All right, here's our text. We're
going to read verse 6 through verse 11. Acts 15, verse 6 through
verse 11. And the apostles and elders came
together for to consider this matter. When there had been much
disputing, Peter rose up and said unto them, Men and brethren,
you know how that a good while ago God made choice among us
that the Gentiles, by my mouth, should hear the word of the gospel
and believe. And God, which knoweth the hearts,
bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, or Spirit, even
as he did unto us, and put no difference between us and them,
purifying their hearts by faith. Now therefore, why tempt ye God
to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples which neither our
fathers nor we are able to bear, but we believe that through the
grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved even as they."
Now, if you look at verse 10 again, why tempt God to put a
yoke upon the neck of the disciples which neither our fathers nor
we were able to bear? Now, before I dive into this
subject, let me say that I believe it is one most of us have had
trouble with. We have wrestled with this question. We have been, perhaps, back and
forth over the course of our Christian life concerning the
matter this morning, the believer's walk and what is it, his rule
of life. I came about ten years ago to
a subtle persuasion upon this matter. I searched it out in
my mind. I read this one, I read that
one. I got a hold of some of the old-time
writers, in fact, some of the old-time Baptist writers, and
have come to a subtle conclusion now upon the matter. However,
I ask you this morning that you would listen close, that you
would consider, if it be something new, consider it, if you would,
rather than reject it right away. Weigh the matter, weigh the matter,
and hear what can be said about it. I exhort you this morning
to be like the Bereans. who in Acts 17, verse 10 and
11, searched out the things they heard, weighed them in the light
of the Scripture, whether or not they were true." Now, this
issue is one that has been much debated in past time. There's not much debate about
anything anymore, for no one takes very much of a stand upon
anything. But this has been a battle that
has been hard fought in past centuries in the church. It has
been much controversy over the matter has been engendered. There
have been many things written back and forth, one against the
other. There has been a lot of name-calling
from one side and also from the other. And in this discussion,
or in this matter, you might hear the term antinomian hurl,
or you might hear the term legalist hurl from another. back and forth
between the two sides. Now, the crux of the issue is
this, and there will not be agreement throughout Christianity over
all of this. The core of the dispute is concerning
the question of the believers, New Testament believers, in the
Lord Jesus Christ who have believed on him to the saving of their
soul and walk in the grace of God. And the question is this,
are they under the moral law as they rule and guide of life? That's the first part, the first
issue. Is the moral law the believer's
only code as he lives out his Christian life? Is that the definitive
means of his Christian behavior? And the Ten Commandments, are
they our rule of life so that we post them and follow them? Secondly, the question on the
other side is, are believers under the reign of grace, walked
by faith, and the leadership of the Spirit of God? And that
great liberty that we have in the gospel of our Lord and Savior
Jesus Christ. Are believers in Christ? free from the law and walking
by faith and guided by the grace of our God from on high. Now, as some have insisted, is
there a mixture of both, one and the other? Must law go alongside
the gospel and grace and faith? Must Moses haze for Christ to
keep us in line? Is that the way that the Christian
life is working? Let me give you an illustration.
