What is “freedom?” In today’s context we often associate the word “freedom” with the ability to exercise our will to make personal decisions for our own lives without restraint or coercion. Many will argue that the power of choice is an essential component of our humanity. Christians will argue the God created us with the power to choose. Freedom flows out of this ability to exercise choice.
"The way that Jesus describes things here and Paul picks up this language in Galatians and Ephesians and elsewhere, is that there are two kings and two kingdoms. There is the kingship of the living God. And there is the pretender kingdom of Satan who would try to usurp God’s place. What Jesus is saying is that there are two basic conditions to all of mankind. You are either under the power of God or you are under the power of Satan. You are either under the power of darkness or you are under the power of light."
I've seen this taxonomy used to back aspects of CN: governments, their laws, and their officials can either be servants of the kingdom of light or the kingdom of darkness. Is it fair/wise to extend this division through all levels of human organization, from individual to nation?
It can be a subtle distinction at times. The primary battleground is spiritual and supernatural. Because salvation “in Christ” is never fully revealed in this life, in this age, even when those who are in Christ act in the world, politically for example, that which in Christ is always also still veiled in a reality that is stained with sin. So Christians do well to remember that the battle is not between Christian institutions and worldly institutions; but rather the battle is also within the Christian institutions to fully reveal Christ within the function and artifacts of our society and institutions. Does that help?
I think so; so I should pray for/strive in whatever role/institution I find myself in to reveal Christ as best I can, knowing it will still be imperfect this side of eternity, and that the fight to reveal Christ more fully will not end until He reveals Himself fully at the end of the age?
Let me know if I'm still a bit off/incomplete. Really enjoying these posts and their challenges.
My dad, a thoughtful and deeply spiritual man, was a Christian isolationist. He believed it to be impossible for a Christian to be involved in the affairs of this world and retain his integrity. I do not embrace that position but I find it near impossible to refute from reason or evidence. To be "in the world but not of it" is supremely difficult. May God give us wisdom.
Yes, this is a choice many make. The challenge I always give to this is what if Christianity is wildly successful and it comes to be the vast majority of society, including a large number of elites? Do they leave the governance of the land to the non-Christian minority? No you govern. Same thing, the king is converted, what does he do then?
The Church is never spoken of except as a remnant, so we may not have to deal with that hypothetical in this life. But I understand your point, and share it. Like Joseph, some are called to govern.
Many of today's ideas about freedom come from John Stuart Mill, the 19th-century English liberal philosopher who wrote the essay "On Liberty" in 1859. In it, Mill emphasized individual choice against the tyranny of repressive social taboos. He outlined his "harm principle" as a guide to protect society while maximizing personal choice.
Alasdair MacIntyre? I've heard the name. He wrote 1981's After Virtue. His perspective is one of virtue ethics, à la Aristotle and Aquinas. Interesting perspective, but I tend to favor the utilitarian consequentialism of Bentham and Mill.
A very nice read and a discussion that we all need to have. Freedom is the idol of the Age and, though not in itself a bad thing, idolatrizing it has had predictable consequences, and if the Church is to stand, we must purge this idolatry from among us, to desacralize the concept.
I've been having some thought about freedom as well, and perhaps you'd entertain this thought, that freedom is negative power - that is the power to deny. So for example, if one man tells another, to give him a candy, if the man with the candy does not give it he is of course free from that mans power, but isn't it to say he has the ability (power) to deny it. To make it more clear, if the man asking had been a noble of some sort and demanded the candy, perhaps the man with the candy wouldn't have the formal power to deny the noble, but if he did nonetheless, couldn't the source of that defiance also be described as something that creates power (a strong will, perhaps?). And to say, if that man was say, the head of an influential clan, who defied the noble in spite of his lower social status, he certainly has a measure of power he is using to deny the noble, ala -power.
It works very well when it comes to explaining what is meant by Christian Freedom from Sin - In the Spirit we have the power to deny Sin as such when it comes knocking from our flesh and sinful hearts - ergo we are free from Sin. Similarly, Freedom from the Law means, that when the Law comes and accusses us and commands us to eternal death for our sin, we can say, that the Law is right, but we deny it's command by the gift of the Son, confessing our sins and them being forgiven, so we do not lose the inheritance, as the Law would demand.
Excellent essay on an essential subject! I realized that so much of our view of "freedom" is determined by our world view, and the details of that view.
Here are a few comments about bondage and freedom:
Hebrews 2:14–15 (the punchline is in vs 15)
[14] Since therefore the children share in flesh and blood, he himself likewise partook of the same things, that through death he might destroy the one who has the power of death, that is, the devil,
[15] and deliver all those who through fear of death were subject to lifelong slavery. (ESV)
Without salvation, we are "dead men walking" (see Ephesians 2). How can a "dead man" make a choice? We must be strengthened to be able to choose.
John 6:65 And he said, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father.” (ESV)
Now, with salvation, we are free, citizens of a different kingdom, at liberty to choose to live (walk) by the flesh or to live by the spirit. (see Romans 6:6-12 and Galatians 5:16-18)
Colossians 1:13 He (God) has delivered us from the domain of darkness and transferred us to the kingdom of his beloved Son, (ESV)
This is surprising to hear from a Protestant - don't you believe that the real 'freedom' promised by Paul is freedom from the burden of having to obey's God's law? (I understand that they believe that true believers *will* still keep that law to a mild extent, as somewhat-less-filthy rags, but that doesn't change the underlying problem.)
