David Hartman Response to WELS

A RESPONSE TO:

Objective Justification

An essaydelivered at the Chicago Pastoral Conference

Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod

by

Siegbert W. Becker

Elgin, Illinois

November 9, 1982

_____________________________

Prepared and written by:

David L. Hartman

7645 W. Co. Rd. 00 N.S.

Kokomo, In. 46901

November 28, 1982

______________________________

Special thanks to

Rev. Charles Papenfuss of

Faith Lutheran Church

Kokomo, In. 46901

for mailing a copy of

Dr. Becker's essay for

my review and comments.

The basic question Dr. Becker's essay on objective justification

attempts to answer is this: "Has God forgiven the sins of all men?"1 I

believe that Dr. Becker struck at the heart of the issue with this

question. It should be noted that he mentioned up front that his answer

to that question was an unequivocal "yes", and that "If we could all

answer that question with and unequivocal 'yes', the 'four statements'

would cause us little difficulty".2 It was quite easily recognizable

that he also equates forgiveness with reconciliation with justification,

etc. Likewise, he made it clear that he believes that God forgave all

men their sins with the death of Christ on the cross of Calvary, and that

the proof of this is in the resurrection of Christ on Easter morning.

With these observations in mind I offer the following comments.

Dr. Becker wrote, "That Luther believed in objective justification

is, however, very easy to demonstrate. Luther says, for example that

when we baptize someone we must say to the person being baptized, 'All

your sins are remitted by reason of the presence of Christ. Therefore I

baptize you in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

This means that I remit all your sins, cleansing you of them right now'

(LW 22, 177)." (underlining added)3. If Luther believed in objective

justification in the sense that Dr. Becker indicated he did, why does

Luther say to the one being baptized "I remit all your sins, cleansing

you of them right now"? In other words, if all sins of all people have

been remitted (past tense), if all people have been cleansed of all sin

(past tense), why would Luther make such an ongoing proclamation to each

person being baptized as he baptized them one by one?

On page 2, Dr. Becker wrote, "It is crystal clear that the

announcement of forgiveness to all the world comes first; then faith

builds on that announcement and finds comfort and assurance in it.4

It is crystal clear that Dr. Becker believes the object of faith to be

"the announcement of forgiveness to all the world." In other words,

announce that the sins of the world have been forgiven and "faith builds

on that announcement and finds comfort and assurance in it."5

It seems to me that the object of faith should be the work of Christ,

that is, His perfect life and sacrificial death, His resurrection on the

third day; which meant that God the Father accepted the work of His Son

as the expiation for the sins of the world. The object of faith would

 then be focused on the merits of Christ.

The call to repentance in His name and the remission of sins in His name would then follow. (Lk. 24:46-48),

"And said unto them, Thus it is written, and thus it behooved Christ to

 suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day: And that repentance and

all nations, things."

remission of sins should be preached in His name among

beginning at Jerusalem. And ye are witnesses of these

As another example, look at Peter's Pentecost Sermon in Acts 2:14-39.

We don't find him announcing that God has forgiven the sins of all men first

believing that faith would build on that announcement. Rather, in verse

21 he said, "that whosoever calls on the name of the Lord shall be

saved." Then verses 22-36 were devoted to His suffering, His death, and

His resurrection.

Hearing this, the peoples' hearts were crushed, and they asked in verse 37: "Men and bretheren, what shall we do?" The answer in verse 38 was, "Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins...".

Even when the people were crushed to their hearts with the knowledge of their sins, Peter

still did not say, "God has forgiven the sins of all men." Rather he said,

"Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ

 for the remission of sins."

He first focused on the work of Christ, then came the call to

repentance, the call to be baptized, and then the announcement " ..for

the remission of sins," that is to say, " so that your sins will be

forgiven". (AAT) Faith was built on the work and merits of Christ and

through such God-worked faith sins were then remitted. This makes

crystal clear what Jesus said in John 8:24,

"For if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins."

Faith must believe as it's object that Jesus is He, the promised Savior,

the Messiah, the One who lived perfectly, died sacrificially, and rose

from the grave victoriously so that all might live eternally through Him.

Through faith the merits fo Christ become the merits of the believer.

However, without faith, the one not believing dies in all their sns.

The object of faith must always be Christ crucified (see 1 Cor. 1:23),

not "the announcement of forgiveness to all the world." The importance

of this Scriptural fact is clearly seen in Rom. 3:26,

"To declare, I say, at this time His righteousness: that He might

be just, and the Justifier of him which believeth in Jesus."

Luther spoke of this truth when he said in his New Year sermon of

1522:

"There are some, especially among the modern, ranking schoolmen, who say:

The forgiveness of sins and justification depend wholly and entirely on

the divine imputation of grace, that is, on God's simply accounting as

just, in spite of our sins. This, they say is all that is required: he

to whom God imputes or does not impute sin is therby justified or not

justified from his sins. So, they imagine, Ps. 32:2 and Rom. 4:7-8

teach. There it is said: "Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not

impute sin." Were this view true, the entire New Testament would really

be vain and futile, and Christ would have labored foolishly and uselessly

in suffering for sin. God Himself would have practiced jugglery and

humbug without any need, because He might well have forgiven and imputed

sins without the suffering of Christ. Then some other faith, too,

besides faith in Christ, might justify and save a man; I mean a faith

that would simply rely on the gracious mercy of God, which would not hold

his sins against him. Against this abominable, terrible notion and

falsehood the holy apostle is accustomed always to refer faith to Christ

as to its object and to mention Jesus Christ so frequently that it is

actually amazing to find anybody who is not aware of the need for such

language. Let us, therefore, be on our guard against this hellish poison

and not lose Christ, the consoling Savior. Above all things, Christ must

be kept in this matter of salvation. It certainly is true that as David

says (Ps. 32:2), and Paul (Rom. 4:8): 'Blessed is the man to whom the

Lord will not impute sin.' But St. Paul introduces the thought in order

to show that this divine imputation comes only to him who believes in

Christ." (underlining added).

Also on page 2, Dr. Becker spoke of times "when the pastor speaks

the absolution" saying that he should be able to say,

"I know for certain that I have loosed you before God, whether you

believe it or not."6

I'm not familiar with such an absolution. I haven't seen anything

close to it, either in the Scriptures, the Confessions, or the Lutheran

Hymnal. Perhaps Dr. Becker uses a different Lutheran Hymnal than I am

accustomed to. On page 16 of the Lutheran Hymnal in the "Order of the

Holy Communmion" we find the confession of sins by the Minister and the

congregation, following that the Minister reads the Absolution which

begins with the words "Upon this your confession, etc." Such seems to

eliminate such foolish talk as:

"I know for certain that I have loosed you before God, whether you

believe it or not."

The next portion of Dr. Becker's essay is titled "Objective

Justification in the Confessions." Very little needs to be said here

regarding this. Anyone can read for themselves the context surrounding

the quotes listed by Dr. Becker and easily see that they do not speak of

a "faithless justification." It may be evident to him "that the Lutheran

doctrine of absolution rests on the foundation of the universal

forgiveness of the human race"7, but I shudder at such a thought. The

heart of the doctrine of absolution must always have Christ as its

foundation, and the promise that through faith in Him sins are remitted.

