My sermon text again this week is Galatians chapter 1 verses 6-10. I find myself unable to proceed further out of it as of yet. There's a lot here. By way of review, there is only one gospel. There's not a superior gospel and an inferior one, both of which get to claim to be the gospel. There's only one. Those who distort the one true gospel are false teachers, and they disturb the church of Jesus Christ. If anyone comes preaching another gospel, whether he be the Apostle Paul himself or an angel from heaven, or some man who is renowned or famous in our own generation, or someone who comes highly recommended. It doesn't matter who he is or how famous he is or how influential. It doesn't matter how many books he's written. It doesn't matter how many converts he's supposedly won to Christ. It doesn't matter how many degrees he has. If anyone comes to you preaching another gospel besides the one and only true gospel, that man is under the curse of hell. He is not your friend. He is not going to heaven. He is not here to help you. He is not here to shepherd you down the narrow road. He is here to deceive you. The text reads, I am amazed that you are so quickly deserting him who called you by the grace of Christ for a different gospel, which is really not another. Only there are some who are disturbing you and want to distort the gospel of Christ. 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. 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. For am I now seeking the favor of men, or of God? Or am I striving to please men? If I were still trying to please men, I would not be a bondservant of Christ. I wonder if we really take Paul seriously on this. I think that we are so enamored with fame, and speaking ability, and gifts, and credentials, that if someone came with that bag of goods, he could easily introduce a false gospel, and we would be slow to pick up on it. We tend to be overawed by such things. Paul said to the Corinthians, they come preaching another gospel, you bear it beautifully. And we know the Corinthians tended to be overawed by celebrities, didn't they? I'm of Apollos. I'm of Paul. I'm of Peter. Well, it hasn't gotten better in our generation. Probably worse in light of mass media. So what is this one true gospel? Well, last week we considered the fact that the Galatians were deserting him who called them by the grace of Christ for another gospel. They were deserting the gospel of grace. What is grace? That has to be defined. It is electing grace. It is a grace by which God has mercy on some while hardening others. or it's not universal, whereby He decides to save this one and not that one. It is the distinguishing sovereign grace of God, we sang about it earlier, whereby He saves wretches in the middle of their wretchedness and resurrects the dead while they're dead. It is God giving salvation to bad people who don't deserve it and don't love Him and aren't seeking Him. unless he puts seeking in their hearts. And they owe that to him. That's what the Bible means by grace. It's the opposite of works. Romans 11.6, if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works. Otherwise, grace is no longer grace. What is grace not? Grace is not something people go get by free will. out of the Catholic sacraments. Nor is it God providing opportunities, providing an opportunity for us to be saved if we have the good sense to actuate that grace by free will and accept Christ or pray a sinner's prayer or walk down an aisle. This is salvation by works, not grace. Just think about this. Lay aside the ecumenicalism that we've been conditioned in for a moment. God providing an opportunity for us to save ourselves is not the same gospel scheme as God selecting people himself to be saved, who of themselves would never in a million lifetimes take advantage of any opportunity he ever provided them. This is so obvious that these things are polar opposites and have nothing to do with each other. The one is salvation by works, the other is salvation by grace. And everyone who holds to one or the other of these systems knows it deep down inside that these two perspectives are incompatible. That's why they self-segregate. That's why no believer in sovereign grace will set foot in an Arminian church. He will not attend a church like that. He will drive miles and miles and hours to get to a church that proclaims the true sovereign grace of God. Why does he do that? Because instinctively he knows these are not the same thing. These are incompatible. I cannot tolerate that. And the reverse is true. An Arminian will rarely set foot in a Calvinistic church if he knows that's what they believe before he attends there. But once he figures out what is being said, unless God is drawing him to the truth, he'll bolt out of there. We've seen that happen here for that reason. The difference is that he will probably not have to drive hours to find another Arminian church. There's plenty of them. But instinctively, we all know this, both sides. But then strangely, on the reform side, some of our leaders, some seminary professors, I had some like this, our famous pastor influencers, our authors, our conference speakers teach us that we're supposed to be ecumenical on this point and not make such a big deal about Arminianism. They still have the gospel after all. Hmm. I have shown that our Reformed forefathers did not hold this friendly view of Arminianism and that there's a stark difference between old