Sola Scriptura & Epistemology

[Micosil]

I generally agree with all of this, even to say that Transubstaniation is a reasonable human expression of how it is possible for us to receive His body and blood, but wasn’t the point. The point is EO and CC, using scripture and tradition disagree.

Jon

In that case, what I would contend is the following. In the Catholic Church, it is understood that doctrine develops over time; the Eastern Orthodox communion and the Catholic Church went their separate ways before this doctrine could be expressed in its fullness. So, from my point of view atleast, it’s not that Orthodox “reject” Transubstantiation, but never got around to sitting down and taking things to their logical conclusion – which is what a development of doctrine always involves, taking revelation, either the Oral Sacred Tradition or the written Tradition (Sacred Scripture) to logical conclusions.

Another reason is that Aristotelian metaphysics wasn’t as popular in the East as it was in the West, which is why you see, even in the Eastern Catholic traditions, a more mystical approach to the Eucharist – which is absolutely fine.

 

[JonNC]

=shockerfan;13777332]There is only one Roman Catholic Church headed by the holder of the “keys”

see the holder of the "keys

"
All the apostles hold the keys. ( John 20)

I have been trying to ensure I properly understand it…reading definitions from Norman Geisler or James R. White to name two, but their definitions are problematic on a number of points. What is your specific definition so I can better understand your perspective?

From a Lutheran perspective,

. 1. We believe, teach, and confess that the sole rule and standard according to which all dogmas together with [all] teachers should be estimated and judged are the prophetic and apostolic Scriptures of the Old and of the New Testament alone, as it is written Ps. 119:105: Thy Word is a lamp unto my feet and a light unto my path. And St. Paul: Though an angel from heaven preach any other gospel unto you, let him be accursed, Gal. 1:8.

2] Other writings, however, of ancient or modern teachers, whatever name they bear, must not be regarded as equal to the Holy Scriptures, but all of them together be subjected to them, and should not be received otherwise or further than as witnesses, [which are to show] in what manner after the time of the apostles, and at what places, this [pure] doctrine of the prophets and apostles was preserved.

3] 2. And because directly after the times of the apostles, and even while they were still living, false teachers and heretics arose, and symbols, i. e., brief, succinct [categorical] confessions, were composed against them in the early Church, which were regarded as the unanimous, universal Christian faith and confession of the orthodox and true Church, namely, the Apostles’ Creed, the Nicene Creed, and the Athanasian Creed, we pledge ourselves to them, and hereby reject all heresies and dogmas which, contrary to them, have been introduced into the Church of God.

As a Catholic, I would say that Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition “flow from the same divine well spring” and are never in conflict

As you should

Side note: I have enjoyed this spirited debate. Blessings to you and your family on this Easter weekend

Me too. May you be blessed

Jon

 

[Gorgias]

All the apostles hold the keys. ( John 20)

Jon,

No… John 20 demonstrates that all the apostles have received the Holy Spirit (in a way distinct from the gift of the Spirit received by the entire Church at Pentecost). That doesn’t mean that all received the keys, as Peter alone did, as in Mt 16:19.

 

[JonNC]

Jon,

No… John 20 demonstrates that all the apostles have received the Holy Spirit (in a way distinct from the gift of the Spirit received by the entire Church at Pentecost). That doesn’t mean that all received the keys, as Peter alone did, as in Mt 16:19.

Peter received the keys first in Matthew, followed by all the apostles. He then sends them out as equals in the Great Commission.
This is part of the main division of His One Church, and it has nothing to do with sola scriptura. Fix this, and many of the division issues go away.

Jon

 

[alwayswill]

Well, your point is without relevance, really, since Scripture, though authoriative, cannot exercise authority, since the exercise of authority requires a will and an intellect, qualitiies that Scriptures do not possess.

On the contrary, it is fundamental, which is why the Church went to great effort to complete this task in 382.

