Thursday, September 13, 2007

The Infinite Regress of the Infallible Interpreter

In the spirit of the post just below this one...

I asked Leo:
-Since there is no infallible interper (and the system of the infall interper leads to an infinite regress), what other option do you offer?

Leo responded:
-If the Pope has the authority of God on earth, then there you have it, now, what do you mean "regress"?

A quick response:

If he's infallible, then you have to have a way to know infallibly whether what he said yesterday is infallible.
If it is, you need to know infallibly whether that way to know infallibly whether what he said yesterday is infallible is infallible.
If you solve that, you need an infallible interper to tell you the infall interp of what he said.
If you solve that, you need an infallible interper to tell you the infall interp of the infall interp of what he said.
If you solve that, you need an infallible interper to tell you the infall interp of the infall interp of the infall interp of what he said.

Etc.

It's laudable to want to remove all insecurity, all human fallibility from the equation of how we know the truth. But God just didn't make it that way. "To the law and to the testimony! If they do not speak according to this word, it is because they have no dawn" (Isaiah 8:20).

35 comments:

Carrie said...

Interestingly, the infinite regress model works out the same for the immaculate conception of Mary.

Mary had to be sinless to carry Jesus who was sinless, or so the RC story goes. But doesn’t that then mean that Mary’s mother had to be sinless to carry her, and then her mother to carry her, and so on.

It is the ultimate merry-go-round.

Rhology said...

Well, Mary's mom wouldn't HAVE to be sinless. It would just be FITTING that she be. ;-)

Leo said...

I've posted the conditions for an infallible Pronouncement, which is infallible in virtue of the Divine assitence promised to Peter and his successors. If you want to ignore them, then that is your ordeal, but I have told you when and how a Pope speaks infallibly; but you have no told me how you know that your Bible is complete and inspired.

Rhology said...

Leo,

That divine assistance is promised to Peter, allegedly, inside the Scriptures. So it looks like you also presume that the Scr is God's breathed-out Word.
I am not going to waste my time arguing with a schismatic Sedevacantist acting like an atheist. I have my hands full dealing with real atheists.

OTOH, you continue to make naked assertions. Answer the infinite regress. You are fallible - how do you know that you are right to think that X, Y, and Z are the ways to know when a pronouncement is infallible? Once you've found that answer, how do you know that THAT is infallible? Etc.

I've asked HOW, HOW, HOW many many times recently, to you directly. Start answering how yourself and we'll make some headway.

Peace,
Rhology

Richard Froggatt said...

Answer the infinite regress.

I'll show you mine if you show me yours.

Leo said...

Rhology,

You've employed every trick in the book to avoid my initial question, including turning back on me, why won't you answer it?

Leo said...

I am not going to waste my time arguing with a schismatic Sedevacantist acting like an atheist.

Who said I was a sedevacantist?

I'm not gonna mince words with someone who resorts to denigrating people's names by slurring them in the manner that you are, you have no right to call me a schismatic. Spend the rest of your time arguing with thin air, I'm gone.

Rhology said...

I've answered you several times, Leo. You didn't like the answer, and I didn't expect you to.

One more time, so you'll have no excuse. I have the same confidence and basis to know the Canon of Scr that the pious Jew in 50 BC had to know the OT was inspired Scr. No infallible interper was required for him, obviously, since there wasn't one. I have brought that up to you as well and you didn't answer.
God works with His people passively, gradually, to know the Canon. He has also graciously provided internal and external evidence so that I may know what books are canonical and what books are not. The Canon begins and ends with God, since He is the One Who breathed them out.

Now, I'll ask you for the 8th time - please answer ***HOW*** you know that the criteria you laid out for knowing whether a Magisterial statement is infallible is infallible. Don't merely assert that it is. Tell me HOW.


RF,

I have no infinite regress since I have no infallible character in my play but God Himself, where the buck stops. Play nice now and help Leo answer the question.

Peace,
Rhology

Richard Froggatt said...

Alan,

You keep asking the same question based on what you've yet to prove. Do you have evidence of how a jew recognized the canon in 50 BC?

My point with you showing yours has more to do with you than where you say the buck stops. If that's the case then we can say the buck stops with God too. Wow, one step back; that's not infinite.

You base your confidence on who God is, which is great. I base my confidence on who God is and what He's done. His promises.

