Protestantism: Critique and Debate Thread

[GodfatherPartTwo]

Why don't we accept the Golden Plates discussed in Mormonism as biblical?

Because God did not Breathe them.

as in who codified the bible? which books were included and why?

If you are Orthodox, then the Bible wasn't Canonized until the Synod of Jerusalem in 1672. You would have to read their thought process for why they added the books that they did, if any such literature exists.

If you are Catholic, then the Bible wasn't Canonized until the Council of Trent in 1545, the Catholics do give their reason for why they consider those few extra books (less than the Orthodox) Canonical.

but which books and how did they get determined as divinely inspired vs not?

But ultimately the canonicity, the authority of the Scriptures comes from God Himself. They were authoritative for the Apostolic Church from the moment they were written down. We do not decide if they are Scripture, we either believe the Apostolic witness or not.

 

[Get2choppaaa]

Because God did not Breathe them.


If you are Orthodox, then the Bible wasn't Canonized until the Synod of Jerusalem in 1672. You would have to read their thought process for why they added the books that they did, if any such literature exists.

If you are Catholic, then the Bible wasn't Canonized until the Council of Trent in 1545, the Catholics do give their reason for why they consider those few extra books (less than the Orthodox) Canonical.


But ultimately the canonicity, the authority of the Scriptures comes from God Himself. They were authoritative for the Apostolic Church from the moment they were written down. We do not decide if they are Scripture, we either believe the Apostolic witness or not.

You're missing my point. Those Canonized versions of the bible (depending on which authority) were determined by men and a Church Tradition.

Minus of course the Pimp Martin Luther, who wanted to remove elements of the New Testament because they didnt align with his particular views. If memory serves me right he didnt care for Hebrews, James, Jude, and the Book of Revelation.

Luther is of course the father of the sects that eventually developed the Solo Scriptora mentality.

 

[Iacobus]

Let me save y'all some time: the Scriptures are the Scriptures because they're the Scriptures. QED.

 

[scorpion]

Iv been in the Orthodox church for 2 years and read quite a few books and gone into their teachings and I havent found them teaching predestination like this.

What about the book of revelations, its full of instructions for us to not be deceived and to ensure until the end etc

I believe that the significant difficulties we have in accepting and even understanding God's predestination lie mostly in our inability to think outside of our linear spacetime. In other words, as physical creatures inhabiting a created universe, we lack the capacity to even construct a mental model of what the universe looks like from God's omniscient perspective, which is not subject to all of the constraints which limit us. These constraints extend to things we usually don't even recognize, such as being itself (i.e. I am scorpion, therefore I cannot also be Samseau. But God is not constrained by being, as he is both the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit simultaneously). Similarly, God is not constrained by causality - from His perspective, there is no contradiction or incompatibility between predestination and human free will to exercise faith. The problem lies in our extremely limited human perspective, which can only process information through sensory input and which is trapped in linear spacetime. In contrast, God's omniscient understanding transcends space, time and the physical universe we perceive as reality itself. This why the Bible wisely teaches us to walk by faith, not by sight, because the limited capacities of human perception and reason cannot even begin to unravel the mind of God absent whatever He explicitly chooses to reveal to us. And he has revealed to us repeatedly in scripture that predestination plays a large role in his redemptive plan for believers.

You quoted Scorpion and I both, and I'd like to see his take as well.

How's that for a take?

We need the Holy Spirit's guidance, through our bishops and priests, to properly understand the Bible.

While the guidance of a priest or elder is certainly advantageous in most cases, the vast majority of the Bible can be fully understood by most believers with a modest degree of effort and study, because the Holy Spirit guides the understanding of Christians. Paul writes that after receiving the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, we literally have "the mind of Christ" within us (1 Corinthians 2:14-16). However, this obviously doesn't mean that every Christian is equally gifted in discernment, understanding and capacity for understanding and interpreting scripture, however. But those who have been gifted with those qualities should help instruct their brothers. This is not a role required to be performed by a priest.

Remember that a Church creates Scripture, Scripture cannot create a Church.

The church did not create scripture, the church recognized - through God's ordained divine providence - the scripture that was written by His chosen men under the direct inspiration of the Holy Spirit. God created scripture.

