Modern Religious Idols and False gods, Part 4
Posted by Michael Bunker editor@biblicalagrarianism.com

The false god named “Liberty”

“For, brethren, ye have been called unto liberty; only use not liberty for an occasion to the flesh, but by love serve one another” (Gal. 5:13).

There is no modern idol so deified in the minds of so-called “christian” people than the false god named “Liberty”. An errant view of freedom known as Liberty is that false god which rules the western mind, and which is most foundational and intrinsic to the colonized thinking of men and women in our generation.

In virtually every case where we find a modern idol constructed in the mind of the people, we can trace that idol back to some false god or goddess worshiped in earlier times by the heathen. The Roman goddess Libertas had been worshiped by many cultures under different names, most going back to some form of sun worship; the later versions resembling, depicted as, or related to Sol Invictus, the Roman god of the sun. A temple to honor the goddess Libertas was built on Aventine Hill (one of the seven mountains or “hills” of Rome), and later a statue and temple was built on Palatine Hill (also one of the seven hills of Rome) after the first temple was destroyed. After the destruction and removal of the second temple by Cicero, Libertas was often depicted on money and in other statuary, the most famous being the Statue of Liberty in New York Harbor and numerous lesser statues such as that which sits atop the Capitol Building in Washington D.C., and those that sit upon the domes of many state capitols, including the capitol dome here in Texas. Most modern depictions of Libertas also resemble or have characteristics of the ancient Greek goddess Persephone, who was considered the Queen of the Underworld (Hades). It is likely that the Romans blended the traditional understanding of Persephone that they had learned from the Greeks in forming the likeness in idols, icons, and statues of Libertas. During the Renaissance, and more so during the period known as The Enlightenment, this blended sort of iconic version of the “maiden” or “queen” of freedom, liberty, and justice. During the French Revolution, when the Roman Catholic Cathedral of Notre Dame was transformed into a “cult of reason”, the statues of Libertas replaced the statues of the Virgin Mary. Thereafter, in freedom worshiping states and nations, Libertas replaced or took over the traditional worship given unto the Virgin Mary by Romanist idolaters in Papal countries or in previous epochs. We understand, then, how the trail of idolatry came full circle by noting that the original idols and statues of the Virgin Mary were patterned on the original depictions of Libertas and Persephone. Later, when secular men and deists wanted to throw off the tyranny of the Papal religion, they replaced Mary with statues of Libertas or Persephone. Remember, the Papist religion embraced and absorbed the heathen peoples of the known world by “christianizing” pagan festivals and idols. It is no shock, then, to conclude that the Romanist “christianizing” of Libertas and Persephone worked to Papal advantage when those who separated or later rejected Romanism continued to embrace Romanist idols and false gods by worshiping Mary via the acceptance of icons and statues of Libertas.

Some of you may be confused or protesting now, because you know that the word “liberty” is used in our sermon text above from the letter to the Galatians, and you know that it is used many other times throughout the scriptures. The confusion comes because most people believe that there is only one definition of the word “liberty” today, or, if they do believe that the world can have more than one definition, they generally apply the most liberal (the word liberal comes from the same root as the word liberty) definition of the word when they come upon it.

I will offer here some different definitions of the word. These definitions are derived in part from Webster's 1828 dictionary:

1. Absolute Liberty: Freedom from restraint. In this definition, the word liberty implies a freedom from any restraint upon the body, the will, or the mind. No physical or natural force may (or does) restrain a man's volitions or actions. This is the most liberal (and never accurate) definition of the word “liberty”.

2. Natural Liberty: Natural liberty, consists in the power of acting as one thinks fit, without any restraint or control, except from the laws of nature. It is a state of exemption from the control of others, and from positive laws and the institutions of social life. This liberty is abridged by the establishment of government.

3. Civil Liberty: Civil liberty, is the liberty of men in a state of society, or natural liberty, so far only abridged and restrained, as is necessary and expedient for the safety and interest of the society, state or nation. A restraint of natural liberty, not necessary or expedient for the public, is tyranny or oppression. civil liberty is an exemption from the arbitrary will of others, which exemption is secured by established laws, which restrain every man from injuring or controlling another. Hence the restraints of law are essential to civil liberty. The liberty of one depends not so much on the removal of all restraint from him, as on the due restraint upon the liberty of others (This is to say that Civil Liberty consists of laws constraining the liberty of individuals and their right to impede the liberty of others).

4. Political liberty is actually national liberty. It exists only nationally, as it is the liberty of a nation, the freedom of a nation or state from all unjust abridgment of its rights and independence by another nation.

5. Religious Liberty, is the free right of adopting and enjoying opinions on religious subjects, and of worshiping the Supreme Being according to the dictates of conscience, without external control.

