The Second Denham – Neubauer Debate
The first debate between these two men occurred in Southaven, Michigan, in September of last year (2016), and we reviewed that in Spiritual Perspectives shortly thereafter (October 9th and 16th). This current debate took place April 20-23, 2017, where the Bellview congregation meets in Pensacola, Florida. (Their annual lectureship will be June 9-13 just a few weeks from now.) In one sense, this debate was more of the same, but it also proved to take some interesting twists and turns. The heart of the controversy, although it has many elements, is whether or not Jesus returned in AD 70 and the judgment day occurred then or if there is coming a general resurrection in the future at which time all shall stand before the judgment seat of Christ.
Brother Denham began the debate (as he did previously) by examining Acts 1:9-11. The reason he chose to do so is that Neubauer still cannot answer the argument. He conjectures but cannot answer the plain fact that the disciples were told that Jesus would return the same way He departed—personally, visibly, literally, and bodily. That promise was made to the apostles. How would it be fulfilled? How would the apostles see it fulfilled unless they were raised from the dead?
Neubauer kept insisting that they did not see Jesus ascend because a cloud covered Him up; the text does not say that. He ascended while they watched until eventually a cloud received Him out of their sight. He will return the same way. Neubauer made fun of Jesus' return, saying that, "like Pecos Bill, He's gonna get on a cloud and kinda ride like a cowboy.…" One can mock an opponent's position if it contradicts Scriptures, but one is on thin ground with the Almighty to ridicule what the Scriptures actually teach. The argument from Acts 1:9-11 remains intact and unassailed.
Observations
Generally speaking, Neubauer's presentations were far less chaotic than in Southaven. He covered fewer passages instead of roaming wildly here and there. Thus, he was usually more understandable, but that may not have worked to his advantage because of some of the things he said and did. He came up with a catchy phrase the first night, charging Denham and his brethren with being more concerned about "skin" rather than "sin" (referring to the resurrection of the body). Denham pointed out on the third night that sin is not redeemed. Instead the body goes from being mortified to glorified. Neubauer ignored that phraseology.
At times both sides offered explanations of passages of Scriptures that deserved more attention than what they can oftentimes receive during a debate. Generally speaking, Neubauer made no effort to follow the material Denham presented. He would present his own information while in the negative and challenge Denham to reply but apparently felt no obligation to answer what his opponent offered. He sometimes would throw in a sentence or two in passing that referred to a position taken, but no real attempt to deal with it was made. Denham, on the other hand, usually answered whatever Neubauer presented, although he probably did not cover 100% of it.
Neubauer often went off on rants about how successful the AD 70 adherents were becoming. He averred that William Bell had convinced ten Pentecostal congregations to give up their practice of spiritual gifts. On the last night of the debate he mentioned that 20-25 preachers are calling him from all over the brotherhood. Once again he affirmed vehemently, "You're getting whupped." He also said, "Every time we debate, we win." We shall see.
Fellowship
Present for and assisting at this event was William Bell, who was not at the Southaven debate. Knowing that Bell works closely with Don Preston, who holds the realized eschatology view but is almost a Universalist, Denham asked if Neubauer was now fellowshiping Bell. In the next speech it was as if a dam had burst, and down into the plains came the wrath of Neubauer, which did not diminish over the course of the four nights. He acknowledged that he and Bell disagreed on some matters but that he was a wonderful teacher of their eschatology. He said he had converted 12 Pentecostal preachers into giving up their use of spiritual gifts. Then he challenged vociferously, "What do you do in evangelism?" Later that first night, Denham told him that he was not going to play the one-upsmanship game with him on who had done the most evangelism. Besides, do we keep up with Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons? He asked him if there being more Baal worshipers than those of Jehovah proved anything in the Old Testament? But the key consideration was that Denham had not asked if Neubauer disagreed with Bell on some issues; he had asked him if he was in fellowship with him. Neubauer answered, "Yes!" in his last speech of the first night.
But he was clearly perturbed by what that answer implied. He took strong objection to the issue of fellowship being brought up. He accused Denham of not fellowshiping Florida School of Preaching and David Hester. His information was not accurate. Denham explained that Brian Kenyon asked him to speak at the Florida School of Preaching lectures in January of this year on the subject of Realized Eschatology. Denham did turn him down, but the reason was that it would have required a manuscript that he did not have time to prepare because of the upcoming debate. He also recommended David Hester to go in his stead since they had exchanged notes on the topic, which he did. These were obvious attempts to shift the focus of attention away from Neubauer and Bell.
The last evening of the debate, Neubauer alleged that David Hester had fellowship with someone from Rochester College, which then implied all of us were in fellowship with Rubel Shelly. Neubauer ought to do some checking; Shelly has not been president there since 2013. After the debate, Brother Denham asked Hester about the charge, and he had no idea what Neubauer was talking about. It just shows how desperate the realized eschatology group is to get everyone else in the predicament they face.
