"Led by the Spirit, Freed from the Law: An Exegetical and Logical Refutation of SDA Misinterpretations of Galatians 5:18!"

The apostle Paul’s declaration in Galatians 5:18, "But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law," stands as one of the most liberating yet hotly debated verses in the New Testament. For centuries, various theological traditions, particularly those seeking to maintain a strict adherence to the Decalogue alongside the gospel, have attempted to reinterpret this text. A historico-grammatical approach, paired with careful Greek exegesis, reveals that common attempts to redefine "under the law" deeply distort Paul's covenantal framework.

The Exegetical Context of "Under the Law"

To understand Galatians 5:18, we must apply historico-grammatical hermeneutics, which demands interpreting the text based on its historical setting and grammatical structure. The Galatian churches were being infiltrated by Judaizers, false teachers who insisted that Gentile converts had to be circumcised and keep the Torah (the Mosaic Law) to be truly justified.

In the Greek text, the phrase is ouk este hypo nomon (οὐκ ἐστὲ ὑπὸ νόμον). The preposition hypo (under) denotes subjection to a power, authority, or jurisdiction. Paul uses this exact phrase repeatedly in his epistles to describe a covenantal era and jurisdiction, not merely a state of condemnation.

For instance, in Galatians 4:4-5, Paul writes that God sent His Son, "born under the law [hypo nomon], to redeem those who were under the law." If "under the law" simply meant "under the condemnation of the law," as some groups assert, it would mean Jesus Christ was born under condemnation and lived as a condemned sinner. This is heretical. Rather, Jesus was born under the jurisdiction of the Sinaitic covenant (the Mosaic system) so that He could fulfill it and redeem those bound by it.

Therefore, in Galatians 5:18, when Paul says believers led by the Spirit are not hypo nomon, he means they are no longer under the administrative regime, covenantal authority, and jurisdiction of the Mosaic Law. The Old Covenant has passed away; the believer now walks in the reality of the New Covenant.

"By calling this covenant “new,” he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and outdated will soon disappear." Hebrews 8:13(NIV)

The SDA Dilemma: Official Stances and Ellen G. White

Historically, Seventh-day Adventism has struggled with Paul's epistles, often attempting to artificially divide the Mosaic Law into a "moral law" (the Ten Commandments) which remains eternally binding, and a "ceremonial law" which passed away at the cross.

The Handbook of Seventh-day Adventist Theology (Vol. 12 of the Commentary Reference Series) typically asserts that while believers are freed from the law as a means of salvation, the Ten Commandments remain the absolute rule of life. In dealing with Galatians, earlier Adventist apologetics often argued that the "law" Paul was attacking was strictly the ceremonial system. However, this position becomes untenable when examining their own authoritative writings.

Ellen G. White explicitly corrected the idea that the law in Galatians was solely ceremonial:

"I am asked concerning the law in Galatians. What law is the schoolmaster to bring us to Christ? I answer: Both the ceremonial and the moral code of Ten Commandments." (The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary, Vol. 6, p. 1109.)

If the "schoolmaster" (Galatians 3:24) includes the moral code of the Ten Commandments, and Paul explicitly states in the very next verse (Galatians 3:25) that "we are no longer under a schoolmaster," the inescapable exegetical conclusion is that New Covenant believers are no longer under the covenantal jurisdiction of the Ten Commandments. Attempting to harmonize Ellen White’s admission with the traditional SDA insistence that Christians are still covenantally bound to the Sabbath command creates a severe theological contradiction.

Logical Fallacies in the Distortions

When groups attempt to bypass the clear meaning of Galatians 5:18, they often rely on identifiable logical fallacies:

• The Fallacy of Equivocation: This occurs when a term's meaning is changed in the middle of an argument. Distorters often change the definition of "law" (nomos) within the same chapter claiming it means the whole law when referring to obedience, but only the "condemnation of the law" when Paul speaks of being freed from it.
  
  
• Special Pleading: This happens when an exception is introduced without valid justification. It is special pleading to assert that being freed from the law in Galatians means being freed from nine commandments and the ceremonial laws, but the fourth commandment (the Sabbath) is somehow magically excluded from Paul's sweeping declarations.
  
