TEXT. “What shall we say then? That Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have attained to righteousness, even the righteousness of faith; but Israel, pursuing the law of righteousness, has not attained to the law of righteousness. Why? Because they did not seek it by faith, but as it were, by the works of the law. For they stumbled at that stumbling stone. As it is written: "Behold, I lay in Zion a stumbling stone and rock of offense, and whoever believes on Him will not be put to shame” (Rom. 9:30-33)
In
the epistle to the Romans, the apostle Paul pursues a systematic course of
reasoning to accomplish a particular purpose.
In the beginning of Romans, he proves that not only the Gentiles, but
also the Jews, were in a state of entire depravity; and that the Jews were not,
as they vainly imagined, naturally holy.
He then introduces the moral law, and by explaining the moral law, Paul
shows that works of the law could save no one.
His next topic is Justification by Faith, in opposition to Justification
by Law. Here I will observe, in
passing, that it is my plan to make this the subject of my next message. The next subject, which Paul begins in
chapter 6, is to show that sanctification is by faith; or that all true religion,
all the acceptable obedience there ever was in the world, is based on
faith. In the eighth and ninth
chapters, he introduces the subject of divine sovereignty; and in the last part
of the ninth chapter, he sums up the whole matter, and asks, “What shall we
say, then?” What shall we say about all
of this? That the Gentiles, who never
thought about the law, have become pious, and obtained the holiness which is by
faith; but the Jews, attempting to become pious by the law, have completely
failed. Why? Because they made the fatal mistake of attempting to become pious
by obeying the law, and have always fallen short, while the Gentiles have obtained
true religion, by faith in Jesus Christ.
Here, Jesus Christ is called “that stumbling-stone” because the Jews
were so opposed to Him. However, whosoever
believes in Christ shall not be put to shame.
My
purpose tonight is to point out as clearly as I can, the true distinction
between the religion of law and the religion of faith. I will proceed in the following order:
I.
Show what the distinction does not consist in.
II.
Show what the distinction consists in. And
III.
Share some examples of both, to show more clearly, how they differ.
I.
What does the difference between the religion of law and the religion of faith
not consist in.
1.
The difference does not lie in the fact that, under the law, works without
faith justified people. The method of salvation
in both dispensations has been the same.
Sinners were always justified by faith.
The Jewish dispensation pointed to a Savior to come, and if men were
saved at all, it was by faith in the Christ who was to come. And sinners are now saved in the same way,
by faith in the Christ who came.
2.
The difference between the religion of law and the religion of faith does not
consist in the fact that the gospel has cancelled or set aside our obligation
to obey God’s moral law. It is true
that the gospel has set aside the claims of the ceremonial law, or the Law of
Moses. The ceremonial law was nothing
but a series of types pointing to the Savior, and was set aside, of course,
when Jesus appeared. Believers
generally admit that the gospel has not set aside the moral law. However, a doctrine that sets aside the
moral law has been maintained throughout church history. Many have maintained that the gospel has set
aside the moral law, so that believers are under no obligation to obey it. This was the doctrine of the Nicolaitans,
who were rebuked by Christ. (Rev
2:6,15) The Antinomians, since the days
of the apostles, believed that they had no obligation to obey the moral law;
and believed that Christ’s righteousness was so imputed to believers, and that
He had so fulfilled the law for them, that they were under no obligation to
obey it themselves.
There
have been many in more modern times, who believed that they had no obligation
to obey the law. These people were
called Perfectionists. They thought
that Christ had delivered them from the law, given them the Holy Spirit, and
that the leadings of the Holy Spirit are now to be their rule of life, instead
of the law of God. Where the Bible says
that sin shall not have dominion over believers, these people think it means
that something, which would be a sin if done by an unconverted person, would
not be a sin if they did it. The
others, they say, are under the law, and so they are bound by its rules. But they are sanctified, and are in Christ,
and if they break the law, it is not sin.