If there is no criteria set and followed, then the faithful will have no way of knowing with confidence which writings are, in fact, theopneustos. One might as well use the book of Mormon, if one feels the “burning in the bosom” when reading it.

Certainly Catholics accept the Scriptures as the Word of God, but since we do not believe texts, however holy, can exercise authority, we cannot affirm such an errant statement.

We can affirm, though that the Teaching committed to the Church is the Word of God, and that it has been preserved infallibly by the Holy Spirit, and has the same authority as Christ speaking from His throne.

The paramount authority
The highest authority
In a class by itself

This Mediator [Jesus Christ], having spoken what He judged sufficient first by the prophets, then by His own lips, and afterwards by the apostles, has besides produced** the Scripture which is called canonical, which has paramount authority**, and to which we yield assent in all matters of which we ought not to be ignorant, and yet cannot know of ourselves.
-St. Augustine, quoted from his City of God, book XI, Chapter 3,

Better far that I should read with certainty and persuasion of its truth the Holy Scripture, placed on the highest (even the heavenly) pinnacle of authority, and should, without questioning the trustworthiness of its statements, learn from it that men have been either, commended, or corrected, or condemned, than that, through fear of believing that by men, who, though of most praiseworthy excellence, were no more than men, actions deserving rebuke might sometimes be done, I should admit suspicions affecting the trustworthiness of the whole “oracles of God.”
-Augustine, Letters of St. Augustine, Letter 82.2.5

St. Augustine (A.D. 354–430)
De unitate ecclesiae, 10
“Neither dare one agree with catholic bishops if by chance they err in anything, but the result that their opinion is against the canonical Scriptures of God.”

Irenaeus (ca. 150)
Against Heresies 3.1.1
“We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith.”

Notice how Irenaeus equates the traditions with the Scriptures. They proclaimed the truth at first (unwritten tradition), and “at a later period” handed it down “in the Scriptures” which is now the “ground and pillar of our faith.” Sounds very Protestant.

Clement of Alexandria (d. 215)
The Stromata, 7:16
“But those who are ready to toil in the most excellent pursuits, will not desist from the search after truth, till they get the demonstration from the Scriptures themselves.”

Notice the final court of appeal is the Scriptures, not the church. The “those” who are encouraged to toil in the most excellent pursuits do not refer to the church ecclesiastical authority, but to all people. All people are encouraged here to search for truth and find it finally in the Scriptures.

Gregory of Nyssa (d. ca. 395)
On the Holy Trinity NPNF, p. 327
“Let the inspired Scriptures then be our umpire, and the vote of truth will be given to those whose dogmas are found to agree with the Divine words.”

Again, the final court of arbitration is the Scriptures, not the church. Respect is always given to the ecclesiastical authority and tradition by the early church, but Scriptures hold a unique place of authority.

Athanasius (c. 296–373)
Against the Heathen, 1:3
“The holy and inspired Scriptures are fully sufficient for the proclamation of the truth.”

This speaks to the vital doctrine of the sufficiency of Scripture.
The Scriptures being “fully sufficient,” is simply a seed form of sola Scriptura.

Basil the Great (ca. 329–379)
On the Holy Spirit, 7.16
“We are not content simply because this is the tradition of the Fathers. What is important is that the Fathers followed the meaning of the Scripture.”

This sounds a lot like Martin Luther at Worms. While we respect the tradition of the Fathers, they don’t bring contentment unless they followed the Scriptures.

Ambrose (A.D. 340–397)
On the Duties of the Clergy, 1:23:102
“For how can we adopt those things which we do not find in the holy Scriptures?”
-----------------------

Is that the view of Catholics today?

 

[guanophore]

The paramount authority
The highest authority
In a class by itself

Certainly the Holy Scriptures are in a class by themselves, as they are theopneustos. They are paramount for our faith and practice.

But since they don’t posess the characteristics of will and intellect, they cannot exercise authority. They cannot make decisions. If they could, we would not have the splintering in the Church.