Acts 10:43 says:

"To Him give all the prophets witness that through His name,

whosoever believeth in Him, shall receive remission of sins."

Our fathers wrote, "Thus, therefore, we receive the remission of

sins only through the name of Christ, i.e., for Christ's sake, and not

for the sake of any merits and works of our own. And this occurs when we

believe that sins are remitted to us for Christ's sake."8. And again

they wrote, "For those who dream that without faith in Christ hearts

become pacified, do not understand what the remissions of sins is, or how

it came to us.9

We then look at his section titled "Law and Gospel."

In particular, note what is said in his quote of Ex. 34: 6,7;

"The Lord, the Lord God, merciful and gracious long-suffering and

abundant in goodness and truth, keeping mercy for thousands,

forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, and that will by no

 means clear the guilty, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon

 the children, and upon the children's children, unto the third and

 fourth generation."

A very simple question comes to mind. If God has indeed forgiven

all sin of all men, how can He visit the iniquity of the fathers upon the

children, and upon the children's children, unto the third and fourth

generation? If I understand Dr. Becker's thoughts correctly on this

verse as I read them on pages 3 & 4, he views verses 6 and 7 of Ex. 34 as

if they are applied to all people at all times. On the one hand, God is

"merciful and gracious, long-suffering and abundant in goodness and

truth, keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression

and sin" to all people of all time. And on the other hand:

God is Him " that will by no means clear the guilty, visiting the

iniquity of the fathers upon the children, and upon the children's

children, unto the third and fourth generation" to all people of

 all time.

What he fails to see is that those to whom God is merciful are not

the same people to whom He "visits the iniquity of the fathers on the

children... etc." On the one hand you have believers, on the other hand

you have unbelievers. Note these similar words in Ex. 20: 5,6:

"for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of

the

them

me,

fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of

that hate Me; And showing mercy unto thousands of them that love

and keep my commandments."

Those whom God considers as guilty, the ones with whom He visits

the iniquity unto the third and fourth generation are "them that hate

Me," that is unbelievers who are standing in their guilt and remain

therein unless moved to repentance and faith in Jesus Christ. And those

who are enjoying the abundant mercy and grace of God, those who bathe

continually in the forgiveness of the Lord thy God are those who love God

and keep His commandments, that is to say, all believers whom God has

declared righteous through faith in Jesus Christ. Two groups of people,

believers who are no longer counted guilty, unbelievers who stand in

their guilt continually. Indeed, this is a stumbling block and an

offense to human reason, but "he that believeth on Him shall not be

confounded," 1 Pet. 2: 6. Dr. Becker maintains that God, from these

verses in Exodus, clears the guilty, declared the guilty to be righteous,

when in fact the verse says God "will by no means clear the guilty."

Prov. 17:15 rings clear when it says:

"He that justifieth the wicked, and he than condemneth the just,

 even they both are abomination to the Lord."

On page 4 Dr. Becker writes, "...so the message which lies at the

very heart of the Gospel, namely, that for Jesus' sake God has indeed

forgiven the sins of all men..."10. One would think that if the heart of

the Gospel is indeed that "for Jesus' sake God has indeed forgiven the

sins of all men" Dr. Becker would show us where in the Scirptures such

 words are used to describe the "heart of the Gospel." I wonder if he

 would be willing to admit that what he considers to be the "heart of the

Gospel" is really a doctrine that he and others have derived from

Scripture, that is, the words are never there as such but must be 

formulated?

I find it strange that the "heart" of God's Word (as Dr.

Becker sees it) is not actually there but must be derived by man before

it can be communicated to others.

I now take up Dr. Becker's remarks concerning II Cor. 5: 19

beginning on p. 4 and going through the top of page 9. Notice the

parallel drawn between verses 18 and 19 on page 5. He said that "v. 18

'God who reconciled us to Himself through Christ' is echoed by v. 19

'God was reconciling the world to Himself in Christ"11. Does he mean

that the "us" in verse 18 is equal to the "world" in vs. 19? This seems

to be what he is saying when he shortly writes "In other words, we can

be sure that we have been reconciled because the whole world has been

reconciled..."12. And if it is necessary for Dr. Becker to believe (to

be sure) that the whole world is reconciled (that of course must include

those damned to hell prior to the work of Christ) in order for him to

believe that he has been reconciled, is it also necessary for Dr. Becker

to believe (to be sure) that the whole world is saved eternally in order

for him to also be sure that he is saved eternally? Or, does Dr. Becker

mean to say by this that "the world has been reconciled and since I am

part of the world, then I know that I too have been reconciled.

Therefore, since I BELIEVE, I am saved, and the others are not saved

because THEY DON'T BELIEVE."? In either case, Dr. Becker must deal with

certain problems. On the one hand he talks of universalism, on the other

hand, he speaks of synergism.

In his next paragraph we find these words, "The translation given

above indicates that we have treated (reconciling) as a supplementary

participle and the whole phrase as a periphrastic construction. The

argument that (was...reconciling) cannot be periphrastic because of the

intervening words, (in Christ...world) cannot be maintained."13. Please

note however, that the sainted Prof. Meyer in Ministers of Christ insists

that "reconciling" should not be considered as a periphrastic phrase, for

if it is, one is " making a continued aciton of the reconciling." Prof.

Meyer wrote thusly concerning those who make "reconciling" a periphrastic

phrase (as does Dr. Becker), "They combine (was) with (reconciling) as a

periphrastic imperfect tense, thus emphatically making a continued action

of the (reconciling): God was in the course of history reconciling one

individual after the other in an unbroken succession. If that

combination should stand then it would almost be inevitable that the

meaning of (reconciling) undergo a change; it would come to signify

something like bringing to faith."14. (underlining added). Dr. Becker

has indeed insisted on that combination, the combination that Prof. Meyer

said would signify a "continued action of the (reconciling);

God was in the course of history reconciling one individual after the other in an

unbroken succession". Perhaps Dr. Becker is moving closer to the

Scriptural position than he himself realizes. Or perhaps Prof. Meyer and

Dr. Becker have proven all the more the necessity of interpreting

Scripture with Scripture, the need to let the clear Word of God Speak to

and interpret that which some find unclear.

On page 6 Dr. Becker writes, "The reconciling was going on

throughout the ministry of Jesus, beginning at His birth and reaching its

climax in the resurrection."15. Such a statement brings out another

question. If the reconciling began at the birth of Jesus and reached its

climax at the resurrection, when were the Old Testament saints reconciled

(such as Abraham)? were they unreconciled until the time of Christ? Did

they then suddenly become reconciled? I feel certain that Dr. Becker

would say that such was not the case, that Abraham and the other O.T.

saints were reconciled through faith in the promise that Christ would

come and make satisfaction for their sins, a promise such as Gen. 3:15.

This would coincide perfectly with Gen. 15:6 when it says of Abraham,

"And he believed in the Lord: and He counted it to him for righteousness."

Of Noah, Heb. 11:7 says,

"By faith Noah,being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved

with fear, prepared an ark to the saving of his house; by the

which he

which is by

condemned the world, and became heir of the righteousness

faith."

