Transcription
In our first session, we saw that there were two fronts in which the battle over free will is fought. One has to do with the question of how free will relates to external powers that may have an influence or determine our decisions in some manner or degree. And the second one has to do with, uh, our moral freedom with respect to original sin.
In our last session, I closed with looking at the contemporary scene of physical naturalistic determinism as typified, for example, by B.F. Skinner in the 19th century. We remember, uh, Ludwig Feuerbach, who, uh, influenced Karl Marx in his, uh, deterministic theories. And Feuerbach made was famous for the observation, "You are what you eat." Which, of course, reminds me of the story of the man who came under the influence of Feuerbach's writings and said, "Well, if that's the truth, then I'm going to change my diet." And he decided, in his hope to amass great riches, to only eat rich foods. So he gorged himself with cake and pie and things of that sort. And to his despair, only to discover that instead of becoming rich, all he did was become fat. And that was so much for Feuerbach's theory that you are what you eat.
But of course, Feuerbach was saying something deeper than that when he was saying that we are in large measure the result of the biochemical processes that are working themselves out invisibly beneath the surface in our own existence. Well, I think we can see as Christians how the biblical view of freedom is on a collision course with all pagan notions of determinism that restrict the influences of reality to the natural realm and has no room at all for the activity of God and sees the human person, as far as creatures are concerned, as the supreme being, but even in his supremacy is a victim of the blind forces of nature that control his destiny.
But the larger theological question that we face internally within the household of faith is, how does our free will relate to divine sovereignty? I mean, every time I've been engaged in discussions about the biblical concept of predestination, uh, which discussions, I have to say, I've been involved in somewhat frequently. Anytime I've had the occasion to give an exposition of the doctrine of election or of predestination, inevitably the very first question that people raise in response to that is, "What about free will?" Because we understand, even if we haven't studied these things in great, uh, technical detail, we understand that it's a great difficulty to square the relationship between a sovereign God who is absolutely sovereign and a creature who has authentic freedom.
We encounter that not only with respect to the specific doctrine of election, predestination, and so on, but with, uh, our understanding of divine providence. Because the scriptures teach over and over and over again that God not only creates this universe, but he sustains it by his power. And not only does he keep it going, but he governs it. He rules it. And in the exercise of his rule over his creation, he makes use of his own divine sovereignty and power. The scriptures are replete with examples of God saying that he raises nations up, he brings nations down, that things occur through the determinant council of God. And that we are told, for example, that a man's days are ordered by the Lord, and that there are certain decrees that God issues that must needs come to pass.
And so there we encounter the whole concept of God's foreordination, that is, of his ordaining future events before they actually come to pass. And the obvious poser that we face with any such notion of foreordination is this: If God ordains today what is going to happen tomorrow, is there any question that what he has ordained will in fact come to pass? Or do we understand the foreordination of God simply in terms of his making intelligent guesses as to what he thinks will come to pass on the morrow? And does he really know in advance what you're going to say before you say it? And if he does, doesn't his foreknowledge make it absolutely certain that what he knows you will say, you will most certainly say? And even if you think you have the power to say something different from what God knows you are going to say, such an idea is at best an illusion, because God's knowing it makes it certain.
That's why theologians wrestle with the technical distinctions between the necessity of the consequent and the necessity of consequences. That is to say, if God knows that something is going to happen in advance, it's absolutely certain that it will happen. It cannot not happen. But does that mean that he has forced it to happen? Does his foreknowledge carry with it the idea of pre-determining what is going to come to pass? That's the difficult side of the study of divine providence and of divine sovereignty.
Now, sometimes we find people who talk about the problem of divine sovereignty as involving an inherent contradiction between sovereignty and human freedom or free will. And I've heard this. I've heard attempts at resolution of this in many different ways. One of the most popular is the metaphor of the parallel lines. I had a professor in college who, when the first time I was introduced to this dilemma, he solved it for us by saying that human freedom and divine sovereignty are parallel lines that meet in eternity or in infinity. And people wrinkled up their foreheads and thought that was heavy stuff and pretty profound. And I remember walking out of the classroom that day scratching my head and saying, "What's wrong with this picture?" If these parallel lines are in fact parallel, they're not going to meet in eternity or in Pittsburgh or anywhere else. And in fact, if they do meet somewhere down the road, then they aren't really parallel. And that this is just kind of an obfuscation of the difficulty of the question to talk in these terms.