You talk out of two sides of your mouth. In one breath you say you don't need tradition to recognize the canon and then in the next breath you do.

Someone recently gave you some words of wisdom; have you given them much thought?

Peace

Richard Froggatt said...

19 When men tell you to consult mediums and spiritists, who whisper and mutter, should not a people inquire of their God? Why consult the dead on behalf of the living? 20 To the law and to the testimony! If they do not speak according to this word, they have no light of dawn.

orthodox said...

Rhology, do you really want to throw your hands up in the air and say that since infallibility is always in the equation, we should all just give up now?

An infallible document is good. An infallible interpreter of the infallible document is even better. An infallible interpreter of that interpreter would be better still. I'll take as many infallible sources as exist and be thankful for them.

The question is where it is sufficient to stop this regress. Stopping before scripture is obviously no good from a Christian point of view. Stopping after scripture has resulted in multilple conflicting views on everything from the godhead to baptism to communion to polity. Pretty much everything can't be agreed on.

So empirically speaking that doesn't seem to have worked.

R: I have the same confidence and basis to know the Canon of Scr that the pious Jew in 50 BC had to know the OT was inspired Scr. No infallible interper was required for him, obviously, since there wasn't one. God works with His people passively, gradually, to know the Canon.

O: People is a plural. He doesn't lead every individual he leads his people as a whole. That means that since those claiming the name of Christ don't agree, if you want to choose a canon you will have to pick a people of God. Where were these people first fully led to the truth about the canon? Can you identify where they were in the early church for us?

GeneMBridges said...

Stopping before scripture is obviously no good from a Christian point of view

Stopping before the Church is obviously no good from a Christian POV. Stopping after Church Tradition has resulted in multilple conflicting views on everything from the godhead to baptism to communion to polity. Pretty much everything can't be agreed on.

So empirically speaking that doesn't seem to have worked.

Do you have evidence of how a jew recognized the canon in 50 BC?

Do you have evidence that they had an infallible Magisterium? Was Jamnia infallible?

You base your confidence on who God is, which is great. I base my confidence on who God is and what He's done. His promises.

On the contrary, your view of providence is obviously extremely low.

In your view, the covenant community needs an infallible interpreter to know the meaning of Scripture in the New Covenant era. But this isn't the way the Old Covenant Community functioned, so where is the supporting argument from an infallible interpretation of the relevant Scriptures that there was a change of that manner for this covenant epoch?

Richard Froggatt said...

Do you have evidence that they had an infallible Magisterium? Was Jamnia infallible?

Not my claim.

On the contrary, your view of providence is obviously extremely low.

In your view, the covenant community needs an infallible interpreter to know the meaning of Scripture in the New Covenant era. But this isn't the way the Old Covenant Community functioned, so where is the supporting argument from an infallible interpretation of the relevant Scriptures that there was a change of that manner for this covenant epoch?


I think one problem here is your misunderstanding of how infallibility functions for us.

I've never, and I don't know who does, claim that an infallible interpreter is needed to understand scripture.

GeneMBridges said...

Not my claim.

On the contrary, you can't keep up with your own arguments, a regular feature of your interactions. RF asks for evidence of how the Old Covenant community recognized the canon ca. 50 BC.

The council of Jamnia is the closest thing to a council on the canon of Scripture in Judaism, so, regardless of the dating of said council, in 50 BC or elsewhere, for his request to have any validity at all for his rule of faith, he would need to assert that Jamnia was infallible.

If not, then how, in RF's world, did the Jews function without knowing the canon of Scripture from an infallible source?

FHI, if he'd bother to consult the relevant literature on the canon of the Jews, he'd know the arguments for his question. For example, he could take a look @ Josephus or Philo.

I think one problem here is your misunderstanding of how infallibility functions for us.

Thank you, RF for this piece of psychoanalysis, telling me what I do and do not know, when you can't possibly know this. This is, of course, a diversionary tactic on your part to keep from answering the question I put to you.

I've never, and I don't know who does, claim that an infallible interpreter is needed to understand scripture.

Yes, we all know your viciously circular appeal.

It is also a standard Catholic objection to Protestant rule of faith to deny the clarity and perspicuity of Scripture. Then there's the utilitarian objection that because Protestants can't agree, this demonstrates the need for a Magisterium - not only that, but an infallible interpreter.

The claim is also that one cannot know the canon of Scripture unless the Church - the Latin Rite Church at that - infallibly determines and thus authorizes the canon.

