the bible has virtually nothing to say about political philosophy. … God doesn’t really want Christians thinking politically …

We understand the Libertarian position — politics and the Bible don’t mix.

… kill tens of thousands of people, blow up their cultural and historical relics and induce a civil war … The Christian thing to do would be to repent, that is to change your ways …

And now you’re using Christian principles applied to government. Hmmm….

Again, the wise James …

Again, using the Biblical principles for government — it’s ok to use Biblical morality in this situation?

The moral imperatives of the bible are not removed from Christians when they put on a uniform … the bible doesn’t change just because a Christian is acting on behalf of a government …

But moral imperatives *are* removed if you’re wearing a suit (instead of a military uniform) as a senator or President so you can legalize drugs and prostitution? We’ll need a list of which government positions have to follow the Bible, and which don’t, as we’re confused (since you’ve stated God is silent about political philosophy, the list must come from outside the Bible, specifically from man not God).

So… how/who gets to decide *what* applies and to *whom*? You’ve stated *some* unchangeable Biblical principles apply to *some* people (foreign policy, military), but other Biblical principles *don’t* apply to *others* (senators legalizing drugs/prostitution). Is God’s law absolute or not? Does it apply to government or not? Or do you want to pick and choose what applies to whom and when?

Since you’ve said the Bible is silent on politics, exactly how do you determine what Biblical principles apply to government, and what don’t? It’s interesting you’ve chosen to apply Biblical morality when it agrees with Libertarian philosophy, and ignore it when it doesn’t (either Libertarian philosophy is wrong, or the Bible is).

You can avoid this problem if you make government and the Bible *completely* separate (as another Libertarian has said [I think Jew, but can’t find the quote right now]), but you’ve got *big* problems trying to Biblically justify *some* government action when it agrees with your Libertarian philosophy, yet ignore the Bible when it doesn’t.

Government is either secular, or it should follow Biblical principles. Which is it?

We understand the Libertarian position — politics and the Bible don’t mix.

That is not exactly true. Libertarians have all manner of views on the bible - some think it is a book of fairy tales - some think it is the model for the perfect “libertarian” government. My view is that the bible does not say very much about political philosophy - that is - it is much less concerned with governments and secular authority, and much more concerned with the hearts and minds of individuals.

And now you’re using Christian principles applied to government. Hmmm….

On the contrary. I am suggesting that those who rob, kill and destroy repent - whether they are government officials, soldiers, vigilantes or bank robbers. The *government* is not a person - it cannot repent, be converted or accept Christ.

Again, using the Biblical principles for government — it’s ok to use Biblical morality in this situation?

The biblical principle I cite in James is that wars aren’t political nor do they have anything to do with governments - but men who give into their lusts and use secular means to achieve biblical ends. Specifically, men who would sacrifice biblical principles for “friendship with the world.” It has nothing to do with government.

But moral imperatives *are* removed if you’re wearing a suit (instead of a military uniform) as a senator or President so you can legalize drugs and prostitution? We’ll need a list of which government positions have to follow the Bible, and which don’t, as we’re confused (since you’ve stated God is silent about political philosophy, the list must come from outside the Bible, specifically from man not God).

A senator or president need not approve everything he legalizes. Just because I am not holding guns up to the heads of homosexuals, or throwing stones (literally) at adulterers does not mean I approve of their behaviour. I can denounce their behaviour, share the gospel with them and explain to them their sin and completely fulfil the moral imperatives of the bible. I see nothing biblical about calling the police to throw these people in jail. I would be glad to change my position in light of evidence - but I see no biblical mandate for such actions.

So… how/who gets to decide *what* applies and to *whom*? You’ve stated *some* unchangeable Biblical principles apply to *some* people (foreign policy, military), but other Biblical principles *don’t* apply to *others* (senators legalizing drugs/prostitution). Is God’s law absolute or not? Does it apply to government or not? Or do you want to pick and choose what applies to whom and when?