It would seem that Scripture teaches us in no uncertain terms that

the O.T. saints were justified the moment God moved them to trust His

promises of Him which was to come. What else can be said other than

throughout the course of history, beginning with Adam and Eve and

concluding with the last one whom God has chosen, that one by one God is

justifying him which believeth in Jesus. Were the O.T. saints waiting

around somewhere until the time of Christ to be reconciled? Any further

talk of such a possiblility would be nothing short of blasphemy. Again

it says of Abraham, Rom. 4:9:

"for we say that faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness."

Not shall be reckoned but "was reckoned to Abraham for

righteousness". Faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness the

moment God, by grace worked faith in the ungodly one. Throughout the

course of history, God has been bringing ungodly ones, such as Abraham to

faith, and through such God-worked faith declaring the unrighteous to be

righteous. Rom. 4:23:

"Now it was not written for his sake alone, that it was imputed to

him";

vs.24, "But for us also, to whom it shall be imputed if we

believe on him

that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead."

A brief comment on Dr. Becker's use of Rom. 5: 10. He wrote, "That

this reconciliation took place in the past and before we came to faith is

surely made clear by Paul's statement that we were reconciled to God

through the death of His Son while we were still enemies (Rm 5:10)."

16. I can't imagine how Dr. Becker overlooked the rest of that verse

which reads, "much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by His

life." simply put, the "we" who were reconciled to God by the death of

His Son when we were enemies are the same "we" that being reconciled

shall be saved by His life. If Dr. Becker contends that the "we" who

were reconciled, etc., are in fact all people, then he must also be

saying that being reconciled, "we" that is, no less than all people shall

be saved by His life. I wonder why he is surprised to find that many

hearing or reading of such a position easily see leanings toward

universalism, to say the least? Not only is such a position leaning in

that direction, it has fallen, like the house built on sand it came down

with a big crash.

Dr. Becker then went on to say, "And if Paul can say that God

reconciled all things to Himself through the blood of Christ's cross that

must surely include more than believers unless we want to write a

Calvinistic gloss on that 'all'.17 Dr. Becker is reading more into the

inspired words of St. Paul than are present, and doesn't even mention the

words which follow that would help him to understand more clearly and

correctly the truth hereby presented. Note first the verse quoted

(somewhat quoted) by Dr. Becker, (Col. 1: 20,)

"And, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to

reconcile all things unto himself; by him, I say, whether they be

things in earth, or things in heaven."

God did not say "God reconciled all things to Himself through the

blood of Christ's cross." Rather, God says, "having made peace through

the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself..."

Dr. Becker changed the Word from "by Him to reconcile" to " God

reconciled". His change does speak of a one-time action of the past, but

that is not what God says. Clearly God is pointing to the blood of

Christ shed on the cross as that which sinners are to look to for peace.

for peace is "through Him to reconcile all things unto Himself."

Those

who are without Christ have not peace, for God has established the way to

be reconciled as being through Christ. Only those in Christ are

reconciled. Example, Eph. 2:12ff,

"That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the

commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of

promise, having no hope, and without God in the world: But now in

Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the

blood

both have

of Christ. for He is our peace." vs18, "For through Him we

access by one Spirit unto the Father."

And let us not forget vs. 19:

"Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellow

citizens with the saints, and of the household of God."

The same is said in Rom. 5:1,2:

" Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God

through our Lord Jesus Christ: By whom also we have access by

faith

glory of

into this grace wherein we stand, and rejoice in hope of the

God."

Notice the way to peace with God, the Lord Jesus Christ - grace -

faith. Dr. Becker insults the Word of God when he leaves out grace and

faith. This is made even more clear when we look at Col. 1:21-23

" And you, that were sometime alienated and enemies in your mind by

wicked works, yet now hath he reconciled in the body of His flesh

through death, to present you holy and unblameable and

unreproveable

in His sight: If ye continue in the faith grounded and

settled, and be not

moved away from the hope of the gospel, which ye

have heard, and

heaven; whereof

which was preached to every creature which is under

I Paul am made a minister."

We are reconciled, holy, unblameable, and unreproveable in God's

sight if we continue in the faith, etc. Eliminate faith as Dr. Becker

had done and one would find himself unreconciled, unholy, blameable, and

reproveable in God's sight. Heed this warning from God.

A quick comment on Dr. Becker's words concerning II Cor. 5:18 at

the top of p. 7, "Moreover, when Paul says in Second Corinthians 5:18

that God reconciled us to Himself through Christ, we may grant that the

"us" means believeing children of God without admitting that this

reconciliation is limited to believers or that it took place when they

became believers."18. The fact that only believers are reconciled is

clearly shown in the words, "and hath given to us the ministry of

reconciliation". There would be no need for this ministry if all have

been reconciled whether they believe it or not. As a matter of fact, if

all have been reconciled whether they believe it or not, why give people

the opportunity "to reject" such a reconciliation by doing the work of

the ministry? I'm afraid that Dr. Becker is making God's Word, the

ministry of reconciliation, the scapegoat for anyone being damned through

the rejection of the Holy Spirit.

Going on, Dr. Becker wrote, " He says instead that God reconciled

the world to Himself not by bringing them to faith, but 'by not imputing

their trespasses unto them' "19. He equates the non-imputation of sin

with reconciliation. I wonder if he would also teach that all people

were reconciled from the time of Adam to Moses because of the non-

imputation of sins during that period? Rom. 5:13,14 says:

"For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed

when

even

there is no law. Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses,

over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's

transgression."

Beyond any doubt, it is clear that Dr. Becker believes that there

are two doctrines of reconciliation. Through paragraph 6 on p. 7 he

spoke of "universal reconciliation". The next paragraph begins, "The

reconciliation that takes place when men come to faith is spoken of in

the following verse. When Paul says, 'We pray you in Christ's stead, be

ye reconciled to God,' he calls upon them to be changed in their

relationship to God. How that takes place is very clear from the wider

biblical context."20. (underlining added). Going on he says, "When men

recognize in faith and through faith that God has forgiven them, as the

word of reconciliation says, they will be changed from men who are

terrified before God's wrath and who hate God to people who see God as

their gracious heavenly Father. God changed them or reconciled them in

relation to Himself by not imputing their trespasses to them. He placed

them into a different relationship to Himself in and through Christ.

When they accept that message in faith they will be changed in the way

they relate to God."21. (underlining added). Reconciliation #1, he seems

to say, is that because of the death of His Son, God is changed in His

relationship to us, and reconciliation #2 is man coming to faith in

reconciliation #1 and changing their relationship to God. I wonder how

Dr. Becker would reconcile his two doctrines of reconciliation with these

words concerning reconciliation from the Confessions?

"But to believe is to trust in the merits of Christ, that for His

sake God certainly wishes to be reconciled to us." (Apology p.

137, par. 57).

Or this similar passage:

"Now we will show that faith (and nothing else) justifies.

He,

in the first place, as it is necesary to maintain this

Christ is Mediator, so it is necessary to defend that

sentence:

faith justifies,

(without works).

For how will Christ be

Mediator if in

justification we do not use Him as Mediator; if

we do not hold that

for His sake God certainly wishes to be

reconciled with us."

(Apology p. 141, par. 69).

