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
 
 Benton:
 
 Dan declares that I offered no scriptural proof of my proposition. I challenge the reader to take a 
 look again, and see if Dan dealt with my arguments, or whether it appears that he conveniently 
 misunderstood what I was saying. Remember what I predicted in my second affirmative?
 
 First, consider the passage of Rom.8:3-4. Does it appear to you that the law "of sin and death" was 
 "weak through the flesh"? (Dan so argued). Is it not the case that Paul argued that sin was strong in 
 the flesh and it was a law that brought him into captivity (7:23)? The law of sin was not "weak" 
 through the flesh. The law of sin was the captor, the winner, the strong captor of his flesh. The law 
 that was "weak through the flesh" was the law that he desired to practice but couldn't find the 
 power to perform. It was the law that commanded such things as "You shall not covet"(7:7). It was 
 the law that was good and "just"(7:12). "Just" is a form of the word "righteous". Thus, "the law" 
 that was "righteous" was the law that commanded "You shall not covet". That law was "weak 
 through the flesh".
 
 Secondly, consider that the law under consideration had a "righteous requirement". The law of sin 
 enslaved Paul. It kept Paul from doing what he knew he should do. There was no "righteous 
 requirement" demanded by the law of sin and death. The law of sin kept him FROM righteous 
 requirements. But, God took away the power of sin in the flesh, by sending Jesus to condemn the 
 captor.
 
 Thirdly, Jesus has made us free "FROM the law of sin and death"(8:2). But, "the law" in verse 3,4 
 is a law with a righteous requirement that should be fulfilled. It is a law with a righteous 
 requirement that will be fulfilled in people who walk after the Spirit. These people will not try to 
 fulfill the law of sin and death. Jesus was not sent so that the law of sin and death might be 
 fulfilled in us. The law of sin and death condemns. To fulfill the law of sin and death in us would 
 mean that we would be condemned, and it would mean that people who walk after the Spirit fulfill 
 the righteous requirement of the law of sin and death. Who can believe that?
 
 Therefore, it is easy to see that Dan has so jumbled up the passage, that he hopes it will get you 
 confused enough to forget which law has a righteous requirement and needs to be fulfilled, and 
 which law we need to be free FROM. Rom.8:3 and 4 are definitely NOT talking about "the law of 
 sin and death", but the law that has a righteous requirement and needs to be fulfilled in us. Don't 
 let Dan confuse you.
 
 Then Dan says that innocent youth "are weak through the flesh". But the verse does not say that 
 "youth are weak through the flesh" but that "THE LAW" was weak through the flesh. Remember 
 that the "law of sin"(7:23) was in power. It was not "weak through the flesh". It was strong 
 through the flesh. The law that Paul WANTED to perform, the one that said "You shall not 
 covet"(7:7,14,22), was the law that was weak through the flesh.
 
 Dan spins a lot of yarn that is hard to decipher, and really addresses nothing that the verses 
 actually say. "The law" that said "you shall not covet" is the law that had a "righteous 
 requirement" and that law is fulfilled in those who walk after the Spirit. Just figure out what law is 
 righteous and says, "You shall not covet" and you'll be correct.
 
 Dan then argued that "the law" in Rom.8:3-4 could not refer to the law of Moses because the law 
 of Moses ended at the cross. It is true that the law of Moses ended at the cross, but "the righteous 
 requirement" of the law of Moses can still be "fulfilled" in us. This is Paul's point. Amazingly, after 
 all of Dan's clutter and noise about this passage NOT talking about the law of Moses, he 
 finally admits that it does. He says,
 
 Quote:
 In this passage, Paul is teaching that by keeping the commandments of the new covenant, because 
 it is a "better covenant established on better promises" in Christ ( Heb. 8:6), the Christian would
 more than fulfill all of the requirements and "righteousness" found earlier in the Old Testament 
 law of Moses. Unquote.
 