But all such notions must be radically wrong. God has no right to abandon the moral law. He cannot discharge us from our duty to love
God and love man, for this is right all by itself. And unless God changes the whole moral constitution of the
universe, and makes what is right, wrong, He cannot give up the claims of the
moral law. Besides, this doctrine represents
Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost as having taken up arms openly against God’s government.
3.
The difference between legal religion and gospel religion does not consist in
the fact that the gospel is any less strict in its claims, or
allows any greater latitude of self-indulgence than the law. Not only does the gospel not cancel our
obligation to obey the moral law, but it does not lessen our obligation
either. Some people talk about gospel
freedom as though they have received a new rule of life, less strict, and allowing
more freedom than the law. I admit that
the gospel has provided a new method of justification, but everywhere it
insists that the rule of life is the same as it was with the law. The very first sentence of the gospel, the
command to repent, is, in effect, a re-enactment of the law, for it is a
command to return to obedience. The
idea that the freedom of the gospel differs from the freedom of the law is
wrong.
4.
Neither does the difference between legal religion and gospel religion consist
in the fact that those so-called legalists, (those who have a legal religion),
either by their profession or in fact, depend on their own works for
justification. It is not often the
case, at least in our day, that legalists profess dependence on their own
works, because there are few so ignorant that they don’t know that this is directly
opposed to the gospel. Nor is it
necessarily the case that they depend on their own works. Often they depend on Christ for
salvation. But their dependence is
false dependence; a dependence that they have no right to have. They depend on Him, but they make it clear
that their faith, or dependence, is not that faith which actually “works by
love”, or that “purifies the heart”, or that “overcomes the world”. It is a simple matter of fact that the faith
they have does not do what the faith does that men must have in order to be saved,
and so it is not the faith of the gospel.
They have a kind of faith, but not that kind that makes men real Christians,
and brings them under the terms of the gospel.
II.
I will mention some of the areas where these two kinds of religion differ.
There
are several different kinds of people, who demonstrate that they have a legal
religion. There are some, who really
profess that they depend on their own works for salvation. Such were the Pharisees. The Hicksite Quakers once took this ground,
maintaining that men were to be justified by works and they completely set
aside justification by faith. When I
talk about works, I mean works of the law.
And here, I want you to distinguish between works of law and works of
faith. Please remember this important
distinction. It is between works
produced by legal considerations and those produced by faith. There are only two principles on which
obedience to any government can turn.
One is the principle of hope and fear; that operates under the influence
of conscience. A person’s conscience
points out what is right or wrong, and the individual is induced by hope and
fear to obey. The other principle is
confidence and love. You can often see
this illustrated in families, where one child always obeys from hope and fear,
and another from an affectionate confidence.
The same is true in the government of God. The only thing, that ever produced even the appearance of
obedience, is one of these two principles.
Many
things address our hopes and fears.
Character, interest, heaven, and hell, are just some of the many things
that address our hopes and fears. These
may produce external obedience, or conformity to the law. But a loving confidence leads men to obey
God from love. This is the only
obedience that is acceptable to God.
God not only requires a certain course of conduct, but that this conduct
should spring from love. There never
was and never can be, in the government of God, any acceptable obedience but
the obedience of faith. Some believe
that faith will be done away with in heaven.
This is a strange idea! They
talk as if there were no reason to trust God in heaven, or no reason to
exercise confidence in Him. Here is the
most important difference between the religion of law and gospel religion. Legal obedience is influenced by hope and
fear, and it is hypocritical, selfish, outward, and constrained. Gospel obedience springs from love, and is
sincere, free, cheerful, and true.
There are legalists, who depend on works of the law for justification,
who have simply deified what they call a principle of right, and have set
themselves to do right; but it is not out of respect to the law of God, or out
of love to God, but simply because it is right.
There
is another distinction here. The
religion of law is the religion of goals or desires that are based on legal
considerations, and not based on the religion of love for God. The individual intends to deal with his
sins; he plans to obey God and be religious; but his plans do not grow out of a
love for God, but out of hope and fear.
It is easy to see that plans based on hope and fear are very different
from plans based on love. But the
religion of the gospel is not merely a goal, but an actual preference that
consists in love.
