The Great Protestant Fallacy

[Eliyahu]

If you bothered to read what others post here you would note that Agnus

(a) isn't Catholic

(b) has announced his intention to be received into the Orthodox Church

Do try to keep up!

I knew it, but his posts are repeatedly wet after swiming in the Tiber river which is very much polluted with human refuses.

 

[Agnus_Dei]

But, why pre-1054? The church was not "undivided" then either -- a Catholic record of the 1500's reports that the Anabaptists were at least 1200 years old in the 1500's, and portions of the Eastern church divided from the rest of the church over the Council of Chalcedon long before 1054.

I believe this illustrates my fourth point: which group, which time, and on what basis would we determine that? This supports my thesis that "private interpretation" of Scripture is necessary.

Hi Darron, even as a Baptist I’ve always been intrigued in regard to just how Christianity got its start. What happened after the day the Church was founded at Pentecost. We do seem to get a glimpse through the NT, but what happened after the Apostles martyred? What were the challenges that the Early Church (EC) faced, how did the EC fight heresy with just fragments of the NT? Who or what decided which Gospel, Epistle or letter was authentic and not a forgery? Who or what decided that what books weren’t a forgery, were actually inspired?

These are tough questions that Baptists can’t answer and these were the questions I was asking and these were the questions that I went searching for. Just so happened I found the answers in the Apostolic Church Father’s and EC Father’s.

Yes, there have been splits, 3 roughly 500 years apart in the Early Church. The spilt that produced the Oriental Orthodox Church (due to the nature of Christ’s humanity), the Schism of 1054 (pope, filioque, culture…etc) and finally the Reformation.

We hear and read of schismatic offshoots throughout EC History and many of the seven Ecumenical Councils dealt with the heresy’s these offshoots were propagating. With all the confusion, I and my wife both had to question…Who’s right? Because what I was taught as an IFB, was that our Church was the true NT Church and from what I have studied and read, all I can say is…”Houston…we have a problem…”

So it’s been my inclination that if the history of the Baptist’s found in the Trail of Blood is accurate…then they are the offshoots of Schismatic groups of the EC.

I’m now attending an Antiochian Orthodox Christian Church and it’s coming to appear to me the more I study and pray that I just may have found what I’ve been looking for…what is the NT Church.

Why? Because I firmly believe that Christ said that He would send His Holy Spirit and remind His Church of all things and that not all things were recorded in Scripture. I also believe that when Christ said that He would never leave His Church and that the gates of Hell would never prevail…I believe Him. I also believe that the Holy Spirit guided the Council at Jerusalem we read in Acts when questions arose about the Gentiles. It’s my conviction that the same Spirit guided the Seven Ecumenical Councils of the Early Church and fought the heresy of that age and thus condemned these sects as heretical. And during the Schism of 1054, the Church held fast and refused to accept authority from one man and refused to accept any changes to the Christian Creed that was established firmly through these Councils.

The Reformers protested the Catholic Church of the West, not the East. The East had it’s fair share of problems from Islam to Communism and through Christ’s promise that He’d never leave and the Gates of hell would never prevail, has kept His Church and through His Spirit continues to guide and protect what’s been handed on to them from the beginning.

I don’t believe for a second that the Apostolic Church Fathers, who were disciples of the Apostles, started off into heresy right off the bat and thus passed on hertical thoughts and practices in regard to worship to the EC Father's.

Anyway, one post can hardly do any justice, but just my .02 cents worth…

Blessings

 

[Chemnitz]

Chemnitz, I have some problems with this: three come from Scripture itself, and one from practicality.

2 Timothy 3:16-7 “All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for |doctrine|, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness: so that the| person who serves God| may be complete, | entirely instructed for all good work.”*

From what I see, Scripture is provided for the individual "person who serves God" to be instructed to do good works. The individual is to take personal instruction direct from Scripture, and that would include personal interpretation/inference.

I do not disagee. It just should not happen in isolation. It should also be noted that this passage is given to us through instructions to Timothy, a pastor who will be teaching others or training others to borrow from the language of the passage. It is not an advocation of individual interpretation in isolation.

Practically speaking, everytime we read, we interpret but being sinful beings we donot always interpret correctly. This is why it should not be done in isolation.

