Kent Brandenburg: "I'm not a fundamentalist"

For what it’s worth, I have always taken 1 Cor 15:3 to refer to the “first thing” that Paul preached to them. I have never taken it as a sanction for essentials and non-essentials. I say that as someone who disagrees with Bro. Brandenburg and thinks there is a hierarchy of doctrines - not everything is a first-order issue.

Anyway, just wanted to throw it out there - Ken and Bro. Brandenburg aren’t the only folks who disagree with what seems to be the standard take on that phrase in 1 Cor 15:3.

Gentlemen, the two views are not mutually exclusive. I do not disagree that it means it was the first thing he preached to them, but it was the first thing he preached to them because it was of first importance.

The alternative view would seem to indicate that it just happened to be the first thing he decided to preach on, which had nothing to do whatsoever with its significance. (He could have very well preached first on baptism, or Christian liberty, or head coverings, or…) So in that case, he is saying, “Everything rises and falls on the Gospel and the doctrine of the resurrection, so hold fast to it…because remember, it was in my first sermon!”

Everything else in Paul’s writings would lead us to believe that the Gospel (Christ, the cross, Christ crucified and risen) is of utmost importance to Paul. Not baptism, not Christian liberty, not head coverings, etc. Not that those things are not important, but that they are not of first importance. Read 1 Corinthians 1:17-2:5 if you have any doubts about this.

I don’t doubt it. I believe there is a hierarchy of doctrine. I just don’t think that was Paul’s point in 1 Cor 15:3.

The danger of making every issue a separation issue virtually destroys any possibility of unity between churches. A church has the right to spell out in great detail what they believe and set conditions for membership. Kent and I agree on most things. We do not agree on the best Greek text or the best English translation. Would that disagreement force an ecclesiastical separation? In my judgment it should not. I have friends who are Majority Text and KJV, others who are MT and NKJV. I am Eclectic Text NA 27 and NASB/ESV. In and of itself this difference should not be a separation issue, but it is with many. Also, trying to download every issue into the definition of fundamentalism is unhistorical and practically impossible. As Bauder says, Fundamentalism essentially becomes “everythingism”. We have to use other carefully defined labels to explain who we are and what we believe. I use several such as Baptist, Dispensationalist, Conservative, Calvinistic, Separatist, and Christian to define who I am and what I believe.

I reread what KML wrote above and reposted it here.

Also, please don’t misunderstand my point about the Holy Spirit. My point is that all believers can understand the truth. It is important we don’t forget that. It easy to say that we believe in the doctrine of perspicuity, but much harder to live as though we do. Do not pastors and theologians come up with a lot of different interpretations as well, and use their theological bias, accepted narratives, and cunningly devised alternative “hermeneutics” to justify their views? Are not both methods bad? But I did not say what you thought I did. I am not saying a man can just say the Holy Spirit told me so, and that settles it. (well, he can, but it doesn’t make him right.)

Ken, thank you for that clarification. I apologize for misrepresenting your hermeneutic as IMO plus the spirit. I should have simply thanked Ryan for addressing the dangers of such a hermeneutic without suggesting that it was your position.

[TylerR]

I don’t doubt it. I believe there is a hierarchy of doctrine. I just don’t think that was Paul’s point in 1 Cor 15:3.

I was called to serve Him. But as it turns out, I wasn’t called to the pastorate. And I’ve never claimed on SI that I was. However, I do have a relatively Unconventional ministry (I leave Unusual to BJU). My interests lean to the areas of Baptist History and Polity.

[KLengel]

Thanks Rob, I learned under Dr. Weeks as well. I think this is a bit different, though.

Question for you? Did God call you to be a pastor? I know you will seek counsel from others, but does God call you or did tell He others He has called you? (or both)

Ken

Greg,

Thanks for your comments. I appreciate them.

