Kent Brandenburg: "I'm not a fundamentalist"

Greg Long,

I will answer your last question later as I have some other things to do today more pressing. What I am opposed to is how essentials vs non-essentials has come to be defined in today’s discussion within fundamentalism. More later…

KML

[KLengel]

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

On the one hand a fairly unified agreement between Bible Commentators (a short but representative list was presented by Greg) — commentators from different traditions, continents, and centuries all defending the interpretation that “first” means of first importance, which is also reflected in recent Bible Translations such as ESV, NASB, NIV.

On the other hand we have Ken’s opinion.

Ryan,

Thanks for your comment. I have never minded “me against the world” in any situation, where Bible truth is concerned. As a believer, I have the indwelling Holy Spirit guiding me into all truth, no different than those who have written before us. I have both a basic understanding of the Greek and access to the tools that these same theologians have used to come to their conclusions. (some of the tools are even better than they had.) However, I do not believe a majority of commentators makes one position right, nor does it make one person’s position wrong. Your opinion appears to be from something besides the text. Do you have a comment about the text, or are you reduced to such petty comparisons?

Ken

[KLengel]

Ryan,

Thanks for your comment. I have never minded “me against the world” in any situation, where Bible truth is concerned. As a believer, I have the indwelling Holy Spirit guiding me into all truth, no different than those who have written before us. I have both a basic understanding of the Greek and access to the tools that these same theologians have used to come to their conclusions. (some of the tools are even better than they had.) However, I do not believe a majority of commentators makes one position right, nor does it make one person’s position wrong. Your opinion appears to be from something besides the text. Do you have a comment about the text, or are you reduced to such petty comparisons?

Ken

Kevin,

I look to commentaries as a guide. Yes, one would have to consider their understanding if it is different from others. However, it is true that people often misunderstand the writings of other theologians of time past. Look at this thread. Greg Long presented John Calvin and Matthew Henry to name a few. Kent Brandenburg also lists them and presents a different argument against an understanding of first importance. Who is right? Both use the same past theologians. Both are pastors. Both are students of the Word. Both even have graduate degrees! Does a majority rule for accepted meaning? If so, let’s all be Charismatic, for over 500 million of them exist today!

To answer your question, I do agree that it is ok to look at commentaries, and I too would look how to see how it is viewed by others. I do not disagree with you. However, Ryan’s comment saying that all these others (who had opinions) and because they all agree (on the same opinion) were better than mine, because, why??? well because they all agreed! This is not proof. This is sniping. If he wants to show from the text why it is “first importance”, let him do so. His comment lacked any real value to the conversation.

Do I consider what others have written? Of course. However, I think men often twist theologians words to support their views or their narrative.

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.) I believe we all can understand the Scriptures. I guess I am more careful when I read other commentators. They are men just like me. They had failures and sin just like me. Calvin had people murdered. It is easy to say that this was a different time, place and culture, but how many of us would hold in high esteem a pastor who did that today? I am not saying that Calvin is not worthy of our reading, but I am a cautious reader. You do realize though that commentaries are the epitome of multiple opinions on everything from word meanings to the meaning of the author, the theological truths, and the practical applications of the text.

On a final note and more to my point, after this thread began Kent Brandenburg also posted an article on I Corinthians 15:3, (and he referenced others he wrote as well) I agree with Kent that others use the translation of “first importance” to support a particular narrative today (essentials vs non-essentials) more than communicating both the actual author’s intended meaning and the theological truth from this passage.

I hope I cleared this up for you Kevin that I did not suggest what you thought I did.

For His glory,

Ken

[KLengel]

I hope I cleared this up for you Kevin that I did not suggest what you thought I did.

However, I would like to ask you something regarding the idea of “essentials and non-essentials.” There is a certain passage which seems to me to contain a “classic” non-essential, even though the term non-essential is not actually mentioned. Genesis 6 talks about the Sons of God. Some people understand the Sons of God to refer to the line of Seth and other people understand it to refer to angels who had fallen. I’ve studied it, and I’m pretty convinced which position is correct, but I’m not adamant that my position is correct, since I can understand the Biblical points that the other side makes. I really enjoy discussing it with people to see which position their study of the Bible has led them to take. I would never consider separating from someone who does not hold my position. A person does not have to actually KNOW which position is the real truth in order to be saved or to live a life that is pleasing to God. It sure would be nice to know which is the correct interpretation, but i don’t consider it essential to actually know which one is correct. Wouldn’t you agree that this issue, at least, is one in which the term “non-essential” can legitimately be used?