This Mediator [Jesus Christ], having spoken what He judged sufficient first by the prophets, then by His own lips, and afterwards by the apostles, has besides produced** the Scripture which is called canonical, which has paramount** authority, and to which we yield assent in all matters of which we ought not to be ignorant, and yet cannot know of ourselves.
-St. Augustine, quoted from his City of God, book XI, Chapter 3,

Are you changing horses midstream? Augustine is Catholic. He understand the paramount authority of the Scriptures because he reads them through the lens of Apostolic Teaching. This is what became lost in the Reformation.

Of course the Scriptures provide canon (rule/standard). This is why it is so important that we know with confidence “what is Scripture”.

 Better far that I should read with certainty and persuasion of its truth **the Holy Scripture, placed on the highest (even the heavenly) pinnacle of authority,**       and should, without questioning the trustworthiness of its     statements,   learn from it that men have been either, commended, or     corrected, or   condemned, than that, through fear of believing that by     men, who, though   of most praiseworthy excellence, were no more than     men, actions   deserving rebuke might sometimes be done, I should   admit   suspicions   affecting the trustworthiness of the whole “oracles   of   God.”

-Augustine, Letters of St. Augustine, Letter 82.2.5

St. Augustine (A.D. 354–430)
De unitate ecclesiae, 10
“Neither dare one agree with catholic bishops if by chance they err in anything, but the result that their opinion is against the canonical Scriptures of God.”

Irenaeus (ca. 150)
Against Heresies 3.1.1
“We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith.”

Notice how Irenaeus equates the traditions with the Scriptures. They proclaimed the truth at first (unwritten tradition), and “at a later period” handed it down “in the Scriptures” which is now the “ground and pillar of our faith.” Sounds very Protestant.

Clement of Alexandria (d. 215)
The Stromata, 7:16
“But those who are ready to toil in the most excellent pursuits, will not desist from the search after truth, till they get the demonstration from the Scriptures themselves.”

Notice the final court of appeal is the Scriptures, not the church. The “those” who are encouraged to toil in the most excellent pursuits do not refer to the church ecclesiastical authority, but to all people. All people are encouraged here to search for truth and find it finally in the Scriptures.

Gregory of Nyssa (d. ca. 395)
On the Holy Trinity NPNF, p. 327
“Let the inspired Scriptures then be our umpire, and the vote of truth will be given to those whose dogmas are found to agree with the Divine words.”

Again, the final court of arbitration is the Scriptures, not the church. Respect is always given to the ecclesiastical authority and tradition by the early church, but Scriptures hold a unique place of authority.

Athanasius (c. 296–373)
Against the Heathen, 1:3
“The holy and inspired Scriptures are fully sufficient for the proclamation of the truth.”

This speaks to the vital doctrine of the sufficiency of Scripture.
The Scriptures being “fully sufficient,” is simply a seed form of sola Scriptura.

Basil the Great (ca. 329–379)
On the Holy Spirit, 7.16
“We are not content simply because this is the tradition of the Fathers. What is important is that the Fathers followed the meaning of the Scripture.”

This sounds a lot like Martin Luther at Worms. While we respect the tradition of the Fathers, they don’t bring contentment unless they followed the Scriptures.

Ambrose (A.D. 340–397)
On the Duties of the Clergy, 1:23:102
“For how can we adopt those things which we do not find in the holy Scriptures?”
-----------------------

Is that the view of Catholics today?

It is the Catholic view. But I will admit that there are many Catholics who reject certain essentials of Catholic faith. I think they are Protestants but don’t know it. They are often called “cafeteria Catholics”.

All the persons you cite here are Catholic, which means they read and understand the Scriptures in the context of the faith that produced them. The CC teaches that there are two equal streams of revelation, Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition. They compliment each other. Sacred Tradition is a perspective, the lens through which we read.

The Scriptures provide a canon/standard, but they cannot “arbitrate”. The Scriptures do not have the qualities of persons.