6. Liberty, in metaphysics, as opposed to necessity, is the power of an agent to do or forbear any particular action, according to the determination or thought of the mind, by which either is preferred to the other.

Ok, now the first definition here, that of Absolute Liberty or “freedom from restraint” is generally what the mind of the modern man goes to when he hears or encounters the word “liberty”. When the modern man demands freedom and liberty, this is what he demands. This freedom does not and cannot exist in reality (and even it it could, it could not exist for very long), therefore It exists primarily as a fiction in the minds of anarchists and dreamers. No decent or truly Christian person want this freedom to exist because of the natural consequences that such a freedom would include. In order for there to be any true, complete, absolute “freedom from restraint”, we would have to be freed from some restraints that rational men might find important or necessary, such as all physical laws, including a pretty important restraint known as “gravity”, along with a very primal need for things like oxygen, water, heat, and light. A total freedom from restraint would also leave a man subject to the unrestrained freedoms of others, such as their unrestrained freedom to kill, maim, rape, torture, steal, etc. This freedom has been historically identified as “anarchy”, though anarchists, ironically chafe at the definition. This is why I commonly utilize the term anarchy to refer to the type of freedom preached from modern so-called “christian” pulpits.

It is a given, then, that Biblical liberty cannot be universal or without restraint. It cannot be anarchic. Anarchic freedom is that liberty claimed by Adam and Eve and all the fallen sons of men, and it is contrary to the teaching of the Bible. Now remember, when most everyone you ever meet or know hears the word “liberty” or speaks of “freedom”, this anarchic freedom is what they picture in their minds, even if they would reject the reality of that type of freedom if it were ever unveiled to them in it's fullness.

The Freedom of the Will

It is from this anarchic sense of “freedom” that Papists and Arminians have derived their doctrine of the “freedom of the will”, a ridiculous and stupid assertion which consists of the idea that the will of man is absolutely free or exempt from any bondage, compulsion, restraint, or law. This view, taken to it's absurd conclusion (reductium ad absurdum) would mean that a man is free to will anything at all, even that which he does not prefer or want. It follows, as well, that if a man is free to will without any restraint, then the physical laws of the universe must yield to him, lest he will that which he is restrained from actually doing. If the physical laws of the creation restrain the man, then he may will against those laws all he likes, but his will is destined to be constrained by those laws. This is why I have often told the story of a woman who came up to me at a meeting one day. This woman declared plainly “I have a free will, and I am free to will anything I like”. I replied, “Ok, then will to go to the moon right now. Go to the moon right now while I wait”. Of course she replied, “I can't”. I said, “Why not?” She replied, “Well, because of gravity and other physical laws”. I said, “Oh, so you are not free to do whatever you will, and will whatever you like, because God has put restraints on you? HOW DARE HE!” Of course, she did not get the point, but I hope that you do. Of course the will, along with all other things which exist or function in the created world, is subject to the rule and sovereignty of God. The will is restrained by the reality of the created world in which it operates, and it is subject to the system God has devised to restrain it. We realize naturally that we may not do whatever we will to do, and that our will does not imply ability. For example, because I will to have ice cream whenever it is hot, does not imply or enforce an ability to have ice cream whenever I will to have it. Because I will to jump off a cliff and fly with the birds does not imply or enforce an ability to do so, nor does it imply or enforce an ability to survive the shocking fall and sudden death that is likely to arise as a result of my stupid belief in a free and imposing will. Just as ability is restrained by natural and physical laws (willing something does not imply ability), the will itself is also restrained by the nature and condition of the heart of the one who wills. A tree is restrained externally by nature and physical laws. It may not just uproot itself and walk around even if it were to will to do so. But the tree is also restrained by it's nature and character, “a good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit” (Matt. 7:18) – and in like manner the will of a man is restrained by the nature and character of his heart, which is the proclivities and desires of the mind. The will is the determination of the heart. The corrupt and vile heart, stone dead and desperately wicked, cannot will to do that which is good, right, or holy, nor can it save itself from its condition by willing its own salvation. The Bible teaches that man must be made willing: “For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure” (Php. 2:13). To the Papist/Arminian/Freewiller, the term “made willing” is an oxymoron. Since the reprobate mind has determined that the terms free and freedom must mean “without any restraint whatever”, he naturally has concluded that the will must be free according to this definition. And if the will is totally without any restraint, limitation, or compulsion, then to say that someone is “made willing” is a contradiction in terms. Despite the fact that God claims that it is Him alone that works in the heart of His people to will and to do according to His good pleasure!

“And they came, every one whose heart stirred him up, and every one whom his spirit made willing, and they brought the LORD'S offering to the work of the tabernacle of the congregation, and for all his service, and for the holy garments” (Exo. 35:21).

