JB01: Biermann: Scripture AND Tradition = “Rule of Faith”, Part 1 of 4

     I have blogged at some length previously on the erring theology of Prof. Joel Biermann. In this post, I want to publish an enhanced and annotated transcript of a significant portion of this provocative lecture presented to his 2016 "Systematics III 05" class. The segment is a little over 13 minutes in length. This lecture was so offensive to my faith when I first listened to it a year ago that I did not want to address it at that time. Now with a firmer faith, I want to now openly defend against Prof. Biermann. Many hours were spent producing not only the polished transcript, but also to adequately provide a defense against this learned teacher of the LC–MS. So now I present the text, with annotations, for the benefit of readers who want to not only learn exactly what is taught at the LC–MS seminaries, but why much is not Lutheran, not Scriptural, even if claimed to be. — All red text within the square brackets [] is my annotations and clarifications of the voice transcript. Student dialog is italicized to distinguish it from Biermann's narrative. Now I present the first installment of four of the transcript from the recorded lecture on Concordia Seminary's website, and on the more convenient YouTube video. All links to the time marks are to the YouTube video: 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Regula fidei / Tradition [39:11-52:24 (13m 14s)]

 [Part 1 of 4]

[39:11] But first I want to talk about this [writing “regula fidei” on whiteboard] thing a little bit here, because it gets a lot of bad press, and people get really weirded out about it [Oh? Tell us why.], and this idea of regula fidei, this comes up frequently when I teach because I think [“I think”? Why add this qualifier if he is not certain of it?] this is significant and [39:24] Pieper and I would have some discussion [!; “a discussion”?? Not a disagreement?] about this [see 39:48 below - “tradition], because he says bad things about this [here B. does not mean “regula fidei” but rather what he is going to add to it below.] and I'm fond of it. [Fond? Not certain of it?] [cp. Harrison’s statement that “In fact, Pieper, our greatest LCMS theologian who is still studied at our seminaries today” (and disagreed with) — Biermann soft-pedals his disagreement…? Why? Who twisted his arm to do this… Harrison?] Now, so we need to clarify what I'm getting at with this. 

[39:31] So this idea of regula fidei — other synonyms for this would be things like the analogy of faith, and that's drawn out of the book of Romans where Paul uses this phrase and you can also have the English idea of “rule of faith”, which is simply what regula fidei means.

“Tradition”

[39:48] Or [This connecting word “or” indicates the beginning of B.’s real point] you can have this… another word which is the idea of this “tradition” [now B. is finally clarifying what the issue is that he would have a “discussion” with Pieper about – “Tradition”, his main point, and what Pieper “says bad things about”], which starts to really put the hackles up on most Lutherans [like Pieper], like, you know, getting all weirded out on us, eeeeee!. [mockingly] But tradition… but put it in Greek and it's a lot more palatable, because nobody knows it. And this is a a nice way to go with this, the idea of the paradoseis, okay, because they mean the same thing. [40:14] Now I'm convinced, I'm convinced, and see I'm, you’re going to go to Scripture to help support some of this, but some of these things, some of the moves that Paul makes is what's going on here in 1 Corinthians 11[:2]. Paul says ‘I commend you because you're hanging on to that which I gave you’, the tradition is what a lot of our translations have but the actual Greek word is paradoseis, which literally means that which has been handed over, that which has been handed over, and the word “tradition” comes from the Latin tradere which means to hand over, which is why we get the word “traitor” from it. Okay, interestingly. So in other words you're passing something over. 

[40.54] Now I, I'm, I'm convinced [B. repeats himself, that he is convinced, and he will work hard to try to convince his students] especially when you start reading all the New Testament, and paying attention to what's going on, for Paul, when he would come into the a new city and start establishing the gospel and start establishing a church, what did he do? He would preach about Christ, is that where he stopped? Give them six points about Jesus, there you go, I'm on to the next town. No, he gave them the faith, he gave them this paradosis. [Paul gave them doctrine.] What did it include? Basically the whole confession he had been taught, everything about how Christ fulfills the Old Testament worship. You bet! Lord's Supper? Of course!

