Protestants and doctrinal development

[rlg94086]

michaelp:

They also believed in a literal 1000 year millennium. Do you?

2 a

: a period of 1000 years

Yes. I believe a millennium is 1000 years.

Sorry, I couldn’t resist.

Seriously, my answer is that’s why Christ gave us the Church to help settle these matters. Is that a matter of Faith? Sure.

As to the actual arguments involved in the items you listed, I don’t know. I haven’t studied these in detail, so I won’t try to answer. I know this is a poor excuse, but I’m a salesman who dropped out of Junior College (not a ThM). I do read and I do understand logic, but I haven’t studied to the extent you have. This is all part of my education, so thank you!

The reason for my last three posts, as schoolyardish as they might be, were to quote from Church Fathers from the timeframe you gave. If you disregard these so easily, why bother studying the Church Fathers at all?

What I would enjoy is if you would start a series of talks with someone in your same league…Scott Hahn? Karl Keating? I enjoy your analysis and I appreciate your responses to the less qualified, but it would be more interesting to hear a dialogue of counterarguments from equally knowledgable Catholics rather than an amateur like myself.

God Bless,

Robert.

 

[rlg94086]

michaelp:

Can you tell me EXACTLY what was taught to them by the apostles? How do you know?

How do you know that they are being truthful or accurate?

How do you know that it was handed down uncorrupted?

Michael

Interesting. Are any of the biblical writings original? How do you know they are accurate and uncorrupted?

Robert.

 

[michaelp]

rlg94086:

Interesting. Are any of the biblical writings original? How do you know they are accurate and uncorrupted?

Robert.

That is a great question. The way that I would answer this is through text criticism. We have over 6000 hand written copies of all or portions of the NT alone that exist before the invention of the printing press. This is more evidence than any other writing in ancient history my 5800 manuscripts. The earliest fragment that we have is found in John Rylands musem in MS and it dates to 125 A.D. We can reconstruct the NT with these. Another source is quotations from the early Church Fathers. And yet another is early translations. All together we have over 25,000 portions or copies of the NT availible to us. We have so much evidence that we cannot even get to it all.

All of this to say that even liberal scholars who don’t believe in the inspiration of Scripture, do not question its accurate transmission. It is solid.

Michael

 

[rlg94086]

That is very cool, and I can use it in the future. Obviously, they revered the works a little more than a letter to my cousin.

God Bless,

Robert.

 

[dennisknapp]

michaelp:

Can you tell me EXACTLY what was taught to them by the apostles? How do you know?

How do you know that they are being truthful or accurate?

How do you know that it was handed down uncorrupted?

Michael

I have no reason to distrust them in regards to how the Church uses them.

Church authority is time tested, whether it be Councils, Popes or the Doctors of the Church; it has stood the test of time.

Sola Scriptura has failed. It has failed to keep unity. It has failed to bring love. It is a “tradition of men.”

Let me ask you a question, why should we not trust them in the hands of the Church?

 

[michaelp]

I have no reason to distrust them in regards to how the Church uses them.

How about all of the wrong doctrines that the Church fathers held? Do you trust them? Which do you trust and which do you not trust. What is your standard (without using the RCC) for determining what truth the Church fathers taught and what was error? Do you have one?

Church authority is time tested, whether it be Councils, Popes or the Doctors of the Church; it has stood the test of time.

What is this time-tested test?

Sola Scriptura has failed. It has failed to keep unity. It has failed to bring love. It is a “tradition of men.”

What a blanket statement. First off, you have to define the unity that it is supposed to keep. Is this absolute doctrinal unity or relative doctrinal unity (unity in only the doctrines the RCC says that you have to be unified in). This is question begging if it is your answer.

It has failed to bring love. And you want to say that the RCC system has “kept” love. We don’t even want to go there do we? I would not even if you asked . . . we have all failed to love each other the way we should. We have all represented truth imperfectly.

Michael

 

[dennisknapp]

michaelp:

How about all of the wrong doctrines that the Church fathers held? Do you trust them? Which do you trust and which do you not trust. What is your standard (without using the RCC) for determining what truth the Church fathers taught and what was error? Do you have one?

What is this time-tested test?

What a blanket statement. First off, you have to define the unity that it is supposed to keep. Is this absolute doctrinal unity or relative doctrinal unity (unity in only the doctrines the RCC says that you have to be unified in). This is question begging if it is your answer.

