Posted on 10/12/2025 8:30:54 AM PDT by CondoleezzaProtege
“Religious freedom” was not part of the Old Testament system, because God ruled over Israel directly. Of course, Israel’s theocracy was not intended to be a government model for the rest of the world. Nations which have imposed a self-styled theocracy, such as medieval Spain, have produced totalitarian nightmares. The religious intolerance of the Inquisition was not a product of true theocracy; it was the result of power-hungry, sinful men.
In the New Testament, we have a clearer picture of the God-ordained role of government. Romans 13:3-4 delineates the government’s responsibilities, which are, quite simply, to punish evil deeds, reward good deeds, and render justice. So, God has given the government certain duties, but enforcing a particular system of worship is not among them.
In fact, it is precisely because the United States was founded on biblical principles that religious freedom exists…
First, God Himself extends a “freedom of religion” to people…If God gives men the freedom to choose or to reject Him, then so should we.
Second, the freedom of religion respects the image of God in man (Genesis 1:26). Part of God’s likeness is man’s volition…even if we make the wrong decisions.
Third, the freedom of religion acknowledges that it is the Holy Spirit who changes hearts, not the government (John 6:63). Only Jesus saves. To take away the freedom of religion is to empower human government, with its fallible rulers, to determine the eternal destiny of every soul…
Fourth, the freedom of religion concedes that, in the final analysis, it’s not about religion; it’s about relationship. God does not desire an external form of worship but a personal relationship with His children (Matthew 15:7-8). No amount of government control can produce such a relationship.
(Excerpt) Read more at gotquestions.org ...
Not a happy-go-lucky sort of deity.
Short answer is yes. Faith is meaningless without free will.
Fourth, the freedom of religion concedes that, in the final analysis, it’s not about religion; it’s about relationship. God does not desire an external form of worship but a personal relationship with His children (Matthew 15:7-8). No amount of government control can produce such a relationship.
The Chief Aim of Man
The chief aim of man, according to the Westminster Shorter Catechism, is to glorify God and enjoy Him forever.
There is the relationship........................
His Devine Gift of free will to those created in his likeness says it all.
It's a model Charlie Kirk used.
Although the Holy Spirit convicts men's hearts concerning sin, the Bible's NT does not aver that deity overrides--so as to dictate--the consequent thoughts, choices and/or actions of man.
Correct.
That’s right.
People often conflate "religion" when what they really mean is legalism. While it is true that God primarily wants our hearts, it is not true that he does not desire an external form of religion--many, many, pages of the Old Testament are taken up with his specific requirements for external worship to be carried out at risk of incurring sin, even death. This is because we do not worship God only in our minds, but with our bodies (one of the reasons we even have bodies). Even in the New Testament there are requirements for gathering together, for conducting ourselves in a particular order for the Lord's Supper, kneeling and lifting our hands up before God in worship, etc. Jesus himself submitted himself to externals of the Jewish religion, such as praying at set hours, recognizing the authority of the Law, wearing tassels on his clothing, etc. We are not angels that we worship in spirit alone, but both body and spirit.
” To take away the freedom of religion is to empower human government, with its fallible rulers, to determine the eternal destiny of every soul…”
Agreed
That's not to say there won't be consequences. People complain when bad things happen to them, but act like they are just entitled to God taking care of them as freeloaders for all eternity. That's a serious mistake to make. God owes you nothing. Be grateful for His care now, rather than complaining when anything bad happens.
The website to which you linked states, in part, "We are Christian, evangelical, theologically conservative, and nondenominational."
Interesting. So which on the "non-denominations" then has "dibs" on the answer to the question above? All? Ome? Which ones? Roman Catholics? Eastern orthodox? Of Protestants, which Proetstant(s)?
The website calls itself a "parachurch ministry." Ever come across that description before?
From their webpage about their history:
"The internet is a spiritual battlefield. Cults, false religions, and other pseudo-Christian groups have websites as well. Some of these sites perform much the same function that we do. The answers these sites provide are often unbiblical and lead searching people down a false path—potentially to their own spiritual destruction. (Note: we by no means claim to be the only site on the internet that answers questions in a God-honoring way. In fact, there are many others.)"
Encyclical of Pope Leo XIII, promulgated on November 1, 1855:
34. Doctrines such as these, which cannot be approved by human reason, and most seriously affect the whole civil order, Our predecessors the Roman Pontiff’s (well aware if what their apostolic faith office required of them) have never allowed to pass uncondensed. This, Gregory XVI in his encyclical letter “Mirari Vos” dated August 15, 1832, inveighed with weighty words against the sophisms which even at this time were being publicly inculcated—namely, that no preference should be shown for any form of worship; that it is right for individuals to firm their own personal judgments about religion; that each man’s conscience is his sole and all-sufficing guide; and that it is lawful for any man to publish his own views, whatever they may be, and even to conspire against the State. On the question of separation of Church and State the same Pontiff writes as follows: “Nor can We hope for happier results either for religion or for the civil government from the wishes of those who desire that the Church be separated from the State, and the concord between the secular and ecclesiastical authority be dissolved. It is clear that these men, who yearn for a shameless liberty, live in dread of an agreement which has always been fraught with good, advantageous alike to sacred and civil interests.”. To the like effect, also, as occasion presented itself, did Pius IX brand publicly many false opinions which were gaining ground, and afterwards ordered them to be condensed in summary form in order that in this sea of error Catholics might have a light which they might safely follow.
35. From these pronouncements of the Popes it is evident that the origin of public power is to be sought for in God himself, and not in the multitude, and that it is repugnant to reason free scope for sedition. Again, that it is not lawful for the State, any more than for the individual, either to disregard all religious duties or to hold in favor different kinds of religions; that the unrestrained freedom of thinking and of openly making known one’s thoughts is not inherent in the rights of citizens, and is by no means worthy of favor and support. ...
Darned autocorrect!
Our predecessors the Roman Pontiffs (well aware of what their apostolic faith office required of them) have never allowed to pass ***uncondemned***.
...that it is right for individuals to ***form*** their own personal judgments about religion;...
A sophism.
What is the purpose of free will, sw?
Think about it.
19 Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing. Keeping God’s commands is what counts.
Which, Paul, explains in similar fashion in Galatians 5:6
6 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision has any value. The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love.
I John 2:3
3 We know that we have come to know him if we keep his commands.
Choose ye this day whom you will serve. But as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.
This is the basis of Judeo-Christian Society and Culture.
The idea of individual choice by head of the family...but the family/household as the building blocks of society is at the base.
The idea that we are not predestined but that we have choice is at the base of society.
When ill befalls me, I cannot blame “society”. Either I or my “house” made the wrong choice. When I make the right choice and I planted the right seeds and my crops are coming in.... my house and I get the credit, not “society”.
Choose ye this day whom you will serve. But as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.
This is the basis of Judeo-Christian Society and Culture.
The idea of individual choice by head of the family...but the family/household as the building blocks of society is at the base.
The idea that we are not predestined but that we have choice is at the base of society.
When ill befalls me, I cannot blame “society”. Either I or my “house” made the wrong choice. When I make the right choice and I planted the right seeds and my crops are coming in.... my house and I get the credit, not “society”.
Yes, that’s basically the idea. Jesus is both Saviour and Lord. We owe him both worship and obedience.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.