  
• Begging the Question (Circular Reasoning): The premise assumes the conclusion. The argument goes: "The Ten Commandments are the eternal rule for Christians. Therefore, when Paul says we are not under the law, he cannot mean the Ten Commandments." This completely ignores the New Covenant reality that the Decalogue itself was the foundational document of a temporary covenant.
  
  

Answers to Common SDA Objections:

Q: "When you don't break a law, you are not under the law. That's what Paul meant in Galatians 5:18."

A: This is a very common defense, but honestly, it relies on a false analogy and a huge misunderstanding of how the word "law" works in the Bible. Let's look at it practically.

Imagine you are a Filipino citizen living in Manila. Whether you are a law-abiding citizen or a criminal, you are still physically and legally under the jurisdiction of Philippine law. Now, if you migrate to Japan and become a Japanese citizen, you are no longer "under" Philippine law. You are under a completely new legal system.

When Adventists say, "If you don't break the law, you aren't under it," they are confusing jurisdiction with condemnation. As we saw in Galatians 4:4, Jesus was born "under the law." Did Jesus break the law? Absolutely not. He kept it perfectly. Yet, Paul still describes Him as being "under the law." This completely destroys the argument that "under the law" just means "breaking the law."

In Galatians 5:18, Paul is talking about a change in covenantal citizenship. If you are led by the Spirit, you have migrated to the New Covenant. You are no longer under the jurisdiction of the Sinai covenant (which includes the Ten Commandments). You are now under the Law of Christ.

Q: "If led by the Spirit of Christ they will keep the law perfectly. The Spirit just gives you the power to keep the Ten Commandments."

A: This sounds very pious, but it completely contradicts the reality of the Christian struggle that Paul describes just one verse prior.

Look at Galatians 5:17, right before our main verse: "For the flesh desires what is contrary to the Spirit, and the Spirit what is contrary to the flesh. They are in conflict with each other, so that you are not to do whatever you want." Paul is writing to Spirit-filled believers, acknowledging a deep, ongoing internal war. Nobody is keeping any law "perfectly" in this life.

Furthermore, this argument smuggles in a massive assumption: Which law are they keeping perfectly? The Adventist assumes "the law" always defaults back to the stone tablets of the Decalogue. But New Covenant Theology shows us that the Spirit does not lead us backwards to the shadow of the Old Covenant; the Spirit leads us forward to walk in love, which is the fulfillment of the Law of Christ.

If the Spirit merely existed to help us perfectly keep the Old Covenant law, then the Old Covenant never needed to be replaced; we just needed better batteries. But Hebrews 8 makes it clear the covenant itself was faulty and obsolete. The Spirit leads us to bear the fruit of the Spirit (Galatians 5:22-23), against which there is no law, rather than driving us back to the external, letter-of-the-law demands of Sinai.

VIDEO & ENGLISH OUTLINE: Part 2: Michael the Archangel in Adventist Teaching

Hello everyone, and welcome back to our Investigating Adventism series. Today, we are taking a deep dive into a very peculiar doctrine in the Seventh-day Adventist (SDA) church: the belief that Jesus Christ is Michael the Archangel.

To really understand this, we have to trace it back to its roots, look at the logical fallacies used to defend it, and apply sound historico-grammatical hermeneutics and original language exegesis. Let’s unpack this together!

Q1: Where did the Adventist belief that Jesus is Michael the Archangel actually come from?

A: Let's be real here, the belief that Michael the Archangel is Jesus Christ is heavily rooted in the Arian and Semi-Arian theology of Ellen G. White (EGW) and the early Adventist pioneers.

These pioneers actively spoke against the historic Christian doctrine of the Trinity, the personhood of the Holy Spirit, and the eternal, uncreated deity of Jesus Christ. Just look at what they wrote in their own words:

• Joseph Bates: "Respecting the trinity, I concluded that it was an impossibility for me to believe that the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of the Father, was also the Almighty God, the Father, one and the same being. I said to my father, 'If you can convince me that we are one in this sense, that you are my father, and I your son; and also that I am your father, and you my son, then I can believe in the trinity.' Our trial in this matter led me to make my duty a special subject of prayer, particularly in relation to baptism." (The Autobiography of Elder Joseph Bates, 1868, p. 2024)
  
  
• James White (Ellen's husband): Called the eternal deity of Jesus Christ "the old Trinitarian absurdity."

