In Defense of the Gospel (1)

Limit placed upon us because of the time on the first Sunday of the month. I've got 12 pages of notes before us. No way in the world we'll be able to get through them. I really didn't intend to, but we send these out, of course, every Wednesday.

I think I have about a hundred and thirty addresses now and a number of dozen of those, several dozen of those are pastors like in Africa and I know in India. And some of them take these notes and duplicate them and distribute them.

There's a man in South Africa that distributes them to university students somewhere, I think in Johannesburg. And then there's another pastor down there that distributes them to other pastors. And Pastor Prem told me that he copies them and gives them out to his pastor meeting friends, who meet once a month.

I think there's 30 or 40 of them. So they get around. And so I'm mindful that we're not just looking at this here, you know, but that it has a wider influence and so I feel like I have to fill things out somewhat even if we're not able to cover.

Them,.

Cover them all in detail. I thought we'd benefit from considering an essential truth respecting our relationship with God before we begin a study of a new book, which I certainly intend to do so before long, probably 1 Thessalonians.

But I thought we would consider the gospel message.

Itself.

The good news that God grants us salvation from sin through His Son Jesus Christ. It really is my hope that you hear nothing new today. I don't want these things to be new to you. I want you to know these things and be affirmed in them.

And so I trust that these issues that we'll be addressing today and next week, Lord willing, will be reinforcing to you rather than new news to you. Certainly the nature and the content of the gospel is an essential and foundational matter for us.

It is the gospel that of course separates us from our sin and from the fallen world about us and brings us into a relationship with our God through His Son, our Lord Jesus Christ. It's through the gospel that God has chosen to save His people.

It is the means, the instrument that God uses. Paul wrote in Romans 1 .16,. For I'm not ashamed of the gospel of Christ, for it is the power of God unto salvation to everyone who believes, for the Jew first and also for the Greek.

But even though the gospel is foundational and central to what it is to become a true Christian, we know that the content of the gospel, the biblical content of the gospel, is not understood or believed by all that would claim to be Christian.

Oftentimes the gospel, and I put that in quotation marks, the gospel that is believed, I put that in quotation marks, is not the gospel set forth in the Holy Scriptures. Another gospel, rather than the true gospel, is often assumed to be biblical by well-intentioned church attendees, probably is the right word.

And so there's a need, therefore, to defend the true gospel quite frequently and on occasion there's a need even to recover and restore the gospel to the people of God. The need to reform or even recover the message of the gospel was brought forward by an important article.

I hope you folks are aware of this. It was quite a significant article written back in the fifties by J .I. Packer. One of the first books that the Banner Truth Trust reprinted was the book by the Puritan John Owen written back in the 17th century entitled, The Death in the Death of Christ.

And it was a book that John Owen was arguing for the biblical doctrine of limited atonement or definite atonement, particular redemption. And a young J .I. Packer was solicited to write the introduction for this reprint.

And the introduction itself became really a classic treatise in its own right. Packer didn't believe that Owen's book would be widely desired or read, but he did think that there were some at that time in the late fifties who had a revived interest in biblical teaching and biblical theology who would read and benefit from it.

And it was to these potential readers that Packer wrote these words. It is to those who share this readiness that Owen's treatise is now offered in the belief that it will help us in one of the most urgent tasks facing evangelical Christendom today.

And here it is, the recovery of the gospel. Think about that, what Packer was writing in the 1950s. Evangelicalism at that time didn't simply need to be reinforced in the gospel, but the gospel itself had to be recovered.

In other words, he thought it was gone. Packer declared his opinion that the biblical gospel had been lost. So he wrote, this is a complex phenomenon to which many factors have contributed, but if we go to the root of the matter, we shall find that these perplexities are all ultimately due to our having lost our grip on the biblical gospel.

Without realizing it, we have, during the past century, bartered that gospel for a substitute product which, though it looks similar enough in points of detail, is, as a whole, a decidedly different thing, hence our troubles.

For the substitute product does not answer the ends for which the authentic gospel, as in past days, proved itself so mighty. Packer went on to say that the biblical gospel had been corrupted, for it was no longer a message that made man God-centered in their thoughts and God-fearing in their hearts, but rather it had been corrupted in order to be too exclusively concerned to be helpful to man.

That's the product of pragmatism. The new gospel was primarily concerned to bring peace, comfort, happiness, satisfaction, and too little concern to glorify God. I don't know about you, but that's the kind of message I hear a lot in evangelicalism, to make it appealing so that people would receive it and respond to it.

