JB04: sola scriptura overturned… by LC–MS teaching

[2025-03-21: added notes at bottom in red.]

      This concludes from Part JB03 (Table of Contents in Part JB01) in a short series presenting a transcript, with comments, of Prof. Joel Biermann's lecture for his 2016 "Systematics III 05" class. — I was most interested when students made comments or brought up questions. Though they were difficult to hear, these are my assessments:

• Student Julian does not seem convinced of Biermann's theory and keeps questioning the professor; 
• Student 1 goes along with Biermann, giving Irenaeus as an example. But compare Gerhard's rejoinder in Part JPK4!; 
• Student 2 sides with Luther, contradicts Biermann, but Biermann "corrects" him.

One could raise the question of whether a dissenting student would be allowed to pass this class, or be certified to be a pastor. — Now the conclusion of this transcript excerpt: 

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

Regula fidei / Tradition

 [Part 4 of 4]

[49:57] So were you trying to make another point? Because if you were, go ahead.  

[50:00] Julian: Well, I'm just saying that there's multiple things actually claiming to be the analogy of faith. 

B.: Correct. So, [interrupting Julian] correct. 

Julian: its just identifying that, 

B.: That's right, so that's what I'm saying, it's kind of fuzzy… 

Julian [interrupting B.]: and it's kind of then, we have to check that with like the Scripture…

[50:14] B. [interrupting Julian]: You check it with Scripture, you check it with the Church, you check it with the Tradition, [Not Scripture alone! Not sola Scriptura! B. claims he is NOT equating other sources with Scripture (see 48:43), but then he does. Smokescreen.]  and you say, does that really hold? [Now B. talks confusingly:] You know, you're coming, you're coming in with this new idea, you're calling it part of the analogy of faith, but it's pretty, it's pretty marginal over here, here, so yeah maybe it's clinging on the edge but it's not a big deal, you know, so in other words, and the further you get out from the center, the more you know things are kind of loose out there, like, just like a nucleus on a, on an atom, nucleus its pretty clear, electrons are out there doing all kinds of weirdness stuff, okay? [FUZZY TEACHING.]

[50:41] Student 1, front row far left: For Irenaeus this was not just a guideline, it was kind of a process, and a method for him (B.: right) because there was all this Gnostic stuff coming up and all this other craziness. [But Gerhard overturns this, On Interpreting, § 77, p. 77, “Elsewhere, however, they call Scripture itself ‘the rule of faith’ because each and every one of its points is presented in Scripture with clear and distinct words.”.]

B.: That's right. 

Student 1: So I mean, it was …

B. [interrupting]: That's right. you see, the Gnostics are saying hey! This is how you read the text. And John's really Gnostic, [!] and you can find stuff in John that starts to smell like that a little bit. [B. must be speaking like the Gnostics to clarify their thinking.] [51:03] But what keeps that from happening? [Not the words themselves but…] This [pointing to Church and Tradition] does, this brings it back. Whoa, whoa, whoa, no, you can't make that [Gnostic] move, you get reigned back in, this [pointing to Church and Tradition, NOT Scripture ALONE.] reigns us in. [See Gerhard’s § 77 for the perfect answer.]

 

sola scriptura is a "rationalist move"

sola scriptura must be premised on "Tradition" 

[51:11] And so while it's kind of a rationalist move to say, hey, you know [“you know”?], the Bible is sufficient, that's all, we need to sola scriptura, you know [“you know”?] that sounds good and it's appealing and it's, you know [“you know”?], and it's a great catch-phrase, [“sola Scriptura” is “a kind of a rationalist move”, a “great catch-phrase”.] but in fact, sola scriptura has to always be premised on a context and that context is this [pointing to “Tradition”.]: Has to be. Because Jehovah's Witness’s will say Sola Scriptura, no problem. 

[51:35] Student 2, off camera, far right: Well Luther’s using that, [“sola Scriptura”; fellow students are looking intently at this student…], it, it is a direct response to issues with this. [Student 2 must be meaning “sola Scriptura” because Biermann below counters the student's “this” with his “Tradition”. The class now turns to Biermann, wondering how he will respond to this direct contradiction.].

[51:41] B., [correcting this student’s view of Luther]: Um it's not issues with this [contradicting student 2], it's issues with people who are… see, Luther's complaint is that the Pope himself is not even [“even”?] following this [pointing to “Tradition” on whiteboard; B. amazingly twists Luther! Luther is purely “sola Scriptura”, and a “Tradition” only based on “sola Scriptura”.] anymore, [51:50] he, he's putting himself over [missing the word “even”] the top of this [pointing to “Tradition”, NOT Scripture, yet B. claims he is not [@ 48:43] “trying to put Tradition on an equal par with Scripture.”], and he thinks, hey, because I am the church, I can just keep on adding to this [pointing to “Tradition”]. And so this is kind of [“kind of”?] Julian's [see above student] point. So you just keep on tacking on “this is part of the analogy of faith”, now you have to make pilgrimages. No it's not. And we, we, we get this. And so you start paring off all the accretions that don't belong there, so what Luther is trying to do is recenter where this [Tradition] belongs and get things solid again to the actual analogy of faith. [Biermann calls on Luther, but in a twisted way, for Luther said at the Diet of Worms “Unless I am convinced by the testimony of the Scriptures … I am bound by the Scriptures I have quoted. My conscience is captive to the Word of God.” Cp. also Gerhard’s use of the Fathers at 50:41 above.] That's, that's the point, yeah.

[52:16] Good, okay? All right. Introduction is complete. [52:24] [End of this section]

- - - - - - - - - -  End of excerpt from Prof. Biermann's lecture  - - - - - - - - - - - -

      There is more to Prof. Biermann's lecture, but this excerpt clearly establishes Biermann's aberrations and his justification for them. So there is nothing more to be said about this lecture, except to express shock at just how far Concordia Seminary has fallen again from truly Lutheran teaching. The new president, Prof. Thomas Egger, installed in 2021 seems to have made no impact to turn this seminary around. Neither has Pres. Matthew Harrison, in spite of his praise of Pieper. May God help the LC–MS return to the faith of its fathers!

[2025-03-21: Biermann's teaching is directly refuted by Acts 17:11 where the Bereans "received the word with all eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see if these things were so". Of course Luther preached and taught this also here, here, here, here, and here.]