Against the Heresy of Universalism

It is being taught today that all people ever born in the entire world are born children of God, sanctified and believing in Christ. This is, as the Scripture says, a Damnable Heresy. How dare we think even for a moment that the Church of Christ, wherein are the Word and Sacraments, is not essential unto salvation!

The following is the doctrine of the Apostolic Lutheran Church of America:

"As we condemn most other errors of the Anabaptists, we condemn this also, that they dispute that the baptism of little children is unprofitable. For it is very certain that the promise of salvation pertains also to little children. Neither indeed does it pertain to those who are outside of Christ's Church, where there is neither Word nor sacraments, because the kingdom of Christ exists only with the Word and sacraments." Apology to Augsburn Confession.

"That we may obtain this faith, the Office of Teaching the Gospel and administering the Sacraments was instituted. For through the Word and Sacraments as through instruments, the Holy Ghost is given, who worketh faith where and when it pleaseth God in them that hear the Gospel, to wit, that God, not for our own merits, but for Christ's sake, justified those who believe that they are received into favor for Christ's sake. They condemn the Anabaptists and others, who think that the Holy Ghost cometh to men without the external Word, through their own preparations and works." Augsburg Confession.

"On the other hand, the enthusiasts should be rebuked with great severity and zeal, and should in no way be tolerated in the Church of God, who fabricate that God, without any means, without the hearing of the divine Word, and without the use of the holy Sacraments, draws man to himself, and enlightens, justifies and saves him." Formula of Concord.

Let it never again be said among us that the oral proclamation of the gospel of Jesus Christ is not essential unto salvation. Whatever questions this might bring to our human reason must be left to God's wisdom. We must stick to the revealed Word, and let the secret things belong unto the Lord.

"Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost" Mt 27:19.

"How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?" Rom 10:14.

"So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God" v 17.

"This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith? Gal 3:2.

"Knowing, brethren beloved, your election of God. For our gospel came not unto you in word only, but also in power, and in the Holy Ghost, and in much assurance" I Thes 1:4,5.

Scripture also testifies that little children can hear the gospel, believe, and receive the Holy Spirit even while in their mother's womb.

Luther on Antinomianism

 "My best friends want to grind me under foot and throw the gospel into confusion. On that account I shall arrange a disputation to challenge my adversaries. Perhaps they'll put on humility, but I won't be content with this appearance of theirs. I'll call them by name so that they answer to their positions publicly. The matter isn't to be treated in a frivolous manner. At stake is the glory of Christ, not our reputation."

Thereupon he [Martin Luther] said with a deep sob, "How painful it is to lose a good friend, one who is cherished with a great love! I've had him [John Agricola] at my table, he has laughed with me, and yet he opposes me behind my back. I won't stand for it. Nor can he maintain his position, for it's the crassest error to reject the law. It would be more tolerable if only it were other errors and offenses that were at issue. But to reject the law, without which neither church nor civil authority nor home nor any individual can exist, is to kick the bottom out of the barrel. It's time to resist. I can't and I won't stand for it."

Then he [Martin Luther] related with what gentleness he had rebuked him and with what cunning he [Agricola] responded.
    
AE LW v54 p248

Christian Monthly, 1949

THE WORK OF GOD

“For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast.” (Eph. 2:8-9).

 

Our salvation is alone in the redemption of Christ. He is the author of eternal life. His is the atonement, and the work and fulfillment of salvation belong only to him. “For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.” The gift of God is full and free, without money and without price, “Not of works, lest any man should boast.” To this salvation which is wrought in Christ, none can add unto it, and nothing can be taken away from it. For the salvation of God has been settled, established, and sealed in heaven with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot.

The work of salvation is so completely God’s in Christ, that from the first awakening, unto the receiving of grace, and a crown of life, God is the author, the sustainer, and the finisher of the work of grace within man. Christ speaks of this in John 6:44, “No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.” God has called and chosen, elected and predestinated unto salvation those who are saved (Eph. 1:4-5, and 1:11-12, Acts 13:48, Romans 8:29, and II Timothy 1:9). God calls through His word in “the foolishness of preaching,” and chooses through Christ in the forgiveness of sins. Of itself the will and the mind of man is bound, being the servant of sin, “Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be” (Romans 8:7). The will of God comes with a new mind and life in Christ, which new life is God’s work. “For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure” (Phil. 2:13). As Jesus also makes known in the parable of the vine and the branches, saying, “Without Me ye can do nothing” (John 15:5).