 

[alwayswill]

Certainly the Holy Scriptures are in a class by themselves, as they are theopneustos. They are paramount for our faith and practice.

But since they don’t posess the characteristics of will and intellect, they cannot exercise authority. They cannot make decisions. If they could, we would not have the splintering in the Church.

Are you changing horses midstream? Augustine is Catholic. He understand the paramount authority of the Scriptures because he reads them through the lens of Apostolic Teaching. This is what became lost in the Reformation.

Of course the Scriptures provide canon (rule/standard). This is why it is so important that we know with confidence “what is Scripture”.

It is the Catholic view. But I will admit that there are many Catholics who reject certain essentials of Catholic faith. I think they are Protestants but don’t know it. They are often called “cafeteria Catholics”.

All the persons you cite here are Catholic, which means they read and understand the Scriptures in the context of the faith that produced them. The CC teaches that there are two equal streams of revelation, Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition. They compliment each other. Sacred Tradition is a perspective, the lens through which we read.

The Scriptures provide a canon/standard, but they cannot “arbitrate”. The Scriptures do not have the qualities of persons.

I am looking in a previous thread where a Catholic proclaim
“Scripture is NOT the highest authority”
I called him out on it: and not one Catholic corrected him:

I would not label him a Protestant;

Here is the issue I have:
It seems the the Catholic apologetic response the Sola Scriptura is do diminish the authority Scripture

Scriptures cannot…
Scriptures do not…
Scriptures are not…

for ex:
“The Scriptures provide a canon/standard, but they cannot “arbitrate”. The Scriptures do not have the qualities of persons”

 

[Micosil]

Jon,

No… John 20 demonstrates that all the apostles have received the Holy Spirit (in a way distinct from the gift of the Spirit received by the entire Church at Pentecost). That doesn’t mean that all received the keys, as Peter alone did, as in Mt 16:19.

Actually, there seems to be some truth to what Jon is saying. Here’s why.

In the older rite of consecration of bishops, here is part of the prayer of consecration:

May this, O Lord, flow abundantly upon his head, may this run down upon his cheeks, may this extend unto the extremities of his whole body, so that inwardly he may be filled with the power of Thy spirit, and outwardly may be clothed with that same spirit. May constant faith, pure love, sincere piety abound in him. May his feet by Thy gift be beautiful for announcing the glad tidings of peace, for announcing the glad tidings of Thy good things. Grant to him, O Lord, the ministry of reconciliation in word and in deed, in the power of signs and of wonders. Let his speech and his preaching be not in the persuasive words of human wisdom, but in the showing of the spirit and of power. Give to him, O Lord, the keys of the kingdom of Heaven, so that he may make use of, not boast of the power which Thou bestowest unto edification, not unto destruction. Whatsoever he shall bind upon earth, let it be bound likewise in heaven, and whatsoever he shall loose upon earth, let it likewise be loosed in heaven. Whose sins he shall retain, let them be retained, and do Thou remit the sins of whomsoever he shall remit. Let him who shall curse him, himself be accursed, and let him who shall bless him be filled with blessings. Let him be the faithful and prudent servant whom Thou dost set, O Lord, over Thy household, so that he may give them food in due season, and prove himself a perfect man. May he be untiring in his solicitude, fervent in spirit. May he detest pride, and cherish humility and truth, and never desert it, overcome either by flattery or by fear. Let him not put light for darkness, nor darkness for light: let him not call evil good, nor good evil. May he be a debtor to the wise and to the foolish, so that he may gather fruit from the progress of all. Grant to him, O Lord, an Episcopal chair for ruling Thy Church and the people committed to him. Be his authority, be his power, be his strength. Multiply upon him Thy + blessing and Thy grace, so that Thy gift he may be fitted for always obtaining Thy mercy, and by Thy grace may be faithful.