2 Timothy 2:15b "“Give diligence to present thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, handling aright the word of truth” (ASV).

From what I see, in this letter to an individual, the individual person is to "give diligence" (ASV) to be "handling aright the word of truth" (ASV). To "give diligence" means `give an effort.' The individual is to make an effort to handle the written Word of God correctly.

Timothy as a pastor of the church is charged with helping people along. Correcting error when it happens and encouraging when it is truth. Again, this is not a advocation of isolation in interpretation. In reality, this can be seen as a call to submit yourself to the correct understanding of Scripture.

Acts 17:11 which describes Bereans that Paul was preaching to: "Now these were more noble-minded than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with great eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see whether these things were so" (ASV).

The church of Christians did exist at this time, yet the Bereans still studied Scripture for themselves to judge even an apostle's preaching by it. They were commended for studying Scripture for themselves to test church teaching even though the church already had interpretations set.

I have already addressed this situation. They did not interpret Scripture in isolation. We are to view all things in light of Scripture, so what they did is very admirable.

Practicality If we are to limit our interpretations of Scripture to how others in the church interpret it, which one do we choose? Orthodoxy claims that limiting status. Catholicism claims that limiting status. How do we choose? Do we choose an Anabaptist group? Which one, and why? Do we go back to what was believed by the dominant church body in 1000 C.E.? If so, why? If not, how far back do we go? Council of Chalcedon, or maybe at Nicaea? Why? If not, do we go further back -- how far and why? The earliest post-New Testament writings? Which opinions do we adopt, and why? I propose just sticking with Scripture, as that is what came out in the New Testament era.

For these four reasons, I believe "private interpretation" is a good thing. As I see it, we too often fail to make "private interpretation" genuinely personal, and try to press our conclusions onto others.

There is something to be said for charitably expressing one's own understandings of Scripture, but when it gets taken beyond that to trying to press conformity onto others, "private interpretation" is not the problem.

As always "should be" and "is" are two different things when sinful people are involved. The ideal is that we could gather together and come to a mutual consensus as to the correct interpretation. In reality, we have people who do to differing agendas, personal, tastes, and a multitude of other reasons take their own interpretations and ignore everybody else without actually testing to see if they are right or wrong.

I would disagree with your notion of truly private interpretation not being genuinely personal, most people pick and choose what they want to believe and refuse to conform themselves to anything they don't like. I can't begin to count the number of people I have encountered that are this way. The number of people who buy into the complete confessions of a single group are very few.

What did I miss in their posts?

The OP itself is a great fallacy by a hireling pastor! I don't input much time to be sympathized with such fallacy! You are making the hasty judgment as the foolish man pointed out by the Proverb which you referred to.

And now, Darron you see why I cut off responding to him. But I must admit I had a different Proverbs in mind when I decided to stop. Namely Proverbs 18:2 and 26:4.
____


*ESV|KJV, NKJV|NBV|ICB|ASV|RVR 1909 “enteramente instruído para toda buena obra” translated.[/quote]

 

[Darron Steele]

Agnus Dei: I am not ignoring you by not replying more in depth to your post right now. I will say that while I disagree with your surmising of church history and Scripture, I do respect it.

Chemnitz: I see exactly why one would not bother to engage Eliyahu. It is amazing how he self-admittedly will refuse to listen before he attacks because he is not willing to take the time -- and then will criticize someone else as "hasty."

Your Proverbs 18:2 passage did come to mind, but I thought I would lay off of it and just quote mine. I wondered how he would react; but he did as expected. He goes on Catholic-bashing tirades that have no regard for what Catholics really believe and practice, and does so because they do not go just with Scripture. However, when confronted with a passage of the written Word of God, he ignores its teaching and insults the person.

Now, regarding following the written Word of God, I think I am seeing at least part of your point: we do need to ask each other for input on interpreting Scripture, and consider each other's input. We should not try to do it so much as `lone rangers.'

On this, I think you are right. I think a lot of people are looking to find something `new and radical' in their studies, and come up with some pretty outlandish things. I think before anyone decides to fully believe something really outlandish, s/he ought to really, really, really consider if substantial portions of the church would find it sound and reasonable when compared against other Scriptures.

2 Timothy 2:15 has "“Give diligence to present thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, handling aright the word of truth” (ASV).