Everything aside from Orthodoxy is a separation from Christ's original church and will never come to the right interpretation because without God it is impossible.

This is a ridiculous statement given that there are plenty of scriptural interpretations on which Protestants, Catholics and Orthodox have unanimous agreement.

 

[scorpion]

You do get that right? Is that argument too complicated for you?

Minus of course the Pimp Martin Luther

Let me save y'all some time: the Scriptures are the Scriptures because they're the Scriptures. QED.

This is not the level of discourse appropriate for a thread of this type. Don't post with snark or insults. If you can't engage in good faith theological discussions without getting annoyed or being overcome by your temper, then abstain entirely from posting in these threads.

 

[Iacobus]

BTW despite my vehement disagreements and occasional frustration I gotta give it up to Godfather for patiently and civilly engaging without tire, I don't have a chance talk to knowledgeable Protestants in depth in my day to day life so it's been quite interesting and led me to grow in patience and spend more time studying the Epistles I wasn't so familiar with.

This is not the level of discourse appropriate for a thread of this type. Don't post with snark or insults. If you can't engage in good faith theological discussions without getting annoyed or being overcome by your temper, then abstain entirely from posting in these threads.

Me and Godfather spent pages hashing this out a while back and that's what it actually boiled down to. Open to be corrected.

 

[GodfatherPartTwo]

You're missing my point. Those Canonized versions of the bible (depending on which authority) were determined by men and a Church Tradition.

I recognize your point. What I'm saying is that it doesn't account for the history preceding it. For example, how can Clement of Rome (1st century) recognize Paul's letters as "the true utterances of the Holy Spirit" before there were any such councils or traditions to appeal to?

This is why understanding the Canon primarily as a historic artifact, rather than a theological one, is problematic, or at least not backwards-compatible.

Minus of course the Pimp Martin Luther, who wanted to remove elements of the New Testament because they didnt align with his particular views. If memory serves me right he didnt care for Hebrews, James, Jude, and the Book of Revelation.

He had his reasons for his struggle with those books. Historically, he was not the only one to question the canonicity of Hebrews, Jude, Revelation. I won't defend his understanding of James but I am thankful that he was talked back to his senses by his fellow Reformers.

Your ultimate question is epistemological. And at the root of any epistemology is unavoidable circularity as there can only be one ultimate authority that everything else must appeal to (which is also an evidence of God). But whereas I cash that out in the Scriptures, you cash it out in the Orthodox Church. Because of the difference in presuppositions, what you or I are willing to accept as valid evidence is not 1:1.

 

[scorpion]

Me and Godfather spent pages hashing this out a while back and that's what it actually boiled down to. Open to be corrected.

The tone is needlessly condescending. I would say the same thing to Godfather if he had posted something like, "Let me save you the trouble in understanding Orthodoxy: just do whatever the bearded guy in the robe tells you to do."

It is especially important to engage with one another respectfully in these cross-denominational threads, as passions are easily stirred on both sides. If you believe that your interlocutor errs in his thinking or beliefs, be prepared to patiently point out his his error (as you perceive it) in the spirit of brotherhood. Otherwise, do not participate. I'm not going to tolerate low-quality posts that mock or denigrate any of our three major Christian denominations. This is not an Orthodox forum, nor is it a Catholic forum or a Protestant forum. It is a forum for all who earnestly declare that Christ is King, and for the good of the community we must interact with each other in the spirit of mutual encouragement and edification, particularly in areas where we have theological disagreements.

 

[Get2choppaaa]

This is not the level of discourse appropriate for a thread of this type. Don't post with snark or insults. If you can't engage in good faith theological discussions without getting annoyed or being overcome by your temper, then abstain entirely from posting in these threads.

Respectfully, some are not familiar with the accusation of Luther as a pimp to nuns.... but he was.

He married a nun, and married off several other nuns. that is why I called him a pimp.

This is significant in understanding the leader of that sectarian movement and why I said it.

That's only devisive if you don't have respect for a vow of chastity.

 

[scorpion]

Respectfully, some are not familiar with the accusation of Luther as a pimp to nuns.... but he was.

Respectfully, you are posting in the, "Protestantism: Critique and Debate Thread", not the "Martin Luther was a pimp" thread. If you want to start a thread about allegations of Martin Luther pimping out nuns, I won't stop you. But the conversation here is focused on respectful, high-level theological discourse, not slanderous 500 year-old gossip or any other low-quality posting.

