What is Freedom?

[Tambora]

Not forever. 1st Thessalonians 4:16-17 (KJV)

True dat!

 

[Tambora]

I don't know what true freedom is, but I'll take a crack at false freedom.

False freedom to me would be feeling as if you are truly free, and in actuality, only carrying out someone's clever and tricky plans for me, which involved deceiving me into thinking that I was doing my own will, but was in fact deceived, like Eve.

So true freedom's got to be the opposite of that, I would think.

Whether she was deceived or not, she still made the choice (ie. nobody else made it for her).
Both Adam and Eve ate from the same tree.
One was deceived and one was not, but they both made a choice.

 

[nikolai_42]

Well, sorta, but not really.

I would say freedom is no law (no rules) at all, so saying it is 'self law' doesn't seem to fit my definition.

I see real freedom as nothing to tie you down, nothing binding you, no bondage to anything.
(Of course within reason. I mean you are still going to be 'bound' by gravity.)

So no restraint? Does that imply a law within one's self that is being adhered to unhindered?

 

[Nang]

Well, sorta, but not really.

I would say freedom is no law (no rules) at all, so saying it is 'self law' doesn't seem to fit my definition.

I see real freedom as nothing to tie you down, nothing binding you, no bondage to anything.
(Of course within reason. I mean you are still going to be 'bound' by gravity.)

Freedom has nothing to do with lawlessness, or with not being tied down. All of creation is forever tied to the laws and order established by Creator God.

Law and order, such as the laws of nature (gravity, etc.) point to the moral and spiritual law and orders established by the Creator God, that bind and lead us into all that is righteous and good, and which cannot be denied or nullified by the rebellious unbelief of man.

The only "freedom" a creature in this world ever actually knows, is through the instrument of faith in the Person of Jesus Christ.

There is no freedom to be found in any form or extent of lawlessness. Just the opposite. The first gift God gave to man, was His legal commands that manifested His holiness. . . and later come in flesh, as Jesus Christ.

 

[nikolai_42]

Freedom has nothing to do with lawlessness, or with not being tied down. All of creation is forever tied to the laws and order established by Creator God.

Law and order, such as the laws of nature (gravity, etc.) point to the moral and spiritual law and orders established by the Creator God, that bind and lead us into all that is righteous and good, and which cannot be denied or nullified by the rebellious unbelief of man.

The only "freedom" a creature in this world ever actually knows, is through the instrument of faith in the Person of Jesus Christ.

There is no freedom to be found in any form or extent of lawlessness. Just the opposite. The first gift God gave to man, was His legal commands that manifested His holiness. . . and later come in flesh, as Jesus Christ.

I was going to narrow the question down some when I originally posted - seeing that just the definition of "freedom" could lead to some overly simplistic notions of what it entails (something like "The dictionary says freedom is having no restraint, not being in any way confined so that's what I say freedom is"). But personal notions of the term are part of the reason that freedom is not a simple subject.

It's my observation (and this is the first time in this thread I've said anything about my own understanding of freedom) is that the struggles for political freedom today center on being free from anyone else putting something on "me". It's centered in "my rights" to such a degree that it has become about the total stripping of any burden upon "me". It is the isolation of the self from any perceived imposition such that one becomes one's own law. And the result is that one becomes answerable only to one's self - subject only to one's own desires. That has become the twisting of what we are told is all about "yearning to breathe free". It is about the extrication of the individual from any sort of submission to anything or anyone (and all the impositions that come with it). Ultimately, someone follows some law. So where we are going as a nation (politically and morally) is either the tyranny of moral anarchy and (eventually) the tyranny of someone (or some entity) who promises to unify every individual by giving them leadership and dictating how all should behave.

What real freedom looks like (and has looked like in past generations) is found in having concord with the proper order of things - which does NOT mean being "one with nature" or any such thing, but finding one's place and submitting to all that attends that position. Man seems to want to overturn that and make it about simply doing what one wants...

The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the Lord, and against his anointed, saying,
Let us break their bands asunder, and cast away their cords from us.
Psalm 2:2-3

 

[nikolai_42]

I don't know what true freedom is, but I'll take a crack at false freedom.

False freedom to me would be feeling as if you are truly free, and in actuality, only carrying out someone's clever and tricky plans for me, which involved deceiving me into thinking that I was doing my own will, but was in fact deceived, like Eve.

So true freedom's got to be the opposite of that, I would think.