Did you read/listen to the piece "Breaking the Habits of Western Thinking: Cause and Effect Are Not a Thing"? I think that some of your concerns might be addressed there. This piece began life as a sermon, and there is only so much you can do in one message/piece. The way you phrased your response as "freedom from the burden of having to obey God's law" is somewhat loaded. If we are "in Christ" and the Spirit of God is within us, if we are drawn into the presence of the living God and we reflect his glory because of Christ and the work of the Spirit, that cannot help but be revealed in our lives. This is the work of the Spirit. As Paul says, in Galatians 5, because of the Spirit we do not do what we want to do, which is follow the old sinful nature under veils and hides who we are "in Christ." We live by the Spirit and so we bear spiritual fruit. Thus we don't need the law because with the Spirit at work in us, we do what the law would demand and more. "Since we live by the Spirit, let us keep in step with the Spirit." This is why Paul says that where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom.
Freedom is not "the law can't tell me what to do." Rather freedom means being so immersed "in Christ," in the Spirit, that we shine out with the kind of goodness that renders the law pointless. We so reveal who we are in Christ that the accuser has nothing against us with which to make an accusation. And if it is that who we are in Christ is not yet fully revealed and is masked by the sin that still clings to us, we can in faith and assurance look in faith to who we are "in Christ" and be at peace, comforted by our true self "in Christ," seen with the eyes of faith.
That said, we do need to see that the primary "freedom" is to be freed from our spiritual bondage to death at the hands of the principalities and powers, specifically the evil one. We are in the middle of a spiritual war, one that has been won, but whose victory has not yet been fully revealed. We are God's foot soldiers in the war with the usurper king, Satan. Our armor and weapons clearly set forth for us. It is a spiritual, a mystical battle.
Well, I'm not familiar with the intricacies of modern Protestant thought. Luther himself seemed to have believed in that sort of freedom: "Do not permit yourself to be robbed of this lovely conception of Christ. Christ is no Moses, no law-giver, no tyrant, but the Mediator for sins, the Giver of grace and life." (Commentary On Galatians)
I also thought '"simul justus et peccator" was clear - God cares not for what you are in substance, because his forensic declaration overrides it and makes you 'righteous' in His eyes even though you continue to sin (observe parallels to the transgender phenomenon). That being said, the idea of freedom in Christ in your response seems a lot closer to the Biblical one, and I'm happy if Protestant thinkers are trending back in that direction.
I did skim that piece and will go back and read it in more detail, but it sounded interesting. I also really like Jason Staples on this issue, I think every modern Christian ought to read him (he also posts lots of good insights in his comments section): https://www.jasonstaples.com/religion-theology/getting-grace-backwards/
Thanks for saying that what I am saying is close to scripture. My roots are in Dutch Calvinism. But a lot my theological journey has come just from reading the Bible over and over. I have read widely in other traditions, particularly the Orthodox, and the church fathers. I will say that some of the legal style concerns which use terms like “imputation of righteousness” leave me somewhat cold. I prefer the more spiritual and mystical nature of the NT language itself.
Luther's belief on freedom is very similar to Kruptos, and you are just taking a quote out of context of a long work about that exact topic (which I really reccommend, if you have a spare three months and a penchant for difficult theology). And though certainly we Lutherans (and you really shouldn't use Protestant desrciptively these days, some churches have more in common with Rome than each other, Lutherans to take an example. To illustrate, mr Staples who you link writes on the doctrine of Entire Sanctification, which is a core Methodist(ergo protestant) doctrine, famously the more devoted backers of MLK et. al.) have had problems with Agricola style thought, but he was condemned from day one, and anti-nomianism today (a Paulsen comes to mind) is not an accepted doctrine. Galatians is a long book, but if you want proof of the way Luther thought, just read the Small Catecishm and answer yourself if that was written by an anti-nomian.
As for Entire Sanctification, the problem with that is that death is the wage of sin - ergo, if someone was able to become wholly sinless in this life, he would not die. As noone has quite accomplished that feat, not even the Apostles, it is impossible either by human means or by human nature. And this is where "simul justus et pecator" comes in. The Old Adam lives as long we remain on this World, because the Flesh is of the world, it is corrupt to the root by original sin, which dwells within the flesh (Romans 7:14-25). For the godless, the fault for the sins of the flesh is counted to them, but for the faithful, the sin is at fault, not them. This doesn't mean we are allowed to sin. God's grace is not cheap - in fact. it is beyond value. The key to this is in what the Romans have a myth of accusing Luther of removing from the Bible(he didn't, we only dropped the OT Deuterocanon), James, or "Faith without works is dead". Obviously a dead faith doesn't justify, but a living faith seeks to follow the Law simply because God wishes it, not some mercenary striving for salvation. Entire Sanctification falls into legalism, which is, to take Galatians, a problem in the Apostle's days even, and furthermore dangerous to faith, as it either puts you in the position of the Pharisee, foolishly believeing that he has fulfilled something that he can't, or Judas who stands naked in the face of an angry God that he cannot please. The Christian with the Gospel is in the position of the taxman, who confesses his guilt to a loving father, with no fear of losing his father's love because of the confession, and no fear at any corrections the Lord may make. This is the Biblical understanding of Freedom from Law (and Lutherans do not deny Sanctification or Freedom from Sin ( I like to count Christian Freedoms as three, those two and Freedom from Death)) and Krutpos has nailed it pretty well, speaking from the other side too, so he can count on bi-partisan praise. The Church does have a problem with Anti-nomianism, but it has never been doctrinally sound
Well, yes, there are some groups like Wesleyans who have a different view of the matter, but the majority of Protestants have never held to entire sanctification, and certainly don't today - most "Christians" in the developed world, including Roman Catholics now, would probably assume that Christ came to spare us from being righteous rather than making us so (watch the scene in 'The Chosen' where Jesus forgives Mary Magdalene). You're also assuming that I'm calling Luther an antinomian, which I'm not - in his view, good works are simply an perk, a bonus feature that you get with the main item, salvation. Because of this, he must argue that God saves by 'lying' (I understand Protestants don't consider it such, but it is) to declare a sinner righteous, whereas the Biblical understanding is that God declares righteous who is truly righteous. He also has to create a division between the Old and New Covenants on the basis of 'law vs grace' due to the former's clear demands for lawkeeping, making the message of Moses tyrannical by contrast to Paul's.