It's shown forth chiefly, this will bring you peace, this will bring you comfort, this will bring you happiness, satisfaction, fullness of life. But the gospel of the scriptures does not have that as its chief end, but rather its chief end is to glorify God.

And Packer was saying that's gone, and there's a need to recover that. The new gospel failed to produce deep reverence, deep repentance, deep humility, a spirit of worship, a concern for the Church because this is not primarily what it was trying to do.

And so one way of stating the difference between it and the old gospel, that is the true gospel, is to say that it is too exclusively concerned to be helpful to man. And so Packer wrote, the old gospel was helpful too, more so indeed than is the new, but so to speak incidentally, for its first concern was always to give glory to God.

It was always and essentially a proclamation of divine sovereignty and mercy and judgment. And that's what salvation by grace means, that God has the authority to bestow salvation or withhold it. It was always and essentially a proclamation of divine sovereignty and mercy and judgment, a summons to bow down and worship the mighty Lord on whom man depends for all good, both in nature and in grace.

Its center of reference was unambiguously God, but in the new gospel the center of reference is man. And there you have the main issue. God is presented out here and he wants to come in and help you, except Jesus.

You can feel forgiven, you can be restored, you can have a wonderful life if you do so. But when the gospel set forth in the scriptures, it's the center figure, of course, is God and man's on the outside and he's coming to man and bringing his salvation to him.

And so in those late days of the late 50s, when Packer wrote this treatise, the gospel of sovereign grace was not widely held or heard across the land. Things began to change, however. And due to the grace of God, the message of salvation by God's sovereign grace was revived and was again heard throughout the land, across the evangelical landscape.

And I can remember in the 70s, when I was a young pastor, a sovereign grace church was a hard thing to find in California. There were so few. And my old friend Doug, who's with the Lord now in the 60s, he did not know of one.

I think I knew of one, a Presbyterian church in Sacramento, but other than that, there weren't any. And now they're all over the place. The Lord's really done quite a remarkable work in our land and across the world as far as reviving Reformed theology and the old gospel.

But Packer was saying it was gone in his day. But now all across the land there are numerous churches. A lot of them are small, struggling, but they're God-glorifying, Christ-centered, sovereign grace promoting the message of salvation.

And we rejoice in seeing what God has done and being a part of that. Nevertheless, the need remains for the church to be reforming and conforming its doctrine and practice to the Holy Scriptures. And the reason is not due to a perceived need for a new and different message to an ever-changing world, but rather it's because the ever-changing, fallen world is always leading to decay, defection, and departure from the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints.

Our understanding of the gospel is always undergoing decay, deterioration. And so the gospel needs defending and reaffirmation among the people of God. And so it would do us well to affirm certain truths regarding the nature and content of the gospel of our salvation.

And so I want to begin by reading the entire first chapter of Paul's epistle to the Galatians, in which he wrote to these churches in the region of Galatia, which is in modern Turkey today, and how they lost the gospel.

And it happened in a subtle way, but rather quickly, too, even to the surprise of the apostle. And so Galatians chapter 1 reads this way. Paul, an apostle, not from men nor through man, but through Jesus Christ and God the Father, who raised him from the dead and all the brethren who are with me to the churches of Galatia.

Grace to you and peace from God the Father and our Lord Jesus Christ, who gave himself for our sins, that he might deliver us from this present evil age, according to the will of our God and Father, to whom be glory forever and ever.

Amen. And here it is. I marvel that you are turning away so soon from him who called you in the grace of Christ to a different gospel, which is not another, but there are some who trouble you and want to pervert the gospel of Christ.

But even if we, Paul says, even if I myself, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so now I say again, if anyone preaches any other gospel to you than what you have received, let him be accursed.

For do I persuade men or God? Do I seek to please men? For if I still pleased men, I would not be a bondservant of Christ. But I make known to you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not according to man.

For I neither received it from men nor was I taught it, but it came through the revelation of Jesus Christ. For you have heard of my former conduct in Judaism, how I persecuted the Church of God beyond measure and tried to destroy it.

And I advanced in Judaism beyond many of my contemporaries in my own nation, being more exceedingly zealous for the traditions of my fathers. But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother's womb and called me through his grace to reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the Gentiles, I did not immediately confer with flesh and blood, nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me, but I went into Arabia and returned again to Damascus.

And then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, remained with him fifteen days. But I saw none of the other apostles except James, the Lord's brother. Now concerning the things which I write to you indeed before God, I do not lie.