Further on, Dr. Becker writes, "Everyone who wishes to speak as the

oracles of God speak must admit that the Scriptures have much to say

about the fearful wrath of God against all sin. This wrath must somehow

be appeased, and it was appeased throgh the death of Christ."22. Is this

not a denial of the wrath of God after the death of Christ? Since Christ

died for all, and Dr. Becker says that God's wrath was appeased through

the death of Christ, then he must be saying that the wrath of God no

longer exists. But then, if His wrath has been appeased concerning all

poeple, and He no longer sees us as sinners 23, what then damns? God

certainly doesn't because He is no longer angry; unbelief certainly can't

do it because that sin too has already been forgiven if all sin is

forgiven; neither can God be angry with unbelief if His anger has been

appeased. The only thing left is that some don't want to go to heaven so

they jump into hell to escape the mercy of God. But then that doesn't

explain Mt. 25:41 in which Jesus will say to all the ungodly:

"Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire."

Neither does it explain II Thes. 1:7,8,

"...the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with His mighty

angels,

(lack of

in flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God

knowledge), and that obey not (rejection) the Gospel of our

Lord Jesus Christ."

And we could also present John. 3:36 :

"...and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life;

but the

wrath of

God abideth on him."

Yes, God's wrath is removed for the believer, it is true He no

longer sees the sin of the believer, this is so because of grace - Jesus

Christ - faith. But for the unbeliever who is without grace, Jesus

Christ, and faith, God sees only his sins, each and every one of them,

and He is angry, and His wrath abideth on him. And if that unbeliever

dies without faith in Jesus Christ lacking the grace of God, he dies in

all his sins and remaineth under the wrath of God eternally (see Jn.

8:24).

Also on p. 8, Dr. Becker wrote, "in debating the question whether

God is reconciled or not, one should really distinguish between the Greek

word "katallasso" and its common English translation "reconcile." The

English word does not have the very strong basic meaning of "change" that

is found in the Greek word.

It may well be that Paul would never had

said that God was reconciling but that he would still have been willing

to say with the Lutheran confessions that God was reconciled."24. Paul

was willing to say only what God moved him to say, nothing more, and

nothing less. A valuable lesson can always be learned from that great

truth. But as we see, what Paul was unwilling to do, Dr. Becker has

done. He writes, "But the search need not last long. Paul tells us what

the change was that took place when he says that when God reconciled the

world to Himself He did not impute the sins of men to them. Instead He

imputed them to Christ.

"He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us" (vs.21).

Isaiah had said it more than seven centuries before Paul when he wrote,

"The Lord hath laid on Him the iniquity of us all.' And when Christ was

made to be sin for us, we were made 'the righteousness of God in Him'."25

(underlining added).

But the Word of God does not say in II Cor. 5:21, "And when Christ

was made to be sin for us, we were made 'the righteousness of God in Him'

". Rather it says:

"For He hath made Him to be sin for us, who knew no sin;

that we

might

be made the rightousness of God in Him."

I wish I could say that I am shocked to see God's Word changed as

was done by Dr. Becker, but far too often in the past 3 1/2 years similar

changes have appeared. Some have been changes by omission, while others

have been man's word substituted for the Inspired Word. But while no

longer shocked by such, I remain horrified. Deut. 4:2 says,

"Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall

ye

Lord

diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the

your God which I command you."

And Prov. 30: 5,6 says:

"Every word of God is pure: He is a shield unto them that put

their trust

thee, and thou be

in Him. Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove

found a liar."

We now look at Dr. Becker's comments on Rom. 5: 18,19. Quite

seemingly, Dr. Becker has a very difficult time with this portion of

Scripture. This is evident because of the several changes that he makes

in the text which I shall momentarily show. I believe that much of this

could have been cleared up had he simply began with vs. 17 which says:

"For if by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they

which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness

shall

reign in life by one, Jesus Christ."

This verse sets forth the context for verses 18-21 and should never

be left out in a discussion of verses 18 &19. That those who receive the

"free gift" of vs. 18 and "shall many be made righteous" of vs. 19 should

be viewd by Dr. Becker as "all people" is clearly shown to be incorrect

when one first reads vs. 17 which says "they which receive abundance of

grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus

Christ." This verse identifies those that receive the free gift of

righteousness and the many that shall be made righteous as those which

shall reign in life. Verse 17 makes Dr. Becker's discussion of verses 18

& 19 futile, unless of course, by such a disussion he is attempting to

gather support for "universalism".

Briefly now, let's look at the changes he made in the text. First,

concerning his discussion of vs. 18 we note the following: "If all are

condemned because of the sin of one man (18a) and all are justified

because of the right action of one man (18b) ."26. Again he wrote, "The

righteous act (a collective singular) of Christ results in acquittal for

all men. But it does not result in life for all men."27. Also, "We

need therefore consume little of the time alloted to this paper to

demonstrate that verse 18 teaches a universal justification."28.

Notice what Dr. Becker attributes to vs. 18: " all are justified",

"aquittal for all men", "does not result in life for all men", and

"universal justification". What he has done is to make vs. 18 to teach

two justifications. He attributes the words "by the righteousness of one

the free gift came upon all men" as a justification of all people apart

from faith and the words " unto justification of life" as a justification

of only those which accept God's pardon in faith. The only other

possibility is that what I considered to be his first justification

spoken of, is (in his teaching) the only doctrine of justification, and

the second justification spoken of is not a part of the doctrine of

justfication at all but the doctrine of faith. In either case, the

meaning of the verse has been changed substantially. As I translate it

the verse appears thusly, "So therefore as through one offence to all men

to condemnation, so also through one righteous act to all men to

justification of life." In this verse we see one doctrine of

condemnation and one doctrine of justification to life. The question is,

who is effected by each one and when? First the doctrine of

condemnation. Ps. 51: 5 says:

"Behold I was shapen in iniquity, and in sin did my mother

conceive me."

David certainly believed that upon his conception he was in

condemnation. The same can be said of each of us, that is, those who

have already died, those who are yet living, and those who will yet be

born. Each one of us upon our conception are in condemnationn.

That is,

all men, as we are conceived inherit the sin of Adam (the one offense

that is to all men) and stand condemned before God (to condemnation).

Needless to say, this is an ongoing process throughut the course of

history. "So also", we are told,

"through one righteous act to all men

to justification of life." Now, when does the "justification to life

come upon men? Remember what vs. 17 taught us,

"they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of

righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ."

Clearly, the gift of righteounsess, the justification of life,

comes to them "which receive abundance of grace", "the free gift". Paul

teaches us in Eph. 2: 8, "For by grace are ye saved through faith; and

that not of yourselves" it is the gift of God."

Rom. 1: 17 says:

"For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to

faith, as

it is written, the just shall live by faith."

