Simon,
That statement about Jesus being the One who truly gives true Freedom can be agreed upon by Christians with varying perspectives concerning what happens to every single individual person after they die. For example, an Inclusivist position (as opposed to an Exclusivist one) holds that even persons without conscious belief in Jesus can inherit the life of the age to come (i.e. eternal life).

One can argue in circles about whether or not a claim to ultimate Freedom is another Law (an utterly different kind of Law, as far as my understanding of the NT is concerned!), but just don’t assume all Christians are Exclusivists – I’m not.

Dale,

Merely that “Both Paul and Jesus agree that the Son (Jesus) is the one who truly gives true Freedom.” is not true freedom. It is but another Law. What I call [more] true freedom is a god who would accept me despite me not believing in Jesus (I have good and earnest reasons for this). If I am wrong, why should I be thrown in hell for a non bad-intentioned mistake?

I note that hell seems to have been softened to out-of-the-presence-of-god in modern times. And this is as it should be. Why? Because it is the Freedom that should drive the doctrines, not the other way round. Unfortunately the doctrines tend to take over – in the OT and in the New.
The idea that Freedom can only result from Jesus is also slavery, just like the OT.

Sorry Simon, but what the ‘hell’ does that have to do with the post?

Dale,

Hmmmmmn. I wait patiently until christianity evolves past it’s present Laws and sees the ridiculousness of a god who would send to hell those who, with the earnest use of their faculties, conclude that Jesus was but a man. A doctrine as un-Free as the old Law.

Simon,
(sorry for waaay delayed response)
Paul, of course, saw the Jewish Law as ‘holy’ and ‘good’, but as having reached its goal/purpose/telos/’end’ in Christ – which fits with Jesus’ own talk in Matt. 5 about not having come to do away with, but to ‘fulfill’/fill-out/complete the Law. So I think the language of ‘fulfillment’ is more faithful to the New Testament than the language of ‘replacement’.

Both Paul and Jesus agree that the Son (Jesus) is the one who truly gives true Freedom. Freedom from all that dehumanises us (sin in its various outworkings). Freedom from all that pulls us back from attaining the goal for humanity – completeness in Christ (Col 1:28-29). This freedom, then, is a ‘humanising’ (or re-humanising) kind of Freedom, in that it frees us up from both sin and religion – which both hold us back (en-’slave’ us) from being truly human.

And yes, non-essential (and therefore almost certainly non-Christ-centered) doctrine certainly can do more to enslave than bring freedom.

Jonathan (howdy again!),
Thanks. In my understanding, ‘doulos’ is translated as ‘(bond)servant’ or ‘slave’, and is used in different ways in different contexts. For example (to address your question about slavery to death or to righteousness in Christ), Paul uses it quite paradoxically to contrast freedom with slavery. We are, as it were, to be ‘slaves’ to freedom (which was the title of my sermon last night ).

Dale,

Interesting post. How do you understand the word “doulos” in the NT? While we are free from that which enslaves us to death, are we not now slaves to righteousness in Christ?

Hi Dale,

You speak against “sin-fixing”. But do you not recognise the Gospel as a sin-fixing scheme?

Paul, writing in the 1st century to a community at Rome, writes, however, that this freedom-oriented Law Code was unable to make them truly free, and that it had actually served to make their enslavement all the more obvious. For human beings to be truly and fully free, their hearts and minds must be freed first. For Paul, this freedom – a liberation which the whole creation waits eagerly for – happens by way of a wholly new kind of Law, which he calls the Law of the Spirit of Life in Christ Jesus.

It always tickled me that the Christian church (Paul) recognised the sillyness of the [Jewish] Law, and in attempting to get at the purpose of the Law; freedom, promptly replaced the Law with yet another one! This time surrounding a Christ figure. It is still a Law because one has to do and believe this, that, and the other.

I truly believe that religion does have to do with Freedom. But while some manage to get to the freedom without the doctrines seeming to get in the way, others can’t. A religious person cannot empathise to the degree that they can acknowledge the Freedom that another reaches with differing doctrines, and to that extent they are not Free themselves.