 

[Get2choppaaa]

I recognize your point. What I'm saying is that it doesn't account for the history preceding it. For example, how can Clement of Rome (1st century) recognize Paul's letters as "the true utterances of the Holy Spirit" before there were any such councils or traditions to appeal to?

This is why understanding the Canon primarily as a historic artifact, rather than a theological one, is problematic, or at least not backwards-compatible.


He had his reasons for his struggle with those books. Historically, he was not the only one to question the canonicity of Hebrews, Jude, Revelation. I won't defend his understanding of James but I am thankful that he was talked back to his senses by his fellow Reformers.

Your ultimate question is epistemological. And at the root of any epistemology is unavoidable circularity as there can only be one ultimate authority that everything else must appeal to (which is also an evidence of God). But whereas I cash that out in the Scriptures, you cash it out in the Orthodox Church. Because of the difference in presuppositions, what you or I are willing to accept as valid evidence is not 1:1.

Respectfully, you are posting in the, "Protestantism: Critique and Debate Thread", not the "Martin Luther was a pimp" thread. If you want to start a thread about allegations of Martin Luther pimping out nuns, I won't stop you. But the conversation here is focused on respectful, high-level theological discourse, not slanderous 500 year-old gossip or any other low-quality posting.

My critique is the following, after which, unless I'm asked to elaborate, I've said my peace..

Sola scriptura was one of the main theological beliefs that Martin Luther proclaimed against the Catholic Church during the Protestant Reformation. He is integral to the Reformation obviously. Martin Luther wanted to remove certain books of the Bible that conflicted with his particular beleifss. It's not slander to point out the fact that Martin Luther encouraged nuns to break their vow of Chastity. That fact may not dissuade many from their current state of beliefs... but just like I dont buy suits from homosexuals, I chose not to get my theological and religious beliefs from people that have adulterated the original process and steps.

Protestantism developed out of Martin Luther, then Henry VIII and the looting of the Church, to then Calvin, the Zwingley. All protestant sects are splits from Apostolic Succession without valid sacraments.

People want to believe what they believe is THE TRUTH, but the more you go digging, the more rationalization and self justification you have to get into as you deviate from The Church as it was immediately after Christ. That Church was the Orthodox Church.

Feel free to believe whatever you want... but as someone whose been a Presbyterian, Episcopalian, Catholic Catechumen, then Orthodox Convert.... this is the assumption and

All one has to do is look at the book Rock and Sand to understand the histories of these different Sectarian Leaders that involved themselves in revolutions and religious disputes and be dissuaded from continuing that road.

ETA: For those Protestants reading, forgive me if my direct commentary is received as judgement on you as an individual. that's not my intention. Purely a theological disagreement.

 

[Cornelius V.E.]

I know this doesn't necessarily represent Godfather or Scorpion's specific individual churches, but I thought it was funny and somewhat appropriate to put on this thread. We can lighten things up a bit. Private interpretation of Sacred Scripture as the only authority and eternal security (where nothing can take away your salvation) can lead to anything (and has lead to the craziest things beyond any founder of Protestantism's imagining):

 

[GodfatherPartTwo]

All one has to do is look at the book Rock and Sand to understand the histories of these different Sectarian Leaders that involved themselves in revolutions and religious disputes and be dissuaded from continuing that road.

I've been meaning to get this for a while now. If he had a digital copy, I would've gotten it already. Here is former Orthodox priest Joshua Schooping who offers a rebuttal to many of the claims that Trenham made in his book:
https://thereformedninja.blogspot.com/2021/07/of-rock-and-sand-critique-of-josiah.html
He mentions that the Filioque was affirmed for centuries prior to the Schism, for example. The rest of his site provides a good response too.

People want to believe what they believe is THE TRUTH, but the more you go digging, the more rationalization and self justification you have to get into as you deviate from The Church as it was immediately after Christ. That Church was the Orthodox Church.

The Church immediately after Christ is the Apostolic Church in Acts. There's a long way to go before you get to the Hesychasts in the medieval period, and even further still if you wish to achieve full Orthodoxy.

All protestant sects are splits from Apostolic Succession without valid sacraments.

