"Why I Left the Missouri Synod"; weeping, robbed! (Part 2a)

[2019-08-06: added a 2nd link to Scharlemann at bottom in red]
      This continues from Part 1, an update and review of past blog posts.

—————————

50 Years Ago — Just Like Today

Siegbert Becker
"Why I Left the Missouri Synod"

       The real eye-opener in my review of old blog posts was to again read the biograghies of Prof. Siegbert Becker and his explanation for "Why I Left the Missouri Synod".  As I read his history published 50+ years ago of the fall of the LC-MS from its teaching on the inspiration of Holy Scripture, (and against Prof. Martin H. Scharleman) it seemed that I was reading about today's LC-MS and its current fall regarding the heretical teaching of Prof. Jeffrey Kloha.  One quote (p. 6 of 26) exposes just how bad things can get in the LC-MS, then and now:

"Students came to me weeping and saying that they did not know what to believe any more. They told me of girls lying on their beds sobbing for hours and so disturbed that they wanted to quit school and the church because they were being robbed of their assurance of salvation."

I like those words "weeping", "sobbing", "robbed".  Weeping and tears… just as C.F.W. Walther spoke of a lady in tears in a footnote to his 1886 Foreword in Lehre und Wehre where he reported on the Dorpat professors Volck, Mühlau, Harnack, etc. and their blasphemous disavowal of the inerrancy of Holy Scripture. (See also 1886 Synodical Conference.) On pages 2-3 Walther reported it was

"heard from Dorpat about the painful complaint that many have been confused and grieved. A lady had said with tears about the Bible: "I can not read it anymore!"

Becker's clear-headed assessment confirms a statement made by Franz Pieper in his Christian Dogmatics, vol. 1 (see this blog post):

"The fact that the denial of inspiration leads to the denial of the satisfactio vicaria was already realized in his [Delitzsch's] time..."

The new (English) LC-MS has robbed its youth, its people of the Bible – which is "their assurance of salvation".  I want to republish what the Wisconsin Lutheran Seminary republished [updated 2025-03-31] from the series originally published in Herman Otten's Lutheran News (now Christian News). Google Doc here.


I cannot leave this essay without calling attention to at least one quote from the dear Dr. Becker. In a letter to A. O. Fuerbringer, president of Concordia Seminary, Becker wrote:

M. H. Scharlemann

"...only those who are deliberately and culpably blind cannot fail to see it. If we let him [Martin H. Scharlemann, 2019-08-06 added link] continue his attacks on Scripture today, we will have no Christ tomorrow."

Concordia Historical Institute (CHI) ran a 5-part serial essay from Summer 2011 to Summer 2012 in their Historical Footnotes publication entitled “Dr. Martin H. Scharlemann: A Faithful Servant”. Purporting to tell us the story of "A Faithful Servant", it entirely ignored the famous report of Prof. Siegbert Becker and its wonderful rebukes of Scharlemann and President Behnken. At least CHI ended their series (p. 7) with the telling question:

“Will the real Martin Scharlemann please stand up.”

As I read Siegbert Becker's great testimony 50 years ago on the travesty within the hemorrhaging LC-MS, I could not help thinking of the recent testimony of a layman against a well-known LC-MS leader... in the next Part 2b.

God's chg of heart-6d: WELS opposes? Sieg. Becker? (Curia essay)

[2025-09-17 updated link to Becker biography.]

     This continues from Part 6c (Table of Contents in Part 1, Curia essay in Part 6b) concerning J.T. Mueller's 1934 CTM essay defending Franz Pieper's seminal teaching on God's change of heart.  But who is Mueller defending against?  In this Part 6d, a 2nd respected teacher in the WELS is presented by essayist Rick Curia as potentially showing a "difference" or "disagreement" with this teaching.

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

2) Siegbert Becker († 1984)

Siegbert Becker

      Rick Curia points out that Siegbert Becker, a highly regarded teacher in the WELS formerly from the LC-MS, also seemed to disagree with Pieper's teaching.  In a previous blog post, I had given the following quote with comments and will repeat it here (see here in Curia's essay):

When Franz Pieper says that when God reconciled the world to himself a change took place in God he uses language that can be justified by biblical usage. ... But we recognize that this is an anthropopathism, that speaks of God in human terms. ... But the change that takes place does not consist in this that his [God's] anger changes to love.