Therefore,
we have a group of legalists that depend on Christ, but their dependence is not
gospel dependence, because the works that they produce are works of law; that
is, their works come from hope and fear, not from love. Gospel dependence may produce the very same
outward works, but their motives are radically different. The legalist drags along in a painful,
irksome, moral, and perhaps outwardly religious life. The gospel believer has an affectionate confidence in God, which
leads him to obey out of love. His
obedience is prompted by his own feelings.
Instead of being dragged to do his duty, he does his duty cheerfully because
he loves it and doing it is a delight to his soul.
There
is another point. The legalist expects
to be justified by faith, but he has not learned that he must be sanctified by
faith. Many modern legalists do not
expect to be justified by works; they know works are inadequate. They know that the way to be saved is
through Christ. However, they have no
practical belief that justification by faith is only true because
sanctification by faith is true; and that men are justified by faith only as
they are first sanctified by faith.
Therefore, while they expect to be justified by faith, they determine
that they will perform works that are really works of law.
I
want you to see that these two groups may agree on these points: They may see their need for good works, and,
theoretically, they may see what constitutes good works; which is, obedience
that springs from a love for God.
Furthermore, they may agree to try to perform good works based on a love
for God. But the difference lies in the
different influences, that they look to, to enable them to perform these good
works. The things they consider which
they believe will affect them are different.
They look to different sources for their motives. The true Christian alone succeeds in
actually performing good works. The
legalist tries to perform good works but he is influenced by hope, fear, and a
selfish regard for his own interest.
Since he obeys the voice of his conscience because he is afraid to do
otherwise, he falls completely short of loving God with all his heart, soul,
mind, and strength. The motives, that
leads him to act, have no tendency to bring him into the obedience of
love. The true Christian, on the other
hand, so appreciates God, so perceives and understands God’s character in
Christ, that these thoughts produce such an affectionate confidence in God that
he finds it easy to obey from love.
Instead of finding it, as a hymn has strangely represented it,
“Hard to obey, and harder still to love”, he finds it not difficult at
all to love. The commandments are not
difficult. His yoke is easy, and his
burden is light. And he finds the ways
of wisdom to be ways of pleasantness, and all his paths are peaceful.
Is
this true with most professing Christians?
Is it true with you? Do you feel
constrained by love in your religious duties?
Are you drawn by such strong cords of love that it would be more painful
to not obey than to obey? Do your affections
flow out in such strong currents to God, that you cannot but obey? How is it with those individuals who find it
“hard to obey, and harder still to love”?
What’s the matter? Ask that wife
who loves her husband whether or not she finds it hard to try to please her
husband? Suppose she solemnly replies,
“Oh yes, I find it hard to obey and even harder to love my husband”, what would
her husband think? What would any one
of you who are parents say if you should hear one of your children complaining,
“I find it hard to obey my father, and even harder to love him”? The truth is, there is a radical defect in
the religion of those people who love such expressions and live as if they were
true. If any of you find religion a
painful thing, I promise you, you have the religion of the law.
Did
you ever find it painful to do what you love to do? No. It is a pleasure to
do it. Gospel religion is not work for
those who love it. It is the feeling of
the heart. What would you do in heaven
if religion is so painful here? Suppose
you were taken to heaven and had to grind out just so much religion every week,
month after month, year after year, throughout eternity. What sort of a heaven would it be to
you? Would it be heaven, or would it be
hell? If you were required to have ten
thousand times as much religion as you have here, and your whole life were to
be filled up with this, and you had nothing else to do or enjoy but an eternal
round of loving all of God’s creatures as yourself, would not hell itself be a
welcomed relief to you?
The
difference, then, lies here. One group
is striving to be religious because of hope and fear, and under the influence
of a conscience that whips them if they do not do their duty. The other group acts from a love for God and
the impulses of their own feelings, and they know what the text means, which
says, “I will put My law in their inward parts, and write it on their hearts, I
will be their God, and they shall be My people.” (Jer 31:33)
III.
Let’s look at some examples of these two groups.
