August 8, 2016 Show with Jamin Hubner on “A Christian Libertarian’s Reflections on the 2016 Race for President of the USA”

Live from the historic parsonage of 19th century gospel minister George Norcross in downtown

Carlisle, Pennsylvania, it's Iron Sharpens Iron, a radio platform on which pastors,

Christian scholars and theologians address the burning issues facing the church and the world today.

Proverbs 27 verse 17 tells us iron sharpens iron so one man sharpens another.

Matthew Henry said that in this passage, quote, we are cautioned to take heed whom we converse with and directed to have in view in conversation to make one another wiser and better.

It is our hope that this goal will be accomplished over the next hour and we hope to hear from you, the listener, with your own questions.

Now here's our host Chris Arntzen. Good afternoon

Cumberland County, Pennsylvania and the rest of humanity living on the planet earth who are listening via live streaming.

This is Chris Arntzen, your host of Iron Sharpens Iron. Wishing you a happy Monday on this eighth day of August 2016 and I'm delighted to have a guest on the program today that I have never before interviewed.

His name is Dr. Jamin Hubner and Dr. Hubner is an

American theologian and author from South Dakota. He is a graduate of Dort College where he received a

BA in theology. He is also a graduate of Reform Theological Seminary where he received an

MA in religion and the University of South Africa where he received his

THD in systematic theology and currently serves as the Director of Institutional Effectiveness and Founding Chair of Christian Studies at John Witherspoon College in the

Black Hills. And we are also going to be discussing today a recent event that Dr.

Hubner spoke at, the Christians for Liberty Conference which was just held over the weekend and we are looking forward to discussing that.

And the primary topic today is a Christian libertarian's reflections on the 2016 race for President of the

United States. It's my honor and privilege to welcome you for the very first time ever to Iron Sharpens Iron, Dr.

Jamin Hubner. Well, thank you, Chris. I really appreciate the invitation and I think this should be some interesting discussion and I hope it's really helpful for your listening audience.

Yeah, and I am confident it will be. And before we go into the heart of our subject today,

I'd like our listeners to understand a little bit about your own religious background, what kind of a religious atmosphere you were raised in, and when you came to Christ, obviously an abbreviated version of your testimony, and how you came to be fascinated and actively involved in libertarian politics.

Okay, sure. Well, I had the incredible blessing of being, and the privilege of being born into this world in the

United States and with two Christian parents. And right there, that's a lot.

And they've been supportive of me generally and throughout my life, and so that's really significant.

And I grew up in the North American Baptist tradition, and that is a pretty small denomination.

In fact, I think they might have changed their name now, but anyway. So, you know, then

I got into theology and I was thinking of going into a career in music, possibly architecture or something else, but eventually

I decided on doing theology. And, you know, my family supported me, but on the other hand, it's like, okay, so what do you so -called do with that?

And so anyway, and I didn't know. It was just kind of a leap of faith, and we tried to keep our, you know,

I tried to keep my expenses low, and went on to seminary and continued that whole thing.

I realized I really wanted to teach at a college level. So, I mean, when

I really became a Christian, you know, I didn't really have maybe a decisive conversion experience, although, you know, there's two or three episodes in my teenage and early years where I recognized that I'm a creature and I got serious problems,

I can't win all these battles I have with various temptations, and I just really needed

God. So, anyway, I mean, that's, you know, that it's...

On the other hand, you know, I've always had a very curious kind of mind and a skeptical kind of approach to things, you know, as I continue to learn and look at different areas, and so that has really cultivated, you know, various internal struggles, because I realized that I'm just one person, and it's a big world, and there's a lot of ideas, even within Christianity.

So, you know, everybody's a work in progress as it is. We all have a spiritual journey, and we go through different phases, and but God has been really faithful and holding on to me, and that's been pretty good, and how

I got into, you know, I mean, you can't really escape politics living in the

United States. I mean, I think we're all probably trying to find the biggest hole in the ground right now and bury ourselves in it.

At least I am. So, you know, it's for good or ill, we're inundated with the relationships and the dynamics and the personality cults and everything that goes into the leaders and the political atmosphere of this country, and that goes all the way back to the

Greco -Roman world, and how there's this fascination with power and manipulation, and a lot of those things.

And so, you know, I grew up in kind of a typical neoconservative Midwestern household, you know, listened to countless hours of Rush Limbaugh on the tractor as I worked in the field on the farm, and sort of adopted, you know, a neoconservative perspective.

If you could, if you wouldn't mind defining that for our listeners who have heard and understand liberalism to a degree, they understand conservatism to a degree, and I've noticed that many people often don't really understand the genuine definitions or origins of those points of view, but if you could contrast a neocon from an authentic, in your opinion, historically conservative individual.

Okay, well, that's an interesting question. I guess different people would take different approaches, but I guess mine would be, let me just put it this way.

The conservatism of, say, Barry Goldwater, who wrote a book called

The Conscience of a Conservative. I just read that book last year. I think it's an excellent book, and that today is basically libertarianism, with the exception of probably his views on foreign policy, and so that would entail an extremely limited, you know, view of government regarding not just what the government does, but the purpose and the nature of the government, which has sort of evolved over time, and, you know, a lot of different ideas about free markets and economics go into that, and that has kind of shifted from the, gosh,

I don't know, 60s, I guess we'll say, 50s, 60s, maybe early 70s. I can't really speak because I wasn't born.

I wasn't alive during that time, so I don't want to be too presumptuous, but from what

I've read and what I understand, and that has sort of, you know, evolved to the, like a big thing that has become a mark of neoconservatism is really kind of a pro -war and interventionist perspective with regard to foreign policy, certainly a lot more than it was right after World War II, and so, um, you know,

I mean, we can parse out a lot of the different details of policy changes and things like that, but largely neoconservative is sort of like the vestige, the remnants of a kind of what we presently call a libertarian perspective that really emphasizes and understands human beings as free creatures, the state as a parasite, and can really, you know, only works with force, and that's part of its nature, and that's a problem, and it's gotten out to a point where, well, some of the rhetoric is left, some of the rhetoric remains, some of the slogans and the ideas remain, but the so -called limited government, fiscal responsibility,

I mean, as far as I'm concerned, I haven't seen any fiscal responsibility since I've ever been alive from either party.

Yeah, I mean, wasn't George W. Bush more irresponsible fiscally than his predecessor,

Bill Clinton? Well, that's a great point, and that was what really got me disillusioned with the neoconservative model was, here we supposedly had a true conservative who was going to change the world, and all our dreams would come true, and the world would be at peace, and what happened with Bush?

Well, we invaded countries, we bailed out a bunch of corrupt banksters, and the debt has just increased incredibly, you know what

I mean? So while my parents and my friends and the sort of bubble

I was in and grew up in would sort of say things, well yeah, we believe in a limited government or fiscal responsibility or whatever, in practice,

I mean, I just didn't see it. And so the more and more I looked into it, and I was actually a political science minor in college for a while, and the more

I really looked into these things, just the, I don't know which metaphor to use, but it was just really hard to find a critically thought, consistent perspective on what even the government is, even on definitions, what the state is, what our relationship should be to different organizations and social entities.

And eventually I came across Ron Paul, and I was reading one of his books, and he was talking about how there's really only one party in Washington, and I was like, oh my goodness, you know, this is sort of horrifying, but it was true.

And like the differences between the traditional left -white dichotomy and dualism during election season, they're supposedly as far as the east is from the west, but when you really get down to it and you think about it, you read about it, you understand all the different variables and see what happens in Congress and so forth, the differences are very small.

And of course, you're seeing that recently with some of these great Republican leaders endorsing

Hillary, and that doesn't surprise me too much, but so I mean, one of the basic assumptions in contemporary politics in America is the assumption that there's these huge differences between parties, and libertarianism questions that assumption.

It says that actually, well, there's so many memes

I could quote from, but one of the memes I love, it has pictures of both parties, and it says, in case you haven't figured it out yet, both parties will spy on you, both parties will start illegal wars, both parties will, you know, are owned by banks, both parties will continue the drug wars, and it goes on and on and on.

And it was things like that, that really kind of opened my eyes that, you know, my goodness, this is, the parties are owned, and they're owned by people higher up in other corporate interests, by central banks, and that really, the election system and the process of so -called political change is more of a tool in the hands of people, so.

Yeah, my friend William Grigg, who is a Christian libertarian,

I believe he said that the parties are in the same crime family, they're just different cartels or something.

Yeah, there you go. Something to that effect. Uh, and I'm going to give our email address here for anybody who would like to join us on the air with a question of your own for Dr.