I do not see the phrases "Apostolic Succession" or "Valid Sacraments" in my Bible.

 

[scorpion]

I know this doesn't necessarily represent Godfather or Scorpion's specific individual churches, but I thought it was funny and somewhat appropriate to put on this thread. We can lighten things up a bit. Private interpretation of Sacred Scripture as the only authority and eternal security (where nothing can take away your salvation) can lead to anything (and has lead to the craziest things beyond any founder of Protestantism's imagining):

It's rather astounding you had the gall to post this stupid video after I literally just made it very clear such low-quality posting would not be tolerated in this thread:

I'm not going to tolerate low-quality posts that mock or denigrate any of our three major Christian denominations. This is not an Orthodox forum, nor is it a Catholic forum or a Protestant forum. It is a forum for all who earnestly declare that Christ is King, and for the good of the community we must interact with each other in the spirit of mutual encouragement and edification, particularly in areas where we have theological disagreements.

I'm very close to tossing out thread bans at this point. This is NOT a thread to mock Protestants. It is a thread for polite critique and debate.

This is not the RVF. You do not have carte blanche to bully or otherwise disparage non-Orthodox Christians or their beliefs, especially in a thread dedicated to productive cross-denominational dialogue.

If you think I'm talking to you with this warning, I probably am. If you want to try me on this, don't.

 

[Get2choppaaa]

I've been meaning to get this for a while now. If he had a digital copy, I would've gotten it already. Here is former Orthodox priest Joshua Schooping who offers a rebuttal to many of the claims that Trenham made in his book:
https://thereformedninja.blogspot.com/2021/07/of-rock-and-sand-critique-of-josiah.html
He mentions that the Filioque was affirmed for centuries prior to the Schism, for example. The rest of his site provides a good response too.

I am not sure how you thinks this source would be one that I would find credible.... I am hardly inclinded to take the word of a man who left the Priesthood in disillusionments as an authority any more than I would accept Martin Luther's teachings. I dont know him, I dont know his reasons, and I cannot read his work with credibility without examining the author's motives...

I've made my point. People can read the book themselves and ascertain its validity. Dont take my word , or your word (whose never read it) or the word of a former priest who gave up his vows....yet apparently is lecturing Orthodox on correctness or incorrectness.

The Church immediately after Christ is the Apostolic Church in Acts. There's a long way to go before you get to the Hesychasts in the medieval period, and even further still if you wish to achieve full Orthodoxy.


I do not see the phrases "Apostolic Succession" or "Valid Sacraments" in my Bible.

Yes, Yes,.. there are tons of phrases that are not found in the bible that different protestant groups do....There are things that some protestant churches believe that are in conflict with other protestant churches.... who decides who is right? and where does the authority come from?

I guess it comes from any random person who professes to be a Christian? Thats the issue. There's no authority. The authority claimed by Joel Olestein is no different than anyone else, what establishes anyone as a pastor? Thats why Apostolic Succession exists. Jesus told his disciples to spread the word and be fishers of men.... and they passed that on ect.

Where in the Bible does it say that "Only the Word" is needed for Salvation?

You wont find "Scripture alone" anywhere.... In fact.... to my knowledge.... the only place you'll see "faith alone" is the opposite of the common protestant argument.

James 2:24 You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.

Makes sense why Luther wanted to get rid of it? Now doesnt it?

Some Protestants reject Lent because its not "in the bible".

I'm not going to convince you, and my message wasn't really meant to persuade you in particular.... just those interested in a different perspective.
As I've said, these are the criticisms as I see them. I'm not looking to mock you either. I just think its a series of trying to rationalize and over-intellectually argue faith from a conclusion that is built on circular logic.

And this is without me getting into Calvinism and the divine elect nonsense. Which as a Presbyterian I could never understand given it made the notion of Christ's sacrifice for us a mystery as to whom might or might not be worthy...almost as if 'why try? Some of is are screwed and some aren't so it sort of doesn't matter'

 

[GodfatherPartTwo]

I am not sure how you thinks this source would be one that I would find credible....

I posted it for the impartial reader.

Dont take my word , or your word (whose never read it) or the word of a former priest who gave up his vows....yet apparently is lecturing Orthodox on correctness or incorrectness.