If the work therefore be of God, then it cannot be of man. We cannot draw men to Christ and salvation by the human agents of fanfare and new things. For God calls and draws. It is His Work. As God calls by His grace, so likewise, whether we be young or old, we are kept in faith alone by the grace of God; and not by man’s dreams and labors. This is the promise of Christ, “Those that thou gavest I have kept, and none of them is lost, but the son of perdition” (John 17:12); who also prays, “I pray not that thou shouldest take them out of the world, but that thou shouldest keep them from evil” (John 17:15). Paul testifies to this same end, “Being confident of this very thing, that he which hath begun a good work in you will perform it until the day of Jesus Christ” (Phil. 1:6).

To deny that the grace of God is sufficient unto all our needs (“My grace is sufficient for thee” II Cor. 12:9) is to make the will of man free, to destroy the doctrine of salvation by faith alone, and to bring ourselves into the bondage of work’s righteousness and self-righteousness. May God preserve us from the wrath to come, and grant to one and all “blessings in heavenly places in Christ.”

In God’s Peace!

Carl Kulla

May, 1949 CM

A Case For Self Examination

Luther on I Timothy 4.

2. Through the pretensions. This hypocrisy, nevertheless, presents an attractive appearance. Unless the spirit is certain and pure in the righteousness of faith, one cannot understand or judge Paul. What Paul calls “of error” must appear as the Spirit of truth. “To depart from faith” must mean to defend faith. In this way the apostates of faith have the name that they are the true church, that they are defending the faith against heresy. Thus the pope has this title; he rules the church and battles against heresy. We who are true Christians are the apostates. Therefore we must look at these words carefully with the apostle himself bearing witness, because he says, “through pretensions.” Where hypocrisy exists, there is so good an appearance that the whole world is deceived, except those who have the Spirit. There is nothing which looks better than hypocrisy. It carries the title of God, Christ, righteousness, truth, church. It has the applause of the whole world. The papists have these titles. When they read them, they thought that they had to fight for the faith. Of liars. This deceives the world, the attractive appearance, the pomp of titles, works, and praises, because they tell their lies. Nevertheless, they have the power of error. This, we read in Thessalonians (2 Thess. 2:10), is hypocrisy. To them it is effectiveness, for hypocrisy is the effectiveness of error. If such a person were to say, “I am the devil, the father of lies,” who would accept him? He would be without effectiveness. But he says, “I am truth, the Holy Spirit, God, Christ, Scripture. Here is the Word of God, the Gospel.” There it becomes an effectiveness. Also, good works must be added. Now he will have the power to be able to be very effective in telling his lies, as if he were speaking words of exceptional truth. This is what hypocrisy does. We are called hypocrites, liars.

Saint Augustine on Election

 It is being taught that God in eternity knew who would open themselves to the gospel and who would refuse, and based on this "foreknowledge" He predestinated to life those who would so receive Christ. This is a great error as Augustine here explains, teaching from Scripture that the Elect are chosen not based on any foreknown self-merit, but only upon the will of God Who both has mercy and hardens whom He will based only upon His own inscrutable will. St. Augustine wrote:

"First I shall try to grasp the apostle's purpose which runs through the whole Epistle, and I shall seek guidance from it. It is that no man should glory in meritorious works, in which the Israelites dared to glory, alleging that they had served the law that had been given to them, and that for that reason they had received evangelical grace as due to their merits. The Jews did not understand that evangelical grace, just because of its very nature, is not given as a due reward for good works. Otherwise grace is not grace. In many passages the apostle frequently bears witness to this, putting the grace of faith before works; not indeed that he wants to put an end to good works, but to show that works do not precede grace but follow from it.