The evidence should be quite clear. When by grace sinful man is

brought to faith (the one righteous act of Christ) the believer is

declared righteous (to justification of life). "The just shall live by

faith." Thus, one by one, as God brings the ungodly to faith in the

righteous act of Christ the believer is justified unto eternal life. The

righteous act of Christ comes upon sinful man through faith and results

in eternal life, "that as sin hath reigned unto death, even so might

grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our

Lord", (vs 21). Dr. Becker would not have a problem with this if he

understood that to be acquitted of sin is to be given eternal life, that

the righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith, that the just

live by faith, etc. Faith cannot be left out of God declaring the

ungodly ones just. What else is it to be acquitted of all sin than to be

declared righteous? And isn't faith counted for righteousness? One by

one, through faith the believers are declared righteous, acquitted of all

sin, and given the gift of eternal life. Dr. Becker ignores the context,

doesn't let Scripture interpret Scripture, thus loses the truths

presented by God. Rom. 5:17 expresses that truth so beautifully when it

says:

"For by one man's offence death reigned by one: much more they

which

shall reign

receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness

in life by one, Jesus Christ."

Just a few words on Dr. Becker's discussion concerning "many" and

"all" on page 10. He writes, "If all are condemned because of the sin of

one man (18a), and all are justified because of the right action of one

man (18b), and if all are set down as sinners through one man's

disobedience (19a), then we can certainly expect that all men will be set

down as righteous through one man's obedience (19b).

If the action

described in 19b is something that takes place when a man comes to faith,

then these words are not true because all do not come to faith, and while

many, polus, are called, few, oligos, are chosen. To say that 'all' here

means 'all who come to faith' is to commit the same sin that is committed

by Calvinists when they say that the 'all' for whom Christ died are 'all

who are elect.' The 'all' of 18b are the 'all' of 18a and of verse 12."

Focus in on these words just quoted for a moment, "If the action

described in 19b is something that takes place when a man comes to faith,

then these words are not true because all do not come to faith..."

He would have no trouble with this if he let the Word stand as

written instead of changing the "many" to "all". If God wanted to say

"all" He would have said "all", but He wanted to say exactly what He said

and that is:

"...so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous."

To be sure, the words that Dr.Becker said could not be true are

indeed not true because they were not the words of God, rather, the words

of man. The same warning about changing the Word of God applies in this

case also that was mentioned previously.

Going on Dr. Becker writes, "The 'all' of 18b are the 'all' of 18a

and of verse 12." He just contradicted himself. Verse 18b contains the

phrase "unto justification of life." Earlier we quoted Dr. Becker as

saying on page 9 "The righteous act (a collective singular) of Christ

results in acquittal for all men. But it does not result in life for all

men. The verdict of acquittal pronounced for Jesus' sake on all men

results in life only if the verdict of pardon is accepted in faith."27.

Here he said that this portion of 18b is not all people, reasoning that

not all come to faith, so to make it an "all people " passage would

naturally lead one to think of universalism. So to avoid that on p. 9 he

stipulated that in effect the "unto justification of life" must be looked

at differently than the rest of that

half of the verse. However, now on

p. 10 he simply says "the 'all' of 18b are the 'all' of 18a and of verse

12." Once again, when one flirts with changing the Word of God, problems

have a way of mounting up, the mole hill soon becomes a mountain. Of

interest here are the words of Jesus in Mt. 17:20:

"If ye have faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye shall say unto

this

mountain, remove hence to yonder place; and it shall remove,"

Changing God's Word creates mountains, faith moves mountains.

We now turn to 1 Tim. 3:16. On page 11 Dr. Becker wrote, "He

(Christ) was declared free of the guilt of all the sins that were laid

upon Him. By the resurrection the sins for which He was 'numbered with

the transgressors' were formally declared by the Father to be completely

paid for. Christ was no longer 'guilty' but free from all liability to

punishment."30. Several things are said here that I question. Were we

made children of God through faith in the "guilty one"? 1 Pet. 1:18,19

says:

"Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible

things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by

tradition from your fathers; But with the precious blood of Christ,

as of a

lamb without blemish and without spot."

1 Pet. 3:18 says:

"For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the

unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the

flesh,

but quickened by the Spirit."

Heb. 4:15,:

"For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the

feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as

we are,

yet without sin."

Is. 53:9:

"And he made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his

death;

because he had done no violence, neither was any deceit in

his mouth."

Lk. 23:41:

"And we indeed justly; for we receive the due reward of our deeds:

but

this man hath done nothing amiss."

Heb. 9:14:

"How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the

eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your

conscience from dead works to serve the living God?"

1Pet. 2:22,

"Who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth."

These verses are very clear, Christ was not guilty of sin, in fact,

He was the perfect Passover Lamb, without blemish and without spot. This

point cannot be emphasized enough, for had Christ been guilty of sin His

sacrifice would have been less than God required for the sins of the

world and we would all still be in our sins. Faith in a sinful sacrifice

would mean nothing for salvation. When Dr. Becker says that "Christ was

no longer 'guilty' but free from all liability to punishment", he is

surely failing to grasp the sinless, holy, innocent, and perfect in every

way Passover Lamb that Christ was when He laid down His life for us all.

The correct way of presenting Christ in His humility when He became the

all-atoning sacrifice for sin is as the sin-bearer, not as the one who

was guilty of sin.

Is. 53:4 begins:

"Surely he hath borne our griefs, an carried our sorrows:" Verse

6 concludes, "and the Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us

all."

shall be

Verse 11 says, "He shall see of the travail of his soul, and

satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant

justify many;

these words,

for he shall bear their iniquities." verse 12 ends with

"and he bare the sin of many, and made intercession for

the

transgressors."

1 Pet. 2:24 says:

"Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that

we,

being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose

stripes ye were healed."

With this clear understanding of the work of Christ on earth, i.e.,

that of the One who bore the sins of the world, the meaning of 1 Tim.

3:16 is quite simple. When it says "justified in the spirit" we are

being told that His heavenly Father verified that His Son had made

satisfaction for the sins of all people and that He was accepting that

perfect sacrifice as just that. Nothing more, nothing less should be

said of this verse.

We now turn to Rom. 4:25. Dr. Becker wrote, "When Paul says that

Christ was delivered because of our transgressions the _____ is without

doubt retrospective. He was put to death because our sins had been

imputed to Him. And while it is true that 'our' in this context refers

to believers and only believers can say what Paul says here, yet it is

crystal clear that what Paul asserts here of believers is true of all

men."31. If he really believes that "only believers can say what Paul

says here," how can he go on to say "yet it is crystal clear that what

Paul asserts here of believers is true of all men."? If only believers

can say what Paul said here, how can unbelievers say it also? It would

seem also that the context is very clear as to who this justification is

applying to. Verse 24 says:

"But for us also, to whom it shall be imputed, (not retrospective

as Dr. Becker asserts but future), if we believe on him that raised

up

Jesus our Lord from the dead.".

Also, Rom. 5:12:

"Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God

through our Lord Jesus Christ:" And vs. 2, "By whom also we have

access by faith into this grace wherein we stand, and rejoice in

hope of

the glory of God."

Do unbelievers have peace with God?

Do unbelievers stand in His

grace? Do unbelievers rejoice in hope of the glory of God? It should be

self evident to all that this entire section of Scripture is speaking of

believers only. To apply it to unbelievers also is just plain not being

honest.

Now for 1 Jn. 2:2. Dr. Becker writes, "We may also say that the

passages that say that Christ died for all, that He took away the sins of

the world, that He gave His life as a ransom for all, and all the other

passages of a similar nature in reality teach universal and objective

justification. How can we possibly say that Christ is the Lamb of God

which took away the sins of the world; without saying that the sins of

the world are forgiven?"32 The last sentence here refers to Jn. 1:29.