Since you’ve said the Bible is silent on politics, exactly how do you determine what Biblical principles apply to government, and what don’t? It’s interesting you’ve chosen to apply Biblical morality when it agrees with Libertarian philosophy, and ignore it when it doesn’t (either Libertarian philosophy is wrong, or the Bible is).

You can avoid this problem if you make government and the Bible *completely* separate (as another Libertarian has said [I think Jew, but can’t find the quote right now]), but you’ve got *big* problems trying to Biblically justify *some* government action when it agrees with your Libertarian philosophy, yet ignore the Bible when it doesn’t.

Government is either secular, or it should follow Biblical principles. Which is it?

Biblical principles apply to everyone (whether they know it or not). All individuals will be judged by that standard. The bible is clear that adultery, murder, lying, prostitution, drug-use, etc.. are sins. These things are the measuring rod for all people and all are found unable to meet perfection. It is tough to prove biblically that Christians must support physically stopping people (whether with police or as vigilantes) from doing these things. However, it is definitely biblical for Christians to warn these people about their choices. In fact, it is sinful for us not to warn them:

16 Now it came to pass at the end of seven days that the word of the LORD came to me, saying, 17 “Son of man, I have made you a watchman for the house of Israel; therefore hear a word from My mouth, and give them warning from Me: 18 When I say to the wicked, ‘You shall surely die,’ and you give him no warning, nor speak to warn the wicked from his wicked way, to save his life, that same wicked man shall die in his iniquity; but his blood I will require at your hand. 19 Yet, if you warn the wicked, and he does not turn from his wickedness, nor from his wicked way, he shall die in his iniquity; but you have delivered your soul.
20 “Again, when a righteous man turns from his righteousness and commits iniquity, and I lay a stumbling block before him, he shall die; because you did not give him warning, he shall die in his sin, and his righteousness which he has done shall not be remembered; but his blood I will require at your hand. 21 Nevertheless if you warn the righteous man that the righteous should not sin, and he does not sin, he shall surely live because he took warning; also you will have delivered your soul” (Ezekiel 3:16-21).

God says to “warn the wicked.” We are not to be snipers on the watchtower, looking to aggress against people who sin - but “watchers” who “warn” and “speak.” A senator is not responsible for allowing men to chose sin (as though he has authority over them anyway!) - he is responsible for not warning them. This is the major distinction between Dems and Christian libertarians - Democrats revel in their sin and proclaim it to be just fine. But Christian libertarians (if they are worth anything) reject both aggressive action against the sinner and also the sin.

Secular laws are not warnings - they are punishments, policing and aggressive action against others. Supporting these actions can, in many cases (even against sinners) actually be outside biblical mandates. If we say we agree with the ten commandments, but break them to “enforce morality” we are committing the error in James 1:20 - whether we are government officials/agents or not. A soldier carrying out an order to kill civilians, is a murderer - regardless if he was “just following orders.” A policeman who shoots a man in a drug raid is also a sinner - even if the man was sinning.

We can not use unbiblical actions to carry out moral imperatives without undermining said imperatives. Government officials and agents are not exempt from any biblical requirements.

You’ve used the Bible to support some things (foreign policy), while ignoring what the Bible says on others (drugs/prostitution). That’s inconsistent.

You’ve got to reconcile how you justify using Biblical principles to use for *some* issues (foreign policy/military), and not for others (drugs/prostitution — you’ve quite quite a whopping contradiction and inconsistency. If you don’t have an answer, fine. Jew gave an answer for himself a while back — we’re just wondering if you hold the same view or not.

The moral imperatives of the bible are not removed from Christians when they put on a uniform

If you’re stating Christians aren’t removed from moral imperatives when they put on the uniform, you haven’t explained why other Biblical moral imperatives against drugs and prostitution *are* removed for senators, and how you choose what applies and what doesn’t.

Government is either secular, or it should follow Biblical principles. Which is it? Yes or no?

You are merely repeating your argument. I have posted a more than satisfactory explanation. I ask that you take the time to consider what I said above. There is really nothing more to respond to until you at least consider my argument.

