the OT law of Moses. Notice that the claim above is that 
 Jesus "declared that He was teaching the Old Testament law of Moses", more than 100 times in 
 MML&J. The fact is that Jesus NEVER declared "I am teaching the OT law of Moses". What one 
 finds is that He made reference to the law of Moses. But, so does Paul and the writers of Acts 2-
 Rev.22.
 
 MML&J often speak of the same occasion, so instead of counting it as 4 times Jesus said so and 
 so, it would be more like 1 time Jesus said it and four writers recorded it. I found that MML&J 
 have Jesus making a direct reference to the law of Moses about 65 times. This would mean that 
 Jesus did not refer to the law of Moses 65 times, but that four different writers refer to Jesus ' 
 quote of the OT. So, it would be safe to say we can, at least, cut 65 in half since they do refer to 
 the same occasions as one another (to be conservative and generous to Dan). Therefore, we can 
 safely say that Jesus quoted the OT less than 40 times.
 
 Here is how it breaks down book by book: Matthew quotes the OT 14 times plus has Jesus quoting 
 the OT 29 times. Mark quotes the OT 2 times and has Jesus quoting the OT about 17 times. Luke 
 quotes the OT 5 times and has Jesus quoting the OT about 15 times. John quotes the OT 7 times 
 and has Jesus quoting the OT about 4 times. Add all those figures together and we get 93 quotes of 
 the OT by four writers. Therefore, Dan's statement is very misleading.
 
 Now, if quoting the OT is proof that Jesus taught only the law of Moses, then notice what else you 
 find in the other books of the NT. Luke, in the book of Acts, quotes the OT about 19 times. Does 
 that mean that Acts teaches only the law of Moses? Romans quotes the OT over 41 times. Does 
 that mean that Romans only teaches the OT? Romans is 16 chapters long. Mark is 16 chapters 
 long. But Romans quotes the OT 41 times while Mark has the OT quoted 19 times. Thus, if the 
 above argument means anything, then Romans is more of an OT book than is Mark. 1 Corinthians 
 quotes the OT about 12 times, 2 Corinthians 7 times, Galatians 8 times, Ephesians 3 times, 1 
 Timothy 1 time, Hebrews 28 times, James 4 times, 1 Peter 8 times. What does all this prove? 
 Nothing, as far as whether some of the books should be considered OT books, but it does prove 
 that Dan is making a very misleading argument that, first of all, is not true as to how many times 
 Jesus DECLARED that He was teaching the law of Moses, and is misleading as to what the 
 quoting of the OT really proves in each book. 
 
 2. The OT is quoted many times from Acts 2 - Revelation. Does that mean that the NT only 
 teaches the law of Moses? 
 
 3.  Where does Acts 2-Rev.22 "say" it is only teaching NT doctrine? None of the books of Acts 
 through Revelation "declare that they are only teaching NT doctrine". We have turned the 
 argument around here so that you can see that it is faulty reasoning to make that a point as to 
 whether any of our 27 NT books really should be considered OT books.
 
 4. Where did Jesus "state that he was teaching Old Testament doctrine" or that He could ONLY 
 teach OT doctrine? 
 
 5.  Jesus taught plenty of new kingdom teaching before the cross too. Not once did Jesus say "I am 
 teaching OT doctrine" or "OT doctrine only". 
 
 6.  MML&J were written after the Pentecost of Acts 2 (as Dan finally admitted). Therefore, these 
 books, written by four Christians, fit somewhere between Acts 2 and Revelation 22. The OT had 
 already been nailed to the cross. Therefore, MML&J are NT books. 
 
 7. Jesus told how to enter the NT kingdom (Jno.3:3-5; Matt.5:3,10), as well as some things to do 
 in the kingdom (Matt.26:26f; Lk.22) once it arrived. This is NT doctrine. Therefore, it is 
 misleading to try to leave the impression that MML&J ONLY record OT teaching regarding the 
 law of Moses. There is also a lot of new kingdom teaching as well. 
 
 8. Jesus was the new Bridegroom preparing for the new wedding. We can expect that if it was all 
 right to BE the bridegroom before the law was nailed to the cross, then it was also all right to 
 express some of His marriage WILL to those He was soon to take in marriage. This He did as 
 recorded by MML&J before the cross, and there is no rule that says that He couldn't, nor anything 
 that says He didn't.. 
 