Jamin Huebner about a Christian libertarian's reflections on the 2016 race for President of the

United States. Our email address is chrisarnson at gmail .com,

c -h -r -i -s -a -r -n -z -e -n at gmail .com. Please give us your first name, city and state of residence, and country of residence if you live outside of the

USA. It's been interesting lately how I've been getting overseas emails with questions from my guests about our political race for President, so even from Scotland recently, but anybody is welcome to join us, no matter what your beliefs are, you don't need to be a

Christian. You could be atheist, agnostic, Muslim, Jewish, Swedenborgianist, or a

Christian. We look forward to hearing from you regardless, and so now you've become fascinated or drawn towards further investigation of libertarianism, and how did that lead you to be fully entrenched in it, if you will?

Mm -hmm. That's a good question. I guess there were a couple different movements,

I guess, and one I've already summarized, and that was kind of a discontent and disillusionment with the current establishment, and another was, well, one was economics.

I've always been interested in economics, and I'm halfway through a Master of Science in Economics right now and hope to teach at a college level, and really the only kind of group that gave any substantial weight to sound economic thinking were libertarians.

I mean, you know, the political right would talk about it. They would talk about fiscal responsibility. They'd talk about, maybe we should do something about the central banking that's creating all this poverty and creating all this boom -bust cycle, you know, starting with...

I mean, it goes all the way back to the late 1700s in Massachusetts and the printing of fiat currency, but,

I mean, it's been going on for 200 years, and, you know, the Great Depression, the 2007 -2008 bubble, all that can be traced back to the printing of currency and fractional reserve banking and central banking problems, and hardly anyone mentioned these things.

I mean, when you have an entity like the Federal Reserve or any central bank that controls the entire currency of a country, that's a lot of power.

That's a lot of power, and when the U .S. dollar, the Federal Reserve notes, are also the reserve currency of other banks around the world, that's a lot of power, and, of course, the reason most politicians and parties don't critique that is because they need a central bank to print fake money and these currency and these notes so that they can spend them, spend those notes through borrowing, on the different corporate interests and, you know, compliments and special, you know, favors that they've promised to the people who've elected them.

So, libertarians are the only people who really had any sense of a founding economic thinking that was part of that whole political consciousness.

You know, the idea that debt is bad, for instance. You know, that we can't spend our way out of a huge cave, a cavern of debt, as, you know, you'd think would be a pretty common understanding of things, but it just wasn't.

And, you know, the question of income tax is a great example. You know, it always comes up, well, should we lower income tax or should we increase income tax?

And the question is never asked, well, should we even have income tax? Income tax, no

American paid income tax prior to 1913. They held on to 100 % of their income. It was started to fund

World War I. It was temporary, hopefully for only a couple of years, to help fund this these big problems.

And here it's today, and it doesn't just exist, it's huge. It swallows a third of what we make, and it's just incredible.

And nobody's questioning that. Yeah, I didn't even become aware of this until about,

I don't know, seven or eight years ago when I discovered the documentary that Aaron Russo produced called

America, Freedom to Fascism. Have you seen that? I have not, no. Oh, that's an excellent documentary, specifically on the income tax issue.

And you will be fascinated because he actually, Aaron Russo, by the way, is a movie producer who produced 48

Hours, starring Eddie Murphy, and The Rose, starring Bette Midler.

And he was being accosted, if you will, not physically, but he was being harassed in a friendly way by those who were aware of what you are speaking about now, about the origins of the income tax system.

And he finally, thinking that they were nuts, he was being barraged by so much information and so many people that he decided,

I've got to really look into this myself. And he found out that much of what these people were saying, if not all of what they were saying, was true.

So he did this really great documentary, you can see it for free on the internet, America, Freedom to Fascism.

And he interviews an attorney for the

IRS, and the guy actually stopped the interview midstream because he didn't realize he was going to be exposed for the hypocrisy and deceit that the

IRS is built upon. And it's kind of interesting how the

Constitution is a very small document, and Aaron Russo brought out the

IRS tax code, and it was like the size of three phone books put together. But if you could,

I'm sorry, I interrupted you there, but I just thought I'd - Okay. Yeah, that's interesting. I'll check that out.

And that brings up an interesting point in just, I mean,

I had the privilege of being in the academic world and going through different studies and research projects.

So I kind of developed a sense of pseudo -scholarship and pseudo -intellectualism and poorly credible conspiracy theories and different things like that.

But because there's so many interesting truths about our history and banking and finance, and it's always tempting for people to just dismiss it all or accept it all without any kind of qualification or thought, and then who knows where that might lead.

So that is an important aspect. Well, anyway, in finishing answering your question, so there was the turn away from mainstream politics.

There was the turn towards libertarianism because of economic consciousness.

And then there was another big shift that has to do with just understanding what the government is.

I mean, if you talk to different people and you ask what the government is, you get a dozen different definitions and you would think that, well, we all sort of know what it is.

But reading some Austrian theorists and political philosophers and even journalists like Rose Wilder in her book,

Discovery of Freedom in 1943, it's a really fascinating book. And that's free online,

I think. You know, they put a definition to the state in a way that I've never heard before.

And the big lightbulb moment in all of this was for me that government is different in that it makes offers that can't be turned down.

You know, if Ford was to approach you and say, okay, we'll give you our

SUV for $35 ,000, but if you decline our offer, we'll punish you.

It's like, wait a minute. Whoa, I mean, you can't do that. You know, you don't just make an offer and force us to take it.

But, you know, when the government makes an offer and says, okay, we'll give you our school system, education, food, housing, you know, court systems, arbitration, national defense, for 40 % of your income and a whole lot of other things, if you turn this down, we'll punish you.

We'll fine you and take your body and put it in a concrete and steel cell if you decline, long enough anyway.

And so this realization that the state is the only entity, it is the only social organization that operates on the basis of force was very interesting to me, because it's just assumed that, well, it's okay.

Well, they have to, you know, otherwise, well, otherwise what? We won't have schools. We won't have, you know, all the things.

And that was kind of a final turning point, realizing that, you know, oh my goodness, why do we believe this is just okay?

Because, you know, the use of force, that's just violence, is when you initiate force against someone, that's violence.

And so, in a way, it kind of opened my eyes to the culture of violence that we live in, and the consistent violation of liberties that Americans originally, you know, fought for, you know, that are continually violated.

I just read a story in the Rapid City Journal about a 17 -year -old girl from Sturgis who was coming back from some mission trip or something, and GSA asked her to take off her clothes, and she was basically molested.

And for what reason? Well, for national security, of course. And as long as, you know, what can happen to government agencies?

Well, there's no accountability. In the free market, we could do something about it. We would say, we're not going to give your business to you anymore if we don't like what you're doing.

We're going to stop shopping there. We're going to write bad reviews on Amazon or, you know, on the internet or whatever, on Google.

Well, we can't do that with the government. It's like, if our rights are violated, we just have to, that's it.

I mean, it's just, the abuse of power is just a systematic thing that they can continually get away with. So there's no mechanism of correction.

There's no accountability. And so anyway, yeah,

I mean, just realizing the nature of government, that it works on the basis of coercion, was just really interesting to me.

And then, of course, I had to realize, well, wait a minute. A distinctive aspect of Christianity and of Jesus' life and ministry has always been peacefulness.

The lack of force. Jesus hated the use of force. He hated the use of coercion.

And voluntarism, it just permeates the New Testament. And even when it comes down to giving and charity, don't give because, like under compulsion, you know, the

New Testament writers put it, give with a willing spirit, not under compulsion, is the language there.

And that's always, that's kind of part of the New Covenant, is a community of voluntarism, of freedom and liberty within the law of Christ.

And so, that's what, to me, kind of brings together libertarianism as a political philosophy and Christianity and Christian theology is the shared goals and values and assumptions of peace and freedom, if that makes any sense.

Oh yeah. Well, what do you do with the fact that the scriptures are clear that we are to pay taxes, we are to render to Caesar what is

Caesar's, and so on? And obviously, believe me, there's a part of this conversation that is going to be devil's advocate because I realize that much of what the

United States population believes their taxes are going to, are just not going to fund those things.

People think that there would be, without our income tax, there would be no more highways, roads, bridges, schools, the military would cease to exist and all that.

Well, a couple different questions there. The first one about, you know, the

New Testament and in relationship to the state, it's very interesting. Well, there's really nowhere, as far as I understand, that it says that Christians must pay taxes when,

I mean, I'm not saying that they shouldn't pay taxes necessarily, but I mean, I pay my taxes.

But, I mean, it's really interesting when that question came up and when

Jesus was raised and says, render unto Caesar what's Caesar's. Well, what's so interesting about that is, you know,

Jesus doesn't say, you know, give your property to the government.

There's no acknowledgement of this private ownership of giving something that's yours. In a really interesting and subtle way,

Jesus says, give to Caesar what is Caesar's. So, and of course, he was doing three and four different things by that one phrase.

And of course, it's puzzled scholars and, you know, teachers of the New Testament for centuries.

But I just think that's an interesting point to make, that he didn't just say, well, yes, you should just unconditionally always, you know, just do whatever the state does.

Same with Romans 13, is that we have to realize the situation the early church was in.