How it pains me to read this from the Prof. Becker, the Siegbert Becker who so faithfully defended the doctrine of Universal, Objective Justification.  For Becker himself said Pieper's teaching "can be justified by biblical usage".  Isn't that saying that Pieper's teaching was God's doctrine?  Becker goes into a discussion of the Greek word for "reconcile" and seems to forget Luther's description of God's wrath as a "foreign nature" of God.  Becker even makes a strong statement against this doctrine saying:

This sort of language can only result from a failure to understand the distinction between Law and Gospel.

Well, I must use the same language against Becker and those who teach against God's Change of Heart!  It is absolutely the distinction between Gospel and Law that dictates that the Gospel be the "Evangel", i.e. the glad tidings of great joy!  And when one realizes by the Law that he is doomed before God, then the Evangel MUST be the Good News!... that God HAS CHANGED HIS DISPOSITION, that He Is Reconciled!... that He HAS changed his mind! ... that His Heart HAS Changed!... all for Christ's sake!  The Bible says so!

2 Cor. 5:19 – God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them...

Unless one can believe that God's Heart HAS really changed, that He IS really reconciled, how can one "Taste and see that the Lord is good"? – Psalm 34:8

Because of this weakness of Siegbert Becker, I have had to put him in my "side room" as I keep Luther, Walther and Pieper in my room, my reading room.  Although Becker left the LC-MS, I suspect that vestiges of his training at the University of Chicago and/or Northern Baptist Theological Seminary were hard for him to forget.

Later in his essay, Curia stated:

Dr. Siegbert W. Becker is certainly one of the great spokesmen and defenders of the doctrine of objective justification, sharing the company and stature of men like Walther, Pieper, Stöckhardt and J. P. Meyer. In August of 1971 he wrote ... emphasizing the fact that the Law must be proclaimed in all its fullness ("We shall observe the proper distinction between Law and Gospel only if we remember that our primary purpose in preaching the Law is to make men afraid and sad.")

I would have to agree with (then Pastor) Curia's statement that Becker is one of the better defenders of Objective Justification in the latter portion of the 20th century.  I can personally attest to this, that when a WELS pastor gave me a copy of Becker's essays on "Objective Justification" and "Universal Justification", my faith came alive.  Becker wrote in 1971, after he had left the LC-MS and joined the WELS:

If I were still a member of the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod, I would feel inclined to belabor this point at great length, because I always felt that the doctrine of universal or objective justification was gradually fading away in that church.

Just now I had to go back again and learn the history of this Lutheran teacher.  But I could not find any history of Siegbert Becker at Concordia Historical Institute's website, surely another sign that CHI is not the spiritual storehouse that some think of it.  No, I had to go to the WELS own website, and there I found a biography written of his life ==>> here << [2025-09-17 updated link].  How uplifting to read of Becker's defense of Christian doctrine against his former LC-MS which was falling headlong into heterodoxy!

But after first reading Becker's generally good essays on Justification, I also began to learn that the doctrine of Universal, Objective Justification was taught and defended even better by the old (German) Missouri Synod... as I "found more treasures than I knew existed in the training of my youth".  And I must consider Becker's reticence on "God's Change of Heart" (as even he admits that it is "biblical usage") to be an inconsistency, his weakness.  But he did not allow this weakness to overcome his wonderful defense of ... Universal, Objective Justification.

In the next Part 6e, I will cover Rick Curia's 3rd WELS teacher in this matter: John P. Meyer.