I read of two men who met as they strolled upon a London street. One put the question unto the
other. What is the believer's rule of
life? And the second man answered,
the believer must look with one eye to Christ and with one eye
upon the law. And the first man then replied
to that, then the believer must squint. The believer must squint,
if that should be the case. Now this begs the question. Can
the believer be under law and under grace at one and the same
time? Can he, or yea, must he, have
one eye upon Christ and one upon the law? One ear open to Christ
and one ear open unto the law. In the case of the urging of
Moses, is that to be our guide? Can he stand with one foot in
grace? and one foot yonder in the law. Can he stand with one foot upon
Mount Zion and another foot yonder upon Mount Sinai? Can both law
and grace be the rule of life of the free Christian under this
dispensation? Do Moses and Christ speak with
one and the same voice? Now, I told you that there was
great contention over these matters way back in the Puritan era it
had arisen. For they insisted on the law,
the Puritans did, insisted on the moral law as the rule and
the guide of the Christian life. That law-keeping was obligatory
to those that were under the grace of God in Christ. that any who preach freedom from
the law, or as John Saltmark put it, there is no Moses now,
quote unquote, these Puritans label them as antinomian. And they condemned it vigorously,
and I mean vigorously. and vilified any who preached
down the law as being the rule and the guide of the Christian
life of those under the New Testament gospel. To be labeled antinomian
was intended to mark men as perverters of the Christian life and of
the Christian way, making them an enemy. of real and true sanctification. And they have called it so much
as a license to sin. And the Puritans were quick to
attack those they labeled that preached complete freedom from
the law by the death and the cross of Christ our Lord and
our Savior. Now, perhaps we should take note,
there are two kinds of antinomianism. By the word antinomianism, we
mean those that are without or against the law. It is a combination
of two words, anti or against, and nomus or the law. And some say that it was Martin
Luther who coined the word antinomian in a controversy that he had
with a former student of his. But those two kinds of antinomianism
are as follows. Number one, there are those who
live scandalous, horrible lives, licentious lives, while claiming
to be a Christian. They manifest no grace in their
life, hardly any or not at all. and they have turned the grace
of God into lasciviousness, even denying the Lord Jesus and our
Lord Jesus Christ. And such as say in Romans 6,
1 through 3, Let us sin that grace may abound. These, by their
attitude and by their actions, may prove to have no grace at
all, but yet they are antinomian." Jude calls them ungodly men in
that little epistle of his. John Gill weighed in on this
matter in a sermon that he preached on Wednesday evening, December
the 28th, 1737, And it was entitled, The Doctrine
of Grace Cleared from the Charge of Licentiousness. Who are they,
Gil said, who neglect, who are they that neglect the private
and the public worship of God? Who are they that walk abroad
in the fields upon the Lord's day? Who is it that take their
horses and ride seeking their pleasure? Who are they that frequent
taverns and public houses rather than the house of God?" And then
Gill asserts this of the doctrine of grace. He concludes that for
the most part, they are by far the greater part Arminian. Those who do such things would
fall under the heading of Arminianism. Secondly, another sort of person
called antinomian are those who preach, those who believe, and
those that live as those who are freed from the law by the
death and the cross of Christ our Lord. ye are not under the
law." Romans 6 and 14. May I tell you that Paul made
that statement to Christians, to the children of God. under
the law, ye are under grace." Again in Romans 6 and verse 18,
being made free from sin, that is by being made free from the
law, you become the servants of righteousness. The very opposite
of what they were in their unregenerate state. Romans 6 and verse 20,
they were the servants of sin. Yet these people who believe
this live a godly and a righteous life. They live a sanctified
life. They're not the most licentious
sinners in the world while claiming to be a child of God and of Christ. They walk uprightly. They walk
according to the Scripture and those seen. In fact, it has been
admitted by some who have called them antinomian, that such men
as believed that the Christian is free from the law lived a
life that was above reproach, that freedom from the rule of
law was not an invention to allow loose living. It is not so that
men may go out and do as they please. Now, the text that we
read, how does it fit in here? In Acts chapter 15, the question
that we read twice in verse 10, let us consider it. Why put a
yoke? upon the apostles, or the disciples
rather, which neither we nor our fathers were able to bear. Now, the apostle calls what the
Judaizers proposed to do unto the Gentiles, quote, an unbearable
yoke, unquote, which they insisted be imposed upon the Gentile converts,
consisting in two details. Number one, the Abrahamic or
Mosaic circumcision. They wanted this imposed upon
the Gentiles. Number two, they wanted the whole
Mosaic law imposed upon the Gentiles who had believed in Christ. If you look at verse five, The
last part, they said that it was needful to circumcise them
and command them to keep the law of Moses. Finally, Peter
is straight on this matter of the grace of God. After that
great revelation in the housetop in Joppa, the apostle Peter has
now come to see the glorious truth of the gospel. And he said
in verse 5, the last part, "...needful for them to keep the law of Moses."