You know, Christianity had a really unstable relationship with the government, because the government back then, the

Roman Empire, had an approved list of religions and religious traditions, and if you weren't on that list, that was a serious problem.

Just like today, you know, with accreditation in higher education, with licensing boards, if you're a counselor, you know, the government has this list of the approved things, the approved businesses, the approved war factories, and everything else.

Well, it was the same back then with religion. Had a list of approved religions. Christianity wasn't on that list, of course, because it wasn't really a developed religion at that point.

It was a spin -off of Judaism, and nobody really quite understood what was happening and going on, and, you know, who was the

Jesus guy. And so, eventually, you know, Christianity was labeled atheist, and you read about that in the early church fathers, why

Christianity is not atheist. And that was one of the first objections and misunderstandings of Christianity, was because it didn't fit into any category.

I mean, how does an incarnation fit? There's, you know, these other pagan mythologies and Greek goddesses, it just didn't seem to fit very well.

So, that made Christianity eventually, you know, became illegal, because it was considered atheistic, or not approved, and didn't have a connection with these other previous religions.

And so, but then what's really interesting, is Christians started saying,

Jesus is Lord, Hokurios Iesous, to use the restored pronunciation,

Jesus is Lord. And that was a thumb in the face of the most powerful person, perhaps, on the planet at that time, and that was

Caesar. That was the emperor of the entire empire.

And by saying that, Christians were affirming, not just the deity of Christ, which was extremely important and definitional to Christianity, but they were also dethroning the head of the government.

It was, it was as treasonous, and as, it made them enemies of the state as much as possible, because it was

Augustus Caesar who was considered Lord, and he was worshipped as divine. And now all of a sudden, there's this group of Jews and Gentiles singing songs about Jesus of Nazareth, and saying,

Jesus is Lord, praying even to Jesus. And so, that really complicated things.

And then another thing about early Christianity that made them very, had a very unstable relationship with the state, and made it very clear that they were a totally different society, a totally different way of operating, was the

Resurrection Doctrine. Because, you know, as N .T.

Wright has pointed in seminal works and others, Resurrection Doctrine was not, and by Resurrection Doctrine, I mean physical, bodily resurrection.

That was not extremely common and widely believed at the time.

In fact, when Jesus came back from the dead, even his own followers didn't believe him.

They had to be shown, they demanded evidence. But didn't the

Pharisees strongly believe in the Resurrection, not that they believed in Christ?

They did. That's the one thing that the early Christians and the Pharisees had in common, the very big thing that they had in common.

The Sadducees didn't believe in the Resurrection, and for that reason, we're in cahoots with the state a bit more.

Because when you believe that people come back from the dead, the use of force loses its power. The threats,

I mean, think about it. Well, we know how that plays out in the Roman theater when spears are presented in the front of the faces of Christians.

They say, yeah, I believe Jesus is Lord, what are you going to do, kill me? I'm coming back from the dead.

I mean, Jesus has conquered the grave. And so the Resurrection Doctrine was revolutionary, in NT Wright's terms and others, because of that belief, and that they started to not fear what the government could do to them.

And for a second reason, the Old Testament prophecy talked about resurrection as a metaphor for the restoration of the nation of Israel.

So talking about resurrection was like playing the Star -Spangled Banner in Great Britain after the Revolution, or something.

You know what I mean? It was really unwelcome, and so you can see how these basic teachings and central teachings of Christianity and the society that they were presenting, which was not based on force, but turned the other cheek.

And it was based on voluntarism and freedom. All these things, it was a whole new way of looking at the world.

And as David Bentley Hart points out in his really good book by Yale University Press, Atheist Delusions, he talks about where Jesus was being mocked.

Hail, King of the Jews, and they put this robe on him and a crown of thorns.

And it's like the greatest irony. Because here's the king of the world. Here's God in the flesh.

And people think that they're mocking him, you know, because supposedly having a crown on your head is a big deal.

You know, being the emperor or the head of the government or some official is a big deal.

And of course, you know, the question is, well, who's being mocked here? Who's really being shamed?

And so, there's this really subtle and unsettling and, in a way, sort of anarchic, insofar as it disabled the traditional category and the ways of the government and participation in the military and different things.

You know, in the Christianity, and that's why it really became persecuted for all the way until, you know, 311

A .D. with the Edict of Milan or whatever. And so, anyway, what

I would just say then is, having said all of that, we go back then and read

Romans 13. And could you stop right there, because we have to go to a break. Oh, yeah. And obviously,

Romans 13 is where the whole idea of a Christian paying taxes is really coming from here.

And if we, if you are listening and would like to join us on the air with a question, in fact, we already have several people patiently waiting.

Well, at least I hope they're patiently waiting to have their questions asked and answered. You could join them as well by asking a question of your own by emailing us at chrisarnson at gmail .com.

ChrisArnson at gmail .com. And don't forget to please give us your first name, city and state of residence, and country of residence if you live outside the

USA. We'll be right back with Dr. Jamin Huber right after these messages, so don't go away.

Hi, I'm Chris Arnson, host of Iron Sharpens Iron Radio, here to tell you about an exciting offer from World Magazine, my trusted source for news from a

Christian perspective. Try World at no charge for 90 days and get a free copy of R .C.

Sproul's book, Relationship Between Church and State. I rely on World because I trust the reporting.

I gain insight from the analysis, and World provides clarity to the news stories that really matter.

I believe you'll also find World to be an invaluable resource to better understand critical topics with a depth that simply not found in other media outlets.

Armed with this coverage, World can help you to be a voice of wisdom in your family and your community. This trial includes bi -weekly issues of World Magazine, on -scene reporting from World Radio, and the fully shareable content of World Digital.

Simply visit wmg .org forward slash iron sharpens to get your

World trial and Dr. Sproul's book all free, no obligation with no credit card required.

Visit World News Group at wmg .org forward slash iron sharpens today.

Charles Haddon Spurgeon once said, Give yourself unto reading. The man who never reads will never be read.

He who never quotes will never be quoted. He who will not use the thoughts of other men's brains proves that he has no brains of his own.

You need to read. Solid Ground Christian Books is a publisher and book distributor who takes these words of the

Prince of Preachers to heart. The mission of Solid Ground Christian Books is to bring back treasures of the past to minister to Christians in the present and future, and to publish new titles that address burning issues in the church and the world.

Since its beginning in 2001, Solid Ground has been committed to publish God -centered, Christ -exalting books for all ages.

We invite you to go treasure hunting at solid -ground -books .com. That's solid -ground -books .com

and see what priceless literary gems from the past to present you can unearth from Solid Ground.

Solid Ground Christian Books is honored to be a weekly sponsor of Iron Sharpens Iron Radio. Welcome back, this is

Chris Arns, and if you just tuned us in for the full two hours today, our guest is

Dr. Jamin Hubner, Director of Institutional Effectiveness and Founding Chair of Christian Studies at John Witherspoon College.

He's addressing a Christian libertarian's reflections on the 2016 race for President of the

United States, and we are starting off our two -hour discussion, and have been for the last half hour or so, or actually close to 40 minutes, by getting more of a background and definition of what

Christian libertarianism is. And of course, Christian libertarians, as I've discovered, are not cookie -cutter individuals.

There are disagreements even amongst them, just as there are any group of people.

And if you'd like to join us on the air, our email address is chrisarnsen at gmail .com,

chrisarnsen at gmail .com, and give us your first name, city, and state and country of residence if you live outside of the

USA. For those of you waiting to have your questions asked, we just ask for a little patience right now until we get into the heart of the topic.

Before I even go any further with our discussion, Dr. Huebner, can you tell us what a

Director of Institutional Effectiveness does? You know,

I wish I could, but I really can't. No, the big job

I have on that title is accreditation, which has really opened my eyes to the octopus arms of the government in higher education, especially in Christian higher education.

I actually learned a lot, and I never would have expected to have learned things about accreditation in colleges, and then reflected on that and thought, why don't churches do this?

But I did a couple times, but at any rate, it's an administrative duty, and I also just kind of make sure that everything's sort of functioning and that the school is operating well.

Can you describe for our listeners what John Witherspoon College is?

Sure. And of course, in this interview, I'm just speaking on behalf of myself, not of the college or any church

I go to or any other institution. This interview is just my own views. The college is a really interesting and exciting project here in the

Black Hills, about 25 miles from Mount Rushmore, and it's weird that there is no

Christian college in this very populated Christian area.

So there's been a lot of effort, and some have sort of worked, some haven't, and finally, like four or five years ago, a dream became a reality, and now there's a really, really great

Christian college. When you start a Christian college from nothing, you don't expect to have, in your second year, where everybody has their doctorates, all the faculty.

One of our professors is a two -time graduate of Harvard Medical School. Our history professor is a retired

Air Force colonel, and she is the world expert on women's baseball in the 1800s.