Luther's Chronology, Part 7c (WELS – Siegbert Becker)

   This continues the series on Biblical Chronology – Table of Contents in Part 1.  In the last Part 7b, I reviewed WELS Prof. John C. Jeske and his questionable analysis of biblical chronology.  Now I will finish this short sub-series on the WELS teachers with perhaps their greatest light in modern times – Siegbert Becker.  Prof. Jeske attempted to use a quote of Becker to bolster his questionable essay.  This indicates he considered Becker to have a strong reputation in his synod.
   I recall Siegbert Becker very fondly.  He was one of the greatest lights for the Doctrine of Justification in the later part of the 20th Century.  The details of this are worthy of a complete blog post at a later time.  Anyway, in my previous blog post Part 7b, Becker is quoted by Jeske in an article of Becker entitled "Is Evolutionism the Answer?".  Since the article's subject matter was on the Theory of Evolution, I decided to research other articles of Becker published on www.wlsessays.net. The following is a listing with comments:

1) Verbal Inspiration andthe Variant Readings 

    Becker is also one of the greatest defenders of Verbal Inspiration in the late 1900s with this essay.  How beautiful it is for defending the Christian faith, a faith that has no other basis than the Word of God, the Bible.    This essay speaks like Franz Pieper.  I only wish he had given credit to the 20th Century teacher in the Missouri Synod who was the most responsible for maintaining this precious doctrine to his time - the Twentieth Century Luther (and The Second Walther).
    And because of it's strong stand for divine inspiration, Becker would not have immediately rejected chronologies that based themselves on information from the Bible.  It would have been even better had he brought out the fact that Martin Luther wrote about biblical chronology (Chronikon) and did not shy away from putting some actual dates on biblical events based on the Bible.... that Luther put the Danielic Prophecy to work in dating Bible events.  It is a mystery to me why Becker did not do this.  Perhaps he only followed what was being translated into English by Fortress Press and Concordia Publishing.  Perhaps it was because his early training was at the University of Chicago (liberal Baptist) and the Northern Baptist Theological Seminary, not a solid basis for Lutheran doctrine.  I don't know.

2) Evolution and Genesis

Again Becker presents a solid essay against Evolution, and from a Lutheran teacher so Lutheran people don't have to be forced to go to non-Lutherans such as Ken Ham (AnswersInGenesis.org) or Carl Wieland (Creation.com).

3) Exegesis of Genesis One and Two (1966)

This essay, like the previous one, provides a wonderful Christian defense against Evolution.  But Becker goes beyond Evolution and deals with the aspect that Prof. Barr supported – the "mythological" nature of Genesis.  Becker states (page 8):

In recent years, however, an entirely new approach to these early chapters of Genesis has begun to make itself evident also in the Lutheran Church, and this new theology is a thousand times more dangerous than the old attempts to bring Genesis into line with the theories of Darwin and Laplace, by interpreting a few words in a loose and unjustified way. In large areas of modern Lutheranism, the stories of Creation and the Fall, of Adam and Eve and Cain and Abel, of the Flood and the Tower of Babel are treated as myths of a primitive age which we must learn to outgrow, or which we must at least learn to understand lest we, by accepting these accounts as historical records, make ourselves and the Christian religion ridiculous in the eyes of modern, educated, and sophisticated men.

How distressing it is to read of "large areas of modern Lutheranism" in 1966 calling the Bible a myth.  What distresses me most is that this did not just come from the ancestors of the ELCA, but also from today's (English) LC-MS!  Someone will say that this isn't true today, but try to find a prominent teacher in today's LC-MS who teaches like Siegbert Becker did.  It is distressing when one gets tired of today's modern teachers and wants refreshment by going to their Lutheran teachers and finding little help from them.

. . . . . . . . . . 
As good as these essays are, yet I wish Prof. Becker had given credit to the fathers of the Missouri Synod and the Synodical Conference, for it was Walther, Franz Pieper, etc who most emphatically taught the doctrines of Verbal Inspiration, Inerrancy, etc, who best defended the basic doctrines of Christianity.  They are the ones responsible for Becker's strength in Christian teaching.

I will leave Siegbert Becker for now and will perhaps return to him in a later blog post regarding his 2 essays on the Doctrine of Justification.

The next Part 8 will be the last post in the entire series... I will offer concluding comments.

Justification – The Larry Darby Situation (Part 3 - Darby)

In the previous post Part 2, I introduced my involvement in "The Larry Darby Situation".  (See Part 1 for Table of Contents)  In this Part 3, I will continue publishing my correspondence with Larry Darby with my 2nd letter to him.