"To assert that the sayings of the Son and his apostles are the commandments of the Father, is as wide from the truth as the old trinitarian absurdity that Jesus Christ is the very and Eternal God." (The Advent Review and Sabbath Herald, Vol. 3, No. 7, Aug. 5, 1852 p. 52)

• Uriah Smith: Believed Jesus was "the first created being."

"...not the beginner, but the beginning, of the creation, the first created being, dating his existence far back before any other created being or thing, next to the self-existent and eternal God." (Thoughts, Critical and Practical, on the Book of Revelation, 1865, p. 59)

• Merritt E. Cornell: Openly mocked Protestants for believing in the Trinity, the immortal soul, and Sunday worship, calling them "contrary to the spirit and letter of the New Testament."
  
  “Protestants and Catholics are so nearly united in sentiment, that it is not difficult to conceive how Protestants may make an image to the Beast. The mass of Protestants believe with Catholics in the Trinity, immortality of the soul, consciousness of the dead, rewards and punishments at death, the endless torture of the wicked, inheritance of the saints beyond the skies, sprinkling for baptism, and the PAGAN SUNDAY for the Sabbath; all of which is contrary to the spirit and letter of the new testament. Surely there is between the mother and daughters, a striking family resemblance.” (Merritt E. Cornell, Facts for the Times, 1858), p. 76)

Even prolific SDA historian Dr. George R. Knight honestly admitted that most of the SDA founders wouldn't even be able to join the church today because they would reject the denomination's current Fundamental Beliefs on the Trinity and the eternal deity of Christ.

“It comes as a surprise to many present-day Seventh-day Adventists that most of the founders of the denomination could not join the church today if they had to agree to the 28 fundamental beliefs. To be more specific, they would have rejected belief number 2, on the Trinity, because they were antitrinitarian; they would have spurned number 4, on the Son, because they held that the Son was not eternal; and they would have denied number 5, on the Holy Spirit, because to them the Spirit was a force rather than a person.” (George R. Knight, Ministry Magazine (October 1993), p. 10)

Q2: But didn't Ellen White eventually correct this Arianism with her prophetic gift?

A: Interestingly, no. Even though she later adopted some Trinitarian-sounding language (often plagiarized from orthodox authors like Rev. John Cumming), she never explicitly renounced her Arianism. Worse, she essentially cemented the pioneers' heretical views by instructing the church to keep printing them!

She wrote: “God has given me light regarding our periodicals. What is it? He has said that the dead are to speak. How? Their works shall follow them. We are to repeat the words of the pioneers in our work, who knew what it cost to search for the truth as for hidden treasure, and who labored to lay the foundation of our work. They moved forward step by step under the influence of the Spirit of God. One by one, these pioneers are passing away. The word given me is, Let that which these men have written in the past be reproduced. And in the Signs of the Times let not the articles be long or the print fine. Do not try to crowd everything into one number of the paper. Let the print be good, and let earnest, living experiences be put into the paper.” (Ellen G. White, Counsels to Writers and Editors, 1946, p. 28; originally published in Review and Herald, May 25, 1905)

Because of this, there is actually a growing movement in Adventism today (like "The Forgotten Pillar Project") urging members to reject the Trinity and return to the Arian roots of historic Adventism!

Q3: How exactly does Ellen White's Christology lower Jesus and elevate Satan?

A: If you read her writings closely, Ellen White's worldview suggests Jesus was promoted to Godhood. She wrote that God the Father held a special heavenly council to "confer special honor upon his Son" and declared that Jesus "should be equal with himself."

"The great Creator assembled the heavenly host, that He might in the presence of all the angels confer special honor upon His Son. The Son was seated on the throne with the Father, and the heavenly throng of holy angels was gathered around them. The Father then made known that it was ordained by Himself that Christ, His Son, should be equal with Himself; so that wherever was the presence of His Son, it was as His own presence. The word of the Son was to be obeyed as readily as the word of the Father. His Son He had invested with authority to command the heavenly host. Especially was His Son to work in union with Himself in the anticipated creation of the earth and every living thing that should exist upon the earth. His Son would carry out His will and His purposes but would do nothing of Himself alone. The Father's will would be fulfilled in Him." (The Spirit of Prophecy, Volume 1, 1870,  p. 17 )

In her Great Controversy narrative, this specific promotion made Satan furious because Satan thought he deserved that exalted spot. By framing it this way, she effectively puts Jesus and Satan on the same initial plane as created beings, completely denying the eternal, uncreated supremacy of Christ.