And when there had been much disputing, by the way, this is
one of the most important chapters in the Bible, Acts in the New
Testament, and the most important in the book of Acts. There is
something that is settled here that has its influence even unto
our day. But notice what Peter does. He
rebukes them as being a tempting of the Lord. Why tempt ye God,
Peter said unto them, to put such a yoke as you have fashioned? upon the neck of the disciple,
a yoke that neither our fathers nor we were able to bear. It was an unbearable yoke even
to our fathers and our forefathers. William Huntington, who helped
me a lot on this matter, wrote on this passage, and I'm quoting,
it is called, Tempting God, because it was a reflection cast upon
his word, who had purified their hearts by faith and grace, and
sent his Spirit into their heart to govern and to lead them into
all truth." Peter declares two truths. Look at verse Verse 8
and 9, God purified their hearts by faith, as opposed to the circumcision
in the law of Moses. What a statement is this? God purified their hearts by
faith, by faith. Read it over and over, cleansing
their hearts by faith, and in the process, making no difference
between the Jew and the Gentile in this matter, using the same
method upon both people, the Jew and the Gentile, bestowing
upon them the same saving grace and the same Holy Spirit, producing
the same moral effect, purifying their hearts from their former
life of sin by faith. which faith is, believing in
the cleansing power of the blood of Jesus, and in faith in his
death and atonement and the blood that he shed. And they are to
abandon all idol worship and all false gods that they once
bowed down before. Now it is said their hearts are
purified by faith. But secondly, look again at verse
11. It is by grace, even by the grace
of the Lord Jesus, that they shall be saved even as we, even
as Peter, even as John, even as Paul, and all other Jews that
were saved were so by the grace of God. Never were any saved
except by the grace of God through faith. Go all the way back to
Genesis 6. Even Noah found grace in the
eyes of the Lord. Genesis 6 and verse 8, By faith
Moses built that ark, that saving house. Hebrews chapter 11 and
verse 7, as God had told him. And so we see that the Lord Jesus
Christ is our life. He is our direction, he is our
all. When you look at Acts 15, you
see that Peter's rebuke is well deserved there, well deserved
because there's a reason why this rebuke is deserved and is
forthcoming. For to bind them to the law as
believers, to put a yoke upon them was a tempting of God In
that, as John Gill did write, it was manifest opposition to
the clear action of God. So it is implied that the Holy
Spirit lacked the power to secure their obedience to God's way,
purifying their hearts by faith. Let me read what Gill said one
more time. It was manifest opposition to the clear action of God. Think about that. How so? God
has purified their hearts by faith. Why now put a yoke upon
their neck? Now, the Puritans, believing
strongly in that, would often be heard saying that believers
are not under the law as a covenant. They're not under the law as
a covenant of works. They're not under the law as
to its wrath and curse. But it remains, they say, the
rule of life for believers, that no change in dispensation can
annul the moral law. Nothing, including the death
of Christ, they think, abrogates the law as having a dominion
and exercising it over us. To them, the phrases, Christ
is the end of the law, that's found in Romans chapter 10, and
the phrase, dead to the law, that's found in Romans chapter
7, did not mean, they say, the end of the law as the guide and
rule of conduct and obedience. And no doubt at first, hearing
these words being referred to believers in one time or another,
Hearing the sound of these words seems reasonable to a believer. That seems like a good way to
get around this. We're not under the law, we're
not saved by the law, we're not under its curse, but come back
and around here and we are under it again. And so at the first
hearing of it, you, like me, may have thought that that was
a reasonable. For if the law is not the rule
of faith, then what is?" We would ask the question, are we outlaws? As Paul said, I'm not an outlaw. Are we without law? Is there
no clearly defined way and duty for the child of God? Does it
come down to this? every man like they did in the
book of Judges can become a law unto themselves, or whether the
moral law is the rule of life for the saints and the children
of God. William Huntington again makes
the point that if it is, hear it now, if the moral law is the