1/26/95
Mr. Larry Darby
XX Xxxxx Xxxxx
St. Louis, MO  XXXXX
This is a letter in response to something I heard about you recently.  It concerns the teaching of people associated with the Kokomo, Indiana area.  I became familiar with their doctrine first through two papers given to me by my pastor (then WELS) when I had questions about remission/forgiveness of sin.  I thought I had forgiveness but sometimes doubts would come- what EXACTLY does the Bible have to say?  He gave me the two papers I've enclosed.  I think both were written by Siegbert Becker, although only one is identified with his name.
I studied these in great detail and the supporting Scripture passages.  Could it be true- all men's sins are forgiven?  This would seem to be "too good to be true" according to what most would say.  Most would say there is something that must be done first, even if it is to believe it (cp. R.C.H. Lenski).  My Bible (then NIV) became drastically marked on the pages of Romans chapter 5 showing clearly that the word many means ALL.  I was translated into God's Kingdom- I no longer had to doubt that my sins are forgiven- because all men's sins are forgiven.  I no longer had to believe that it was anything in me that I had to live up to.
I now understood what Jesus meant when He said to Judas, the betrayer: "Friend" (Matt 26:50)   A few years ago, as I started re-attending church with Dad, I entered a Bible study of the book of Matthew.  We approached the section of the Lord's Passion.  I remember thinking: "Jesus, here comes Judas.  You know what he is going to do to you.  You know everything.  You know he was a thief.  WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO DO?  Then Jesus said "Friend".  How could Jesus call Judas "Friend"?  It was because the Savior loved even Judas and would suffer and die for Judas' sins as well.  That was not fair Jesus.  Jesus said "You're right.  That's grace."
Now I knew Jesus loved even me.  I knew in my heart I was no better than Judas.  How many times I had turned my back on Him.  How many times I had denied Him.  There was no way He would take me back.  Then He called me "Friend".  He is my Savior, Redeemer.  I knew there was absolutely no reason to doubt that I had forgiveness of my sins.
Larry Darby - the one who has written so beautifully regarding the dangers of psychology (esp. in the church), the one who clings to the Scripture doctrine on women in the church, the one who counsels to stay with the orthodox fathers: Luther, Walther, Pieper, Chemnitz and cautions on Stoeckhardt, Kretzmann, Preus.  If you have corresponded with Mr. David Hartman or Elmer Boniek and have any thoughts regarding fellowship with them, I have one quote of Mr. Hartman to share with you:
"I ... find no comfort in the words of men like Dr. Becker, Dr. Pieper, etc., when they contradict the clear Word of God."
This response was regarding the specific doctrine of universal grace that Becker and Pieper clearly taught from Scripture.  The following was stated in my earlier letter to Mr. Hartman:
"The doctrine which I think you hold to denies universal grace- just like the Calvinists which I heard with their "particular grace" and "limited atonement".  As Franz Pieper said it:  "As the Calvinists must forget their limitation of the universalis gratia, so the synergists must forget their limitation of the sola gratia if the truth that the Scriptures are God's own Word is to be of any practical value for them." Christian Dogmatics Vol. 1, page 276  "Whoever considers himself as being better before God, or less guilty than other men, is eo ipso excluding himself from grace (Luke 18:9-14; Romans 11:22)" Volume 1, pg 276.
I confess to you as I did to Hartman:
If Jesus didn't die for the sins of the whole world, then I am going to hell.
If there is any truth to the report of your uniting with this group, then I would say to you also that you would be robbing me of heaven.  God had the Scriptures written that I might believe and not doubt of my forgiveness.  He also did it for you.
If the report was totally in error, then I rejoice greatly and may you rejoice also in John 3:16 -
"For God so loved THE WORLD, that He gave His only begotten Son, so that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life."  John 3:16

[Signed] Xxx Xxx [BackToLuther]
Indiana

Although my first letter in Part 2 expressed joy over the "conservatism" of the writings of Larry Darby in the newspaper Christian News, now I had some serious misgivings about this writer.  And at some point, Herman Otten stopped publishing the writings of Mr. Darby, surely because of the controversy Darby caused with his attacks on Objective Justification.

In Part 4, I present my 3rd letter to Mr. Darby – after receiving a copy of his magnum opus "The Historical Development of Objective Justification" and letters that refused my concerns and warnings... but not yet saying "Go to Hell".