 So, Dan shoots all of his arguments in the foot. He does see the earlier righteous requirements of 
 the law of Moses being "more than fulfilled", and he says that Paul is teaching that IN THIS 
 PASSAGE. So, why did he spend all of that time and effort to DENY that Paul could be talking 
 about THAT law? It is simple to me. He hopes the reader will get so confused by all these 
 "different laws" that he will believe Dan when he says "Terry is wrong, wrong, wrong".
 
 Then, concerning Rom.13:8-10 he confessed that "New Testament Christians...fulfill all that the 
 Old Testament law of Moses ever required." But, then he turned right around and said,
 
 "It is absurd for Terry to claim that Romans 8 and 13 teach that Christ has bound all of the more 
 than 600 commandments designed to produce righteousness among Old Testament Jews under the 
 law of Moses -- on the New Testament church".
 
 First, Terry never said anything about 600 commands. In fact, I showed that the righteous 
 requirements of the law DOES NOT include circumcision and Sabbaths, etc. I showed that the 
 Gentile "fulfilled" the righteous requirement of the law without being circumcised (Rom.2:26f). 
 Therefore he did so without keeping all 600 commands.
 
 Secondly, Dan confessed above that Christians "more than fulfill" the righteous requirements of 
 the law of Moses. It must, then, be OK to do so. Is that all 600 and more? If the Christian does this 
 without circumcision and without Sabbath-keeping, then Dan has found a way to keep the 
 righteous requirement without being circumcised, keep Sabbaths, etc., and therefore, he shoots his 
 own arguments in the foot, and ALL of his effort to belittle what I have said is proven to be just a 
 bunch of smoke, because he has come full circle to agree with the point I was making. It IS lawful 
 for Christians to fulfill the law of Moses in this way. 
 
 Then Dan swings back around and asks if I teach the church here to offer animal sacrifices, keep 
 the Passover, etc. Of course, I demonstrated that one can fulfill the law (even as he admits now ) 
 without the shadows of the law. I demonstrated that a Gentile could "fulfill the righteous 
 requirements of the law"(Rom.2:26f) without being circumcised. So, if Dan can see how we can 
 "more than fulfill" the law without circumcision, Passover, and Sabbaths, etc., he should easily see 
 how we can fulfill the righteous things Jesus taught concerning the Kingdom.
 
 Then regarding Paul's application of "the first commandment with promise"(Eph.6:1-3)to 
 Christians, Dan said that I need to learn something about why they quoted Old Testament 
 scripture. He said,
 
 Quote: 
 They did it often to show 1st century Jewish Christians that in keeping the commandments and 
 law of Christ in the New Testament, they were more than fulfilling the requirements of the Old 
 Testament law of Moses. Unquote.
 
 How could this be? All 600? And, was it all right to "more than fulfill" the law of Moses? Yes? 
 And, would they be "blessed" or cursed if they fulfilled the law in this way? Now, if they would 
 be blessed, then my proposition is proven to be true. So, even though Dan hollers a lot and kicks 
 up a lot of dust, and tries to make it APPEAR that he has answered my arguments, he always 
 comes back and has to admit the point I was making. Very reluctantly, of course. The fact 
 remains, that my points have been undeniable. If he can tell you how a Christian can "more than 
 fulfill" the law of Moses without circumcision, and without Sabbaths, we will surely listen. But, 
 still, he will not be able to prove that it is unlawful to fulfill the righteous requirements of the law 
 while contending that it is lawful for us to "more than fulfill" the law.
 
 Then Dan had to try to handle Gal.5:13-14. He admitted that it quoted Lev.19:18. Then he asked if 
 I did something ELSE in that chapter of Leviticus, such as offer the "peace offerings". The peace 
 offering was a "shadow" that finds fulfillment in the "substance"(Col.2:14f). But the "righteous 
 requirements of the law" are not shadows. Paul is making the point that "all the law" is fulfilled in 
 the command to "love your neighbor as yourself". So, he is obviously saying that Christians can fulfill 
 the law by fulfilling this one. IS it all right to fulfill that one? Is Paul saying, "don't fulfill 
 this one"? Now, if he is saying that it is all right for Christians to fulfill all the law by complying 
 with this one, then one will be "blessed" if they do so. Dan has been leaping over all these verses. 
 He still has not answered the points we have made. If it is all right to "fulfill the law" in this way, 
 then it is the case that we will be "blessed" and not cursed if we follow the righteous principles of 
 Jesus.
 
