Billingsly/Benton Debate on The Gospels

 
 
 Proposition: 
 The scriptures teach that one will be blessed today who obeys Jesus' righteous principles for His 
 kingdom described to some extent in Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John in the parts of their 
 documents that describe what Jesus said before He died on the cross. 
 
 Affirm:  Terry Benton
 Deny: Dan Billingsly
 
 Dear reader, it is a pleasure to prove to you that you will not be cursed and go to hell if you 
 believe and act upon the basis of something stated in the early parts of the four New Testament 
 gospels. It is a shame that I have to prove this to you because a "gospel preacher" is saying 
 otherwise. However, this is the case, and so we will deal with it in hope and in love for his soul 
 and the souls of others.
 
 Righteousness Of The Law 
 
 Dan believes that Jesus could not express anything He wanted of the New Testament kingdom 
 until He first: 1) nailed the old law to the cross, and 2) sealed the New Testament by His blood. 
 However, we will demonstrate that his premise is wrong. We will show that expressions of a new 
 command can be given: 1) before an old system is totally abandoned, 2) before the newer 
 covenant is ratified by blood. 
 
 We will also demonstrate that Jesus intended that "the righteousness of the law" be fulfilled in 
 Christians. If we can prove this point, then it will not matter if this aspect of law was already 
 expressed in the law of Moses and expressed by Jesus to be His will for the kingdom. If this is the 
 case, then there is no conflict in expressing it: 1) while the law of Moses was in effect, 2) for 
 people then living before the cross AND for the kingdom to come, and 3) during the time of the 
 kingdom. 
 
 First, I will prove that an old system need not first be abandoned before expressions of a new 
 command can be offered in full expectation of a people who will soon come under a new covenant 
 law. 
 
 The Passover
 
 1. Israel had been under a different law system from Patriarchal times and in Egypt. Without 
 some "law" there "is no sin". They did not yet have the Sinai law. Yet, they had to be under some 
 other law. We cannot say that these people did not sin. Therefore, there was some "law", written 
 or  unwritten, that they held some responsibility to before God. This is inescapable.
 
 2. The Passover law was EXCLUSIVELY demanded of them (Ex.12-13).
 
 3. This law was expressed BEFORE the Sinai covenant was ratified by blood (Ex.20-24; 24:7-8).
 
 4. But, the Passover law could not be abandoned on the ground that it was SPOKEN before the 
 covenant was ratified by blood, and while an older system of law was "still in effect."
 
 5. Therefore, it IS the case, that while one system is still in effect and before the second system 
 comes into effect, that laws can be expressed for the newer age to come. The Passover laws of 
 Ex.12-13 are just such examples.
 
 6. It could not be argued that Israel did NOT have to keep the Passover laws that were imposed 
 BEFORE the Sinai law was ratified by blood.
 
 7. It cannot be argued that Israel would be keeping two covenant laws at the same time if they kept 
 a law expressed DURING the earlier law period.
 
 8. It cannot be argued that Israel would SIN if they kept the law expressed BEFORE Sinai in 
 Ex.12-13 AND the laws expressed at Sinai and ratified with blood on Sinai.
 
 9. Therefore, laws expressed while another law is still in effect, and before the next law is ratified 
 by blood can still be expected after the new-law ratification though given and expressed BEFORE 
 the new law ratification by blood. 
 
 The Passover commands of Ex.12-13 were expressed while one system of law was still in effect, 
 before the Sinai law was ratified by blood, yet still binding AFTER the Sinai covenant was ratified 
 by blood. 
 
 Therefore, if Moses can do it, then the Son of God can do it as well. 
 
 Secondly, I will demonstrate that the law of righteousness is BOTH part of the law of Moses AND 
 expected of the church. 
 
 1. Rom.8:3,4  
 3 For what the law could not do in that it was weak through the flesh, God did by sending His own 
 Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, on account of sin: He condemned sin in the flesh, 
 4 that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us who do not walk according to 
 the flesh but according to the Spirit. NKJV 
 
 Some observations about this passage:
 
 a.  The law that could not do some things was the law of Moses. God sent His Son to do what the 
 law could not do.
 
 b.  Jesus condemned sin in the flesh that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in 
 US (Christians) who do not (presently in the New Testament age-TWB) walk according to the 
 flesh but according to the Spirit.
 
 c. It is lawful that the righteous requirement of the law "be fulfilled in us".
 
 d. Therefore, the righteous requirements that Jesus taught before the cross can be fulfilled in us, 
 while the shadows of the law passed into the substance in Christ (Col.2:14f). 
 
