Copyright © 2006-2008 Robert D. Hosken, M.Min., D.Min.
Liberation, liberty or freedom - various ways the word eleutheria is translated - brings us to a vast semantic field of meanings and related concepts. For example, how does our freedom in Christ relate to God's predestination of our lives? How does our freedom as citizens of God's kingdom relate to our responsibilities as citizens of earthly governments? But most importantly, how do I integrate my freedom as a Christian with my being called to ministry (diakonia)?
Meditate Word By Word On These Verses:
Heb. 6:4-9.
We looked at Rom. 6:14-22 as we were considering ministry as servanthood (pais) and bond-service (douleuo). In v. 15 Paul asks the rhetorical question, "What then? Shall we sin, because we are not under law, but under grace? May it never be!" Grace transforms our desires so that we don't want to sin, we want to do God's will. It is not an easy-believism that excuses sin by saying we're not under the Law of Moses so we can do whatever we please. We also see in this passage that the word "free" is used three times. Paul uses it to form a chiasm:
A B ""Being made free from sin, you became bondservants of righteousness." (v. 18) "For when you were servants of sin, you were free in regard to righteousness." (v. 20) C D "What fruit then did you have at that time in the things of which you are now ashamed? For the end of those things is death." (v.21) "But now, being made free from sin, and having become servants of God, you have your fruit of sanctification, and the result of eternal life." (v. 22)
Notice carefully the logic of Paul's argument here: we are either (A) free from sin and servants of righteousness, or (B) free from righteousness and servants of sin. We have a choice, and if we choose (B) the result is (C) death, but if we choose (A) the result is (D) sanctification and eternal life - thus the X-shaped chiasm. There are no other choices available to mankind: as Joshua told the Israelites, "Choose this day whom you will serve!"
The fact is that we all serve someone or something, be it God, family, our country, wealth, career, an ideology or baser things such as sex, alcohol, narcotics, electronic gadgets, or our bellies. We are either servants of God, or servants of sin. Therefore such a thing as absolute liberty does not exist: philosophers say it is not a "Ding an sich," a thing unto itself, it is not an absolute self-existing category. We can't do whatever we want whenever we want to, because we inevitably become enmeshed in, entangled with, or enslaved to whatever we become deeply involved in. The Apostle Paul is saying here that true liberty is the ability to break out of bondage to sin which leads to death, and be liberated to serve God which leads to transformation into Christ's image and to eternal life. Paul concludes this passage by writing - "For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord" (Rom. 6:23). Serve sin, and collect your pay - death; or serve God and receive the free gift - eternal life.
Question:
1. What does true freedom consist of (Rom. 6:14-22)?
(Only one of the following answers is correct.)
True freedom is absolute freedom, it is a "Ding an sich," a thing unto itself.
True freedom consists of the possibility to do whatever you want.
True freedom consists of the ability and desire to do the will of God.
What exactly is liberation, liberty or freedom (eleutheria)? Strong's Dictionaries define it as "freedom (legitimate or licentious, chiefly moral or ceremonial): - liberty."1 Here again we see the choice is between legitimate freedom and illegitimate licentiousness. A couple chapters later, Paul describes in more detail the glory of our final sanctification that is yet to come - "For the creation was subjected to vanity, not of its own will, but because of him who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself also will be delivered from the bondage of decay into the liberty (eleutheria) of the glory of the children of God" (Rom. 8:20-21). Notice carefully the wording here: it is translated correctly as "the liberty of the glory"2 as Vincent's Word Studies tell us, instead of "the glorious liberty" in the KJV. After Christ's Second Coming, the glory of the children of God will shine forth because we will be free from the tendency toward death in our previous mortal bodies.
I have seen how the fear of death holds people, even some Christians, in bondage. Personally, I get thrilled when I think about the opportunity of dying and going into the presence of God! But "the liberty of the glory" also means that we will be free to do, be capable of doing things that we weren't capable of doing in our mortal bodies. Now we are not free or able to instantly be transported to another place, but in our glorious bodies we will be. We recall that Jesus in His resurrection body could pass through walls, appear and disappear at will. He could travel through time and space instantly. I am not free to do that now, but then I will be!