"This is the truth the apostle wanted to urge; just as in another passage he says, "By the grace of God we are saved, and that not of ourselves. It is the gift of God. It is not of works, lest any man should boast." (Eph. 2:8,9). And so he gave a proof from the case of those who had not yet been born. That means that those are to belong to the lot of the saints in Christ who know that they are the sons of promise; who do not wax proud of their merits, but account themselves co-heirs with Christ by the grace of their calling. When the promise was made that they should be this they did not as yet exist and so could have merited nothing. 'Rebecca also having conceived by one, even by our father Isaac...' He is most careful to note that it was by one act of coition that twins were conceived so that nothing could be attributed to the merits of the father, as if someone might say the son was born such as he was because his father had such or such a disposition when he lay with his wife; or that his mother was disposed in such a way when she conceived a son. Both were begotten and conceived at one and the same time. 'For the children being not yet born and having done nothing either good or evil, not of works but of him that calleth, it was said unto her, the elder shall serve the younger.' Grace is therefore of him who calls, and the consequent good works are of him who received grace. Good works do not produce grace but are produced by grace.

"Clearly it was not of works but of him that calleth. But here we must inquire why he says, 'That the purpose of God according to election might stand.' How can election be just, indeed how can there be any kind of election, where there is no difference? if Jacob was elected before he was born and before he had done anything at all, for no merit of his own, he could not have been elected at all, there being nothing to distinguish him for election. If Esau was rejected for no fault of his own because he too was not born and had done nothing when it was said, 'The elder shall serve the younger,' how can his rejection be said to be just? How are we to understand what follows if we judge according to the standards of equity? 'Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.' But how could there be election, or what kind of election could there be, if there was no distinction of merits because they were not yet born and had done nothing?  Possibly there was some distinction in their natures? Who could support such a conclusion, seeing that they sprang from one father, and one mother, one act of intercourse, one creator?

"Could it be 'according to election' because God has foreknowledge of all things, and foresaw the faith that was to be in Jacob even before he was born? No one merits justification by his good works, since unless he is justified he cannot do good works. If election is by foreknowledge, and God foreknew Jacob's faith, how do you prove that he did not elect him for his works? If the reason for its not being of works was that they were not yet born, that applies also to faith; for before they were born they had neither faith nor works. The apostle, therefore, did not want us to understand that it was because of God's foreknowledge that the younger was elected to be served by the elder. We have still to inquire why that election was made. What, then, was the reason for it?


"Are we to say that there could have been no election unless there had been, even when they were in their mother's womb, some difference of faith or works, or merit of some kind? But the apostle says, 'That the purpose of God according to election might stand.' That is why we have to ask the question. There could be no election on account of good works, according to which the purpose of God might stand. So, 'not of works but of him that calleth,' that is, of God who justifies the ungodly by grace calling him to faith, 'it was said to her, The elder shall serve the younger.' So that the purpose of God does not stand according to election, but election is the result of the purpose of God. It is written that 'God elected us before the foundation of the world.' (Eph. 1:4). I do not see how that could be except by the way of foreknowledge. But here, when he says 'Not of works but of him that calleth,' he wants us to understand that it is not by election through merits, but by the free gift of God, so that no man may exult in his good works. 'By the grace of God are we saved; and that not of ourselves; for it is the gift of God, not of works that no man should glory' (Eph. 2:8).


"But the question is whether faith merits a man's justification, whether the merits of faith do not precede the mercy of God; or whether, in fact, faith itself is to be numbered among the gifts of grace. Notice that in this passage when he said, 'Not of works,' he did not say, 'but of faith it was said to her, The elder shall serve the younger.' No, he said, 'but of him that calleth.' No one believes who is not called. God calls in his mercy, and not as rewarding the merits of faith. The merits of faith follow his calling rather than precede it. So grace comes before all merits. Christ died for the ungodly. The younger received the promise that the elder should serve him from him that calleth and not from any meritorious works of his own. So the Scripture 'Jacob have I loved' is true, but it was of God who called and not of Jacob's righteous works.

"What then of Esau, of whom it is written that 'he shall serve the younger,' and 'Esau have I hated.' How could he have merited this by evil deeds of his own doing, since these things were spoken before he was born, and before he had done aught of good or evil? Possibly, just as Jacob received the promise without any meritorious acts of his own, so Esau was hated though he had done no evil to merit hatred. If God predestined Esau to serve his younger brother because he foreknew the evil works that he was to do, he must also have predestined Jacob to be served by his elder brother because he foreknow his future good works. In that case it would be false to say that it was not of works. If it is true that it was not of works - and that is proved by the fact that it was said before they were born and before they had done any works at all - or of faith - for again, similarly, there could be no faith in children not yet born - how did Esau deserve to be hated before he was born?