"Entire Sanctification falls into legalism, which is, to take Galatians, a problem in the Apostle's days even, and furthermore dangerous to faith, as it either puts you in the position of the Pharisee, foolishly believeing that he has fulfilled something that he can't"
Protestants don't ever seem to properly define 'legalism' - here, you use it to mean covenantal nomism (the obligation to fulfill works of the covenant on pain of its termination), which Sola Fide rejects. It can also mean 'putting the letter of the law over the spirit', which is actually the critique of the Pharisees being made in the New Testament:
"Woe to you, blind guides, who say, ‘If any one swears by the temple, it is nothing; but if any one swears by the gold of the temple, he is bound by his oath.’ You blind fools! For which is greater, the gold or the temple that has made the gold sacred? And you say, ‘If any one swears by the altar, it is nothing; but if any one swears by the gift that is on the altar, he is bound by his oath.’ You blind men! For which is greater, the gift or the altar that makes the gift sacred?"
"You have a fine way of rejecting the commandment of God, in order to keep your tradition! For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and your mother’; and, ‘He who speaks evil of father or mother, let him surely die’; but you say, ‘If a man tells his father or his mother, What you would have gained from me is Corban’ (that is, given to God) - then you no longer permit him to do anything for his father or mother, thus making void the word of God through your tradition which you hand on. And many such things you do."
"Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for you tithe mint and dill and cumin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law, justice and mercy and faith; these you ought to have done, without neglecting the others."
The Pharisees aren't condemned for believing in their own righteousness, they're condemned for being wicked men - not according to God's perfect unattainable standard, but by human standards as well! They 'found loopholes' in God's law to allow them to sin freely, as well as not even following what they preached if it was difficult, and they only pretended to be righteous:
"The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat; so practice and observe whatever they tell you, but not what they do; for they preach, but do not practice. They bind heavy burdens, hard to bear, and lay them on men’s shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with their finger. They do all their deeds to be seen by men"
Because of this, you are forced to interpret every time Jesus demands righteousness from his followers as being some bizarre form of sarcasm, including the Sermon on the Mount itself.
"For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven."
Oh, I guess he didn't actually mean that, he was just explaining how impossible it is to by justified by works, that even those ultra-lawkeeping (parent-dishonoring, oathbreaking, widow's house-devouring, hypocritical) Pharisees couldn't be justified by it. Does that interpretation strike you as a natural reading of the text?
New Testament freedom is about freedom from the world and the law of flesh. This is why Paul asks the Galatians "Having begun with the Spirit, are you now ending with the flesh?" And Peter says, "They promise them freedom, but they themselves are slaves of corruption; for whatever overcomes a man, to that he is enslaved. For if, after they have escaped the defilements of the world through the knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ..."
There's no concept of Christ providing 'freedom' from guilt or the crushing burden of not reaching an unattainable standard. That was Luther's invention, because he himself was enslaved to lust his whole life and never escaped. He never will, now.
But there is, and the standard of the Law is called unattainable by Paul quite clearly. Romans 3:9
"What shall we conclude then? Do we have any advantage? Not at all! For we have already made the charge that Jews and Gentiles alike are all under the power of sin. 10 As it is written:
“There is no one righteous, not even one;
11 there is no one who understands;
there is no one who seeks God.
12 All have turned away,
they have together become worthless;
there is no one who does good,
not even one.”[b]
13 “Their throats are open graves;
their tongues practice deceit.”[c]
“The poison of vipers is on their lips.”[d]
14 “Their mouths are full of cursing and bitterness.”[e]
15 “Their feet are swift to shed blood;
16 ruin and misery mark their ways,
17 and the way of peace they do not know.”[f]
18 “There is no fear of God before their eyes.”[g]
19 Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be silenced and the whole world held accountable to God. 20 Therefore no one will be declared righteous in God’s sight by the works of the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of our sin."
So therefore as noone is just in himself or by the works of the Law, the Law does not bring righteousness. Luther is being a bit hyperbolic there I grant you put the point needed to be put thorouhgly at the time.
Paul continues to explain how righteousness is actually achieved, because, as you say, it is the standard to get into the Kingdom of Heaven. Romans 3:21-30
"21 But now apart from the law the righteousness of God has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. 22 This righteousness is given through faith in[h] Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference between Jew and Gentile, 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 and all are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. 25 God presented Christ as a sacrifice of atonement,[i] through the shedding of his blood—to be received by faith. He did this to demonstrate his righteousness, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished— 26 he did it to demonstrate his righteousness at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus.