Ken, I am still interested to read your answer to the question I posted to you earlier.

Kevin,

While I generally agree with your position in this discussion, I am not sure the sons of God discussion works to support your point because it is not an ethical issue. There is no moral value to holding one position over another. In all of the “essential vs. non-essential” discussions I have ever heard, the bone of contention seems to always be about something which one or both sides contended involved sin for those on the wrong side (i.e. pedobaptism).

[Chip Van Emmerik]

Kevin,

While I generally agree with your position in this discussion, I am not sure the sons of God discussion works to support your point because it is not an ethical issue. There is no moral value to holding one position over another. In all of the “essential vs. non-essential” discussions I have ever heard, the bone of contention seems to always be about something which one or both sides contended involved sin for those on the wrong side (i.e. pedobaptism).

The reason I brought up the Sons of God issue is precisely because it IS a relatively minor issue compared with other passages that people disagree over. I wanted to see if Ken considered the truth of that minor issue to be something that was an essential to either fellowship, salvation, or living a life that is pleasing to God.

Ken, I intended to provoke a response with my post. I agree that commentators are not infallible. Its just that when people debate issues about texts I think we ought to have the humility to listen to biblical scholars and weigh their input. Greg had presented a list of commentators to which I added a short list of newer bible translations. That doesn’t make our point right, it is just typically considered strong support. You on the other hand had listed no other support than your opinion (you used the “IMO” abbreviation). I was challenging that point. I was hoping and figuring you had some additional support to your conclusions.

And you did… to your opinion you have now added: the Holy Spirit, your basic understanding of Greek, and some “tools”

You claimed you had the Holy Spirit, do not we also have the Holy Spirit? Don’t these commentators also have the Holy Spirit? Certainly the Holy Spirit guides our interpretation. But he also guides other Christians too, and He also uses means. And you and I need to be humble enough to recognize that our positions might be wrong. Having the indwelling Holy Spirit does not make me infallible. What you or I take for the Holy Spirit’s leading might just be our own agenda or bias. And we need to be humble enough to see that God’s Spirit leads others too. So that I am very worried about a “me + the Holy Spirit vs. everyone else” mentality. It is often thinly veiled pride. Especially when the “everybody else” includes godly men who also have the Holy Spirit to guide them, and who are skillful in their mastery of the word and have been proven through the years to be trustworthy guides.

You said you have a basic understanding of Greek, most of these men have more than a basic understanding of it, they have mastered it, they have studied the Greek N.T. thoroughly, especially that of the books they are commenting on, they have weighed the evidence given by other commentators, etc. And while some of your “tools” might be better than what Matthew Henry or Calvin had, I think the more recent commentators and translators have pretty good ones, and probably need them less because of their skill in Greek and Hebrew.

You are trying to make a case for something. I get that. You are trying to convince us you are right. Fine. We all do that. But when I at least am considering differing interpretations of a passage, here the significance of the word first, I consider the context, scriptural principles, theology, commentaries, translations, etc. When I come upon a position that is strongly supported by commentaries from different times and traditions and when newer translations support that position as well I tend to be persuaded of it, or at least less dogmatic in discounting it if I disagree.

Perhaps it seems as though I am nitpicking. It is just about one word right? Don’t I have other passages and lines of reasoning that support my understanding? Sure I do. But I guess I am picking at nits here because of the method of reasoning and the way you are supporting your position. As it stands now, I don’t think that I can mount any scriptural argument from any other passage or from any Biblical or theological principles that will be able to stand against your basic understanding of Greek and seeming direct line to the Holy Spirit. Perhaps that is not very gracious, for which I am sorry, I just don’t know how else to say it.

Ryan, excellent post. Thank you for taking the time to write. I believe it is an important contribution because Ken’s hermeneutic as not as uncommon as I wish it were. We need to be prepared with a response like you gave when we come across those who would divide our churches with winds of doctrine that are simply based on IMO and the “Spirit”.