That same church condemns "private interpretation." It calls its members to submit to its interpretations of Scripture on the presumption, of course that they are the final, infallible arbiter of the interpretation of Scripture.

890 The mission of the Magisterium is linked to the definitive nature of the covenant established by God with his people in Christ. It is this Magisterium's task to preserve God's people from deviations and defections and to guarantee them the objective possibility of professing the true faith without error. Thus, the pastoral duty of the Magisterium is aimed at seeing to it that the People of God abides in the truth that liberates. To fulfill this service, Christ endowed the Church's shepherds with the charism of infallibility in matters of faith and morals. The exercise of this charism takes several forms:

891 "The Roman Pontiff, head of the college of bishops, enjoys this infallibility in virtue of his office, when, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful - who confirms his brethren in the faith he proclaims by a definitive act a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals. . . . The infallibility promised to the Church is also present in the body of bishops when, together with Peter's successor, they exercise the supreme Magisterium," above all in an Ecumenical Council. When the Church through its supreme Magisterium proposes a doctrine "for belief as being divinely revealed," and as the teaching of Christ, the definitions "must be adhered to with the obedience of faith." This infallibility extends as far as the deposit of divine Revelation itself.

2034 The Roman Pontiff and the bishops are "authentic teachers, that is, teachers endowed with the authority of Christ, who preach the faith to the people entrusted to them, the faith to be believed and put into practice."76 The ordinary and universal Magisterium of the Pope and the bishops in communion with him teach the faithful the truth to believe, the charity to practice, the beatitude to hope for.

2035 The supreme degree of participation in the authority of Christ is ensured by the charism of infallibility. This infallibility extends as far as does the deposit of divine Revelation; it also extends to all those elements of doctrine, including morals, without which the saving truths of the faith cannot be preserved, explained, or observed.

Rhology said...

Be back later, but I want to say this:

Rhology, do you really want to throw your hands up in the air and say that since infallibility is always in the equation, we should all just give up now?

You are SO confused. It is precisely the OPPOSITE of my position to say that. It's the ROMAN position to say that. Try to keep up, now.

orthodox said...

G: Stopping before the Church is obviously no good from a Christian POV. Stopping after Church Tradition has resulted in multilple conflicting views on everything from the godhead to baptism to communion to polity. Pretty much everything can't be agreed on.

O: Not in my Church it hasn't. Maybe you're in the wrong Church.

As I said, picking the right church is the starting point. Your objection is about as meanful as pointing out that Muslim sola scripturalists don't agree with Christian sola scripturalists. Different scriptures.

But if you pick the True Church there is agreement.

G: Do you have evidence that they had an infallible Magisterium?

O: You must be confusing me with a Roman Catholic.

G: In your view, the covenant community needs an infallible interpreter to know the meaning of Scripture in the New Covenant era. But this isn't the way the Old Covenant Community functioned, so where is the supporting argument from an infallible interpretation of the relevant Scriptures that there was a change of that manner for this covenant epoch?

O: The covenant community *IS* the infallible interpreter. Now where is your evidence that the old covenant community wrongly interpreted the scriptures?

orthodox said...

R: O: Rhology, do you really want to throw your hands up in the air and say that since infallibility is always in the equation, we should all just give up now?

R: You are SO confused. It is precisely the OPPOSITE of my position to say that. It's the ROMAN position to say that. Try to keep up, now.

O: Ok, so if the existence of personal fallibility doesn't obviate the desirability of finding an authority who can tell us stuff, why would you claim there is no desirability or epistemological benefit in having an authority who can tell you the canon?

Be consistent. Either admit that an authority for the canon is an epistemologically superior position, or just give up and say that scripture doesn't help us because of our personal fallibility in choosing a canon and its interpretation.

Richard Froggatt said...

On the contrary, you can't keep up with your own arguments, a regular feature of your interactions. RF asks for evidence of how the Old Covenant community recognized the canon ca. 50 BC.

On the contrary; you’re slowing me down. Now I have to back up and explain things a little better for you.

The council of Jamnia is the closest thing to a council on the canon of Scripture in Judaism, so, regardless of the dating of said council, in 50 BC or elsewhere, for his request to have any validity at all for his rule of faith, he would need to assert that Jamnia was infallible.