"The apostle saw the questions that might arise in the mind of the hearer or reader of these words, and so he immediately added, 'What shall we say, then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid.' And as if to teach us how there is no unrighteousness, he goes on, 'For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will show compassion to him on whom I will have compassion.' Does he solve the question in these words or at least narrow it down? If God will have mercy on whom he will have mercy and show compassion to whom he will show compassion, our chief difficulty remains, which is, why did his mercy fail in Esau's case? Why was not Esau too made good by God's mercy as Jacob was made good? Perhaps the real import of the words is this. If God will have mercy on a man so as to call him, he will also have mercy on him so that he may believe; and on him on whom he in mercy bestows faith he will show compassion, i.e., will make him compassionate, so that he may also perform good works. So we are admonished that no one ought to glory or exult in his works of mercy as if he had propitiated God by meritorious works of his own. If anyone boasts that he has merited compassion by his faith, let him know that God gave him faith. "What hast thou that thou didst not receive? But if thou didst receive it, why dost thou glory, as if thou hadst not received it (I Cor. 4:7)?

"This is all right, but why was this mercy withheld from Esau, so that he was not called and had not faith inspired in him when called, and was not by faith made compassionate so that he might do good works? Was it because he was unwilling? If Jacob had faith because he willed it, then God did not give him faith as a free gift, but Jacob gave it to himself, and so had something which he did not receive. But Esau was not yet born and consequently could be neither willing nor unwilling in all these matters. Why was he rejected when he was still in the womb?

"If you pay close attention to these words, 'Therefore it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that hath mercy,' you will see that the apostle said that, not only because we attain what we wish by the help of God, but also with the meaning which he expresses in another passage, "Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling; for it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure' (Phil. 2:12,13). There he clearly shows that the good will itself is wrought in us by the working of God. If he said, 'It is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that hath mercy,' simply because a man's will is not sufficient for us to live justly and righteously unless we are aided by the mercy of God, he could have put it the other way round and said, 'It is not of God that hath mercy, but of the man that willeth,' because it is equally true that the mercy of God is not sufficient of itself, unless there be in addition the consent of our will. Clearly it is vain for us to will unless God have mercy. But I do not know how it could be said that it is vain for God to have mercy unless we willingly consent.


"But if that calling is the effectual cause of the good will so that every one who is called follows it, how will it be true that 'Many are called but few are chosen'? If this is true, and consequently not everyone who is called obeys the call, but has it in the power of his will not to obey, it could be said correctly that it is not of God who hath mercy, but of the man who willeth and runneth, for the mercy of him that calleth is not sufficient unless the obedience of him who is called follows. The call comes also to others but because it is such that they cannot be moved by it and are not fitted to receive it, they can be said to be called but not chosen. For the effectiveness of God's mercy cannot be in the power of man to frustrate, if he will have none of it. If God wills to have mercy on men, he can call them in a way that is suited to them, so that they will be moved to understand and to follow. It is true, therefore, that many are called but few chosen. Those are chosen who are effectually [congruenter] called. Those who are not effectually called and do not obey their calling are not chosen, for although they were called they did not follow. Again it is true that 'it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that hath mercy.' for, although he calls many, he has mercy on those whom he calls in a way suited to them so that they may follow. But it is false to say that 'it is not of God who hath mercy but of man who willeth and runneth,' because God has mercy on no man in vain. He calls the man on whom he has mercy in the way he knows will suit him, so that he will not refuse the call.


"Here someone will say, why was not Esau called in such a way that he would be willing to obey? But if the obstinacy of the will can be such that the mind's aversion from all modes of calling becomes hardened, the question is whether that very hardening does not come from some divine penalty, as if God abandons a man by not calling him in the way in which he might be moved to faith. Who would dare to affirm that the Ominpotent lacked a method of persuading even Esau to believe?


"But why do we ask such a question? The apostle himself goes on. 'The Scripture saith unto Pharoah, For this very purpose did I raise thee up, that I might show in thee my power, and that my name might be published abroad in all the earth.' The apostle adds this as an example to prove what he had said above, that 'it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that hath mercy.' Thus he shows that it is not of him that willeth but of God that hath mercy. And he concludes with these words: 'So then he hath mercy on whom he will, and whom he will he hardeneth.'

