All We Are Saying, Is Give Contracts A Chance

What can be said to someone who believes that the lack of explicit biblical authorization for civil remedies for breach of contract means there should be no such remedies?  My McGeorge article makes an argument for civil remedies based on three well-established Christian doctrines.  The cultural mandate of the first chapter of the book of Genesis places a divine mandate on humanity to exercise dominion over the world.  World-wide dominion/cultivation/stewardship can only be accomplished cooperatively; thus, the Scriptures justify the social practice of contracting.  Contracting presupposes agency, and human agency is grounded in a second traditional Christian doctrine: creation in the image of God.

Finally, the doctrine of sin--the universal propensity of humans to act opportunistically--accounts for the need for contract law.  If human beings have the power to contract and the duty to cultivate but some act to subvert the practice of contracting by breaching, it follows that a form of enforcement, a remedy, is warranted.  Should State-enforced civil remedies be the only forum for contract remedies?  Absolutely not.  But is the State warranted in providing such a platform?  Seems clear enough to me.