NINTH OBJECTION by Dudley Marvin Canright

Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · Mar 4, 1873

NINTH OBJECTION.

By Dudley Marvin Canright

We are not under the law, but under grace. Rom. 6:14.

Answer. Probably this objection is urged oftener than any other by the advocates of the no-law theory. That the law here is, or at least includes, the decalogue, we both agree. What, then, is meant by the term, “under the law?” We understand it to mean, to be condemned by the law. Our opponents claim that it means to be under obligation to obey the law; and as Paul says we are not under the law, it follows that we are not now obliged to keep the law; Hence the Sabbath is gone. Can it be that we need not keep the commandments against adultery, murder, theft, idolatry, &c.? If their position is correct, this must follow, for these are a part of the law. Paul’s entire argument in this book shows that this is not his meaning.

What subject has he under consideration in this chapter? It is not the difference between the old law and the new, the change from the old dispensation to the new; but the change which takes place in individuals at their conversion, a change from the old man to the new man, from sin to holiness, from condemnation to grace. He first asks, “How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?” Verse 2. Then he says, “We are buried with him [Christ] by baptism.” Verse 4. This shows that he is speaking only of converted men. Next, he says, “Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin.” Verse 6. That this refers to conversion, and not to a change from the old covenant to the new, will be seen by every candid mind. “Likewise reckon ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord.” Verse 11. Of whom is this true? Only the converted man. So he is not speaking of all men in general, but only of saints. Again: “Let not sin, therefore, reign in your mortal body, that ye should obey it in the lusts thereof.” Verse 12. What is sin? John says, “Sin is the transgression of the law.” 1 John 3:4. Paul then exhorts them not to let their fleshly members and passions lead them to transgress the law. “For,” said he, “sin shall not have dominion over you.” Verse 14. Why not? Because the law is abolished? No; but because they have left the service of sin, have ceased to transgress the law of God. His whole argument shows that this is what he means. “For sin shall not have dominion over you; for ye are not under the law, but under grace.” Verse 14. That is, having broke off your sins, ceased to break the law, believed in Christ, and been baptized, you are now no longer ruled over by sin, nor condemned by the law, because you have found grace in the sight of God and your sins are pardoned. Then he asks in the next verse, “What then? shall we sin, [that is transgress the law, for, remember, ‘sin is the transgression of the law,’] because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid.”

This conclusion of Paul’s, utterly demolishes the theory of our opponents. For if “not under the law” means that we are not to obey the law, then it follows that we could transgress it at will. But this, Paul vetoes with a “God forbid.”

Take two more places where Paul uses the term “under the law” as meaning, to be condemned by the law. Thus he says, in Gal. 5:16–18, “This I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfill the lust of the flesh. For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh; and these are contrary the one to the other; so that ye cannot do the things that ye would. But if ye be led by the Spirit, ye are not under the law.” Now, in this case, who are not under the law? Those who are led of the Spirit, and those only. And who are those who are led by the Spirit? Those who do not fulfill the lusts of the flesh—that is, do not commit sin. Any other meaning cannot be given to this text. Then those who are not under the law, are converted men whose sins are pardoned, who have received the Spirit of God, and hence do not transgress his law any more. It has not the slightest reference to the abolition of the law. Paul says that those who are led of the Spirit are not under the law. Then it follows that those who are not led by the Spirit are under the law. This conclusion is so plain that no candid man will deny it. Well, are the wicked led by the Spirit? No. Then they are under the law. But if the law has been abolished, then no one can now be under it, no more the wicked than the righteous. This shows that the law does still exist and has power to condemn the transgressor. Now look a moment at the absurdity of our opponents’ position. They say that by the term “not under the law,” Paul means that the law is abolished, and hence we need not obey it. If this be true, then no one is under the law, whether he is led by the Spirit or not. But Paul declares that in order not to be under the law, we must be led by the Spirit. How plainly this contradicts their conclusion.

Take one more case. Rom. 3:9–19, Paul says, “We have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin; as it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one.” And so he goes on in several verses to prove that all are sinners. Then he concludes thus: “Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law, that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God.” Verse 19. Now, what is the consequence of being under the law? Paul says, it is “that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God.” So that to be under the law is to have our mouths stopped and stand guilty and condemned before God. No better proof could be given that this is the simple meaning which Paul designs by the use of the phrase, “not under the law, but under grace.” That the term “under the law,” sometimes means to be under obligation to keep the law is probably true; as for instance in Gal. 4:21, but that does not prove that it is always used so. The connection and the subject must show what its meaning is.

D. M. CANRIGHT.