Just take Trenham's word, right? His misrepresentation of Reformed soteriology compared to the WCF, as Schooping demonstrates in his article, is quite telling.

I guess it comes from any random person who professes to be a Christian? Thats the issue. There's no authority.

There is authority, it's in the Word of God. We will all, including your priests, be held accountable to what God has spoken to us in His Word. Therefore, we should take His Word very seriously.

You wont find "Scripture alone" anywhere.

It says something even better, "All Scripture is God-Breathed." It doesn't say that about Tradition.

James 2:24 You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.

Titus 3:5 Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost; 6 Which he shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Saviour; 7 That being justified by his grace, we should be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life.

You are correct in that the exact formula "Faith alone" only occurs in the Bible once. When Protestants say it, they mean nothing more than what passages such as this one in Titus says and what Paul says elsewhere, numerous times. We don't believe James is contradicting Paul.

I just think its a series of trying to rationalize and over-intellectually argue faith from a conclusion that is built on circular logic.

I don't think you grasped my point on epistemology.

 

[Get2choppaaa]

I posted it for the impartial reader.


Just take Trenham's word, right? His misrepresentation of Reformed soteriology compared to the WCF, as Schooping demonstrates in his article, is quite telling.


There is authority, it's in the Word of God. We will all, including your priests, be held accountable to what God has spoken to us in His Word. Therefore, we should take His Word very seriously.

Where was it said that anyone shouldnt take the Word seriously? Given that there a significantly less books in the Protestant Bible, might someone make the argument that in rejecting certain books...the person making that claim is in violation of that concept?

Separately....You're not responding here to a lot of my criticisms because you can't.

Again. Who provides authority for what is and isn't accepted? Which interpretation of Scripture is correct

Why isn't Black Reparations Preachers like Jeremiah Wright correct vs Prosperity Gospel Preachers like Joel Olestein?

If they are both citing scripture and yet contradicting themselves who is correct and why?

There is no chain of custody on authority and that is why there are so many denominations and so much division with in the Christian faith in America.

Again, if that's how you want to make your omelette, go ahead enjoy... But I'm making mine with as many ingredients just like they did with the recipe passed down for nearly 2 thousand years, and it's very hard from the outside, having tried both.... To give up the full experience over a newer recipe.

 

[GodfatherPartTwo]

Where was it said that anyone shouldnt take the Word seriously?

So are you ready to take the Second Commandment seriously? Or that we should not prostrate to the Apostles and Angels as taught in Acts and Revelation? Or that Jesus Christ is the only Priest as taught in Hebrews? Or that God saves according to His grace and not according to our works? Or that the Scriptures outrank bishops and even Apostles? We should take all of those seriously.

Given that there a significantly less books in the Protestant Bible, might someone make the argument that in rejecting certain books...the person making that claim is in violation of that concept?

It is also a precept to not add books to His Word.

Again. Who provides authority for what is and isn't accepted? Which interpretation of Scripture is correct

God does through His Word. He will hold you, me, and your priests accountable to it.

Which interpretation of Scripture is correct

The more I see this question, the less innocent it looks, but more like feigned ignorance. Do what Athanasius said, devote yourself to the study of the Scriptures and the meaning will be made plain to you. Are you telling me that you do not know what the Scriptures say?

Why isn't Black Reparations Preachers like Jeremiah Wright correct vs Prosperity Gospel Preachers like Joel Olestein?

If they are both citing scripture and yet contradicting themselves who is correct and why?

You think these guys believe in Sola Scriptura and the perpiscuity of Scripture? I bet if you asked them if they did, they'd say "Sola what?"

There is no chain of custody on authority and that is why there are so many denominations and so much division with in the Christian faith in America.

OK, but even if your theory is true, that the Orthodox Church is the original church, then it's chain of custody and tradition was not sufficient to keep all of the other denominations from breaking away. So what? The difference is you put the blame on the Bible for being "unclear."

But I'm making mine with as many ingredients just like they did with the recipe passed down for nearly 2 thousand years, and it's very hard from the outside, having tried both.... To give up the full experience over a newer recipe.

Looks like a lot of new ingredients. I would check the label.