There's a sense where that is true, but that leads to the idea of true freedom being "doing what I want to do". Isn't that right?

That being the case, does it follow that real freedom looks like "doing all that I want to do without restriction"?

 

[Tambora]

So no restraint? Does that imply a law within one's self that is being adhered to unhindered?

Unhindered?
Realistically, I'm not sure if that would be accurate.
I mean, I might choose to run over and try to stab my neighbor with a knife, but he could certainly try to hinder me if he chose to.
So at times you might be hindered, and at other times you might not be hindered.
It's not as though 'freedom' means you have a force field around you that prevents anyone from harming you.
With or without rules, folks are still going to do right and wrong.
You would still have a human nature with or without rules.

Or maybe I could use another example that doesn't involve two people, but just yourself.
You decide to go to town.
You come to a bridge that has fallen so you can't drive over the bridge.
You can choose to try and swim across instead of taking the long way around.
You might make it across, or you might drown or be eaten by a crocodile.

I don't think having freedom means everything will go your way.

In your estimation, would that make my answer a yes or a no to your question?

 

[nikolai_42]

Unhindered?
Realistically, I'm not sure if that would be accurate.
I mean, I might choose to run over and try to stab my neighbor with a knife, but he could certainly try to hinder me if he chose to.
So at times you might be hindered, and at other times you might not be hindered.
It's not as though 'freedom' means you have a force field around you that prevents anyone from harming you.
With or without rules, folks are still going to do right and wrong.
You would still have a human nature with or without rules.

Good point. One needs to distinguish between freedom to do in a general sense and freedom to accomplish one's desired end. So being free to attempt murder is probably one of those things that should be said to be required for some general external sense of freedom. But - and this is the next step - does that freedom apply to the individual as a whole? You may be situationally free to try anything you want (without regard to success or failure) but does that situational freedom belie or reinforce a genuine freedom personally and a societal freedom corporately? I would say indulging in your freedom to attempt murder would (in most cases) result in a diminution of societal freedom and reflect a lack of genuine personal freedom (morally, emotionally and spiritually).

 

[Tambora]

There's a sense where that is true, but that leads to the idea of true freedom being "doing what I want to do". Isn't that right?

That being the case, does it follow that real freedom looks like "doing all that I want to do without restriction"?

I would say that if there is something you cannot make a choice about, then you have restrictions.
I may want to grow wings and fly, but it is not within the range of my capabilities.

If we want to get too technical about it, even GOD has restrictions (cannot lie).
Is that because it is not within the range of His capabilities, or because He just never wants to?

 

[Nihilo]

That being the case, does it follow that real freedom looks like "doing all that I want to do without restriction"?

False freedom is being deceived or beguiled while making otherwise free choices. Being deceived or beguiled renders you fundamentally incapable of making a truly free choice, it is the epitome of the lack of freedom, or false freedom as I called it. Your choices are all tainted by all the falsehoods that you honestly believe to be true.

The notion that the opposite of this false freedom (being deceived or beguiled) is "doing all that I want to do without restriction" is a falsity in itself, and people who believe this are as deceived as was Eve. The opposite of "doing all that I want to do without restriction" is "being restricted from doing all that I want to do." The issue here is, what do you want to do? If what you want to do is good, then you can live perfectly freely because there is no law against doing good.

The opposite of being deceived or beguiled, is not being deceived nor beguiled. A and ~A.

 

[Tambora]

Being deceived or beguiled renders you fundamentally incapable of making a truly free choice,

I will have to disagree with that statement, or at least with the way it is stated ----- particularly the word "incapable".

Being deceived may cause you to make a poor decision, but your freedom to make decisions is still intact.
Since we have been talking about Eve as one example, I would have to say that Eve still had the exact same freedom of choice (eat or not eat) before and after she was deceived.
When she thought the fruit was bad, she still had the freedom to eat it or not eat it.
When she thought the fruit was good, she still had the freedom to eat it or not eat it.
Nothing changed about her freedom to eat or not eat.

So I don't see how being deceived or making a poor decision rendered Eve "incapable" of having freedom to choose to eat or not eat.

 

[Nang]

I will have to disagree with that statement, or at least with the way it is stated ----- particularly the word "incapable".

Being deceived may cause you to make a poor decision, but your freedom to make decisions is still intact.
Since we have been talking about Eve as one example, I would have to say that Eve still had the exact same freedom of choice (eat or not eat) before and after she was deceived.
When she thought the fruit was bad, she still had the freedom to eat it or not eat it.
When she thought the fruit was good, she still had the freedom to eat it or not eat it.
Nothing changed about her freedom to eat or not eat.