 Then Dan stammered and stuttered around 2 Tim.3:16-17. He couldn't deal with the fact that Paul 
 told Timothy that the Holy Scriptures he had learned from childhood (the only ones he had was 
 the Old Testament scriptures), were able to make him wise for salvation through faith which is in 
 Christ Jesus, and that ALL scripture (old and new) is profitable...for doctrine, and for "instruction 
 in righteousness". Dan doesn't like it because Paul said "ALL", so he throws up a lot of dust and 
 acts like there is a conflict with 2 Tim.2:15. Paul simply never learned all the special language that 
 Dan has invented. But, it is without successful argument that Paul said that Christians can learn 
 "doctrine" and "instruction in righteousness" from ALL scripture. "Rightly dividing" will help us 
 separate the "shadows" of the law from the "righteous requirements" that SHOULD be "fulfilled in 
 us".
 
 Then Dan argued about Rom.2:14-15,26-27 and said that Gentiles never were under the law of 
 Moses. I know that and I said that. But, while they were not under the law of Moses they DID 
 "fulfill the righteous requirements" of that law. That is Paul's point. And it is evident that it was all 
 right that they fulfilled the righteous requirements of the law. Paul is saying that Gentiles often did 
 better toward the law than the Jews did. Inasmuch as they kept "the righteous requirements of the 
 law" without keeping circumcision, and whereas the Jews kept circumcision without keeping the 
 righteous requirements of the law, the Gentiles were doing better toward the law in this case than 
 the Jews were. The point is clear that "the righteous requirements of the law" do not HAVE TO 
 include circumcision. Therefore, Christians can fulfill the righteous requirements of the law 
 without keeping the shadows of the law. This is inescapable. Dan cannot get around it. Thus, I 
 have proven my proposition.  
 
 Then Dan closed by saying:
 
 Quote:
 How can we take Terry seriously when he offers the following erroneous argument.
 
 "As ministers of the New Covenant (2 Cor. 3:6), it is alright to believe that
 
 "All Scripture" (including the scripture of the Old Testament) is profitable
  for doctrine (2 Tim. 2:16-17)."
 
 Terry is simply wrong, wrong, wrong. "Unquote.
 
 So, there you have it. Dan says it is "wrong, wrong, wrong" to believe that ALL scripture is 
 profitable for doctrine (Look at 2 Tim.3:15-17 and see what you think.). It seems to me that Dan 
 has made my job very easy (again). We ask, "should we believe Paul that ALL scripture is 
 profitable for doctrine?", OR, should we believe Dan that only SOME scripture is profitable for 
 doctrine? Do you get the distinct impression that Paul didn't know about Dan's special language 
 and all the special doctrines that Dan has invented?
 
 Cursed? or Blessed? 
 
 Dan can fill some more paper (as he did in his first and second rebuttals) with words, but he will 
 be unable to prove that we will be cursed if we do one thing Jesus said before the cross. You see, 
 kind reader, all I have to do is show you TWO things you can do today that Jesus commanded 
 before he went to the cross (because my proposition contains the plural "principles"). If I prove 
 that you will be "blessed" in doing these two things, then I have proven my proposition. Dan will 
 have to prove that you will be "cursed" and fall from grace if you do those two things. Here are 
 two things you will be "blessed" to do: 
 
 1. "Do THIS in remembrance of me" (Matt.26:26f) is a command Jesus gave before the cross. The 
 writers of the gospels also tell us in the context what "THIS" is. It carries the principle of honor 
 and respect for Jesus. It is commanded after the cross(1 Cor.11:23f) on the basis that Jesus 
 commanded THIS ("do THIS") before the cross. You will be "blessed" if you do "this" that Jesus 
 commanded.
 