27 Where, then, is boasting? It is excluded. Because of what law? The law that requires works? No, because of the law that requires faith. 28 For we maintain that a person is justified by faith apart from the works of the law. 29 Or is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles too? Yes, of Gentiles too, 30 since there is only one God, who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through that same faith"
I think "Justified by Faith apart from the Works of the Law" is quite clear. mind you, we are talking Justification not sanctification, and indeed, the former is the primary article. As it should be, because upon it depends our entrance into the Kingdom of Heaven. And, as Christ says: 19 “Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moths and vermin destroy, and where thieves break in and steal. 20 But store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where moths and vermin do not destroy, and where thieves do not break in and steal. 21 For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also." (Matthew 6:19-21). Sanctification is a good thing, a neccesary consequence of a living faith and of the means of grace within the sacraments, and we Lutherans sing in Chorus with Paul in Romans 3:31 " Do we, then, nullify the law by this faith? Not at all! Rather, we uphold the law.", but it is not a matter of justification. Let us remember the penintent thief! Was he a holy man, a saint? No, he was a robber, probably a murderer, hanging on the cross completely deservedly. And still, when he called to Christ Crucified, for grace to this sinner, what was the answer? "
Truly I tell you, today you will be with me in paradise.". His faith was, as Paul writes repeatedly in Romans 4, quoting Genesis 15:6, "credited to him as righteousness". And so, as it is for Abraham it is for all of us (Romans 4:22-24).
And there is a freedom from the law - in Galatians 5:1. "It is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm, then, and do not let yourselves be burdened again by a yoke of slavery." And from context of Galatians 4:24-25 "24 These things are being taken figuratively: The women represent two covenants. One covenant is from Mount Sinai and bears children who are to be slaves: This is Hagar. 25 Now Hagar stands for Mount Sinai in Arabia and corresponds to the present city of Jerusalem, because she is in slavery with her children." It is clear that it is mean to be Freedom from the Law. Furthermore Gal. 5: 13 "You, my brothers and sisters, were called to be free. But do not use your freedom to indulge the flesh; rather, serve one another humbly in love. " Do say that it is the Freedom from the Law, and not sin, that he is talking about - and that it is not to be abused. For how could freedom from sin be used to indulge in sin? And furthermore, speaking of Galatians, when I say legalism I mean what Paul was combatting here, to an extent - with the caveat, that when he says Law he means all of it, not just the Jewish ceremonial, as writes Luther.
As for the Pharisees, you didn't catch the Parable, but it is my fault I should have named the passage. Luke 18:9-14 "9 To some who were confident of their own righteousness and looked down on everyone else, Jesus told this parable: 10 “Two men went up to the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. 11 The Pharisee stood by himself and prayed: ‘God, I thank you that I am not like other people—robbers, evildoers, adulterers—or even like this tax collector. 12 I fast twice a week and give a tenth of all I get.’
13 “But the tax collector stood at a distance. He would not even look up to heaven, but beat his breast and said, ‘God, have mercy on me, a sinner.’
14 “I tell you that this man, rather than the other, went home justified before God. For all those who exalt themselves will be humbled, and those who humble themselves will be exalted.” Indeed, Christ is not criticizing the Pharisee's, but rather using one as a simile for his own followers! And see, the problem of the Pharisee is not that he is a great sinner, but that in his arrogance he boasts himself, not the might of God - and that is the High Throne that Mary's Magnificat speaks of. But the Tax Coillector, though he is a great sinner, is redeemed because he brings his conscience before the Almighty and confesses his sin in humble faith to Grace.
With all that said, I think Sola Fide shines clearly through the pages of the New Testament, and Luther died in justified peace. You really should go read his commentary of Galatians though.
Look what I've drawn... are Protestants capable of doing more than mindlessly chanting their favorite Romans verses, like a mantra?
Yes, the law was unattainable *according to the flesh*. That's why Christ fulfilled the law perfectly, and Christians are united to him spiritually - making us able to do the same. Old Covenant believers, which Paul speaks of, were ultimately unable to obey on their own and were overcome ('enslaved') by sin.
The penitent thief confessed his sins and publicly defended Jesus. It's not required to perform a set number of works to be good enough (as a strawman would have it), but rather to reciprocate Christ with what he gives us. This is why the thief is promised a reward from him, despite having been a sinner.
The parable of the Pharisee and Publican is meant to illustrate the dangers of pride. The Pharisee declared himself righteous, rather than waiting for God to judge him, and was judged by his own standard (the implicit understanding was that indeed no one could be truly righteous without Christ, but even those in Christ should not judge or elevate themselves, as 1 Corinthians 4:3 makes clear). That is what 'judge not, lest you be judged' means, a warning against hypocrisy.
It is best not to search the Bible for passages confirming your views and putting them together, but to view it as a whole and weigh how all verses on the matter fit together. That Christ views the Pharisees not as advocates of 'works' opposing his free grace but as sinners and hypocrites by anyone's standard, is easy to demonstrate beyond a doubt.
Erick Ybarra is good at breaking down Paul's message in Romans, these may help you to read:
Romans 7:25 Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, I myself serve the law of God with my mind, but with my flesh I serve the law of sin. (ESV) "my mind" here is the "mind of Christ". The "law of God" (not the mosaic law) is written in our hearts.
This is SO good. When I first found your work, Kruptos, they were your more overtly Christian writings like this one.
They helped me to know your worldview and allowed me to trust you with other ideas and interests.
In everything you write, overtly Christian or otherwise, I feel challenged to simply focus on being, for lack of a better word, a historically orthodox Christian.
I praise the Lord for you and pray for you and your family.
Thank you for bowing the knee to our King and His Lordship in all spheres of life.
Thanks you ever so much David. It is hard to hold it all together sometimes and to be able to integrate it seamlessly. Part of what I wanted to do here is to challenge the widespread practice that to get a wider hearing you have to focus on the Greek philosophers or "secular" philosophy. Plato or Moses should not be a dichotomy. There is as much, if not more power to speak politically from the Bible. And I think that many Christians are running ahead when we really need to deepen our spiritual position first.
"The way that Jesus describes things here and Paul picks up this language in Galatians and Ephesians and elsewhere, is that there are two kings and two kingdoms. There is the kingship of the living God. And there is the pretender kingdom of Satan who would try to usurp God’s place. What Jesus is saying is that there are two basic conditions to all of mankind. You are either under the power of God or you are under the power of Satan. You are either under the power of darkness or you are under the power of light."