And our professor of humanities is a graduate of one of the greatest philosophic institutions in the country, the

Dallas Philosophic Institute or whatever, Dallas University, or I think that's it. And the people are great, and so I really, really am blessed to work with really smart and fantastic teachers, and also good students.

Most of our students are homeschooled, and they already come in knowing how to read and write, which is more than...

I mean, that's like a blessing these days, because I talk to other professors at universities, and they've got to start from the ground up, and they're dealing with people who...with

students who just don't have the basic reading and writing skills. And so, we've had a really great group of students.

Not as many as we would like. We're still growing, but, yeah, it's really been a tremendous success so far, and with accreditation as well and everything else.

And our president, of course, you know, he's got three doctorates, and he was the president of Criswell and, you know, travels the world preaching at different institutions.

So, we're just really, really, really unique. It is not some, you know,

Bible college in the middle of the field, you know. I mean, we're talking real teachers and scholars and a really good organization.

Now, you got your MA from Reform Theological Seminary. I've invited...I've interviewed a number of the faculty, in fact, the current president and even the former president of RTS.

I've interviewed him on my program. I happen to be theologically reformed.

Do you retain that theological position, and what is that...how does that fit within John Witherspoon?

Well, the college is non -denominational. So, we have, you know, I think most are probably, you know, you'd say reformed in their soteriology, but I don't speak on behalf of the college.

But, you know, we have evangelical -free Presbyterian Baptist professors, and we've had students who are

Catholic or, you know. So, it's non -denominational.

But, I personally, I mean, I still largely identify with the Reformed tradition, but, you know,

I find myself more in line with a pretty nuanced, you might say, like, neo -Calvinism.

One of my favorite theologians is Herman Bovink and some others. And so, there's different caveats of that.

You know, I'm not one of those guys who's like, you know, the Westminster Standards is the greatest thing since sliced bread.

You know what I mean? Or to question the Westminster Standards is basically to question the

Bible. So, not that it's a terrible collection of documents or anything, but I'm just not as dogmatic, you know.

There's a lot of people who identify in that particular circle. Yeah, and Herman Bovink was a

Dutch theologian, wasn't he? Yeah, yeah. He took Abraham Kuyper's place at the

Free University of Amsterdam. So, you think the three forms of unity are the greatest things since sliced bread?

Well, you know, in terms of confessions, I actually, I mean, I'm not a member of PCUSA, and of course

I don't agree with some of their policies, but I'm teaching a creeds and confessions class this fall, and so there are hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of creeds and confessions.

It is just amazing how many there are. And there's several that I found that are just really cool, and they're really great, and I wish

I would have heard about them earlier. And one is this 1983 Statement of Faith, because it was when two

Reformed denominations got back together, and two churches got back together, and that's often not the case.

Usually, when a creed or confession is written, it's a division. It's a split.

And that really kind of changes the tone, I think, when you actually read through different creeds and confessions.

That was one of my favorites I learned about recently. You know, I've had a new appreciation for the

Nicene creed of 381 and some others in different ecumenical projects, but so anyway.

Very quick. I was just going to ask you who John Witherspoon was. Well, Witherspoon was an

American founding father. He was the only pastor to sign the Declaration of Independence. He was also the president of what's now

Princeton. It was New Jersey College back then, and he was a

Scottish descent and moved to the States to help with the college.

And frankly, he's one of the only founding fathers where you can say with certainty, okay, this guy's a

Christian, you know, believes in the Jesus Christ Lord and deity of Christ, and he's not some kind of Unitarian or Deist or things like that.

And also wrote some interesting works on money. He wrote a treatise on money and economics and things like that.

But so yeah, he's a pretty interesting guy, and he had a bounty on his head, and apparently some guy got killed because they thought he was

Witherspoon. Poor guy. Well, let's return to the subject at hand now, and I want to read

Romans 13 1 through 7, and then you could return to what you were saying when we left off at the break.

Romans 13, this is the Apostle Paul's letter to the Romans, beginning at verse 1.

Every person is to be in subjection to the governing authorities.

For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God.

Therefore whoever resists authority has opposed the ordinance of God, and they who have opposed will receive condemnation upon themselves.

For rulers are not a cause of fear for good behavior, but for evil.

Do you want to have no fear of authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise for the same.

For it is a minister of God to you for good. But if you do what is evil, be afraid, for it does not bear the sword for nothing.

For it is a minister of God, an avenger, who brings wrath on the one who practices evil.

Therefore it is necessary to be in subjection, not only because of wrath, but also for conscious sake.

For because of this you also pay taxes. For rulers are servants of God, devoting themselves to this very thing.

Render to all what is due them tax to whom tax is due, custom to whom custom, fear to whom fear, honor to whom honor.

And that is Romans 13, 1 through 7. If you could respond to that and then pick up where you left off when we had the break there.

Sure. Well, in case people didn't have a chance to listen to the first part,

I sort of, I painted a really rough sketch of the situation of the early

Christians and the early church with relationship to the state. And without getting into repeating myself and all that, one of the things that kind of emerges from that cultural study and that necessary background study, you know, to know actually what

Paul is doing when he's saying these things. Because he's not, one thing that's interesting in hermeneutics is, you know, a person can do things by saying things.

You know, when, you know, the classic example of that so -called speech act theory is in marriage when, you know, you say,

I do. Well, you're not just saying something. You're not just conveying information.

By saying, I do, in a marriage ceremony, you're actually establishing a covenant.

You're actually binding yourself to a promise. And so, that's a really important question to ask in interpreting any text of Scripture, certainly

Romans 13 and elsewhere, is to ask, well, okay, here's what's said, but what is

Paul doing? I'll comment on that a little bit more, but to go back to what

I was saying about the cultural context, the early church was in a very, very, very tight spot.

I mean, can you imagine being an early Christian? Jesus, you know, was killed and condemned by not just the government leaders, but also his own people, the

Jews. And, of course, initially, you know, the disciples scattered, but after the

Resurrection, there's this new discovery and things start getting going. And what are their options in terms of preaching the

Gospel and spreading the Good News? And how does this relate to the proclamation of the

Resurrection and the Gospel, that Jesus is Lord, and the relationship of the church and the state? Well, I mean,

I guess the church could, you know, basically say to the

Emperor and to the establishment, the authorities, you have no authority over us whatsoever, and we're ready for armed revolution.

And, of course, you know, the Jews sort of did that. You have the Maccabean revolt centuries earlier, and then, you know, the

Jewish revolts two more times, I think, in the first century after.

And that, of course, is, first of all, it's not the way the Kingdom thought. Armed revolution is not, it's just not the

Christian thing to do. It's certainly not what Jesus did. He embodied peace and not aggression.

And through this, that revolutionary way of leadership and servanthood and, you know, and love of neighbor and of the people who killed them changed the world, and now it's becoming unstoppable, an unstoppable movement.

And so, you know, the early church is not just going to, they're not going to do an armed revolution, because they would get crushed, first of all.

I mean, they're going to get smashed, and who's going to be there then to tell the story? And actually,

I would recommend an essay for you on the subject. It's a book called Jesus is

Lord, Caesar is not. And it's a collection of essays by New Testament scholars, and they look at empire criticism in the

New Testament, because there's a lot of debate about how much the early church criticized the government.

Some people think, you know, they're reading in, people are reading too much into it, and maybe it's more than we think, because you can't just write a letter and criticize the government, because, well, that's going to put you on the black list, and, you know, you're going to be in trouble.

So by criticizing, you know, it's not just criticizing the government, they criticize the government. It's about, well, in the language of Colossians and elsewhere, the principalities and powers of the world, which take the form of political office.

They take the form and the embodiment of emperor, and different things like that. Anyway, yeah, it's an essay in there by Michael Bird, and he writes on Romans 13.

It's pretty good, and he has a quote, and he says this, he says, um, survival is one of the greatest forms of defiance.

Survival is one of the greatest forms of defiance. And so, in that option, in that light, we then look at the church's other option of, well, doing everything the government says, which sort of sounds like what

Romans 13 implies. Obviously, it doesn't, because the Christians did not. They certainly didn't burn incense to the emperor.

They didn't do all kinds of things that the government required. Right, and that would have involved, if you take it to the 20th century,

Christians turning in Jews, you know, and things like that. Exactly, and Nazism, and the

Barmen Declaration, all that, right? It's a similar thing, because it was so clearly incompatible.

I mean, it's just a real deep violation of a person's conscience, and of the Kingdom of God. So, you have those two extremes, and the

Christians aren't going to do either, right? They're not going to get crushed through an armed revolution and just resist, and they're not just going to submit and do absolutely everything because they're

Christian. So, what you have then, Chris, is, it's not just in Romans 13, because we have to view all of Scripture in light of each other, and Romans 13 is not the only place at all where the subject of, you know, relationship to governing authority is addressed, obviously the most direct, but the thing to remember is, this is like a circular letter in Rome, okay?

Not your ordinary village, not your ordinary town in the

Empire, and these Christians, I'm sure, are very, very tempted to violence.