 2. Rom.13:8-10 
 8 Owe no one anything except to love one another, for he who loves another has fulfilled the law. 
 9 For the commandments, "You shall not commit adultery," "You shall not murder," "You shall 
 not steal," "You shall not bear false witness," "You shall not covet," and if there is any other 
 commandment, are all summed up in this saying, namely, "You shall love your neighbor as 
 yourself." 
 10 Love does no harm to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfillment of the law. NKJV 
 
 Some observations about this passage:
 
 a. It is all right to "fulfill the law" by loving one another. In fact, we are commanded to fulfill the 
 law in this way.
 
 b. Christians are told to "fulfill the law" (those laws that had been expressed in the law of Moses).
 
 c. Jesus made this same point in Matt.7:12. Since Paul, a New Testament Christian, instructs 
 Christians to "fulfill the law" in this way, then it is certainly all right to do what Jesus said was 
 righteous, even if it was expressed in the law of Moses.
 
 d. Since it is all right to do some things now that "fulfills the law", then it cannot be the case that 
 we will not be blessed if we do things Jesus taught before the cross, even if they were part of the 
 law of Moses.
 
 e. Therefore, my proposition is proven to be true. 
 
 3. Eph.6:1-3  
 1 Children, obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right.
  2 "Honor your father and mother," which is the first commandment with promise: 
 3 "that it may be well with you and you may live long on the earth." NKJV 
 
 Some observations from this passage: 
 
 a. There are some things that are just "right", and we should do them because they are right, even 
 IF they are found in the law of Moses in writing.
 
 b. Paul quotes the Old Testament to assure Christians that it is RIGHT to honor your parents by 
 obeying them.
 
 c. It was not wrong for Paul to apply this passage to Christians in the New Testament age, because 
 Christians are to have the righteous requirements of the law "fulfilled" in themselves.
 
 d. If it was not wrong for Paul to apply this righteous principle from the Old Testament, then it 
 CANNOT be wrong to apply the righteous principles Jesus taught before the cross.
 
 e. If Christians would be "blessed" if they followed "the first commandment with promise", then it 
 will also be the case that Christians will be "blessed" if they follow the things Jesus SPOKE 
 (Jno.14:25-26; Heb.2:3,4) before the cross.
 
 f. Therefore, I have proven my proposition. We will be blessed by following the first 
 commandment with promise, and we will be blessed by following Jesus' teaching regarding the 
 kingdom. 
 
 4. Gal.5:13-14 
 13 For you, brethren, have been called to liberty; only do not use liberty as an opportunity for the 
 flesh, but through love serve one another. 
 14 For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this: "You shall love your neighbor as yourself." 
 NKJV 
 
 Some observations from this passage: 
 
 a. It is the case that Paul does not object if Christians "fulfill the law" in this manner.
 
 b. This is the same basic principle that Jesus taught before the cross. Matt.7:12.
 
 c. If it is not wrong, and it is required that Christians "fulfill the law" in this manner, then we will 
 be "blessed" if we fulfill the law in this manner.
 
 d. But, if we can still be blessed by fulfilling the law in this manner, then it would also be the case 
 that we can be "blessed" today if we fulfill the righteous principles of Jesus even if He SPOKE 
 them before the cross. 
 
 e. All righteous principles in the law or in Jesus' words before the cross (which Dan says IS the 
 law) can be fulfilled in us, and we will NOT be cursed for doing so.
 
 f. Therefore, my proposition is proven to be true. 
 