I guess, just because a passage could mean something, doesn’t mean it did. I know you say both positions are possible. I just think adding that Paul thought of it as essential in this text, in my humble opinion, is eisegesis. Let’s say, for example, there are essentials that Paul supports in doctrine. It does not mean the use of this phrase supports that. When you wrote above. “I do not disagree that it means it was the first thing he preached to them, but it was the first thing he preached to them because it was of first importance.” I don’t see how normal grammar would denote two different uses of the phrase as you have explained it. In my opinion, the underlined portion is read into the text. Just because Paul might believe in essentials and He is discussing an essential, doesn’t mean he is declaring it as an essential in this passage. I think if we do, we read that into the meaning of the text.

On a slightly different note, I think it is more likely a defense of the resurrection and that he did not derive it on his own. (meaning Paul) If one looks at “received”, only in the context of salvation, I think it skews the meaning. I think he is telling the people at Corinth that he is preaching to them what he has received. What did he “receive”? He received the facts, the truth about the reality of Christ’s resurrection. He is emphasizing that this is not something that he made up. He received it. He stated in verse 3b it was according to Scripture. He states in verses 4-7, of the testimony of others to demonstrate it was not something he derived on his own. In verse 8, he closes the list with “last of all”, meaning he was a witness to Christ’s resurrection, thru his experience on the Damascus Road.

Here is an interesting question I have not seen answered, if verse 3 is meaning first importance, what does “last of all mean”? Are we to downgrade his own personal encounter with the risen Savior? It would seem if this was of least importance, it would go against the grain of his argument in verses 3b-7. What does that mean, if not that he was providing the last fact in a series of facts regarding the truth of the resurrection they all had received?

On a side note, I want to share with you a simple example, and for all to see, if not to shine a beacon on my own understanding, of how we must be careful with commentaries to accept what they say.

“among the first (things),—in the order of time [Chrys.]; or still better, in importance, in primis, before all, “as belonging to the weightiest articles of faith. BURGER: “as one of the first points.” NEANDER. [Rückert connects the words directly with “to you,” as though the Corinthians were “among the first” to have the doctrine preached to them; which is not true. The following passages from LXX. may throw some light on the expression: “and he placed the two maid servants and their children first, ἐν πρώτοις (Gen. 33:2); “and David said whosoever smiteth the Jebusites first,” ἐν πρώτοις (2 Sam. 5:8).] He here takes into account, not simply the order of time, but also the momentousness of the thing communicated.”

Lange, J. P., Schaff, P., Kling, C. F., & Poor, D. W. (2008). A commentary on the Holy Scriptures: 1 Corinthians (p. 309). Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software.

Here is what I mean by eisegesis, so you see where I am coming from. Obvious from this commentary they support the view you suggest. How does one derive or prove the second part of his statement regarding the use of en protois in 2 Sam 5:8? I don’t see how you can prove that from the text. What in the use of the word first in that passage, allows one to determine the meaning is one of “the momentousness of the thing communicated.” ?? In my humble opinion, this is conjecture not based on the text or its meaning. So, when I say I am weary of commentaries, I want you to understand fully what I mean.

Again, regardless if there is or is not essential doctrines is not my point at this juncture. I think using this text to support it, or to suggest it can mean both first in order or sequence and of first importance adds more to the meaning that can be proven to be there.

Thanks Greg,

Ken

Jeremy,

Thanks for your comments and your apology. I must admit that it “felt” like there was a piling on, rather than a careful consideration of what I actually believe. I was trying to stem the flow of the conversation from the wrong direction. It is difficult at times, in these threads, to carefully spell out what one believes. I will be more cautious next time in how I write what I am thinking. Thanks again for your note.

Ken

The alternative view would seem to indicate that it just happened to be the first thing he decided to preach on, which had nothing to do whatsoever with its significance. (He could have very well preached first on baptism, or Christian liberty, or head coverings, or…) So in that case, he is saying, “Everything rises and falls on the Gospel and the doctrine of the resurrection, so hold fast to it…because remember, it was in my first sermon!”