 2 ."Love one another as I have loved you"(Jno.13:34) is a command Jesus gave with full intention 
 that it be carried out by His disciples after the cross. Yet, the command is given before the cross. 
 The disciples would be "blessed" if they do what Jesus commanded before the cross. 
 
 In order for Dan to successfully deny the validity of my proposition, he will have to affirm: 
 
 1. You will be cursed and have to keep all of the law of Moses (shadows AND righteous 
 requirements) if you do as Jesus said in Matt.26:26 and "do THIS" in His memory.
 
 2. You will be cursed and have to keep all of the law of Moses if you do as Jesus said in Jno.13:34 
 and "love one another as Jesus loved us". 
 
 Reader, regardless of what else Dan says, you must remember to check and see if Dan addresses 
 the issues I have raised. His job is to show that my proof was lacking and that my proof did not 
 prove my proposition. Be sure and watch for Dan's comments on these matters. 
 
 My Proof Has Stood 
 
 I will remind you all again that all the parts of my proposition have been undeniable and 
 unanswerable. 
 
 1. The Spirit was going to remind the apostles of all that Jesus SPOKE to them while with them 
 before the cross. Jno.14:25,26.
 
 2. The Spirit did this reminding by confirming to us in the "ministers of the new covenant" 
 (MMLJ) the story of what Jesus had said.(2 Cor.3:6 with Jno.14:25-26).
 
 3. This story of what Jesus did and said was confirmed to us by four New Testament Christians: 
 Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.(2 Cor.3:6 with Heb.2:3,4).
 
 4. They tell us many things Jesus SPOKE to them, and they have "confirmed it unto 
 us"(Heb.2:3,4).
 
 5. Because the truth and power of Jesus' words before the cross were so important to the disciples 
 of Jesus, Jesus wanted the Spirit to remind the apostles of those things first SPOKEN by the Lord. 
 (Jno.14:25-26; Heb.2:3-4).
 
 6. Because "the righteous requirements of the law" was something Jesus wanted fulfilled in His 
 Kingdom, it was right for Him to talk about such things as are "righteous" in the law and expect 
 that these very things be "fulfilled" in Christians (Matt.5-7; Rom.8:3,4; 13:8-10).
 
 7. Because the shadows of the law, such as circumcision, Sabbaths, and feasts, are realized in the 
 kingdom of Christ and therefore replaced by "substance" (Col.2:14f), Jesus demanded their 
 temporary presence be played out while the law system was still in effect, but did not speak of 
 these things as righteous principles He wanted in the kingdom.
 
 8. Righteousness is something different than circumcision and Sabbaths. A Gentile could keep 
 "the righteous requirements of the law" even though he did not keep circumcision and 
 Sabbaths.(Rom.2:26-27). Therefore, the righteousness of the law is something that does not 
 include circumcision and Sabbath-keeping.
 
 9. Some things that were binding in the law of Moses are expected also to be in the kingdom 
 (Rom.13:8-10) because they are "righteous principles" of God. We can expect that Jesus would 
 bring out some of these righteous principles, and we will not be cursed for observing the righteous 
 principles of the law. 
 
 Major premise: 
 
 Righteous requirements of the law are to be fulfilled in Christians (Rom.8:3,4; 13:8-10; Eph.6:1-
 3). In fact we can now "more than fulfill" (Dan 's words) these righteous requirements. 
 
 Minor premise: 
 
 Jesus taught the righteous requirements of the law before the cross (Matt.5-7). 
 
 Conclusion: 
 
 Therefore, what Jesus taught as righteous requirements before the cross should be fulfilled in 
 Christians. 
 
 In order for Dan to successfully disprove the above conclusion, he will have to disprove the major 
 premise or the minor premise. If he cannot answer the above logical syllogism, then the logic and 
 proof of the logic is sound. And if the above logic is sound, then my proposition stands proven to 
 be correct. You will be "blessed" if you do the righteous things Jesus commanded for His kingdom 
 before the cross. 
 