 5. 2 Tim.3:16-17 
 
 Please notice that Paul had talked about the "scriptures" that Timothy had learned from childhood 
 (v.15), and that these scriptures could make one wise to salvation, and that ALL scripture (which 
 INCLUDES those same scriptures) are profitable for "doctrine" AND "instruction in 
 righteousness". Contrary to Dan's "doctrine", the early Christians, including Paul, believed that the 
 Old Testament scriptures were still profitable for "instruction in righteousness". We have seen that 
 Paul did not include "circumcision" and the other shadows of the law as "instruction in 
 righteousness" (Rom.2:26-27; Col.2:14f). Shadows are shadows and "impositions"(Heb.9:10) with 
 limited time. But, righteousness is eternal. The scriptures of the Old Testament are still profitable 
 for "instruction in righteousness". Paul emphasized that very point to Timothy in the New 
 Testament. Paul did not tell Timothy to "avoid the Old Testament scriptures and make sure you 
 get all your doctrine and instruction in righteousness from Acts 2 through Rev.22". Thus, if we can 
 get instruction in righteousness from scriptures before the cross, we can certainly get instruction in 
 righteousness from Jesus before the cross. This is inescapable. If we can be "blessed" and not 
 cursed by fulfilling the law, then we can certainly be blessed by those things Jesus taught as 
 matters of righteousness. Therefore, my proposition has been proven to be true. 
 
 6. Rom.2:14-15,26-27 
 
 Gentiles can show "the work of the law" written in their hearts. Doing things "in the law" does not 
 violate the law one is under and bring them under TWO LAWS at once. Therefore, Jesus could 
 teach the righteousness of the law, and express His intentions that this be kept in His coming 
 kingdom. Further, the Gentile could "keep the righteous requirements of the law" even though he 
 does not conform to the written code of circumcision. Circumcision was not an issue of 
 righteousness but of national identity and foreshadowing the cuttings of God in the heart and 
 conscience.
 
 Therefore, the "righteousness" of the law, expressed by the law, and by Jesus, can be spoken 
 before and/or after the cross and will remain constant, while the shadows of the law will pass into 
 the substance (Col.2:14f). 
 
 It has been argued that Christians do not need to concern themselves with doing anything 
 associated with the old law of Moses. However, while it is true that the law of Moses has been 
 nailed to the cross, there is something in that law that needs to be fulfilled in us as Christians. The 
 above verse shows that the righteous requirement of the law can and should be fulfilled in us as 
 Christians. That being the case, we can look at the teaching of Jesus that He gave while the law of 
 Moses was still in effect, and see how that He, like Paul, emphasized the "righteous requirements 
 of the law". Since the righteous requirements of the law were in effect before the cross, and since 
 those very principles would also be "fulfilled" by Christians in the kingdom Jesus preached so 
 much about, then it follows that there was no conflict in Jesus talking about those very principles 
 that He expected to also be fulfilled in His kingdom. Since the righteousness that Jesus talked 
 about exceeded the "righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees"(Matt.5:17f), we can expect that 
 Jesus talked about principles in the coming kingdom that should have also been emphasized by 
 those living under the law. Did Jesus "change the law" while He was involved in His ministry? 
 No! But, He did in fact emphasize the righteous requirements of the law that He expected to be 
 fulfilled by those who would enter and live in His kingdom. 
 
 Love was one of those "righteous requirements" of the law that Christians were to also practice in 
 the kingdom. Gal 5:14 -"For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this: "You shall love your 
 neighbor as yourself."(NKJ). Did Paul think it was right to concern oneself with "fulfilling the 
 law"? Apparently this was a major concern, or it would not have even been mentioned. This is the 
 same point that Jesus made in Matt.7:12. "Therefore, whatever you want men to do to you, do also 
 to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets." Jesus and Paul are making the same point and 
 bringing out the main righteous requirement of the law. "Do unto others as you would have them 
 to do unto you" is the same thing as loving them as you would want them to love you, and as you 
 love yourself. This righteous requirement satisfies the other commands and thus fulfills them.
 
 Rom 2:26-27 says, "Therefore, if an uncircumcised man keeps the righteous requirements of the 
 law, will not his uncircumcision be counted as circumcision?
 
 27 And will not the physically uncircumcised, if he fulfills the law, judge you who, even with your 
 written code and circumcision, are a transgressor of the law? (NKJ)
 
 Notice that a Gentile, uncircumcised man, who was not even under the law of Moses, might keep 
 "the righteous requirements of the law". He might not be circumcised according to the law, yet he 
 might still keep the righteous requirements of the law. His standard of living "fulfills the law". 
 Now some might argue that he could not fulfill the law without being circumcised, but Paul argues 
 that he could. Thus, there were some basic "righteous requirements of the law", and circumcision 
 was not one of them. Without doing every detail of the old law, one could still "fulfill the law". 
 There is a way in which Christians "establish the law and not make it void"(Rom.3:31). How? 
 They too, fulfill the righteous requirements of the law (Rom.8:4; 13:8-10; Gal.5:14). 
 