"The apostle said a little before, 'What shall we say, then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid.' Let this truth, then, be fixed and unmovable in a mind soberly pious and stable in faith, that there is no unrighteousness with God. Let us also believe most firmly and tenaciously that God has mercy on whom he will and that whom he will he hardeneth, that is, he has or has not mercy on whom he will. Let us believe that this belongs to a certain hidden equity that cannot be searched out by any human standard of measurement, though its effects are to be observed in human affairs and earthly arrangements. Unless we had stamped upon these human affairs certain traces of supernal justice our weak minds would never look up to or long for the holy and pure ground and source of spiritual precepts. 'Blessed are they who hunger and thirst after righteousness, for they shall be filled.' No one can be charged with unrighteousness who exacts what is owing to him. Nor certainly can he be charged with unrighteousness who is prepared to give up what is owing to him. This decision does not lie with those who are debtors but with the creditor. Now all men are a mass of sin, since, as the apostle says, 'In Adam all die' (I Cor. 15:22), and to Adam the entire human race traces the origin of its sin against God. Sinful humanity must pay a debt of punishment to the supreme divine justice. Whether that debt is exacted or remitted there is no unrighteousness. So the apostle represses the impudent questioner. 'O man, who art thou that repliest against God?' A man so speaks back to God when he is displeased that God finds fault with sinners, as if God compelled any man to sin when he simply does not bestow his justifying mercy on some sinners, and for that reason is said to harden some sinners; not because he drives them to sin but because he does not have mercy upon them. He decides who are not to be offered mercy by a standard of equity which is most secret and far removed from human powers of understanding. 'Inscrutable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out' (Rom. 11:33).

"To be sure, no one resists his will. He aids whom he will and he leaves whom he will. Both he who is aided and he who is left belong to the same mass of sin. Both deserve the punishment which is exacted from the one and remitted to the other. So the apostle continues in our present passage. 'O man who art thou that repliest against God? Does the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why didst thou make me thus? Hath not the potter power over the clay, from the same lump to make one vessel unto honour and another unto dishonour?'

"From Adam has sprung one mass of sinners and godless men, in which both Jews and Gentiles belong to one lump, apart from the grace of God. If the potter out of one lump of clay makes one vessel unto honour and another unto dishonour, it is manifest that God has made of the Jews some vessels unto honour and others unto dishonour, and similarly of the Gentiles. It follows that all must be understood to belong to one lump. 'If,' he says, 'the number of the children of Israel be as the sand of the sea, a remnant shall be saved.' The multitude of the others are vessels fitted for destruction. 'Even so then at this present time a remnant is saved by the election of grace. But if it is by grace, it is no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. What then? That which Israel sought he did not obtain; but the election obtained it, and the rest were blinded' (Rom. 11:5 ff.). The vessels of mercy obtained it and the vessels of wrath were blinded. Yet all were of the same lump as in the fulness of the Gentiles.

The apostle, therefore, and all those who have been justified and have demonstrated for us the understanding of grace, have no other intention than to show that he that glories should glory in the Lord. Who will call in question the works of the Lord who out of one lump damns one and justifies another? We are bidden to ask that we may receive, to seek that we may find, and to knock that it may be opened unto us. Is not our prayer sometimes tepid or rather cold? Does it not sometimes cease altogether, so that we are not even grieved to notice this condition in us. For if we are grieved that it should be so, that is already a prayer. What does this prove except that he who commands us to ask, seek and knock, himself gives us the will to obey? 'It is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that hath mercy.' We could neither will nor run unless he stirred us and put the motive-power in us.

If by the words 'a remnant according to thet election of grace' we are to understand not election of the justified to eternal life, but election of those who are to be justified, that kind of election is verily hidden, and cannot be known by us who must regard all men as parts of one lump. Only let us believe if we cannot grasp it, that he who made and fashioned the whole creation, spiritual and corporeal, disposes of all things by number, weight and measure. But his judgments are inscrutable and his ways past finding out. Let us say Halleluia and praise him together in song; and let us not say, What is this? or, Why is that? All things have been created each in its own time."

