Biermann, Piepkorn and… Jehovah's Witnesses? (Part 3)

[2024-11-06: added note below to compare with Synodical Conference essay.]

      This continues from Part 2 in a series (Table of Contents in Part 1) on the teaching of Concordia Seminary's Prof. Joel Biermann in relation to Holy Scripture. — When listening to Prof. Biermann's lecture, one is taken back 50 years, to the 1974 "Walkout" professors and their sympathizers. All of them had given up the Lutheran reliance on Holy Scripture. So let us listen to these two Concordia Seminary professors, then and now:

Prof. Arthur Carl Piepkorn († 1973)	Prof. Joel Biermann
Concordia Theological Monthly,  vol. 25, 1954, p. 739: “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.”	Systematics III 05, lecture on YouTube 48:50:  “Because if you do [read the Bible apart from “tradition”], what are you going to come up with, who knows, you come up with … [Charles] Taze Russell and be a Jehovah's Witness, thank you for that! Or Joseph Smith, and you come up with Mormonism. What Bible did he read? Ours. What Bible did Jehovah's Witnesses read? Ours.”

Both Piepkorn and Biermann attempt to scare and shame Lutherans into thinking that reading the Bible will turn them into Jehovah’s Witnesses or other non-Christians. Biermann goes even further and adds Mormonism to the list. Both men tend to group “Fundamentalism” with these heretical sects. Both men would have Lutherans not solely depend on their Bible for their assurance of faith. This is essentially negating the Lutheran Confessions which confess the Holy Scriptures as their sole source of doctrine. [2024-11-06: Compare Biermann with the old Synodical Conference here.]

      Are there any LC-MS professors today who would not walkout now, given the same circumstances as those of the Walkout of 1974? What active current LC-MS professor today is openly critical of Piepkorn in this matter?

      For me, as a Lutheran, I believe in Christ and His Word, the Holy Scriptures. And I run from the wolves, like Professors Piepkorn and Joel Biermann! God help us from the likes of of these two professors.

[I have transcribed most of Biermann's lecture and may present this with further information on its content in future blog posts.]

Fritschel on LC–MS's Biermann: is he a Christian? (Part 2)

[2024-12-12: Added reference to Pieper essay; 2024-11-26: added sentence in red below.]

      This continues from Part 1 in a series (Table of Contents in Part 1) on the teaching of Concordia Seminary's Prof. Joel Biermann on Holy Scripture. — Biermann could not make his lecture statements if he really believed in the Inspiration of Holy Scripture. He could not teach "sola scriptura" as the Reformation theologians did.  A perfect response to his provocative statements comes from the old Iowa Synod, a synod that later merged into the American Lutheran Church (ALC – 1930-1960), then into today's ELCA. So one would not expect to see a defense of the Bible and its divine inspiration coming from their teachers. Yet the following is recorded by the historian of the ALC, Fred W. Meuser, in his 1958 Yale dissertation The Formation of the American Lutheran Church: A Case Study in Lutheran Unity, p. 178-179:

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

The publications of both Iowa and Ohio [Synods] gave considerable attention during the late nineteenth and early twentieth century to the attacks by modern Biblical scholars on the traditional view of inspiration. Authors of both synods were fully convinced that the Bible taught its own divine inspiration, and that because the writings were inspired they were completely reliable. Not every assertion of the earlier dogmaticians was defended, but there was no yielding on the belief that Scriptural authority and reliability were essential doctrines of the Christian faith. Gottfried Fritschel in 1875 expressed the convictions of his synod and all conservative Lutherans when he wrote:

“The doctrine of inspiration is no distinctive Lutheran doctrine; it is common to all of Christendom. If a man denies it, the question is not whether he can remain a Lutheran but whether he can even be regarded as a Christian. Acceptance of the Holy Scriptures as God’s Word and all its teachings as infallible truth is shared by the Lutheran Church with all Christian churches. . . . It is taken for granted that when church fellowship is being determined, it cannot be granted to non-Christians but only to those who, with all Christians, accept the Word of God in all its parts as infallible truth.” (Theologische Monatshefte IV (1871), p. 278)

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

This from a forebearer of the ELCA, a church body that has no appearance of holding to Fritschel's statement. But it appears that the old Iowa Synod, a Synod not as strong as Walther and the old Missouri Synod on Inspiration, would even go so far as to question whether LC–MS Prof. Joel Biermann can even be regarded as a Christian, let alone a Lutheran. [2024-12-12: Cp. also Franz Pieper in his Das Fundament essay: "This raises the question of whether it is still possible for someone to still stand in the Christian faith while denying the divine authority of Holy Scripture.  We must say: Certainly not if this denial is given its practical consequence."] — [2024-11-26: Also the 1886 Synodical Conference pronounced those who do not teach the full divinity of Holy Scripture to be ones who “no longer stand in faith.”]