I've seen this taxonomy used to back aspects of CN: governments, their laws, and their officials can either be servants of the kingdom of light or the kingdom of darkness. Is it fair/wise to extend this division through all levels of human organization, from individual to nation?
It can be a subtle distinction at times. The primary battleground is spiritual and supernatural. Because salvation “in Christ” is never fully revealed in this life, in this age, even when those who are in Christ act in the world, politically for example, that which in Christ is always also still veiled in a reality that is stained with sin. So Christians do well to remember that the battle is not between Christian institutions and worldly institutions; but rather the battle is also within the Christian institutions to fully reveal Christ within the function and artifacts of our society and institutions. Does that help?
I think so; so I should pray for/strive in whatever role/institution I find myself in to reveal Christ as best I can, knowing it will still be imperfect this side of eternity, and that the fight to reveal Christ more fully will not end until He reveals Himself fully at the end of the age?
Let me know if I'm still a bit off/incomplete. Really enjoying these posts and their challenges.
Thanks. Hearing feedback like this is really what makes all the work of writing worthwhile. And, yes, that captures it very well.
My dad, a thoughtful and deeply spiritual man, was a Christian isolationist. He believed it to be impossible for a Christian to be involved in the affairs of this world and retain his integrity. I do not embrace that position but I find it near impossible to refute from reason or evidence. To be "in the world but not of it" is supremely difficult. May God give us wisdom.
Yes, this is a choice many make. The challenge I always give to this is what if Christianity is wildly successful and it comes to be the vast majority of society, including a large number of elites? Do they leave the governance of the land to the non-Christian minority? No you govern. Same thing, the king is converted, what does he do then?
The Church is never spoken of except as a remnant, so we may not have to deal with that hypothetical in this life. But I understand your point, and share it. Like Joseph, some are called to govern.
Exactly. Some are called to govern and we should think about what that means from a Christian perspective.
That made my Sunday morning. Amen
Thanks! I am glad to hear that.
Many of today's ideas about freedom come from John Stuart Mill, the 19th-century English liberal philosopher who wrote the essay "On Liberty" in 1859. In it, Mill emphasized individual choice against the tyranny of repressive social taboos. He outlined his "harm principle" as a guide to protect society while maximizing personal choice.
And those principles like “harm” have been exposed as faulty by authors like Alisdair MacIntyre.
Alasdair MacIntyre? I've heard the name. He wrote 1981's After Virtue. His perspective is one of virtue ethics, à la Aristotle and Aquinas. Interesting perspective, but I tend to favor the utilitarian consequentialism of Bentham and Mill.
A very nice read and a discussion that we all need to have. Freedom is the idol of the Age and, though not in itself a bad thing, idolatrizing it has had predictable consequences, and if the Church is to stand, we must purge this idolatry from among us, to desacralize the concept.
I've been having some thought about freedom as well, and perhaps you'd entertain this thought, that freedom is negative power - that is the power to deny. So for example, if one man tells another, to give him a candy, if the man with the candy does not give it he is of course free from that mans power, but isn't it to say he has the ability (power) to deny it. To make it more clear, if the man asking had been a noble of some sort and demanded the candy, perhaps the man with the candy wouldn't have the formal power to deny the noble, but if he did nonetheless, couldn't the source of that defiance also be described as something that creates power (a strong will, perhaps?). And to say, if that man was say, the head of an influential clan, who defied the noble in spite of his lower social status, he certainly has a measure of power he is using to deny the noble, ala -power.
It works very well when it comes to explaining what is meant by Christian Freedom from Sin - In the Spirit we have the power to deny Sin as such when it comes knocking from our flesh and sinful hearts - ergo we are free from Sin. Similarly, Freedom from the Law means, that when the Law comes and accusses us and commands us to eternal death for our sin, we can say, that the Law is right, but we deny it's command by the gift of the Son, confessing our sins and them being forgiven, so we do not lose the inheritance, as the Law would demand.
Excellent essay on an essential subject! I realized that so much of our view of "freedom" is determined by our world view, and the details of that view.
Here are a few comments about bondage and freedom:
Hebrews 2:14–15 (the punchline is in vs 15)
[14] Since therefore the children share in flesh and blood, he himself likewise partook of the same things, that through death he might destroy the one who has the power of death, that is, the devil,
[15] and deliver all those who through fear of death were subject to lifelong slavery. (ESV)
Without salvation, we are "dead men walking" (see Ephesians 2). How can a "dead man" make a choice? We must be strengthened to be able to choose.
John 6:65 And he said, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father.” (ESV)
Now, with salvation, we are free, citizens of a different kingdom, at liberty to choose to live (walk) by the flesh or to live by the spirit. (see Romans 6:6-12 and Galatians 5:16-18)
Colossians 1:13 He (God) has delivered us from the domain of darkness and transferred us to the kingdom of his beloved Son, (ESV)
Keep up the good work!
Thanks Keith!
This is surprising to hear from a Protestant - don't you believe that the real 'freedom' promised by Paul is freedom from the burden of having to obey's God's law? (I understand that they believe that true believers *will* still keep that law to a mild extent, as somewhat-less-filthy rags, but that doesn't change the underlying problem.)