So I don't see how being deceived or making a poor decision rendered Eve "incapable" of having freedom to choose to eat or not eat.

She was accursed by God with this loss of capacity to volitionally fulfill her moral duties of obedience.

All mankind has inherited this accursed state, and only by Jesus become a substitutional curse on behalf of His children, was the curse ever removed.

Only then are men freed through faith in Jesus Christ, to volitionally fulfill their moral duties of obedience to God, anew.

Galatians 3:10-14

 

[Tambora]

She was accursed by God with this loss of capacity to volitionally fulfill her moral duties of obedience.

No one questions her decision was a poor one.
She still had the freedom to decide to eat or not to eat.
She had the same freedom to eat or not to eat both before and after she was deceived.
She never lacked the freedom to refuse to eat.

 

[Nang]

No one questions her decision was a poor one.
She still had the freedom to decide to eat or not to eat.
She had the same freedom to eat or not to eat both before and after she was deceived.
She never lacked the freedom to refuse to eat.

A&E were cursed for disobeying God's command not to eat. Neither of them were ever originally "free" to partake of what God forbade.

And both were removed from the garden and the Tree of Life, which before the curse, they were freely permitted to partake and live.

Both had the freedom (capacity) to obey God, but lost this capacity, through disobedience. After their fall, no accursed man was ever able to work his salvation through obedience to Godly commands again, for all mankind had totally lost the spiritual ability or will to obey under God's Laws, ever again.

Only Jesus Christ, being sinless and free from the curse of death, was able and willing to perfectly obey God's commands under the Law . . . as representative and on behalf of His people.

 

[Tambora]

A&E were cursed for disobeying God's command not to eat. Neither of them were ever originally "free" to partake of what God forbade.

Of course they could, Nang.
Why would GOD even tell them not to eat it if they did not have the capability to do so?
GOD even says "IF" you do eat it, it's not going to turn out well for you ..... (which implies that they did indeed have the capability to do so, or the warning meant nothing).

Eve always had the capability to not eat the fruit no matter who told her it was bad or who told her it was good.

In fact, GOD tells us that when it comes to temptation, there is always an escape route.

 

[Nang]

Of course they could, Nang.
Why would GOD even tell them not to eat it if they did not have the capability to do so?

God commanded them not to eat of that tree. That Law precluded any freedom on their part to do otherwise.

GOD even says "IF" you do eat it,

No "ifs" mentioned. God prophesied (in His foreknowledge)surely, that "in the day that you eat of it . . ." God knew they would fail His Law.

it's not going to turn out well for you .....

God warned and promised "you shall surely die." (Genesis 2:16) The wages of sin was always death.

(which implies that they did indeed have the capability to do so, or the warning meant nothing).

They had the capacity to disobey God. They did not have the permission or freedom to do so, without consequence.

Eve always had the capability to not eat the fruit no matter who told her it was bad or who told her it was good.

This capability to disobey, was no excuse to disobey God.

In fact, GOD tells us that when it comes to temptation, there is always an escape route.

Depends who you are talking about . . .

A&E had no escape route.

Reprobates have no escape from temptation. Sin rules over them. That is their curse.

Only Christians are granted ability to overcome temptation. Their escape from sin comes only through employing the indwelling power of the Holy Spirit of God.

 

[Tambora]

Nang,

Permission or not, Eve could have eaten it or not eaten it.
Getting permission or not getting permission to eat it has nothing to do with your capability to eat it or not.

 

[Nang]

Nang,

Permission or not, Eve could have eaten it or not eaten it.
Getting permission or not getting permission to eat it has nothing to do with your capability to eat it or not.

All you end up saying, is that A&E demonstrated they were capable of and susceptible to sin in their original state.

Nothing that happened in the garden proves the will of man was ever autonomously free to function apart from the moral standards and sovereign will of God.

 

[Nanja]

Define true freedom and give a general outline of what it looks like, practically.

Freedom from sin by the Blood of Christ.

John 8:36
If the Son therefore shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed.

~~~~~

 

[Ktoyou]

"The danger of the future is that men may become robots. True enough, robots do not rebel. But given man’s nature, robots cannot live and remain sane, they become “Golems,” they will destroy their world and themselves because they cannot stand any longer the boredom of a meaningless life."
EF

EF, do robots feel, or is it when they become Golems, they then feel?