Here, we find the some Israelites having their will compelled to bring offerings of precious metals and stones for the work of building the tabernacle. It is clear to me that these Israelites were made willing by the Spirit of God, but the Papist or Arminian here protests that it is not clear that it is God who makes willing. I read some Internet posts from Arminians who say “See! It is the spirit of him that makes him willing. The 'him' here is the man who brings the offering, not God”. Well, I disagree, but even if you are right, it is obvious that the man is “made willing” by something other than nothing. If you are right, then he is made willing by his spirit. If the spirit of a man makes a man willing, then the spirit is lord over the will, and it behooves us to examine the nature and character of the spirit of man to see if the spirit is free. Now, every Arminian and Papist I ever met will tell you that the spirit of man was made dead (or at leasts really, really sick) at the fall. They will tell you that Adam didn't die physically at the fall, but that he died spiritually; and if they do not believe that man died spiritually, they will at least claim that he became spiritually sickened. And here they have men with dead spirits whose will is being controlled by that spirit to be willing to bring an offering to the Lord. Is that really what the Bible says? Listen to what David says:

“Now therefore, our God, we thank thee, and praise thy glorious name. But who am I, and what is my people, that we should be able to offer so willingly after this sort? for all things come of thee, and of thine own have we given thee” (1Ch 29:13-14).

David says that we are made willing as the gift of God, which is what our verse in Philippians 2 also says.

Once we determine that we are “made willing” the whole facade of free will theism comes apart. If we are “made willing”, meaning that our will is subject to our nature and character, and that it is also subject to the will of God, we must also determine that our will is not absolutely “free” at all, but is in subjection to something – either the bondage of sin, or the bondage of God.

Law and Government

Now that we have determined that our will is not free, it is easier for us to see that in every sense our freedom is subject to restriction and restraint. Our Natural Liberty is restrained by the laws of God, and by God's divine institution of government (Gen. 9). Our Civil Liberty is naturally restrained by the laws of God, and by the constraining reality of the liberties and freedoms of others; in other words, our Civil Liberty must give way when the use of our liberty will impose a tyrannical or oppressive restraint on (or decisive end to) the liberty of others. My liberty to shoot a firearm does not extend to the point where I can shoot haphazardly and without restraint and by doing so harm or kill innocent people. The Political Liberty of nations (and individuals in those nations) does not extend to the point that nations are free to abridge the rights and freedoms of other nations who have done no wrong or who have committed no evil. God is sovereign, free, and willing to bring one nation against any other that has committed sin and evil against Him, but it is God's absolute freedom to will and to do that which constrains the freedom of individuals and nations. Some will must triumph and must be absolutely sovereign. If we determine that our freedom and liberty is absolute, then we declare to God that we are gods, and that our freedom and liberty is sovereign over His. If we declare that our will is absolutely free and without restraint, then we declare to God that our will is to be done and not His. If we declare that any nation or person is absolutely free or at liberty, then we declare that that nation or that person is God. If we deny that this is true, then we establish that all men and nations are subject to a higher law, and that the perfect law of liberty does not abolish God's moral law or governance at all, but rather it establishes that law:

“Is he the God of the Jews only? is he not also of the Gentiles? Yes, of the Gentiles also: Seeing it is one God, which shall justify the circumcision by faith, and uncircumcision through faith. Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law” (Rom 3:29-31).

While the modernist believes that he is freed (meaning absolutely without restraint) by grace from any and all law, the Bible teaches that the law is established by faith, which is a gift of grace. James agrees with Paul in saying that the perfect law of liberty establishes actions and deeds in accordance with that liberty:

“For if any be a hearer of the word, and not a doer, he is like unto a man beholding his natural face in a glass: For he beholdeth himself, and goeth his way, and straightway forgetteth what manner of man he was. But whoso looketh into the perfect law of liberty, and continueth therein, he being not a forgetful hearer, but a doer of the work, this man shall be blessed in his deed” (Jas 1:23-25).

The Antinomian (or lawless) mind has determined that all law is contradictory to grace or liberty; therefore the term “law of liberty” is as oxymoronic or contradictory as the term “made willing”, and here the Antinomian or Hyper-Calvinist finds himself precisely in the same place as the Papist or the Arminian who insists on the freedom of the will. Here James refers to the Gospel itself as “the perfect law of liberty”, a law which impels and requires that the believer be a “doer of the work” therein. These terms and this idea that true Biblical freedom and liberty involves a direct relationship with law and commandments forms a firm foundation on which a life and mind relatively free of modernist idolatry may rest. From this view and with this understanding, we can see how far modernist professing “christianity” is from the true Christianity displayed for us in God's scriptures. This understanding is a spiritual one, and it requires spiritual understanding to grasp it. Only the spiritual mind can properly interpret what seems to the carnal mind to be nonsense or paradox. Think of these concepts for a moment:

Jesus taught that our ultimate act of liberty was a life given to service, and that the ultimate display of the glorious gift of life was that it be given up. The Bible teaches that we must die in order to live, and that the rich are really the poor, and that the poor are really the rich. The Bible teaches that those who would save their lives will lose them, and those who will lose their lives for Jesus' sake will find it. Why should we be troubled when we learn that true freedom and liberty involves bondage and service to God, His people, His law, and His ordinances? Why should we reject the knowledge that the free men of this earth are still in bondage to sin, while the bond slaves of Christ, in service to one another and to God, are freed from the bondage of sin?