Reformed and new on this question. Something has happened, clearly. I think, personally, that the shift has not been a positive one. I think it is indicative of the doctrinal declension that can be seen in nearly every other theological metric in the professing church over the time period. So if you think of it like this, you go back to the Puritan era of our forefathers, and I say go back to that point because the guys we like to read clearly thought Arminianism was a false gospel. And I'm trying to figure out what happened here between then and now. So if we look at the other metrics between the Puritan era and our own, what do we see? In how many areas of church life, theology, ecclesiology, and so forth, do we think there has been an improvement from their time to ours? Well, one example of an improvement that I can think of would be a move away from sacralism, the union of church and state such that the state regulates the church, and serves as a disciplinary arm of the church to punish heretics, what I was reading about in the Fox's Book of Martyrs there at the beginning. I'm glad we're not doing that anymore. That's an improvement for sure. But when we look at things like knowledge of scripture, the quality of preaching, the faithful practice of church discipline, purity of life and conduct, sober-mindedness, courage, willingness to suffer for the faith, clarity about Roman Catholicism and other false teachings. I think the verdict is in. They were superior to the best Reformed church you can find today, and 10,000 times superior to the average evangelical, whatever that means, church of our day. In all these metrics and more, we fail miserably in comparison to them. We have slid downward. We are compromised. We are worldly. We are wishy-washy. We're lukewarm. And so, come over to this issue, when it comes to this issue of Arminianism and assessing this question, were our reformed fathers too harsh about this, or are we too soft? I know what I believe. I believe we're too soft. I believe it's very unlikely that our ecumenicalism represents an improvement from the Puritan era in the midst of this downward trajectory in nearly every other category. That it represents somehow some lone bright spot in what is otherwise a sea of confusion and declension. I believe that we have accepted Arminianism as a legit gospel because we're not that clear on what the gospel is and isn't. Let me pause for a minute just to address a question that may form in your mind. Why am I harping on this again? Do I just have an axe to grind? Am I obsessed with Arminianism? No, I don't think so. I believe it's a false gospel, and it's kind of in my job description to warn people, the people of God, about dangerous teachings. And Arminianism just happens to be the most extensive, far-reaching, and popular false teaching of our day, and for the last 200 years. The vast majority of non-Catholic churches in the Protestant world, by a massive margin, are Arminian. And as Robert Trail said, which I quoted last week, Arminianism is the most conducive to our unregenerate nature. That is, we slide into it very comfortably. He says, but the principles of Arminianism are the natural dictates of a carnal mind, which is enmity both to the law of God and to the gospel of Christ, and next to the dread sea of potpourri, into which this stream also runs, they have, from Pelagius to this day, been the greatest plague of the church of Christ, and it is likely will be till his second coming." Those are strong words. I do concur with him, and that's why I'm harping on it. If we address this issue at a simple level, it really comes down to this. The way we are saved is an integral part of the gospel itself. How could it not be? But this is essentially what modern reformed leaders are denying when they assert that Arminianism is sound enough to be legitimate. And I'm not speaking of everybody. I'm just speaking that over the years, I've heard this enough from reformed leaders to be able to say that this is an accurate statement. But they're essentially denying this. when they say that Arminian preachers maybe don't understand the fullness of the gospel, but they preach the gospel nonetheless. There's no way you can make that claim without simultaneously implying that biblical teaching concerning how we are saved is extraneous, expendable, bonus material, not necessary for the faithful proclamation of the gospel. And this is an assertion that I think bears scrutiny and that collapses under scrutiny. First, it assumes that preaching the gospel only includes the basic facts of Jesus coming into the world. Being born of the Virgin Mary, dying on the cross for sinners, which might mean dying for his elect, or it might mean dying for every single person in the world. You get to choose what it means. Rising again on the third day and ascending to heaven. The notion is that a man is faithfully preaching the gospel if he includes those facts, but he need not tell the sinner how it is that sinners come to be saved. Or he can say sinners are saved by grace, but then not explain what that means or give false explanations of what that means. But no matter, he's still preaching the gospel. Really? Where would we get the idea that how sinners are saved is non-essential, extra credit information? Or worse, where would we get the idea that you can lie to people about how they are saved, telling them they are saved by a work of walking an aisle or the work