Hebrews 10:24-5 says "“and let us consider how to stimulate one another to love and good deeds, |not giving up| our own assembling together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another, and all the more as you see the day drawing near” (NASB|TNIV|NASB).​

At 2 Timothy 2:15, an effort to handle Scripture accurately is commanded for those individuals with access to readable copies. At Hebrews 10:24-5, we are told to get together and give each other support in doing good deeds. This would include study of Scripture.

I guess it does make sense to study Scripture with mutual assistance of others of the church, and not approach such study with an extreme `lone ranger' mentality.

 

[Eliyahu]

This thread is about the Great Fallacy by the hireling pastors and hireling priests, the Nicolaitanes.
They need such fallacy to continue to cheat the peole by shutting up the chance of the individual studies.

Nobody who claim the individual study denied the profits of the Bible fellowship and therefore they like to gather together to express their belief and understanding and praise the Lord in the meetings and in the worship services.

Often such businessmen in the church pretend they only are allowed to interpret the Bible and others are the fools, which is the foolish arrogance in front of God. They may gather together in the place of fools, Lake of Fire.

 

[Matt Black]

But, why pre-1054?

See below re the Ecumenical Councils

The church was not "undivided" then either -- a Catholic record of the 1500's reports that the Anabaptists were at least 1200 years old in the 1500's,

Ah, the so-called Hosius Statement? It's bogus and ahistorical

and portions of the Eastern church divided from the rest of the church over the Council of Chalcedon long before 1054.

I don't regard the Monophysites and Nestorians as part of the Undivided Church, which is the Church of the Seven Ecumenical Councils. Catholics, Orthodox and Anglicans (of which I am one) regard themseves as part of that Church.

I believe this illustrates my fourth point: which group, which time, and on what basis would we determine that? This supports my thesis that "private interpretation" of Scripture is necessary.

The pre-1054 Church of the Ecumenical Councils

 

[Darron Steele]

Chemnitz, I have some problems with this: three come from Scripture itself, and one from practicality....
Practicality If we are to limit our interpretations of Scripture to how others in the church interpret it, which one do we choose? Orthodoxy claims that limiting status. Catholicism claims that limiting status. How do we choose? Do we choose an Anabaptist group? Which one, and why? Do we go back to what was believed by the dominant church body in 1000 C.E.? If so, why? If not, how far back do we go? Council of Chalcedon, or maybe at Nicaea? Why? If not, do we go further back -- how far and why? The earliest post-New Testament writings? Which opinions do we adopt, and why? I propose just sticking with Scripture, as that is what came out in the New Testament era....

Upon suggestion of using the church councils from before 1054:

But, why pre-1054? The church was not "undivided" then either -- a Catholic record of the 1500's reports that the Anabaptists were at least 1200 years old in the 1500's, and portions of the Eastern church divided from the rest of the church over the Council of Chalcedon long before 1054.

I believe this illustrates my fourth point: which group, which time, and on what basis would we determine that? This supports my thesis that "private interpretation" of Scripture is necessary.

... I don't regard the Monophysites and Nestorians as part of the Undivided Church, which is the Church of the Seven Ecumenical Councils. Catholics, Orthodox and Anglicans (of which I am one) regard themseves as part of that Church....

I am doubting that you get my point.

How do we know that we should not trust one of the the Monophysite or Nestorian groups to guide us? How do we know that the post-Chalcedon proto-Orthodox/proto-Catholic groups were the ones who went the wrong way?

Again, I simply do not believe we can get away from needing to personally take care to Scripture.

 

[Matt Black]

Upon suggestion of using the church councils from before 1054:
I am doubting that you get my point.

How do we know that we should not trust one of the the Monophysite or Nestorian groups to guide us? How do we know that the post-Chalcedon proto-Orthodox/proto-Catholic groups were the ones who went the wrong way?

Again, I simply do not believe we can get away from needing to personally take care to Scripture.

We know we can trust the Councils because they were from the Church which preserved the Apostolic Succession -- unless you believe that eg: Arius was right...

 

[David Lamb]

We know we can trust the Councils because they were from the Church which preserved the Apostolic Succession -- unless you believe that eg: Arius was right...