rule of life for the children of God and for all believers,
Then said Huntington, it is clear the saints before Sinai had no
rule or guide of life, because it had not yet been given. Consider, if you will, some men,
able, who before the giving of the Ten Commandments offered
a proper sacrifice to God in faith. and he obtained witness
of God that he was righteous. Then there is Noah, whom I have
mentioned, who found grace in the eyes of the Lord, Genesis
6 and verse 8, who was seen by God as righteous, Genesis 7 and
verse 1, and by faith built an ark to the saving of his house,
Hebrews 11 and verse 7. There is one more man, the man
Enoch. walked with God, walked with
God before the marble wall was thundered out at Sinai. Genesis 5 and verse 22. And this man walked with God
and even was translated that he should not see death, for
before his death he had this testimony that he pleased God. Hebrews 11 and verse 5. Let's consider the father of
many, Abraham, who before the Ten Commandments was a friend
of God. And he followed, not knowing
where he would go, but being justified by faith, he followed
God, he looked for a city, he followed the will and the call
and the direction of God. Now there are other examples
of this, but we don't have time to look at them right now. Suffice it to say, the one thing
that these saints have in common is that they lived, and they
lived unto God, and they walked with God, not according to the
rule of the moral law, but by the faith that God had given
unto them. This does not make them outlaws,
for they walked under the law or rule of faith as it worked
in their life. By this rule, they loved, they
feared, they served, they obeyed, and they followed God. They lived
a sanctified life. They believed the promises of
God Almighty. Now, would they be called Antinomian
today if they lived in our period of history? Now, let me make
a point. first asking that you sharpen
your attention and focus your focus just a little bit sharper
right here. The point is, generally speaking,
what can be done before the law can be done apart or without
the law. What can be done before the law
can be done apart or without the law. in the sense of saving
men, of them walking before God, of them having faith. Such things
as justification, sanctification, walking with God, living a devoted
life under the Heavenly Father. As Noah found grace and was viewed
as righteous before the Almighty God and before the law was ever
given. Enoch walked with God was translated
before the Ten Commandments were given at Mount Sinai. Abraham
believed God was justified and walked by faith before the law
was given at Sinai. By the way, Paul uses the case
of Abraham very efficiently in Romans 4 in stripping the Jews
of their trust in the law and in circumcision. This he does
by showing that Abraham was, number one, justified prior to
the receiving of circumcision. Romans 4, 9 through 12. Thereafter, circumcision cannot
save and it is not necessary unto salvation. Secondly, concerning
Abraham, Abraham was justified before not only his circumcision,
but also the giving of the law in Galatians 3, 17 and 18. And
the promise to Abraham and his seed was not through law, Romans 4,
13 through 15, Galatians 3, 18. Therefore, justification is not
through or by the law. Wherein then did the promise
of Christ consist? The answer in Romans 4 and 13,
through the righteousness of faith. The righteousness of faith. First, some passages in the end
of Romans, the third chapter. After declaring the justification
to be through Christ's sacrifice, Romans 3.27, Note that the law
of faith, and then in verse thirty-one again, what is this law of faith
that Paul is talking about there? First, we think we're going to
have to admit something that Paul often uses the word law
in various ways in his writing. It does not always have the exact
same meaning. It is the same word, but Paul
uses the word law in different senses in the scripture, such
as the law of faith. The law of faith, same word,
the law there. I find a law. I see another law operating in
my members, warring. Then in Romans 8 and verse 2,
he speaks of the law of the spirit of life in Christ Jesus, as contrasted
from the law of sin and of death. So he uses the law in several
different ways with several different meanings. And in these places
it seems clear that the term law is used in the sense of a
rule and order a principle, a procedure called a law because it operates
with a discernible regularity and efficiency of a law. A way describing things that
occur with results and occur, as it were, with regularity.