It has failed to bring love. And you want to say that the RCC system has “kept” love. We don’t even want to go there do we? I would not even if you asked . . . we have all failed to love each other the way we should. We have all represented truth imperfectly.

Michael

I trust or don’t trust them by the authority of the Church. She is the one that decides, not me.

I would define absolute doctrinal unity as in keeping with ALL the beliefs handed down by the Apostles thru the Catholic Church or in agreement with historical Christianity.

It is true that those in the Church have not always shown love, but the greatest examples of love in recorded history have been Catholic. For example, St. Francis and Mother Teresa

 

[michaelp]

I trust or don’t trust them by the authority of the Church. She is the one that decides, not me.

But Dennis, this is question begging. It is a nice leap of faith, but don’t you think you ought to have some criteria of your own. Maybe one day you will be called to reform from within. How will you be able to do this if you don’t have criteria of your own. You cannot stand before God and point at the Church and say, “She told me . . .” and expect that to fly, can you?

I would define absolute doctrinal unity as in keeping with ALL the beliefs handed down by the Apostles thru the Catholic Church or in agreement with historical Christianity.

But how do you know what ones are legitimate and which are not? How do you know which teaching are true and which are not?

It is true that those in the Church have not always shown love, but the greatest examples of love in recorded history have been Catholic. For example, St. Francis and Mother Teresa

We all have our great “lovers” and we all have those that we blush our face at.

Michael

 

[dennisknapp]

michaelp:

But Dennis, this is question begging. It is a nice leap of faith, but don’t you think you ought to have some criteria of your own. Maybe one day you will be called to reform from within. How will you be able to do this if you don’t have criteria of your own. You cannot stand before God and point at the Church and say, “She told me . . .” and expect that to fly, can you?

But how do you know what ones are legitimate and which are not? How do you know which teaching are true and which are not?

We all have our great “lovers” and we all have those that we blush our face at.

Michael

I do have moral certainty based on historical evidence. The RCC is the Church Christ established. All I need in order justify my support of Church teaching to establish if She is or is not the Church which Christ established. If She is then we should all follow her, if not we should flee from her.

And if I am wrong it is because I believed the Church Christ established and not my own fallible interpretation. If I am wrong so is His Church, and I feel comfortable standing with them then standing on my own.

Honestly, I would feel more uncomfortable being in the position as the FINAL authority. For isn’t that what Sola Scriptura truly is? Trusting in ones own understanding and interpretations above all others.

 

[mercygate]

Would it be hijacking this thread to introduce the thought – and an easy subject it is because it is so new in history – that the current nearly pan-Protestant position in favor of contraception represents a recent “development” of doctrine? How did that happen? Why does Rome stand virtually alone in maintaining the tradition recently held by virtually ALL of Christendom?

 

[michaelp]

I do have moral certainty based on historical evidence. The RCC is the Church Christ established. All I need in order justify my support of Church teaching to establish if She is or is not the Church which Christ established. If She is then we should all follow her, if not we should flee from her.

But what criteria do you use to judge whether a teaching in Church history is true or false? How do you know that your “flowers” are the true flowers? What is the criteria which you judge the validity of the Church by? If, as you say, they have to adhere to early Church doctrine, which doctrines? How do you judge since most were heretical according to current standards. You quote Justin on some things and abhor others. You quote Origen on some things and condem others. You use Irenaus for apostolic succession, but not for eschatology. What is your criteria for extracting the “true” tradition and leaving behind the false?

How do you know for certian (moral certianty) that this unwritten tradition has been preserved since their is no valid way to test it? Really. Evidence such as this would never hold up in any court of law. Do you just take a blind leap? If so, what makes your beliefs any different than that of other religions?

And if I am wrong it is because I believed the Church Christ established and not my own fallible interpretation. If I am wrong so is His Church, and I feel comfortable standing with them then standing on my own.

But you will stand alone.

Honestly, I would feel more uncomfortable being in the position as the FINAL authority. For isn’t that what Sola Scriptura truly is? Trusting in ones own understanding and interpretations above all others.

Actually, this is wrong. You are your own authority. You have the decision to side with your tradition and the others. You have the authority to make such decisions. You alone decide to trust the Magisterium. You are your own authority from the start. Just because you hand over responsibility in interpreting and establishing doctrine to another source, does not mean you are not the authority in that handing over.

