Carlos Morales gives his point of view, with which i agree.
Libertarianism is about the Non-Aggression Principle and private property rights. Therefore, any individual that respects these two libertarian axioms can be considered libertarian.
This however does not answer the question whether all behavior that is justified (or even commanded) by the bible would itself be libertarian or compatible with libertarianism. Are Christian libertarians, libertarian because of the bible, or in spite of the bible? Would it matter?
It matters, if Christianity, when practiced in accordance with the bible’s teachings, turns out to be incompatible with libertarianism, because the rule of God is taken to be superior by Christians over any man made philosophy. If the bible is in conflict with libertarian axioms, which will a Christian be bound to cast aside? If the contents of the bible are therefore incompatible with libertarianism, Christianity itself will always be in philosophical, ideological, and its practitioners perhaps even in physical conflict with practitioners of libertarianism.
Although personal views and preferences on issues Christianity is antogonistic about are completely acceptable in libertarianism provided no aggression is initiated, Christian libertarians clearly show what those personal preferences are on cultural issues, just as much as left-libertarians do on issues such as equality. Although the subject of abortion is still not settled, the Christian libertarian has already made his mind up; and i can virtually guarantee you that it is not the libertarianism that made his mind up about it. When it comes to the issue of gay marriage (or homosexuality in general), the Christian libertarian has already made his mind up; and i can virtually guarantee you that it is not the libertarianism that made his mind up. So if some of these Christian views are truly not compatible with the NAP and private property rights, which for Christians is likely to bite the dust? The Christian’s belief in the bible, or his belief in non-aggression?
It matters, because libertarians in general really need to be aware about how seriously non-aggression and private property rights are really taken by Christian libertarians, if indeed there should be some kind of evidence, or logically superior argument, that Christianity and libertarianism are incompatible.
There are socialists and a variety of other egalitarians on the left who claim to be libertarian. Generally speaking we have reason enough to seriously doubt their commitment to non-aggression, even more so their commitment to private property rights, because ultimately their belief in equality trumps all.
So who is to say in what sense we will not discover, in the future, that for Christian libertarians, their belief in holy scripture trumps all as well? In my personal opinion, their stance on abortion already proves this, no matter how much they try to make themselves believe that abortion is murder and thus justifies the enslavement of women to the needs of an unborn and dependent entity inside their own bodies.
I respect Christian libertarians immensely for their contributions to libertarian thought. But i have a truly hard time fully trusting anyone that thinks concepts of right and wrong is something that people need the bible for; someone that apparently thinks mankind by itself cannot understand such a concept, without being ordered by some authoritarian, invisible entity to follow a set of rules.
The fact that the majority of Christians quite obviously do not believe in non-aggression and private property rights should tell us something. Not that the majority of them are completely deluded about what the bible says, but that they can find plenty of justification for both injustice and aggression against their fellow man in the bible.
Apart from the many logical, moral and other non-aggressive problems with the bible, there are also plenty of violent and unjust ones. See here and here. And these are just about what is in Genesis.
Frankly, i don’t see where any right-wing Christian libertarian gets the right to judge left-libertarians for their extra-libertarian subjective moral and cultural values, considering where many paleolibertarians get theirs.
The Individualist 
Christianity aside, you don’t consider an abortion to possibly be a violation of the NAP? Isn’t the question one of when a human is a “human” and therefore considered to be allowed protection via the NAP concept?(at least from those practicing it)
Good question, Richard. I want to make clear in detail how i come to my position on abortion. I will do in an article that i hope to finish and publish in the next few days.
I can give you a hint in advance though: it does not even figure much into it whether the unborn child can be considered ‘human’ or not. Let’s supposed that it is. The question to me is simply one of who has the real rights, and who’s rights are actually being violated in the case of an unwanted pregnancy. While i will explain this in more detail, i consider abortion not to be a violation of the NAP, but actually to be a matter of ‘defense of (self)ownership’. More later.
I’ll be looking forward to your further explanation.
It sounds “Blockian” to me, similar to evictionism. That being said, I’m going to be a little sarcastic and suggest it’s hard to claim defense from yourself…but I’ll read your response with an open mind.
Well, if it was “defense from oneself”, anti-abortionists would not have any reason to complain anyway, right? And “evictionism” would indeed be the exception to the notion that abortion is logically and morally justified. If the fetus could be evicted without it being harmed, abortion would indeed be murder.