And afterward I went into the regions of Syria and Cilicia, and I was unknown by faith to the churches of Judea which were in Christ. But they were hearing only, he who formerly persecuted us now preaches the faith which he once tried to destroy, and they glorified God in me.

Thus reads the first chapter of Galatians. The apostle had established a number of churches in the region of Galatia on his first missionary journey. He visited them again on the second missionary journey.

But after Paul had left that area, these churches had been subjected to false teachers respecting the nature and content of the gospel. They seemed to follow him wherever he went. These errant teachers are commonly called Judaizers, who taught that if Gentiles were to be saved from their sin, not only would they need to embrace Jesus Christ in faith as their Lord and Savior, yes they advocated that, but in addition they must keep the Mosaic Law as a covenant of works in addition to faith in Christ.

And so they taught that salvation was obtained through the combination of faith and one's own works of the law. Between the two of them you could obtain salvation. But the apostle strongly repudiated these teachers and their teaching.

He advocated that the gospel he had proclaimed to them was not in accordance with their false teaching. Further, Paul declared that his message of the gospel was the true gospel that God himself had entrusted to him to proclaim and teach, apart from which no one would be saved on the Day of Judgment.

He was very exclusive in this. Paul set forth the nature of salvation in his opening greeting, verses 3 -5, Grace to you, peace from God the Father, Lord Jesus Christ, who gave himself for our sins, that he might deliver us from the present evil age, according to the will of God, of our God and Father, to whom be glory forever and ever.

Amen. Paul declared that at the heart of our relationship with God is the sacrifice of Jesus Christ for the atonement of our sins. God atoned for our sins through the death of his Son in order to deliver us from this present evil age, is what Paul declared.

God didn't send his Son to atone for our sins simply to clear your conscience of feeling guilty. But oftentimes that's how it's presented in today's world. Thankfully, salvation deals with the guilty conscience.

Hebrews talks about that. But that wasn't the chief reason that God sent his Son. And the gospel, so-called, should not be portrayed before the world in that way. God sent Jesus to atone for our sins, that he might deliver us from this present evil age.

That's more far-reaching than just to ease a guilty conscience, that you feel better about yourself. So the idea is that this whole world is lying under God's judgment and his wrath is upon it. He's going to pour out his wrath on this evil world when the day of judgment arrives.

But God purposed to save his people out of this present evil age so that they are not partakers of their sins. Or the judgment will come upon them. But then the apostle identified the serious problem regarding their faith for which he was writing.

I marvel that you are turning away so soon from him who called you in the grace of Christ to a different gospel, which is not another, but there are some who trouble you and want to pervert the gospel of Christ.

And so he identifies the serious nature of their problem. They were turning away from God himself onto a different gospel. Notice, to not be right on the gospel results in not being in a right relationship with God.

He didn't just say you're turning away from the gospel. He says you're turning away from God because you turned away from the true gospel. They were embracing a different gospel than what he had proclaimed to them, for it had been through his gospel that God had called them in the grace of Christ.

They turned to a different gospel, which was in reality no gospel, for there is only one true gospel of Jesus Christ, and it wasn't what these false teachers were proclaiming. They had perverted or twisted the gospel.

While they still proclaimed, yes, you have to believe in Jesus, you have to do something more in addition in order to have salvation. And so these teachers were troubling the churches as Paul described them.

Paul then declared that these Christians were not to tolerate these false teachers and their doctrines. They were to see them as they were heretics who deserve the damnation of God for promoting their error of their teaching.

And by the way, I'll make a comment here, and I think it's an important principle here. Here we have affirmed before us the ground on which Christian fellowship may be extended to others. Because there are many, even among evangelicals, who say that any and all who claim to be Christian should be acknowledged and treated as such.

If they're Trinitarian in their understanding and the nature of God, if they believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God who died for sinners, they should be treated and embraced as brethren. And it's going broader than that today.

Now it's argued, you see it all the time, that as long as you believe in the same God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, we're all ought to welcome one another as brethren in fellowship. They've taken even Jesus Christ out of the picture there.

But again, these false teachers were preaching Jesus Christ. They were preaching Jesus Christ died for sinners. They were just saying that that wasn't sufficient to say there needed to be, in addition, something else.

And again, many are arguing that we should extend fellowship or at least treat as Christians any and all who believe in God and who are Trinitarian. But Paul says no, that the test of fellowship is the gospel, the content of the gospel.

You depart from the gospel and you are not to have any regard from me, he's saying, but rather you should be cursed of God. And you churches of Galatia, you ought to render them in that state. They are accursed of God, let them be so.