They're very, very tempted to overthrow, you know, their lords and the various people who are persecuting them or trying to squelch the

Gospel. And so, Paul gives his instruction in that context.

And so, the criticism, you know, that's what's called

Empire Criticism, is you have Paul saying these things, which really sounds like, you know, we just sort of, we really don't, there's no kind of resistance.

There's no kind of critique of governing authority. But in the first chapter of Romans, in chapter 1, verses 1 through 8, he basically comes in, there's a really interesting essay on that in the book

I mentioned, Jesus is Lord, Jesus is not. He basically, in a very subtle way, and not so direct as much as Romans 13, hits the

Emperor of the Empire against Jesus as the Son of God and as being divine.

Like, all of the different attributes and various features of that introduction just so happen to critique a lot of the claims of Caesar.

And so, all I'm saying is this, is that when we read passages like Romans 13, we have to see them within a larger context that there certainly is a place for some kind of resistance and criticism of the state.

And how that's going to work out is going to be different with each situation.

We don't have a Roman Empire today. We have, you know, a so -called democracy in United States government. And so, the ways of defiance and the ways of obedience are going to take, maybe, different incarnations.

They're going to take different shapes. So, back then, that meant, okay, for now, you know, just pay your taxes, we don't have to...it's

not necessary for Christianity to spread, you know, by doing these things.

We don't have to get everything right, as it were. It's sort of like the slavery thing. You know, Paul doesn't say, oh, slavery's wrong.

You know, everybody goes, oh, it's like one out of five people in the Empire were slaves. It would crash the economy.

In a different cultural context, it's not only possible, but I think an obligation for Christians to condemn slavery.

So, and that gets into what you talked about, is when we know that some of our taxpayer money is actually going towards abortion or maybe wars that are totally unjust, illegal, and killing

Christians, non -Christians, or whatever. I mean,

I have no problem. I would never condemn a Christian for not paying a portion of their taxes for that.

I wouldn't. Now, what kind of binding conscience issue, you know, that would invoke?

What are the lines to be drawn? I, you know, it would depend on the case basis and that person, but hopefully that at least kind of opens up that subject a little more.

Well, there seems to be the difference that I understand, in my limited understanding, there seems to be a contrast being made by those who are libertarian against those who are both

Republican and Democrat. That both of these parties, although the

Republican party would insist, or many of its voices would insist that they are for a smaller or limited government, that they actually are in favor of a government that is far too large, but just for different reasons.

And it seems that the Republicans have chosen to limit the freedom of speech and other freedoms and liberties that Americans have just for different reasons than the liberals and the leftists have.

And of course, in this day and age, it's ironic that those who would call themselves liberal are more in the spotlight of trying to remove the freedom of speech from citizens, where that seemed to be the caricature at one time of the more conservative individual who wanted to stop certain songs from being played on the radio, stop the production of certain lyrics on record albums, and of course that would be in today's world,

CDs, MP3s, whatever you want to say. And it's ironic, though, that Al Gore's wife was actually a champion to get the labeling of record albums enforced with a content warning, and she obviously was not a

Republican. But today, you have those who have been identifying themselves as liberals, which has always been associated with everybody having an equal voice in the public arena of ideas.

Now, they're trying to just silence everyone who disagrees with them. But that is where there seems to be a dishonesty or even an unconscious misrepresentation of the size of the government that is desired by especially those on the

Republican end, because they seem to really want a government that is just as large as the

Democrats do. Now, did I misdefine things? Or how would you respond to what

I just said? Well, I think a lot of what you said is true there about these double standards, for sure.

And I think you're right. Both parties are guilty of that.

I don't know the extent of the freedom of speech thing as much as the size of the government, which is a little more easy to identify, at least in terms of certain numbers and figures and outstretch and the number of laws passed and things like that.

So, yeah, I think there is double standards that's a part of each party, and that's a reason why a lot of people are looking for alternatives and something that's a little more consistent or at least has more teeth.

Um, and, uh, gosh, I mean, we could go back and forth for hours just ping -ponging examples of failed promises or, you know, well, we're all for this, you know, but in reality, you know, we're not.

It's, you know, like the left is the liberals, you know, liberalism is supposed to be known for for kindness and get rid of the poor and being for the little guy and being generous, you know, not knowing that socialism eradicates wealth from an economy faster and more efficiently than any other system known in the world and creates incredible poverty and starvation.

And we have, uh, especially now, um, in the 21st century, when the most violent century behind us in history, uh, is right behind us, you know, like over 80 million people are in their grave, uh, from being killed by government experiments and in socialist communist things, and to think that this is somehow, uh, you know, a system that will, uh, will bring peace on earth or help, you know, the poor and sort of balance things out is, it has no historical basis whatsoever.

Um, and, you know, like you said, the size of government, we see no indication of it getting smaller, at least

I don't, and, um, you know, in my perspective, the only legitimate purpose of government is to protect the rights of individuals, to, uh, to enforce the principle of non -aggression, which says that the initiation of force is wrong.

Uh, let's, let's, let's pick up right on that thought when we come back for our next break. And if you'd like to join us on the air, our email address is chrisarnson at gmail .com.

And I promise I'll get to those who are waiting to have their questions asked when we return from this break.

I apologize for keeping you waiting so long. At chrisarnson at gmail .com, chrisarnson at gmail .com

is the email address. If you'd like to join us as well, please give us your first name, city and state and country of residence.

We'll be right back after these messages, so do not go away. Iron Sharpens Iron Radio is sponsored by Harvey Cedars, a year -round

Bible conference and retreat center nestled on the Jersey shore. Harvey Cedars offers a wide range of accommodations to suit groups up to 400.

For generations, Christians have enjoyed gathering and growing at Harvey Cedars. Each year, thousands of high school and college students come and learn more about God's word.

An additional 9 ,000 come annually to Harvey Cedars as families, couples, singles, men, women, pastors, seniors, and missionaries.

90 miles from New York City, 70 miles from Philly, and 95 miles from Wilmington, and easily accessible, scores of notable

Christian groups frequently plan conferences at Harvey Cedars, like the Navigators, InterVarsity Christian Fellowship, Campus Crusade, and the

Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals. Find Harvey Cedars on Facebook or at hcbible .org.

hcbible .org. Call 609 -494 -5689.

609 -494 -5689. Harvey Cedars, where Christ finds people and changes lives.

I'm James White of Alpha and Omega Ministries. The New American Standard Bible is perfect for daily reading or in -depth study.

Used by pastors, scholars, and everyday readers, the NASB is widely embraced and trusted as a literal and readable

Bible translation. The NASB offers clarity and readability while maintaining high accuracy to the original languages, which the

NASB is known for. The NASB is available in English, Spanish, and Spanish. a topical reference Bible. Researched and prepared by biblical scholars devoted to accuracy, the new topical reference

Bible includes contemporary topics relevant to today's issues. From compact to giant print

Bibles, find an NASB that fits your needs very affordably at nasbible .com.

Trust, discover, and enjoy the NASB for yourself today. Go to nasbible .com.

That's nasbible .com. Tired of box store Christianity?

Of doing church in a warehouse with all the trappings of a rock concert? Do you long for a more traditional and reverent style of worship?

And how about the preaching? Perhaps you've begun to think that in -depth biblical exposition has vanished from Long Island.

Well, there's good news. Wedding River Baptist Church exists to provide believers with a meaningful and reverent worship experience featuring the systematic exposition of God's Word.

And this loving congregation looks forward to meeting you. Call them at 631 -929 -3512 for service times.

631 -929 -3512. Or check out their website at wrbc .us.

That's wrbc .us. Are you a

Christian looking to align your faith and finances? Then you'll want to check out Thriving Financial. We're not your typical financial services provider.

We're a not -for -profit Fortune 500 organization that helps our nearly 2 .4 million members be wise with money.

We provide guidance that reflects your values so you can protect what matters most. We help members live generously and strengthen the communities where they live, work, and worship.

Learn more about the Thriving story by contacting me, Mike Gallagher, Financial Consultant, at 717 -254 -6433.

Again, 717 -254 -6433. We know we were made for so much more than ordinary life.

Lending faith, finances, and generosity. That's the Thriving story. We were made to thrive.

Welcome back. This is Chris Arns. And if you just tuned us in, our guest for the full two hours today, which we have already been through over one hour of, is

Dr. Jamin Hubner, Director of Institutional Effectiveness and Founding Chair of Christian Studies at John Witherspoon College.

We are discussing a Christian libertarian's reflections of the 2016 race for President of the

United States, which we actually haven't delved into yet, but we've been getting some important background so we even understand what a

Christian libertarian is. And again, we cannot cookie cutter that phrase, but there are some probably vital things that all

Christian libertarians would share in common. We are accepting emails, and we still have several of you waiting with questions, but our email address is chrisarnson at gmail .com.

chrisarnson at gmail .com if you have a question for our guest. And let me go to one of those questioners.