[41:30] Because when he starts talking to Corinthians about practice, the Lord's Supper, he's appealing to “now remember what I told you”. He, How many times does he do this in his letters: “remember what I told you when I was with you, remember what I taught you”. What's he talking about? He's talking about this [pointing to “paradoseis”/”Tradition”; but this is Paul the Apostle’s “tradition”, not human “tradition”. B. is mixing these in order to deceive.]. Does it include ethical instruction? Of course! How many of Paul's letters end with lists of ethical instruction? All of them! So is that part of the content of the paradoseis of what it meant to be a Christian? Of course! [Of course! Aren't we convinced yet?]

[41.58] That whole ball of wax ["Ball of wax"?] is paradoseis, this tradition, that's what Paul's talking about. And in my opinion [“in my opinion”, “I’m convinced”, we had better be convinced because he is convinced.] it [“tradition”] is this [pointing to “rule of faith” and “regula fidei”] exactly. [i.e. “Analogy of faith” = “Tradition”. But the Confessions call the “rule of faith” the “clear passages of Scripture”. Book of Concord Ap. Monastic Vows, 60. Cp. Pieper CD1, p. 25, DE 26: “It has become the fashion [by Luthardt in Germany] to say that the difference between the Reformed and the Lutheran Church consists in this, that the Reformed Church 'more exclusively' makes Scripture the source of the Christian doctrine, while the Lutheran Church, being more deeply 'rooted in the past' and of a more 'conservative' nature, accepts not only Scripture, but also tradition as authoritative. But this is not in accord with the facts.” Harrison’s claim about Pieper being “our greatest LCMS theologian who is still studied at our seminaries today” is a sham. He is studied only for historical interest, only as a point of comparison to their modern theology.]

[42:07] That's what this [pointing to “Analogy/rule of faith” on whiteboard] is, the rule of faith, the regula fidei, the analogy of faith is simply the content and its doctrine and its practice and it all rolls together, it's what it means to confess Christ and follow him, that's the rule of faith, that's the regula fidei. How normative is that? It's everything!

It's the whole gospel, and everything else around it, it's the whole content of what it means to be a Christian. [It all sounds so nice, “to confess Christ and follow”, the “whole gospel”, “what it means to be a Christian” — well we had better follow Biermann and his opinion of mixing “tradition” with the “analogy of faith” of Romans 12:6. or we will miss out on “the whole gospel”!] That's the regula fidei, that's the rule of faith, that's the analogy of faith. [THAT’S “Tradition”!… NOT “sola scriptura”]

- - - - - - - - - -  Continued in the next Part JB02  - - - - - - - - - - - -

      So that the reader may be equipped to properly assess what Prof. Biermann is teaching, see the following references: 

1. Rom. 12:6 plainly says in the Greek "if prophecy, according to the analogian (ἀναλογίαν, analogy) of the faith". 
2. 2 Tim. 3:16-17: “All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.” 
3. Book of Concord Ap. Monastic Vows, 60. 
4. Pieper, Christian Dogmatics 1, p. 25, DE 26.
5. Pieper, Christian Dogmatics 2, pp. 450-452 [EN]. DE 540-542

There is a violent difference between what Biermann teaches and what Franz Pieper (and Luther) taught. — In the next Part JB02…

- - - - - - - - - - - -  Table of Contents  - - - - - - - - - - - -

Previous series 1, 2, 3

JB01: This post: Biermann: Scripture AND Tradition = “Rule of Faith”

JB02: Biermann's "fundamental thing" = Tradition! Not Catholic?

JB03: Scripture and what has the Church taught

JB04: sola scriptura overturned… by LC–MS teaching

[One well known LC–MS pastor, Rolf Preus, has recently defended against Biermann in a forum post "Seminex at St. Louis sem", although there are issues with his defense where he equates the analogy of faith with tradition, which is not correct. See Pieper's instruction in Part JPK3.]