I don’t think this is really accurate. Paul preached the basic Gospel first because it is the entrance into discipleship, the essential foundation for everything that comes after. The “alternate view” recognizes this. The gospel is the basis of making disciples, or, as Jesus put it, “teaching them everything I have commanded you.” While I think a doctrinal triage (so to speak) can be inferred from the scriptures, does it really harm the basis of that inference to translate other than “of first priority” in I Cor. 15? I don’t think so.

Ken,

Of course words can carry more than one meaning, they do all the time. Let me give you an example using the same word under discussion. Picture if you will a newspaper front-page article with the picture of an Olympic runner crossing the finish line of the 100-meter dash obviously in first place. The headline says, “OLYMPIAN FIRST IN THE HEARTS OF HIS COUNTRYMEN” (with apologies to George Washington). Obviously from the context, the word “first” in this situation carries two meanings: the runner came in first in time/place in the race, and is also first in importance/priority in the thinking of the citizens of the country he represents. One word, two meanings. The double meaning is determined by the context, which I believe in 1 Cor. 15 clearly refers to both time and importance.

Secondly, I just think it is absolutely ridiculous (no personal offense, this is just my view of the particular interpretation you are espousing) to say that Paul bases his entire argument that the Gospel is the doctrine upon which your eternal destiny rises and falls—not to mention your hope of resurrection—simply because it happened to be in his first sermon to the Corinthians, with no reference to its inherent significance or importance. Why not emphasize the last thing he said to them? His last sermon to the Ephesian elders was certainly significant (Acts 20), as were his final instructions to Timothy in the epistle of 2 Timothy.

No, it very well may have been the first thing he preached to them, but if so, he emphasizes that because of the inherent importance and significance of the doctrine. In other words, “The Gospel is so fundamentally important that, you may recall, it was the very first thing I preached to you—so hold fast to it!” Again, read 1 Cor. 1:17-2:5, and try to tell me Paul didn’t prioritize the Gospel (aka the preaching of Christ and the cross) over other doctrines such as baptism, etc.

Once again, I am NOT suggesting that there is no sense of time and/or order in the context the word is used, but to ONLY find time/order with no sense of priority/significance, is just…well, ridiculous, which is why you find few if any commentators arguing this view, and all modern translations translating it “first importance” (BTW, I’m perfectly fine with the KJV/NKJV translation of “first of all”—there is no contradiction with my view, as “first of all” refers to both time/order AND priority/significance).

As to your point about “last of all” in v. 8, Paul here is emphasizing an ordered list: “Seen by Cephas, then by, then by, after that, after that, then by, last of all.” Clearly the order comes to the fore here, but I would say there is a sense of priority as well—he saw Christ last of all, as one born out of due time. Therefore, he is the “least of all the apostles,” and “not worthy to be called an apostle” because of both his untimely post-resurrection sighting of Christ and his persecution of the Church.

Greg,

Thanks for your comments, but I disagree. I think you have to read into the passage “first importance” rather than just accepting he is starting a sequence of his defense. I do not agree that it is his first speech, so I don’t have that issue. That is not my view, I believe Tyler supports that view. Ridiculous, come on now. Why not some other word in addition to importance, how does one verify the accuracy of your meaning, if not in the text itself? Sorry, seems like we read it into text because we do believe in its importance. I don’t need to do that in order to believe it. Thanks,

Ken

Ken, you keep acting as if I have given no evidence from the text for my view. I have supported my view based on 1) the meaning of the word protos in the text, 2) the context in 1 Cor. 15, and 3) the context of the rest of Paul’s writings, where he clearly gives priority to the Gospel over certain other doctrines.

Yes, we indeed disagree, and that is fine, but please don’t act as if you are the only supporting your view from the text.

Greg,

I think you have to read that idea into the use of the words. I am sorry. That’s what I think. I think the text and the context supports a defense of the resurrection, and he does so by providing a case of facts as to why it is not derived by him. Making it of “first importance”, is in my opinion, conjecture. How do you know Paul was making it of first importance? By saying that’s what it means? That’s not proof. Whether Paul supports the idea of essentials or not in other passages, does not require this passage to be doing so. I don’t see proof in this passage to justify the use of those words, and the support of that belief.

KML