CJ in Lindenhurst, Long Island, New York wants to know, is your guest a pacifist?

And if he is against revolution, how does he think that the ideals of libertarianism could ever flourish in a land such as America, which was under the yoke of tyranny before the patriots who founded our country as a free nation, did have a revolution against the

British throne? Okay, well, the first question,

I don't really consider myself a pacifist. I am much more sympathetic to pacifism than I was 10 years ago.

Theologians like Stanley Howawatts, professor of theological ethics at Duke Divinity School, has written extensively on the subject, and it's really entertaining to read.

It's pretty funny, but he's kind of known as the big pacifist theologian these days, and he's got a lot of interesting things to say.

I don't agree with the way he defines capitalism and different things like that, but I think the basic idea behind pacifism is just a national expression, an extension of what

Jesus says with regard to, well, with what

Jesus does. I mean, he endures violence, he endures aggression, and so if a person was to come up and threaten you with your life, and do they have the right to defend themselves on an individual basis,

I would say yes. My shotgun is not very far away from this room, in fact.

So, if they're a person who believes that that wouldn't be effective, and that dying is something that's more

Christian, I'm not going to argue with them. So, I'm open for persuasion in that respect, and on a national level, you know,

I'm not opposed in principle of national defense.

Certainly, I'm not. I think it's probably necessary, in fact. However...

That wasn't the case. Sure, and right, and I don't think, however, that really any of the wars since World War II can be justified.

I think they're all illegal according to basic American ideals regarding what it means to declare war and all these different things.

Yeah, a lot of people don't even realize that the last war that was officially declared by Congress was

World War II, wasn't it? I think so. I shouldn't be quoted on that, but as far as I know and as far as I'm concerned, none of the wars that Americans have fought since World War II are even close to being legitimate, and for that reason,

I don't just sort of like worship the military, you know, like have this awe -inspiring moment when

I see someone in uniform at an airport or something, because I think God will hold people accountable on an individual basis on the actions they take, and I don't think, you know, saying, well,

I was told that this is for national security, is going to fly across the throne of God, so I'm just, not that I criticize all soldiers or things like that, but to the extent that wars are not legitimate,

I think that's a serious problem we have, is because we're now in a process as a country, in Congress, of systematically legitimizing violence, whether it's at airports or in the

Middle East or in SWAT team raids of people's homes looking for a plant or all these other forms of violence now, it's just like we're becoming desensitized, and I think that's a really serious problem.

So, in short, am I a pacifist? Well, not quite, but I'm certainly sympathetic to some of the ideas there.

The other question was, gosh, I can't quite remember the wording of it, something like, how...

Yeah, the revolution, basically justifying how could you be opposed to revolution if the freedoms that libertarians long for, and the liberty that libertarians long for, would never be available to us if there was not a revolution where we were...

Well, I never said it wasn't against revolutions. I always said it wasn't against an armed revolution.

I am a huge fan of secession. I think every state has the right to succeed for the same reason that I have the right to walk away from an ice cream parlor that says, we'll give you $5 for this ice cream.

I say, that's too much. I'm going to decline the offer. All things can be voluntary. They should be.

There's no reason why any entity, any social group, a church, a school, whatever it is, we work on the basis of mutual agreement, association, and a common set of basic expectations.

And so, with Britain exiting the

European Union, I realize that's not the equivalent of state secession. However, I don't remember any war taking place.

And there's a lot of countries in the last 50 years, little tiny ones. You'll see them in the Olympics. When they come in, there's like 20 countries that you've never heard of.

They're just really tiny. They're all being represented. There's a lot of countries around the world in the last 100 years that have been created.

Nobody knows about them. And there was no massive war. There was no genocide. There was none of these big problems.

So, the idea that secession is going to require armed revolution, or that secession is going to lead to violence or lead to war,

I don't buy that at all. In fact, I think it's highly improbable if Texas, for instance, where I spoke a couple days ago at a

Libertarian Christian conference, was to secede. I actually mentioned it, and everybody started clapping. I didn't expect that.

It was kind of off -guard. But then I realized I was in Texas. If Texas was to secede, nobody really knows what would happen because, unfortunately, our

Constitution isn't extremely clear about that. Although we all know America's founders would be in favor of it, of course.

That's how America came into existence. I just don't see a big civil war happening.

Because the last time secession took place, there was a civil war that, for some reason, every time that there's going to be this effort, we're just going to have a war.

I think that's not good. Yeah, I know that there are, especially some of my brethren in Christ, more from a theonomic background who view

Abraham Lincoln as a tyrant still because he took violent means to stop seceding states and that created a stronger federal government than ever existed prior and was ever the vision of the

Founding Fathers. Yeah. Thomas P.

Lorenzo's book, The Real Lincoln, is a good book. I haven't read all of it yet, but I listened to interviews of the author and, yeah, it's shocking some of the things.

But then we realized, oh, that's right. Everything we know about the government's leaders and presidents in history was taught by the government.

There's going to be some bias there. There's another really good book recommendation, if I could.

It's called Recarving Rushmore. And I don't remember the name of the author, but I read it all the way through and it basically reviews all of the presidents on the basis of the three criteria of the

American values of peace, liberty, and prosperity and ranks them and compares them with other similar studies.

And that was really interesting. Just the way that people think about leadership and how they always glorify the violent presidents, the wartime presidents, the people that did the hard work of keeping peace and, you know, the government was pretty small and did very little and things were prosperous.

You don't hear anything about. So, yeah, that's sort of interesting, too.

Well, we have in Luke 22 something that every lover of the

Second Amendment, who is a Christian, loves to read. And that is

Jesus Christ himself saying, but now whoever has a money belt is to take it along.

Likewise, also a bag and whoever has no sword is to sell his coat and buy one.

Obviously, there's a reason Jesus said that. And there seems to be among libertarians, and in case our listeners are misreading your definition of libertarianism when you were discussing nonviolence,

I have met quite a number of libertarians who, although they think that the

United States is involved in inappropriate and even illegal military activity overseas, they are not at all opposed to our borders being protected by the military, and also, obviously, that every citizen should be armed if they choose to be, and being able to protect their own wives and children and so on.

Of course, yeah. Yeah, well, I'm certainly no critic of that amendment, and I wanted to have my

AR -15 a couple years ago, but I didn't get one yet, and a

Glock 45 with a laser, so I guess I'll just have to be content with the 12 -gauge

Beretta, so I'll leave the envy for others. But yeah,

I don't know of any libertarian that's opposed to owning any kind of weapon. The thing is, the whole discussion is framed in the wrong terms.

It should be framed in terms of property rights, because at the end of the day, that's the only real effective, consistent way, in my view, and I think in the libertarian view at large, is that it can be carried out either in an anarcho -capitalist society or a minarchist society with a very small government that just protects rights.

It's all based on property rights, and so when you say, well, should people be able to buy guns, or should they be able to...

The question to me is the same as should people own a car, should people be able to own a house or own any other thing.

If there is such a thing as property rights, then it's very simple to just acknowledge that and say, well, then people have the right to own anything they want, so long as they don't violate the rights of others.

That's libertarianism 101. People are free by default, they can do anything they want, so as long as they don't initiate violence on another person or their legitimately owned property.

So, you know, the thing with gun control, it has really nothing to do with guns, it has a lot more to do with control, and I mean, not that some laws might prevent some children from getting shot, you know, maybe they would, but at the end of the day, what type of society do we want to live in?

If it's going to be a free society, well, there's some risks associated with that. If we don't want to be in a free society, well, then shoot, let's just, let's make all the laws, grab the government by the horn, and pass all the laws we can to be a utopia.

And of course, you see that with minimum wage and all economic laws, they're supposedly supposed to eradicate poverty or, you know, bring justice to the wealthy, corrupt people or whatever.

The assumption behind these types of laws, like price control, is that poverty can be eradicated by making it illegal.

And, well, if that was the case, I mean, poverty would have been eliminated hundreds of years ago.

You know, and this goes back to a really important observation that libertarians make, is that the state has taken the place of God since modernity.

In modernism, you know, supposedly God is dead, we're all smarter now, we're getting beyond that stuff, and so the government fulfills the role of that.

And so you have civil religion, you have rituals, you have the temples, the buildings, the, you know, the prophets, the scriptures, you have all the aspects of religion into statism.

And so people, they don't realize, especially usually those on the left, but some, you know, neoconservatives as well, is that they're assuming a

God -like status of government. That, like, if we just pass a law, it will bring it to pass, just as if God in Genesis 1, or some of the prophets, you know,

God will, he said this, he's going to bring it to pass. And people treat Congress like that. Like, if we just pass a law, then it will create the states of affairs.

And the world just doesn't work like that, and the government's not God. We have to go to one final break, and we'll be back after these messages, so we look forward to getting to more of your questions right after this final station break.