of saying a sinner's prayer, and that it doesn't matter as long as you get the basic facts about Jesus correct? Secondly, if it isn't necessary to properly and rightfully define grace or include that in our gospel proclamations, then why does Paul say in verse six, in the smack dab in the middle of this context, I am amazed that you are so quickly deserting him who called you by the grace of Christ for a different gospel. Are we to imagine that the phrase called you by the grace of Christ was incidental? Can we read the book of Galatians through from beginning to end and conclude that the definition of salvation by grace alone is irrelevant to the crisis in the Galatian churches or that it's somehow tangential? Read the book through with an eye to this question. And you will see that the issue at the heart of the controversy with the Judaizers was not the facts of Jesus's life, death, and resurrection, but how sinners are saved. Is it by grace or by works? That was the heart of the matter as the following verses show. Galatians 2, 14 through 16, we'll just peek ahead here to some of the coming verses. But when I saw that they were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas in the presence of all, if you, being a Jew, live like the Gentiles and not like the Jews, how is it that you compel the Gentiles to live like Jews? We are Jews by nature and not sinners from among the Gentiles. Nevertheless, knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but through faith in Christ Jesus, that's how we are saved. Even we have believed in Christ Jesus so that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law, since by the works of the law no flesh will be justified. Galatians 2.21, I do not nullify the grace of God. That's what we're talking about here, grace. For if righteousness comes through the law, then Christ died needlessly. If we're not saved by grace biblically defined and are instead saved by works, there was no point in Christ dying on the cross. Galatians 3.2, this is the only thing I want to find out from you. Did you receive the Spirit by the works of the law or by hearing with faith? Again, he's talking about the manner in which they are saved. Galatians 3, 10-14, For as many as are of the works of the law are under a curse, for it is written, Cursed is everyone who does not abide by all things written in the book of the law to perform them. Now that no one is justified by the law before God is evident, for the righteous man shall live by faith. However, the law is not of faith. On the contrary, he who practices them shall live by them. Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us. For it is written, cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree, in order that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles, so that we would receive the promise of the Spirit through faith. Galatians 3.18. For if the inheritance is based on law, it is no longer based on a promise, but God has granted it to Abraham by means of a promise. Galatians 3.24, therefore God has, excuse me, the law has become our tutor to lead us to Christ so that we may be justified by faith. Galatians 5, 1-9, For it was for freedom that Christ set us free. Therefore keep standing firm, and do not be subject again to a yoke of slavery. Behold, I, Paul, say to you that if you receive circumcision, Christ will be of no benefit to you. And I testify again to every man who receives circumcision that he is under obligation to keep the whole law. You have been severed from Christ, you who are seeking to be justified by law. You have fallen from grace, for we through the Spirit by faith are waiting for the hope of righteousness. For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision means anything but faith working through love. You were running well. Who hindered you from obeying the truth? This persuasion did not come from him who calls you a little leaven leavens the whole lump of dough. And the last one in Galatians, Galatians 6, 13 through 16. For those who are circumcised do not even keep the law themselves, but they desire to have you circumcised so that they may boast in your flesh. But may it never be that I would boast except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, through which the world has been crucified to me and I to the world. For neither is circumcision anything nor uncircumcision. but a new creation. And those who will walk by this rule, peace and mercy be upon them and upon the Israel of God." All these verses are talking about the way sinners are saved, justified by faith in Christ, faith alone, not by works of the law. You remember how the Jerusalem Council got started. 