You’ve got a contradiction when you use the Bible to promote *some* government actions (or actions by people *in* government if you want to be picky), but ignore the Bible when it contradicts Libertarian philosophy.

Again, I encourage you to reread my statement. I made sure to use very specific, clear phrasing and terms to make my point. You should be able to see that I am not proposing any official government action, but rather actions by individuals. You may consider that “picky” but it is fundamental to my point - and to what I think is a misunderstanding on your part.

In my opinion, this is the crux of the hang-up:

you haven’t explained why other Biblical moral imperatives against drugs and prostitution *are* removed for senators

Please explain to me what biblical imperatives I am suggesting be removed? The clear biblical mandate that secular governments outlaw drugs, prostitution and other sins? You seem very confident that the bible proclaims that not only are these moral imperatives (which we agree they are) but that these are also tied to secular legal actions, such as a person believing that people have a right to chose sin is actually a sin itself, condonment/toleration of the sin or at least unbiblical. I see absolutely no evidence of this, in fact I see a lot of evidence to the contrary, much of which I have cited in my original argument and response.

I wanted to answer this question in a separate comment merely for the record, because I think the other issue is way more important and should be addressed at a higher priority. However, I don’t want to ignore this point you want answered, which is important:

Government is either secular, or it should follow Biblical principles. Which is it? Yes or no?

This is a false choice. Government can be all manner of things in all manner of ways. To paraphrase/plagiarize myself from a previous conversion: the purpose of government is whatever purpose a society determines based on what values and ideals they hold paramount. A Muslim government may legislate from the Koran. A secular society may legislate based on greco-roman, or humanistic values. Muslim countries actually use their laws to convert, for example. A communist society, might ban conversion to a faith. Government is merely a mechanism for societies to affirm, legislate or codify their values, whatever they may be. The authority of government is infinitely broad, from anarchism to authoritarianism; as are the morals, from Christianity to humanism; or in forms: family/individual government to collective government.

If I were dictator of the world, government would follow biblical principles - without question. But the bible says almost nothing about how to run governments - so those “biblical principles” would basically be applied in private society. Biblical principles are given to the church, the family, the individual, fathers, mothers, and other authorities, but almost none to “government” (as it’s own entity) as we are discussing it.

What the bible does do, is make it very clear that government is practically irrelevant to our purpose and our morals. It may line up in such and such place and time, it may not. If it doesn’t, then we do not obey governments - if it does, than our message and purpose doesn’t change. Even if we are entitled to certain privileges (I use this word deliberately) in a democratic form, it is not our job to use those privileges (even for “Godly” ends) if they compromise higher biblical morals in the process (theft, murder, lying, etc…).

That is my answer, I realize it doesn’t fit into option a) or b), but it answers your question.

You are merely repeating your argument.

No, we’re repeating the *question*, and waiting for an answer. It’s your article (and argument), and our question about a contradiction in that argument and how you reconcile it.

You should be able to see that I am not proposing any official government action, but rather actions by individuals.

That still won’t solve your contradiction, but we’ll re-phrase the question:

You’ve got a contradiction when you use the Bible to promote *some* actions by individuals (foreign policy/military,etc), but ignore the Bible when it contradicts Libertarian philosophy. So which moral imperatives in the Bible should an individual follow, and which not?

Please explain to me what biblical imperatives I am suggesting be removed?

Prostitution, drugs, and all those Libertarian ideals conflicting with the Bible.

If you use the Biblical morality to justify your foreign policy and actions by military individuals, why do you ignore other Biblical morality when it suits you?

The clear biblical mandate that secular governments outlaw drugs, prostitution and other sins? You seem very confident that the bible proclaims that not only are these moral imperatives (which we agree they are) but that these are also tied to secular legal action … the clear biblical mandate that secular governments outlaw drugs, prostitution and other sins?

Interesting- “You should be able to see that I am not proposing any official government action, but rather actions by individuals”

It’s the actions by individuals, not the government. We haven’t said anything about a biblical mandate for government, and *you’ve* stated it’s about individuals. So why inject this argument? It’s irrelevant.