 In Order For Dan To Deny This: 
 
 1. He must affirm that the "righteousness of the law" MUST NOT be fulfilled in us. Dan will you 
 affirm this? Rom.8:3,4
 
 2. He must affirm that Paul should NOT have appealed to "the first commandment with promise" 
 as applicable to the church at Ephesus.(Eph.6:1-3).
 
 3. He must prove that "instruction in righteousness" CANNOT be learned from Old Testament 
 scriptures. 2 Tim.3:15-17.
 
 4. He must prove that Jesus nailed "instruction in righteousness" to the cross.
  
 If Dan FAILS:
 
 1. Then Jesus could speak what instructs in righteousness without violating the two-law-in-effect 
 principle.
 
 2. Then Jesus could speak such things before the cross that He fully expects of His kingdom.
 
 3. Then we will be blessed and not cursed if we obey such instructions in righteousness.
 
 4. Then MY PROPOSITION IS PROVEN. 
 
 My Predictions 
 
 Having more than sufficiently proven my proposition in these first and second affirmatives, I will 
 now predict how Dan will try to respond. Here are my predictions: 
 
 1. Dan will ignore the fact that I said we are not under the law of Moses, and he will act as though 
 that saying that "the righteousness of the law should be fulfilled in us" is the SAME as saying that 
 we are under the law of Moses. However, when Dan does this, remember that his argument is with 
 PAUL, not with me. 
 
 2. Dan will shift to matters unrelated to my proposition and my proof and start talking about 
 matters that he thinks proves his own ideas, even though he is doing nothing to disprove the 
 scriptures I have set forth. 
 
 3. Dan will pit scripture against scripture without explaining the scripture he is arguing against, 
 and without showing that he has correctly used either scripture. 
 
 4. Dan will talk about me, and try to cast me in the light of someone preaching something new and 
 different than he has ever heard in "churches of Christ", even though I got them right from PAUL, 
 who WAS a member of the church of Christ. 
 
 I predict that you can look for any or all of these matters to be Dan's approach to answering the 
 proof that I have set forward. Do not look for Dan to answer my arguments, the proofs I have set 
 forward. Do not look for Dan to admit he was wrong about anything. I have discussed these 
 matters with Dan for a long time and I have NEVER known him to apologize or to admit that he 
 was wrong. Therefore, I can predict the only routes open to Dan if he stays true to his pattern. 
 
 Dan's Pattern Seen In His First Rebuttal 
 
 My predictions are based on Dan's pattern that I have observed in the past. In keeping with my 
 expectations, Dan maneuvered around the point by changing the point I was making into an 
 appearance that I made a point HE wanted me to make. Then, after he has changed my words to fit 
 something he can answer from his perspective, he pounces on it. It is very similar to the straw-man 
 approach in debating in which you switch the argument of the opponent, wrap some straw in 
 something that looks LIKE the man or the man's argument, and then proceed to show how easy it 
 is to defeat the man and his argument (which is now really NOT the man or his argument). This is 
 what Dan has done in the first debate, and this is what he did in his first rebuttal to my proposition. 
 
 1. Dan asked what I mean by "righteous principle". I mean a "rule of conduct". Dan then acts like 
 Jesus didn't teach any righteous principles. That is amazing, but not surprising, seeing that it is 
 Dan we are trying to reason with. Now, if Jesus didn't teach any principles, then Moses didn't 
 either. See, Dan says that Jesus talked about the law of Moses all the time without teaching any 
 "principles". Thus, we can conclude that "love your neighbor" is NOT a "principle", because Dan 
 has informed us that there were no "principles" taught in MMLJ, and that neither Jesus nor Moses 
 ever taught any principles. Why? Because the WORD "principle" is not found anywhere. In fact, if 
 Dan's argument means anything, there were no principles ever taught in the Old Testament, and 
 that is why Jesus never taught any principles. Now, if Dan backs out of this hole, he will confess 
 that he was wrong about principles being taught in MMLJ. Then, he will have to confess that I 
 was right and my proposition holds up just fine. 
 