This is a fancy way of saying the concepts are, in fact, contradictory. And since the Bible affirms, on the one hand, divine sovereignty, and on the other, human freedom and responsibility, and even though these two ideas are contradictory and mutually exclusive, we are forced, as a matter of piety, to embrace both poles of the contradiction. And I have to say to you frankly that I think this is the way most Christians handle this problem, by not shrinking at all from the idea that they have just, uh, embraced a contradiction, which is a proof of falsehood. I would say to you that if you conceive human freedom in such a way as bringing it into absolute contradiction to divine sovereignty, or if you conceive of divine sovereignty in such a way that it is absolutely contradictory to human freedom, then I would suggest to you that at least one of your concepts, maybe both, but at least one of them is incorrect and needs to be adjusted or revised.
Now, I'd just like to say to you at the outset that the two concepts of human freedom and divine sovereignty are not inherently contradictory. There may be an abundance of mystery on how the two interact and relate, but they are not inherently contradictory. Let me tell you what is contradictory: these two concepts, sovereignty and human autonomy. If we mean by freedom absolute freedom, or what we call autonomy, where the person is a law unto themselves, where there is no overarching binding authority or power that restricts them from exercising whatever options they choose to exercise. If you mean by freedom absolute freedom or autonomy, then there's no way in the world you're ever going to be able to square these two concepts. Because if God is sovereign, meaning that his freedom is absolute and extends over his whole creation, so that he has the power and the ability to choose whatsoever he wills. If God is sovereign, then manifestly no creature can be autonomous. Because to be autonomous is to be a law unto yourself. And to be a law unto yourself precludes the possibility of anything or anyone reigning sovereignly over you. So these two concepts cannot coexist. If God is sovereign, we are manifestly not autonomous. On the other hand, if we are autonomous, then that's the end of any idea of a sovereign God. These two cannot coexist in the same universe.
We can conceive of the idea of human autonomy, and we can conceive of the idea of divine sovereignty. What we can't conceive of is their coexistence. It's sort of like the old story of the, uh, irresistible force and an immovable object. We understand that the idea of a force that is irresistible is a concept that is thinkable. We can imagine the idea of something that has so much force that nothing could possibly resist it. And on the other hand, we can conceive of an object so strong that nothing could possibly move it, that we call an immovable object. And so, though the two concepts taken separately are possible ideas, what is impossible is their co-existence. We learned that if not through the texts of philosophy, through the popular song of the middle of this century, when an irresistible force such as you meets an immovable object like me, what? Somehow, some way, somewhere, something's got to give. Do you remember that? Something's got to give. Because if you imagine the meeting of the irresistible force and the immovable object, if the irresistible force hits the immovable object and doesn't move it, what does that tell you? It tells you that the irresistible force was not irresistible. It was capable of being resisted. On the other hand, if the irresistible force hits the immovable object and the immovable object moves, we have to change its title. It's now known as a movable object and not an immovable object. You can't have them both coexisting in the same universe.
But one of the things that we see in the scriptural view of the matter is that the Bible nowhere teaches or even hints at the idea that whatever freedom we have is elevated to the level of autonomy. In fact, biblical scholars have been saying for centuries that the chief sin of Adam and Eve in the garden was in their quest for autonomy, and that this, the temptation of the serpent in the garden, was that the creatures would be as gods, and that what they were reaching for was more freedom than that which God had given. God did endow his creatures with freedom. Freedom that was real. Freedom that was far-reaching. Of all of the trees of the garden, he said, "You may freely eat." But that freedom was not absolute. God placed a restriction on that freedom under his sovereignty and said, "Of this tree, you may not eat. You can't even touch it, because the day you eat of it, you will surely die." Sin was the result of man's attempt to increase the scope of the freedom with which he had been endowed by his creator.
Now, I've often heard it said, all too often, as far as I'm concerned, once is too often, but I've heard it said many, many times in the Christian community that there is a limit to God's sovereignty. That God is sovereign to a degree, but that which limits God's sovereignty is human freedom. God's sovereignty is limited by human freedom. What is wrong with this picture? If God's sovereignty is limited by your freedom, then who is sovereign? If your freedom has the capacity or the power to stop God's sovereignty in its tracks, then you are the one who is sovereign rather than God. No, no, no. It is the opposite idea that is communicated clearly to us from sacred scripture, namely that human freedom is real, but it is always limited by the greater freedom of God. God is free, and you are free, but he is more free than you are. And anytime your free will wants to do something that God's free will doesn't want you to do, there's a conflict, and you're going to lose.