Even if I come among you and preach something other than what you've been delivered in the past by me, let me be accursed. Let angels be accursed. Don't let anybody bring any other gospel to you and that you accept them or accept it.

The gospel is the test of fellowship among Christians. And to embrace their teaching, again, is to depart from God. And so Paul stood firm against these corruptors of the gospel. For him to fail to do so would mean that he was a man pleaser rather the one who pleased God.

Verse 10, Do I now persuade men or God? Or do I seek to please men? For if I please men, I would not be a bondservant of Christ. And so Paul reasoned there was really no option for him in this matter.

He must and would stand for the truth of the gospel. Well, in order to give weight to his argument, Paul went on to say that he got this gospel from the Lord Jesus himself. He didn't derive this. He didn't come up with this through his own reflection.

Or because he was instructed by others regarding this. And so he declared in verse 11, I make known to you, brethren, the gospel which was preached by me is not according to man. For I neither received it from men, nor was I taught it.

But it came through the revelation, the apocalypse, the unveiling of Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ unveiled the gospel and its content to Paul. I suspect Paul is probably referring to events after his conversion on the road to Damascus.

It didn't seem like there was a lot of communication of content to Paul by Jesus when he was converted on that day. Apparently the Lord Jesus appeared to Paul and spoke with him. And I would suspect on a number of occasions.

That's just my guess. But the risen Lord Jesus gave Paul the content of the message of the gospel. And he argued that even the apostles of the Lord contributed nothing to the substance of his message.

It was the Lord Jesus that gave him this message. It came from the Lord directly and personally. Further, Paul reasons that his gospel must be true because it was in conflict with the message that he had formally proclaimed.

How do you explain the fact that I'm preaching this gospel this way when I preached something else formally? It has to be of the Lord, he says. That's the only way you can explain this change that came over me.

How else can you explain Paul's own change of message? It was to come to him and set before him the truths of the gospel. The apostle expressed wonder that the Christians in these churches had so quickly and apparently with little resistance departed from the truth of the gospel.

Embracing a false gospel, he wrote, I marvel, I marvel that you are turning away so soon from him who called you in the grace of Christ to a different gospel. And so this reveals what we might describe as the fragile nature of the content of the gospel.

It's easily corrupted, quickly corrupted as well. The gospel, as important as it is, can be tampered with and corrupted quite easily by those opposed to the truth of the gospel. And professing Christians oftentimes are deluded in embracing these falsehoods.

And it happens subtly. And so there's a need for the defense of the gospel, and Paul wants to describe his ministry this way. Some indeed preach Christ even from ambient strife, some also from goodwill.

The former preached Christ from selfish ambition, not sincerely supposing to add affliction to my chains, but the latter out of love, knowing, and here it is, that I am appointed for the defense of the gospel.

A man of God has a responsibility to defend the gospel. Paul did. And oftentimes it's in the defense of the gospel that the true gospel is made known and proclaimed, right? When showing it forth against something which is false, which is untrue.

Paul was in prison for the faith. He was not distraught because of this, however, for he saw how the Lord was propagating the gospel through his chains. And he of course wrote about some who were trying to aggravate his misery in prison before the Roman authorities.

And it would seem they knew that if they brought up the gospel, that Paul would feel compelled to speak up, thereby bringing further judgment upon himself. They knew what Paul was about. Paul was in the business of defending the gospel.

So let's bring the content of the gospel up, and he'll stand forth and defend it. But that didn't upset Paul, that it was going to somehow aggravate his condition. But rather he rejoiced because it was making the gospel known further.

And so they thought it would bring him sadness and difficulty. But it didn't deter him or discourage him, but rather he saw it as the means by which the Lord would make known more fully and widely this gospel to which he had been appointed to defend.

Well, the fact is there's always the need and there will always be the opportunity to defend the gospel, for its corruption is sought by many, its conception is misunderstood by many, and its truth has been obscured before many.

And so the gospel, most people kind of think it's a simple thing, everybody agrees with it, there's no debate here.

Not so.

The gospel needs to be taught, re-taught, reinforced, defended, left alone for, in very short order, it can become easily corrupted. Clearly you can conclude that from Galatians chapter 1. So I thought we would try and answer the question today and next week, in what ways may the gospel be corrupted?

And I would suggest at least three ways that are commonly evidenced among evangelicals. The biblical gospel is corrupted. First of all, the gospel may be perverted by corrupting the nature of grace, and that's what we have here in Galatians, of course, Galatians 1.