50 BC was not my date. It’s the date that Alan liked. But, thanks for telling me how I need to argue my position. I don’t need to assert Jamnia to validate my rule of faith.

If not, then how, in RF's world, did the Jews function without knowing the canon of Scripture from an infallible source?

Prophets

FHI, if he'd bother to consult the relevant literature on the canon of the Jews, he'd know the arguments for his question. For example, he could take a look @ Josephus or Philo.

Try not to overstate your case.

I think one problem here is your misunderstanding of how infallibility functions for us.

Thank you, RF for this piece of psychoanalysis, telling me what I do and do not know, when you can't possibly know this. This is, of course, a diversionary tactic on your part to keep from answering the question I put to you.


Not at all what I was doing; I have no idea what you don’t know and know very little of what you do know. However, the way you worded the sentence that I was replying to led me to believe you misunderstood. Don’t blame me because you’re not clear. I guess I should have gotten the Pope to interpret you for me.

I've never, and I don't know who does, claim that an infallible interpreter is needed to understand scripture.

Yes, we all know your viciously circular appeal.


I prefer oval; thanks.

It is also a standard Catholic objection to Protestant rule of faith to deny the clarity and perspicuity of Scripture. Then there's the utilitarian objection that because Protestants can't agree, this demonstrates the need for a Magisterium - not only that, but an infallible interpreter.

Poor St. Peter. If only you could have been there to tell him that Paul's writings are not hard to understand.

The claim is also that one cannot know the canon of Scripture unless the Church - the Latin Rite Church at that - infallibly determines and thus authorizes the canon.

Gene, are you trying to get me and orthodox to start arguing? That would help you out wouldn’t it? But, maybe you’re right. Why do I need the Church to tell me the canon? I can go to Barnes & Noble; I bet they can show me the canon too.

That same church condemns "private interpretation." It calls its members to submit to its interpretations of Scripture on the presumption, of course that they are the final, infallible arbiter of the interpretation of Scripture.

< snip >

I read through your quotes from the catechism. Where was private interpretation condemned. Can you find an actual example of the Church condemning someone’s private interpretation that does not have to do with the interpretation dividing the Church?

Rhology said...

RF,

I don't think it does your position anythg but harm to quote v. 19 out of Isaiah 8...


Orthodox,

why would you claim there is no desirability or epistemological benefit in having an authority who can tell you the canon?

I am denying that there is a need for an INFALLIBLE one. I see no reason to invest the Ch with infallibility even though I believe that their recognition of the Canon of Scr was reliably performed by them by God working thru and with them.
But you're still missing the point I'm trying to make. The infallibility of the Church means for you that you can have absolute faith they didn't screw up. the problem is, of course, manifold:
1) Nobody can tell me WHEN the church speaks infallibly.
2) Nobody can tell me HOW THEY KNOW when the ch speaks infallibly.
3) Of course nobody can tell me how they know they infallibly got it right if they could tell me HOW THEY KNOW when the ch speaks infallibly.
4) Nobody can be sure that they have correctly interped the words of the infall interper when it interps Scr.
5) And of course nobody can tell me why a private indiv CANNOT POSSIBLY correctly interp Scr when it conflicts with What The Church® Has Stated even though they are expressing a fallible interp of What The Church® Has Stated.

I grow tired of the same non-answers. Where are the intellectually honest RCs and EOs? Not around here...

Richard Froggatt said...

RF,

I don't think it does your position anythg but harm to quote v. 19 out of Isaiah 8...


Maybe you should think about it a little more. The purpose was to show how loose and free you play with scripture.

orthodox said...

R: I see no reason to invest the Ch with infallibility even though I believe that their recognition of the Canon of Scr was reliably performed by them.

O: The church is reliable vs the church is infallible. Sounds like a word game to me. I'm happy to be in a reliable church. That sounds fine by me. Let's all figure out which church is the reliable one and join that one.

R: the problem is, of course, manifold:
1) Nobody can tell me WHEN the church speaks infallibly.

O: Oh, but you CAN tell when the church has been reliable? Please tell me how you can tell when the church has been reliably led to the correct canon. Then tell us how you identify which church it is you trust with this reliability.

R: 2) Nobody can tell me HOW THEY KNOW when the ch speaks infallibly.

O: But you can know when the church has been reliably led into the truth in the canon? Why the clarity on one hand and the confusion on the other?