Why I Write Against the Free-Will Heresy

It seems people perceive my stand against free-will from various angles, but a general reaction is to claim that I am rather singlemindedly focused on the doctrine of Election. I could accept this if these same people also charged those who preach a free-will doctrine with being singleminded in their own bent. However I do understand this reaction, because for decades there has been a strong underlying free-will tone within the Apostolic Lutheran Church, and now recently that which was underlying is being openly proclaimed, and people are comfortable with it. Consequently, when a voice is raised against free-will, and teaches salvation by grace alone, justification by faith alone, all beginning and ending with Christ alone, this message contrasts sharply with the common teaching of the day which has led people to believe they themselves play a role in their salvation.

To explain what is meant by "playing a role" in salvation, I will briefly explain free-will. The free-will doctrine teaches that unregenerated man is able to hear, comprehend, and assent to the things of the kingdom of God. To play an active role in salvation, man has simply to do the above: accept and believe the gospel, and God will, on this basis, favor him and  predestinate him unto eternal life. When I teach according to Scripture that this is impossible, people feel their false foundation shaking, and I am accused of focusing only on a certain doctrine while ignoring Christ, when in fact the true doctrine of Predestination rather glorifies and manifests the power of Christ to save.

It is the above free-will doctrine which I hate and against which I write because I have concern not only for my children and grand children in the church, but I am concerned for all the children. I will take from the writings of our true Elders, Luther and Laestadius, to show why I have such great concern. Remember that it is not I who propose these ideas; I am only presenting the teachings of our Elders.

Laestadius was in concord with Luther and his doctrine, as it answered to his own heart. Laestadius called Luther "one angel who cried from the ascending of the dawn." This is in sharp contrast to how many of our people today consider Luther. When Laestadius in "The Voice Of One Crying In The Wilderness" began to address doctrine, his first course of action was to attack the doctrine of free-will. Of the many arguments he made against free-will, I will quote two. "Furthermore, with regard to the doctrine of man's will, the pastor should explain as best he can to the confirmation children that the will has no power called liberum arbitrium (freedom to judge) in spiritual matters, and in conversion conducts itself pure passive; that is, it has no power to make itself good, that man's will can not of its own power ever become good. And if before conversion someone imagines that he has a good will, this is self-deception" [p. 138]. Again, "the doctrine of Martensen (free-will) concerning man's will absolutely turns the entire Lutheran doctrine upside down" [p. 138]. What if Laestadius is right (and I know he is)? How can we expect to ignore the plainly written doctrines of old, teach an opposite doctrine and hope for the same kind of awakening and spiritual revival which God performed under his teaching? Is it not clear that we have departed from the faith and have given heed to seducing spirits and doctrines of devils? [I Tim. 4:1]. It is manifestly clear that we have departed from the old doctrines.

More to the point, I will quote Luther and his judgment on the free-will doctrine. Luther wrote, "I wish the defenders of free choice would take warning at this point, and realize that when they assert free choice they are denying Christ" [Luther's Works, Am. Ed. Vol. 33 p. 279]. (Other translations use "free will" instead of "free choice.") Do we not hear this admonition? And do we think the warnings of Scripture don't pertain to us? Let us not be so ignorant. It is becoming clear that the matter written of in II Thessalonians is this free-will doctrine. "For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way. And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming..." [2:7,8]. The word "let" means to hinder and prevent. All throughout Church history the doctrine of free-will has tried to assert itself, but was not able, until now, to gain a large foothold, for God established a bound and limit to its increase and power. However, Scripture says that that hinderance shall be taken out of the way, and that Wicked shall come to be openly taught and accepted. God used, among others, Augustine, Luther and Laestadius to resist the free-will doctrine, and so kept it in check. But in this last time it seems this false doctrine has over-flooded outward Christiandom, and many are being deceived by it and led away from Christ. However there is still a sure hope for the child of God, for Scripture says, "For false Christs and false prophets shall rise, and shall shew signs and wonders, to seduce, if it were possible, even the elect" [Mk 13: 22]. Even as the doctrine of the ALC states that God's election "procures, works, helps and promotes what pertains" to the salvation of the Elect, so He will also preserve His own from being deceived by this error. This statement alone ought to shut the mouth of free-will, for it says not that our believing procures our election, but rather our election procures our faith, or believing.

