Dear Brethren,
Is the argument somewhat opaque to this point because we are not agreed on fundamentals? What I mean by that is, should we first not be looking at what "Christian Liberty" consists of and go from there, rather than argue about the color of one another's dogs while some are referring to their cats and some their horses?
Rev. Bacon from the Faith Presbyterian Church Reformed in Texas has an incredibly thorough series on Christian Liberty (a 25-part series!) available on sermonaudio.com Rev. vanderZwaag from the HNRC covers the same in a more basic form (one sermon or so). I don't have the exact link to Rev. v.d. Zwaag's sermon, sorry - it is on sermonaudio.com as well. I do have the link to Rev. Bacon's series, below. I'm not entirely through it yet, but I have the best of intentions (!)...
SermonAudio.com - Search Results
BTW, they are both of the opinion that it is 'freedom from' certain sinful burdens/worldly conventions, not 'freedom to' do what we please. From the way this discussion has been developing, taking such a viewpoint as the basis for the argument would change the slant of things significantly.
