Kent Brandenburg: "I'm not a fundamentalist"

Ken, I already gave one very specific and clear example of Scripture telling us what is “essential”—1 Cor. 15—in my post above.

Greg,

I don’t think that verse applies either. In fact, translations that refer to it as “first importance” in verse 3 are either dynamic equivalence or just a poor translation. (ESV) The greek word for “first” there is clearly one referring to sequence not one of principal or rank. First of all, as found in the KJV is the most appropriate and it is found in most translations that way before 1952. (although NKJV gets it right as well as KJV)

Thanks,

Ken

KLengel,

I guess I wasn’t clear.

Are these essential doctrines to you personally.

Baptism by immersion

Pre-Tribulationalism

​Pre-Millenialism

Dispensationalsm?

​Multiple Elders

Style of music

Ken,

Sorry, but I don’t have a clue as to how your answer addresses the questions I raised. Since I use the NKJV as my primary source, it must not be because we are depending upon competing interpretations based upon differing translations.

I still have no idea what you think this passage means, only that it doesn’t apply to the question of essentials. But what the passage actually says, and why it doesn’t apply to the topic of essential and non-essential doctrines, you have yet to address. I am left with the uncomfortable suspicion that you are dismissing a portion of Scripture that contradicts your present understanding because you are unwilling to consider Biblical evidence to the contrary.

I hope I am mistaken, and am happy to be corrected when you explain your interpretation of the relevant verses in Romans 14 so as to answer the questions I posed.

Sincerely,

Greg

G.N.,

My apologies, I should have designated which Greg I was responding to. :) I would like to see proof that it is talking about essentials vs. non-essentials from that passage? Where is your proof? Why make such loose accusations when you yourself have not provided any proof of your interpretation. I could state the same about yours, but I have not. This is very common on this board. Saying that it is a non-essential is not proof.

KML

Ken,

I have offered “proof” by briefly explaining several of the relevant verses and showing how they apply to the question of non-essentials. As far as I can tell, you have merely stated that this isn’t what the passage means. OK, then what does it mean?

Sincerely,

Greg Barkman

Greg,

This is the last time I am going to say this, but the passage talks nothing over whether or not diets is an essential or non-essential doctrine.

I am done with this line of discussion.

Ken

[KLengel]

Greg,

I don’t think that verse applies either. In fact, translations that refer to it as “first importance” in verse 3 are either dynamic equivalence or just a poor translation. (ESV) The greek word for “first” there is clearly one referring to sequence not one of principal or rank. First of all, as found in the KJV is the most appropriate and it is found in most translations that way before 1952. (although NKJV gets it right as well as KJV)

Thanks,

Ken

Adam Clarke, Clarke’s Commentary:

As the chief things, or matters of the greatest importance; fundamental truths.

Albert Barnes, Barnes’ Notes:

“First of all.” Among the first doctrines which I preached. As the leading and primary doctrines of Christianity.

David K. Lowery, The Bible Knowledge Commentary:

These verses, the heart of the gospel, were an early Christian confession which Paul described as of first importance.

Warren Wiersbe, The Bible Exposition Commentary:

First of all means “of first importance.” The Gospel is the most important message that the church ever proclaims.

John Calvin, Calvin’s Commentaries:

He now confirms what he had previously stated, by explaining that the resurrection had been preached by him, and that too as a fundamental doctrine of the gospel. First of all, says he, as it is wont to be with a foundation in the erecting of a house.

Jamieson, Fausset, & Brown:

First of all - literally, ‘among the foremost points’ (Heb 6:2). The atonement is, in Paul’s view, of primary importance.

Matthew Henry:

Observe what this gospel is, on which the apostle lays such stress. It was that doctrine which he had received, and delivered to them,
en protois —among the first, the principal. It was a doctrine of the first rank, a most necessary truth, That Christ died for our sins, and was buried, and rose again: or, in other words, that he was delivered for our offences and rose again for our justification (Rom 4:25), that he was offered in sacrifice for our sins, and rose again, to show that he had procured forgiveness for them, and was accepted of God in this offering. Note, Christ’s death and resurrection are the very sum and substance of evangelical truth. Hence we derive our spiritual life now, and here we must found our hopes of everlasting life hereafter.

UBS NT Handbook Series:

Of first importance is literally “in (the) first (plural),” an expression used only here in the New Testament. The phrase can mean “first in time” or “first in importance.” It seems likely that Paul intended both meanings here: “first and foremost” (REB); “of first importance” is another possibility.