The
first example I shall give is the situation of the apostle Paul, as he mentions
it in the 7th Chapter of Romans. In
Romans, Paul describes the struggle to obey the law, under the influence of law
alone. Let us therefore look into this passage.
“For
what I am doing, I do not understand.
For what I will to do, that I do not practice; but what I hate, that I
do. If, then, I do what I will not to
do, I agree with the law that it is good.
Now, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells in me. For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh)
nothing good dwells; for to will is present with me, but how to perform what is
good I do not find. For the good that I
will to do, I do not do; but the evil I will not to do, that I practice. Now if I do what I will not to do, it is no
longer I who do it, but sin that dwells in me.
I find then a law, that evil is present with me, the one who wills to do
good. For I delight in the law of God
according to the inward man. But I see
another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me
into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members.” (Romans 7:15‑23).
Now
what did the apostle mean by this passage?
How are the words he uses here used here in the popular sense? Paul says he finds himself able to will, but
not able to do. Is he merely speaking
about some kind of physical inability?
Does he simply mean to say that the established connection between his
willing and his doing was disturbed, so that he could not do what he wanted to
do? We would conclude this if we
interpreted this passage literally without examining the context that Paul
places this passage in, and without any regard for the scope and design of the
writer. Paul was using popular language,
and was describing a very common experience.
Convicted
sinners and backslidden saints often make legal resolutions, and they resolve
to obey legally without a real change of heart and a change in the attitude of
their wills. Because they are convicted,
they try to do their duty to God and man selfishly; and in the presence of
temptation, they fail to keep their resolutions. As long as their hearts are selfish, they cannot keep their
resolutions to abstain from those inward thoughts and emotions, nor can they
prevent those outward actions that naturally result from the selfish state or
attitude of their will. These legal
resolutions, the apostle popularly calls ‘will’. “For to will is present with me, but how to perform what is good
I do not find. For the good that I will
to do, I do not do; but the evil I will not to do, that I practice. Now if I do what I will not to do, it is no
longer I who do it, but sin that dwells in me.
I find then a law, that evil is present with me, the one who wills to do
good. For I delight in the law of God
according to the inward man. But I see
another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me
into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members.”
Now,
this describes the very familiar experiences of every deeply convicted sinner
or backslider. Their will is committed
to the law in their members, or to the gratification of their sensual
desires. Because of this, their outward
life is selfish. This produces
conviction. Conviction of sin then
leads to the formation of resolutions, but their will does not submit to
God. Therefore, these resolutions constantly
fail to secure the results intended.
Their will is still committed to self‑gratification; and so all their
resolutions to amend their feelings or outward actions fail.
Paul
did not intend to claim that we are unable to submit to the claims of God. In fact, Paul tells us that our will is
free. “But now, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells in me.” (Romans 7:18) “To will,” he says, “is present with me”. (v.19)
But “to will” is an act of the will.
It is a purpose, a plan. He
planned to reform. He was able to make
resolutions, but he was not able to do good.
The reason why he did not do what he had planned was that his resolutions
were selfishly made; in other words, he resolved to reform without giving his
heart to God, without submitting his will to God, without actually becoming
unselfish. This caused his constant
failure. This passage, if you take it
literally, would lead to the conclusion that the apostle was representing a
situation where his will is right, but where the established and natural
connection between his will and what he does is not being made, so that the
outward act does not follow the action of his will. In this situation, all schools would agree that the act of the
will constitutes real obedience. The
whole passage, taken out of context, might lead us to conclude that the apostle
was speaking of some kind of proper inability, and therefore, he did not consider
the failure as his own fault. But this
is not true, because Paul later cries out: “It is no more I, but sin that
dwells in me. O wretched man that I
am.”
Those
who believe that Paul was unable to obey, must then conclude that Paul represented
his inability as an obstacle to his obligation, and saw his state as
calamitous, but not sinful. But the
fact is, Paul was describing a legal experience, and spoke about finding
himself unable to keep his selfish resolutions to reform in the presence of
temptation. His will was committed to
fleshly indulgences. In the absence of
temptation, his convictions, fears, and feelings were very strong, and, under
their influence, he would make resolutions to do his duty, to abstain from
fleshly indulgences, etc. But, as soon
as some other appetite or desire became more excited, he yielded to those
desires, and broke his former resolution.