Not sure where I fit in then. I certainly don't agree with with Arius, but neither do I believe in Apostolic Succession, at least as it is usually understood, i.e. the teaching that bishops represent a direct, uninterrupted line of continuity from the Apostles of Jesus Christ.

 

[Matt Black]

But on what basis do you disagree with Arius?

 

[Bro. James]

Great Protestant Fallacy

This sounds like a rehash of Vatican II regarding "separated brethren". It's O.K. you can be separated--however, you have no "ecclessia" authority. The Holy See, headed by the Holy Papa is still in control. The daughters will go back to their mother/Papa.(Let's debate that one!)

For those of us who are still congregational in our polity, might I point out that eccles(s)iastic decisions are made by the voting of the individual members of the body--one vote per member. There is no synod, board or convention which makes a final decision. I hasten to add that this congregational assembly is executive rather than legislative. That is, the laws of God are already in place. There is no room for interpretation or amendment. God said it , that settles it. Whether we believe it or not changes nothing.

More mud in the holy water: Real Baptists are not part of the so-called Protestant Reformation. They trace their "faith and practice" to the shores of Galilee--where the first assembly was assembled--circa A.D. 30--several years before Pentecost. They probably were not invited to many councils, synods and such. In fact, many rather vociferously rejected infant baptism, papacy, holy see and other such unscriptural practice as being very much anti-Christ. Many were martyred--especially those INDIVIDUALS who believed God rather than men. Such a people can be traced all the way back to the Book of Genesis. Man has killed most of the prophets of God--including the Son of Man.

So now we have at least three groups which say they are the real Christians. Sorry, we have failed to recognize the millions of followers of Joseph Smith Jr. Joseph testifies that all church groups had apostasized and that the True Church would be re-established through him. (Martyrdom does not equal verity.) That pretty well accounts for about 90+% of Christendom. How confusing! All of this cannot be of God. Sola Scriptura.

Choose wisely,

Bro. James

 

[David Lamb]

But on what basis do you disagree with Arius?

On the basis of the bible. Arius denied the eternal deity of Christ. The bible affirms it. Arius taught that Christ was a created being, not equal to God the Father. The bible denies this.

Granted, the First Council of Nicaea denounced Arianism, but we surely don't need to rely on that Council, or any other, to know that such doctrines are wrong. After all, if we did, where would that get us? Different ecclesiastical "Councils" have met over the centuries, and made all sorts of conflicting and opposing pronouncements. The3 Council of Trent, for instance, ruled as follows:

Furthermore, in order to restrain petulant spirits, It (that is, "The sacred and holy, ecumenical, and general Synod of Trent") decrees, that no one, relying on his own skill, shall,--in matters of faith, and of morals pertaining to the edification of Christian doctrine, --wresting the sacred Scripture to his own senses, presume to interpret the said sacred Scripture contrary to that sense which holy mother Church,--whose it is to judge of the true sense and interpretation of the holy Scriptures,--hath held and doth hold;" That same Council made the following pronouncement, concerning what it saw as the rightness seeing "the mass" as a sacrifice for living believers and those who have died:

CHAPTER II.
That the Sacrifice of the Mass is propitiatory both for the living and the dead.
And forasmuch as, in this divine sacrifice which is celebrated in the mass, that same Christ is contained and immolated in an unbloody manner, who once offered Himself in a bloody manner on the altar of the cross; the holy Synod teaches, that this sacrifice is truly propritiatory and that by means thereof this is effected, that we obtain mercy, and find grace in seasonable aid, if we draw nigh unto God, contrite and penitent, with a sincere heart and upright faith, with fear and reverence. For the Lord, appeased by the oblation thereof, and granting the [Page 155] grace and gift of penitence, forgives even heinous crimes and sins. For the victim is one and the same, the same now offering by the ministry of priests, who then offered Himself on the cross, the manner alone of offering being different. The fruits indeed of which oblation, of that bloody one to wit, are received most plentifully through this unbloody one; so far is this (latter) from derogating in any way from that (former oblation). Wherefore, not only for the sins, punishments, satisfactions, and other necessities of the faithful who are living, but also for those who are departed in Christ, and who are not as yet fully purified, is it rightly offered, agreebly to a tradition of the apostles.​

If that pronouncement differs from what the bible says about the Lord's Supper, then I would rather believe the bible.