So don't go away, we'll be right back with Dr. J. Lynbrook Baptist Church on 225 Earl Avenue in Lynbrook, Long Island, is teaching

God's timeless truths in the 21st century. Our church is far more than a Sunday worship service.

It's a place of learning where the scriptures are studied and the preaching of the gospel is clear and relevant. It's like a gym where one can exercise their faith through community involvement.

It's like a hospital for wounded souls where one can find compassionate people and healing. We're a diverse family of all ages.

Enthusiastically serving our Lord Jesus Christ. In fellowship, play, and together. Hi, I'm Pastor Bob Walderman, and I invite you to come and join us here at Lynbrook Baptist Church and see all that a church can be.

Call Lynbrook Baptist at 516 -599 -9402. That's 516 -599 -9402.

Or visit lynbrookbaptist .org. That's lynbrookbaptist .org. Attention coin collectors and investors,

Long Island Galleries of Wading River, New York, has brilliant uncirculated 19th century

Morgan silver dollars for only $54 per coin, with free shipping and handling for a limited time.

There's a 40 coin limit, so order now while supplies last. Call 888 -260 -8111.

888 -260 -8111. Visa, MasterCard, Discover, and American Express welcome.

Price is subject to change, so call now at 888 -260 -8111. 888 -260 -8111.

If you prefer ordering your brilliant uncirculated 19th century Morgan silver dollars by check, mail it today to Long Island Galleries, 9

Susan Drive, Wading River, New York, 11792. That's Long Island Galleries, 9

Susan Drive, Wading River, New York, 11792. Remember, they're only $54 per coin with free shipping and handling and a 40 coin limit.

New York State residents must add sales tax. Long Island Galleries is honored to sponsor

Iron Sharpens Iron Radio. See the Long Island Galleries display ad at ironsharpensironradio .com.

Welcome back. This is Chris Arnzen. If you just tuned us in for the last 90 minutes and the next half hour to come, our guest has been and still is

Dr. Jamin Hubner, Director of Institutional Effectiveness and Founding Chair of Christian Studies at John Witherspoon College.

And by the way, the website for John Witherspoon College is johnwitherspooncollege .org.

And Witherspoon is W -I -T -H -E -R spoon. So that's johnwitherspooncollege .org.

And just in case we run out of time before I remember to ask you this,

Dr. Hubner, do you have any other website or contact information that you'd like me to announce?

I don't think so. I mean, I have, you know, an Amazon page, a LinkedIn page, a

Google Plus page. That's, you know, I prefer direct communication, email.

If anybody wants to ask questions or something, I don't do

Facebook or Twitter. Okay. And we have a listener in Mastic Beach, Long Island, Tyler, who says,

Do Libertarians believe that such sins as homosexuality and adultery should be punished with jail time by the state?

And if not, does it contradict our Christian worldview to allow people to live in sin without, in love, bringing it to their attention?

Um, well, I guess I don't know any Libertarians who believe that.

I certainly don't believe that. I suspect the question comes from a theonomist perspective, which, generally speaking, suggests a contemporary statist embodiment of Old Testament law,

First Testament law. I'm not a theonomist, so I guess I just don't have that perspective.

Not that, you know, we just throw out, you know, chunks of the Bible or anything like that.

And the thing, though, is the Church in the New Covenant, which is what we're under today, the

New Covenant in Christ, again, is distinctively defined as being a community of peace and voluntarism.

There's nothing to suggest in the behaviors of Jesus, the teaching of Jesus, the early

Church, the New Testament documents, the early Church tradition, that Christians should try and harness the power of the state, which is the power of force, and forcing people into doing things.

And now, of course, there is a place for responsive force, if we mean bringing people to justice and, you know, for crimes like whatever, murder, theft, etc.

You know, the principle of non -aggression and peace and libertarianism says that we shouldn't initiate force, okay?

If somebody comes into my house and steals my laptop, they initiated force against me, so I can tackle them to the ground and get my laptop back.

There's nothing wrong with that. Or the police can catch them and, you know, fine them, put them in jail, whatever.

It's interesting that somebody who's an intellectual like you, the first thing that you can think of to tackle somebody to the ground for is the laptop, not the kidnapping of a child or anything.

Oh, actually, I meant to say a particular collection of books from my library. Yeah, if they come in and steal my...

Yeah, yeah, great detest. Well, anyway, so, yeah, the extent of retribution or rather restitution,

I think is the better term and the proper role of dealing with crime and aggressions and violence.

That is, I think, limited. Well, it has to be limited because we can't, we obviously can't, like, capture everybody or we shouldn't even try, you know?

I hear somebody lie on the radio. What am I going to do? Try and chase them down and put them in jail?

I hope nobody does that to me. Okay. Or me neither.

Yeah, right. So, obviously, there has to be a very targeted perspective.

And I think property rights is the best place to start. And that actually is the place, ironically,

I think is the foundation of the Old Testament economy. You know, do not steal.

Well, the assumption there is property rights. And I think property rights undergird all of life, economy, and we haven't mastered even enforcing or protecting private rights, property rights.

So, if we can't even do that, if a government can't even do that, if a society can't even do that, if even churches maybe can't do that within some mutually agreed contract with their congregation or something like that, well, then,

I mean, you know, throwing people in jail or having trials for, you know, having sex before marriage or, you know, lying on a

Facebook status. I mean, that's a long way. I don't think it would even be desirable to try.

Well, it's just like a lot of the conservatives who were very happy when

George W. Bush was pushing Homeland Security laws into place, that conservatives were the first to be upset when

Barack Obama was using them for different reasons. And people are very short -sighted when they want these certain powers the government to have, they forget that one day they could be used against them.

Exactly, exactly. You're absolutely right, and that's a good example. Yeah, there's so many examples like that.

And it's hard, you know, coming from an agricultural background in the Midwest, you know, all this

Republican so -called conservative constituency criticize subsidies, you know, whether it's subsidizing, you know, schools or subsidizing this and that, but when it comes to, you know, farms and prices and, you know, agriculture, well, they need the subsidy, and they depend on it, and so they're for it.

And so that's just a, you know, basic problem of human nature in mainstream politics is that people don't realize that the things they say cut both ways, they can cut both ways.

We have Arnie in Perry County who asks a question that somewhat relates to Tyler's.

Arnie in Perry County, Pennsylvania, says, I have met many theonomists and Christian Reconstructionists who are libertarian, but the two ideologies seem to be in 180 degree polar opposite to each other.

I can't understand what the attraction is to libertarianism by Reconstructionist Christians.

I think I probably agree with them. I don't see them as being that much in common because, again, what libertarianism is known for is wanting peace consistently.

So when someone initiates force against me, that's a problem, including when the government says that.

Everybody says they don't like violence, but the libertarian difference is they apply it to everyone. They say you can't just initiate force on someone or their property.

And so, and ironically, that's at least what should be known about the core concept of libertarianism.

You know, the very opposite of that is kind of what's known for theonomy, which is the initiation of force on very particular ethical laws.

First of all, Christians are supposed to get control of the government, and step two are to enforce really high ethical standards, and in Israelite ethical standards, on the entire population or a particular area.

So I just, I think that person is probably right. I don't see the connection very good either. But he's also right, though.

Even in my experience, I have met personally and know personally a number of theonomists who are gravitating towards libertarianism and were big supporters of Ron Paul years ago when he was the one running instead of his son, or before his son,

I should say. And there must be some connection, though, that we can't see, and perhaps—

Well, I think, I mean, I think the connection, for one, is that they're both minority groups, you know, and so people who aren't getting mainstream attention tend to group together and share war stories and sympathize and so forth.

So I suppose being the exceptions maybe draws them together. And there is another thing that just occurred to me, what one theonomist said to me, is that they have said that biblical law is restricted to a much smaller circumference of issues than leftist totalitarianism would be involved in.

Well, I guess that's true that—I guess

I've never compared theonomy with communism before, so that's new to me.

But if you compare, yeah, theonomy with full -blown socialism or communism, where the state owns the means of production and calls the shots and sets all the prices and so forth in this attempt to achieve some utopian equality or whatever,

I guess, yeah, libertarianism would be attractive insofar as it doesn't have that totalitarian perspective.

So yeah, I guess I can see that. We have B .B. in Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, who says,

I heard you favorably mention Ron Paul earlier on in the broadcast.

Did his son really continue on with the same ideology as his father?

And do you think that he would have been more a suitable candidate than the ones we have if he had remained in the race?

That's a good question. I haven't followed, like I said at the very beginning of the program,

I try to find the deepest cavern in the earth around election time and go into that and bury myself.

I haven't followed Rand a whole lot. I didn't read his book and things like that.

I only know some basic policy things he's familiar with.

But I think it's safe to say, if I'm going to give a commentary on this,

I think it's safe to say he was not quite as consistent. As his dad, he probably made more compromises.

I do, however, respect his efforts in at least trying to, through compromise, trying to achieve some of his ideas and his father's ideals and the concepts of libertarianism.

