ways to approach talking about Libertarianism to Christians

I don't know about Protestantism, but Roman Catholicism emphasises free will. Many of our laws fly in the face of that.
 
I don't know about Protestantism, but Roman Catholicism emphasises free will. Many of our laws fly in the face of that.

"Free will" is a direct repudiation of justification by faith alone. Free will is the idea that men have righteousness inside themselves.

The idea that men have righteousness inside themselves is the precursor to the total state.
 
"If I recant my books, I will do nothing but add strength to tyranny."

-Martin Luther

 
Ask a Christian to give a distinction between sin and crime. Ask them if all things sinful should also be criminal. A good starting point would be anger or lust. They are inward sinful acts but I doubt you will find a Christian who will say that it should be prosecuted. Then swap to the other end of the spectrum and discuss first degree murder. Criminal. What separarates the two? Harm of another person. You have just established the non-aggression principle in christian terms.

Now go for a different topic. Drunkeness. Bible will say that it is sinful. Not arguing if it is ok to drink. Just drunkeness. Sin or crime? If they are consistent they should go with sin. They shouldn't say the state should lock someone up for sitting home alone and getting drunk. Now bring up marijuana and see if their head explodes. You will have argued for the legalization of marijuana biblically.

Done this many of times. It works. Doesn't mean you are arguing for them to embrace the acts just not punish them with the sword of the state. At the end of the day, a lot of Christians are statists. The have forgotten the sphere of individual responsibility, parental responsibility, church governance, guild governance etc and think everything should come from DC.
 
Ask a Christian to give a distinction between sin and crime. Ask them if all things sinful should also be criminal. A good starting point would be anger or lust. They are inward sinful acts but I doubt you will find a Christian who will say that it should be prosecuted. Then swap to the other end of the spectrum and discuss first degree murder. Criminal. What separarates the two? Harm of another person. You have just established the non-aggression principle in christian terms.

Now go for a different topic. Drunkeness. Bible will say that it is sinful. Not arguing if it is ok to drink. Just drunkeness. Sin or crime? If they are consistent they should go with sin. They shouldn't say the state should lock someone up for sitting home alone and getting drunk. Now bring up marijuana and see if their head explodes. You will have argued for the legalization of marijuana biblically.

Done this many of times. It works. Doesn't mean you are arguing for them to embrace the acts just not punish them with the sword of the state. At the end of the day, a lot of Christians are statists. The have forgotten the sphere of individual responsibility, parental responsibility, church governance, guild governance etc and think everything should come from DC.


Yes. The Christian system provides a self-contained philosophy of non-aggression and liberty of conscience (which includes liberty of behavior).
 
Yes. The Christian system provides a self-contained philosophy of non-aggression and liberty of conscience (which includes liberty of behavior).

Liberty under state but not under God's law. I know you agree, just parsing it down a notch.

Next question to flip to them are all crimes sin? If the state forbids prayer should a Christian not pray? It would be criminal but not sinful as it would be Christian duty to offer civil disobedience. Now this opens up a whole other area for discourse on how to judge the justness of civil laws. How do we know if a law is unjust? By what standard?

So- not all sins are crimes and not all crimes are sins.

To get a Christian to discuss issues at this level will cause thinking and not pat answers. This is how you pull Bachman supporters into Paul's camp.
 
Last edited:
Ask a Christian to give a distinction between sin and crime. Ask them if all things sinful should also be criminal. A good starting point would be anger or lust. They are inward sinful acts but I doubt you will find a Christian who will say that it should be prosecuted. Then swap to the other end of the spectrum and discuss first degree murder. Criminal. What separarates the two? Harm of another person. You have just established the non-aggression principle in christian terms.

Now go for a different topic. Drunkeness. Bible will say that it is sinful. Not arguing if it is ok to drink. Just drunkeness. Sin or crime? If they are consistent they should go with sin. They shouldn't say the state should lock someone up for sitting home alone and getting drunk. Now bring up marijuana and see if their head explodes. You will have argued for the legalization of marijuana biblically.

Done this many of times. It works. Doesn't mean you are arguing for them to embrace the acts just not punish them with the sword of the state. At the end of the day, a lot of Christians are statists. The have forgotten the sphere of individual responsibility, parental responsibility, church governance, guild governance etc and think everything should come from DC.

the bible defines certain sins as sins against the self as well as God.The new testament is clear on not casting forceful judgement and violence upon others.Judging others out of pride is also spoken against. Galatians 5:14-15 is a direct teaching about law and liberty as well as the consequences of treating a personal moral issue as a crime.
 
THAT, was treason. So no, He wasn't.

