Read my brochures Answer (to Lærum’s book) and Christ Manifested in the Flesh yourself, and consider these brochures in their entirety, and uprightly, instead of picking out a few statements in order to distort them; then you will get a completely different picture. In Answer it says on page 9 (my own words): “If Christ was not pure and blameless in deed, word, and thought without a single exception, He could not possibly have been any kind of a Savior either for us or for others!!! Of course not!!! Jesus was not impure; He was not sinful—obviously not! He did not have a rebellious self-will! He did not have a sinful nature—of course not!” On page 10 it says, “Having sin is neither being sinful nor committing sin; it is the difference between God’s nature and our nature, which is caused by us not having all the light He has.” In Christ Manifested in the Flesh it says on page 16: “‘Jesus had a flesh’ like us, a self-will like us; but this does not mean He was sinful. He did not have a sinful nature.” If you want to know what we teach, you have to read yourself what we write and not leave it up to a man like F.P. to explain it. His presentation is completely erroneous and misleading. Read the paragraph yourself in Christ Manifested in the Flesh that he refers to. It is point 12 on pages 13 and 14. Aslaksen does not say what P. has written that he says. He neither writes nor says nor intends to say that it was disobedience on Jesus’ part when He stayed behind in the temple. If that had been the case, both He and all of us would have been lost. The fact that He stayed behind in the temple was not disobedience. He was not outwitted by sin. He did not sin. Jesus did not have to ask for forgiveness for anything. P. writes that Aslaksen has dragged this entire episode into the mud. Yet the person who, in this instance, has dragged this whole episode into the mud by presenting it in a false light is P. This is a great shame and a disgrace. The fact that Jesus increased in wisdom and stature and favor with God and men (Luke 2:41-52)—that is what I am writing about on pages 13 and 14 in the booklet in question, not that Jesus was disobedient. On page 4 it says: “It is perfectly plain and clear—and it cannot be contradicted—that as long as He could increase in wisdom, there had to be some wisdom that He did not possess and which He could obviously not follow, as the above example shows.” P. writes: “He swings the whip of irony and chastisement powerfully over all those who teach something else about Jesus.” This is also a misinterpretation. It is almost the opposite. However, once in a while it happens that I reply to other people’s condemnation of our faith and preaching. This is undeniably something else! P.’s representation of my statement concerning co-operation is also highly misleading as are all the other things he says, because people can easily get the understanding that we do not want to have anything to do with other believers. The truth is the exact opposite, which is clearly documented by P.’s scandalous missive. It is self-evident that if one party contradicts the other party and even condemns the other party, then co-operation is impossible in practice. However, when you remove contradiction and condemnation, much good can come of it. By way of example, just take a look at the word I gave the readers as food for thought under Point II of Biblical Journal edition #11. Aslaksen’s teaching concerning the person of Jesus has nothing whatsoever to do with liberal theology. That is impertinent to assert otherwise. I have never in my life been familiar with it, but in my youth I heard that they did not believe in the virgin birth or in miracles, which of course we believe in with all of our heart. When it is a question of the account of Jesus in the temple, even unbelievers should be able to see that Jesus really was a Son of Man who partook of the same flesh and blood as we, that He had to be made like His brethren in all things (Heb. 2:14, 17). This does not invalidate God’s Word, does it? First of all, it is the spirit in it that is of significance. Therefore it is meaningless to compare our preaching to Christ-denying, liberal theology. And to advance the idea that I have lost myself in all these confusing, theological word-splitting exercises is a statement that could hardly be more misplaced. I have hated that kind of thing and despised it from my youth. What I, and we, are interested in, is the light of life, the truths of life, a living faith that can transform our life so it can be noticed in reality. The understanding of Christ manifested in the flesh—that great mystery of godliness—which God in His great grace has given us, bears just such fruits. That is something else than theological word-splitting exercises. Biblical Journal can safely put a thick X over P.’s contribution.Elias Aslaksen