And you say, "Well, what about, what about when I sin? He permits me to sin. He permits it. He doesn't sanction it." But even that, you couldn't possibly sin unless God in his sovereignty chose to let you sin. That doesn't mean he forces you to sin. That doesn't mean that he blesses your sinfulness, but he can stand there and say, "Even though I have the power to stop you in your tracks, to vaporize you by my word and prevent you from doing anything that you plan to do, and I know what you're planning to do, and I can stop it right now, but I'm just going to let it happen because I have my reasons." That deals with the whole concept of how God governs providentially. We've seen that in our lecture series on the providence of God.
When we talk about the concurrence concept, whereby God works out his sovereignty in this world, God works out his supreme freedom in, by, and through the real choices of his creatures. The clearest text that illustrates that is at the end of the book of Genesis, the time when Joseph is reunited with his brothers. And now they know, or that Joseph knows who they are, and they know who Joseph is. They're terrified that Joseph is going to exact the just vengeance that he had every right to exact from them for their treachery. And they are trembling before his power and his earthly sovereignty. And remember Joseph's words to his brothers. He said, "You meant it for evil, but God meant it for good." That is, that God's good will worked its way out in and through the evil intentions of Joseph's brothers.
Now, can they go up to the judgment seat and say, "God, we were just doing your will. You know, we're just, uh, obviously you meant it for good. Well, that's what we meant all along, too." No, no, no. And God said, "You acted out of the knowledge that you had, out of the desires that you had, out of the choices that you made that were real, concrete choices. God didn't force them to do what they did, but he made use of the decisions that they made to bring about his own purpose." Likewise, Judas, whose act of treachery and betrayal led to the crucifixion of Christ, Judas meant it for evil. Yet without his evil decision, the greatest event of our redemption would not have taken place. This is the mystery of providence, of how God works his will through the real choices of his creatures.
Now, in theology, as I said, we run into the text, "You meant it for evil, God meant it for good." When we analyze what is going on in moral choices, in what we call volition, one of the things that we understand that deals with moral responsibility is intentionality. We talk about accidents that happen where we run our car into the back of somebody else's car, and we jump out. We apologize to the person. We say, "I'm sorry. I didn't, what? I didn't mean to do it. I didn't hit you on purpose. It was an accident. It was not by intent." If it were by intent, I would be guilty not only of doing damage to my neighbor's car, but I could be arrested for attempted vehicular homicide if I purposefully rammed another person's car. And so we understand the moral import of intentionality. And what the scripture speaks of with respect to human acts and human decisions is that they do function with real intentionality.
However, even our intentions are subject to the ultimate power and authority of God. Because the scriptures tell us that in God we live and move and have our being. I can have a bad intention, make a bad decision, and perform a wicked action, but even that, I am functioning as a real causal agent, something that brings about an effect. We say in theology that we, as real causal agents, are at best secondary causal agents, because I have no power whatsoever except as I borrow it from the one in whom I live and move and have my being. So that even over my sin, God remains sovereign. But that sovereignty does not work itself out in such a way as to force me to do what I do, or to excuse me for doing what I have done.
We're going to continue now with our study of the question of the assurance of salvation. We've spent quite some time already, uh, examining false and counterfeit methods of assurance, and we've seen that one of the most critical problems that we face with respect to false assurance is having a false understanding of salvation and its requirements. And so now we're going to turn our attention to how can we actually gain a true and sound basis for our assurance of salvation? And I think the first place that we have to look again is at theology. Again, in our day and age, people tend to downplay the importance of theology. But when we remember, when we examine Peter's charge that we be diligent in making our election and our calling sure, in order that we might, uh, grow and produce the fruit of our sanctification, we see there, in his thinking, the close relationship that exists between election and assurance.
Now, we need to understand the proper biblical doctrine of election, and we need to understand the proper biblical doctrine of salvation, because those two concepts are inseparably related. We can distinguish between election and salvation, but we can never tear them apart. Now, some people think that we, after we are saved, that becomes the grounds of our election. So, in a certain sense, salvation precedes election. Those who hold the view of election that we call a prescient view, or a foreknowledge view of election, are those who believe that God elects to salvation those people whom he knows from eternity, from his perspective of foreknowledge. He looks down the corridor of time and he knows in advance who will respond positively to the offer of the gospel and who will not. And on the basis of his prior knowledge of what people do in response to the gospel, he makes his decree or decision of election. So when he sees people exercising faith and entering into a state of salvation, on that basis, he elects them.