The grace of God in bringing salvation is at the heart of the gospel, and so the meaning of grace is essential. The meaning of grace must be understood and affirmed, the meaning of grace must be defended against that which threatens it, the meaning of God's grace must be earnestly guarded, because of its importance to the gospel message of salvation.

But the meaning of grace must also be defended, because it's the object of repeated and serious threats of false teachers. Grace was corrupted in the first century in these churches of Galatia, and elsewhere, everywhere.

The doctrine of grace underwent corruption, and the understanding of grace has been corrupted down through church history, and it's corrupted today. And as we've asserted, and again, I'm hoping this is nothing new to you, we talked about it just not many weeks ago in Colossians, because it's addressed everywhere in the New Testament.

Basically, the corruption of grace commonly takes one of two forms. In other words, there are two major dangers to the true meaning of grace. One being legalism, and the other being licentiousness. And the Bible addresses both.

Most people are aware of the danger of legalism, and they're always hitting on that. And that's okay, that's good. Legalism needs to be addressed and repudiated. But it would seem that most in evangelicalism fall prey to the second danger of grace, and that's licentiousness.

They think grace, because of the grace of God in atoning for our sins through Jesus Christ, therefore, that grace means sin no longer is a problem. And it doesn't matter, therefore, really, if you indulge in sin.

No, it would be preferable if we didn't, but after all, our sins are atoned for, and therefore, it doesn't really matter in the end. And that is a corruption of the doctrine of grace in the New Testament.

Again, in Galatians, the matter of legalism is primarily addressed by the Apostle Paul. That was corrupting the idea of grace. When grace is corrupted by legalism, what is legalism? Well, it's a heresy that says, in order for a person to gain salvation, he must earn his way by the merit of his own righteousness.

It's through what you do. This is what the Judaizers were saying. Yes, you need Jesus, but further, it's by what you do in addition that results in bringing salvation to you. And Paul wrote in Galatians 2 .16, knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law.

You don't come into a right relationship with God by the works of the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ. Even we have believed in Christ Jesus, that we might be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law.

For by the works of the law, no flesh shall be justified. And so, whenever anybody thinks or teaches that we become right with God through the works we do, even if they say those works are generated by grace, that those qualify us or make us acceptable before God, that is a corruption of grace, according to New Testament teaching.

And so, legalism is present when good works are viewed as meritorious for the obtaining or retaining of God's favor. And it's also present, of course, when additional requirements to faith in Jesus Christ in order to be forgiven and accepted by God are added.

And a lot of churches do that. If you go and you watch and you listen and you wonder, where in the world do they get that practice? And, you know, it's certainly not from the Bible. And yet, everybody feels by doing those things that somehow God is more pleased with them for doing it.

That's legalism.

It's not taught in the scriptures. And so, the teachings of salvation by grace and salvation by works are incompatible with one another. There can be no mixture of the two. If you add the least amount of works as being meritorious, it makes grace no longer grace, according to Romans 11, 6, and 7.

And that's why Paul could write in Galatians 5, 2, and 3, Indeed, I, Paul, say to you, if you become circumcised, Christ will profit you nothing. See, these Judaizers came in, and to these Gentiles who believed on Jesus, they said, it's good you believe on Jesus.

He's the Savior. He's the Messiah. But in addition, you need to be circumcised and keep the law of Moses as a covenant of works, is what they were saying. And through this, you will obtain your salvation.

And Paul says, if you go there, if you be circumcised, and you're under obligation to keep the entire law of Moses as a way of salvation, and you're not going to come out good in that way, there is no grace to you if you go that route.

Now again, that's one problem. The second problem, or means of corrupting grace, is again the corruption by licentiousness. And whereas Paul addressed legalism in Galatians, also in Romans, we saw it in Colossians, the New Testament addresses the error of licentiousness, licentious grace, particularly in the epistle to Jude.

And I would argue in the epistle of James also, and I would also argue in the gospel according to Matthew, that seems to me to be a treatise against licentiousness, the need to be obedient to the Lord.

What is licentiousness? Well, it's the idea of license. You can be a Christian and yet live in sin with impunity. It goes something like this, because I'm saved by God's grace toward me, and not by my works, I can be a Christian and live sinfully, and still be assured of my salvation.

It makes no difference whatsoever. And that's a corruption of grace. This perversion of grace says you can be a Christian and live any way you please, irrespective of the will of God. Again, it's reasoned.

After all, God does not deal with me according to my sins. He deals with me according to grace. Therefore, it doesn't matter how I live, I will still be saved. And that is heresy, to have that view. It's a perversion of grace.

The true grace of God is no license to continue a self-willed, self-directed, self-indulgent lifestyle.