The Exclusivity of Faith – Part 3
Galatians 1:6-9, 2:11-21
January 14, 2018
I realize it has been a real hit or miss dilemma in regard to any recent continuity in our study of the SOLAS, but now that the holidays are behind us, we can regain some continuity.
What we are talking about in our current study of SOLA FIDE is
“The Exclusivity of Faith”
We have seen “THE NECESSITY OF FAITH” since “without faith it is impossible to please” God.
We have seen “THE EFFECTIVENESS OF FAITH” since “Abraham believed God and it was credited to him as righteousness.”
What we are looking at now is “THE EXCLUSIVITY OF FAITH”
Namely saying that if you try to bring anything to God in addition to faith,
God will not accept it.
That is to say, we are upholding that
Man is not only justified by faith, but by faith alone.
And in order to discover that,
We are looking at the responses of the apostles.
Namely their response to a debate that broke out in the early church regarding whether or not Gentiles had to be circumcised to be saved.
Acts 15:1 “Some men came down from Judea and began teaching the brethren, “Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved.”
The result of this accusation was the convening of the Jerusalem Council
Which provided for us the first church confession.
While gathered at Jerusalem both Peter and James arose to speak, and we have already looked at what they had to say.
#1 ACCORDING TO PETER: LEGALISM TESTS GOD
Acts 15:6-11
You will remember that Peter’s basic argument was this:
• God saw their faith
• God saw their heart
• God obviously thought they were saved
• Because God gave them the Holy Spirit
• And God did all that without them ever being circumcised
Therefore, for you to now say that they aren’t saved
Is to call God’s testimony into account.
You are questioning whether or not God actually overstepped His bounds in giving them the Holy Spirit.
That is what legalism does.
It tests the work of God.
#2 ACCORDING TO JAMES: LEGALISM TROUBLES GENTILES
Acts 15:13-21
And you will remember that James turned to Scripture
• Only to find that in the end times, God will have saved a multitude of Gentiles
• And He will have done so without ever making them Jewish.
So if God is willing to save Gentiles as Gentiles,
Why would you make an additional requirement on them?
You are only making salvation (which is already costly)
That much more difficult on those whom God is saving.
Why would you want to make it harder?
Legalism only troubles those whom God is saving.
Tonight I want us to look at Paul’s argument.
Now for Paul we don’t look at his statements at the Jerusalem council,
For Paul’s specific words are not recorded.
But that’s ok, because we have an entire book
Regarding Paul’s thoughts on the matter, it is called Galatians.
We are going to look at two main passages which reveal Paul’s stance on the issue of legalism, and also spell out for us the dangers that it holds.
What you will find is that like Peter and James,
Paul absolutely believes in justification by faith alone
And that he categorically refutes legalism.
#3 ACCORDING TO PAUL: LEGALISM TRASHES THE GOSPEL
Galatians 1:6-9
“I am amazed…” he says.
That word “amazed” translates THAUMAZO
Which means “to marvel” or “to wonder”
It is a word that Paul only uses one other place in his letters.
2 Thessalonians 1:9-10 “These will pay the penalty of eternal destruction, away from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of His power, when He comes to be glorified in His saints on that day, and to be marveled at among all who have believed — for our testimony to you was believed.”
Paul said that when Jesus returns
All those who have believed in Him will marvel at Him.
Paul actually says that the only other event in human history
That can cause him to marvel as much as he is right now
Is the return of Christ.
Can you see how perplexed he is by the Galatian’s defection?
“I am amazed…”
Later he will write:
Galatians 4:19-20 “My children, with whom I am again in labor until Christ is formed in you — but I could wish to be present with you now and to change my tone, for I am perplexed about you.”
Paul writes as one whose mind is literally blown.
He can’t fathom what the Galatians are doing.
WHAT ARE THEY DOING?
“I am amazed that you are so quickly deserting Him who called you by the grace of Christ, for a different gospel”
THE GALATIANS WERE DESERTING GOD.
Some would assume at most they were only deserting Paul’s gospel,
But that was not it.
They were deserting “Him who called” them.
They weren’t just deserting the truth, they were deserting God.
How?
They were abandoning “the grace of Christ”
That is where the Galatians were.
• They were throwing grace out the window.