Law because it occurs over and keeps occurring. The law of faith. The law of the spirit of life.
in Christ Jesus. What then does Paul mean by using
the expressions there, the law of faith, the law of the spirit
of life in chapter eight, the law of righteousness in Romans
9 and 31, but especially the law of faith? In Romans 8, 1
through 3, well, we're going to look at that in the second
service. We won't take it up now. But
the believer's life is a life and a walk of faith before the
God. It is not dos and don'ts. It's
not touch not, handle not, and feel not. It is we walk by faith. not by sight," is the word of
the scripture. It is said in the scripture,
thou standest by faith. I have kept the faith," Paul
said in another particular place. Not, I have kept the law, but
there is laid up for me a crown of life, for I have kept not
the law, I have kept the faith. Does someone ask then, how will
the saint practice holy living if the moral law is not his guide. Well, how about Titus 2, 11 through
13? The grace of God that bring us
salvation teaches us to deny ungodliness and worldly lusts,
teaching us that we should live soberly, righteously, and godly
in this present world, looking for that blessed hope. Now, the
grace of God is that teacher. not the moral law, the grace
of God. Now, those with circumcised hearts
who worship God in spirit rejoice in Christ Jesus and have no confidence
in the flesh, as in Philippians 1 and 3. Someone wrote, the law
of the spirit of life produces more real obedience to God in
an hour. than ever has been produced by
all the rules that have ever been drawn up and imposed by
human wisdom." We must face one of the strongest objections now
to the rule of the Spirit and of faith. And that is, has always
been, and will continue to be, that it will lead to the loss
of practical holiness and godly living, that it would be used
as a license to sin. Tell some they're not under the
law and they'll go and live in sin, but they have no grace,
perhaps, in their heart. Everyone, they say, will set
their own measure of duty. How can they when the word of
God is one and consistent? Besides, even those who profess
the law pick and choose which they shall honor. We are bound
to admit, I think, every great truth of God can be has been
and will be corrupted and perverted. No doctrine of God is safe from
the perversions of men and of bad theologians. Pray tell what
doctrine is there that we might preach. that has not been touched
and corrupted and perverted by the hands of men? The person
of Christ? Absolutely it has. The love of
God? Yes, it has. The grace of God? Yes. The Trinity? The divine
three in one? Yes. All of these things have
been corrupted. Eternal security, the gospel,
the infallibility of Scripture, on and on we might go, only The
only safe test would be, the only safe text I could take that
they couldn't pervert would be, consider the Libby's. Then I'd
be safe. Then somewhat perverted doctrine
does not make it a bad doctrine, not at all. God is true if every
man is a liar in the end. We ask. In his saving of his
soul, must one cleave then to the law or cleave unto Christ
who has saved us? Is sanctification, must we cling
to the moral law or must we imitate Christ and walk in the Spirit? In his dying hour, must the saint
of God cling to the law or cling unto Christ who gave his blood
for their soul." Which is like asking, should a drowning man
cling to a boulder that might take him to the bottom of the
water? Like a man in a raft cutting
a hole in the bottom of it, that he might save himself and get
the water out. So the conclusion is, free, pure,
absolute grace must be maintained, but it must not be turned into
licentiousness. Gospel liberty must be preserved. Paul said, stand fast in the
liberty with which you have in the Lord Jesus Christ. Now, the
believer is not without law to God. being under the law to Christ,
the righteousness of the law is fulfilled in him by the vicarious
death and work of Christ, and the Spirit of the Lord taking
up his abode in those that are Christ, and walking under, after
the direction, the leadership of that Spirit, ever using the
Bible as the compass to direct us on our way. What is contrary
to the Scripture is contrary to Christian living. What is
according to the Scripture is that we ought to boast in and
do our best to walk in that manner and in that way. Well, we have
answered the first half of the question, the believer's rule
of life, is it the law or is it faith and grace and the Spirit
of our Lord?