I do think probably he would, you know, if he would have been in the ballot, maybe

I there's a decent chance I would have voted for him instead of Gary Johnson. I don't care so much for Gary.

I mean, of course, there's the whole abortion thing, and as a libertarian, I have no idea how

Gary can support abortion, which is the very definition of barbaric initiation, of course.

You can scalpel and cut off the limbs of a child before it's even born. If that's not the initiation of course,

I don't know what is. Well, he must not believe that these are human beings in the womb. Well, that's right.

And it's interesting because some of the most brilliant minds, like Murray Rothbard and others in libertarian thought, really gave really poor logical arguments when talking about the subject.

Rothbard would talk about the fetus as a parasite if the child didn't desire it.

And of course, using the term parasite like that is novel and completely unjustified.

And so... And evil. Yeah, yeah, sure.

And so, I mean, I just, I don't see how that quite works.

But yeah, in short, I think Rand probably would have been a little bit better. I might just still write in Ron Paul, even though he's not running, but I guess we'll see.

Which candidate's victory do you believe would cause more harm to the population of the

United States, if not the rest of the world? Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump?

That's a very perceptive question, and I was asked that by a friend this past weekend who was trying to justify his case for Trump or whatever.

And by the way, I don't make any recommendations to anyone to either vote or not vote, and not who to vote if they were to vote.

And I probably won't be voting this election. I actually don't remember voting for a really long time.

There's a lot of different reasons for that. We could talk about the ethics of voting and so forth, but we're probably out of time.

But anyway, oh shoot, now I lost my train of thought. The question was about...

Oh, who would do the most harm? I think it's so hard to tell, because I think

Trump is actually more unpredictable than people realize. I think

Hillary is fairly predictable, has a bigger track record, and it's pretty certain what type of policies she'll enact and things like that.

I'm not sure, because it depends on how you define harm. I think economic harm, probably

Hillary. In terms of physical violence on the streets with police and soldiers,

I think probably Trump. But physical violence in the womb would probably be Hillary, even though...

And I'm speaking for you here, and I shouldn't be. But there is a difference,

I think, between somebody who may not do anything of great value to stop abortions and somebody who is so excited about them occurring.

Perhaps. But how does one measure human lives?

I mean, yes, abortion is a really efficient way of killing people, but so are wars.

In fact, they're really efficient at killing people. And I guess the so -called tough talk of Trump sort of has me concerned when you have the world's greatest armies at your disposal and apparently no limit to the amount of foreign violence and militarization internally of the police in sight.

So I think the harm there, again, you can define harm in different ways. The economist in me is disgusted with any form of socialism for obvious historic reasons.

But then I guess the Christian or the peacemaker in me is really concerned about Trump.

Right. And of course, the difference between even an illegitimate war and abortion is that even many of the illegitimate wars that the

United States has participated in involved enemies who hated us and were barbaric as opposed to a child.

I mean, if you remove the theological issue of original sin or total depravity, we're talking about innocent beings here.

We're talking about fragile, helpless, harmless beings being ripped to pieces in the womb, which is,

I think there is a stark contrast there. Well, sure. And numerically, there's more of them.

If only all the people that the United States military killed were those people. I fear that they're probably the minority and that a huge portion of the people who die in the drone bombing and starvation through various refugee problems and all of that have nothing to do with hating

America, except they hate America because they're getting killed. So I think that is a concern.

And I couldn't argue it either way. Honestly, it would require a lot of, you know, you'd have to look at all the variables and numbers and so forth if the purpose was to assess the minimum amount of human death or something like that.

Now, I don't know if you saw the Libertarian Party primary debates, but I thought that I had just tuned into a live footage of insane asylum patients who had been released or escaped and gotten ahold of microphones and a stage somehow.

I don't know what your thoughts on that were, but if you could. You know, I can't.

I didn't see it. But I'll take your word for it. So, I guess you should make it clear that being a

Christian Libertarian does not mean or require an affiliation or support of the

Libertarian Party. That's right. That's correct. And one of the things that jumped out in my head in regard to Gary Johnson and his running mate was in Romans 1 where we have, starting in verse 24, "...God

gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurities, so that their bodies would be dishonored among them.

For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshipped and served the creature rather than the

Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen. For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions.

For their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural. And in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.

And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to those things which are not proper, being filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, greed, evil, full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice.

They are gossips, slanderers, haters of God, insolent, arrogant, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, without understanding, untrustworthy, unloving, unmerciful.

And although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, they not only do the same but also give hearty approval to those who practice them.

That's really the verse that I wanted to highlight, and it would have made no sense if I didn't put it in full context.

And you only restrict that to Johnson? No, no, what I meant was that people who,

Christians who may support Johnson and the

Well, even though they may be pro -abortion or in favor of same -sex marriage, those are issues that even a

Republican candidate is not going to do anything about, and the government shouldn't be involved in marriage at all anyway, that kind of thing.

There's a difference between that and the hearty approval that Gary Johnson and his running mate gave to them.

I've seen them excited and enthusiastic about women given more freedom to have abortions and sexual depravity being expressed in all different kinds of further ways.

That's what really I was talking about. Yeah, well I would just say that Gary's confused.

Or lost? Sure. You know,

I haven't really dug deep enough into his perspective to really understand it very well.

I realize the different strands of libertarianism and the dangers of just trying to assume, so I probably shouldn't do that.

But, I mean, I guess I will just say that, again, if he's excited because of the freedom aspect that the state is getting out of the way,

I can understand that for various issues. If his excitement is because he really thinks this is righteous human behavior or whatever,

I don't understand that. So that's really all I can say at that point regarding it.

But, I mean, obviously that text does so many things that apply to all the candidates.

So I'll leave it there for now. John Adams, one of the founding fathers, as you know, said, our

Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.

How do you, as a Christian libertarian, and libertarians are very often very strong in their confidence and belief in the value of the

United States Constitution, how do you respond to that? Well, I think that's a really good observation, first of all.

I think that it doesn't matter what type of scheme of society you enact or that takes place, everything's contingent on the character of people.

And this is a very libertarian thing because, you know, society, nations, groups of people, etc.,

they don't exist apart from the individual. In fact, it's the conditions of the individual that make up the conditions of the aggregate, of the aggregate whole.

So it's like if you have a bunch of immoral people, you're going to have an immoral nation, you know?

And the reason he said, of course, why there's that contingency is because of the nature of our

Constitution, which gives a lot of power to the people. So in that case, the conditions of the nation as a whole and the laws that it enacts are contingent on the wisdom of the people.

So now, regarding a broader opinion regarding the

Constitution, my view is not quite as optimistic as Ron Paul.

Ron Paul speaks very highly of the Constitution and sometimes says, well, if we would just do what the

Constitution says, things would be right. Things would be okay. That's true a lot of the time.

He can't be a Calvinist. Say what? I said he can't be a

Calvinist if he believes that's possible. Sure, right. So yeah, anyway,

I would say, look, we got a bunch of amendments in there that already show the problems.

And so the fact that there's a ton of amendments shows that there's some issues there. And the way

I see it is, you know, it was a great step forward.

We went from DOS to Windows 3 .1, or maybe even Windows 95.

And, you know, to say that, well, if we would just use Windows 95, all the problems would go away.

No, I don't think that's the case. Why don't we just upgrade something better? Why don't we revise, you know, or allow a nation to start their own project?

You know, that, you know, a lot has been learned in the last 200 years.

And there's no reason we should discourage effort to thinking creatively or innovatively and things like that.

Well, if you could, in 45 seconds, just conclude with what you want, in summary form, etched in the hearts and minds of our listeners today.

Well, first of all, something we didn't get to talk about was the Christians for Liberty conference at St.

Edward University this past weekend. Right. I won't talk about that. I'll just say, make sure you watch the videos.

I did. I gave a talk, and there's a couple other really good ones. And I would just encourage your audience to watch those or listen to those when they're available on the

LCI website, Libertarian Christian Institute website. That's LibertarianChristians .com.

That's correct. Yep, you got it. And there's a lot of great resources there. And it would be wonderful if some people who really hate

Libertarians, well, maybe not hate, but are going on, you know, speaking sprees across the country, like Albert Muller, president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary.

It would be very nice if people like him who criticize myself and others would actually read and do their homework before publicly criticizing a bunch of brothers and sisters of Christ.

So it's always important to get familiar with ideas before publicly criticizing them.

That's just basic Christian behavior. And we're out of time. And the John Witherspoon College website, again, is johnwitherspooncollege .org.

Thank you again for being on the program, and we look forward to having you back. Thank you very much.

It was a privilege, and I hope to talk to you soon. All right, great. And I will be sending you an MP3 very shortly, so God bless you.

I hope everyone listening always remembers for the rest of your lives that Jesus Christ is a far greater

Savior than you are a sinner. Look forward to hearing from you next time on Iron Sharpens Iron Radio.