      Biermann makes another assertion in his lecture that wants to shame Lutherans. We compare this with a well known "Walkout" sympathizer in Part 3…

Prof. Joel Biermann and the Bible: “biblianity”? (Part 1)

      What is actually taught in the seminaries of the LC–MS today? I came across a discussion of this point regarding a certain professor at Concordia Seminary, St. Louis, Prof. Joel Biermann (see here). There are videos of at least some of his classroom lectures on Concordia's own website, and some of those have been uploaded to YouTube, making it easier to navigate and access the actual words that he spoke. One particular lecture was called out for its provocative content, his "Systematics III 05" class lecture published in 2016. The video may be viewed from Concordia's website, but the better way to view it is from its upload to YouTube, until it is taken down by the uploader Pablo Velázquez or YouTube. (It appears at this time that this lecture has been viewed more than all other uploads of Velázquez.) So our initial question can at least be partially answered by viewing this 1 hour 20 minute video. 

      The provocative nature of the lecture can perhaps best be characterized by a statement made at the 7:07 mark:

“It’s not bibliantity, it’s Christianity.”

Our professor was addressing the question of how one begins to discuss the Christian faith with one outside the faith.  But it is the way that he phrased his statement that makes it a false dichotomy, "a premise that erroneously limits what options are available" so that "it asserts that one among a number of alternatives must be true." (Wikipedia) It appears to place Christianity in opposition to believing the Bible. Biermann confirms his low view of the Bible when he says of his own preaching, at the 33:23 mark:

"But I quote a Bible verse maybe once in 10 sermons."

Why quote the Bible even that one time?…isn't that one time a case of "biblianity"? Could it be that Biermann considers himself as the source of Christian truth, instead of the Bible? — This is what is actually taught in the classrooms of today's LC–MS, these are the actual words of a prominent teacher of their seminarians. This teaching is what will be the teaching of their future pastors. This likely is the current teaching of the majority of today's LC–MS pastors. It must be this way since this lecture has been publicly available for 8 years and there has been no public outcry against it in the LC–MS.

      But the Bible does not speak like Prof. Biermann, it does not make use of false dichotomies:

John 1:1 – “…and the Word (i.e. 'biblianity') was God,”, 

or Greek: “and God was the Word.”

Neither do the Lutheran Confessions:

"…the Word of God alone should be and remain the only standard and rule of doctrine, … to which everything should be subjected." Formula of Concord (SD Rule & Norm, 9; Triglotta p. 855):

And what about 2 Timothy 4:2:  “Preach the word”.

      In 9 out of 10 sermons, Prof. Biermann chooses not to "be subjected" to the Word. O, but he says that he preaches "Christ!" — That the Missouri Synod in Walther's day did not teach like Biermann has been documented many times on this blog, so I will not quote Walther against him. But I would quote a opponent of Walther, from the old Iowa Synod, who surprisingly strikes at the heart of Biermann's teaching on Holy Scripture… in the next Part 2.

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

Part 1: Prof. Joel Biermann and the Bible: “biblianity”?

Part 2: Fritschel on LC–MS's Biermann: is he a Christian?

Part 3: Biermann, Piepkorn and… Jehovah's Witnesses?

GB14: Buchwald misuses Walther's lamentations; Free Church could be better?

      This concludes from Part GB13 (Table of Contents in Part GB1) in a series presenting C. F. W. Walther's defense against a Saxon State Church theologian Georg Buchwald, who attacked both the Lutheran Free Church in Germany, and the Missouri Synod in America. — Just like German Pastor Rudolph Hoffmann in his book of 1881, (see blog post Part RH10) Buchwald points to the lamentations that Walther had for his Synod. In the 1878 address to the Synod, Walther spoke thus: "the time of the first love of our synod, which we older members of it once saw, is gone". So Licentiate Buchwald (Ph.D.) does the same thing as Pastor Hoffmann in his 1881 pamphlet. Germany’s State churchmen's only mention of Missouri is to deride it, and to twist its writings. — The following translation is from Lehre und Wehre, vol. 32 (1886), pp.144 [EN]:

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

Latest Defense of the State Church against the Free Church.

[by C. F. W. Walther]

 

Now just one more thing! At the end Buchwald quotes some passages from our [Walther’s] jubilee sermon of 1872 and from our synod address of 1878, in which we seriously complain that "among some formerly zealous members, especially of our older congregations" a sad decline can be felt. From this Buchwald concludes, in almost unbelievable blindness, among other things: "It is not beautiful fruits that doctrinal discipline, communion discipline and separation of state and church have borne", and the editor of the Sächsisches Kirchen- und Schulblatt (Pastor Schenkel in Cainsdorf) agrees with him! Indeed, Buchwald remarks: 

"Is it worse or better? It remains to be seen!" 