Did you read/listen to the piece "Breaking the Habits of Western Thinking: Cause and Effect Are Not a Thing"? I think that some of your concerns might be addressed there. This piece began life as a sermon, and there is only so much you can do in one message/piece. The way you phrased your response as "freedom from the burden of having to obey God's law" is somewhat loaded. If we are "in Christ" and the Spirit of God is within us, if we are drawn into the presence of the living God and we reflect his glory because of Christ and the work of the Spirit, that cannot help but be revealed in our lives. This is the work of the Spirit. As Paul says, in Galatians 5, because of the Spirit we do not do what we want to do, which is follow the old sinful nature under veils and hides who we are "in Christ." We live by the Spirit and so we bear spiritual fruit. Thus we don't need the law because with the Spirit at work in us, we do what the law would demand and more. "Since we live by the Spirit, let us keep in step with the Spirit." This is why Paul says that where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom.
Freedom is not "the law can't tell me what to do." Rather freedom means being so immersed "in Christ," in the Spirit, that we shine out with the kind of goodness that renders the law pointless. We so reveal who we are in Christ that the accuser has nothing against us with which to make an accusation. And if it is that who we are in Christ is not yet fully revealed and is masked by the sin that still clings to us, we can in faith and assurance look in faith to who we are "in Christ" and be at peace, comforted by our true self "in Christ," seen with the eyes of faith.
That said, we do need to see that the primary "freedom" is to be freed from our spiritual bondage to death at the hands of the principalities and powers, specifically the evil one. We are in the middle of a spiritual war, one that has been won, but whose victory has not yet been fully revealed. We are God's foot soldiers in the war with the usurper king, Satan. Our armor and weapons clearly set forth for us. It is a spiritual, a mystical battle.
Well, I'm not familiar with the intricacies of modern Protestant thought. Luther himself seemed to have believed in that sort of freedom: "Do not permit yourself to be robbed of this lovely conception of Christ. Christ is no Moses, no law-giver, no tyrant, but the Mediator for sins, the Giver of grace and life." (Commentary On Galatians)
I also thought '"simul justus et peccator" was clear - God cares not for what you are in substance, because his forensic declaration overrides it and makes you 'righteous' in His eyes even though you continue to sin (observe parallels to the transgender phenomenon). That being said, the idea of freedom in Christ in your response seems a lot closer to the Biblical one, and I'm happy if Protestant thinkers are trending back in that direction.
I did skim that piece and will go back and read it in more detail, but it sounded interesting. I also really like Jason Staples on this issue, I think every modern Christian ought to read him (he also posts lots of good insights in his comments section): https://www.jasonstaples.com/religion-theology/getting-grace-backwards/
Thanks for saying that what I am saying is close to scripture. My roots are in Dutch Calvinism. But a lot my theological journey has come just from reading the Bible over and over. I have read widely in other traditions, particularly the Orthodox, and the church fathers. I will say that some of the legal style concerns which use terms like “imputation of righteousness” leave me somewhat cold. I prefer the more spiritual and mystical nature of the NT language itself.
Luther's belief on freedom is very similar to Kruptos, and you are just taking a quote out of context of a long work about that exact topic (which I really reccommend, if you have a spare three months and a penchant for difficult theology). And though certainly we Lutherans (and you really shouldn't use Protestant desrciptively these days, some churches have more in common with Rome than each other, Lutherans to take an example. To illustrate, mr Staples who you link writes on the doctrine of Entire Sanctification, which is a core Methodist(ergo protestant) doctrine, famously the more devoted backers of MLK et. al.) have had problems with Agricola style thought, but he was condemned from day one, and anti-nomianism today (a Paulsen comes to mind) is not an accepted doctrine. Galatians is a long book, but if you want proof of the way Luther thought, just read the Small Catecishm and answer yourself if that was written by an anti-nomian.
As for Entire Sanctification, the problem with that is that death is the wage of sin - ergo, if someone was able to become wholly sinless in this life, he would not die. As noone has quite accomplished that feat, not even the Apostles, it is impossible either by human means or by human nature. And this is where "simul justus et pecator" comes in. The Old Adam lives as long we remain on this World, because the Flesh is of the world, it is corrupt to the root by original sin, which dwells within the flesh (Romans 7:14-25). For the godless, the fault for the sins of the flesh is counted to them, but for the faithful, the sin is at fault, not them. This doesn't mean we are allowed to sin. God's grace is not cheap - in fact. it is beyond value. The key to this is in what the Romans have a myth of accusing Luther of removing from the Bible(he didn't, we only dropped the OT Deuterocanon), James, or "Faith without works is dead". Obviously a dead faith doesn't justify, but a living faith seeks to follow the Law simply because God wishes it, not some mercenary striving for salvation. Entire Sanctification falls into legalism, which is, to take Galatians, a problem in the Apostle's days even, and furthermore dangerous to faith, as it either puts you in the position of the Pharisee, foolishly believeing that he has fulfilled something that he can't, or Judas who stands naked in the face of an angry God that he cannot please. The Christian with the Gospel is in the position of the taxman, who confesses his guilt to a loving father, with no fear of losing his father's love because of the confession, and no fear at any corrections the Lord may make. This is the Biblical understanding of Freedom from Law (and Lutherans do not deny Sanctification or Freedom from Sin ( I like to count Christian Freedoms as three, those two and Freedom from Death)) and Krutpos has nailed it pretty well, speaking from the other side too, so he can count on bi-partisan praise. The Church does have a problem with Anti-nomianism, but it has never been doctrinally sound
Well, yes, there are some groups like Wesleyans who have a different view of the matter, but the majority of Protestants have never held to entire sanctification, and certainly don't today - most "Christians" in the developed world, including Roman Catholics now, would probably assume that Christ came to spare us from being righteous rather than making us so (watch the scene in 'The Chosen' where Jesus forgives Mary Magdalene). You're also assuming that I'm calling Luther an antinomian, which I'm not - in his view, good works are simply an perk, a bonus feature that you get with the main item, salvation. Because of this, he must argue that God saves by 'lying' (I understand Protestants don't consider it such, but it is) to declare a sinner righteous, whereas the Biblical understanding is that God declares righteous who is truly righteous. He also has to create a division between the Old and New Covenants on the basis of 'law vs grace' due to the former's clear demands for lawkeeping, making the message of Moses tyrannical by contrast to Paul's.