• They were throwing Christ out the window.
• They were throwing God’s salvation out the window.
And Paul can’t believe it.
Why would you so quickly determine to throw Christ aside?
AND YOU NEED TO UNDERSTAND THIS.
Paul is not disappointed in the Galatians
Because they weren’t doing enough FOR God.
Paul was disappointed because
They were trying to do enough WITHOUT God.
Do you understand what a slap in the face it is to God for you to try and earn what He has already provided?
He sent His Son in human flesh to pay the ransom for our sin.
It was a gracious gift of salvation.
But instead of just letting Him do it, the Galatians were saying,
“I appreciate your help, but we’ll take it from here.”
And when you or I try to earn God’s favor through various religious works, we are doing the same.
The Galatians are deserting God
And Paul just can’t believe it.
They are deserting God “for a different gospel”
“different” translates HETEROS
(HOMO is same – HETERO is different)
It is not the same gospel message.
It may sound a lot like what I preached, but it is different.
Paul says in verse 7 “which is really not another”
It may have many of the same concepts as the true gospel,
But it is not like the true gospel.
If you add anything to or take anything away from the true gospel,
Then it is not the gospel.
Think of it like a recipe for a fine dessert.
• There is only one way to make that dessert.
• If you add to or take away, it is not the same.
It may taste close, it may look close, but it is not the same.
And the gospel is something that cannot be changed, or you lose it.
And these men had come into Galatia with an altered gospel,
And Paul is blown away that the Galatians would accept it.
“only there are some who are disturbing you and want to distort the gospel of Christ.”
Do you see their gimmick?
They first DISTURB, and then they DISTORT
They came in disturbing the Galatians
By convincing them that they still were not pleasing to God
Then they distorted the gospel to satisfy that need.
It is a dangerous circle, but always the circle of the false prophets.
They accuse, they manipulate, they threaten, they guilt
And then they offer a false gospel to sooth that guilt
The Galatians were believing this false system of salvation.
• They were accepting it.
• They were leaving God.
• They were abandoning Christ.
• They were deserting from the true gospel.
And Paul can’t believe it, he is shocked!
If you wonder why this letter is so direct and fiery, that is why.
“But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed!”
Now you might be familiar with language like that in the Old Testament.
We hear a lot of the curse there.
But that is not common in the New Testament.
In fact being accursed is reserved for people
Who have heard the gospel and rejected it.
Hebrews 6:7-8 “For ground that drinks the rain which often falls on it and brings forth vegetation useful to those for whose sake it is also tilled, receives a blessing from God; but if it yields thorns and thistles, it is worthless and close to being cursed, and it ends up being burned.”
The cursed are those who know better and reject.
And the other cursed people are found here.
Those who distort the gospel.
“accursed” translates ANATHEMA
It was in reference to an offering devoted to God for destruction.
Joshua 6:17 “The city shall be under the ban, it and all that is in it belongs to the LORD; only Rahab the harlot and all who are with her in the house shall live, because she hid the messengers whom we sent.”
(And you’ll remember Achan’s sin of stealing some of it)
Jericho was ANATHEMA
Devoted to God for destruction.
The main use of the word was of an offering devoted for destruction.
You sinned, so you presented a lamb to God – why?
So the lamb could be destroyed that you might be forgiven.
You never presented a lamb to God with hopes of it being given back.
It was devoted to God for destruction
And Paul says if anyone – and I mean anyone
Me, an angel from heaven, anyone
Preaches a different gospel, let him be devoted to God for destruction.
In 2 Peter 2, Peter reminds that
• If God didn’t spare sinning angels
• And if God didn’t spare sinners in Noah’s day
• And if God didn’t spare Sodom and Gomorrah
• Then God won’t spare false prophets either
2 Peter 2:9-10 “then the Lord knows how to rescue the godly from temptation, and to keep the unrighteous under punishment for the day of judgment, and especially those who indulge the flesh in its corrupt desires and despise authority.”
Jude agreed
Jude 12-13 “These are the men who are hidden reefs in your love feasts when they feast with you without fear, caring for themselves; clouds without water, carried along by winds; autumn trees without fruit, doubly dead, uprooted; wild waves of the sea, casting up their own shame like foam; wandering stars, for whom the black darkness has been reserved forever.”