"Lucifer was envious and jealous of Jesus Christ. Yet when all the angels bowed to Jesus to acknowledge His supremacy and high authority and rightful rule, he bowed with them; but his heart was filled with envy and hatred. Christ had been taken into the special counsel of God in regard to His plans, while Satan was unacquainted with them. He did not understand, neither was he permitted to know, the purposes of God. But Christ was acknowledged sovereign of heaven, His power and authority to be the same as that of God Himself. Satan thought that he was himself a favorite in heaven among the angels. He had been highly exalted; but this did not call forth from him gratitude and praise to his Creator. He aspired to the height of God Himself.""He left the immediate presence of the Father, dissatisfied and filled with envy against Jesus Christ. Concealing his real purposes, he assembled the angelic host. He introduced his subject, which was himself. As one aggrieved, he related the preference God had given Jesus to the neglect of himself.""Little by little Lucifer came to indulge the desire for self-exaltation. [...] Not content with his position, though honored above the heavenly host, he ventured to covet homage due alone to the Creator. Instead of seeking to make God supreme in the affections and allegiance of all created beings, it was his endeavor to secure their service and loyalty to himself. And coveting the glory with which the infinite Father had invested His Son, this prince of angels aspired to power that was the prerogative of Christ alone." (The Spirit of Prophecy, Volume 1, page 18, paragraphs 1 and 2, 1870 )

She even blatantly denied Jesus' Almighty status, writing:

"There is no one who can explain the mystery of the incarnation of Christ. Yet we know that He came to this earth and lived as a man among men. The man Christ Jesus was not the Lord God Almighty, yet Christ and the Father are one." (Manuscript 140, 1903)

This is a direct contradiction of Scripture. In Revelation 1:8, Jesus clearly identifies Himself: "I am the Alpha and the Omega," says the Lord God, "who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty." (See also John 5:18, John 8:58, and John 10:30 where Jesus claims full equality with the Father).

"For this reason, they tried all the more to kill him; not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God." John 5:18(NIV)

“Very truly I tell you,” Jesus answered, “before Abraham was born, I am!” John 8:58(NIV)

"I and the Father are one.” John 10:30(NIV)

Q4: How do SDA apologists try to defend the "Jesus is Michael" doctrine from the Bible?

A: This is where we need to apply strict historico-grammatical hermeneutics and original language exegesis, because the SDA defense relies heavily on the Logical Fallacy of Special Pleading and Non Sequitur arguments.

Adventists (like Doug Batchelor and the SDA Bible Commentary) argue that the Greek word archangelos means "chief of the angels," assuming there can only be one chief, who must be Jesus.

Let's examine the Greek:

In 1 Thessalonians 4:16, Paul writes that the Lord will descend "with the voice of an archangel" (ἐν φωνῇ ἀρχαγγέλου). Notice the grammar: it is an anarthrous construction (meaning there is no definite article "the"). It literally translates to "with an archangel's voice."

• The Non Sequitur Fallacy: Adventists argue, "Jesus descends with an archangel's voice, therefore Jesus IS the archangel." But in the exact same verse, Jesus also descends with the "trumpet of God." Does that mean Jesus is a literal trumpet? Of course not. He is accompanied by angelic heralds.

Let's examine the Hebrew:

To force the "only one archangel" narrative, Adventists reject standard translations of Daniel 10:13, where Michael is called "one of the chief princes" (Hebrew: 'echad hasarim harishonim). The Hebrew word 'echad clearly denotes "one among a group." Calling it an "unfortunate translation" to protect their doctrine is pure exegesis-by-bias.

Q5: What is the ultimate fatal flaw in the SDA "Archangel" doctrine based on their own prophet?

A: This is the mic-drop moment against the SDA Michael doctrine. SDA apologists fight tooth and nail to prove Michael is the only archangel. But their own prophetess, Ellen White, completely destroys their argument.