Paul writes as if he was speaking about himself, but he speaking as a
representative of those people he was talking about. He could share from experience because he was in this state
before he yielded to the claims of Christ.
He found the law of selfish habit extremely strong; so strong that it
lead him to cry out, “O wretched man that I am!” But, this does not affirm a proper inability to willfully submit
to God.
You
may see the same in the experience of almost any convicted sinner after he has
become truly converted. He was
convicted, the law was brought home to his mind, he struggled to fulfill the
law, he was in agony, and then he was filled with joy and glory. Why?
He agonized under the law. He
had no rest and no satisfaction. He
tried to please God by keeping the law.
He went around in pain all day long.
He read the Bible, he tried to pray; but the Spirit of God was on him,
showing him his sins, and he had no relief.
The more he tried to help himself the deeper he sank in despair. All the time, his heart was cold and
selfish. But now, let another principle
be introduced, and let him be influenced by a love for God. The same Holy Spirit is on him, showing him
the same sins that grieved and distressed him before. But now he drops to his knees.
His tears flow like water as he confesses his guilt, and his heart melts
in joyful relenting such as cannot be described, but easily understood by
anyone that has experienced it. Now he
engages in dong the same duties that he tried before. But, Oh, what a difference!
The Spirit of God has broken his chains, and now he loves God and is
filled with joy and peace in believing.
The
same thing is seen in many professing Christians who find religion
painful. They have a lot of conviction,
and perhaps a lot of what they call religion, but their minds are mainly filled
with doubts and fears, doubts and fears, all the time. As time goes on perhaps, those same
professing Christians will suddenly manifest a completely different
character. Their religion no longer is
all complaining and griping, but the love of God fills their heart, and they go
cheerfully and happily about their duty; and their soul is so light and happy
in God, that they float in an ocean of love and joy, and the peace that fills
him is like a river.
Here,
then, is the difference between the slavery of law and the liberty of the
gospel. The liberty of the gospel does
not consist in being freed from doing what the law requires, but in a man’s
being in such a state of mind that obeying the law becomes a pleasure instead
of a burden. What is the difference
between slavery and freedom? The slave
serves because he has to; the free man serves because he wants to. The man who is under the bondage of law does
his duty because conscience thunders in his ears if he does not obey, and he
hopes to go to heaven if he does obey.
The man who is in the liberty of the gospel does the same things because
he loves to do them. One is influenced
by selfishness, the other by unselfish love.
REMARKS.
I.
You can easily see, that if we believe the words and actions of most professing
Christians, they have made a tremendous mistake; and they have the religion of
law, and not gospel religion. They are
not constrained by the love of Christ, but they are moved by hopes, fears, and
by the commandments of God. They have
gone no farther in religion than to be convicted sinners. Within the last year, I have witnessed the
regeneration of so many professing Christians, that I am led to fear that great
multitudes in the church are still under the law; and although these multitudes
profess to depend on Christ for salvation, their faith is not a faith that
works by love.
II.
Some people are all faith and no works.
These are Antinomians. Others
are all works and no faith. These are
Legalists. Throughout all the ages of
the church, people have first leaned to one of these extremes, and then they go
over to the other extreme. Sometimes
they settle down, pretending to be all faith, and they wait for God's
time. Then, they become all excited and
run ahead in works, without thinking about why they act.
III.
You can see the true character of those professing Christians who are forever
crying out “That’s legal!” as soon as they are encouraged to lead holy
lives. When I first began to preach, I
found this spirit in many places; so that the moment Christians were urged to
do their duty, the cry would rise, “That is legal preaching. Please preach the gospel; salvation is by
faith and not by works. You should
comfort saints and not distress them.”
All this was nothing but rank Antinomianism.