These men (or even angels) who distort the gospel
Are absolutely unredeemable.
They are already handed over for destruction.
And just to make sure we didn’t hear Paul wrong:
(9) “As we have said before, so I say again now, if any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary to what you received, he is to be accursed!”
WHY SO SEVERE?
Because if you lose the gospel, you lose salvation.
THIS WAS THE PASSION OF THE REFORMERS
IT MUST BE THE PASSION OF OUR DAY.
WE LIVE IN A DAY where distortions to the gospel are overlooked…
Tolerance is the virtue of the day…
In fact, let me share with you a current example.
• We’ve talked some about the battles of past reformers, let me tell you about the battles of current reformers.
As many of you know, especially those of you who attend the video Bible study on Wednesday nights, RC Sproul went home to be with the Lord on December 14 of this year.
RC Sproul will forever be remembered as probably the most intelligent and instrumental voice of reformed theology of our day.
• In my mind he rightly takes a seat among the greatest theological minds the world has ever known.
• I do not expect to see a table in heaven where men like Luther or Calvin or Zwingli or Edwards are seated that RC Sproul is not seated there with them.
• I have nothing but respect and admiration for this modern day reformer.
• John MacArthur called him “This era’s great reformer”
What is also true is that if you listen to RC Sproul for any time at all
You will know that his drum had one main tune.
Certainly he spoke on many subjects and many thoughts,
But he always spoke on one main thought
And that was on the doctrine of justification by faith alone.
He loved to talk about the imputed righteousness of Christ
And that it is imputed by faith alone.
In order that you may understand how easily tolerance of the distortion of the gospel can occur even in our day,
I’ll share with you one of RC’s stories.
• If you watched any of his funeral online, especially the segment given by John MacArthur then you are already aware of this great battle.
• It centered around the response to a document signed which was called “Evangelicals and Catholics Together”
• It was signed by many leading theologians from both Protestants and Catholics with the main goal of unity.
And it seems that in this unity one main goal was to forge an agreement
That evangelicals would stop evangelizing Catholics.
“In view of the large number of non-Christians in the world and the enormous challenge of our common evangelistic task, it is neither theologically legitimate nor a prudent use of resources for one Christian community to proselytize among active adherents of another Christian community” (22–23).
Cited in:
https://www.gty.org/library/articles/A149/evangelicals-and-catholics-together
The problem obviously with such an agreement is that it assumes that Catholicism then is doctrinally true, that Catholicism’s gospel is sound and that those who believe what it teaches are in fact saved.
But that is a stretch to say the least.
In fact, let me read to you some of the statements from The Council of Trent (finished in 1563) written as a rebuttal to the Reformation.
Here are the Council of Trent’s own words:
• If anyone says that by faith alone the sinner is justified, so as to mean that nothing else is required to cooperate in order to obtain the grace of justification…let him be anathema (Trent, sess. 6, canon 9).
• If anyone says that men are justified either by the imputation of the righteousness of Christ alone, or by the remission of sins alone, to the exclusion of the grace and love that is poured forth in their hearts by the Holy Spirit and is inherent in them; or even that the grace by which we are justified is only the favor of God—let him be anathema (Trent, sess. 6, canon 11).
• If anyone says that the righteousness received is not preserved and also not increased before God by good works, but that those works are merely the fruits and signs of justification obtained, but not a cause of its increase, let him be anathema (Trent, sess. 6, canon 24).
• If anyone says that the guilt is remitted to every penitent sinner after the grace of justification has been received, and that the debt of eternal punishment is so blotted out that there remains no debt of temporal punishment to be discharged either in this world or in the next in Purgatory, before the entrance to the kingdom of heaven can be opened—let him be anathema (Trent, sess. 6, canon 30). (meaning if anyone holds that Jesus totally sets people free from eternal punishment and that it is a lasting freedom)
• If anyone says that the Catholic doctrine of justification set forth in this decree by this holy Synod derogates in any way the glory of God or the merits of our Lord Jesus Christ, and not rather that the truth of our faith and the glory of God and of Jesus Christ are rendered more illustrious—let him be anathema (Trent, sess. 6, canon 33). (which is to say if anyone argues with our statement here and says it steals God’s glory)
(ibid)
Obviously then you can see that Catholics and Protestants
DO NOT preach the same gospel
And the fact that so many evangelicals would sign off on an agreement
To unify and stop evangelizing those in a false religion is concerning.