When I was in Bible college my pastor gave me some great advice. He said that if I came to a conclusion that the commentators did not agree with, that did not mean that I was wrong, but it did mean that I better have some pretty solid support for why I took that postilion and that I better step back and reexamine it before going forward.

Ephesians 4:11-14 NKJV 11 And He Himself gave some to be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, and some pastors and teachers, 12 for the equipping of the saints for the work of ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ, 13 till we all come to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a perfect man, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ; 14 that we should no longer be children, tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, in the cunning craftiness of deceitful plotting,

In his upper class Church Administration courses he said

Men, if you believe God is leading you to move your church into to a new direction or ministry, talk it over with you deacons (elders). If there is no support from them, put the idea on hold. The Holy Spirit doesn’t speak to only one man.

JD,

Where is your defense of your position? Funny, I didn’t see one. All I saw was a bully twisting my words, and a minion agreeing with him.

I guess moderation is really at a minimum today.

First, I will answer a few of the points, at a risk of having my words twisted again.

- I do not have my own “Hermeneutic”; I hold firmly to a consistent, normal, grammatical-historical hermeneutic.

- You comment of IMO. Doesn’t everyone give their opinions, even commentators? What you are suggesting, and incorrectly, is that you think it is “in my opinion alone”. IMOA. (if you would) I did not say that ever. We are debating tangent ideas. However, more to the point, some translators did choose the words “first of all” for particular reasons, some lexicons do believe the word for “first” in conjunction with the preposition could mean “first in rank or sequence” (Thayer’s) and I could reference commentators that do the same. All this nonsense about my position is simply a distraction from those who are unable to prove their faulty theological conclusion. The debate began regarding the creation of essentials vs non-essentials. (that was not the actual beginning point, but this was the first rabbit trail)

- What happened to soul liberty? So, I cannot have an opinion, apart from commentators, and if I do, I represent those trying to trick men? So, as long as I believe in your narrative about essentials and that of other bible scholars with their own opinions, I am ok; but if I don’t, I’m out? So, is it an essential to believe in your narrative of essentials vs. non-essentials. And you tell me I have pride. Who are you? I find your comments repugnant.

I think you have made this personal, (Ken’s hermeneutic) and have taken my words and twisted them.

We have become a sad state of believers if someone desires the Holy Spirit to guide one into understanding the truth is made into a fanatic. I never stated it was my final and only arbiter of truth. You owe me an apology.

Ken

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

Ryan,

This strain could have been taken down a notch if you had not used the words you did. If you wanted my proof, that is one thing. Now, you have made it about my personal integrity, and to that, I am offended how you have acted.

I have said these things a number of times, and I will state one last time and I am done.

• I do read commentaries for what the opinions of other bible scholars believe
• I do ask the Holy Spirit to guide me to all truth
• I mentioned other bible translations that mention first of all, and their reasoning for doing so was one of “first in rank or sequence”.
• I mentioned that Thayer’s definition of the phrase en protois. is first in rank or sequence. (in previous post)
• I do not believe in a “me plus Holy Spirit vs. everyone else” mentality. Of course that is wrong. I should not have been accused of such.
• I do not believe that a majority of scholars always equals truth. (Many theologians believe in theistic evolution, paedobaptism, and continuationism but it does not make them right) Furthermore, why should I be considered proud if I think paedobaptism is error? I know, cause it’s not an essential. What a circular way to look at doctrine.
• I was not trying to make the case for anything, initially. I wanted to hear why essentials vs. non-essentials was supported by I Corinthians 15:3. Again, it wasn’t proven IMO, and all this is an effort to avoid making a case for it.
• I do rely on others who know and mastered Greek and Hebrew, at the moment. But I understand what words were defined as in the past, and I know how they have changed over time as well. (thru newer translations) I also know, that people create translations to support their theological views. What about scholars that want to change the meaning of “day” in Genesis 1 and 2? Are they right? I know, not an essential? or maybe it is.
• I never said I could not be wrong, but I have yet, once, in this long thread, heard any of you, state that the whole argument of essentials vs non-essentials could be wrong. Can that too be considered a prideful position? Oh, I know, forgive my sarcasm, a great deal of bible scholars agree.

I could easily have said that you are the proud ones, the tricky ones, etc. I did not.

I accept your apology for not being gracious.

KML