Refutation of Advent Defense League "SDAs REFUTE Bible BUTCHERING - Part 1": "Under the Law"

Here is a point-by-point refutation of the arguments presented in the Advent Defense League video (section 5:40 – 22:30) regarding the "under the law" phrase, from a biblical perspective.

The following points address the specific arguments made by the speakers (Randy and Edwin) in response to William Albrecht, analyzing their interpretation of Romans 6, Romans 8, and Titus 2.

1. The Definition of "Under the Law" (Romans 6:14)

SDA Argument (Video Timestamp ~8:50 – 16:00):

The speakers argue that being "not under the law" (Romans 6:14) simply means believers are not under the condemnation of the law. They claim that because we are under grace, we are empowered to keep the law (specifically the Ten Commandments). They argue that if "not under the law" meant we don't have to keep it, then Paul's follow-up question, "Shall we sin?" (v. 15), would make no sense.

Refutation:

From a New Covenant Theology perspective, this definition is linguistically and theologically insufficient. "Under the law" (Gk. hupo nomon) refers to being under the jurisdiction and administration of the Mosaic Covenant, not merely its condemnation.

Evidence: In Galatians 4:4, Paul says Jesus was "born under the law." If "under the law" meant "under the condemnation of the law," then we would have to say Jesus was born under God’s condemnation, which is false. Jesus was born under the obligation and regime of the Mosaic Covenant to fulfill it.

The Change of Regime: Romans 6:14 contrasts two dominions: Law and Grace. The believer has been transferred from the realm of the Mosaic Law (the Old Covenant) to the realm of Grace (the New Covenant). We are not merely free from the penalty; we are free from the Mosaic Law as a master. We now serve a new Master, the Lord Jesus Christ, under the "Law of Christ" (1 Corinthians 9:21).

2. The Definition of Sin (1 John 3:4 & Romans 6:15)

SDA Argument (Video Timestamp ~10:00 – 15:30):

The speakers frequently cite 1 John 3:4 ("sin is the transgression of the law") to define sin. They argue that if we are not under the law, we would be free to sin. Therefore, "not under the law" must imply that the law still stands as the standard of behavior; otherwise, we wouldn't know what sin is (citing Romans 7:7, "I had not known sin, but by the law").

Refutation:

This argument assumes that the "Law" mentioned in 1 John 3:4 is the Mosaic Code (specifically the Ten Commandments).

Lawlessness (Anomia): The Greek word used in 1 John 3:4 is anomia (lawlessness). In the New Testament, lawlessness is a rejection of God's revealed authority. Under the New Covenant, God speaks through His Son (Hebrews 1:2). "Sin" for the Christian is defined by the Law of Christ the commands given by Jesus and His Apostles.

The Standard has Changed: While the Moral Law of the Old Covenant often overlaps with the New (e.g., idolatry, murder, theft), the authority has shifted. We avoid adultery not because Moses wrote it on stone, but because Jesus and the Apostles commanded sexual purity (1 Thessalonians 4:3).

The Sabbath Distinction: The speakers use this logic to smuggle the Sabbath into the definition of "sin." However, the New Testament lists many sins (Galatians 5:19-21), but never lists "breaking the Sabbath" as a sin for the believer. We can define sin through the Law of Christ without reverting to the Mosaic Covenant.

3. Grace Leading to the Law (Titus 2:11-12)

SDA Argument (Video Timestamp ~11:40 – 13:00):

Randy argues that grace "leads you right to the law." He cites Titus 2:11-12, which says grace teaches us to live "soberly, righteously, and godly." He then connects "righteousness" to Psalm 119:172 ("all thy commandments are righteousness") to conclude that grace teaches us to keep the Ten Commandments.

Refutation:

This is a classic "proof-texting" error where an Old Covenant definition is forced upon a New Covenant text.

The Content of Righteousness: Titus 2 does not point back to Sinai; it points forward to the character of Christ. Paul explains what "soberly, righteously, and godly" looks like in the surrounding context: older men being temperate, women being discreet, servants being obedient, etc. This is the ethical teaching of the Apostles, not a call to return to the Decalogue.

The Function of Grace: Grace does not lead us back to the tutor (the Law, Galatians 3:24-25); it leads us to maturity in Christ. The "schoolmaster" (Law) is no longer our guardian. To say grace leads us back to the Law is to reverse the flow of redemptive history.

4. "Slaves to Righteousness" and the Decalogue (Romans 6:16-19)

SDA Argument (Video Timestamp ~16:30 – 21:00):

Edwin argues that being "free from sin" means becoming "slaves of righteousness." He equates righteousness again with the Ten Commandments. He concludes that the "new man" delights in the law of God (Ten Commandments) in the inward parts.

Refutation:

New Covenant Theology affirms that the Spirit writes God's law on our hearts (Jeremiah 31:33), but we disagree on what that law is.

The Law of Christ: The law written on the heart is not the code of stone (2 Corinthians 3:3, 7 explicitly calls the stone commandments a "ministry of death" that is "done away"). The law written on the heart is the law of love and faith in Christ (Romans 3:27, "law of faith").

Romans 8:4 Fulfillment: When Romans 8:4 says the "righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us," it uses the singular dikaioma (requirement), referring to the law's core intent: Love. Romans 13:8-10 explicitly states, "he who loves another has fulfilled the law."

Spirit vs. Letter: The SDA argument misses the contrast in Romans 7:6, we serve in the "newness of the Spirit and not in the oldness of the letter." The "letter" refers to the written code (including the Decalogue). We fulfill the moral intent of the law (holiness) by walking in the Spirit, not by checking off the 10 Commandments as a legal code, and certainly not by observing the ceremonial sign of the Old Covenant (the Sabbath).

Summary

The Advent Defense League's argument rests on the assumption that "Law" always equals "Ten Commandments" and that the New Covenant merely gives us power to keep the Old Covenant rules.

New Covenant Theology refutes this: The Law was a temporary covenant for Israel. We are now under a superior Covenant with a superior Law (the Law of Christ). While we uphold moral righteousness (which is actually higher in the New Covenant, e.g., anger vs. murder), we are not "under the law" of Moses. We do not look to the Decalogue for our primary instructions, but to the commands of Jesus and His Apostles.

Former Adventists Philippines

​“Freed by the Gospel. Firm in the Word.”

For more inquiries, contact us:

Email: formeradventist.ph@gmail.com

Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/groups/formeradventistph

Help keep this content free for everyone. I am committed to sharing these truths and resources freely. If you have found value in my articles since 2021 and would like to partner with me in this ministry, your support on Ko-fi would be greatly appreciated. It helps cover the costs of maintaining this blog and creating new content.

❤️ Partner with me on Ko-fi