I wish to freely and openly write concerning Luther's above statement, that those who assert free-will, deny Christ. Remember, these ideas did not originate with me, but with our church Elders. What if our Elder Luther, with Augustine and Laestadius, is also right? Does it not mean the ALC is in a dire and dangerous state? Therefore, above all, I openly resist the heresy of free-will because it is an anti-Christ doctrine. Are we astounded? Taken aback, that I would suggest that the ALC, wherein the Spirit of God once moved powerfully, would preach an anti-Christ doctrine? Should we not consider Scripture which says that only those churches which once held to the truth, wherein the candlestick burned brightly, are warned against falling into error? Satan cares nothing for the world or the non-Christians. Rather he has set his sights upon those churches where once the truth was taught and received with power. That includes the Laestadian awakening, and the Apostolic Lutheran Church. Therefore let us take an open look at what Luther has said, and recognize that as much as the ALC supports the free-will doctrine, it denies Christ. This means that there is preached an anti-Christ doctrine, and instead of leading our children to Christ, they are instead lead away from Christ. This means that instead of teaching our children the truth as it is in Christ Jesus, they are taught the error of the devil so that Christ will remain hidden. This means that instead of a word which shuts the gates of hell and opens the gates of heaven, our children are taught a doctrine which shuts heaven and opens the gaping gates of hell to receive them for all eternity. This means that the shepherds which were entrusted to guide the lambs into the sheepfold, are instead thrusting them into the maw of Satan.

I believe our Elders held right doctrine. For this reason I write against the heresy of free-will.

Steven E. Anderson

Saint Augustine: Limits of God's Plan for Human Salvation

The following is a quote from St. Augustine's Enchiridion, which exemplifies the doctrine of our Church Fathers. Many free-will heretics today support their false position by saying that God does not will that any should perish. However, St.  Augustine, the father of Lutheranism, teaches something quite different. How does it fit your own heart?

"Accordingly, when we hear and read in sacred Scripture that God "willeth that all men should be saved," although we know well enough that not all men are saved, we are not on that account to underrate that fully omnipotent will of God. Rather, we must understand the Scripture, "Who will have all men to be saved," as meaning that no man is saved unless God willeth his salvation: not that there is no man whose salvation he doth not will, but that no one is saved unless He willeth it. Moreover, his will should be sought in prayer, because if he willeth, then what he willeth must necessarily be. And, indeed, it was of prayer to God that the apostle was speaking when he made that statement. Thus, we are also to understand what is written in the Gospel about Him "who enlighteneth every man." This means that there is no man who is enlightened except by God.

"In any case, the word concerning God, "who will have all men to be saved," does not mean that there is no one whose salvation he doth not will - he who was unwilling to work miracles among those who, he said, would have repented if he had wrought them - but by "all men" we are to understand the whole of mankind, in every single group into which it can be divided: kings and subjects; nobility and plebeians; the high and the low; the learned and unlearned; the healthy and the sick; the bright, the dull, and the stupid; the rich, the poor, and the middle class; males, females, infants, children, the adolescent, young adults and middle-aged and very old; of every tongue and fashion, of all the arts, of all professions, with the countless variety of wills and minds and all the other things that differentiate people. For from which of these groups doth not God will that some men from every nation should be saved through his only-begotten Son our Lord? Therefore, he doth save them since the Omnipotent cannot will in vain, whatsoever he willeth.

"Now, the apostle had enjoined that prayers should be offered "for all men" and especially "for kings and all those of exalted station," whose worldly pomp and pride could be supposed to be a sufficient cause for them to despise the humility of the Christian faith. Then, continuing his arugment, "for this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour" - that is, to pray even for such as these [kings] - the apostle, to remove any warrant for despair, added, "Who willeth that all men be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth." Truly, then, God hath judged it good that through the prayers of the lowly he would deign to grant salvation to the exalted - a paradox we have already seen exemplified. Our Lord also useth the same manner of speech in the Gospel, where he saith to the Pharisees, "You tithe mint and rue and every herb." Obviously, the Pharisees did not tithe what belonged to others, nor all the herbs of all the people of other lands. Therefore, just as we should interpret "every herb" to mean "every kind of men." We could interpret it in any other fashion, as long as we are not compelled to believe that the Omnipotent hath willed anything to be done which was not done. "He hath done all things in heaven and earth, whatsoever he willed," as Truth sings of him, and surely he hath not willed to do anything that he hath not done. There must be no equivocation on this point."