R. C. H. Lenski:

The phrase en protois is practically an adverb, “firstly,” “in the first place,” since it was most important in all his preaching. (p. 630)

Gordon D. Fee, NICNT:

What is less certain is the meaning of the prepositional phrase translated “as of first importance.” As the marginal reading indicates, this could also mean priority in time. Although a case can be made for the latter (he would be stressing that this is what he preached and they belieed from the very beginning of their coming to Christ), both the form and language suggest that the former is Paul’s concern. Among all the things he proclaimed and taught while he was with them, these are the matters of “first importance.” (p. 722)

Ken,

Sorry to be argumentative, but essential or non-essential doctrine is precisely what Romans 14 is about. Paul cites several examples of beliefs about which Christians disagree, and instructs believers not to separate over these issues. In other words, he categorizes certain doctrines as non-essential either to salvation or to Christian fellowship. This is the way the chapter has been widely understood, and as far as I can tell, the only way it has been understood by Bible expositors. That’s why I asked you to explain your understanding. If you to not accept the standard interpretation, please be willing to state your interpretations, how it differs from the standard interpretation, and why.

You said that my simple assertion that Romans 14 is about non-essential doctrine does not prove this to be the case. I responded by a brief exegesis of the relevant texts and how they apply to the issue of non-essentials. You continued by saying I had failed to prove my assertion, but you offered no explanation of the text, and why it do not apply to the issue of non-essentials. I made my case, and I have waited for you to interact with the relevant Scripture to demonstrate why you believe my interpretation is incorrect. I’m still waiting.

To rephrase your own words, saying that Romans 14 is not about non-essentials doesn’t make it so. To rephrase again from an old Wendy’s commercial, “Where’s the beef?”

Sincerely,

Greg Barkman

Greg Long,

Well, the one thing missing from those commentaries is the context. Paul is obviously giving a series of events in verses 3-8.

The series of things looks like this:

• First of all, all that I received
• Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures
• buried and rose again according to the scriptures
• he was seen of Cephas
• then of the twelve
• after that, seen of the five hundred at once
• after that, then seen of James
• then of all the apostles
• and last of all, he was seen of me

Regardless of commentaries, Paul places NO emphasis on importance. He clearly uses this series to say, here is what I preached to you. If you believed this, “how say some among you that there is no resurrection from the dead.” (v.12) I am not saying it is not important, quite the contrary. It is. But to make it a proof text for essentials vs non-essentials cannot be proven by the text itself which outranks any commentator’s views. Paul clearly uses it in context to demonstrate the sequence of events of the information he has delivered unto them, as the backdrop to the question why do they question the resurrection from the dead. So where does first mean importance or essential? I know, the commentaries. What would be do without them. Commentaries can clearly present agendas and opinions. The biblical text does not.

KML

G.N.,

I do not take it as argumentative, so no worries. We just disagree. He does not talk about separation. He talks about strong despising weak and weak judging strong. Separation does not enter the picture. He does not categorize certain doctrines as non essential or essential. Commentators supporting your view is not the point. The text does not reference these beliefs of the weak or strong as essential or not. I will tell you this. I will write something up on Romans 14, and then we can discuss it. But for now, I don’t have the time to keep asking you to prove why, and I appreciate your desire to know what I think. However, I need some time to think about how to prove something that does not exist that it doesn’t exist.

Thanks,

Ken

[KLengel]

Greg Long,

Well, the one thing missing from those commentaries is the context. Paul is obviously giving a series of events in verses 3-8.

The series of things looks like this:

• First of all, all that I received
• Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures
• buried and rose again according to the scriptures
• he was seen of Cephas
• then of the twelve
• after that, seen of the five hundred at once
• after that, then seen of James
• then of all the apostles
• and last of all, he was seen of me

Regardless of commentaries, Paul places NO emphasis on importance. He clearly uses this series to say, here is what I preached to you. If you believed this, “how say some among you that there is no resurrection from the dead.” (v.12) I am not saying it is not important, quite the contrary. It is. But to make it a proof text for essentials vs non-essentials cannot be proven by the text itself which outranks any commentator’s views. Paul clearly uses it in context to demonstrate the sequence of events of the information he has delivered unto them, as the backdrop to the question why do they question the resurrection from the dead. So where does first mean importance or essential? I know, the commentaries. What would be do without them. Commentaries can clearly present agendas and opinions. The biblical text does not.

KML

Let me make sure I understand you—you’re saying that there is no evidence in all of Paul’s writings (leaving aside the rest of the Scriptures) that he prioritized or emphasized certain doctrines as more important than others?

Ken,

But he does. Paul doesn’t use the word “separation,” but that’s what he’s talking about. The Roman believers were NOT to separate from their weaker brothers over the issue of diet. On the contrary, they were to receive them into full, respectful, and unhindered fellowship in the local church at Rome.

The best way to address what you think is not in the passage (non-essentials), is to exegete the passage according to your understanding so that we can see why you do not believe it means what everyone I have ever studied on this text believes it means.

Sincerely,

Greg Barkman

Greg Long,

I know which word it is. The word protos can be used as first in place, we agree. In this passage, it is first in place to present a succession of things, and that is what Paul had done providing a succession of events on what he preached and why he did so. Nothing to do with “first importance.” That is simply a misunderstanding of the word and the context IMO.

Thanks,

Ken

OK, I understand your view on 1 Cor. 15. Would you care to answer my other question?