Question:
2. When will "the liberty of the glory" appear (Rom. 6:14-22)?
Remember that when Jesus announced His ministry, He quoted the prophet Isaiah - "The Spirit of the Lord is on me, because he has anointed me to preach good news to the poor. He has sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to proclaim release (aphesis) to the captives, recovering of sight to the blind, to deliver (aphesis) those who are crushed, and to proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord" (Luke 4:18-19). The word aphesis is sometimes translated "liberty" so it falls within the semantic field of eleutheria, but it has some additional meanings: "freedom; (figuratively) pardon: - deliverance, forgiveness, liberty, remission"3 according to Strong's Dictionaries. Now let us examine another passage to see how eleutheria and aphesis are related -
"Jesus therefore said to those Jews who had believed him, "If you remain in my word, then you are truly my disciples. You will know the truth, and the truth will make you free (eleutheroo)." They answered him, "We are Abraham's seed, and have never been in bondage to anyone. How do you say, 'You will be made free (eleutheros)'?" Jesus answered them, "Most certainly I tell you, everyone who commits sin is the bondservant of sin. A bondservant doesn't live in the house forever. A son remains forever. If therefore the Son makes you free (eleutheroo), you will be free (eleutheros) indeed" (John 8:31-36).
Verse 32 is often quoted out of context - "You will know the truth, and the truth will make you free." But it is only by remaining in His Word, being faithful to His teaching, that we are truly His disciples. Then and only then can we experience true freedom. But what kind of freedom is Jesus talking about here? It is obvious that the Greek words are derived from the same root as eleutheria, but on closer examination we learn that they have rather different meanings. When Jesus said, "The truth will make you free (eleutheroo)," He used a word that means "to liberate, that is, (figuratively) to exempt (from moral, ceremonial or mortal liability): - deliver, make free."4 But when the Pharisees (see v. 33) rebutted His claim, they said, "be made free (eleutheros)?" They were using a word that means "unrestrained (to go at pleasure), that is, (as a citizen) not a slave (whether freeborn or manumitted), or (generally) exempt (from obligation or liability): - free (man, woman), at liberty."5 So we see that they were thinking on a secular level, about slavery to a master. But Jesus extended the meaning of freedom by saying in effect, "When the Son sets you at liberty from slavery, you will be made exempt from moral, ceremonial or mortal liability." So Jesus was connecting eleutheria to aphesis, pardon from sin and its penalty.
Question:
3. What is the difference between eleutheros and eleutheria?
We find that St. Paul brings out this point very clearly in Rom. 8:1-2 - "Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in union with Christ Jesus. For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set me free (eleutheroo) from the law of sin and death." Paul uses the same term that Jesus used, not the word the Pharisees used. They were talking about secular freedom, but Jesus and Paul are talking about spiritual freedom that leads into eternal life. Today people complain about infringements of their freedom and civil rights due to the war on terror, but the best reply I have heard is, "When you're dead, you don't have any civil rights." Likewise, it doesn't matter when you're dead eternally if you had secular freedom or were a slave on earth.
St. Paul connects freedom (eleutheria) with glory again in 1 Cor. 3:17-18 - "Now the Lord is the Spirit and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty (eleutheria). But we all, with unveiled face beholding as in a mirror the glory of the Lord, are transformed into the same image from glory to glory, even as from the Lord, the Spirit." First, notice the source of liberty: the Spirit of the Lord. Liberty is not a self-existent absolute; it depends on God's Spirit in us. Note also the verb "are transformed" is present continuous tense, "are being transformed" in Greek and Russian. This is an ongoing process as we walk in the Spirit, Who makes us free from the law of sin and death, and Who gives us true freedom.
In the preceding verses of this passage Paul explains that God's glory appeared but then faded away when the Law was given to Moses. But under the New Covenant, it grows from one degree of glory to another degree of glory, from being free from sin so that we can serve the Lord, to the glorious transformation of our bodies when we see Christ face to face. How does all of this relate to ministry? In v. 9 Paul writes - "For if the service (diakonia) of condemnation has glory, the service (diakonia) of righteousness exceeds much more in glory." When we minister doing diakonia to the poor, lame, maimed and blind, the glory of Christ shines through, because that is exactly the ministry Jesus Himself performed, taught His disciples to do, and then commanded them to teach others to do the same.
Question:
4. What definition of eleutheria does the Apostle Paul give in 2 Cor. 3:17-18, and how is it related to diakonia?
(Only one of the following answers is correct.)
It is the liberty of the glory, or the process of transformation, and our service of righteousness also exceeds much more in glory.
eleutheria is an absolute that exists unto itself.
