Sermon text today is Galatians 2 11 through 16 But when Cephas came to Antioch I opposed him to his face because he stood condemned 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 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 the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas in the presence of them all, if you, being a Jew, live like a Gentile, 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 Gentiles. Nevertheless, knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law but through faith in Christ Jesus, 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. This is one of those passages that I think is loaded with lessons when you stick your shovel in and pop it up. There's stuff balls out everywhere. Let's just consider what we looked at last week. I spent a fair amount of time laying out the background for this passage. We looked at the institution of the food laws in the Mosaic law, how it went from Noah to Moses. You could eat anything in Noah's day as long as it was live. And then it was restricted in Moses' day, the Mosaic law for the Jews. They could not eat everything. There were things that were declared unclean. Then we trace that all the way to Acts 10, where Peter received his vision on the rooftop, the sheet of the animals that came down. animals that were unclean and he was told to rise, kill and eat. He said, by no means I have never eaten anything unclean. And the Lord said to him, what God has cleansed no longer call unholy. And it happened three times. Well, Peter then went with the men that were waiting at the door, knocking at the door at that very moment. And they were taking him to Cornelius, the Gentile, and he explained how he understood. He explained this to Cornelius upon arriving that he should no longer call any man unholy. So he got it. He made the connection. He preached the gospel to Cornelius and all those gathered in his house. The Spirit fell on them. and Peter baptized them. He defended his actions then in Acts 11, the next chapter, his actions of eating and associating with Gentiles against certain Jews that were complaining about this when he arrived back in Jerusalem. He again defended that position of associating with Gentiles and that they did not need to be circumcised and observed the Law of Moses at the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15. And everybody was in agreement, all the apostles and elders, This was a great moment of unity for the early church, very first church council that was ever had. They took the letter written by the apostles back to Antioch and to the other churches, and read it there, and it greatly encouraged the churches, and all was going really well, until certain men came from James, men who must have been exceedingly cool, who had that mysterious aura about them that intimidates everyone else and makes everyone heal and follow them around like adoring puppy dogs. You know the kind of people I'm talking about. If you went to public school as I did, you probably certain names come to mind, certain people. It's the unofficial de facto leader of the mob, the one everyone else is afraid of and tries hard to please. I'm not saying that what's going on here in Antioch was just like our high schools, but I'm guessing it was something like that to explain this incredible failure here. So when these big shots came down from Jerusalem to Antioch, Peter and Barnabas and the rest of the Jews started to withdraw from the Gentile believers in that church whom they had previously associated with openly, and Peter seems to have started it off. I mean, the Judaizers coming from Jerusalem started it, but Peter was the first one who withdrew, and then the rest of the Jews joined him in the hypocrisy to such a point that even Barnabas was carried away in their hypocrisy. So, this is hypocrisy because Peter and the other Jews and Barnabas had all been living like Gentiles. That is, like Gentile believers. That is, they had thrown off the yoke of the Mosaic Law. They weren't following the dietary laws and the other laws about how to be clean versus unclean. They understood that those laws were no longer serving any purpose. They were preparatory in nature. As the author of Hebrews wrote in Hebrews 9, 9-10, These were ordinances that related to quote only to food and drink and various washings, regulations for the body imposed until a time of reformation. Well, that time of reformation had arrived, and so they were no longer in force. And they would have understood that. And the truth also that we find later in Hebrews 13, 9, where it says, do not be carried away by buried and strange teachings, for it is good for the heart to be strengthened by grace, not by foods through which those who were so occupied were not benefited. And so they were free from such things because of the life, death and resurrection of Jesus. They knew it. They understood that. So they were living like Gentiles, meaning Gentile believers, not like immoral Gentiles. They're not the Gentiles who are believers. We're not trying to put themselves into the yoke of temporary old covenant regulations. But though they were living in that same way, freed from those regulations, when the men from James came, they withdrew from the Gentile believers and held themselves aloof. This was pure hypocrisy. They were suddenly acting