But that view of election, I don't think, is a biblical view. I don't think that it explains election. I think it fundamentally denies the biblical view of election. And unfortunately, it is a doctrine of election that, in the final analysis, makes the deciding factor rooted and grounded in something that we do, rather than purely on the grace and mercy of God. And I think people that take that view of election are of the same group, basically, that struggle, uh, inevitably with their assurance, because their assurance is tied to their performance, as it were.
But in, as I understand the scripture, election is unto salvation. So that if you are elect, you are saved. And if you are saved, that's the clearest sign that you are numbered among the elect. And let's state it another way: None of those who are saved are not elect. And none of those who are elect fail to be saved. Salvation flows out of election. So if I want to be sure of my salvation, the first thing I need to know is, am I numbered among the elect? So I see there in Peter's teaching why it is so important that I be diligent in making my calling and my election sure, because if I'm sure about my being numbered among the elect with respect to my salvation, not only today but in the future as well, because election is not simply to make salvation possible, but the purpose of God in election is to save the elect, and that purpose is not frustrated.
Let me read a passage that's not usually mentioned in this regard, but one that I take great comfort in, is found in the 17th chapter of the Gospel according to St. John, which is in the middle of Jesus' high priestly prayer for his disciples and for those who believe in them after them. And this is a passage of great encouragement for the whole church of all time. But in verse six, Jesus says in his prayer, "I have manifested your name to the men whom you have given me out of the world. They were yours. You gave them to me, and they have kept your word. Now they have known that all things which you have given me are from you. For I have given to them the words that you have given me, and they received them and have known surely that I came forth from you, and they believed that you sent me. I pray for them. I do not pray for the world, but for those whom you have given me, for they are yours. And all mine are yours. Yours are mine, and I am glorified in them. Now I am no longer in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to you. Holy Father, keep through your name those whom you have given me, that way we may be one as we are." That they may be one as we are. "While I was with them in the world, I kept them in your name. Those whom you gave me, I have kept. None of them is lost except the son of perdition, that the scripture may be fulfilled."
Now, this idea that Jesus expresses in this prayer is that the Father gives the gifts of people, of the redeemed, to the Son. And all that the Father gives to the Son, Jesus says earlier in John's gospel, "Come to me," and all that come to him are kept by him. And so this refers back to the elect, who are the ones whom the Father gives to the Son, and the elect that the Father gives to the Son are preserved by the Son. And that's the basis of our assurance. It's not to be based upon a confidence in our ability to persevere. You know, we talk about the perseverance of the saints, and I believe that the saints do, in fact, persevere, but the reason why they persevere is because they are preserved. And so it's better to speak of the preservation of the saints than the perseverance of the saints. And so we hear in this chapter Jesus' appeal to the Father that those who have been given to him may be kept.
Now, when we look further at this whole relationship between election and salvation, we need to be concerned with what we call in theology the ordo salutis, which is just a fancy way of describing what we say in English, the order of salvation. And when we talk about the order of salvation, we're talking about a sequence of things or actions or events that take place that are the discrete aspects of all that's involved in our salvation. But also, when we talk about the order of salvation, we're talking about what we call a logical order rather than a temporal order.
Now, here's what I mean by that distinction. We say and we believe that we are justified by faith alone. Now, the question is, how long after we possess true saving faith are we justified? Is it five minutes, five months, five years, five seconds? No. We would say that justification and faith are co-terminus with respect to time. The very moment we have true faith, in that same instant, God receives us as justified people. But we still say that faith comes before justification, not justification before faith. Even though they occur at the same time, one precedes the other, logically, by a logical priority.
Now, what we mean by logical priority is this: that since our justification depends upon and rests upon faith, faith is the prerequisite, the necessary condition that has to be present for justification to take place. So faith is logically necessary for justification. It precedes justification, not in time, but in terms of logical necessity. So when we're talking about the order of salvation, keep in mind that what we have in view here are distinctions with respect to prerequisites, to logical necessity.
Now, with that in mind, let's turn our attention briefly to the so-called golden chain in Romans chapter 8. In Romans chapter 8, we have one of the most famous and, uh, beloved verses in all of the New Testament. In verse 28, we read, "And we know that all things work together for good to those who love God, to those who are the called according to his purpose." Now, let me just pause for a second and say, notice that this promise that all things work together for good for those who love God, who are described here as the ones who are the called according to his purpose. So that's a special kind of calling. The Bible speaks about the call of the gospel that goes out to everybody, what we call the outer call or the external call. And not everybody that hears the gospel with their ears, not everybody who hears the outer call is saved. But we also speak of the inner call, the call of God in the person, in the heart. That is a work of God the Holy Spirit. Which call is effectual? That is the call by which the Holy Spirit opens the ears of the believer and the eyes of the believer, the heart of the believer, working within us to bring about the purpose of God. So that this is just another phrase or another descriptive term for the elect. All of the elect receive this inner call. All of the elect receive the purposive call of God. And all who receive this inner call of God are numbered among the elect. And I think that becomes very clear in the verses that follow from this.