To make it say "that Christ is the Lamb of God which took away the sins

of the world..." is inaccurate to say the least. The KJV says "which

taketh away", which is much closer to the original. The Greek here

actually means "to bear up, carry, lift up", etc., which speaks not of a

removal of sin but rather an expiation of sins. John is referring back

to Is. 53:4-12 saying, "Behold, the Lamb of God bearing or carrying the

sin of the world." Here is the one fulfilling prophecy, the sin-bearer

of the world. Dr. Becker seems to have been carried away with the notion

that all sin of the world is gone, removed entirely, etc., which is what

it would mean if the text actually read "took away the sins". Such is

not the case. Dr. Becker then mixes in Ps. 103: 8-12 into the

discussion. Indeed these words speak of forgiveness, indeed they speak

of sin being removed forever, but whose sin?

verse 11 said:

"so great is his mercy toward them that fear him."

verse 13 says:

"so the Lord pitieth them that fear him".

Verse 17 says:

"But the mercy of the Lord is from everlasting to everlasting upon

them

that fear him, and his righteousness unto children's children".

And vs. 18:

"To such as keep his covenant, and to those that remmber his

commandments to do them."

It's crystal clear, beyond all doubt those whose sins are forgiven

are those who (by grace) fear God, who (by faith) obey Him, etc. When

sins are removed as far as the east is from the west, they are removed

eternally never again to be laid to the charge of him whom God has

forgiven. To apply this to unbelievers and to put those same unbelievers

into hell is to put them there without their sin, and this is totally

opposite the clear teachingof God when He says in Jn. 8:24:

"for if ye believe not that I am He, ye shall die in your sins."

As far as 1 Jn. 2:2 is concerned, John is saying that Jesus is

the One who has made satisfaction for the sins of the world.. To

attribute it to a forgiveness apart from faith is not correct.

Look

first at 1 Jn. 1:8:

"If we say that we have no sin..." (isn't that what Dr. Becker

says all people can say?), Going on, "we deceive ourselves, and

the truth is not in us."

If all sin of all people has been taken away, then it would be

correct for all people to say (apart from faith) that they have no sin.

But God calls such talk deceiving and not the truth. Now look at 1 Jn.

1:9:

"If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our

sins, and

to cleanse us from all unrighteousness."

Dr. Becker wants us to believe that God has already forgiven the

sins of all people (that their sins have been removed forever), that all

people have already been cleansed from all unrighteousness when they were

declared righteous prior to faith, and that such pronouncement came in

the resurrection of Christ. The text says differently when it says that

God "is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from

all unrighteousness". Not that God "was" faithful to forgive and

cleanse but that He "is" faithful and just to forgive and cleanse us "if

we confess our sins." This text surely speaks of an ongoing declaraton

of righteous and forgiveness upon all who are led to repentance (unless

Dr. Becker believes that all people repented in unison at the

resurrection of Christ), but then, the text still says "is faithful and

just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness".

This text would not even be needed nor could it be true if Dr. Becker's

doctrine is correct. There can only be one choice in this matter. The

Word of God does not err and is completely trustworthy. I shall

subscribe to It and pray that Dr. Becker will also.

At the bottom of page 12 Dr. Becker says, "Thus when the blood was

sprinkled on the mercyseat a 'covering' was made by which the sins of the

people were hidden from the eyes of an angry God."33. If this is applied

to all people, and I believe Dr. Becker means it as such, then God no

longer sees the sins of anyone, which must say that Dr. Becker has people

leaping into hell again to escape the mercy of God. If those in hell

aren't there because God sees all their sins and has nothing but wrath

for the workers of iniquity and thereby has sent them to their eternal

place of torment as their just reward, then why else are they in hell

unless they have leaped into the pit of fire on their own? And if all

sins are hidden from the eyes of God, how is it that Jesus will say on

the Last Day to the "cursed ones" that he is casting into hell:

"For I was hungry, and ye gave me no meat:

I was thirsty, and ye

gave

me no drink, etc.", (Mt. 25:41ff),

if He no longer sees their sins? Individual sins of the "cursed ones"

will be publically brought to their attention on that Great and Terrible

Day. Because of their sins, their works done not in faith, they shall be

punished eternally. Dr. Becker's doctrine doesn't even come close to

agreement with the Word of God concerning this matter.

Dr. Becker then refers to Rom. 4:7,8

on page 13. He writes, "But

to cover sins is to forgive sins. That these two phrases are totally

synonymous, and that both terms are synonymous with justification is made

as clear as anything can be when Paul says, that David speaks of the man

to whom God imputes righteousness (whom God justifies) when he writes,

(Rom. 4:7,8)." (the verses are then quoted). But who is it " to whom

God imputes righteousness"? Is it all people? Verse 9 says:

"cometh this blessedness then upon the circumcision only, or upon

the

uncircumcision also? for we say that faith was reckoned to Abraham

for righteousness." Verse 11 concludes,

"that he might be the

father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised;

that

righteousness might be imputed unto them also".

The Bible concludes that those "to whom God imputes righteousness"

are believers.

Dr. Becker now brings in Rom 4:5 which says, "Now to him that

worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith

is counted for righteousness." He misses the mark though when he applies

this as a passage teching universal justification.34. The Greek word

translated "ungodly" in the KJV should be rendered "ungodly one", in the

singular. The context makes the same point clear also when it says, "But

to him that worketh not". To pull the phrase "justifieth the ungodly" as

Dr. Becker has done and then apply it to all people simply will not do.

Who is justified according to this verse? a) him that worketh not b)

him that believeth on Him that justifieth the ungodly one (note that

neither of these apply to all people). What is reckoned for

righteousness? "his faith is counted for righteousness." This passage

doesn't teach a universal justification, it teaches justificaiton through

faith and not of works lest anyone should boast.

Under the section of "The Place of Faith", Dr. Becker writes,

"Faith does nothing more than accept the forgiveness proclaimed in the

Gospel. It is not a condition we must fulfill before we can be forgiven.

It is not a cause of forgiveness on account of which God forgives us.

The forgiveness comes first. faith is merely the response to the

message. God says to us, 'Your sins are forgiven.' This is objective

justification, and God's message to us is true whether we believe it or

not. Faith makes God's message its own and says, 'My sins are forgiven.'

This is subjective justification. The whole doctrine is just as simple

as that."35.

Dr. Becker is confused about the doctrine of faith. Indeed we

don't fulfill the condition of faith before we are forgiven, but God

does. The natural man can't begin to believe on his own, as 1 Cor. 2:14

teaches us. In this paragraph he clearly removes faith from the doctrine

of justification violating the clear Word of God which says in Rom. 5:1,

"Therefore being justified by faith..." Or Rom. 3:22, "Even the

righteousness of God which is by faith in Jesus Christ unto all and upon

all them that believe." Many, many more could as easily be cited to show

this point. To be sure, faith is the very work of God that is counted

for righteousness. And I emphasize, faith is a work of God. Eph. 2:4-10

is an excellent example of this point. Verse 5 says, "hath quickened us

together with Christ", vs. 6, "And hath raised us up together, and made

us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus." vs.8, "For by grace

are you saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift

of God." vs. 9, "Not of works." vs.10, "For we are his workmanship

created in Christ Jesus." Also Col.2:12 , "Buried with him in baptism,

wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of

God.." Or Heb. 12:2, "Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our

faith;" One last example, Jn. 1:12,13, "But as many as received him, to

them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe

on his name: Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the

flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God."