In response to this agreement, 3 of the signers of “Evangelicals and Catholics Together” document; namely J.I. Packer, Bill Bright, and Chuck Colson met with 3 men who took issue namely John MacArthur, James Kennedy, and RC Sproul.
Here is MacArthur’s account of that 7 hour debate.
Speaking at Sproul’s funeral, he said:
“He was without question the force in that room for the truth…He actually got on the table; up on the table, and pointed a finger at an adversary and said, ‘I don’t think you get it, this about whether you’re saved or not.’ As affable; as irrepressibly charming as he was, he was a defender of the faith, even when he was looking in the eyes of a very cherished friend, he never wavered on the gospel.”
https://youtu.be/hikyZE5Mj9k?t=6m30s
I share that story to make the point again that
The things we are discussing here are not various nuances to the gospel,
THEY ARE THE GOSPEL.
To maintain that justification is by faith but not by faith alone
Is to ultimately trash the gospel.
And you must know that fighting for this truth is always at the forefront for men, even in our day, LOVE TOLERANCE of the sake of peace.
Now consider Paul:
Paul was very tolerant and agreeable in so many areas
• He could quit eating meat
• He could live like a Jew or Gentile
• He could go out of his way not to be an offense
But the preservation of the gospel was a hill on which to die.
• It was a truth worth fighting for
• It was a truth worth losing friends over
• It was a truth worth losing ministry colleagues over
Above all else, the gospel must be preserved.
And as we have said repeatedly,
This became the motive for the Protestant Reformation.
The reformers learned that many things could be compromised
But salvation by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone
For the glory of God alone was not one of them.
Legalism Trashes the gospel.
LET ME SHOW YOU HOW.
Turn from Galatians 1 to Galatians 2:11
This entire message from Paul is inspired by an event in which Peter exhibits tremendous hypocrisy about the gospel, and it opens the door for Paul to make a tremendous explanation regarding the effects of legalism.
(11) “But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned.”
Now we are all aware of Peter.
• One moment the hero, the next moment the goat.
• One moment confessing Christ, the next moment rebuking Him.
In the passage we studied a few weeks ago, we just saw Peter standing before the counsel and giving brilliant testimony as to how God used him to bring salvation to the Gentiles.
Well, according to Paul, after that event, Peter then traveled to Antioch.
This was in the region of Galatia.
Since Gentiles were now part of the family, Peter was going all the way.
But when he got there, it eventually led to an altercation.
Paul says, “I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned.”
Some translate it that Peter was “self-condemned”.
The idea is that deep down, whatever Peter did,
He knew that it was wrong when he did it.
Paul was God’s agent of conviction to openly confront Peter’s condemning action and pull him back onto the straight and narrow.
WHAT WAS IT THAT PETER DID?
(12) “For prior to the coming of certain men from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he began to withdraw and hold himself aloof, fearing the party of the circumcision.”
And so now we have a clearer picture.
When Peter came to Antioch, he came with proper motives.
• These were brothers,
• These were free,
• These were made clean by Christ,
• So Peter could openly and freely fellowship with them.
In fact, “he used to eat with the Gentiles;”
No doubt this spoke of casual fellowship,
But also of the partaking of the Lord’s supper with them.
Formerly such action was strictly forbidden, as Gentiles were seen as unclean, But now, because of the blood of Christ,
There was absolutely nothing wrong with Peter’s actions.
In fact, God had personally taught this lesson to Peter.
Acts 11:9 “But a voice from heaven answered a second time, ‘ What God has cleansed, no longer consider unholy.’
Acts 11:17 “Therefore if God gave to them the same gift as He gave to us also after believing in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I that I could stand in God’s way?”
And all Peter was doing was walking in his new found freedom.
BUT THEN SOMETHING HAPPENED
“the coming of certain men from James”
It is probably better understood that these men
Merely said James had sent them, but that he actually did not.