It is true that we do not take back any of the complaints we have made and recognize from the bottom of our hearts that we have great cause to humble ourselves in the dust before God because of them; but if the aforementioned gentlemen leave it open whether things are worse or better in their state church congregations, this reveals a truly astonishing insight into their conditions, or damage and infirmities. It is only good that Buchwald responded to Pastor Willkomm's accusation that their state church was a Babel. When even an old Saxon preacher [? - unknown] who had emigrated in 1838 for the sake of religion, who had spent a longer period of time in Germany in 1850 and 1860 and made his observations there, who was also quite familiar with German theological and popular literature, was also concerned about the religious, moral and social situation out of a love of the fatherland that had not yet died out, and ecclesiastical conditions, we would otherwise create a picture of the Babel of the other world, which would drive away the masters' desire to tickle themselves over our infirmities, which we have not punished according to a police but a spiritual standard.

In summary: Licentiate Buchwald's writing is indeed a splendid sleeping powder and lullaby for the awakened consciences over there, which he has prepared as a guardian of his Zion, but as a defense [apologia] for his state church it is so well done that everyone immediately sees that, as easily as he may be able to read old manuscripts and as learned as he may otherwise be (both of which we are not inclined to diminish, together with the associated merits), he has here entered a field in which he is obviously a stranger. Finally, we must say that anyone who wants to learn about the plight of the Saxon state church should read his defense of it. W. [Walther]

- - - - - - - - - - -  End of essay  - - - - - - - - - - -

      In Buchwald's statement, he left his own assertions in some doubt by leaving the door open that the Free Church could be better than the State Church, demonstrating his unstable mind.

      “Red Brick Parsonage” may want to add spiritual judgment, beyond just an evaluation of “Luther scholarship”, to his comments on Georg Buchwald in the future to avoid confusing readers who also read Walther's judgment of this scoffer of the Lutheran Free Church, and the Missouri Synod. Surely his Wisconsin Synod would not want to appear to disagree with Walther in his points against Buchwald.

      May Walther's sharp evaluation of a well known German Luther scholar give aid to those who covet their soul's salvation, by arming them for their own evaluation of what is truly Lutheran and what is not. It certainly helped me!

GB13: Walther condemns State Church 10 ways: deprives of soul & salvation

     This continues from Part GB12 (Table of Contents in Part GB1) in a series presenting C. F. W. Walther's defense against a Saxon State Church theologian Georg Buchwald, who attacked both the Lutheran Free Church in Germany, and the Missouri Synod in America. — Ten strong charges against Germany's State Church: follow Walther's countdown of pointed questions beginning with "Who has…". — Valparaiso University students, under Pres. O. P. Kretzmann, flocked to German schools being taught by teachers (or as Walther calls them "false prophets") from the State Church. — The following translation is from Lehre und Wehre, vol. 32 (1886), pp.143-144 [EN]:

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

Latest Defense of the State Church against the Free Church.

[by C. F. W. Walther]

There are only two things we would like to mention briefly.

First of all, Buchwald writes on p. 16: 

"To make such a constitutional question a condition for attaining salvation is quite un-Protestant." (Underlined by Buchwald)

Obviously Buchwald wants to say [falsely] that this is done by the Free Church. What are we to say about this? We remain silent; for if we were to speak, we would have to offend. And yet even the editor of the Sächsisches Kirchen- und Schulblatt (Saxon Church and School Bulletin), op. cit. confesses to it! God forgive him for this great sin.

On the other hand, Buchwald writes: 

"No one has ever been separated from his head Jesus Christ by the union of State and Church and this would be and remain the only conceivable reason for separation." (Underlined by us) — 

How? Through the connection between state and church, not one person has ever been deprived of soul and salvation?! — We rather say: uncounted thousands! (Of course, we are not speaking here of that connection in abstracto, but in concreto.) 

(1) Who appointed the educators of the false prophets at the universities? 

 

(2) Who gave wolves to shepherd the churches? 

(3) Who gave the school teachers' seminaries over to the disciples of the Rousseaus, Dinters, Diesterwegs, etc.? [Cp. these to JCWL!]

(4) Who has handed over the church's nurseries, the Christian parochial schools, to hollow, arrogant, rationalistic schoolmasters?

(5) Who has taken the good old agendas, hymnbooks and catechisms from the preachers and congregations by brute force and imposed on them the most wretched works of [theological] art, bristling with the poison of false doctrine? 

(6) Who, above all, has hindered the discipline of doctrine and life in the church? 

(7) Who has persecuted the pure teachers and appointed false prophets in their place? 