 9. More than 20 times in the book of Acts --after the cross-- Luke appeals to the OT law of Moses. 
 Not once did he ever state that he was teaching NT doctrine--after the cross. Therefore, since it 
 quotes the OT, and NEVER quotes the NT, then the book of Acts must belong to the OT (per the 
 argumentation by Dan). 
 
 10. Luke wrote the book of Acts to the same person he wrote the gospel of Luke to - "Theophilus". 
 Both were written after the cross to announce "those things most surely believed among us 
 (Christians)". Both quote the OT often, and neither book ever states that it is teaching NT doctrine. 
 Therefore, Luke is writing TWO OT books (per Dan's argument above).
 
 11. Jesus said that the things He was teaching before the cross were to be taught after the cross 
 (Matt.24:14; 26:13f). Therefore, Jesus planned for His words to be a part of the testament that 
 would go into all the world, not just to the Jews. Another devastating point to Dan's repetition that 
 Jesus only talked about the law of Moses.
 
 12. The argument that Jesus declared that He was teaching the law of Moses more than 100 times 
 is wrong as to the amount of times He said that, but it is given to imply that Jesus spent most of 
 His time talking about and explaining the law of Moses. This implication is also misleading. The 
 fact is that when you compare the amount of verses in MML&J that have Jesus explaining the OT 
 law to the amount of verses that have Him teaching about the new kingdom, that it is clear that He 
 talks about the kingdom far more than He talks about the law of Moses.
 
 Since Matthew is the book that has the most references to the OT, we will use this book as a gauge 
 to measure how much Jesus talked about the old law compared to how much He talked about the 
 new kingdom. These are the figures I came up with: 53 verses have Jesus talking about something 
 old law related, and 294 have Jesus talking about something New Kingdom related. As you can 
 see, this is more than 5 times as much time and words about the coming NT kingdom than was 
 spent on the old law.
 
 Dan's argument is very misleading. MML&J NEVER say that Jesus came teaching the law of 
 Moses. They do occasionally tell of Jesus' clarifying the law to the Jews, but they NEVER 
 represent that as Jesus' mission and focus in preaching. What they say is that Jesus was "preaching 
 the kingdom of heaven". That, friends, is New Testament stuff, that the Spirit was guiding MMLJ 
 to write by way of significant "remembrance" (Jno.14:26).
 
 13. MML&J identify WHAT Jesus was preaching about 12 times. In NONE of those cases did 
 they say Jesus was preaching the law of Moses. In EVERY case they say He was preaching the 
 kingdom. (See Matt.4:17,23; 9:35; 10:7; 24:14; 26:13; Mk.1:14; 14:9; Lk.4:43; 8:1; 9:2,60; 
 16:16). References to the old law were secondary to the true focus of Jesus' preaching, the 
 KINGDOM about to come.
 
 Dan's statements above, therefore, are not accurate and they lend to false implications as to what 
 the focus of Jesus' preaching really was. All of this is argued in an effort to get people to believe 
 that MML&J are OT books that were nailed to the cross even though they were written by 
 Christians long after the OT was already nailed to the cross.
 
 Dan's Argument About Jno.3:16 and Other New Testament Verses
 
 It is clear that Dan is saying that those who believe Jno.3:16 and 8:24 are believing something that 
 no longer applies and passed with the Old Testament. However, John is writing this editorial 
 comment (Jno.3:16), as well as the story of Jesus, AFTER the cross. John is making the point that 
 we ALL (whosoever) must believe in Jesus in order to have life. John made no attempt to 
 distinguish "Old Testament faith" from "New Testament faith". The only "faith" that is different 
 from before Christ to after Christ, is faith in His future arrival versus believing that He has arrived 
 in Jesus. The covenants have changed. The one that was still in force while Jesus was here, was 
 the Old Testament law of Moses. That was nailed to the cross (Col.2:114f; Eph.2:14f). Faith in 
 Jesus was NOT nailed to the cross. Jesus' words of the kingdom were not nailed to the cross. What 
 He said about "righteousness" was not nailed to the cross (Matt.5:17;Rom.8:3-4; 13:8-10). What 
 He said about believing in Him was not nailed to the cross. What He said about the disciples' 
 conduct in the kingdom was not nailed to the cross. The only thing that has changed is the law 
 (Heb.7:11). Jesus' words about the kingdom, faith in Him, and righteous living, are not chained to 
 the law, nor are contrary to the law. The law as a total system passed, but the "righteousness of the 
 law" must be fulfilled in Christians (Rom.8:3-4). Righteousness is not an element of the system of 
 law that could pass. Righteousness flows from God's nature, and EVERY law covenant from God 
 will express it, and THIS could not pass with the law of Moses. Therefore, Jesus demanded it of 
 those who would be in His kingdom without violating the law of Moses at the time.
 