like the Gentile believers were second-class citizens. And for what reason? For not observing the law of Moses, which they were also not observing. That's just astonishing hypocrisy. Astonishing, especially in light of the men who were guilty of it, Peter, Barnabas, and the rest. We talked about that last week, how astonishing that is, and yet we shouldn't be so astonished just to think we couldn't do the same thing. So I concluded the sermon last week with several points of application, lessons we need to apply to ourselves. And they were briefly as follows. Number one, apostles are not perfect. They were not. Even after Pentecost, they could still sin, they could still compromise, they could still be hypocritical and not walk in a way consistent with the gospel. If they're capable of that, so are we. Number two, in Peter we see the sin of the flesh in him Rearing up its ugly head once again to cast him down the fear of man That's what tripped him up in his most famous sin of all denying Christ and here it is again, which means that we can never Come to the point until we die or in in heaven with Jesus Christ We can never get to the point where we say. Oh, that's totally behind me That's just in the rearview mirror. I don't do that anymore We can't say that We're in a war, and there is no discharge in war. Number three, we can never stop being alert to the influence of false teachers. The Judaizers were persistent. You ought to give them that. You would have thought that after the Acts 15 Council, they would have raised the white flag and said, well, we lost that one, boys. There's no point in going around to the churches anymore to try to spread our teaching, because they're going to go around with this letter, and that'll settle that, and nobody will listen to us, and let's just go start our own church. They didn't do that. They mounted another offensive, and they went right into the heart of probably one of the best churches around, not after the apostles had left and gone elsewhere, but while they're there. And they succeeded. Wow. Just remember that. There is no such thing as too much gospel teaching Now there are churches today that basically say we just want to focus on the gospel and what they mean by that is a shallow sort of Gospel and you never move beyond that and people don't ever learn anything else they just learn about how about getting saved that's usually born out of the Armenian context and That's not what I'm talking about here. I'm saying that self-righteousness and works-based justification is so deeply ingrained in us, in our minds and hearts, that nothing short of a perpetual bombardment of the gospel truth will suffice to suppress it and keep it down, keep it from rising up and breaking out in some sort of hypocrisy. So the gospel is not just a one-time message for unbelievers. It is a message for believers as well. It's something we need to hear over and over and over again. We are justified by faith alone in Christ alone. It is his imputed righteousness in which we stand plus nothing. You need to hear that over and over again. So that's what we looked at last week. There's more lessons there, however, here. So let's look at some more. The first lesson is that we want to look at today is when to be a disturber of the peace. Paul had to make that call. Do I say something here? What I see going on in Antioch, what I see Peter doing, Barnabas and the rest of it. Do I say something or do I just keep my mouth shut? I'll let this go. Ecclesiastes 3, 7 through 8 says, there is a time to tear apart and a time to sew together, a time to be silent and a time to speak, a time to love and a time to hate, a time for war and a time for peace. So, what time is it? Paul had to assess what time it was. Was it a time to be silent, or a time to speak? Was it a time for a war, or a time for peace? It's vital that we get these questions right. A lot of damage is done when we don't. When it's time to be silent, but we open our big mouths. Or when it's time to speak, but we sit there and mute. Or when it's time to go to war, but we want to play peacemaker. Or it's time for peace, but we want to be on the warpath. We can foul a lot of things up by not knowing what time it is. Paul was alone here. We'll talk more about that in two weeks when we draw some more lessons out of this text. Being alone. Everyone was going the opposite direction. The easiest thing to do would have been to go along with the crowd. Don't make waves. Don't rock the boat. Don't disturb the peace. There's no sense in having a church split here. But that's not the way Paul reasons. Why? He tells us in verse 14 and following. But when I saw that they were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel, said To perceive us in the presence of all or we might say I decided it was time to speak 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? When is it time to speak up when is it time to disturb the peace? This is in some sense a hard question and we have to acknowledge that it's hard to And that it's apparently hard because throughout the history of Christianity, there's been a lot of conflicts. And there's still a lot of conflicts in churches, within local churches, within denominations, between denominations, differences, disagreements, and so forth. And so this issue of when do you make much