When you are alive and free, it means you have full civil rights.
Again in Gal. 5:1-4 Paul links liberty together with grace, and bondage together with law -
"Stand firm therefore in the liberty (eleutheria) by which Christ has made us free (eleutheroo), and don't be entangled again with a yoke of bondage. Behold, I, Paul, tell you that if you receive circumcision, Christ will profit you nothing. Yes, I testify again to every man who receives circumcision, that he is a debtor to do the whole law. You are alienated from Christ, you who desire to be justified by the law. You have fallen away from grace."
We must stand firm and constantly resist the pull of the flesh to revert back to a secular, worldly view of freedom: "You can do whatever you want; go ahead and sin so that grace may abound!" This is the pharisaical, hypocritical worldview. Then St. Paul makes a shocking statement: "If you want to be justified by the law, you are alienated from Christ and you have fallen away from grace!" Those are very strong words, but they aren't mine, they're from the pen of the Apostle. We can fall away from grace and cut ourselves off from Christ if we twist liberty into legalism or license. How can that be?
This is the same Paul who wrote such comforting and assuring words of God's foreknowledge of us and His predestination for us in Rom. 8:29-30 - "For whom he foreknew, he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. Whom he predestined, those he also called. Whom he called, those he also justified. Whom he justified, those he also glorified." God, he writes in verses 38-39, will not let anything separate us from His love - "For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor things present, nor things to come, nor powers, nor height, nor depth, nor any other created thing, will be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord." Here we see clearly the free will/predestination dilemma.
Question:
5. What Greek word is used for "made us free" in Gal. 5:1-4, and what does it mean for us?
Paul shows us both sides of the coin in 2 Tim. 2:10-13 - "Therefore I endure all things for the chosen ones' sake, that they also may obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory. This saying is faithful: 'For if we died with him, we will also live with him. If we endure, we will also reign with him. If we deny him, he also will deny us. If we are faithless, he remains faithful. He can't deny himself.'" First he mentions the "chosen ones," God's elect whom He has predestined from before the beginning of time for salvation and glory. But then Paul talks about the possibility of denying Christ to escape suffering for His sake, which would result in Christ denying us. In other words, Christ will never break His covenant with us, but we have the choice of our own free will to dissolve the covenant by denying Him. This is the most extreme form of faithlessness. A husband or wife may be faithless in marriage, but the marriage covenant remains in force until one of them gets a divorce. Paul writes in v. 13 that Christ will never "file for divorce," He will never break His covenant with us, He will always remain faithful. John Wesley, who is usually considered to hold a free-will Arminian position, comments - "That is, though some believe not, God will make good all his promises to them that do believe. He cannot deny himself - His word cannot fail."6 So Wesley interprets "we" in these verses to refer to two classes of people, unbelievers and believers, rather than only to believers who later recant.
A more difficult passage for "easy-believism" church people to deal with is Heb. 6:4-9 -
"For concerning those who were once enlightened and tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Spirit, and tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the age to come, and then fell away, it is impossible to renew them again to repentance; seeing they crucify the Son of God for themselves again, and put him to open shame. For the land which has drunk the rain that comes often on it, and brings forth a crop suitable for them for whose sake it is also tilled, receives blessing from God; but if it bears thorns and thistles, it is rejected and near being cursed, whose end is to be burned. But, beloved, we are persuaded of better things for you, and things that accompany salvation, even though we speak like this."
The author of the letter to the Hebrews clearly states that it is possible for a person who has tasted the heavenly gift and partaken of the Holy Spirit to later fall away, in which case the dissolution of the covenant is permanent and cannot be restored, just as God's Word forbids a person to remarry the same partner after getting a divorce from him or her (Deut. 24:1-4). And though the above author closes this passage with the conciliatory words "near being cursed," i.e., not already cursed, and "we are persuaded of better things for you," he has nonetheless posited an extreme resolution for the extreme case of falling away. This was not a nonsense statement or merely a hypothetical case: the author would not have written it if it was a theological impossibility; rather, it was day-to-day reality in the first century A.D. when Christians were tortured and killed if they refused to deny their faith in Christ and burn incense to Caesar.