Thing is, in Catholicism, bishops do have the keys which they’re allowed to use as part of the Ordinary Universal Magisterium (which includes all of the world’s bishops, not the one specific bishop) to define, infallibly, matters related to faith or morals. But Peter’s keys are special. He alone has the capacity to do what the OUM can do – define, infallibly, matters related to faith or morals. This is why in Matthew 16, Jesus speaks specifically to Peter (the “you” our Lord uses refers to Peter) when giving him the Keys to the Kingdom of Heaven.

 

[In_His_Grace]

???

Did you just pretend he asked something he didn’t even come close to ‘asking’?

That would be called a strawman.

NB: SS =/= “God’s Word”.

Par for the course though, it appears. Your entire case in this thread amounts to circular logic–i.e.–you worship your scripture, because it’s scripture (conveniently neglecting --or rather, avoiding) how what you consider ‘scripture’, became Scripture.

…because according to what you consider ‘scripture’ itself, the only ‘scripture’ that is ever identified as such, would be what we call ‘the Old Testament’.

…Your entire case in this thread amounts to circular logic…

If Catholic apologists would admit that they do precisely the same thing in their arguments for their Church, it is conceivable that progress would be made in this long-standing debate.

A blessed and happy Easter to all.

In His Grace

 

[shockerfan]

All the apostles hold the keys. ( John 20)

All Apostles and their successors had authority, but only Peter had “the keys”

From a Lutheran perspective,

Thank you for providing this…certainly a new perspective for me to make sure I understand. I do try to ensure that I accurately describe the beliefs of others. In that vein, I have some clarifying questions:

1. Does the Lutheran view of SS believe the Scriptures are “perspicuous”? (The “perspicuity” of Scripture is part of Geisler’s definition of SS.
2. Do Lutheran’s look at the Scriptures through the lens of the early Christians / “Church Fathers” in order to better understand the context of the writings?
3. When there is a question of meaning of a particular teaching from Scripture, what is the method by which the question gets resolved within the Lutheran faith? In other words, who gets the final say?

Jon

 

[shockerfan]

I am looking in a previous thread where a Catholic proclaim
“Scripture is NOT the highest authority”
I called him out on it: and not one Catholic corrected him:

I would not label him a Protestant;

Here is the issue I have:
It seems the the Catholic apologetic response the Sola Scriptura is do diminish the authority Scripture

Scriptures cannot…
Scriptures do not…
Scriptures are not…

for ex:
“The Scriptures provide a canon/standard, but they cannot “arbitrate”. The Scriptures do not have the qualities of persons”

Catholic teaching is that Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition flow from the same well spring. In other words, both come from God and are not in conflict.

Sacred Scripture without Sacred Tradition is very problematic. Not because we don’t believe Scripture is the inspired word of God, rather its problematic because without Sacred Tradition to help ensure proper understanding of the Scripture, we end up with 40,000 different denominations claiming their view of Scripture is correct.

Do you think God intended for their to be 40,000+ denominations of Christianity?

So no Catholic, who understands the tenants of their faith, would “diminish” Scripture…rather we would say that Scripture gets diminished by Christians when they proclaim their view to be correct outside of the lens of Sacred Tradition.

 

[alwayswill]

Catholic teaching is that Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition flow from the same well spring. In other words, both come from God and are not in conflict.

Sacred Scripture without Sacred Tradition is very problematic. Not because we don’t believe Scripture is the inspired word of God, rather its problematic because without Sacred Tradition to help ensure proper understanding of the Scripture, we end up with 40,000 different denominations claiming their view of Scripture is correct.

Do you think God intended for their to be 40,000+ denominations of Christianity?

So no Catholic, who understands the tenants of their faith, would “diminish” Scripture…rather we would say that Scripture gets diminished by Christians when they proclaim their view to be correct outside of the lens of Sacred Tradition.

great: then Catholics when arguing against Sola Scriptura should be lifting up their Sacred Tradition instead of lowering Sacred Scripture:
agreed?

 

[alwayswill]

Do you think God intended for their to be 40,000+ denominations of Christianity?

is your view that Sacred Tradition has produced unity of belief?