In fact, even James was aware that there were some people who pretended to act on his authority
Acts 15:24 “Since we have heard that some of our number to whom we gave no instruction have disturbed you with their words, unsettling your souls,”
No doubt it was men like this who came to Peter.
• They were legalists.
• They were Judaizers.
• They were outward Jewish zealots, and they wore their religion on their garments.
They were the Christian version of the Pharisee
(Not true Christians, just as the Pharisees were not true Jews).
But they walked around in their outward legalism,
Putting their piety on display, and no doubt
Looked down on anyone who was less holy than they.
And their condescending attitude eventually got to Peter.
“but when they came, he began to withdraw and hold himself aloof,”
The Greek text indicates here that Peter’s action
WAS NOT A SUDDEN BREAK, but a gradual one.
Peter knew what he was doing was wrong,
And therefore did not immediately do it,
But did it stealthily so as not to attract attention to himself.
• He gradually began to pull away from the Gentiles.
• Declining their invitations…
• Eventually skipping their love feasts…
• Until he began to “hold himself aloof,”
Just like a scene from a school play ground in which someone seeking popularity is seen talking to the wrong type of kid, Peter pulls away and joins the crowd.
Paul even tells us why he did it.
“fearing the party of the circumcision.”
Paul says Peter did it because he feared them.
It is important to note that the Judaizers claimed to be Christian,
And so they would have had NO PHYSICAL THREAT over Peter.
That could not possibly have been what Peter feared.
Rather, Peter feared the loss of status, or being verbally maligned by them.
And because Peter feared their verbal jabs,
He pulled away and fell into their same ways of legalism.
NOW LET’S ANALYZE THE SITUATION
Is it that big of a deal?
• I mean, it’s just eating meals.
• And certainly there are no commands that say who you have to eat with.
• Why worry about such a little, insignificant event?
• Well, that insignificant little decision by Peter was legalism on display, and Paul points out the effects it had.
THIS IS PAUL’S STATEMENT ON
HOW LEGALISM TRASHES THE GOSPEL.
1) THE BODY WAS DIVIDED (13-14)
Peter made a small, sly, and secretive choice not to eat with Gentiles,
But to separate from them.
Surely no one would notice, and it wouldn’t be that big of a deal.
“The rest of the Jews joined him in hypocrisy”
It was just one little choice,
And now the Church has been split right down the middle.
HOW BAD IS THE SPLIT?
“with the result that even Barnabas was carried away by their hypocrisy.”
WHY DID PAUL MENTION THAT?
• It was not to get Barnabas in trouble, but to reveal the scope of the
division. Barnabas was “The son of encouragement.”
• Barnabas accepted everyone (Remember John Mark)
• Barnabas was as easy to get along with as anyone in the world.
So when he falls into the division, it is a serious division.
One little choice by Peter to follow legalism,
And the entire church at Antioch was split right down the middle.
One appearance of legalism and the church
Which Jesus purchased with His own blood is now divided.
BUT YOU’LL NOTICE, it’s not just that a few Gentiles
Might have gotten their feelings hurt.
Paul gives another reason for being so upset.
“But when I saw that they were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel”
This is the real issue at hand.
Peter never verbally preached a sermon,
And there is not one recorded by any of the other Jews either.
But, by pulling away from the Gentiles,
Peter was preaching.
HERE IS WHAT PETER’S SERMON SAID:
Regardless of the work of Jesus on the cross,
There is still an obvious advantage to being Jewish.
His action attacked the sufficiency of the work of Jesus.
His action said that the blood of Jesus on the cross
Could not make a Gentile equal with a Jew.
AND THAT IS WHY PAUL IS LIVID!
• In fact, Paul says that Peter “stood condemned”
• Paul said that “I opposed him to his face”
THE POINT IS, this was huge to Paul!
And I realize that there is so much more here which needs to be discussed,
But we’re out of time and there is too much left to cover.
What I want you to see is that we are looking at an incident
Where just the slightest entrance of legalism occurred
And Paul is already UP IN ARMS that the entire gospel is being maligned.
Paul, a man who could overlook all sorts of wrongs and offences,
BUT HE COULD NOT OVERLOOK THIS,
Because it distorted the gospel of justification by faith alone.
Do you see how important justification by faith alone was to Paul?
Next time we’ll finish his thought.