 

[GoodShepherd]

I believe that the significant difficulties we have in accepting and even understanding God's predestination lie mostly in our inability to think outside of our linear spacetime. In other words, as physical creatures inhabiting a created universe, we lack the capacity to even construct a mental model of what the universe looks like from God's omniscient perspective, which is not subject to all of the constraints which limit us. These constraints extend to things we usually don't even recognize, such as being itself (i.e. I am scorpion, therefore I cannot also be Samseau. But God is not constrained by being, as he is both the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit simultaneously). Similarly, God is not constrained by causality - from His perspective, there is no contradiction or incompatibility between predestination and human free will to exercise faith. The problem lies in our extremely limited human perspective, which can only process information through sensory input and which is trapped in linear spacetime. In contrast, God's omniscient understanding transcends space, time and the physical universe we perceive as reality itself. This why the Bible wisely teaches us to walk by faith, not by sight, because the limited capacities of human perception and reason cannot even begin to unravel the mind of God absent whatever He explicitly chooses to reveal to us. And he has revealed to us repeatedly in scripture that predestination plays a large role in his redemptive plan for believers.

How's that for a take?

While the guidance of a priest or elder is certainly advantageous in most cases, the vast majority of the Bible can be fully understood by most believers with a modest degree of effort and study, because the Holy Spirit guides the understanding of Christians. Paul writes that after receiving the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, we literally have "the mind of Christ" within us (1 Corinthians 2:14-16). However, this obviously doesn't mean that every Christian is equally gifted in discernment, understanding and capacity for understanding and interpreting scripture, however. But those who have been gifted with those qualities should help instruct their brothers. This is not a role required to be performed by a priest.

The church did not create scripture, the church recognized - through God's ordained divine providence - the scripture that was written by His chosen men under the direct inspiration of the Holy Spirit. God created scripture.

This is a ridiculous statement given that there are plenty of scriptural interpretations on which Protestants, Catholics and Orthodox have unanimous agreement.

Having the mind of Christ doesnt mean every thought we think are Gods thoughts many of our thoughts and dreams can also come from the evil one, nor does it mean that we can tell who is predestined or not, look at Judas he was a diciple, look at what happened to Ananais and Saphira in the book of Acts how they were both part of the church and died on the spot when the apostel pointed out to them that they jad withheld money back when joining the monestic community, everyone sold their property and possesions and then lived together, many scriptures are not very clear and its done that way on purpose because divine revelation is needed to understand it, the book of revelations is an example of that

 

[Get2choppaaa]

So are you ready to take the Second Commandment seriously? Or that we should not prostrate to the Apostles and Angels as taught in Acts and Revelation? Or that Jesus Christ is the only Priest as taught in Hebrews? Or that God saves according to His grace and not according to our works? Or that the Scriptures outrank bishops and even Apostles? We should take all of those seriously.


It is also a precept to not add books to His Word.


God does through His Word. He will hold you, me, and your priests accountable to it.


The more I see this question, the less innocent it looks, but more like feigned ignorance. Do what Athanasius said, devote yourself to the study of the Scriptures and the meaning will be made plain to you. Are you telling me that you do not know what the Scriptures say?


You think these guys believe in Sola Scriptura and the perpiscuity of Scripture? I bet if you asked them if they did, they'd say "Sola what?"


OK, but even if your theory is true, that the Orthodox Church is the original church, then it's chain of custody and tradition was not sufficient to keep all of the other denominations from breaking away. So what? The difference is you put the blame on the Bible for being "unclear."


Looks like a lot of new ingredients. I would check the label.

Still waiting on your defense of the Divine Elect...

You have no answer on my reverend Wright argument other than the "No True Scotsman" fallacy... Which of course is all you can do given the absurdity of the position.

The difference again, is that you seem to believe that by merely studying the Bible, you're able to ascertain everything in completeness.

If that's all it takes then anyone can make quite the Bible in any capacity and have bad understanding yet argue their position in correctness.

So do you go to somewhere and have communion?

As far as other churches splitting from Orthodoxy, the Catholic and Orthodox split, while terrible, is a wholly different view than the Chasm of Schism that is found in the whole of the Protestant denominations.

As far as man's desire to split from the tradition and way... That's only a reflection of our fallen state and not a reflection of the Correctness of Orthodoxy. But again, one always finds justifications once one's arguing from a conclusion retroactively.

anyway... Best of luck.