of something and when do you not is obviously something that is a bit elusive. It's hard for several reasons, though we talk about doctrinal categories, like essential and non-essential doctrines, or first tier and second tier, which I prefer, because I don't think anything in the Bible is non-essential. But first tier, second tier. The Bible doesn't speak clearly about such categories, and it doesn't give us a list which doctrines are in which. So it's hard for anyone to say to anyone else, don't talk about that, or don't quarrel about that, that's a second-tier issue. The reply could simply be, show me where the Bible says that's second-tier, and of course we wouldn't be able to show them. Now I might have my own list of categories, which ones I put in first-tier and which ones I put in second-tier, and I may be perfectly comfortable how I've organized my own list, but you might not agree with me on that, and Joe over here might not agree with either of us, and Sally might have her own idea of how to organize all this. Throughout the centuries, Christians have been separating from one another, at least into separate churches, over issues that many Christians say are second-tier. Issues like baptism, church government, eschatology, music, family integration versus non-family integration, and so on. We can err on both sides of the ditch. We can be silent on an issue that we shouldn't be silent about, or we can always be fighting and quarreling about everything. So when it comes to assessing whether it's time to disturb the peace, history is full of examples of failure in both directions. So it's hard to resolve this question in any kind of authoritative way. But while that may leave various questions hanging there in the air, let's not miss what is clear in the passage. When the gospel is at stake, when it is being undermined, lied about, changed, it is definitely, unquestionably time to speak. Paul disturbed the peace in the churches of Galatia by speaking very forthrightly to them right out of the bat, I am amazed that you are so quickly deserting him who called you by the grace of Christ for another gospel. 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. So he felt it was time to speak and it was time to disturb the sinful peace That the Galatian churches were enjoying as they abandoned the true gospel But Peter at Antioch it was the same Peter and Barnabas and the others were not being straightforward about the truth of the gospel and so Paul had to speak up and disturb the sinful peace and What they were hypocritically doing was implying that the Gentiles were second-class citizens because they were not circumcised. That was a lie. They were justified by faith in Christ, just as the Jews were justified in Christ. They were perfectly righteous in Him, just as believers were perfectly righteous in Him. There was no distinction. But their behavior here was a broadside attack on the gospel, and so Paul had to rebuke it. He had no choice. We should not be eager to cause conflicts in the church, but there are times when it is a sin not to, to be silent. And one of those times is when the gospel is under attack, even by those who intellectually understand it and more than that who have believed it and previously defended it well. Just think of that. That would be another reason why Paul might have justified being silent. He could have said to himself, well, they're acting in a way that's inconsistent with the gospel here. They're being hypocrites, but I know they believe it. I know they've accepted it. I know they've been bold for the gospel in the past, and I know they're true Christians, so let's just let it go. It'll work out eventually. No. A bondservant of Christ cannot let it go when the gospel is at stake, even when you know, or think you know, that the people compromising it are true Christians. Here's another lesson from the text. Implicit attacks on the gospel must be confronted no less than explicit attacks I Think it's important that we recognize that that's what was happening here at Antioch It was not an explicit denial of the gospel of justification by faith alone on the part of the circumcision party I Don't think they came in and stood up and said just so you know, we're not justified by faith alone. I And Peter certainly didn't say that. Barnabas didn't say it. The other Jews didn't say it. It was an implicit denial of the doctrine of justification by faith alone. We don't know what people actually said, what the Judaizers said when they arrived at the church at Antioch, what they said to Peter, to Barnabas, or to whomever. But with respect to Peter and Barnabas and the other Jewish believers, it appears that they were denying justification by faith alone through their actions, not their words. And yet it was no less serious than if they had denied it with their words. Actions speak louder than words, yes? And their actions taught something. In their actions, They withdrew from the Gentile believers and held themselves aloof. That was a teaching lesson without words. And it was a lesson where the point came across loud and clear. Their actions taught that having faith in Jesus Christ was really not good enough. You need something else. You need to be a Jew. At a minimum, you need to live like Jews. need to be circumcised and you need to observe the law of