"Entire Sanctification falls into legalism, which is, to take Galatians, a problem in the Apostle's days even, and furthermore dangerous to faith, as it either puts you in the position of the Pharisee, foolishly believeing that he has fulfilled something that he can't"
Protestants don't ever seem to properly define 'legalism' - here, you use it to mean covenantal nomism (the obligation to fulfill works of the covenant on pain of its termination), which Sola Fide rejects. It can also mean 'putting the letter of the law over the spirit', which is actually the critique of the Pharisees being made in the New Testament:
"Woe to you, blind guides, who say, ‘If any one swears by the temple, it is nothing; but if any one swears by the gold of the temple, he is bound by his oath.’ You blind fools! For which is greater, the gold or the temple that has made the gold sacred? And you say, ‘If any one swears by the altar, it is nothing; but if any one swears by the gift that is on the altar, he is bound by his oath.’ You blind men! For which is greater, the gift or the altar that makes the gift sacred?"
"You have a fine way of rejecting the commandment of God, in order to keep your tradition! For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and your mother’; and, ‘He who speaks evil of father or mother, let him surely die’; but you say, ‘If a man tells his father or his mother, What you would have gained from me is Corban’ (that is, given to God) - then you no longer permit him to do anything for his father or mother, thus making void the word of God through your tradition which you hand on. And many such things you do."
"Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for you tithe mint and dill and cumin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law, justice and mercy and faith; these you ought to have done, without neglecting the others."
The Pharisees aren't condemned for believing in their own righteousness, they're condemned for being wicked men - not according to God's perfect unattainable standard, but by human standards as well! They 'found loopholes' in God's law to allow them to sin freely, as well as not even following what they preached if it was difficult, and they only pretended to be righteous:
"The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat; so practice and observe whatever they tell you, but not what they do; for they preach, but do not practice. They bind heavy burdens, hard to bear, and lay them on men’s shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with their finger. They do all their deeds to be seen by men"
Because of this, you are forced to interpret every time Jesus demands righteousness from his followers as being some bizarre form of sarcasm, including the Sermon on the Mount itself.
"For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven."
Oh, I guess he didn't actually mean that, he was just explaining how impossible it is to by justified by works, that even those ultra-lawkeeping (parent-dishonoring, oathbreaking, widow's house-devouring, hypocritical) Pharisees couldn't be justified by it. Does that interpretation strike you as a natural reading of the text?
New Testament freedom is about freedom from the world and the law of flesh. This is why Paul asks the Galatians "Having begun with the Spirit, are you now ending with the flesh?" And Peter says, "They promise them freedom, but they themselves are slaves of corruption; for whatever overcomes a man, to that he is enslaved. For if, after they have escaped the defilements of the world through the knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ..."
There's no concept of Christ providing 'freedom' from guilt or the crushing burden of not reaching an unattainable standard. That was Luther's invention, because he himself was enslaved to lust his whole life and never escaped. He never will, now.
But there is, and the standard of the Law is called unattainable by Paul quite clearly. Romans 3:9
"What shall we conclude then? Do we have any advantage? Not at all! For we have already made the charge that Jews and Gentiles alike are all under the power of sin. 10 As it is written:
“There is no one righteous, not even one;
11 there is no one who understands;
there is no one who seeks God.
12 All have turned away,
they have together become worthless;
there is no one who does good,
not even one.”[b]
13 “Their throats are open graves;
their tongues practice deceit.”[c]
“The poison of vipers is on their lips.”[d]
14 “Their mouths are full of cursing and bitterness.”[e]
15 “Their feet are swift to shed blood;
16 ruin and misery mark their ways,
17 and the way of peace they do not know.”[f]
18 “There is no fear of God before their eyes.”[g]
19 Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be silenced and the whole world held accountable to God. 20 Therefore no one will be declared righteous in God’s sight by the works of the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of our sin."
So therefore as noone is just in himself or by the works of the Law, the Law does not bring righteousness. Luther is being a bit hyperbolic there I grant you put the point needed to be put thorouhgly at the time.
Paul continues to explain how righteousness is actually achieved, because, as you say, it is the standard to get into the Kingdom of Heaven. Romans 3:21-30
"21 But now apart from the law the righteousness of God has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. 22 This righteousness is given through faith in[h] Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference between Jew and Gentile, 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 and all are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. 25 God presented Christ as a sacrifice of atonement,[i] through the shedding of his blood—to be received by faith. He did this to demonstrate his righteousness, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished— 26 he did it to demonstrate his righteousness at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus.
27 Where, then, is boasting? It is excluded. Because of what law? The law that requires works? No, because of the law that requires faith. 28 For we maintain that a person is justified by faith apart from the works of the law. 29 Or is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles too? Yes, of Gentiles too, 30 since there is only one God, who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through that same faith"
I think "Justified by Faith apart from the Works of the Law" is quite clear. mind you, we are talking Justification not sanctification, and indeed, the former is the primary article. As it should be, because upon it depends our entrance into the Kingdom of Heaven. And, as Christ says: 19 “Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moths and vermin destroy, and where thieves break in and steal. 20 But store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where moths and vermin do not destroy, and where thieves do not break in and steal. 21 For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also." (Matthew 6:19-21). Sanctification is a good thing, a neccesary consequence of a living faith and of the means of grace within the sacraments, and we Lutherans sing in Chorus with Paul in Romans 3:31 " Do we, then, nullify the law by this faith? Not at all! Rather, we uphold the law.", but it is not a matter of justification. Let us remember the penintent thief! Was he a holy man, a saint? No, he was a robber, probably a murderer, hanging on the cross completely deservedly. And still, when he called to Christ Crucified, for grace to this sinner, what was the answer? "
Truly I tell you, today you will be with me in paradise.". His faith was, as Paul writes repeatedly in Romans 4, quoting Genesis 15:6, "credited to him as righteousness". And so, as it is for Abraham it is for all of us (Romans 4:22-24).