 

[Matt Black]

First off, Trent was not an Ecumenical Council, but a Council held by the 'Italian Mission' in the West.

Secondly, the JW's claim to rely on Scripture alone, and yet have come up with a defective Christology that is remarkably similar to Arius'.

 

[David Lamb]

First off, Trent was not an Ecumenical Council, but a Council held by the 'Italian Mission' in the West.

I suppose it depends who you ask. The (Roman) Catholic Encyclopaedia says of it (emphasis mine):

The nineteenth ecumenical council opened at Trent on 13 December, 1545, and closed there on 4 December, 1563. Its main object was the definitive determination of the doctrines of the Church in answer to the heresies of the Protestants; a further object was the execution of a thorough reform of the inner life of the Church by removing the numerous abuses that had developed in it.​

Secondly, the JW's claim to rely on Scripture alone, and yet have come up with a defective Christology that is remarkably similar to Arius'.

They may make that claim, but that does not make the idea of "Scripture Alone" wrong. One might just as well say, "In the 2001 (UK) Census, about 41 million people, out of almost 59 million, said they were Christians, but only 3½ million (about 7%) meet to worship God on an average Sunday. Therefore, because there are people (93% of them!) who claim to be Christians but who don't meet with other believers to worship God, the idea of meeting to worship God must be wrong."

By the way, in your public profile on the Baptist Board you state your denomination as "Baptist (Baptist Union of Great Britain)", but your home church as "Holyrood Church of England". I'm not prying (so I shall not be in the least offended if you would rather not comment), but I am confused. Is there no baptist church where you live? But then, your comments on Apostolic Succession sound (to me) more akin to Anglican ecclesiology than Baptist. Just wondering

 

[Matt Black]

Trent wasn't an ecumenical council as the Easterners were not present.

And, yes, I used to be Baptist but am now Anglican - there's a thread about it somewhere from early in the summer. I did try to change my Profile but was unable to.

 

[Chemnitz]

Matt, is correct in that Trent is not an ecumenical council, there are only 7? true ecumenical councils all prior to the great schism. However, the RCC still considers its councils to be binding and ecumenical despite being the only players allowed on the floor. Trent is a binding council in the RCC, that is why they are having such a fight over Vatican II, because it goes against Trent without ever rescinding the council resolutions.

 

[Matt Black]

Yes, 7 ECs

 

[Bro. James]

The great fallacy

What if the Council of Nicea which was called by the Emperor of Rome was a usurpation of divine authority? Constantine the Great conformed his brand of paganism to another group of pagans who would have us to believe they are followers of Christ, having been given the authority. Now we have another state supported religion. The concept of Pontifex Maximus vaults that form of paganism even higher.
If the initiation council (circa 319 A.D.) can be shown to be bogus, all those that followed are necessarilly bogus as well. Nihil ex nihil fit. Not sure who coined that one--from nothing comes nothing is the way my Latin teacher told me it would translate. I believe that is an appropriate way to describe this trilemma.:BangHead: :type: :wavey: :godisgood:
Which is a greater fallacy?

Choose wisely,

Bro. James

 

[Agnus_Dei]

What if the Council of Nicea which was called by the Emperor of Rome was a usurpation of divine authority? Constantine the Great conformed his brand of paganism to another group of pagans who would have us to believe they are followers of Christ, having been given the authority. Now we have another state supported religion. The concept of Pontifex Maximus vaults that form of paganism even higher.
If the initiation council (circa 319 A.D.) can be shown to be bogus, all those that followed are necessarilly bogus as well. Nihil ex nihil fit. Not sure who coined that one--from nothing comes nothing is the way my Latin teacher told me it would translate. I believe that is an appropriate way to describe this trilemma.:BangHead: :type: :wavey: :godisgood:
Which is a greater fallacy?

Choose wisely,

Bro. James

First off have you studied the Council of Nicea and if so, was there anything the Council proclaimed that was false in your opinion? Is the Nicea Creed riddled with heretical theology?

Also, Paul at one time was a ferocious persecutor of Christians who had a dramatic conversion. What if Constantine was a type of Paul and God used him for the advancement of the Kingdom, by calling into session these Councils and defining what is and isn’t Orthodoxy and condemning these heretical sects.