 2. Dan uses his repetitious "MMLJBC" over 57 times as if he ever proved that there WAS a 
 Matthew, Mark, Luke and John "before the cross". He hopes that if we will swallow his 
 repetitions, we will not notice when he changes from talking about what these New Testament 
 books "describe" to what he has made of the books themselves. 
 
 3. Dan dismissed my arguments about the "ministers of the new covenant" writing these books, 
 and then completely switches around my point and sends it at the reader completely the opposite 
 from what I said. He said I "labored long and hard....to prove that MMLJBC did not describe the 
 teaching of Jesus before the cross". If I labored AT ALL to do that, he could not quote one thing 
 from me that even looks like I said that. I said there was no MMLJ "before the cross" because his 
 proposition says there were "BOOKS of MMLJ before the cross". The Holy Spirit led MMLJ , as 
 "ministers of the new covenant" to describe the teaching of Jesus before and after the cross. 
 
 4.  Dan equates the BOOKS of MMLJ with the law of Moses and says that we will fall from grace 
 if we do one thing that is described as coming from the lips of Jesus before He died on the cross. 
 Therefore, we must conclude that if you "eat His flesh and drink His blood"(Jno.6), then you will 
 fall from grace. If you "do this in remembrance of Jesus"(Matt.26:26), then you will fall from 
 grace. How unlike what Jesus said! 
 
 5.  Dan argues that he did NOT affirm that the four books of MMLJ existed before the cross. He 
 said he "made no such argument". He didn't have to make the argument, because it is positioned in 
 the wording of his proposition. It was his proposition that was stated so wrongly. My point was 
 that he could not defend a proposition that is inherently flawed. And since his proposition 
 mentioned "books...before the cross", he would be unable to prove it. And since he would be 
 unable to prove it, he should quit using flawed terminology. Yet, lo and behold, here he is 
 admitting that there were no "books before the cross". Thus, he proves again that he cannot prove 
 such a flawed proposition. My advice is for him to quit using such flawed terminology. 
 
 6. He argued some ludicrous things about Acts 2 through Rev.22 not QUOTING MMLJ. How 
 silly! Could it be because Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John are writing about the same time as 
 Peter, Luke, and Paul as ministers of the new covenant? If MMLJ is OLD Testament, you would 
 think that the Peter, Luke, and Paul would quote the Old Testament. What a silly argument for a 
 grown man to make! 
 
 7. He says that Jno.14:25-26 is about Jesus' Old Testament words. This is ludicrous! But, even it 
 was so, we must see that Jesus said that the Spirit would bring to their remembrance the "Old 
 Testament words" in the New Testament age in which the Spirit came. Further, we must see that 
 Jesus talked about "the righteousness of the law" that He wanted fulfilled in us. So, even if Dan is 
 right in his claim that ALL Jesus could talk about before the cross was the Old Testament (and he 
 is wrong about that too), Dan is wrong about what was brought to remembrance again of what 
 Jesus taught before the cross. 
 
 8. He said that Jesus did not speak of the great salvation (Heb.2:3,4) before He died on the cross. 
 He assumes that Jesus could not even talk about it before the cross. Where did Dan get such an 
 idea? Where did Dan get the idea that all Jesus could talk about was some "Old Testament 
 salvation" and that He could not even talk about the great salvation for all mankind? Well, he drew 
 it out of the air with the rest of his terminology and repetition. Jesus talked about the kingdom of 
 heaven in which people would experience mercy, fulfillment, sonship with God, seeing God, 
 comfort and wealth. Therefore, Jesus talked about people being saved from wrath, emptiness, and 
 enmity with God. Thus, to talk about the kingdom was synonymous with talking about salvation. 
 
 So, there were things SPOKEN before the cross that Jesus wanted the apostles to be reminded of 
 and make use of in the Kingdom of the New Testament age. The Holy Spirit would bring these 
 things to their remembrance. There was no rule that says that Jesus could not convey the righteous 
 principles of His kingdom. Therefore, all of my arguments have been sound and unscathed by the 
 arguments Dan put forward in his first rebuttal. In fact, I'm still scratching my head on some of his 
 word gymnastics. Aren't you? 
 
 Terry W. Benton