Question:
6. How can you reconcile God's predestination (Rom. 8:38-39) with free will (2 Tim. 2:1-13; Heb. 6:4-9)?
There are many other passages that support one side or the other of this age-old dilemma about free will versus predestination, but these few will suffice. Both Calvinists and Arminians can trot out their proof texts to advance their own positions, and each will ignore or belittle the other's arguments and proof texts. How can we resolve this dilemma? If humans are to be held morally responsible for their decisions, they must have free will to make those decisions. God cannot punish someone if that person didn't choose to do wrong. On the other hand, God is sovereign and is ultimately in control of everything that happens in the universe. The very concept of a "universe," a unified and coherent system of galaxies, stars, planets, moons and comets makes no sense if there is no intelligent design, which requires an intelligent and omnipotent Designer.
For years in my early Christian life I struggled with these issues. Finally I resolved them in three ways. First, this is a man-made dilemma, one we humans have devised in our pseudo-clever little brains. It is on the order of the question Jesus' disciples asked about the end times that Jesus answered by saying that the angels of heaven and even the Son of Man (at least while in human flesh) did not know, or the question they asked after His resurrection about whether He would now restore the kingdom to Israel and He replied - "It's none of your business to know," or the silly question whether God can make a rock so heavy He can't lift it. Such meaningless word games are simply the wrong questions to ask. My philosophy professor in university said that you can't get the right answer if you ask the wrong question.
Recall in our discussion of agape-love that after His resurrection Jesus asked Peter three times, "Do you love Me?" That is the right question to ask. Do you really love Jesus Christ? When Jesus then hinted to Peter how he would die, Peter looked over at the disciple John and asked, "What about him, Lord?" Jesus replied, "That's none of your business, you follow Me." So the answer that became clear to me in my university years was this: if I really love Jesus Christ, I must follow Him very closely. Imagine a fiancee asking her betrothed, "When we get married, how many other men can I see and how far can I go with them before you divorce me?" We are the bride of Christ, and should never pose such a stupid question! I should not fill my head or trouble my heart with worrying about someone else being hypocritical or denying Christ, or hypothetical cases and trick questions such as "How close can I come to denying the faith before I lose my salvation?" Such a foolish question is similar to a little boy trying to see how close he can come to the edge of a cliff without falling over. Any loving parent will say to a child - "Keep away from the edge of that cliff, stay here by me and hold on to my hand!"
My second metaphor to resolve the free will / predestination dilemma is how computer operating systems work. Any computer operating system worthy of the name reserves for itself a certain set of instructions or commands that control the hardware (random access memory, hard disk, monitor, keyboard, etc.). These are called supervisor-level instructions. All other instructions are available for application programs to use. By this definition MS-DOS, which let application programs control the hardware, was not a real operating system; it was just a file system organizer and program launcher. A real operating system gives application programs a wide range of freedom to do whatever they want to do, except to run reserved instructions. If one tries it, the operating system terminates that application program. This metaphor illustrates how God grants us a wide range of freedom, from trivial choices such as what color socks to wear today, to more serious choices like what major field to study in university or what profession to select, to most consequential choices such as whether and whom to marry, or whether to believe in Christ. Some decisions have little or no consequences: if I wear a brown sock and a black sock no one may ever notice, and if they do they probably won't care. But if I choose a course of studies that I can't handle or a profession that goes nowhere, I have a real problem. Or if I marry a person who is unfaithful or simply wanted to use me for a ticket to America, it can make my whole life miserable. But if I decide to chase after wine, women or wealth and not entrust my life to Christ, I have forfeited my eternal soul. God's sovereignty trumps human liberty, as the case of Esther illustrates:
"Then Mordecai asked them to answer Esther, 'Don't think to yourself that you will escape in the king's house any more than all the Jews. For if you remain silent now, then relief and deliverance will come to the Jews from another place, but you and your father's house will perish. Who knows if you haven't come to the kingdom for such a time as this?' Then Esther asked them to answer Mordecai, 'Go, gather together all the Jews who are present in Shushan, and fast for me, and neither eat nor drink three days, night or day. I and my maidens will also fast the same way. Then I will go in to the king, which is against the law; and if I perish, I perish.'" (Esther 4:13-16)
God had placed Esther in a position of great status, but she had to make a decision: "Who knows if you haven't come to the kingdom for such a time as this?" If she were to make the wrong decision in order to try saving her own life, Mordecai reminds her: "For if you remain silent now, then relief and deliverance will come to the Jews from another place, but you and your father's house will perish." The only right choice she had was to go before the king and plead for mercy, even at the risk of his wrath. Thankfully our heavenly King is not wrathful and arbitrary! If, however, we refuse to do His will, He will bring "relief and deliverance" for perishing sinners, for the widows, orphans, poor, maimed, lame and blind, "from another place" but we will be punished or may even perish for our disobedience.
