Disqus - Latest Comments for xfree9

Re: A Free Ebook for All ‘Peaceful Christians’

D. Stuart — Mon, 31 Oct 2022 09:21:25 -0000

Where does the LCI say that the Catholic Church is "the whore of Babylon"?

Re: Ep 3: Pacifism and Self-Defense in Christian Ethics

D. Stuart — Sun, 05 Mar 2017 22:13:32 -0000

No, Keith, I have not, until you just mentioned it. Send me an email doug@ (our domain name).

Re: Ep 2: Anarchism and minarchism in Christian thought

D. Stuart — Mon, 20 Feb 2017 18:32:37 -0000

LOL Thanks Jamin!

Re: Christians and Guns: A Libertarian Christian Perspective

D. Stuart — Mon, 17 Oct 2016 13:00:07 -0000

Kevin, thank you! Glad you enjoyed the article and that it helped you.

Re: Christians and Guns: A Libertarian Christian Perspective

D. Stuart — Thu, 21 Jan 2016 21:27:30 -0000

Yeah, I didn't even want to get into that aspect of Piper's theology. I mean, wasn't it somehow for God's glory that Falwell, Jr. said what he said? Everything that happens is God's will in Piper's view. As I mentioned in the article, I'm not a Piper fan, though I used to be.

Re: Christians and Guns: A Libertarian Christian Perspective

D. Stuart — Thu, 21 Jan 2016 21:25:58 -0000

I'm not sure what is meant by Jesus wrote the Torah, but I do agree that Torah provides us a look at God's concern for justice and for protection of those who are in harm's way.

Re: Christians and Guns: A Libertarian Christian Perspective

D. Stuart — Thu, 21 Jan 2016 21:24:39 -0000

Thanks! I'm glad you think so, too!

Re: Christians and Guns: A Libertarian Christian Perspective

D. Stuart — Thu, 21 Jan 2016 21:24:13 -0000

Joshua, thank you for your kind words! I know how you feel with respect to writing on a subject and somebody else comes along and articulates things. If you're writing things, keep doing it for your own benefit, too!

Re: What if You Weren’t Allowed to Vote?

D. Stuart — Thu, 22 Oct 2015 09:44:31 -0000

Thanks! Let them know that they can't complain if they vote: they've voiced their complaint by participating in voting. Now shut up until your next "say" in the outcome :-)

Re: Things that Make for Peace (Part One)

D. Stuart — Wed, 16 Sep 2015 13:41:02 -0000

Is there something different about the two words, "liberty" and "freedom," for you?

Re: Michael Hardin Gets it Right… on Power

D. Stuart — Mon, 25 May 2015 21:28:21 -0000

Frankl, thanks for reading and for taking time to comment. I don't believe I said the fundamental problem is greed masquerading as good intentions, rather the phenomenon exists. I also agree that private firms can be and are pernicious, but a truly private firm can only have so much power without owning the government or utilizing the government to its advantage.

Re: Libertarianism and the Power of the Gospel

D. Stuart — Thu, 07 May 2015 08:38:44 -0000

Kevin, thank you for reading. At the risk of oversimplifying, in some ways I'm articulating the old adage, "It's not what you said, it's how you said it." What I think many in my generation (I'm in my 30s) and younger have recognized is that assertion of opinion, even if it is a solid one based on evidence and not merely persuasive rhetoric, can act as a sort of "power play," where the assertiveness itself is seen as an act of dominating.

For instance, because online conversations tend to be brief, assertions are often made as if they are self-evident. Christians, for instance, quote Bible verses, as if the interpretation of the verse itself were so obvious that the conclusions made by the one quoting the verse are taken as "true." A responder to that might say, "Well, I have a different interpretation than you do," but that only gets us to the point of disagreement. One step further: "I disagree, and here's why," gets us a little further in a productive discussion, but can only take us so far.

Perhaps I'm wrong, but my inference from your question seems to be that what I'm advocating could be endorsing (wittingly or unwittingly) a sort of "arrogant tolerance," whereby the supposedly tolerant, humble, open-minded person is arrogant in their commitment to being tolerant, humble, and open-minded. If that's accurate, I get what you mean, and the risk is certainly there. But being against arrogance is not the same as being against holding unswayable opinions. If one is completely against the holding of strong opinions, then yes, we are on the same page. But the kind of humility and openness I'm describing isn't a rejection of convictions or strongly held beliefs. On the other side, it is also wrong to simply label the certain and confident as "arrogant" simply because they are confident and certain.

Re: Libertarianism and the Power of the Gospel

D. Stuart — Thu, 07 May 2015 08:24:59 -0000

Ted, I like what you say about Christians not needing much assistance from the culture to dilute the message of the Kingdom of God. Furthermore, I applaud your contrast of kingdom IN heaven versus OF heaven!

From my limited perspective and personal experience, what is supposed to set the Church apart from the world is our commitment to loving God and neighbor. Living that out in mission means demonstrating what it is for Jesus, as King, to reign and have dominion over a "land" without becoming just another tyrannical institution.