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. This was a question about how sinners are saved and on what basis. Well, just because these are all about circumcision and about Jewish ceremonial law doesn't mean the basic problem of false teaching concerning works-oriented, works-based methods that people are supposed to follow to get themselves saved has disappeared off the face of the earth with the Judaizers. Satan didn't quit. He keeps at it. Salvation by grace alone, through faith alone, with those words rightly defined, was the issue in the controversy over the gospel in the churches of Galatia. We'll be dealing with this over and over again as we go through this book together. I'm looking forward to that, and I think it will bless you, your souls, to be reminded once again of these things that you already know, and to reinforce them, to ponder them more deeply. This isn't an emphasis exclusive to the book of Galatians, as you know. Throughout the New Testament, we see a great emphasis and repeated emphasis on the way in which sinners are saved, by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone, not on the basis of works. And I won't bother you with quoting all the verses in the New Testament that speak of that. I trust that you're acquainted with that emphasis. But one more point on this front. When Peter was preaching at Pentecost, the burning question in the mind of the convicted listeners was, what shall we do? In other words, how can we be saved like the Philippian jailer? What must I do to be saved? Peter's answer was not, ask Jesus in your heart. It was repent and be baptized for the forgiveness of your sins. And in other places, the answer is believe on the Lord Jesus Christ. And of course, those terms should be accurately defined because if we live in a generation that has misdefined them and misconstrued them, we can't just presuppose everyone knows what we're talking about. But repentance and faith are not wax noses for the listener to define however he wishes. But now let's go back to Galatians 1, 6-10 and just ponder the implications of this. That how we are saved is a crucial aspect of the gospel and the gospel proclamation. And faithfully proclaiming the gospel involves telling people that they are saved by grace through faith. That's the only way they can be saved. And then telling them what that means. And that forces us into the Bible to define what grace means and define what faith means. I'm amazed that you are so quickly deserting him who called you by the grace of Christ for a different gospel, which is really not another, only there are some who are disturbing you and want to distort the gospel of Christ." And how did they want to distort it? They wanted to distort it in the way in which people are saved. That's how they distorted the message. And it's those people that are under the curse of hell. But even if we Where an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed. As we have said before, so I again say now, if any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary to what you received, he is to be accursed. Or am I now seeking the favor of men or of God? Or am I striving to please men? If I were still trying to please men, I would not be a bondservant of Christ. There's lots of ways to preach a false gospel, and we see it in our day all over our country and all over the world, and we've seen it throughout church history. You can deny the real humanity of Jesus and deny the gospel that way. You can deny the deity of Christ. You can teach that Christ was just a man or that he was a great moral teacher, but that's it. You can teach that Christ was adopted by God in a special way. You can preach a social gospel where the work of Christ really becomes irrelevant and the focus is all on humanitarian works that we should be doing. You can preach a prosperity gospel where God's great objective is to make us healthy and wealthy and happy. You can preach a false gospel of universalism, everyone saved. Or the false gospel of antinomianism where grace is a license to sin. All of these are false gospels. All of them are anathema. But the false gospel that was gaining traction in the Galatian churches was none of those. It was a gospel, quote unquote, in which works were being mixed with grace, which makes it not grace anymore. It was a lie about how sinners are saved and on what basis. It was a lie about what do you need to do to be saved. Does Christ do all or do we do something as well to complete salvation? The Judaizers acknowledged Christ. They gave him the necessary token respect required. They weren't making open frontal attacks on the person of Christ or his right to be regarded as the Savior and Messiah. What they were doing is they were saying, and this is a backdoor attack on the person of Christ, that in addition to the work of Christ, there were works that the sinner must do, namely circumcision, and of course, then the whole Jewish ceremonial law comes coming along on the train of that row behind it. That's what needed to be done to be saved, and this was a false gospel under the curse of God. A false gospel about how sinners come to be saved. It was a gospel of works mixed with grace, which destroys grace. I assure you, the devil has not stopped distorting the gospel of grace. He's been doing it from the beginning. The Judaizer effort was not his one-off effort. The Roman Catholic gospel was also his handiwork. And what a handiwork it is. But remember, Roman Catholicism acknowledges Christ as Savior. It teaches that He is the God-Man. It teaches that He lived a perfect life and died on the cross for sinners and rose again on the third day and ascended to heaven. They've got all the basic facts right, but where they go off the rails and go off badly is in the matter of how sinners are saved. According to Roman Catholicism, sinners are saved by appropriating the sacraments which God gave us in His grace. Even though the word grace is used, it's a system of works through and through. We know that, don't we? No believer in his right mind would ever say that Roman Catholicism is preaching the gospel because they get the historical facts right. No one would even say that they're preaching an inferior gospel, but