We must acknowledge that the natural man is at enmity with the truth of God. The natural man cannot spiritually know or understand the things of God. (Rom. 8:7) The natural man does not reject predestination and election because he is jealous for the honor and integrity of God. No! The natural man rejects predestination because he thinks he is special, and that God would choose him because of his own nature and characteristics and not in spite of them. The natural man rejects that the will is in bondage to the character and nature of the heart and mind, because he believes that his heart and mind are perfectly fine and that he has no need of a new heart or the mind of Christ in order to rightly will that which is pleasing to God. The natural man rejects rules and commandments and ordinances because these things are contrary to the wicked will of his carnal heart. He rejects the sabbath and devises excuses, tortured reasonings, and unbiblical apologetics for his sabbath rejection – not because he is jealously defending Christ as the fulfillment of the sabbath, but because he hates that God has placed a lien on him on that day, and he will not be subject to any work required by God, even if that work is rest.

Listen, the natural man rejects the whole concept of “law”, and any laws he does obey he does out of servile fear and necessity, not out of love or for the approval of any lawgiver. The child naturally rejects the authority of parents, and must be taught to submit wholly and completely to those who would rule his passions and natural desires. The wife naturally rejects the authority of the husband if her natural proclivities are not absolutely overthrown by the goodness and severity of God, or of her husband, or of both. Likewise, the man naturally rejects the authority of those who rightfully bear rule over him, unless his natural man is subdued by the goodness and grace of God, or of the society, or of both. The modern concept of liberty and freedom is a hologram, a hoax, a myth created in the mind of unregenerate or unconverted men. Modern man bows down to the statue of Libertas in his mind, not unlike the Greeks and the Romans who bowed down to the statues of Libertas in temples in Rome. It is hypocritical for the Protestant Libertas worshiper to condemn the Papist Mariolater for crawling on his knees to a statue of Mary, when the Protestant does the same thing every day by declaring and worshiping his own freedom and liberty, whether it be the freedom of the will, or some corrupt view of political or civil liberty. When the young man or woman throws off the natural and legitimate bonds of his or her parents, they are bowing down to Libertas just as the Romanist idolater bows down to some statue of Mary. When the wife disobeys or rebels against her husband, she is bowing the knee to Persephone, the goddess and queen of Hades, and is rejecting her duty to have no God before the true God of Heaven. When the man throws off the moral laws of God, or the rules of the true Church, or of the community, the society, or of lawful government, he becomes an idolater and worships Libertas just as did the Romans who trudged up the Aventine Hill or the Palatine Hill to bow down in the temples there.

Walking in true Christian liberty involves the seeking of and obeying Godly precepts: “And I will walk at liberty: for I seek thy precepts. I will speak of thy testimonies also before kings, and will not be ashamed. And I will delight myself in thy commandments, which I have loved. My hands also will I lift up unto thy commandments, which I have loved; and I will meditate in thy statutes” (Psa. 119:45-48).

When liberty is proclaimed to the captives, it has an end. The purpose of God is behind such a glorious act. The end of liberty is the beginning of a work, and it involves being used in the building of the glorious Kingdom of God: “The Spirit of the Lord GOD is upon me; because the LORD hath anointed me to preach good tidings unto the meek; he hath sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to them that are bound; To proclaim the acceptable year of the LORD, and the day of vengeance of our God; to comfort all that mourn; To appoint unto them that mourn in Zion, to give unto them beauty for ashes, the oil of joy for mourning, the garment of praise for the spirit of heaviness; that they might be called trees of righteousness, the planting of the LORD, that he might be glorified. And they shall build the old wastes, they shall raise up the former desolations, and they shall repair the waste cities, the desolations of many generations” (Isa 61:1-4).

The decolonization of the modernist mind first requires the casting down of the prior gods of that mind. The modern mind has deified Libertas and has put her as an idol and a god before men. Paul says that Christians were called unto liberty, not to use that liberty as an occasion to pander to the flesh. Our liberty is not to be used to advance our state or condition in the kingdom of this world. Our liberty is not to be used to sever us from our responsibilities to one another. Our liberty is to be used to enable us to serve God and one another, and that is the divine purpose of liberty. Any other view of liberty is idolatry.

I am your servant in Christ Jesus,

Michael Bunker