In her writings, she repeatedly uses the plural form, acknowledging many archangels:

"Cherubim and seraphim, angels and archangels [plural], are watching the battle that is going on in this life. Between whom? The Prince of life and the power of darkness." (Manuscript 1 (Delivered February 18, 1890)

"And the angelic host, angels and archangels  [plural], are watching the battle that is going on in this life." (In Heavenly Places p. 330)

"The fact that he [Satan] was an archangel, glorious and powerful, enabled him to exert a mighty influence. He had been a covering cherub, and had stood in a position of high trust; he had been permitted to know the secrets of God, and to be acquainted with His purposes. But he permitted his mind to be diverted from the glory of God to his own glory; and he began to cherish feelings of dissatisfaction, and to sow the seeds of discontent among the angels." (The Signs of the Times, Sept. 14, 1882).

If Jesus is Michael the Archangel, and Satan is also an archangel, you can easily see the cultic Arianism shining through: treating Jesus and Satan as warring sibling angels rather than the Creator and His rebellious creation.

The Ontological Cost of the "Archangel" Label

When Adventist theology identifies Jesus as Michael the Archangel, it creates an ontological leveling. This is a theological term for when we bring something "down" to our own level, or when we minimize the distinction between different orders of being.

1. From Sovereign Creator to Celestial Officer

In biblical theology, the relationship between God and His creation is asymmetrical. God is the Source; creation is the result. By labeling Jesus as an "archangel," the doctrine forces Him into the same category as Satan. In the eyes of the early pioneers, this might have seemed like a way to elevate Michael, but in reality, it severely demotes Christ. It shifts the cosmic conflict from the sovereign Creator vs. the rebellious creature to a rank-based rivalry between two high-ranking officers.

2. The "Sibling Rivalry" Fallacy

It paints the cosmic struggle as a war between siblings. If Jesus and Satan are both "archangels," they are essentially peers in the heavenly hierarchy. This narrative turns the Cross into an administrative struggle for power rather than the decisive act of the Creator entering His own creation to reconcile humanity to Himself. If the Savior is just another angel, even the "chief" one, then the atonement lacks the infinite value required to satisfy the justice of an infinite God.

3. The Cultic Arian Echo

The danger here is the Arian error of the past. Arianism (the belief that Jesus was the first and greatest creation, but not co-equal and co-eternal with the Father) has always struggled to explain how a "created" being can save other created beings.

If we hold to a New Covenant Theology perspective, we must emphasize that Jesus does not become God through promotion or exaltation; He is the eternal, self-existent God who took on flesh. The "archangel" title effectively traps the reader in a 19th-century pioneer mindset, forcing them to choose between biblical Christology and the "restorationist" view of early Adventist leaders.

Real Talk Reflection

"He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature, and he upholds the universe by the word of his power." Hebrews 1:3

Let's be clear: Jesus Christ is not Michael the Archangel. He is not a created being promoted to Godhood, and He is certainly not on the same playing field as Satan. He is the eternal, uncreated Creator, the Lord God Almighty. When we force Scripture to fit nineteenth-century pioneer traditions, we end up diminishing the glory of Christ and dragging New Covenant believers back under Old Covenant shadows.

Call to Action: Today, evaluate your Christology. Are you worshipping the eternal, uncreated Son of God who accomplished complete salvation for us, or a modified version inherited from human tradition? Dig into the Word, trust the finished work of the cross, and rest in the true Jesus.

"How do the worship practices of Seventh‑day Adventists parallel the rebellious patterns of ancient Israel?"

If we look closely at the history of the Israelites in the Bible, it's honestly like looking in a mirror at the modern theological struggles of Seventh-day Adventism (SDA). Here in the Philippines, we have this beautiful, strong culture of pamana (inheritance) and tradisyon (tradition). We naturally love holding onto things passed down from our ancestors, but sometimes we hold onto outdated systems even when a massively upgraded version is right in front of us. In many ways, this is exactly what happened to ancient Israel, and it is the exact same trap SDA theology falls into today.

Let’s break down how the SDA errors of legalism, Sabbath obsession, and diluting the Messiah's grace are essentially repeats of Israel’s classic rebellions.