Apparently Dr. Becker is clinging to the false concept that faith

is a work of man. When he does this, he is attributing man's salvation

partly to man himself, and Scripture never allows for this. One such

condition (worked by God) when man is justified; is that the one being

justified "worketh not" as shown in Rom. 4:5 above. By grace, for the

sake of Christ, God does it all for us. Paul rejoiced in this great

truth when he said in Phil. 3:9:

"And be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which

the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the

of

righteousness

which is of God by faith."

Dr. Becker goes sadly astray when he makes faith a work of man and

puts it outside God's justifying act. Faith doesn't accept the

forgiveness already given, for by faith sinful man is counted righteous

and forgiven. Faith doesn't precede justification, neither does it come

after justification. Rather the moment God brings the ungodly one to

faith He declares him righteous and gives him the forgiveness of sins and

life eternal.

In "The Importance of Objective Justification" Dr. Becker writes,

"If my sins are forgiven only if I first have faith then I have no solid

foundation on which to rest my hope for eternal life. I must then know

that I have faith before I can know that my sins are forgiven."36. In

these words is Dr. Becker syaing that his solid foundation is the

"universal declaraton of forgiveness: and not the merits of Christ? If

so, he will be disappointed in his hope, there is no such declaration in

which we are to trust. Only Jesus Christ is the solid foundation in

which we find support and life. Act. 4:12:

"Neither is there salvation in any other; for there is none other

name

under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved."

I pray that I misunderstand Dr. Becker's words here and that he

will tell all that the solid foundation of his hope is the merits of

Christ given him freely by grace through faith and not a "declaration of

forgiveness." But his words here surely indicate differently:

"But there is nothing uncertain in the truth that is proclaimed in

the

Gospel. Your sin is taken away, wiped out, foriven, cancelled,

swallowed

typing

up in the empty grave in Joseph's garden (this is likely a

error it was not Joseph's garden but rather Joseph's tomb).

To

solid

that we must cling. To that we can cling. On that we can build a

hope that will not make us ashamed."37.

A hope built on such a foundation will sink in the sand.

Going on Dr. Becker wrote:

"In times of temptation when I am no longer aware of my faith, when

my heart tells me that I am an unbeliever, I have no place to turn

for

assurance if faith must come before forgiveness. But if

forgiveness

comes first, if it is always there, if it is true

whether I believe it or not, I

faith or not before I can cling to

sins are forgiven whether I feel

iniquity is pardoned whether I

that, then I know also that I am a

do not need to know whether I have

God's promise. I know that my

forgiven or unforgiven. I know that my

believe it or not. And when I know

believer." 38.

Such a paragraph is unbecoming of a Christian.

Of Abraham it says

in Rom.4:20-22:

"He staggered not at the promise of God through unbelief; but was

strong in faith, giving glory to God;

And being fully persuaded

that,

what he had promised, he was able also to perform. And

therefore it was imputed to him for righteousness."

Are we not children of Abraham through faith?

Rom.4:11:

"That he might be the father of all them that believe..."

Gal. 3:7-9:

"Know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the same are the

children of Abraham. And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would

justify the heathen through faith, preached before the Gospel unto

Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed. So then

they

which be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham."

Like Abraham, the object of our God-given faith must always be the

merits of Christ given to us by grace, given to us who are not working

but are believing in Him who justifieth the ungodly one. Christ must be

kept at the heart of this matter always, then we too "will stagger not at

the promise of God through unbelief."

Gal. 3:26,27,29 says:

"For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. for

as many

of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.

And if ye be

Christ's then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according

to the

promise."

What does a Christian do when tempted to go astray? Do we turn to

Dr. Becker's doctrine of universal forgiveness for strength? Heb. 2:18

says, "For in that He Himself hath suffered being tempted, He is able to

succour them that are tempted." Heb. 4:16 says, "Let us therefore come

boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace

to help in time of need."

And further, it says in Eph. 6:10ff:

"Finally, my bretheren, be strong in the Lord and in the power of

his

stand

might. Put on the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to

against the wiles of the devil.... Stand therefore, having

your loins girt

about with truth, and having on the breastplate of

rigteousness; And

of peace; Above all,

able to quench all the

your feet shod with the preparation of the gospel

taking the shield of faith, wherewith ye shall be

fiery darts of the wicked. And take the

helmet of salvation, and the

of God: Praying always with all

sword of the Spirit, which is the word

prayer and supplication in the Spirit."

The spiritual armour given us by God is more than enough to fight

off temptation, the tricks of the devil, etc., among such spiritual

armour is the shield of faith which Paul says above all others

"wherewith ye shall be able to quench all the fiery darts of the

wicked."

Yet, in spite of the counsel of God, Dr. Becker tells us that:

"Faith does nothing more than accept the forgiveness proclaimed in

the Gospel." And "Faith is merely the response to the message."

I ask Dr. Becker to consider the following:

Heb. 11:6: "But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he

that

them

cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of

that diligently seek him." II Cor. 5:7, "For we walk by faith,

not by

sight."

Dr. Becker and other advocates of objective justification disregard

these and other verses teaching the same truths. They seem to believe

that God is pleased with all people without faith. They seem to require

an object to look to with their eyes (their doctrine of the declaration

of forgiveness upon all men prior to faith) before they can believe.

But Rom. 8:24,25 says:

"For we are saved by hope: but hope that is seen is not hope: for

what a

we see

man seeth, why doth he yet hope for? But if we hope for that

not, then do we with patience wait for it."

May God help them.

Now concerning Dr. Becker's discussion of the four statements. I

might begin by saying that Dr. Becker has brought into this discussion

many new statements and charges concerning our case that we didn't even

know existed. I shall attempt to point these out as I go along. One

not-so-new charge says this, "They held that Jesus by His vicarious

satisfaction had made it possible for God to forgive sins but that God

forgives men only when and if they believe, so that man's act of

believing always precedes God's verdict of innocence."39. Dr. Becker

should know by now that believing is not "man's act" which "precedes

God's verdict of innocence." We have always held that God works faith in

the ungodly and that through faith pronounces the believing ones

righteous.

Next he wrote, "The first three statements are taken verbatim from

WELS sources."40. Yet he wrote in the preceding paragraph, "These

statements were not drawn up by anyone in WELS in order to present our

position on universal and objective justification."39. Which are the

readers to believe? He denies they are WELS sources and then he says

they are WELS sources. Faith Church, the Circuit Counselor, the Panel of

Review, and the the District President all ruled them to be the "doctrine

of justificaton as practiced by the WELS".

His statement concerning the fourth statement is new to us. He

seemingly indicates that Dr. Walter A. Maier is somehow responsible for

the fourth statement.

I know for certain that this is not the case.