 Friends, Dan will not attack the minor premise because that is exactly what Dan has been saying 
 all along. Therefore, he must focus on the major premise. But, the major premise is clearly 
 affirmed by Paul in the scriptures given (Rom.8:3,4; 13:8-10; Eph.6:1-3), and Dan admitted that 
 we can "more than fulfill" these. So, if Dan disagrees with the major premise now, he disagrees 
 with the inspired apostle AND himself. And if he cannot disagree with either the major or minor 
 premise, he cannot disagree with the conclusion. And if he cannot disprove the above scriptural 
 logic, he cannot disprove my proposition. The reader is encouraged to come back and read again 
 this last affirmative after you have read Dan's reply. After his reply come back and see if he 
 logically and scripturally answered the major premise, the minor premise, or conclusion. If he did 
 not, you will know that he wasted his time and failed to disprove my proposition. Be sure and 
 catch his confession that it is all right that Christians "more than fulfill the law" when he tries to 
 explain these verses. 
 
 Expect More Absurdities 
 
 In Dan's first rebuttal, we were treated to his logical skills when he said the following:
 
 Quote: 
 "THE SCRIPTURES TEACH THAT THE HOLY SPIRIT DID NOT QUOTE OR REPEAT ONE WORD THAT CHRIST TAUGHT 
 FROM THE OLD TESTAMENT AGE AND DOCTRINE OF MMLJBC -- IN ACTS 2 THROUGH REVELATION 22 . THEREFORE, 
 THE HOLY SPIRIT DID NOT BRING ONE WORD OR DOCTRINE FROM MMLJBC TO THEIR REMEMBRANCE IN THE NEW 
 TESTAMENT AGE!
 
 Not one word!!! Check it out." Unquote. (Dan's words and his 
 emphasis. TWB). 
 
 Now, read the above carefully and see if you understand his logic or the lack of logic. A few 
 things just glare out at me. Dan says:
 
 1) The Holy Spirit did not quote ..one word that Christ taught ...from MMLJBC.
 
 (The implication is that Jesus was teaching FROM "MMLJ" and that Jesus was teaching from 
 these Old Testament books. This is just as flawed as his earlier proposition.)
 
 2) The Holy Spirit did not quote...one word that Christ taught...from MMLJBC IN Acts 2 through 
 Rev.22.
 
 (The implication is that Jesus was teaching from MMLJBC and these quotes ought to be seen 
 somewhere in Acts 2 through Rev.22. But, the Holy Spirit GAVE us the writings of MMLJ at the 
 same time he was revealing ACTS through Revelation. SO, Dan's logic is pathetically flawed. )
 
 3) The Holy Spirit did not bring one word of MMLJBC to their remembrance.
 
 (How foolish! The books ARE the remembrances of Jesus and His words before the cross. That is 
 how we got the books. The Holy Spirit revealed these books in the New Testament age.)
 
 Take another look at Dan's logic above. Analyze it carefully. When you break it down, it is trying 
 to imply that the Holy Spirit did not bring the words of Jesus to Matthew's remembrance as John 
 records that He promised to do (Jno.14:25-26). Therefore, the Spirit did not bring the words of 
 Jesus to Matthew's remembrance, Mark's remembrance, Luke's remembrance, or John's 
 remembrance in the New Testament age. Because if He did, then Dan has not answered ANY of 
 the arguments I raised in my first affirmative. If the Holy Spirit DID bring "one word" of Jesus to 
 their remembrance after Acts 2, and if the Holy Spirit DID this in the records of MMLJ, then 
 Dan's reasoning above is not only silly, but is wholly designed to get people confused and off the 
 trail of truth. But, friends, this is the same incredible logic that Dan weaves into all of his writings. 
 That is why we must not let him get away with starting with inherently flawed wordings of 
 propositions. If you let him get by at the start, he will keep weaving his yarn until it starts to sound 
 like it has an element of truth in it that all other Christians have overlooked from the very 
 beginning. If you let him get by with talking about "books...before the cross", you have let him 
 start spinning his yarn which gets even more incredible than the above quotation.  
 
 Dan's Starting Logical Error 
 
 Dan's Major Premise: 
 
 Nothing in the law of Moses is to be practiced by Christians. 
 