I could just as well say that I hand over all my authority over to Jonathan Edwards. I follow everything he says. Therefore, I am not my own authority, he is. But this is wrong as well. I am the authority in the primary first cause of the decision to hand over my authority. The question now is how can you justify that handing over. That brings us back to the question stated above. What criteria to you test the validity of your position? How can you find out for certian what these unwritten traditions are to which you are bound?

Michael

 

[michaelp]

mercygate:

Would it be hijacking this thread to introduce the thought – and an easy subject it is because it is so new in history – that the current nearly pan-Protestant position in favor of contraception represents a recent “development” of doctrine? How did that happen? Why does Rome stand virtually alone in maintaining the tradition recently held by virtually ALL of Christendom?

I think that this would be a great subject for another thread. I would like someone to explain to me the Catholic reasoning behind its ban on contraception that is not abortive. I am interested in learning about this.

Michael

 

[dennisknapp]

michaelp:

But what criteria do you use to judge whether a teaching in Church history is true or false? How do you know that your “flowers” are the true flowers? What is the criteria which you judge the validity of the Church by? If, as you say, they have to adhere to early Church doctrine, which doctrines? How do you judge since most were heretical according to current standards. You quote Justin on some things and abhor others. You quote Origen on some things and condem others. You use Irenaus for apostolic succession, but not for eschatology. What is your criteria for extracting the “true” tradition and leaving behind the false?

How do you know for certian (moral certianty) that this unwritten tradition has been preserved since their is no valid way to test it? Really. Evidence such as this would never hold up in any court of law. Do you just take a blind leap? If so, what makes your beliefs any different than that of other religions?

But you will stand alone.

Actually, this is wrong. You are your own authority. You have the decision to side with your tradition and the others. You have the authority to make such decisions. You alone decide to trust the Magisterium. You are your own authority from the start. Just because you hand over responsibility in interpreting and establishing doctrine to another source, does not mean you are not the authority in that handing over.

I could just as well say that I hand over all my authority over to Jonathan Edwards. I follow everything he says. Therefore, I am not my own authority, he is. But this is wrong as well. I am the authority in the primary first cause of the decision to hand over my authority. The question now is how can you justify that handing over. That brings us back to the question stated above. What criteria to you test the validity of your position? How can you find out for certian what these unwritten traditions are to which you are bound?

Michael

The historical evidence shows that the Catholic (as well as Eastern Orthodox) is the Church which Christ established. It is the Church therefore who picks and chooses what teaching of the Early Church Fathers is in line with that which was passed down by the Apostles, both written and unwritten.

We see this practically worked out in Church Councils and the Creeds and Dogmas that are produced from them. In these Councils the Church Universal, in union with the Pope, come together and decide and declare what is and is not True Christian teaching.

Which Church Council defined Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide, again?

I am a authority yes, but I place my trust in the FINAL authority–Christ and His Church.

 

[michaelp]

The historical evidence shows that the Catholic (as well as Eastern Orthodox) is the Church which Christ established. It is the Church therefore who picks and chooses what teaching of the Early Church Fathers is in line with that which was passed down by the Apostles, both written and unwritten.

We see this practically worked out in Church Councils and the Creeds and Dogmas that are produced from them. In these Councils the Church Universal, in union with the Pope, come together and decide and declare what is and is not True Christian teaching.

But how do you know for certian (moral certianty) that this unwritten tradition has been preserved since their is no valid way to test it? Really. Evidence such as this would never hold up in any court of law. Do you just take a blind leap?

Which Church Council defined Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide, again?

This question presupposes an infallible authority of eccumenical counsels that is not part of my preunderstanding. It would only be valid if I thought that a Church council had to define dogma before it was worthy to be believed. That said, only after the controvery over Tradition in 1600 did it became necessary to define and articulate sola scriptura and sola fide. Therefore, all the magisterial Protestant creeds defined both of these. Just like Trent only finally officailly declared the Deuterocanonical books at this time. It is all in line with the development of doctrine. Doctrine is only developed when history forces it to be.

Why did it come at this time and not earlier? I believe that the Church was losing its focus on the Gospel by way of the developing sacramental system. Therefore it became necessary.