When Dr. Maier saw the fourth statement for the first time, he was as

shocked and horrified as we were upon first being introduced to this

doctrine in the WELS. What we have always said concerning the fourth

statement is that it was adapted from material given us by a LCMS student

at one of their seminaries and was taken from a paper presenting the

differences between the positions of the Norwegian Synod and the

Augustana Synod concerning objective and subjective justification.

Basically, the Norwegian Synod taught as WELS teaches, that is, the

damned sit and sweat in hell with all their sins forgiven. The Augustana

Synod, for the most part, held as we do that by grace, for the sake of

Christ, believers are justified through faith. The paper, by the way,

was edited by Theodore G. Tappert and is titled Lutheran Confessional

Theology in America 1840-1880.

Perhaps Dr. Becker will share with us

where he obtained his false information.

Dr. Becker went on to write, "However, because the statements were

used to discredit the truth of universal justification and to cause other

laymen to doubt this teaching it is especially necessary to point out

that the statements do not contain false doctrine."41. This is an

amazing statement. On the one hand, he says "the statements were used to

discredit the truth...", and on the other he says, "the statements do not

contain false doctrine." If they are not false doctrine but truth, how

could they discredit the truth?

May I say first of all, there is not

truth to universal justification. That doctrine of man is an instrument

of Satan himself to turn people away from the truths of Christ and to

lead them into a life of sin, after all, "sin is already forgiven", says

the devil, "eat, drink and be merry." Secondly, when we began to

confront this untruth, we did so privately with the Pastor of Faith

Church, and I might add, for several months. Rev. Papenfuss, not us,

brought it to the attention of the Church Council and later on to the

attention of the Voters. We then followed step two of Mt. 18 and

addressed the issue to Rev Papenfuss in front of wintnesses. After he

called an emergency meeting of the Voters Assembly through which we were

given three days to agree with the teaching of the four statements or be

put out from the church, we appealed. First to Rev. Siggelkow, then to

President Boldt. After it was evident that the WELS was continueing in

their false teaching, we followed the third step of Mt. 18 and

"told the

church." About two and one half years expired from step one until step

three was encacted. Dr. Becker should know this, he first became

involved through Rev. Papenfuss in October of 1978. At that time he

recommended the use of the Fifth Petition (as well as other portions of

the Confessions) as a basis for universal justification. WELS has held

firmly to his advice ever since, even though we clearly showed his

position to be wrong. It seems as if they have made their bed and now

will lie in it no matter what the consequences. We strongly suggest they

change their linen.

Then on page 16 Dr. Becker proceeds to rally around the four

statemsents. Statement three he likes as a summary of the WELS on

objective justification. Statement one he emphasized "objecitively

speaking" and "status". These key words are used often to over shadow

the false teaching presented. In statement two, these words are not

used, and here is where Dr. Becker shows his true colors. He writes:

"One really becomes a guilt-free saint only through faith, if we

limit

ourselves to the biblical usage of the word."42.

(underlining added).

Very clearly we see where WELS and others have failed and why.

They use biblical language, apply an unbiblical meaning to it, and then

use it in a way not used in the Bible, and then expect others to confess

and teach it as the Word of God. When Christians teach and confess

doctrines of the Bible, we make a habit of limiting ourselves to the way

the Bible teaches the doctrine and uses the language therein. But then,

notice how Dr. Becker found a way to justify doing otherwise as they have

attempted to reconcile such actions. He wrote in the same paragraph:

"However, since our holiness, as Augustine says, consists in sin's

remission rather than in life's perfection, we could say that when

 God forgave the sins of the whole world He regarded all sinners as

guilt-free, but if they are guilt-free we might also say that they

are holy

considered sinless in the sight of God.

person, a saint."

But a sinless person is a

Once again Dr. Becker has holy, sinless, guilt-free saints jumping

into hell to escape the mercy of God, for he has clearly said in these

words that saints are in hell. In the next paragraph, he uses the fourth

statement to promote this false and blasphemous doctrine of man. But

then he warns, "So this fourth statement is a caricature which has a

tendency to make universal justification look ridiculous." The devil

himself knows how ridiculous universal justification is, we Christians

know how "abominable, terrible notion and falsehood" these statements

really are, as Luther said in his 1522 New Year's Sermon referring to

statements which teach that:

"The forgiveness of sins and justification

the divine imputation of grace, that is on

just, in spite of our sins. This they say

to whom God imputes or does not impute sin

depend wholly and entirely on

God's simply accounting as

, is all that is required: he

is thereby justified or not

justified from his sins."

Luther called such, not ridiculous, rather "abominable, terrible

notion, and falsehood." He said, "Let us, therefore, be on our guard

against this hellish poison and not lose Christ, the consoling Savior."

We say, AMEN. I find it strange, I find it sad, that Dr. Becker and the

WELS are supporting a teaching and making it to be the central docrine of

all Scripture, a doctrine which isn't even slightly supported in

Scripture, a doctrine with which Dr. Becker even admits

"It very likely finds its explanation in the divine attribute of

eternity."

Has God communicated the central doctrine of Scripture that poorly

to mankind that it's explanation isn't clearly within the pages of Divine

Testimony but must be found later in the "divine attribute of eternity"

when it is far too late for the many already sitting and sweating in

hell forgiven of all sin? With a loud voice we protest such a "terrible

notion" even as Luther protested. Ps. 119:130:

"The entrance of thy words giveth light; it giveth understanding

unto the simple."

The central doctrine of Scripture , Justification by faith, is just

that simple, it giveth light so that even we who are the simple people,

especially we who are the simple people, are given true and saving

understanding, that by grace, for the sake of Christ, through faith we

are justified, forgiven, and given eternal life. Praise God for His

simple plan of salvation that He has so graciously communicated to all

who believe.

As always, I submit this letter out of love, fear, and trust in the

Lord my God, and pray that it may be received as it was written.

Sincerely,

David L. Hartman

Copies:

Chet Swanson

Rev. A.T. Kretzmann

Rev. Elmer Boniek

Rev. Vernon Harley

Dr. Walter A. Maier

Rev. Hermon Otten

others

Index

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

22.

23.

24.

25.

26.

27.

28.

29.

30.

31.

32.

of References

Par. 2, p.1

par. 2, p.1

par. 6, p.1

par. 2, p.2

par. 2, p.2

par. 5, p.2

par. 6, p.3

page 271, par. 65, Trig.

page 269, par. 65, Trig.

par. 4, p.4

par. 3, p.5

par. 5, p.5

par. 6, p.5

Meyer, Ministers of Christ, p. 110, par. 2

par. 3, p.6

par. 5, p.6

par. 1, p.7

par. 1, p.7

par. 5, p.7

par. 7, p.7

par. 7, p.7

par. 4, p.8

par. 1, p.8

par. 5, p.8

par. 1, p.9

par. 4, p.9, par. 6, p.10

par. 4, p.9

par. 6, p.9

par. 6, p.10

par. 2, p.11

par. 5, p.11

par. 1, p.12

33.

34.

35.

36.

37.

38.

39.

40.

41.

42.

par.

par.

par.

par.

par.

par.

par.

par.

par.

par.

8,

3,

2,

4,

5,

6,

2,

3,

5,

3,

p.12

p.13

p.14

p.14

p.14

p.14

p.15

p.15

p.15

p.16