 Dan's Minor Premise: 
 
 Jesus taught only the law of Moses before He died on the cross. 
 
 Conclusion: 
 
 Therefore, Christians are to practice nothing Jesus taught before He died on the cross. 
 
 Analyzing The Logic 
 
 While the major premise may sound correct, it is not. The righteous requirements of the law ARE 
 to be fulfilled in Christians (Rom.8:3,4; 13:8-10; Eph.6:1-3). Therefore, Dan starts with a faulty 
 major premise. But, that is not all. Dan is also wrong on his minor premise. It is not the case that 
 Jesus taught ONLY the law of Moses before the cross. Jesus talked MOSTLY about the kingdom 
 that was not already in existence at the time. Jesus talked mostly about the kingdom about to 
 come. Therefore, the major and minor premises of Dan's CORE reasoning is wrong. That being 
 the case, his conclusions are wrong. 
 
 Now Dan will tell us that he did not formulate the above logical statements. That is true, and we 
 said so. We said we were boiling down all of his arguments to the starting elements of his 
 doctrine. Does he basically teach that "nothing in the law of Moses is to be practiced by 
 Christians"? Yes! Does he basically teach that Jesus taught ONLY the law of Moses before he 
 died on the cross? Yes! We can supply many quotes from Dan that say this very thing. Therefore, 
 we have not misrepresented his logic (or should we say non-logic?). Dan's doctrine starts with the 
 errors of the above basic premises and comes to the faulty conclusion above. 
 
 Faulty Logic Grows
 
 Regarding my comments on Mark 1:1; 14:9; 16:20, Dan says that Mark is presenting "the Old 
 Testament Mosaical Gospel" (in Mark 1:1ff) when he starts writing his book in the new covenant 
 age. So, while Paul was preaching the one true gospel (Gal.1:6-8), Mark was preaching or writing 
 "another gospel" when he should have been writing the New Testament gospel. Can you believe 
 it?
 
 Dan says Jesus wanted "old Testament Israel" to preach the "Old Testament gospel" of "the Old 
 Testament Kingdom" in all the world (of Old Testament Israel), and as they preached only to each 
 other (Old Testament Jews only), they were to tell each other the good news of the Old Testament 
 Kingdom (I guess the good news that they were about to be destroyed) and tell each other about 
 the Old Testament woman who washed Old Testament Jesus' feet (Mk.14:9). Meanwhile, while 
 Mark does the wrong thing and writes (30-45 years AFTER Acts 2) about Old Testament Jesus 
 and the Old Testament Kingdom and the Old Testament woman who washed Old Testament Jesus' 
 feet, Paul and others are teaching about New Testament Jesus and the New Testament Kingdom. 
 Mark SHOULD have written about New Testament Jesus, but Mark was writing a different gospel 
 when he should have been writing the New Testament gospel of Christ. Therefore, since Mark was 
 writing "another gospel" in the new covenant age, we are to "let him be accursed"(Gal.1:6-8). In 
 fact, Paul instructs Christians to let MMLJ be accursed for presenting a "different gospel" in the 
 new covenant age (if we accept Dan's special language and his special doctrines). Can any 
 thinking person believe Dan's doctrines? 
 
 A Note To The Reader  
 
 To those who read this debate, I pray that you will weigh these matters carefully. If I am wrong, 
 please write me, and try to convince me. If you are still not sure, because I did not answer 
 something that disturbs you, then please write me, or join my Yahoo Group: 
 understandingMMLJCorrectly-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
 
 I will address subject matters that concern the true interpretation of the four gospels, and I will 
 touch on matters that were not part of proving my proposition in this debate, and matters that were 
 not part of disproving Dan 's proposition in the first part of the debate. Anything that concerns you 
 about my viewpoint can be intelligently and charitably discussed. I want you, myself, Dan, and all 
 to go to heaven by means of the truth that can set us all free. To His Glory and Honor, forever and 
 ever. AMEN!
 
 Terry W. Benton 
 terrybenton@msn.com