(8) Who has destroyed entire Lutheran state churches and turned them into unionist, unbelieving communities through expulsions, fines, imprisonment and corporal punishment? [Stoeckhardt’s imprisonment] Were they not your state bishops and their creatures, the royal, ducal, princely consistories and superintendents? 

 

(9) Who, therefore, can count the souls that have fallen <page 144> victim to the constitution of the state or, as one prefers to speak euphemistically, of the state church and have been dragged to hell by it? 

(10) Who has imposed on you, you believing Saxons, your godless unbelieving ministers and schoolmasters, over whom you sigh, with iron compulsion? Is it not your royal consistory? And you stand up for this constitution? —

- - - - - - - - - - -  Concluded in Part GB14  - - - - - - - - - - -

      One senses that Walther held back from these harsher condemnations in the main body of his narrative so that he could lay out the full picture of Germany's failed theology, and establish the groundwork for them. Then the reader would be prepared for his long list of condemnations.

    I contrast the likes of the unbelieving German/European teachers at the German teachers' seminaries that Walther names in point #3 with the president of the Missouri Synod's Teacher's Seminary in Addison, Illinois: J. C. W. Lindemann.

      Walther had personal experiences relating to his 3rd and 4th point. He described them in other places when speaking of his younger years and his training in Germany. The 8th point, which included fines and imprisonment, was experienced by Prof. George Stoeckhardt before he left Germany for America. — We conclude this series in the next Part GB14…

GB12: Fusion of Church and State? Buchwald defends, Walther attacks; a “quick-witted” Ph.D.

     This continues from Part GB11 (Table of Contents in Part GB1) in a series presenting C. F. W. Walther's defense against a Saxon State Church theologian Georg Buchwald, who attacked both the Lutheran Free Church in Germany, and the Missouri Synod in America. —  In this segment, Walther finishes his defense of proper discipline for the Lord's Supper. Then he begins a lengthy, strong defense against Buchwald's "fusion of Church and State", just as Pastor Hochstetter did in RH9. Walther call this "theological darkness".

      Again, all green highlighting is meant to point out issues of logic. — The following translation is from Lehre und Wehre, vol. 32 (1886), pp.142-143 [EN]:

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

Latest Defense of the State Church against the Free Church.

[by C. F. W. Walther]

At the end of the second main section of his defense of the conditions in the state church, Buchwald p. 14 poses the following question in a blocked text: 

"Can I therefore not be sure of the forgiveness of my sins in the Lord's Supper because an unworthy person also partakes of the Lord's Supper? Must I, because unworthy enjoyment can and does occur, turn my back on my church, which has received me and educated me to this day?" 

You can see from this that the Doctor philosophiae [Ph.D.] is sticking to his once popular tactic: he is changing the status controversiae. For he knows quite well that no truly Lutheran Free Church member will answer his question in the affirmative, and yet he presents himself as if, as a faithful guardian of his Zion, he had to take the negative answer to his question under his wing. He probably knew no other way to save his glorious state church; and that was the "good purpose" of his little book! —

In the last section, on pp. 14-16, Buchwald defends the fusion of church and state that took place in his state church. Here we encounter a piece of theological darkness that we otherwise only find in Richard Rothe [Wikipedia] and the Prussian Union theologians. There is no room here to show his theory of the relationship of the church to the state in all its nakedness. Nor is it necessary. First of all, Pastor Willkomm has expressly declared that if the demand for doctrinal and communion discipline had been complied with in the state church, which is intertwined with the state, there would have been no separation because of the constitution, although they, the Free Church, would prefer the Free Church constitution. The question of whether it would be better and more in keeping with the Word of God and our church Confessions if the church and state were separated from each other as far as the government of both is concerned, is not, on the other hand, of such a nature that one would say yes only on the one side and no only on the other, since all preachers of the state church who are even somewhat concerned about Joseph's damage [?] sigh over the yoke of the state, which is why the editor of the "Sächsisches Kirchen- und Schulblatt" (Saxon Church and School Gazette) in the number of the same of April 1 expressly says that, although Buchwald's writing is "on the whole  <page 143>  an excellent, quick-witted 1) answer", "one may perhaps disagree with individual passages in the writing, e.g. on the relationship between church and state". Finally, we have already dealt with this question in detail on other occasions, partly in our journals and partly at our synod assemblies, so that we may well refer our readers to them. There are only two things we would like to mention briefly.

—————

1) Buchwald's opus is certainly quick-witted, but it is a pity that it always misses the mark, only hits an enemy of its own making and leaves its own opponent unharmed or turns against God's Word and the Confession itself.

- - - - - - - - - - -  Continued in Part GB13  - - - - - - - - - - -

      Walther's attack will culminate in one of his most outspoken condemnations, like his one against a divine-human Holy Scripture… in the next Part GB13.