Freedom, Liberty and Law

The Proper Use of Freedom

    What does it mean to be a "Free Christian?" Historically, theologians dubbed this issue Christian liberty; my confession (WCF) calls it Christian Liberty, Chapter XX. Does this mean that a Christian is free to act in the spirit of liberty, meaning he can sin with the afterthought of being forgiven? Could this be the proper doctrine of Christian liberty? Is liberty inherently antinomian, that is, against law?

    With this array of questions, many of which can be defined, I believe that the content of the Bible does not leave us with a "non-Law" view of Christian liberty. Schaeffer called this sort of freedom "Freedom in form." That means that freedom (politically) exists in forms or categories. For instance, within Box 1 there's content A and B. All that can and ever exist in Box 1 is contained in the categories of A and B. Anything else is not categorically non-Box 1; ergo, not freedom. It is purely a proper view of law and liberty. The Bible that was put out by Reformation Trust—R. C. Sproul's publishers—comments on the topic of liberty (p. 1700):

Salvation in Christ is liberation, and the Christian life is one of liberty—Christ has set us free (Gal. 5:1; cf. John 8:32, 36). Christ's liberating action is not basically social, political, or economic improvement, as is sometimes suggested today; it is liberation from the law as a means to salvation, from the power of sin, and from superstition.

The Westminster Confession puts it this way:

God alone is Lord of the conscience,¹⁰ and hath left it free from the doctrines and commandments of men, which are, in anything, contrary to his Word; or beside it, if matters of faith, or worship.¹¹ So that, to believe such doctrines, or to obey such commands, out of conscience, is to betray true liberty of conscience:¹² and the requiring of an implicit faith, and an absolute and blind obedience, is to destroy liberty of conscience, and reason also.¹³

10. James 4:12; Rom. 14:4, 10; I Cor. 10:29

11. Acts 4:19, 5:29; I Cor. 7:22-23; Matt. 15:1-6, 9; 23:8-10; II Cor. 1:24

12. Col. 2:20-23; Gal. 1:10; 2:4-5; 4:9-10; 5:1

13. Rom. 10:17; Isa. 8:20; Acts 17:11; John 4:22; Rev. 13:12, 16-17; Jer. 8:9; I Peter 3:15

Freedom as defined by both R.C. Sproul and the Westminster Confession defines freedom from the commandments of men, not God's. After all, we must assume a deontological tenacity of the law, meaning that the law as coming from God must and shall remain perpetual. And since God cannot deny himself (2 Tim. 2:13), God's commands still remain intact with its general principles. Deontological ethics clearly defines all actions into two categories: bad and good duty. There is some established rule that defines actions that do not appeal to the general populace, unlike utilitarian ethics, which defines ethical decisions based on the "popular vote." We then have to conclude that all actions are still measured with the sacrum legem Dei (the holy Law of God). Therefore, Paul defines liberty not as a means or license for sin or bad behavior, but it is freedom from the Mosaic code as a means for salvation. That, however, does not cancel out the moral law that is seen in the Mosaic code, i.e., the Decalogue (the Ten Commandments).