Question:
7. How should we use the story of Esther (Esth. 4:13-16) in relation to our free will?
The third way I resolved this dilemma is as follows: Einstein struggled with a similar dilemma, the nature of light - is it matter, or is it energy? If a scientist sets up an experiment to prove that light is matter, the results of this experiment show that light is indeed matter. Conversely, if a scientist sets up an experiment to prove that light is energy, the results of that experiment show that light is indeed energy. Yet, light obviously can't be two different things at the same time, and it is absurd to imagine that light flip-flops back and forth between being matter and energy. How did Einstein resolve this dilemma? In his theory of relativity, he showed that it depends upon the point of view of the observer. Perhaps a future "Unified Field Theory" will better explain this phenomenon, but for now that is the best theory physicists have arrived at.
To apply this to our dilemma, it depends on the point of view of the observer, in this case, God or humans. From God's point of view (we theorize, because we cannot possibly see things from His viewpoint) He foreknows the end from the beginning because He stands outside of time. And being omnipotent, He is perfectly able to arrange the course of events that to us appear "random" and "by chance" so that they all work together for the good of those He has chosen and loves, His elect. From our point of view, however, we are confronted with moral choices for which we do not know the outcomes, and we must make decisions or else the choice will be lost. Not to decide is to decide. If we put off a decision until it is too late, we have decided by default.
We inherently know that some choices have good consequences and others have bad consequences, so we are aware of the moral nature of our choices. We cannot know any other point of view, being finite creatures located in space and time. We can only imagine God's point of view. We read in Heb. 3:14 - "For we have become partakers of Christ, if we hold fast the beginning of our confidence firm to the end." Notice the perfect tense of the verb "have become," and then the "if" condition: "if we hold fast… to the end." The paradox here is that an event in the past is conditional upon an event in the future! From God's point of view we already partake of Christ, it's a done deal. But from our point of view it is conditional upon our holding fast to the end.
Question:
8. What paradox do you find in Heb. 3:14, and how is this paradox resolved?
We have no right to ever say that God is unfair. The true God is not "Yin-Yang," a combination of light and darkness; He is only light with no mixture of darkness (James 1:17; 1 John 1:5). God is righteous when He judges us according to the moral law of human freedom and the responsibility it implies. The Apostle James, the brother of our Lord Jesus, describes this "law of liberty" and makes clear that we will be judged for what we do with what we believe, not just for what we believe. He writes -
"So speak, and so do, as men who are to be judged by a law of freedom (eleutheria). For judgment is without mercy to him who has shown no mercy. Mercy triumphs over judgment. What good is it, my brothers, if a man says he has faith, but has no works? Can faith save him? And if a brother or sister is naked and in lack of daily food, and one of you tells them, 'Go in peace, be warmed and filled;' and yet you didn't give them the things the body needs, what good is it? Even so faith, if it has no works, is dead in itself." (James 2:12-17)
Faith that doesn't work is dead faith, not saving faith. The good works that James describes here and in ch. 1:22-27 are the kind of diakonia that Jesus and His disciples performed, and what they taught the next generation of disciples to do. Thus, a living, saving faith must do diakonia.
The last aspect of freedom I think must be considered here is that of the Christian's freedom and responsibility in human society. Our freedom in Christ doesn't grant us carte-blanche to break the laws of civil society. We have already looked at parts of Rom. 12, which deals with our sanctification and spiritual gifts. But Paul in Rom. 12:14 turns to the topic of the Christian in society, and in Rom. 13:1-7 Paul writes -
"Let every soul be in subjection to the higher authorities, for there is no authority except from God, and those who exist are ordained by God. Therefore he who resists the authority, withstands the ordinance of God; and those who withstand will receive to themselves judgment. For rulers are not a terror to the good work, but to the evil. Do you desire to have no fear of the authority? Do that which is good, and you will have praise from the same, for he is a servant of God to you for good. But if you do that which is evil, be afraid, for he doesn't bear the sword in vain; for he is a servant of God, an avenger for wrath to him who does evil. Therefore you need to be in subjection, not only because of the wrath, but also for conscience' sake. For this reason you also pay taxes, for they are servants of God's service, attending continually on this very thing. Give therefore to everyone what you owe: taxes to whom taxes are due; customs to whom customs; respect to whom respect; honor to whom honor."
