- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Regula fidei / Tradition
[47:11] All right, so that's what I'm getting at here with this analogy of faith. So in other words, do I believe that the analogy of faith is the solution to all of our problems with division in the church? Not at all. No, it's not going to solve things. Do I believe the analogy of faith becomes the definitive thing that tells us how to, decide how to, what's in the Bible, what's not? Not really. It's, it's there, it's real, it's, it's not to be ignored, but it's not that helpful when it comes to actually doing stuff, because it [the analogy of faith] is kind of fuzzy. [Isn't Biermann's teaching "kind of fuzzy"?]
[47:40] But it's there and you know it because when you start talking to your Baptist friend or your Roman Catholic friend and you start hashing through the really important doctrines, what are you really hashing through, this [pointing to whiteboard “Tradition”.], you're talking about what is it that we all hold, what is, what's really there. And when you start, start challenging them on their bad sacramental theology, what are you [47:59] doing? Are you arguing our Lutheran view is this? No you're saying what is actually taught in scripture, [This appears to sound correct! … after all his gyrations about the Bible! Double talk! But see what follows after this! Biermann now adds to Scripture>>:] and what has the Church taught about these things, what does the analogy of faith give us? [So by this, B. is giving “the Church” the same authority as Scripture, and his “analogy of faith”.] This [Scripture AND the Church AND his “analogy of faith”.] becomes what's normative. So this [Tradition] does matter. [i.e. the "AND" matters.]
 |
| "Pieper is afraid of this" |
[48:12] Now Pieper is afraid of this, because he sees this as being this kind of waxen nose, and he sees this being as a substitute for Scripture and so he gets all concerned because somebody wants to put this in the place of the Bible. [By his own admission, Biermann does NOT teach Pieper, he contradicts Pieper! Cp. to Harrison's claim.] I'm not interested in that. I'm not trying to do that. But I'm also saying, don't dismiss this, [points to: paradosis or Tradition, implies that orthodoxy “dismisses” and “denigrates” Tradition, a false charge!] and don't denigrate this [i.e. do not avoid lumping these with Scripture.], because this is far more important and there's a whole lot more going on in the interface between the scripture and the interpretation of the Scripture and the church teaching you how to read that scripture that's much more dynamic than we give it credit for. [i.e. not just to confirm Scirpture’s teaching but to be counted with Scripture]
[48:43] So I'm not [!] trying to put Tradition on an equal par with Scripture, [False! Of course he is. Biermann wants to be seen as the great orthodoxist, because HE does NOT put Tradition on equal par with Scripture. You condemn yourself, Biermann! Why would he make this defense of himself, if it is not coming from the begging questions that come?] but I'm also saying we never ever read the Bible apart from that tradition. [Biermann trashes “Sola Scriptura”!] Because if you do, what are you going to come up with, who knows, you come up with Joseph T I mean Russell, [Charles] Taze Russell and be a Jehovah's Witness, thank you for that! [taking a Bible from the Gideons or LC–MS “fundamentalist”] Or Joseph Smith, and you come up with Mormonism. What Bible did he read? Ours. What Bible did Jehovah's Witnesses read? Ours. [See this blog post. This hardly proves his point. This is the exact same charge used by one among the Walkout crowd and their sympathizers! A. C. Piepkorn: “We have thus to differentiate this type of Verbal Inspiration from the Verbal Inspiration of the "Hard-Shell" Baptists, contemporary Fundamentalists, and such sects as Jehovah’s Witnesses.” CTM vol. 25 (1954), No. 10, p. 739]
[49:08] So you see, and the, and the, the fault with them is not they're, they're just not paying attention to the text. [False. This charges the bare Bible text, God’s Word, with promoting heresy.] No, their fault is they're not paying attention to the church telling them how to read the text, that's the problem. [No one can say that Biermann is teaching something other than what it sounds like he is teaching, for he states his theories explicitly over and over.] Julian.
[49:19] Julian, student: Is the next problem is narrowing down the tradition that you're actually going to be using, right? [Student Julian is trying to make sense of Biermann’s point. Maybe he can’t quite believe how aberrant Biermann’s teaching actually is.]
[49:25] Well, the, no, that's not really the problem. The question then really starts to become, which confession today is most nearly [not exactly?] confessing the regula fidei, [This explicitly states that the “rule of faith” is not the “clear passages of Scripture”, but the “confession” itself. Cp. Book of Concord Ap. Monastic Vows, 60], that becomes the issue. And so it's not really so much narrowing it down as asking who's getting it most accurately [?, why this qualifier to BoC?] right and that's where things like the Book of Concord come in, because, think about what does the Book of Concord claim? [Now, after contradicting the BoC, he calls on it.] This is simply an expression of what Christians have always believed, [i.e. claiming the high road, and that Bible believers are not with these Christians.] and they don't use that exact language, [B. is admitting he is going out on a limb.], but they're saying this [i.e. this “confession”] is, this is the analogy of faith. [The Confessions are the “analogy of faith”, not the clear passages of Scripture.] That's what we're confessing here, that's all. And I think [why say this, if not to admit he is separating himself from orthodoxy?] that's exactly the right way to read it [Book of Concord].
No comments:
Post a Comment
Comments only accepted when directly related to the post.