Romans 6:15 - Yeah, So Let's Talk About Conduct (Conciliation Series, Part XXIV)

Part IV: God’s Conciliation, Confirmed

What then? Should we be sinning, seeing that we are not under law, but under grace?

Yeah, so, let’s talk about conduct.

This question fascinates me, as this question, like Rom. 6:1, is one of the most prominent objections – not from the atheists, interestingly enough (many of them think we’re goofy anyway. “Whatever floats your boat, guy!” they say) – but from the Christian community! Though Paul proclaims the exact opposite, that we are not under law, for some reason, certain denominations proclaim that we are under law “in some way,” and they use this very objection to try and prove it. The Seven Day Adventist church is a good example of this. Here’s their creed concerning God’s law, on adventist.org (point 19:)

“The great principles of God’s law are embodied in the Ten Commandments and exemplified in the life of Christ. They express God’s love, will, and purposes concerning human conduct and relationships and are binding upon all people in every age.

These precepts are the basis of God’s covenant with His people and the standard in God’s judgment. Through the agency of the Holy Spirit they point out sin and awaken a sense of need for a Saviour.

Salvation is all of grace and not of works, and its fruit is obedience to the Commandments.”

Have you ever heard such bullhockey? Seriously, this brief description of this belief has to be one of the most half-cooked statements ever made (worse than that baptism thing,) and yet people make these kinds of declarations with zero reference to Romans 6:15! Look, we just read that grace and law are complete opposites, in 6:14, as they are completely contrasted with each other, not paralleled. We are not under law, but under grace. It’s one or the other. The effect of grace, the fruit of the spirit, is found in Gal. 5:22-23, and they reflect a disposition, not a service. The law, which, by Paul’s definition so far, would impose a conditional righteousness, literally based on works from the believer, cannot possibly be an effect of grace.

As if to clarify this inconsistency, here’s their comment on The Sabbath (point 20:)

“The fourth commandment of God’s unchangeable law requires the observance of this seventh-day Sabbath as the day of rest, worship, and ministry in harmony with the teaching and practice of Jesus, the Lord of the Sabbath.”

Wait, what? So if it’s required to observe the sabbath, then what happens if I don’t follow the sabbath?? God?

Everyone doing work on the sabbath day shall be put to death, yea death.

Oh! That sounds… like I have to follow the sabbath if I want to stay alive. And yet, I don’t see many Seventh Day Adventists slaughtering each other in the streets!

This sounds like this is a condition for your salvation, a simple and blatant contradiction in the creed. The law cannot be required, because it quite literally adds your works into the mix. Thus, when you present this glaring inconsistency to a Seventh Day Adventist preacher, they reply, “What, then? Would we go sin just because we’re under grace, and not law?”

May it not be coming to that!

Thank you, Paul. See how important this question is? And, more than this, it gets even more subtle today, than it ever was in Paul’s day. Don’t let this fool you. It always boils down to this question, or Paul wouldn’t present it at this exact moment. He wasn’t able to talk about this (being the purpose for our conduct) before, because a) we didn’t have much of a reason for this conduct, because b) you can’t actually follow through on the conduct side of things unless the previous doctrinal teachings were properly made known to you. You must first become a saint (sanctified, called out,) in order to be a slave, able to follow these teachings, by God’s grace.

The question stems from one major logical fallacy. The idea is that you could freely sin with no wages for your service. This idea falls into the same “morality” argument presented by the first objector, in Rom. 6:1, and assumes that God doesn’t have a care in the world for His creatures’ conduct. What does Sin matter? You won’t be penalized! What does grace matter? There’s no rebuke!

*sigh.* 

This is a tired, old argument that is (I’m sorry) given forth by ignorant folk who do not realize that grace does not produce more sin – it’s the other way around (Rom. 5:21.) Grace frees you from sin – it enslaves you to God. Your sin is contrasted with God’s grace. Nowhere in this is there some obscure “middle ground” where sin is dealt with unjustly, or that the believer does not learn. The folk that push the idea that grace cannot properly handle sin undoubtedly hate the way God is handling mankind right now, and presume that He cannot effectively rebuke His own creation (Is. 45:7.) These folk presume that they can do it better, in desiring law, though it has been thoroughly proven that man is unjust and cannot follow law (making these folk hypocrites – Rom. 2:1-4.)

Here’s the truth: grace can deal with sin, and it does its job just fine. It does not need law to do its job. The law requires a perfection from you now, immediately. Grace, on the other hand, teaches love, which is the complement of law (Rom. 13:9-10.) Law itself is just (Rom. 7:7,) but flesh cannot be justified in it, as the flesh cannot love (Rom. 3:16-17.)

With that said, it’s true that grace allows sin (1 Cor. 6:12,) but absolutely does not indulge it. Allowing sin is not endorsing, or recommending sin. These are separate words that shouldn’t be mixed (and, indeed, Paul finishes the sentence “All is allowed me,” in 1 Cor. 6:12, with “but not all expedient.”) God’s not indulging sin, and should not be misconstrued as doing such. He is most certainly killing it (Eph. 2:16.)

Now, on an even simpler level: that Paul answers with a “nUh-uH!” should indicate, unequivocally, that the saint is not under law. This is the word of God, and to pervert it (as the Seventh-Day Adventist doctrine does, for example,) would be foolhardy. And, don’t be fooled by the foolhardiness – I am using strong words, such as “pig-headedness,” for a reason. The objector understands Paul. You can tell he understands Paul, because when you propose to a studious Seventh-Day Adventist that you are not under law, they certainly understand you, and respond with the same objection. If Paul in any way was implying that law drives our behavior, this question would be senseless in the middle of an otherwise sensible book.

Now, on the flip side, you may be asking about those that simply don’t recognize the objection presented here. That’s fair. But in that case, please don’t teach on Scripture, because it shows that someone is not apprehending the logic Paul presents here, and thus the point of the objection, as well as Paul’s subsequent response, is lost. The point is clear; so clear, in fact, that the book of Galatians is centered around this problematic misapprehension of the evangel, of which so many are removed from the evangel (Gal. 1:6.)

The problem with the folk on the “flip side” are simply that it becomes apparent, after you explain it to them, per Paul’s argument, that they are not yet willing to accept grace as the ultimate teacher. The argument that I usually propose, that “I would gladly go to a hell if God were childish enough to create such a place,” is given its extreme opposite with the idea that “If hell does not exist, I will do whatever I want.” One reveals that it expects gracious things from God – the other reveals that it would love to sin, if only the consequence were nonexistent.

This highlights a major difference between man and… well, love. Love doesn’t want to steal, for the disdain of their fellow man’s misfortune. Those that desire (yes, desire,) to follow the law don’t want to steal, but merely because they don’t want to suffer the consequence of stealing. They don’t want to lie, but merely because they don’t want to suffer the consequence of lying. When they see no immediate consequence due to grace, they go, “Oh! I can lie all I want, then!” This reveals what their heart desires. Man desires to sin.

Paul’s outright denial of this whole idea, as well as its subsequent explanation, must be considered in its fullest extent. The obedience on display here is not in relation to Mosaic law, as we are coming to find, but in relation to faith’s law (3:28,) which requests obedience to a disposition, not action. A state of being, not a deed. If someone says they’re under grace, but actively chooses Sin, claiming “freedom,” they are willfully testing grace, not willfully obeying it. If you are testing your Master, as opposed to obeying Him, how are you any better than a three-year-old challenging a parent?

- GerudoKing