Dear Brother Barratt!

Dear Brother Barratt!

I am pleased to see that my article about Jesus Christ was printed in “K.S.” Nr. #20. Every impartial and upright person will see from it that we, of course, believe and proclaim that our precious Savior was pure throughout. It is your expression and not ours that Jesus was sinless. We do not know any such expression. It is quite simply a lie that we seek to explain away Jesus’ sinless nature. We do not seek to explain away anything at all. Our interest is the exact opposite.

We believe that Jesus’ nature was sinless. My article testifies unmistakably about it—about His purity in thought, word, and deed. How could He be impure when His thoughts and deeds were pure???

I have not attempted to twist “this point.” You misunderstand it. I only meant that the point for us in this matter was that the readers might know about our faith, as my article points out.

I have not even imagined that you should understand us and use the expressions we use. All I wanted was that you would not publicly deceive souls.

Your attitude is far too superficial to be able to understand us.

When you say that you certainly do not agree that we are solely saved by faith in the finished work of Christ, but that we also must first have some understanding of how the work was accomplished, then you do not even know what you are writing about! You write, “One must at the least understand that salvation does not depend on one’s own works, but solely on the substance and fruit of the finished work.” Yet this says nothing about how the work was finished. You are completely out of it, dear brother. You don’t even understand what I am writing about!

You are in total darkness when you speak about Jesus’ will! You say, “But Jesus’ will was always in unison with the Father’s will.” By that you wish to say that He had no will to deny. When Jesus says, “Nevertheless, not My will, but Yours, be done,” then His will that should not be done was in unison with the Father’s? That would be the equivalent of the Father’s will not going to be done!

This is utter nonsense, dear brother.

The will that was performed was always in unison with the Father’s will; Jesus always did the Father’s will, and He could always do it precisely because He always denied His own will, the very will of which He partook when He likewise shared in the same flesh and blood as we.

I have not maintained that you have said that it was as a “pretense.” You have to read my letter over again. We do not know anything about Jesus having original sin.

It is utter folly when you write that we are attempting to place Jesus under the law of sin. Likewise, when you use the expression, “defiled by original sin.”

Dear Brother Barratt, you neither understand the work of Christ nor us. That is quite simply a fact.

Is it my words that God may bless you with a deeper acknowledgment that you call a personal attack? Then it must be very difficult for you to discern between friend and enemy. Concerning giving a name to a church, I just mentioned some examples at random. I have neither condemned the one nor the other; I have simply written about a matter. I hear that you formerly called your assembly the Philadelphia Church in Oslo, but that you have now changed it to the church in the Philadelphia meeting hall. However, my words still apply, for even in the same issue of “K.S.” on the last page, it says, “the Philadelphia church in Trysil is holding a Pentecost conference . . . .” And also, “The Philadelphia church in Drammen is holding a conference . . . .” Also, “All correspondence to the Philadelphia church in Askim . . . .”

When you say that it does not matter what significance we attach to an expression, it would be unrighteous, since you have warned against us all this time. You ought not to present a matter in a false light.

Loving greetings from your blessed brother,