Let's look at it. "For whom he foreknew, he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his son." Now we're talking, Paul's talking here about the purposes of God with respect to salvation. And he begins by mentioning God's foreknowledge, and those whom he foreknew, he predestined to be, to what? What was the goal of the predestination? To be conformed to the image of Christ, so that our election is in Christ. Now, here comes in verse 29 what is called in theology the golden chain. I'm, I'm sorry, verse 30. "Moreover whom he predestined, these he also called; whom he called, he also justified; whom he justified, he also glorified."
Now, this is an abbreviated version of what we call the order of salvation. There are other aspects to the order of salvation besides what are mentioned here. This is, this hits the highlights. Notice that sanctification is not in this list. But what is in this list include the following items: First of all, foreknowledge. Second of all, predestination. Third, what? Calling. Fourth, justification. Fifth, glorification. Now, there is an order here that is a logical order that is followed, and it's very important to our understanding of assurance of salvation to grasp what is going on here in this order of salvation. It starts with foreknowledge.
Now, the reason why that prescient view of election that I mentioned earlier is so popular is that because people come to this text and they say, "Ah, the first step is foreknowledge. Haha, therefore that means that election or predestination is based upon something that God knows about people in advance." Now, the text doesn't say that. In fact, as Paul elaborates this in Romans 9, I think he precludes that possibility. But because foreknowledge is mentioned first, people make the assumption that it is on the basis of foreknowledge that predestination takes place. But from a reformed understanding of election, let's understand this: that people who are elect, who are elected in God's decrees and according to God's purposes, are not nameless ciphers. From all eternity, God elects Abraham. From all eternity, God elects Jacob. He, but for him to elect somebody, he has to have some idea of who it is he's electing. So obviously foreknowledge must precede predestination, because God is predestinating someone, people, and so he has to know those people before he predestines them. So the first, obviously, the first thing is foreknowledge. The second thing is predestination.
But notice the elliptical structure of this passage. That is, there are things unstated that are clearly implied. And what goes on in here is that "those whom he foreknew, that he also predestinated." "Those whom he predestinated, that he also called." "Those whom he called, that he also justified." "Those whom he justified, does he also glorify?" What is clearly understood here is that all who are in the category of the foreknown are predestined. Now, again, God's foreknowledge in general includes all people, not just the elect. But here he's speaking about that foreknowledge that he has of his elect. Because all whom he foreknows, in the sense that he foreknows them here, are predestined. And all who are predestined, what? are called.
Now, the critical point is this. Don't miss it. All who are called are justified. So if all who are called are justified, this can't possibly refer to the external call. It has to refer to the internal call, because all who receive this particular call receive justification, just as all who are justified are, are glorified. So if I want to know if I am glorified, if I'm going to be glorified, if I'm going to be saved in the final analysis, if I, if I can determine whether I'm justified, I know I'm going to be glorified. If I'm justified now, I have nothing to worry about. He who has begun a good work in me is going to finish it to the end. And we'll look further at that in our next lecture.
But now we want to ask the question, where calling fits in to my assurance? If this calling has reference to the operation of the Holy Ghost on the soul that prepares us for faith and justification, then if I know that I have been called, then I know that I'm elect. Well, how do I know if I'm called? Well, let's go quickly to Ephesians chapter 2. Chapter 2 of Ephesians begins in verse one with these words: "And you he made alive, who were dead in trespasses and sin, in which you once walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit who now works in the sons of disobedience, among whom we all once conducted ourselves in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, just as the others. But God, who is rich in mercy, because of his great love with which he loved us, even when we were dead in trespasses, made us alive together with Christ. By grace you have been saved, raised us up together, made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus, that in the ages to come he might show the exceeding riches of his grace and his kindness toward us in Christ Jesus. For by grace you have been saved through faith. And that, and the antecedent of that is faith. Is not of yourselves. It is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand that we should walk in them."