Scot McKnight's book Kingdom Conspiracy was incredibly helpful to me in understanding some of the sloppy thinking regarding the phrases "kingdom of God" or "doing kingdom work." McKnight pulls no punches against even his favorite authors, and calls for clarity in what it is that we are talking about when we speak of the "kingdom of God." Much of what I highlighted in the book comports with a view from liberty and free society, though I doubt he'd call himself a libertarian.

Re: Peter Enns Tells Me So

D. Stuart — Wed, 10 Dec 2014 19:26:46 -0000

Attacking me personally has very little to do with the substance of Enns's articles. I took a single class from Enns, and no, that doesn't mean he's God's gift to hermeneutics, but I do take the point about personal objectivity. Yet you seem to see that as a guarantee I'm subjective, rather than a piece of evidence that diminishes objectivity (I honestly don't reject that possibility).

To call my phrase "your interpretation differs from his" an avoidance is absurd. What human being doesn't interpret the Bible? How do you know what is "plain" in the Scripture? You weren't the original audience, so unless the context and cultural circumstances surrounding a particular passage are very similar to the ones you live in, you are immediately beholden to a hermeneutic that helps you determine as best as possible what the "plain meaning" is.

Re: Peter Enns Tells Me So

D. Stuart — Thu, 04 Dec 2014 07:53:11 -0000

Mark, I've read all of Enns's books and I have studied under him in seminary. The very last thing I would say about Enns is that he calls Jesus a liar. If Enns believed Jesus was lying about the above issues he would probably not be writing books that encourage *more* Bible reading and a closer trust in God.

I understand why you believe Enns is calling Jesus a liar, but I found that accusation unfounded because you and Enns work from different presuppositions about how to read what Jesus said, intuiting meaning, rhetoric, and historical context. In short, your interpretation differs from his.

The litmus test of whether something is truly Christians should not be whether or not they have written for the Huffington Post.

Re: Does Inerrancy Disprove Libertarianism?

D. Stuart — Thu, 15 May 2014 08:32:32 -0000

The term inerrant has connotations that infallible does not have. Inerrant implies that details are accurate, such as historical events, or that if the Bible says something that seems scientific, it's true and science is wrong.

Infallible means that it does not fail to do what it was written (or preserved) to do. I do not believe the Bible is inerrant, but I most certainly believe it is infallible. The Bible infallibly leads us to Jesus, and it does so because that's what Jesus said the Scriptures are to do.

So it doesn't matter whether the origins account in Genesis is literal or not, God wanted it written down for a particular reason (whatever it is), and that purpose will unfailingly lead us to Jesus.

Re: Does Inerrancy Disprove Libertarianism?

D. Stuart — Thu, 15 May 2014 08:29:06 -0000

I'm not sure why it is that you think the article presupposes libertarianism and then judges the Bible. Could you elaborate more? I don't presuppose that libertarianism is true before reading the Bible. I'm not interested in the least with understanding the Bible according to a libertarian or anarchist lens. Perhaps I do that from time to time, but it isn't something I attempt to do.

We all judge the Bible by our own standards. Maybe "discern" is a better word to use, but whenever we read the Bible, we approach it with expectations. Some expect the Bible will have a single, unifying theme. They will read it with that expectation in mind, and will spend lots of time finding ways to reconcile seemingly contradictory passages. Others don't have that expectation, so they don't bother much with the contradictions (real or imagined).

Paul wasn't writing a treatise, he was writing a letter to his friends (or hopeful friends—I'm guessing they'd be "friends" on Facebook had it existed). Simply because Paul wrote in declarative or propositional statements does not mean that such statements hold more weight than the rest of Scripture. Paul was definitely not naive to the nature of government nor to the evils of the emperor.

I would agree that if it's libertarianism vs. the Bible (or Jesus), then at the end of the day, I'll ditch libertarianism if it turns out that I've read the Bible completely backward and upside-down. But given that God sides with the oppressed, despises empire, and approaches humanity with the spirit of a liberating King who hates slavery to sin and the satanic, I'm pretty confident my libertarianism doesn't need to be thrown out the window.

Re: Does Inerrancy Disprove Libertarianism?

D. Stuart — Mon, 28 Apr 2014 08:51:51 -0000

I think your first statement is right on. Just about all of us come to the Bible with expectations and assumptions that we are blind to, so when we read the Bible and say, "The Bible says X," we are really not saying anything different from, "I believe the Bible says X." Unless the Holy Spirit is continually humbling us with our approach, we are only going to get so far in reading the Bible.

Any passage can be taken to mean just about anything we want. All Christians know that reading "in context" is immensely important. That "context," however includes not only the surrounding verses, but the history, culture, and assumptions of the audience, much of which is not "in the text," but gleaned elsewhere.

