Let us assume that liberty is: “every man doing what is right in his own eyes.”
If that is liberty, then liberty is not an absolute good for a Biblical Christian.
Let us try a more careful notion of liberty instead: “the power in any agent to do or forbear any particular action, according to the determination or thought of the mind, whereby either of them is preferred to the other.”
If this is the case, then liberty is still not an absolute “good” for men, but a qualified one. No man has a right to act unjustly, so his liberty must be limited (Biblically).
Who should do the limiting? God will, of course, but God has not given all His powers to men or to any one institution.
However, it is not prudent for the state (as opposed to church or family) to be one who limits all immoral or unjust acts. So while I have no “right” to be immoral, I may have a legal option to do so in a prudent state. (See for example a failure to give to the poor.)
It seems good (Biblically) to allow men to choose between goods as they prefer. For example, God has given me the liberty to choose to marry (good) or not to marry (good) as I prefer.
Liberty is, therefore, a good and protection of that liberty is a good reason for civil government.
The Bible need not list every reason for civil government in order for that idea to be consistent with the Bible.
Comments are visible to subscribers only. Log in or subscribe to join the conversation.