And there is a freedom from the law - in Galatians 5:1. "It is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm, then, and do not let yourselves be burdened again by a yoke of slavery." And from context of Galatians 4:24-25 "24 These things are being taken figuratively: The women represent two covenants. One covenant is from Mount Sinai and bears children who are to be slaves: This is Hagar. 25 Now Hagar stands for Mount Sinai in Arabia and corresponds to the present city of Jerusalem, because she is in slavery with her children." It is clear that it is mean to be Freedom from the Law. Furthermore Gal. 5: 13 "You, my brothers and sisters, were called to be free. But do not use your freedom to indulge the flesh; rather, serve one another humbly in love. " Do say that it is the Freedom from the Law, and not sin, that he is talking about - and that it is not to be abused. For how could freedom from sin be used to indulge in sin? And furthermore, speaking of Galatians, when I say legalism I mean what Paul was combatting here, to an extent - with the caveat, that when he says Law he means all of it, not just the Jewish ceremonial, as writes Luther.
As for the Pharisees, you didn't catch the Parable, but it is my fault I should have named the passage. Luke 18:9-14 "9 To some who were confident of their own righteousness and looked down on everyone else, Jesus told this parable: 10 “Two men went up to the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. 11 The Pharisee stood by himself and prayed: ‘God, I thank you that I am not like other people—robbers, evildoers, adulterers—or even like this tax collector. 12 I fast twice a week and give a tenth of all I get.’
13 “But the tax collector stood at a distance. He would not even look up to heaven, but beat his breast and said, ‘God, have mercy on me, a sinner.’
14 “I tell you that this man, rather than the other, went home justified before God. For all those who exalt themselves will be humbled, and those who humble themselves will be exalted.” Indeed, Christ is not criticizing the Pharisee's, but rather using one as a simile for his own followers! And see, the problem of the Pharisee is not that he is a great sinner, but that in his arrogance he boasts himself, not the might of God - and that is the High Throne that Mary's Magnificat speaks of. But the Tax Coillector, though he is a great sinner, is redeemed because he brings his conscience before the Almighty and confesses his sin in humble faith to Grace.
With all that said, I think Sola Fide shines clearly through the pages of the New Testament, and Luther died in justified peace. You really should go read his commentary of Galatians though.
Look what I've drawn... are Protestants capable of doing more than mindlessly chanting their favorite Romans verses, like a mantra?
Yes, the law was unattainable *according to the flesh*. That's why Christ fulfilled the law perfectly, and Christians are united to him spiritually - making us able to do the same. Old Covenant believers, which Paul speaks of, were ultimately unable to obey on their own and were overcome ('enslaved') by sin.
The penitent thief confessed his sins and publicly defended Jesus. It's not required to perform a set number of works to be good enough (as a strawman would have it), but rather to reciprocate Christ with what he gives us. This is why the thief is promised a reward from him, despite having been a sinner.
The parable of the Pharisee and Publican is meant to illustrate the dangers of pride. The Pharisee declared himself righteous, rather than waiting for God to judge him, and was judged by his own standard (the implicit understanding was that indeed no one could be truly righteous without Christ, but even those in Christ should not judge or elevate themselves, as 1 Corinthians 4:3 makes clear). That is what 'judge not, lest you be judged' means, a warning against hypocrisy.
It is best not to search the Bible for passages confirming your views and putting them together, but to view it as a whole and weigh how all verses on the matter fit together. That Christ views the Pharisees not as advocates of 'works' opposing his free grace but as sinners and hypocrites by anyone's standard, is easy to demonstrate beyond a doubt.
Erick Ybarra is good at breaking down Paul's message in Romans, these may help you to read:
https://erickybarra.wordpress.com/2020/12/20/pauline-soteriology-justification-and-the-workless-justification-of-romans-4/
https://erickybarra.wordpress.com/2021/05/03/justification-by-believing/
Don't forget we are in the 2nd covenant.
Romans 7:25 Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, I myself serve the law of God with my mind, but with my flesh I serve the law of sin. (ESV) "my mind" here is the "mind of Christ". The "law of God" (not the mosaic law) is written in our hearts.
Thank you.
You’re welcome!
This is SO good. When I first found your work, Kruptos, they were your more overtly Christian writings like this one.
They helped me to know your worldview and allowed me to trust you with other ideas and interests.
In everything you write, overtly Christian or otherwise, I feel challenged to simply focus on being, for lack of a better word, a historically orthodox Christian.
I praise the Lord for you and pray for you and your family.
Thank you for bowing the knee to our King and His Lordship in all spheres of life.
Thanks you ever so much David. It is hard to hold it all together sometimes and to be able to integrate it seamlessly. Part of what I wanted to do here is to challenge the widespread practice that to get a wider hearing you have to focus on the Greek philosophers or "secular" philosophy. Plato or Moses should not be a dichotomy. There is as much, if not more power to speak politically from the Bible. And I think that many Christians are running ahead when we really need to deepen our spiritual position first.