Question:
9. Does our freedom in Christ give us "carte blanche" to disobey the laws of civil society?
(Only one of the following answers is correct.)
Absolutely! We must obey God rather than men.
Absolutely not! We must be in subjection to the higher authorities.
So in the old USSR, Communist persecutors would taunt Christian leaders with this passage, saying that it commands Christians to obey the higher authorities, therefore they must tell who is attending church or who is bringing Bibles into the country. How would we respond in such a situation? This isn't just a hypothetical question, but rather one that was put to believers in our lifetimes and could well be put to us. I would ask my interrogator - "Do you think Paul's argument is logical and correct?" He must answer "Yes" because he just used Paul's argument on me. Then I would say, "You agree. Good! Then you must also agree that your authority is from God, and you should be God's servant to me for good." The authorities overstep their realm of authority when they rebel against God or do evil. But this does not give Christians an excuse to break traffic laws, not pay taxes, or be disrespectful toward those who deserve our respect.
Let us compare this with 2 Cor. 10:3-6, where St. Paul relates our life in society to our life in the Body of Christ, the church -
"For though we walk in the flesh, we don't wage war according to the flesh; for the weapons of our warfare are not of the flesh, but mighty before God to the throwing down of strongholds, throwing down imaginations and every high thing that is exalted against the knowledge of God, and bringing every thought into captivity to the obedience of Christ; and being in readiness to avenge all disobedience, when your obedience will be made full."
The tools or "weapons" we as Christians should use are spiritual, not fleshly: we use diakonia, persuasive preaching and teaching to tear down false worldviews that have exalted themselves against the existence of God and the idea that we can know God personally. One false worldview is the "democratic" notion that the majority is right. If we examine the idea logically, the only truism about the majority is that it is bigger than the minority, and in fact, the majority is quite often wrong - "You shall not follow a crowd to do evil; neither shall you testify in court to side with a multitude to pervert justice" (Ex. 23:2). Only God is always right. If humanity were to take a vote on the existence of God and the majority came up with the decision that God doesn't exist, would God be obliged to go out of existence? How absurd! No, "let God be found true, but every man a liar" (Rom. 3:4). If the majority were to vote in favor of euthanasia, would it be right to kill off all the elderly, handicapped and otherwise unproductive people? If the majority of Philistines were to vote for a government run by lunatic murderers who have vowed to eradicate the people of Israel, does the "will of the majority" mean this would be legitimate and right? How foolish! And yet many people buy into this false worldview. When modern democracy is cut off from its Judeo-Christian ethical foundations, it becomes a rudderless ship cast adrift, swerving between anarchy and tyranny, as current events amply demonstrate.
The church ought to expect a higher level of morality from its members than from society in general, and should discipline its members by first correcting them privately, then rebuking them publicly in the congregation, then excluding errant members from ministry, then excluding them from communion, then a full and total exclusion from the Body of Christ. But the church may not use the powers of the state, "the sword," to force its higher morality upon society, nor may the state use the church's sanction of eternal anathemas to secure its secular domain. Otherwise the lines become blurred, the church becomes worldly and the world becomes "churchy," with a pseudo-Christian veneer of propriety over its crass immorality. We shouldn't confuse Christian ethics with society's absence of ethics or with the state's laws and sanctions. If society approves of adultery, abortion, euthanasia, homosexual acts, gluttony or drunkenness, it doesn't mean the church must adopt the same low standards of conduct. "For you, brothers, were called to freedom (eleutheria). Only do not turn your freedom (eleutheria) into an opportunity to gratify your flesh, but through love (agape) make it your habit to serve (douleuo) one another" (Gal. 5:13).
Question:
10. Can freedom of choice and democracy, when torn from its Judeo-Christian ethical foundation, long survive? Explain your answer.
Endnotes:
1. Strong's Hebrew and Greek Dictionaries, op. cit.
2. Vincent's Word Studies, (www.e-sword.net, 2004).
3. Strong's Hebrew and Greek Dictionaries, op. cit.
4. Ibid.
5. Ibid.
6. John Wesley's Explanatory Notes, (www.e-sword.net, 2004).