… I think the other issue is way more important and should be addressed at a higher priority. However, I don’t want to ignore this point you want answered, which is important:

We have no idea what the other issue is (all other discussion is a sidebar to this question) — perhaps that’s the failure to communicate — this is the question we’ve been asking all along:

Government (and the individuals thereof) either follow Biblical morality or they don’t. You’ve got a contradiction using the Bible to justify some actions, while ignoring others. How do you solve that?

so those “biblical principles” would basically be applied in private society. Biblical principles are given to the church, the family, the individual, fathers, mothers, and other authorities …

That’s good enough, and *very* close to what Jew has said.

But then why the “Is libertarian foreign policy biblical?” You applied Biblical morality to government (and created the contradiction) via your foreign policy discussion, and now say it’s all private. If everything is private, the entire discussion is moot (and we’re done discussing it) — what we said WAAAAY back in our very first post:

“You can avoid this problem if you make government and the Bible *completely* separate (as another Libertarian has said [I think Jew, but can’t find the quote right now]), but you’ve got *big* problems trying to Biblically justify *some* government action when it agrees with your Libertarian philosophy, yet ignore the Bible when it doesn’t.”

You don’t solve the contradiction (although it appears you *do* agree with Jew’s position, which is why the entire article is strange). Fair enough, nothing left to discuss, and we’ll stop asking and move on.

But FYI - here’s the relevant discussion from the past regarding Jew (”Why I am a Christian Libertarian”) and the question of reconciling contradicting ideas of government following some of God’s law, and not others — it’s quite similar, though not exact. We were just wondering if you hold the same position as Jew (in bold below). That’s it. One simple question.

AC: You need a *Biblical* reason to justify the Libertarian goals of prostitution and drugs being legal, and abortion not (since life begins at birth, not conception) — otherwise we must conclude Libertarianism is inconsistent with the Bible as one Biblical principle is acceptable to governmentally enforce, the other isn’t. Is that not inconsistent?

Conclusion: Libertarianism is illogical and self-contradicting in both secular (where it logically becomes anarchy) *and* Christian (where it chooses some of God’s law is acceptable to enforce while rejecting others, making man the final authority — who wants to tell God?).

JEW: I would say it differently. Libertarianism doesn’t pick and choose between which of God’s laws to enforce. Libertarianism completely rejects the idea that a government’s purpose is to enforce God’s laws.

AC: God has no place in government and His law is irrelevant to government; whatever laws may or may not exist are wholly unrelated to Biblical values. They may coincide, or may not, but it doesn’t matter as secular (Libertarian) principles overrule God’s law.

JEW: Yep, I think you got it. We don’t agree, but I didn’t really expect to change anybody’s mind.

You’ve got a contradiction when you use the Bible to promote *some* actions by individuals (foreign policy/military,etc), but ignore the Bible when it contradicts Libertarian philosophy. So which moral imperatives in the Bible should an individual follow, and which not?

I fail to see the contradiction. I am not suggesting that individuals follow some imperitives and not others. I am suggesting that the biblical imperitives themselves preclude certain government actions such as murder, adultery, outlawing sin, etc.. Clearly that means I think Christians should run their government by biblical principles, and I would too. It’s not unChristian to support a non-Christian government, unless that government is advocating sin.

Prostitution, drugs, and all those Libertarian ideals conflicting with the Bible.

This is not correct. Prostitution and drugs are not libertarian ideals. But freedom is - which would include the freedom to chose both good and evil. Believing that peopel should not be locked up for lying doesn’t mean one supports lying.

But then why the “Is libertarian foreign policy biblical?” You applied Biblical morality to government (and created the contradiction) via your foreign policy discussion, and now say it’s all private. If everything is private, the entire discussion is moot (and we’re done discussing it)…

I can see where you are coming from here, but I think it is based on a misreading (or a miscommunication on my part). My original point is that a libertarian foreign policy is biblically permissible/compatible - not identical to any biblical teaching. But libertarian foreign policy could be pursued without violating biblical commands (which apply to all men). Wherever a contradiction exists in any non-biblical philosophy, the bible must always win out. But there are plenty of places where the bible and extra biblical philosophy (e.g. political philosophy, can mutually exist).