On
the other hand, the same churches will often complain that if you preach faith
to them and show them what is the true nature of gospel faith, they now want to
do something, and insist that no preaching is worthwhile that does not excite
them and stir them up to do good works.
They are all for doing, doing, doing, and are unhappy with preaching
that discriminates between true and false faith and preaching that urges
obedience of the heart out of love for God.
The Antinomians wait for God to produce right feelings in them. The Legalists undertake to get right feelings
by going to work. It is true that going
to work is the way, when the church feels right, to perpetuate and
cherish right feelings. But it is not
the way to get right feeling in the first place, to dash right into work
without any regard to the motives that are in the heart.
IV.
Real Christians are a stumbling block to both parties; to those who wait for
God’s time and do nothing, and to those who bustle about with no faith. The true Christian acts under such a love
for God and his fellow human being, and he labors to pull sinners out of the
fire with such earnestness, that the waiting party cries out, “Oh, he is
getting too emotional. He is going to
work in his own strength. He must not
believe in the need for divine influences.
We should feel our dependence.
Let us wait for God to do it, and not try to stir up a revival without
God.” So they sit down, fold their
hands, and sing, “We feel our dependence, we feel our dependence; wait for
God’s time; we don’t trust in our works.”
On the other hand, the legalists, once they become all excited and start
engaging in good works, they see their religion as the same as the real
Christian. They appear to work just as
hard, and believe that the same spirit motivates them.
You
will rarely see a revival where you will not see this. If the body of the church wakes up to their
duty, and has the spirit of prayer and zeal for the conversion of sinners,
there will be some who sit still and complain that the church is depending on
her own strength. Meanwhile, others are
very busy and noisy, but they have no feeling; while the third group is so full
of love and compassion for sinners that they can hardly eat or sleep, and yet
so humble and tender that you would imagine they felt themselves to be nothing. The legalist, with his dry zeal, makes a lot
of noise, deceives himself, perhaps, and thinks he is acting just like a
Christian. But notice! The true Christian is stirring and active in
the service of Christ, but he moves with the holy fire that burns within his
own heart. The legalist depends on some
exciting or emotional meeting, or some other influence from without, to excite
him to do his duty.
V.
You can see why the religion of some people is so steady and uniform, and the
religion of others is hot one day and cold the next. You will find some individuals who always seem to be engaged in religion. Talk to them any time about God and their
souls will kindle. Others are awake
only now and then. Once in a while, you
may find them full of zeal. The truth
is, when one has the anointing that lives within his heart, he has something
that is durable. But if his religion is
only legal, he will tolerate only as much religion as he has conviction at the
present time, and so his religion will fluctuate between hot and cold.
VI.
You can see why some are so anxious to get to heaven, while others are so happy
here. Some people today, have such a
love for souls, and such a desire to have Christ’s kingdom built up on earth,
that they are perfectly happy here, and they are willing to live and labor for
God as long as He chooses to have them.
In fact, if they were sent to hell, and permitted to labor there for
souls, they would still be happy.
Meanwhile, others talk as if people shouldn’t expect any true enjoyment
or happiness in this life; but they can only expect to be happy after they get
to heaven. The only enjoyment one group
has is in their hope. The other already
has the reality, the very substance of heaven begun in their soul.
Now,
beloved, I have, in as much detail as I could, pointed out to you the
difference between the religion of the law and the religion of the gospel. And now, what religion do you have? True religion is always the same, and
consists in unselfish, un-biased love for God and man. Do you have that kind of religion? Or do you have the kind that consists, not
in impartial, unselfish, love, but in the pursuit of happiness as your great
goal, or purpose in life. Which do you
have? The fruits of the Spirit are
love, joy, and peace. There is no
condemnation of such religion. But if
anyone does not have the spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Christ.
(Romans 8:9) Now, don’t make a mistake
here, and allow yourselves to go down to hell with a lie in your right hand,
because you have the religion of the law.
The Jews failed here, while the Gentiles attained true holiness by the
gospel. Oh, how many are deceived, and
are acting under legal considerations, while they know nothing of the real religion
of the gospel!