As for using Joseph and Daniel as examples, I would suggest that we be careful to take the descriptive actions of great heroes in the Bible as normative or prescriptive. Daniel and Joseph had to deal with the situations they were given. Besides, when we approach the Bible with the question, "What should I believe about the state?" we are approaching stories like Daniel and Joseph with questions the Bible wasn't trying to answer. Both used their positions of faithfulness without vying for power. Neither were trying to become part of the state to make it "good." They were just faithfully following their God, and they ended up in positions of power, and they continued to be faithful in following God.

Allegory is not the opposite of inerrancy. I'm not sure where in my article you assumed I said the Bible was allegory.

Your last sentence I agree with, in particular the last clause. "Obeying the government" or "defying the government" is not a matter of "following the Bible," but a matter of wisdom and prudence. The Bible is not a manual or "how to" for life. It is a story of God's interaction with humans in history that have almost an infinite number of nuances. Some things never change, to be sure, but in the Bible itself we find criticisms for and endorsements for the state or those employed by the state. As interpreters we must be sure we're siding with God's view on the matter. As I noted in the article, Paul was definitely not aligning with God when he affirmed a racial slur. Elsewhere Paul makes an "aside" and says explicitly that it is he as a human speaking, not God.

Re: Does Inerrancy Disprove Libertarianism?

D. Stuart — Mon, 28 Apr 2014 08:38:33 -0000

That is a complex question that deserves more than a brief answer. But a few thoughts:
1. The Bible never claims to be inerrant. Passages used to defend inerrancy do not prove inerrancy, they simply prove inspiration or authority.
2. Perfection ("without error") is not the only standard by which we can judge something to be trustworthy or authoritative. Placing that expectation on the Bible is asking it to be something it never claims to be. To me, demanding inerrancy (or affirming it and demanding others affirm it) is the "higher standard" by which we judge the Bible to be true or false. In short, affirming inerrancy itself becomes the "higher standard."
3. Inerrancy is a new doctrine that was a response to academic inquiry that sought to debunk the claims of the Bible. I'd much prefer to stick with giving the Bible a status claimed by the apostles, namely, that it is "God-breathed" (a new term seemingly coined by Paul). Linking "God-breathed" to "inerrant" is a logical jump. It might be right, but I don't think it's automatic.

I'd put my belief about the Bible this way: "The Bible is perfect for the Church because it infallibly leads it to Jesus."

Re: The myth of wage stagnation

D. Stuart — Thu, 30 Jan 2014 17:50:55 -0000

TVs around $300 abound in places like Walmart, Costco, target, best buy, and others.

Re: Libertarians and Charity: A Response to Stoker

D. Stuart — Fri, 08 Nov 2013 11:50:51 -0000

Could you explain why there's no dignity in being cared for by others who have means? Does this mean we should never ever receive a gift from somebody? How can those who claim to be Christians "take care of" the poor (by ANY definition) without stripping people of their dignity?

Jesus had some pretty clear things to say to people who took care of "the least of these" (his words), namely that they were his true followers. Yet nowhere does Jesus speak of treating people in undignifying ways.

Now, if you want to speak of doing charity and welfare in ways that rob people of dignity, we can talk about that all day long and probably agree on many many points. But I'll go with Norman's comment on it before writing off charity.

While I cannot certainly point any fingers at you (for I don't know you personally), many people who are against accepting charity are often people who are full of some kind of pride, as if their dignity is most important to them. Receiving a handout or a "handup" is not undignifying if it aids the growth and development of the person receiving the benefit. Yet this little thing called pride really gets in the way (for instance, I have this issue with my wife making more than I do—she doesn't yet but her earning potential far exceeds mine and will far exceed mine at some point).

Re: Elizabeth Stoker has called our bluff – LCC is shutting down (NOT!)

D. Stuart — Sat, 02 Nov 2013 11:07:33 -0000

Given that this wasn't a response, but an introduction to a series of responses, looks like your scorecard is a bit premature.

Re: A New Book about Hell that Will Make You Think

D. Stuart — Wed, 17 Jul 2013 09:14:05 -0000

Baker's book is amazing, and while i was already where she was when I read it, her treatment was very helpful and thorough. So I'm extremely excited to know you're recommending it to read.

Baker is a universalist, as explicitly stated on Beyond the Box podcast last year (long after the book was published). She did not state so explicitly in the book for nuanced reasons she explains in the podcast.

Re: Ask a conditionalist (annihilationist)….

D. Stuart — Tue, 25 Jun 2013 12:23:00 -0000

How do you respond to the statement that annihilationism is simply a "softer" version of eternal conscious torment? On the one hand it IS a more merciful position, but on the other, it still leaves one wanting with respect to God's loving nature.

Re: Ask N.T. Wright...(response)

D. Stuart — Tue, 11 Jun 2013 12:15:12 -0000

I'm with you, here, but be careful that a simple answer ought to be the necessary response. I think NTW's response was a good start, and a helpful suggestion, but my guess is over a pint of ale he'd go deeper.