the gospel nonetheless. No. Every believer understands that the Roman Catholic gospel is a false gospel. Why? Because they lie about how sinners are saved. They tell you to do things that don't save you and which damn you. when you trust in them. They give false hope and false assurance to such people. Which is why, folks, you should be very wary of Douglas Wilson, who is famous, and credentialed, and influential, and winsome, and funny, and very intelligent, and to teach Roman Catholics are our brothers because they have been legitimately baptized as infants in a Trinitarian baptism. You can see this in a debate between he and James White clear back in the early 2000s. His beliefs have not changed on this point. Very friendly to Roman Catholicism, very soft on it. And unfortunately, James White is now very friendly with Douglas Wilson and seems to have dropped his guard. Douglass Wilson's beliefs are far outside the pale of scripture, and also of Reformed theology through the centuries. And it is a wonder to me that he could adopt the Reformed label without blushing, and that hosts of Reformed people today gather around to listen to him as a guru. Perhaps is the same reason why the Galatians were amazing the Apostle Paul. I am amazed that you are so quickly deserting him who called you by the grace of Christ for a different gospel. Why he said to the Corinthians, someone comes preaching another gospel and you bear this beautifully. So here's the question we have to face. how sinners are saved, is it any better with Arminianism than Catholicism? I think so. When it comes to the way that sinners are saved, the difference between Rome and Arminianism is quantitative, not qualitative. It's just a matter of how many works need to be done to be saved. According to Rome, you have to do many. According to Arminianism, just one. But both believe that grace is God providing you an opportunity to save yourself, though they balk at saying it so boldly. Both believe that you are saved by an act of free will. Very clear about that. Both believe that when the scripture says we are saved by faith, the faith is something of ourselves that we give to God in exchange for which He gives us salvation. Not a gift from God, as Ephesians 2 teaches, though they come up with clever ways to deny that. Just as the Judaizers had their version of what you need to do to be saved, which is circumcision, so Rome had their version. Here's what you need to do. It's the sacraments. Arminians have their version. You need to ask Jesus in your heart. It's not the work of sovereign grace that affects the salvation of a sinner. It's the work added on top of the work of Christ that the sinner does to make it all effectual, without which it doesn't happen. The sinner alone has the power to make salvation a reality. It's in his court. And as Luther said, it is the semi-Pelagian system that is actually worse than the full-blown Pelagian system. Remember, he said, then in the second place, this hypocrisy of theirs results in their valuing and seeking to purchase the grace of God at a much cheaper rate than the Pelagians. The latter assert that it is not by a feeble something within us that we obtain grace, but by efforts and works that are complete, entire, perfect, many, and mighty. But our friends here tell us that it is by something very small, almost nothing, that we merit grace. Now if there must be error, those who say that the grace of God is priced high and count it dear and costly, err less shamefully and presumptuously than those who teach that its price is a tiny trifle and account it cheap and contemptible." There's another interesting quote from the introduction of the bondage of the will that sums up well the seriousness of Arminianism. The doctrine of justification by faith was important to the reformers because it safeguarded the principle of sovereign grace. But it actually expressed for them only one aspect of this principle and that not its deepest aspect. The sovereignty of grace found expression in their thinking at a profounder level still in the doctrine of monergistic regeneration. The idea that God acts alone in regenerating people. The doctrine, that is, that the faith which receives Christ for justification is itself the free gift of a sovereign God bestowed by spiritual regeneration and the act of effectual calling. To the Reformers, the crucial question was not simply whether God justifies believers without the works of the law. It was the broader question, whether sinners are wholly helpless in their sin, and whether God is to be thought of as saving them by free, unconditional, invincible grace, not only justifying them for Christ's sake when they come to faith, but also raising them from the death of sin by His quickening Spirit in order to bring them to faith. Here was the crucial issue—whether God is the author not merely of justification, but also of faith. Whether, in the last analysis, Christianity is a religion of utter reliance on God for salvation and all things necessary to it, or of self-reliance and self-effort. Justification by faith only is a truth that needs interpretation. The principle of sola fide is not rightly understood till it is seen as anchored in the broader principle of sola gratia. What is the source and status of faith? It is the God-given means whereby the God-given justification is received. Is it, or is it a condition of justification which is left to man to fulfill? Is it