Michael

 

[dennisknapp]

michaelp:

But how do you know for certian (moral certianty) that this unwritten tradition has been preserved since their is no valid way to test it? Really. Evidence such as this would never hold up in any court of law. Do you just take a blind leap?

This question presupposes an infallible authority of eccumenical counsels that is not part of my preunderstanding. It would only be valid if I thought that a Church council had to define dogma before it was worthy to be believed. That said, only after the controvery over Tradition in 1600 did it became necessary to define and articulate sola scriptura and sola fide. Therefore, all the magisterial Protestant creeds defined both of these. Just like Trent only finally officailly declared the Deuterocanonical books at this time. It is all in line with the development of doctrine. Doctrine is only developed when history forces it to be.

Why did it come at this time and not earlier? I believe that the Church was losing its focus on the Gospel by way of the developing sacramental system. Therefore it became necessary.

Michael

What then are Councils to you? What of those Councils that defined the Trinity and the Incarnation? Do you view them as authoritative?

What exactly are " magisterial Protestant creeds." And why believe them, they are not infallible?

Doctrines do develope when there is a crisis, but not in a contradictory fashion as with sola scriptura and sola fide.

How do you not see this when you yourself once said in one of your previous posts, that most if not all people saw that tradition was on the same level as Scripture prior to the Reformation?

And how were and who was not “sacramental” in theology prior to the Reformation? I would say that all the early Christians where “sacramental.”

And if sola fide is the true “biblical” understanding of faith, then why did no one believe it prior to the 16th century?

 

[michaelp]

Dennis, first, can you answer this question?

But how do you know for certian (moral certianty) that this unwritten tradition has been preserved since their is no valid way to test it? Really. Evidence such as this would never hold up in any court of law. Do you just take a blind leap?

Michael

 

[michaelp]

What then are Councils to you? What of those Councils that defined the Trinity and the Incarnation? Do you view them as authoritative?

Councils are bodies of believers coming together to express what they believe is true about certian issues. I view them as athoritative, but no infallible.

Let me give you an example: I believe that the Nicene Creed rightly interprets Scripture concerning the doctrine of the Trinity. But I don’t believe that it accurately represents the relationship of the Father to the Son as one of “eternally begotten.” They used this phrase because they did not know what else to do with Johns statement that Christ was “begotten” because in human language it implies “origin” and therefore, creation. Therefore, they said that Christ was never begotten in a point of time, but that He was “eternally” begotten. In other words, there was never a time when He was not begotten. Recent linguistic studies have shown that the Greek word used by John did not stem from the word gennao but from a word that means “one of a kind.” It does not imply generation, but uniqueness. That is why virtually all modern translations have changed their translations to “one of a kind” or “unique.”
Christ was and is always the second person of the Trinity, but the Bible does not say nor support that He is “eternally begotten.” Therefore, the council was in error at this point. Study up on it.

What exactly are " magisterial Protestant creeds." And why believe them, they are not infallible?

Magisterial Protestant Creeds are those produced by the immediate movements of the magisterial reformers. Of course, magisterium in this sense does not necessitate infallibility. Westminster Confession would be the best example.

They are statements of faith that express the truths of Scripture. They are only infallible to the degree that they represent a correct interpretation of truth. They are authoritative according to the integrety of the institution that created them. Most express general statements of faith that come from a clear reading of Scripture.

Doctrines do develope when there is a crisis, but not in a contradictory fashion as with sola scriptura and sola fide.

But you just call the Protestant doctrines contradictory because your system necessitates this. When you see something such as the Assumption of Mary not taught in early Church you call it a “development.” Why the double standard? As I have said and posted many times, it is not that these doctrines did not exist at all, they just were not articulated until it was necessary. I could agian post many quotes from the Church fathers that support both of the seed form of both, but you would just say that they must be being out of context. You say this even though you yourself admit that you cannot accurately interpret ancient texts–which is ironic since you can interpret the meaning and context of the Church fathers, but you say you cannot interpret the meaning of Scripture.

How do you not see this when you yourself once said in one of your previous posts, that most if not all people saw that tradition was on the same level as Scripture prior to the Reformation?

Because, as I said in the earlier posts, they were closer to the apostles at that time. Irenaus could speak of apostolic tradition with more authority because he lived closer to the apostles (75 years after). It was valuable for a time, but the primary source for all the Church father was not tradition, but Scripture. Once unwritten tradition gains in years, it loses reliability. How do you test it? So, eventually, the doctrine of sola scriptura had to be developed. But prima scriptura was always the norm.