R: 3) Of course nobody can tell me how they know they infallibly got it right if they could tell me HOW THEY KNOW when the ch speaks infallibly.

O: Well let's see if you can figure it out. Let's take these premises: Orthodoxy is the true church. Agreement of the true church is Truth.

Now, given the above premises, is it true that infants should be baptised? Is it really that tough for you to nut this one out?

R: 4) Nobody can be sure that they have correctly interped the words of the infall interper when it interps Scr.

O: Really. Let's see if you can nut out the baptism problem above to see if this claim is true.

R: 5) And of course nobody can tell me why a private indiv CANNOT POSSIBLY correctly interp Scr when it conflicts with What The Church® Has Stated even though they are expressing a fallible interp of What The Church® Has Stated.

O: You've lost me on that mind twister.

Rhology said...

Orthodox,

I can tell the ch is reliable b/c I trust GOD to communicate His canon. Again, don't need infallibility like you apparently do.

And again, I wouldn't say you need infallibility except that you keep challenging me when, for ex, I quote Scr. You say "That's just your private interp!" So I ask for an infall interp from the infall interper and never get a straight answer back. That's pitiful.

And I note you didn't answer my questions at all. Typical dodge. You, RF, and Leo are cut from the same cloth. I thought I might get some answers. Guess I was wrong. If that's where an infall church gets you, then go ahead and don't sign me up.

If we take those premises, then infants should be baptised, sure. But those premises are an assumption on your part.

You know, the mind twister is what defeats your position, and ironically it is sthg that you yourself have imposed in order to challenge SS-ists. Pity you can't keep track of your own argument or its implications.

Peace,
Rhology

kmerian said...

Rho, the answer to your point is simple. Faith. At some point that is the only answer we can have.

Sola Scriptura yields to infinite regress as well until the point you must just answer with faith.

Rhology said...

How does SS lead to infinite regress? God is the final step; everyone else is fallible.

not so in the infall interp model's infinite regress, as explained above.

orthodox said...

R: I can tell the ch is reliable b/c I trust GOD to communicate His canon.

O: Great, you trust God to communicate the canon. BUT TO WHOM? It's not enough to hope that the knowledge is out there somewhere. You've got to know where to go to receive that communication. And since the churches differ in what they will tell you, you will have to pick a church to communicate with. Which church do you choose Rhology?

R: Again, don't need infallibility like you apparently do.

O: But you would like reliability right? Or is one canon as good as another for you?

R: You say "That's just your private interp!" So I ask for an infall interp from the infall interper and never get a straight answer back. That's pitiful.

O: The reason you might want an infallible interpreter of an infallible interpreter is if the message doesn't carry with it all the context and clarity for a regular person to be unclear between several interpretations.

But unlike scripture, the infallible interpreter of the Church is continually in the process of being renewed to clarify things that are unclear to most people. That doesn't mean you might never like an infallible interpreter of the infallible interpreter. But it does mean that if you are normal human being asking the normal sort of clarification questions, the clarity is generally quite sufficient without asking for that extra level, because the Church has already asked that question and answered it. For example, presbyterians and baptists are still arguing about the biblical age of baptism, but Orthodoxy never has this problem, and we don't need another level of infallibility to figure that out.



R: And I note you didn't answer my questions at all. Typical dodge.

O: That's rich when you still won't answer who communicated the canon to you, and how you know their answer is more reliable than other churches with a different canon.

R: If we take those premises, then infants should be baptised, sure. But those premises are an assumption on your part.

O: Ahh, and you didn't need another level of indirection to figure it out. So why not admit that having the infallible interpreter is at least an epistemologically superior position? You don't have to admit that it is a more correct position, that is a different question. But you should admit that having the infallible interpreter would help without going into the tailspin of wanting more and more levels of infallibility.

Come on, admit it. If you knew that Orthodoxy is the true church you could save quite a few years in biblical exegesis class as far as answering the most common areas of disagreement among protestants.

Richard Froggatt said...

If he's infallible, then you have to have a way to know infallibly whether what he said yesterday is infallible.
If it is, you need to know infallibly whether that way to know infallibly whether what he said yesterday is infallible is infallible.
If you solve that, you need an infallible interper to tell you the infall interp of what he said.
If you solve that, you need an infallible interper to tell you the infall interp of the infall interp of what he said.
If you solve that, you need an infallible interper to tell you the infall interp of the infall interp of the infall interp of what he said.