a part of God's gift of salvation, or is it man's own contribution to salvation? Is our salvation holy of God, or does it ultimately depend on something that we do for ourselves? These are not the same gospels, folks. Those who say the latter, as the Arminians later did, thereby deny man's utter helplessness in sin, and affirm that a form of semi-Pelagianism is true after all. It is no wonder, then, that later Reformed theology condemned Arminianism as being in principle a return to Rome, because it in effect turned faith into a meritorious work and a betrayal of the Reformation, because it denied the sovereignty of God in saving sinners, which was the deepest religious and theological principle of the Reformers' thought. Arminianism was, indeed, in Reformed eyes, a denunciation of New Testament Christianity in favor of New Testament Judaism. For to rely on oneself for faith is no different in principle from relying on oneself for works, and the one is as unchristian and anti-christian as the other. In the light of what Luther says to Erasmus, there is no doubt that he would have endorsed this judgment. These things need to be pondered by Protestants today. With what right may we call ourselves children of the Reformation? Much modern Protestantism would be neither owned nor even recognized by the pioneer reformers. The bondage of the will fairly sets before us what they believed about the salvation of lost mankind. In the light of it, we are forced to ask whether Protestant Christendom has not tragically sold its birthright between Luther's day and our own. Has not Protestantism today become more Erasmian than Lutheran? Do we not too often try to minimize and gloss over doctrinal differences for the sake of inner party peace? Are we innocent of the doctrinal indifferentism with which Luther charged Erasmus? Do we still believe the doctrine matters? Or do we now with Erasmus rate a deceptive appearance of unity as of more importance than truth? Have we not grown used to an Erasmian brand of teaching from our pulpits, a message that rests on the same shallow synergistic conceptions which Luther refuted, picturing God and man approaching each other on almost equal terms, each having his own contribution to make to man's salvation, and each depending on the dutiful cooperation of the other for the attainment of that end, as if God exists for man's convenience rather than man for God's glory? To accept the principles which Martin Luther vindicates and the bondage of the will would certainly involve a mental and spiritual revolution for many Christians at the present time. It would involve a radically different approach to preaching and the practice of evangelism and to most other departments of theology and pastoral work as well. God-centered thinking is out of fashion today, and its recovery will involve something of a Copernican revolution in our outlook on many matters. I wholly concur, and the reason that I'm spending time on this, I hope is obvious. When we're talking about false gospels, we have to get this matter settled. Is Arminianism a false gospel, or isn't it? If it is, then we should not be soft on it, and we should not be building bridges with Arminians. And we should not regard their churches as true churches. And it should not bother us in the slightest to evangelize people from Arminian congregations and steal sheep if possible. Meaning, persuade them to leave such congregations and come to ours if they are willing to submit to the truth of the gospel. These are the implications. The New Testament is clear. False teaching enters the church cloaked. False prophets wear sheep's clothing. They secretly introduce destructive heresies. They creep in unnoticed. They crept in unnoticed into the Galatian churches and no one realized the problem until it was fully entrenched. False teaching doesn't just appear out of nowhere. It doesn't just drop out of the sky and land in a church. It enters a certain way strategically, and it behooves us to educate ourselves on how that happens. Otherwise, we're doomed to keep repeating the same errors. How did it enter Galatia? Through men of reputation. Galatians 2.12. Men who came from James, the Lord's brother. Respectable men, apparently. Probably the kind of men we would have great respect for today. Conference speakers, something that would be like the equivalent of that. They came to Galatia teaching that you need to be circumcised to be saved. And this is amazing. False teaching entered the churches of Galatia through the compromise and cowardice of godly men. Men like Peter and Barnabas and the rest. Wow. Galatians 2.11-14, but when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face. because he stood condemned. Wait, who stood condemned? Peter. 