Moses which means that Jesus is not sufficient his righteousness imputed to the believer is not righteous enough we need to add to it we need to make it better we need to complete it that was the lesson being taught through actions Maybe not in words It was a specific example of not being straightforward about the truth of the gospel The ESV translated translates it not keeping in step with the truth of the gospel basically inconsistency If Gentiles are justified by faith and fully accepted by God, which Peter and Barnabas and others had already preached plainly and defended openly, they're welcomed by God, they're approved by God, they're loved by God on the basis of what? Faith in Jesus Christ. Then why in the world are you keeping your distance from those God is not keeping His distance from? Who are you to shun those whom God has embraced? And so shunning them taught something. It taught that God doesn't really accept you solely on the basis of faith in Jesus Christ. That's why they were withdrawing from the Gentile believers. That wasn't their motivation. The motivation was fear of man. But that's what they were teaching through their actions. It was an implicit attack on the gospel of justification by faith alone. Paul did not say, well, Peter and Barnabas may be acting strange here and hypocritical, but at least they're not denying the gospel with their words. What comfort would that be? There's more than one way to deny the gospel. You can deny it explicitly. Or you can deny it implicitly. But it's all one and the same. It's despicable either way. And it deserves to be confronted and rebuked either way. It's also true that someone can affirm the truth of the gospel out of one side of his mouth, and then out of the other side of his mouth, deny it. Affirm it here, deny it over here. affirm it to one audience and deny it to another, and contradict oneself. And though this is obvious, all too often a strange naivete prevails in the church on this subject. There is often a lack of clear thinking on this. It's not uncommon to hear some people console themselves with the phrase, well, at least he's preaching the gospel, said as a concession when referring to some pastor who's doing things that are highly objectionable. For instance, suppose you have a pastor who strings together the right gospel words in his preaching, at least sometimes he does. He'll say orthodox things like, we are saved by grace, we are saved by grace through faith or we are saved by Jesus alone but then he denies the gospel of justification by faith alone in his actions or by the way things he says on other occasions what do we do with that the common tendency is to falsely comfort ourselves with the hollow phrase well at least he's preaching the gospel Remember a reformed person saying years ago This something like this about Rick Warren Well, yeah, he may be doing silly seeker sensitive things He may be turning the biblical definition of what worship is on its head making it a place to entertain lost people so they'll feel comfortable in church rather than a place to feed the sheep and He may be growing his church via carnal means and shallow preaching, but at least he's preaching the gospel. Is he? In what sense? Because he can string together the right biblical buzzwords and sound orthodox? I might point out that, I mean, this was probably 20 years ago, maybe 15, I don't know. Time has not been friendly to the defenders of Rick Warren. Over time, it's become harder and harder to defend him with a hollow phrase, well, at least he's preaching the gospel. As we see in Galatians 2, it did not matter if Peter and Barnabas and the other Jewish believers could properly formulate the doctrine of justification by faith alone in a sentence. I'm sure they could have done that quite well. They had done it. They understood the gospel. Not just parroting gospel phrases, memorizing some catechism and going, yeah, I can memorize that and spit it out for people who put me on trial. No, these were men who believed it. They had preached many times before. They had defended it on more than one occasion. What mattered to Paul at Antioch and what was going on here, enough for him to publicly rebuke Peter to his face, was that Peter and the rest were not acting in a way straightforward about the truth of the gospel. That was the big deal. That was the crisis. As if Paul had said, however much you might affirm in your words and your catechetical answers, Peter and Barnabas and the rest of you, that we are justified by faith in Christ alone, you are denying it by the way you act. Therefore, I don't give a rip about how proper and precise and orthodox your confessional statement is." Now, of course, Peter and Barnabas were genuine believers. They're not imposters. I hope it's obvious that I believe that. And presumably all the Jewish believers in Antioch who got caught up in this, in the hypocrisy, were all genuine believers as well. The point is that in cases like this, it doesn't actually matter if the people in error are true believers or not. You don't have to come to an infallible judgment on the state of someone's soul before you act to defend the gospel. You defend it regardless of your certainty or uncertainty about the sole condition of those currently mangling it. Whether you're dealing with true believers or false