Do you even realize how ridiculous this sounds?

This is like saying that my father could not have told me infallibly that he was my father because I could never know for sure because I'm not infallible and I would have to keep asking other fathers if they were my father when all I had to do was believe my real father.

Carrie said...

This is like saying that my father could not have told me infallibly that he was my father because I could never know for sure because I'm not infallible and I would have to keep asking other fathers if they were my father when all I had to do was believe my real father.

You guys can't seem to understand the difference b/w infallible and high level of certainty.

Just b/c your father says he is your father doesn't make it true. There is a level of trust and secondary factors to support the evidence that can cause a high level of certainty (your parents were married prior to your birth, you look like your father, there is no reason to be suspicious of your mother's fidelity) but a DNA test would really be needed to get close to infallible. Even then, the lab could botch up the test.

We accept most things in this world based on high levels of certainty because we are fallible. If you can be honest and accept this, then the question becomes which can be proved with a higher level of certainty, the RCC as an infallible guide or the Bible.

Ken is correct, in the end we are left with faith. My faith is directed at God, yours is indirect through your magesterium. To me, the fact that you need visible men to solidify your faith says something.

kmerian said...

Rho, sola scriptura falls to infinite regress, because, The Bible is your sole rule of faith, because the Bible tells you so. The Word of God is infallible, but the men who wrote it are and the men who translated it are. So, if you read the scripture, you must know if the words are infallibly translated, so you must know if the person who translated them are infallible and if they are, how do you know their source is infallible and their source and their source etc... finally, if all men are fallible, how can we know the apostles faithfully wrote what the Holy Spirit wanted them to write? Since your argument is that men are fallible and cannot be trusted to give the true word of God, the scriptures fall under your own argument.

orthodox said...

Carrie: If you can be honest and accept this, then the question becomes which can be proved with a higher level of certainty, the RCC as an infallible guide or the Bible.

Orthodox: If this is how you want to differentiate infallibility from mere high level of certainty, then your denomination should stop saying scripture is infallible. Rather there is merely a good level of probability that these books are God breathed, that they have been copied accurately through the ages, and that your fallible lexicon/dictionary accurately conveys the original meaning.

So how about it? Are you going to advocate your church withdraw its claim of scriptural infallibility? If not, stop preaching this sillyness.

Carrie said...

Are you going to advocate your church withdraw its claim of scriptural infallibility?

No, scripture is infallible because it is god-breathed. But my own belief in that is fallible - that is where faith fills in the gap between high level of certainty and infallible knowledge.

I don't think you are following this argument. The RCs claim that they are at an advantge over Prots b/c they have an infallible organization to give them infallible interpretations - they have removed all error in their minds. But it is obvious when you are honest about personal fallibility that the RCs are no better off b/c their own belief in the infallibility of their magesterium is still a fallible one.

Rhology has explained this to you every which way - if you still don't get it I can't really add anything.

Rhology said...

And Kmerian, no SS-ist (except a KJVO, and I'm not one of them) would claim the translators are infallible.
Please, think about what we are saying and what it means for your position rather than just vomiting up random responses that have little to do with the question at hand.

30 comments and no one has stepped up to the plate. I shouldn't be surprised.

orthodox said...

Carrie: No, scripture is infallible because it is god-breathed. But my own belief in that is fallible - that is where faith fills in the gap between high level of certainty and infallible knowledge.

Orthodox: It's hard to interact with this because no protestant will tell you, in hard practical terms, who told them what books are actually scripture.

It's all very well to say that faith fills in the gap, but on what basis? If it's burning in the bosom. If 3 John lights you up, but the Book of Mormon and Koran don't, and this is your criteria, say so plainly. As it is, because protestants refuse to state their source. I guess not having a position represents a small target?

WHO TOLD YOU WHAT IS SCRIPTURE? Give us names and dates.

Rhology said...

Orthodox,

Burning in the bosom?
You just finished warning us against burning strawmen.

Apparently, not only can you not follow your own arguments nor RC arguments, you can't keep track of your own tactics.

Peace,
Rhology

Carrie said...

WHO TOLD YOU WHAT IS SCRIPTURE? Give us names and dates.

You have been answered on this more than once by more than one person.

orthodox said...

You have been answered on this more than once by more than one person.

Nope. Nobody has EVER given me a name. Who told you what the scriptural books are? WHO? This is not a trick question.