 Dan talked repeatedly about the "old covenant TEXT and context of MMLJBC", which implies 
 that there WAS a TEXT of these BOOKS "BC"(before the cross). So, every time he talked about 
 such, he was talking about the TEXT that he later admitted was not even written till 30-45 years 
 AFTER the Pentecost of Acts 2. How could there be a TEXT of these four books before the cross, 
 when there was no text until 30-45 years after the Pentecost of Acts 2? The man is incredibly 
 consumed with idle words. 
 
 True Texts And Contexts
 
 Like Peter preached the story of Christ and the things that lead up to the lawless hands that took 
 Jesus to be crucified (Acts 2:22f), AND like Paul's' sermon and letters mention the context of a life 
 lived under the law of Moses(Acts 13:23f; Gal.4:4), AND like Peter's sermon was designed to 
 convince unbelievers to believe in Jesus as Lord and Christ, AND like Peter was a minister of the 
 New Testament when he preached, SO TOO did Matthew WRITE the story of Christ and the 
 things that lead up to the lawless hands that took Jesus to be crucified with mention of the context 
 of Jesus' life lived under the law of Moses, AND designed to convince unbelievers to believe in 
 Jesus as Lord and Christ, AND like Peter was a minister of the new covenant when he so preached 
 about Jesus' life, death, burial, and resurrection, Matthew too was writing a more detailed story of 
 the life of Christ, AND Matthew wrote as a minister of the new covenant, AND Matthew wrote it 
 in the context of meeting the needs of Jews who lived after the cross and who needed to know the 
 story that proved the validity of New Testament faith in Jesus Christ. The same is true of Mark, 
 Luke, and John. All wrote after the cross to confirm the things spoken by the Lord (Heb.2:3,4), 
 and to show the context of His death, burial, and resurrection. There were TEXTS 30-45 years 
 AFTER the cross (as Dan later admitted). There were no TEXTS "before the cross". There were 
 BOOKS 30-45 years AFTER the cross. There were no BOOKS of MMLJ "before the cross". 
 Dan's proposition falls.
 
 If Dan Could Prove His Proposition
 
 Remember his proposition is: 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.
 
 If he could successfully prove that proposition, then he would gladly deny the opposite 
 proposition. I tried to get him to deny the following proposition:
 
 The Scriptures teach that all scriptures written by inspired apostles and prophets after the cross 
 belong to the New Testament.
 
 Dan would not deny that proposition. But, if he would not deny THAT proposition, then he cannot 
 prove his affirmative proposition. To say he cannot deny this proposition means:
 
 a. That MMLJ were written by inspired apostles and prophets after the cross (which Dan finally 
 admitted at the end of his second affirmative).
 
 b. That all scripture written after the cross belongs to the New Testament.(The Old Testament 
 already nailed to the cross cannot post-nail again four more books written by Christians).
 
 c. There were no books of Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John "before the cross".
 
 c. And since there were no such books before the cross, Dan's present affirmative proposition is 
 proven to be false.
 
 Furthermore, I offered another proposition that Dan said he could not deny.
 It was:
 
 Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were ministers of the New Testament and as such did NOT write 
 any attachments to the Old Testament
 
 In view of Dan's affirmative proposition, he should have gladly agreed to deny this proposition. To 
 say he cannot deny this proposition means:
 
 a. MMLJ were ministers of the New Testament. 
 b. MMLJ did NOT write any attachments to the Old Testament. 
 c. Therefore, as ministers of the New Testament, they wrote New Testament books.
 
 d. Therefore Dan's present affirmative proposition is false.
 
 Dear reader, I hope you can see the fallacy of Dan's position and especially the proposition he has 
 affirmed. It falls on its face because the wording is obviously wrong in implying that there were 
 BOOKS of MMLJ "before the cross". You know it was not so. I know it was not so. And DAN 
 knows it was not so. Therefore, Dan did not and could not prove his proposition. We hope he will 
 repent of his deceptions, and we hope all readers will see through the word-tricks and realize that 
 the four gospels are indeed essential parts of the New Testament, and that by believing in the 
 Savior presented in these four gospels, you may have abundant life in Him.
 
 Terry W. Benton