And how were and who was not “sacramental” in theology prior to the Reformation? I would say that all the early Christians where “sacramental.”

The details that the catholics give to the seven sacraments and their effect upon the soul was not articulated until late. Primary articulation came through Lombards popular book Sentences. Before that time, there was not the current understanding of all the sacraments and their effectiveness.

And if sola fide is the true “biblical” understanding of faith, then why did no one believe it prior to the 16th century?

I think what I have said before is sufficient to answer this. But I could ask the same thing about the assumption of Mary. There is vertually nothing in Church history before 333 concerning this. And even after that it was few and far and debated for some time. This is why the Protestants rejected all Marian doctrine.

You see, we all walk through the gardens of Church history and pick the flowers we like the most. The key to settle this can only be found in Scripture since all unwritten tradition is impossible to validate and written tradition is contradictory.

Good taking to you again Dennis. You are always lively and gracious.

Michael

 

[dennisknapp]

michaelp:

Let me give you an example: I believe that the Nicene Creed rightly interprets Scripture concerning the doctrine of the Trinity. But I don’t believe that it accurately represents the relationship of the Father to the Son as one of “eternally begotten.” They used this phrase because they did not know what else to do with Johns statement that Christ was “begotten” because in human language it implies “origin” and therefore, creation. Therefore, they said that Christ was never begotten in a point of time, but that He was “eternally” begotten. In other words, there was never a time when He was not begotten. Recent linguistic studies have shown that the Greek word used by John did not stem from the word gennao but from a word that means “one of a kind.” It does not imply generation, but uniqueness. That is why virtually all modern translations have changed their translations to “one of a kind” or “unique.” Christ was and is always the second person of the Trinity, but the Bible does not say nor support that He is “eternally begotten.” Therefore, the council was in error at this point. Study up on it…

michaelp:

Then how do you explain the relationship between the Father and the Son? And the only way to change would be through a Church Council.

michaelp:

They are statements of faith that express the truths of Scripture. They are only infallible to the degree that they represent a correct interpretation of truth. They are authoritative according to the integrety of the institution that created them. Most express general statements of faith that come from a clear reading of Scripture.

michaelp:

Clear fallible reading of Scripture.

michaelp:

But you just call the Protestant doctrines contradictory because your system necessitates this. When you see something such as the Assumption of Mary not taught in early Church you call it a “development.” Why the double standard? As I have said and posted many times, it is not that these doctrines did not exist at all, they just were not articulated until it was necessary. I could agian post many quotes from the Church fathers that support both of the seed form of both, but you would just say that they must be being out of context. You say this even though you yourself admit that you cannot accurately interpret ancient texts–which is ironic since you can interpret the meaning and context of the Church fathers, but you say you cannot interpret the meaning of Scripture.

michaelp:

It is not a double standard. If my whole belief system rested upon the Assumption of Mary you could call it a double stanard. You are seeking to rest all of what you believe on a doctrine that “developed” in the 16th century. It is like the construction of a building, with each new story representing a century of the Church. What you saying is that we lay the foundation in the 16th story because the original story was lost during the building process. I would say that the early Church Father are easier to understand then Scripture because they wrote clear theological instruction, as where Scripture, especially the New Testament, is a collect of letters written for general instructions that would be latter explained in person by the Apostles. This latter part is what is missing in many Protestant understandings of Scripture. They see the bible as an instruction manual and do not take into account the history and context in which it was written. It is not a Catechism, it is more in line with personal mail. In this sense then I would say the Fathers are clearer because the are doing catechetical instruction which is easier to understand than someones personal mail. There is alot of background information, cultural information, instruction not laid out in writing that would have been lost if not for unwritten tradition. This is what we see spelled out plainly by the Fathers and accepted by the Church through Councils and the Magisterium. God perserves this unwritten tradition through the Church in order to give proper context and understanding to written tradition (Scripture).