believers in this sense makes no difference. Defend the gospel. Who is true and who is false will become evident over time. And I think we can safely assume we know that Peter and Barnabas and the others all responded positively to Paul's rebuke. We don't know the immediate reaction. Paul doesn't tell us. He just tells us he rebuked Peter to his face. But we have no record in Scripture of apostasy on the part of Peter or Barnabas. And even though Paul and Barnabas got into a heated debate over whether to take Mark out on another missionary journey such that they had to part ways, they were still and Paul would have been happy to go with Barnaby. He didn't say, well, you're that heretic that fouled up in Antioch. He was ready to go out with him again, so apparently he was correctable, and the ship was righted. He just didn't want to take Mark along. But they were still brothers. They still regarded each other as such, and the matter was eventually resolved in peace. And with respect to Peter, the same. We find him speaking very positively about Paul in his second letter, chapter 3, verses 14 through 16. Therefore, beloved, since you look for these things, that is, the coming of Christ and the new heavens and new earth, be diligent and be found by him in peace, spotless and blameless, And regard the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, wrote to you, as also in all his letters, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of scriptures, to their own destruction." Paul had a good relationship with Peter and vice versa. They didn't go away from this as enemies. So praise God. They humbled themselves. They listened. They received His correction. God overruled their hypocrisy for the good of His people in Antioch, for the good of Peter, for the good of Barnabas and the rest of the Jews there, and even the Gentiles. Praise God that He can do such things like that. But we need to think about application here to ourselves. As always, we need to be doers of the word, not just hearers of it. We need to be straightforward about the truth of the gospel ourselves, not just talk about Peter and Barnabas and how they should have been. Since those men were capable of acting this way, of acting in a way that's inconsistent, not straightforward about the truth of the gospel, since they were explicitly affirming the gospel of justification by faith alone, but implicitly denying it, then it stands to reason we might do exactly the same thing that others around us might do exactly the same thing in the church today. So let's consider some of the ways that we might do this. If we treat people of another nationality or skin color as though they are inferior to us, we are suggesting that something other than Jesus Christ and His righteousness is the basis for our justification, namely, our nationality or our skin color. This is an implicit denial of the gospel, even if we affirm with the loudest voice our orthodox confessional statements on justification. Even if we hold up the 1689 Confession and read off its paragraphs, which are really good, and say, that's my doctrinal statement, we have to act in a way consistent with it, not just say that we believe it. The same thing is true if we make much of distinctions with respect to gender. And there's only two, by the way, male and female. This is an implicit denial of the doctrine of justification by faith. Doctrinal prejudice is another example that might hit closer to home. It's one thing to say that belief in certain heretical doctrines disqualifies a person from being a true Christian. It's another to say that a man's beliefs are not heretical and not disqualifying, and then act like they are. That's hypocrisy. Let's take an easy example. If I disagree with a man's eschatology, I have two choices. Either I think his views are heretical and disqualify him from the faith, or I simply believe that he's in error. Well, if I think that his views make him a heretic, then I should say so, and I should disassociate from him as a false Christian. But if I believe that he's a true Christian who simply has the wrong understanding about something, then I cannot treat him as a second-class citizen in Christianity. It is hypocritical to simultaneously give him a judgment of charity as a genuine Christian and say, oh, no, no, he's a Christian, but then be aloof toward him as though he's not a real Christian. So pick your side. It's one or the other. But we should not do what Peter and Barnabas and the others were doing, wherein they acknowledged that the Gentiles are members of the kingdom, and then they withdrew from them as though they weren't. I could give many other examples besides eschatology. That's just a safe one. Because that's something we generally don't do anyway. Not with eschatology. Another example is treating sanctification as if it was your justification. Do you do that? Do you think that your progress in the faith and your obedience to Christ's commands is your justification? Have you confused the two, like Catholics do, mixing them together? Do you look down on other Christians because they don't do everything the way that you do as a Christian, because they don't hold all the same views or have all the same policies? Let's take a personal example that I think we can all relate with. We're all, I think, abolitionists here when