This is a two deminsional understanding, and sort of what i meant in saying how people do not understand the life and mission of Jesus in the way that they think that what is meant is to be changed was an earthly or physical change..

imo from my perspective the only physical change will come at the end of the world.. the life and mission of Jesus was to become and announce the spiritual change..

in saying 'I Am' in reference to being the king of the Jews he was in essence declairing himself God. Which isnt false, to those who believe it.. it wasn't his misson to be the earthly king of the jews and over throw the roman government at that time.. he didnt get caught at something and fail.. Pontious Pilot being the governing official didnt even try and sentence him.. so to say it the trial wasnt a matter of breaking the law of Rome.. he literally washed his hands of Jesus and the crowd judged and sentenced him..

all throughout Jesus' life and ministry he was obediant to the law.. at times i believe he was apathetic to it because spiritual things mattered more than physical things.. but Jesus was perfect and did not do wrong..

when i look to God's chosen people and Israel as it is discussed spiritually in the Bible i dont see it as the physical country or nation, but I have more of a spiritual understanding of it.. so personally for me theres a bit of a disconnect to be so concerned with the physical current day nation of Israel.. I have the same concern for the nation of Israel as i would any other nation, I dont revear it as specifically sacred..
 
Last edited:
This is a two deminsional understanding, and sort of what i meant in saying how people do not understand the life and mission of Jesus in the way that they think that what is meant is to be changed was an earthly or physical change..

imo from my perspective the only physical change will come at the end of the world.. the life and mission of Jesus was to become and announce the spiritual change..

in saying 'I Am' in reference to being the king of the Jews he was in essence declairing himself God. Which isnt false, to those who believe it.. it wasn't his misson to be the earthly king of the jews and over throw the roman government at that time.. he didnt get caught at something and fail.. Pontious Pilot being the governing official didnt even try and sentence him.. so to say it the trial wasnt a matter of breaking the law of Rome.. he literally washed his hands of Jesus and the crowd judged and sentenced him..

all throughout Jesus' life and ministry he was obediant to the law.. at times i believe he was apathetic to it because spiritual things mattered more than physical things.. but Jesus was perfect and did not do wrong..

when i look to God's chosen people and Israel as it is discussed spiritually in the Bible i dont see it as the physical country or nation, but I have more of a spiritual understanding of it.. so personally for me theres a bit of a disconnect to be so concerned with the physical current day nation of Israel.. I have the same concern for the nation of Israel as i would any other nation, I dont revear it as specifically sacred..

Actually Jesus told His disciples to act in civil disobedience. He was the first rEVOLutionary. His actions were real, not spiritual. His disciples also refused to follow the law. I get what you're trying to say, but He was not just bringing in a spiritual Kingdom, but a very real physical one. Sadly, because some think it was spiritual only, not much has changed in 2000 years.
 
I think it comes down to asking people to be honest.

What I have seen is that the Christian Right has a skewed view of government in that on one hand they can clearly see that regarding money(Taxes, Redistribution of Wealth, ect...) does not amount to "charity" as those like Barack Obama and his spiritual advisory in Jim Wallis distort and quite frankly lie when speaking of the Gospel of Christ.

However, when it comes to social issues I believe they stand
on hypocritical ground, unable or unwilling to see the truth.

God has given every man, woman, and child Free Will to do as they please. To worship and follow HIM or not and so forth. Yet, as Ron Paul has pointed out, you can not regulate morality which is something many want to do. And to take it one step further, I think many would rather give over authority to the government than take the reigns for with they(being the Church) have to vested with, if via the government they can legislate morality. Hence, having the law to stop abortion is easier than appealing to the hearts of people in loving kindness and understanding, sadden by the fact that you could never reach all(meaning no matter what you did abortion would never completely stop) but respect the God given free will each person has.

And as for the Christian Left, as I spoke about with Obama and the Jim Wallis type, Redistribution of Wealth/Collectivism via force IS NOT "charity". Charity is not something that is forcibly taken but that is given of one's own free will. They have very much indeed tried to legislate morality as well, as we see with the Welfare System. This is where they have already abdicated authority to the government that was charged and given to them by God. The common slam from the regarding the "poor" against the Right is false for the fact that Christ called on Christians as individuals and of the Church to care for the poor and needy, not through a bureaucratic government that forces revenue from a people without consent and call it "charity". For them it is easier to have a law than appeal to people in loving kindness and understand about the plight of those poor and needy. Far far far less would use and abuse the true charity of others as they would and do with the supposed "charity" of a forced revenue to foster a Welfare State(that keep the poor poor, unmotivated, and steal from others).


The Christian Right & Christian Left have a lot to answer for and would help the world tremendously if they got honest with themselves and true about what Christ was and is saying.
 
Last edited:
Without free will, then we have no liberty in the first place.

This is not Biblical. Where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty...and the only way we get to this place of liberty is if the Father commits an act of aggression on us and transforms our stone heart into a heart of flesh.

We don't have free wills. We have wills that are wholly bent toward sin and dead in sin. We cannot respond to God without Him violating our wills.
 
Last edited:
Liberty is goes hand-in-hand with free will. Don't lecture me on my own church's doctrine.

Which church?

I can show from Scripture that there is no such thing as "free will".

Also, if you think this idea of free will "goes hand in hand with liberty", then you have to show it. I would argue the exact opposite and can show from history that the cultures who rejected the idea of free will were the most free.
 
I think Christian groups vary from one another so much that it is just about impossible to set a foot confidently unless one is speaking to one's own kind of Christian.

For example, each group has its own key verses that resonate in a special way that they may not to other groups.
 
Back
Top