What Neubauer presented is basically the Rubel Shelly position of Big F, little f fellowship, which means he could fellowship Bell on eschatology since they shared the same view even though they might be miles apart on other crucial matters. This is also the view that F. LaGard Smith took in his error-filled book, Who Is My Brother? Again, Neubauer was doing nothing more than trying to obscure the point. Brethren may legitimately disagree on the interpretation of a difficult passage of Scripture or an interpretation such as the manner of the Spirit's indwelling—so long as that view does not deny a major crucial teaching, such as the virgin birth, the Deity of Jesus, God's plan of salvation, or what constitutes acceptable worship. Neither can we fellowship anyone who endorses pre-millennialism, claims that the Holy Spirit influences people directly today, or that there will not be a future resurrection of all mankind. One cannot try to make equal all matters of disagreement. Some are matters of fellowship.
The Law
In his third speech on the first evening, Neubauer insisted that the Law of Moses was still in effect after Pentecost because Paul participated in taking a vow, described in Acts 21. When Paul arrived in Jerusalem, he was told that many of the Jewish Christians (Jews "who have believed"), were "zealous for the law" (Acts 21:20). Then the problem and a solution is set forth:
"but when they have been informed about you that you teach all the Jews who are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, saying they ought not to circumcise their children nor walk according to their customs. What then? The assembly must certainly meet, for they will hear you have come. Therefore do what we tell you: We have four men who have taken a vow. Take them and be purified with them, and pay their expenses so that they may shave their heads, and that they all may know that those things of which they were informed concerning you are nothing, but that you also walk orderly and keep the law" (Acts 21:21-24).
Paul agreed. "Then Paul took the men, and the next day, having been purified with them, entered the temple to announce the expiration of the days of purification, at which time an offering should be made for each one of them" (v. 26). Neubauer argued that this process involved offering an animal sacrifice; thus the Law of Moses was still in effect. Brother Denham pointed out that the Law was not in effect despite Paul's actions.
First of all, he cited 1 Cor. 9:19-22, where Paul was discussing the way in which he presented the gospel to all: "and to the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might win the Jews; to those who are under the law, as under the law, that I might win those who are under the law" (v. 20). Is it not clear that if one acts as if he is a Jew or under the law—that he is not so bound? He appeared to Gentiles as being without the law (Paul omits the article, having already used it previously, which Brother Denham pointed out is a common writing strategy) although he was not without law to God. Notice that he specifies he is under law toward Christ—not under the Law of Moses.
Second, Denham appealed to Galatians 2:14, which consists of Paul's rebuke of Peter for withdrawing from the Gentiles in the presence of Jews who had come from James. Paul said, "If you, being a Jew, live in the manner of the Gentiles and not as the Jews, why do you compel Gentiles to live as Jews?" The value of this verse is that it showed that Peter lived as a Gentile—that is, one not bound by Jewish laws.
Third, the reason that both Peter and Paul did not need to obey the Law of Moses is that, as Paul explained in Colossians 2:14, the Law was "nailed to the cross." Denham asked, "When Jesus was nailed to the cross, what happened to Him?" Answer: He died. "So when the Law of Moses was nailed to the cross, what happened to it?" Answer: It died. Of course Neubauer tried to find some other explanation; he offered three or four—none of which made his position possess any clarity or credibility. But if he or any of his helpers think they can explain it any better in writing, we will be glad to examine the position more fully.
But what about the passage in Acts 21? Denham agreed that Paul could, as a Jew, keep certain things in the Law, but that was not sufficient for Neubauer. He alleged that animal sacrifices were still being offered and that Paul, as a Jew, could therefore participate in them. Since the above three points negate that possibility, only two remain: Either 1) Paul participated in a purification rite that was optional (meaning Jews could still do so, although no longer under the law); or 2) Paul sinned by participation in something no longer in effect. Commentaries argue it both ways.
One important fact should be noted. Although Paul was willing to join in this event and pay the money for the sacrifices, the text never said they were actually offered. Acts 21:27 explains what happened: "And when the seven days were almost ended, the Jews from Asia, seeing him in the temple, stirred up the whole crowd and laid hands on him." Thus, whatever was planned never happened.
Neubauer dismissed the idea that Paul would have sinned by this action and said words to this effect: "You know how I know that Paul didn't sin? Because of what he said in Acts 23:1." There Paul affirmed he had lived in all good conscience before God until that very day. Neubauer concluded that this statement proved Paul had done no wrong. How much later in time did Paul make this statement? One day! The text so says. When the uproar occurred, Paul had to be rescued by soldiers (21:28-36). Paul talked to the Commander, and he let him speak (21:37-22:21), at which time a second uproar occurred. It was the next day Paul made that statement (22:30-23:1). If Paul had sinned, he had not had time as yet to reflect on it.
Therefore, Neubauer failed to prove his case. He would have to show it was a blood sacrifice, which many object to. He would have to prove it was actually offered, which it was not. And he would have to prove that Paul did not sin, which he cannot. But the lack of evidence did not stop Neubauer. He doubled down, insisting that all Jews had to keep the Law of Moses until AD 70!! (See next week's article.)