it comes to the question of abortion. We've rejected the mainstream pro-life position on abortion, which allows abortion to be nibbled at incrementally over time and Which allows for some babies to be protected from murder while not others But does your abolitionist view justify you before God Do you think that's why God loves you or why he accepts you now you would never say that but you act like it Every person who still holds a pro-life position automatically lost If so, then you and I would have to say that we were just saved a couple of years ago, right But we're not saying that Well, if you're not going to take that position that you were saved a couple of years ago Then you have to allow that someone could be like you were just a few years ago a born-again Christian and but holding to a pro-life position and not yet understanding about the need to abolish it immediately. But do you allow such people to be true Christians, or are they like second-class citizens? Isn't this just another example of hypocrisy and of confusing justification and sanctification? If Christ is our only righteousness, then let's act like it, not act like something else is. If Christ is not our sole righteousness, then let's stop pretending He is and let's change our doctrinal statement to conform with what we really believe. Let us never say He is our only righteousness while constantly acting like something else is. Our doctrinal positions, our theology, our convictions, spiritual growth, our sanctification. The same thing could be said with respect to homeschooling, to wearing head coverings, to dressing modestly, to keeping the Lord's Day uncluttered by worldly and unnecessary things, money management, and on down the line you go. These things have to do with sanctification, not justification. We're not saying they're not important. We're saying they're not your righteousness before God. It's not the righteousness in which you stand. It is not what makes you acceptable before God. Jesus is. It is hypocrisy to say that Christ is our righteousness and the only source of our justification before God while acting like personal obedience to Christ's commandments is. And there's another error that plagues the church, as you might guess, and it runs the opposite way, as they often do. Have you noticed how many professing Christians fight over everything, every position, every jot and tittle? Some Christians see that, and they deplore it, and then they run into a false ecumenicalism that is also a practical denial of the gospel. So the error of Peter and Barnabas and the Jews was an error of exclusion, excluding the Gentiles on the basis of works. But you can also err through inclusion and lie about the gospel. Some have been quite clear in their own doctrinal statements and affirmations that justification is by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone, period. But then they want to wax ecumenical when it comes to Roman Catholicism, which explicitly denies justification by faith alone. This is hypocrisy. If justification by faith alone in Christ alone is the true gospel and there is no other, remember Galatians 1, there is only one. There is no other. If justification by faith alone in Christ alone is the gospel, then those who reject that teaching must be rejected. As Paul stated clearly in Galatians 1, if anyone comes preaching another gospel, let him be anathema. He is accursed. So to preach the biblical doctrine of justification by faith alone, in Christ alone, in words, while in actions, participating in olive branch theater with Roman Catholicism, is a implicit denial of the gospel. It's not explicit, it's implicit, and it's just as bad. You're teaching something by your actions. You're teaching that justification by faith alone isn't really essential after all. So that kind of ecumenicalism. Likewise, it is hypocrisy to boldly proclaim the doctrine of justification by faith alone as the article on which the church stands or falls, and then simultaneously give raving reviews to a man like John Wesley, who denied justification by the imputed righteousness of Christ as his theology developed and he became more hostile and hostile against the doctrines of grace. That's where Arminianism takes you, folks. Historically, it has always led to the denial of justification by faith alone. It's baked in the cake. It's the inevitable fruit of the system. Maybe it's that people don't know that about Wesley. How many people have really studied the man? Probably not many. They just go to conferences and hear reformed people strangely lionize the man. But these two positions don't harmonize well. Pick your side. Is it essential to believe that we're justified by the imputed righteousness of Christ? If it is, then stop lionizing John Wesley. because he didn't believe that. See, we're talking out of both sides of our mouths. You will never actually convince people that imputed righteousness is essential to the gospel while exalting John Wesley as a wonderful preacher of the gospel. Something has to give. They both can't be true. You must preach this. You must emphasize this. Imputed righteousness of Christ. It's at the heart of the gospel But what about Wesley? Oh, well, yeah, he's good guy He may not be quite on our side, but he's still preaching the gospel what huh Is he an exception to the rules he