In this brief summary, what Paul is focusing on is the work of the Holy Spirit that he describes in terms of quickening, which means being made alive, which we understand in theological categories to refer to our rebirth, to our regeneration, that which Jesus told Nicodemus was a prerequisite for anyone's even seeing the kingdom, let alone entering the kingdom of God. And that is tied to this internal calling. And so my basic question as I seek assurance is this: Am I a regenerate person? If I am a regenerate person, then I know I'm numbered among the elect, because without election, this work of the Holy Ghost will never take place in your soul. So all who are elect will become at some point in this life regenerate of the Holy Spirit. And all who are regenerate are numbered among the elect. So if you can be sure of your regeneration, you can be sure of your election. If you're sure of your election, you're sure of your salvation.
Now again, what is critical is that we understand what regeneration is. There is massive confusion out there in the Christian world about the nature of regeneration. And people who call themselves evangelicals in America walk around believing very, very different things about what happens to a person in the case of the Holy Spirit's quickening them or regenerating them from spiritual death to spiritual life. And that's why again I say having a sound doctrine of regeneration is critical to having the full assurance of our state of grace and our relationship to God. And so in our next and final session, I want to look at the work of God, the Holy Spirit, in our lives as the most important foundation for our ever achieving genuine assurance of salvation.
As we continue our study on the basic themes of reformed theology, you'll recall that in our last session, we looked at the formal principle of the Protestant Reformation, the doctrine of Sola Scriptura. And today we're going to look at what the historians call the material cause of the Reformation, the central controversy over which the whole debate raged, which was the doctrine of Sola Fide. And the term Sola Fide contains this "Sola," and "Fide" is the word for faith, coming from "fidelis." We remember the Marine Corps motto, "Semper Fi," or "Semper Fidelis," or the hymn "Adeste Fideles," so "Come all ye faithful." Sola Fide means faith alone. And this was the central assertion of Martin Luther that provoked the serious controversy of the 16th century. And he was speaking to the question, "How is a person justified in the sight of God?"
Now, before we give a brief exposition of the doctrine of justification by faith alone, I want to take a few moments to recap for you the urgency that the magisterial reformers felt about this issue. They did not think that the debate over justification was an argument over some fine point of theology whereby theologians get together and nitpick over secondary issues and so on. But they were convinced of not only the truth of justification by faith alone, but also believed that it was of critical importance. Luther said that justification by faith alone is the article upon which the church stands or falls. Now, we could view that from the vantage point of the 20th century, perhaps, as an exaggeration or as an overstatement, but I'm just mentioning at this point that it was clearly Luther's conviction that this doctrine was so important because it touched the very heart and soul of the gospel itself. And again, it is Luther's contention that justification is the article upon which the church stands or falls. And it's the article upon which we stand or fall because it is the article that we understand that reveals to us how we are redeemed.
Calvin took a similar view of the importance of the doctrine. He used a different metaphor. He said that justification by faith alone is the hinge upon which everything in the Christian life turns. In our own day, J.I. Packer, in his preface to Buchanan's 19th century work on justification, used another striking metaphor where he likened the doctrine of justification by faith alone to the mythological figure of Atlas, whose task it was to bear the world on his shoulders. And what Dr. Packer was saying with this analogy was, just as Atlas is required to hold up the world, so the doctrine of justification by faith alone is that which holds everything else up.
Well, the controversy, as we know, flared and ended in perhaps the most, not perhaps, but certainly the most serious fragmentation of Christendom in the history of the church, and became the most volatile controversy of all time. Now again, before I get into an exposition of it, I'd like to read a comment that Martin Luther, a couple of comments from Luther. First of all, an expanded comment of his view of the importance of it, and then second, a comment that referred in later years of Luther's life to his profound concern that the recovery of the biblical doctrine of justification by faith alone would be short-lived.
First, his expanded comment on the importance of it. He says, "This doctrine is the head and the cornerstone. It alone begets, nourishes, builds, preserves, and defends the church of God. And without it, the church of God cannot exist for one hour." And again, he said, "The article of justification is the master and prince, the lord, the ruler, and the judge over all kinds of doctrines. It preserves and governs all church doctrine and raises up our conscience before God. Without this article, the world is utter death and darkness. No error is so mean, so clumsy, and so outworn as not to be supremely pleasing to human reason and to seduce us if we are without the knowledge and the contemplation of this article." And then, as I said, in his later life, he made this observation: "There are few who know and understand this article, and I treat it again and again because I greatly fear that after we have laid our head to rest, it will soon be forgotten and will again."