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. Why? Fearing the party of the circumcision. The rest of the Jews joined him in hypocrisy, with the result that even Barnabas was carried away by their hypocrisy. But when I saw that they were not straightforward about what? About the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas and the presence of them all, if you, being a Jew, live like Gentiles and not like the Jews, that is, with this new freedom that you're not underneath all these ceremonial laws, how is it that you compel the Gentiles to live like Jews? How is it that you go back on this and act like they must do these things or you can't eat with them? False teaching can enter churches because godly men, men who ought to know better, even someone with the highest stature as the Apostle Peter, succumb to pressure due to the fear of man, and they cave in and make room for a lie. Wow. Well, if Peter and Barnabas and the rest could do this at Galatia, then certainly George Whitefield could. Ian Murray could. J.I. Packer could. R.C. Sproul could. Al Mohler could. James White could. And any other person, famous or not, we could. We need to be more concerned and convinced about the infallibility of Scripture than we are of the infallibility of our Reformed leaders and influencers. So that if they cave in, we don't follow along blindly behind them. Well, he's smart. He's a godly man. He surely must be right. The devil goes after those guys above all. They are subject to attacks from the devil, lies and deceptions that we small fry people know little about. We don't get that kind of attention. The devil knows that if he can get them to compromise, hordes of people will follow along right behind them. So we need to pray for those men of notoriety. and for ourselves. Close with verse 10. Paul asked the rhetorical question, for am I now seeking the favor of men or of God? Or am I striving to please men? If I were still trying to please men, I would not be a bondservant of Christ. Why did he say that at the end of this dogmatic section about the only one gospel and anathematizing everyone who preaches another one? Because what Paul was saying would not have been any more politically correct in his day than in ours. People do not like this kind of narrow dogmatic talk. If Peter, Barnabas, and all the rest had caved in when we're seeking to please the party of the circumcision, then Paul would have been Mr. Unpopularity in doing what he did in Galatians 2. I mean, consider the situation. Paul comes into a bad situation here at the churches of Galatia. Everyone is aligned on one side. This gathering that he's speaking about in Galatians 2. No one is walking according to the truth. No one is holding the line. And Paul, Johnny, come lately, apostle, former persecutor of the church, is going to come into that situation and take on Peter and everyone else and rebuke them all and tell them they're compromising the gospel. You will not do that if you are a man pleaser. You will only take that kind of risk if you are a bondservant of Christ. The word is doulos, it's the word for slave. To be a slave of Christ means you live for Christ's will, not your own, not someone else's. It means you live to please Christ, not anyone else. It means that whenever Christ's interests and men's interests conflict, you choose Christ's interests. It means dying daily to the approval of man, that you live for the approval of Christ. Slaves of Christ do not lift the finger to the wind and go with the flow. Slaves of Christ believe they have no right to tell people what they want to hear, as opposed to what God wants them to hear. Slaves of Christ are willing to be insulted with the predictable accusations like, oh, you're alone or right here. I see. Mr. Know-it-all thinks he's right. Everybody else is wrong. They're willing to endure that for the sake of Christ. Well, nothing has changed. It's not popular to be dogmatic about this. It sounds arrogant to most. And I recognize it is possible to be narrow and partisan and have a sinful party spirit wherein I think my Christian subgroup, my club, is the only one that's right and the only one going to heaven. But that's not what this is. Though that could be the accusation that flies. But look at the text. There's only one gospel. That's a fact. There are false teachers who distort the gospel. That's a fact. False teachers are condemned to hell. That's a fact. They creep in, Galatians 2, that's a fact. And there must be some way to identify what the true gospel is or none of this makes any sense. Paul points out that pleasing men and pleasing God are mutually exclusive propositions. From, I now seek in the favor of men or of God. Or am I striving to please men? If I were still trying to please men, I would not be a bondservant of Christ. We hear echoes of Jesus in those words. You cannot serve two masters. You will love one and hate the other. If we aim to please men, we cannot be bondservants of Christ. Well, may we be conscious of our slavery as Christians, that we are bought with a price, that we are not our own, that we have no life of our own, no will of our own, no mouth of our own. And may we live and speak as His slaves during the short few years we are given here under the sun, no matter how popular or unpopular it may be. Let's pray. Father, we are amazed, though we shouldn't be, but we are amazed that this false teaching entered the church under the watch of Peter and Barnabas and the others. And we recognize that we are not at all greater than those men. and that we are capable of the same laziness, the same fear of man, the same failure to take heed, to watch, to be alert, to be consistent. And we need you. We need your help. We need you to deal with all of our failings and shortcomings. We need you to rise up and plead your own cause and guard the church. Help us guard the church. Help us to be clear on what the gospel is and isn't. Help us to be clear about what grace is and isn't. Clear about what faith is and isn't. and clear about whether we're helpless as sinners before you or whether we can indeed help ourselves. In Jesus' name we pray. Amen.