some special category that gets to exonerate himself from this these rules Why do we do this? Likewise, it's hypocrisy to affirm the doctrines of grace, to stand squarely in the Reformed tradition on the question of monergistic regeneration. God alone regenerates. To condemn the sinner's prayer as an unbiblical ritual invented by man, which leads to untold millions of false conversions, and then turn right around and wax ecumenical when it comes to Arminianism. And to say, oh, they're wrong, but they're still preaching the gospel. How's that? Either God regenerates us all by Himself, or He does so with our help. Or, not and. Either we're saved by grace alone, or grace plus a little help from us. Those aren't the same positions. That's not the same message. One gives credit to God alone. The other divides the credit between God and men, which is salvation by works. Make up your mind. Settle the matter once and for all. If God saves all by himself without our help, then say so and act like it, and then be consistent all the way through, even if it demolishes all ecumenical sympathies with those who insist on free will. What were Peter and Barnabas and the others guilty of? Hypocrisy. How so? By knowing the truth and then acting contrary to what they knew. We do it too. We say with the greatest emphasis that it's grace alone over here, and then we turn over here and act like it doesn't have to be grace alone. They're still preaching the gospel. It's weird. It's also hypocrisy to proclaim the truth of justification by faith in Christ alone and then talk like baptism, whether infant or believers, is what secures your acceptance with God. Which is it? Is a sinner safe because he believes in Christ and is justified by receiving the imputed righteousness of Jesus, or is he safe because he's been baptized? If it's the former, quit talking like it's the latter. If it's the latter, quit talking like it's the former. Make up your mind. If what makes a man safe before God is receiving the imputed righteousness of Jesus Christ by faith in Him, then say so with the loudest voice and act like it, and never say anything that would suggest baptism is what makes you safe, whether a baby or otherwise. there are pedo-baptists today, and there are credo-baptists, both, thankfully not all, who say things that sure sound like they're saying, that babies are safe in the kingdom of God because they've been sprinkled. But when pressed on those statements, they back away from it and say things that sound more orthodox and biblical. Which is it? If we're justified by faith in Christ alone and by his imputed righteousness, then quit saying things that sound like you're attributing that to baptism, and that that's what makes a person safe. Let us not talk out of those sides of our mouths. The Puritans were almost to a person all paedo-baptists, but they didn't talk in such a way like that. confusing way they were very clear baptism doesn't save anyone and you must be born again and you are not safe until you are you're justified by faith in Christ alone and receiving his imputed righteousness they were very clear on let me close with an exhortation just to seek to understand when the gospel is on the line to study the doctrine of justification by faith alone then to deeply think about its implications when you do this you will discover that it is a central foundational all-encompassing doctrine with far-reaching implications you will discover that many of our issues in the church many of our issues today are in fact gospel issues They flow out of an error there. They grow out of a failure to understand how we are justified and what the implications of that are. When Paul saw Peter and Barnabas and the others withdrawing from the Gentiles, he knew it was a gospel issue. He recognized it. He knew this is about justification by faith alone. He didn't swim in the shallow waters and say, oh, it's too bad they're still struggling with racism or nationalistic pride. That's a surface thing rooted in a failure of the justification doctrine. I don't think most churchgoers today know the gospel of justification by faith alone well enough to recognize when an issue is a gospel issue and when it's not. The gospel is the hill to die on. But most of the time, church today doesn't even know what hill it's on. We fight tooth and nail over Romans 14 conscience issues. We split churches over those things. We divide and divide and divide. But then when it comes to the gospel, We put on our ecumenical virtue signaling badge, and we tolerate all kinds of deviations. Lord, help us. Help us to believe the gospel and then be straightforward about it and to walk in a manner consistent with it. Let's pray. Father, that is our prayer. Help us to more deeply imbibe the gospel of being justified by faith in Christ alone, receiving His imputed righteousness, and of standing in that, rejoicing in it, relishing it, exulting in it, and then living like it. And then being able to recognize how when we're deviating from that, when we're doing things that are completely inconsistent with what we just said we believe. Help us to believe it deeply and thoroughly and then to walk in a manner consistent with it. Help us to be straightforward about it. Help us to not deny the gospel either explicitly or implicitly. We pray this in Christ's name. Amen.