I would argue the exact opposite of Jew, actually. And this is why my question to you is so important. I would argue that Christians must set up everything they do by biblical principles and morality, including government. However, libertarianism (not all of it by any stretch, but some of it) is easily permissible within biblical mandates.

Those mandates, I would argue, include being a watchman. It is our job to warn all men of the consequences of sins such as prostitution and drug use. However, I think the bible is clear that we are not to manufacture consequences for these crimes that violate other moral imperatives in the process.

You seem to have no separation between biblical mandates which call prostitution sin and going a step further and saying that these same mandates also require outlawing sin in government (Christian or not).

So I ask again (and I answered your question, will you answer mine?), which biblical imperatives justify that moral laws against sins (such as lying, adultery, and drug use) be automatically codified into secular laws in governments of men? For extra credit: why should sins such as drugs and prostitution be illegal, but sins such as lying, breaking the Sabbath and stumbling a brother not be punished by secular courts and police?

What scripture, do you suppose, tells us that secular governments are to enforce God’s laws in the way you prescribe? Most of what we have in the Old Testament record is a Theocratic Monarchy - a form of government that God Himself was reluctant about instituting, since it was of necessity diluted by human sinfulness. That’s hardly a perfect model for today’s secular governments. Although I understand where you’re coming from, having been there myself, I think you are way off base. When I held beliefs such as yours, I found that I felt obligated to defend my position as if it were actually biblical - only to find out later that it was not so much a Christian idea.

We do, however, have this scripture which we should address found in Romans 13:

1Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.

2Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.

3For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same:

4For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.

5Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake.

First of all, we should realize the historical context. Which government would Paul have had in mind? Rome, of course. So although this earthly authority was to be recognized as a “minister of God” to punish evil people, we cannot assume that they are enforcers of moral law in the same way King David was, for instance. Could God sovereignly use this government to punish someone who broke God’s law? Sure, but they would be unaware of it. This government would have had no biblical basis whatsoever; the leaders of it were godless men who didn’t even know the one they should ultimately answer to.

Their only legitimate God-ordained function was to serve God’s purposes in punishing those he condemned. They themselves, not unlike governments today, would have been responsible for all kinds of wickedness. Therefore, they would not have been in a moral position to judge who is immoral by picking and choosing which sins (from a God-perspective) to punish. It is only God, the righteous judge, from whom all power and authority originates who is perfect and is justified in punishing immoral behaviour on all levels. Secular governments can only govern within the consensus of right and wrong as determined by their respective societies, and in my opinion, should only govern with the welfare of its citizens in mind; they should not presume a false moral high ground.

So I ask again (and I answered your question, will you answer mine?), which biblical imperatives justify that moral laws against sins (such as lying, adultery, and drug use) be automatically codified into secular laws in governments of men? For extra credit: why should sins such as drugs and prostitution be illegal, but sins such as lying, breaking the Sabbath and stumbling a brother not be punished by secular courts and police?

We can’t answer in Lincoln-esqe brevity, so it will take some time as it’s Monday and the work week begins. Chris, your question is the same as Colin’s, and we’ll answer both at the same time in due course.

Likely what we’ll do (if it turns out to be lengthly) is submit it as an email to Colin, and he can post it or throw it in the bit-bucket as he sees fit. The only thing we ask is publish it as-is, or not (no editing) — which is likely Colin’s policy anyway.

(I just think that needs to be stated for the record)

All the CC posts are mine, unless someone forged it.

To use the words of the LGM (Little Green Men from Buzz Lightyear) — “We are one”.

“I agree with Darius.

(I just think that needs to be stated for the record)”

I don’t know what you guys are talking about. I think its kinda cool. But thanks for ruining it for me, because I was totally going to rip it off. If I do it now it will be way too obvious, and I will be ashamed.