]

 

[dennisknapp]

michaelp:

Because, as I said in the earlier posts, they were closer to the apostles at that time. Irenaus could speak of apostolic tradition with more authority because he lived closer to the apostles (75 years after). It was valuable for a time, but the primary source for all the Church father was not tradition, but Scripture. Once unwritten tradition gains in years, it loses reliability. How do you test it? So, eventually, the doctrine of sola scriptura had to be developed. But prima scriptura was always the norm.

michaelp:

Why would unwritten tradition lose reliablity? What if God is behind the unwritten tradition? Is He only limited to writing? God help us if we ever lose the ability to read…Wait, that was the state that most people lived in until fairly recently. I guess God dropped the ball in letting literacy develope so late in history. All those years and no one able to access the the only source of reliable infallible or inerrant authority. Luck us. Doesn’t this ring of Modernism to you?

michaelp:

The details that the catholics give to the seven sacraments and their effect upon the soul was not articulated until late. Primary articulation came through Lombards popular book Sentences. Before that time, there was not the current understanding of all the sacraments and their effectiveness. I think what I have said before is sufficient to answer this. But I could ask the same thing about the assumption of Mary. There is vertually nothing in Church history before 333 concerning this. And even after that it was few and far and debated for some time. This is why the Protestants rejected all Marian doctrine. You see, we all walk through the gardens of Church history and pick the flowers we like the most.

michaelp:

Where is you evidence for this? If I can show you a “sacramental” theology in the early Church would you concede that it is not a later develpment? Truth is not about likes or dislikes, it is objective. Can you honestly say that what you believe that differs from the historical church is supported by the consensus of belief prior to the 16th century?

michaelp:

The key to settle this can only be found in Scripture since all unwritten tradition is impossible to validate and written tradition is contradictory. Good taking to you again Dennis. You are always lively and gracious.

michaelp:

Protestants can’t even settle this and they come at it from the same presuppositions. It is and always will be an issue of interpretation and authority. You believe a book can teach you objective truth that is infallible. I believe that an infallible institution interprets an inerrent book in order to teach objective truth.

 

[michaelp]

Then how do you explain the relationship between the Father and the Son? And the only way to change would be through a Church Council.

Christ is the eternal Son of God. But He is not eternally “generated” or “begotten” from the Father (whatever that would mean anyway).

How do you explain the Nicene Creed’s misunderstanding since you believe it to be infallible. If you say that it is still infallibly true that Christ is “eternally begotten” you have just said that the Nicene Creed gave new revelation. This would be like the KJV Only person’s position that where the KJV differs from the underlying Greek manuscripts, the KJV is right. If you say that it is part of Tradition and does not need to come from the Bible, you have just disregarded the authorial intent (of the framers of the Nicene Creed) to understand the concept of Christ’s “begotteness” from the Gospel of John.

Clear fallible reading of Scripture.

Like a commentary, but more like a summary of the key doctrines of Scripture.

It is not a double standard. If my whole belief system rested upon the Assumption of Mary you could call it a double stanard.

If the Assumption of Mary is not that important, why did the Pope take the time to give one of the two infallible degrees about it. You don’t think that it is important as the Pope?

Would you be willing to let it go since the early Church did not hold to it according to your standards?

You are seeking to rest all of what you believe on a doctrine that “developed” in the 16th century.

It only developed then because it was only necessary then (although it could have been used about 300 years earlier). Like I said, the majority of the Church was already prima Scriptura until the 6th century, which is closer to the Protestant view of sola scriptura than the Catholic understanding.

This latter part is what is missing in many Protestant understandings of Scripture. They see the bible as an instruction manual and do not take into account the history and context in which it was written.

Are you kidding. Protestant don’t take into account the history or context. After what the Catholic church does to Matt 16 and John 21 to support infallible succession, 1 Cor 3:13 to support Purgatory, Ps. 132:8 as referring to Mary, etc, you want to accuse the Protestants of taking Scripture out of context? The reformation was built upon putting the Scripture back in context. It seems to have been held captive for the previous 800 years to a large degree.

Besides this, how could you know whether it is taken out of context or not? You are self-confessingly not qualified to understand Scripture.

God perserves this unwritten tradition through the Church in order to give proper context and understanding to written tradition (Scripture).

I will ask again. How do you yourself test whether this unwritten tradition has been preserved?

Here is my original question:

But how do you know for certian (moral certianty) that this unwritten tradition has been preserved since their is no valid way to test it? Really. Evidence such as this would never hold up in any court of law. Do you just take a blind leap?

Michael