Furthermore if I’m not mistaken, these bishops that attended these Councils were direct descendents of the bishops that were assigned to specific Churches established by the very Apostles of our Lord.

I hardly believe that these bishops were easily swayed into paganism when the majority of them stared death in the face and never faltered and the history of the Church testifies to this.

I also find it hard to image that right off the bat these Churches the Apostles established went heretical and the true Church had to go “under ground” for 1500 years until the Reformation, especially when Christ promised the gates of Hell would never prevail. I think I’ll give God a little more credit in preserving His Church.
-

 

[Doubting Thomas]

How do we know that we should not trust one of the the Monophysite or Nestorian groups to guide us? How do we know that the post-Chalcedon proto-Orthodox/proto-Catholic groups were the ones who went the wrong way?

The reason that we don't accept the "Monophysite" (more specifically, "Eutychian") or the "Nestorian" positions* vis-a-vis those councils (particularly Ephesus 431 and Chalcedon 451) is that those heresies fail St. Vincent's test of "universality, antiquity,and consent". OTOH, Ephesian and Chalcedonian orthodoxy passed this test and reflected the truly catholic and universal consensus as opposed to "Nestorianism" (which was the Antiochian word-man Christology taken to a heretical extreme) or "Eutychianism"/"monophysitism" (which was the Alexandrian word-flesh Christology taken to the opposite heretical extreme).

The position of Nestorius (or what at least what was perceived to be a consequence of his position by his contemporaries) leads to dividing Christ into two subjects, which was not what the catholic Church had believed from the beginning. Looking at the Scriptures and all early patristic 'rules of faith', Christ was always spoken of as ONE SUBJECT, at once divine and human.
OTOH, the emphasis on the Unity of Christ caused some people to blur the distinction between his humanity and divinity, usually resulting the former being incomplete (eg, no human soul or mind) or swallowed up in the latter. This was seen particularly with Apollinarius in the mid-late 4th century and Eutyches in the 5th (the latter, raising the spectre of Apollinarius somewhat, being condemned at Chalcedon). Again the Church had recourse to it's continuous belief about Christ's real and complete humanity--when folks like Apollinarius strayed "out of bounds" in this respect heresy was rightfully recognized.

When one looks at the historical contexts of the seven councils and honestly compares their Christological teachings to the beliefs of the Church that preceded them and considers the logical coherence of the councils with each other, one realizes that he can't simply declare these decisions arbirtrary or cynically dismiss their acceptance as merely a matter of politics (although there was politics involved) or a case of "history being written by the winners". (Nor can he, given the threat of heresy current at that time, particularly Arianism, declare these decisions superfluous and unnecessary.) Rather, one can see an organic connection of the teachings of these councils to the earlier orthodox catholic Tradition handed down in the church, as grounded in the kerygma of Scriptures being fulfilled in Christ as proclaimed by the apostles, and as defended by the sub-apostolic and other ante-Nicene fathers against the early heretics.

You see, all sides including heretics, threw Scriptural proof texts back and forth at each other, each side insisting that theirs was the "biblical one". (Already in NT times, Peter stated that heretics twisted the Scriptures to their own destruction--2 Peter 3:16.) In fact, the Arians cried "Foul" when the term homoousian was introduced by the orthodox to describe the Son's relation to the Father as this was not a "biblical" term. The way that the orthodox could show what the Scriptures actually meant was not appealing to some arbitrary intepretation, but looking to the common teaching of the Church across time and space going back to the Apostles as reflected in the hymns, prayers, baptismal confessions, catechesis, and 'rules of faith'. This consensual tradition, which organically connects the councilar decisions to the ante-nicene fathers and back to the apostles, is what anchors the orthodox interpretation in history to the 'deposit once given' as opposed to the novelties of heretics. Indeed, this Tradition is also what led to finally determining the limits of the Scriptual Canon itself to the exclusion of spurious writings falsely attributed to the apostles (or even otherwise orthodox writings which didn't date back to an apostle or close associate).



(*It's even doubtful that the present day communions labeled "Nestorian" and "Monophysite" actually subscribe to the heresies condemned at Chalcedon and Ephesus--despite their present lack of acceptance of the Councils beyond the first 2 or 3--as politics, linguistic factors, and geography played a big role in driving these Churches apart from their Byzantine and Latin brothers....but that would be a long story....)