The Legalism Trap: Choosing Mount Sinai Over Mount ZionWhen God brought Israel out of Egypt, they stood at the foot of Mount Sinai and confidently declared, "All that the Lord has spoken we will do!" (Exodus 19:8). But they instantly failed. Why? Because the Old Covenant law was designed to expose their sin, not to save them. Instead of looking forward to a Savior, they rebelled by turning their relationship with God into a strict, fear-based performance checklist.

SDA theology does the exact same thing by insisting that believers are still bound by the Ten Commandments as the ultimate standard for living and worship. From a New Covenant Theology perspective, this is a massive step backwards. New Testament scholar Thomas Schreiner points out in his review of New Covenant Theology that "the Mosaic Covenant ended with the coming of Christ" and that "the Sabbath is no longer binding upon believers".

When Adventism pushes for Old Covenant rule-keeping, they fall into the same error the Galatians did. As theologian Scot McKnight explains in his commentary on Galatians, "Legalism... was a religious system that combined Christianity with Mosaism in a way that demanded total commitment to Israel's law as the climax of one's conversion to Christ," which completely subverts the adequacy of Christ's work. Just like the Israelites, trying to earn or maintain God's favor through legalism always leads to spiritual rebellion against His grace.

The Sabbath Obsession: Missing the True Promised RestThe story of Israel in the wilderness is heartbreaking. Because of their continuous complaining and unbelief, especially at the waters of Meribah, God swore they would never enter His promised rest (Psalm 95:11; Hebrews 3:8-11). They completely missed the entire point of what God was freely offering them.

Today, SDAs make Saturday Sabbath-keeping the absolute litmus test for true faith, totally missing the New Covenant reality that the physical Sabbath was just a temporary shadow. The actual substance is Christ Himself (Colossians 2:16-17). Pastor David Guzik brilliantly explains in his commentary on Hebrews 4 that "the rest Jesus offers is far greater than the physical rest Israel failed to claim in Canaan, it's a spiritual rest patterned after God's own rest, where we cease from self-justifying works and trust entirely in Christ's finished work".

By insisting that true worship only happens on a Saturday, SDAs are basically choosing to camp out in the dry Sinai wilderness. Theologian Dr. Kim Riddlebarger notes that to fall back into these old ways is to repeat the rebellion at Meribah, but with "far greater" consequences because we are rejecting the "greater promises of the new covenant". Hugging the shadow means you are entirely missing the actual Savior standing right in front of you.

Rejecting the True Messiah: The "Investigative Judgment" vs. Free GraceIn the first century, many Israelites ultimately rejected Jesus because He didn't fit their mold. They wanted a Messiah who would fiercely enforce their traditions and strictly uphold their law-keeping system. When Jesus offered a New Covenant based on completely free salvation by grace, they stumbled over it (Romans 9:31-33).
"But the people of Israel, who pursued the law as the way of righteousness, have not attained their goal. Why not? Because they pursued it not by faith but as if it were by works. They stumbled over the stumbling stone. As it is written: “See, I lay in Zion a stone that causes people to stumble and a rock that makes them fall, and the one who believes in him will never be put to shame.” Romans 9:31-33(NIV)While SDAs definitely claim Jesus as their Savior, their unique, foundational doctrine of the "Investigative Judgment" functionally waters down His finished work. This doctrine claims Jesus is currently reviewing your life records in heaven to see if your ongoing law-keeping (especially Sabbath observance) is good enough for you to maintain your salvation. From the biblical perspective, this is a tragic misunderstanding of the gospel. Salvation is 100% a free gift received by faith, not a conditional status we maintain by our own sweat, tears, and rule-keeping.

In our Filipino culture, we absolutely hate the feeling of "may utang" (being in debt), so our natural instinct is to try and pay God back with our good works. But when a theological system adds human performance to Christ's shed blood, it subtly rejects the true Messiah. It is basically saying the cross wasn't enough to secure us.

Comparison Guide: Ancient Israel vs. Modern SDA ErrorsTo make this super clear, here is a quick comparison chart showing how these historical errors directly parallel each other, backed up by the Bible:

The Bottom LineWe have to learn from the tragic mistakes of ancient Israel. True worship under the New Covenant isn't about running back to the old, obsolete, and heavy ways of Mount Sinai. It is about confidently resting in the finished, completely sufficient work of Jesus Christ. Let's drop the heavy baggage of legalism and fully embrace the massive freedom we have in His grace!