I am not talking about the rejection of Sacred Tradition
but the differing interpretations of Sacred Tradition.

 

[steve_b]

By the same “authority”, or rather, Catholic liberty to question the historically disputed books. Whether it was St.Jerome, Cardinal Cajetan, Rufinus, John of Damascus, and others* after *400 that **did not hold to the same canon. **

no one you mentioned has liberty to add or remove books from scripture.
J:

Luther, like these, was permitted to question the DC books. All Catholics were before Trent. Luther was permitted his opinion, whether you or I agree with it or not. I happennot to, but I’m permitted that liberty, too.

Jon

how many times does that have to be refuted? He didn’t just question he removed books from scripture

#[28 (http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=13512542&postcount=28) ,

Re: permitted opinion

• does NOT equal (≠ ) license to remove books from the canon
• does NOT equal (≠ ) one’s own truth

Re: Jerome.

Look at the first bible. Jerome’s ( Vulgate). It has 73 books. Yes 73 books that pope Damasus decreed. THAT is the canon of scripture, that was the canon Jerome used, it was also validated by 2 ecumenical councils Florence 1442, and Trent 1546. How many times do you need to be corrected on this?

Here is why the OT and NT was addressed at Florence ( #11 )
count the books. It’s 73, just like pope Damasus decreed in 382. And Jerome followed that canon in the Vulgate

Re: Cajetan

did he remove any books from the canon? Nope

Re: Rufinus,& John of Damascus

did they remove any books from the canon? Nope

Re: Luther the excommunicated heretic

did he remove any books from the canon? Yep…7 of them

 

[guanophore]

I am looking in a previous thread where a Catholic proclaim
“Scripture is NOT the highest authority”
I called him out on it: and not one Catholic corrected him:

I would not label him a Protestant;

I would generally not correct a person in that case because of my view that “authority” requires a person in order for it to be exercised. And although the Church views the Scriptures as authorative, we are taught that they need to be understood through the lens of the Apostolic faith that created them (esp. the NT). This commission was given by Christ to His Apostles, and they gave this authority to teach to the Bishops, and so on up to the present day. The CC has a “teaching authority” (magesterium) that guides the faithful in using the lens handed down to us from the Apostles.

Here is the issue I have:
It seems the the Catholic apologetic response the Sola Scriptura is do diminish the authority Scripture

Scriptures cannot…
Scriptures do not…
Scriptures are not…

for ex:
“The Scriptures provide a canon/standard, but they cannot “arbitrate”. The Scriptures do not have the qualities of persons”

For us, none of this diminished Scripture, which is God Breathed. The CC believes that Scripture is inerrant and inspired, and it is these divine qualities that make it authorative.

What we are “diminishing” is the Protestant effort to force Scripture into a role it was never meant to play. Using Scripture apart from the faith that produced it causes fracturing and splintering in the Body.

is your view that Sacred Tradition has produced unity of belief?

I am not talking about the rejection of Sacred Tradition
but the differing interpretations of Sacred Tradition.

Sacred Tradition is the Word of God that is alive in the Church, and is infallibly preserved there by the Holy Spirit. It IS a unity, or has the quality of being unified. It is in unity with the Sacred Scriptures, and together with them constitutes the fullness of God’s public revelation of Himself to humanity.

We as persons are in unity with the Truth and with one another to the extent that we adhere to and embrace the fullness of Truth.

All denominations are characterized by which parts, and how much, of this revelation is rejected.

 

[eddie_too]

the belief that all of Jesus’ flock must live uncertain as to what Jesus really did, taught and meant begs a question.

if that were true, why would Jesus do that, leave His faithful followers to be led only by their own subjective and finite minds and wills?

possible answers: 1) He did not have the power to ensure His Gospel was made available correctly and completely; or, 2) He wanted the division and confusion that exists when no one can have certainty about who He is, what He did, what He taught and what He wanted for us. there may be other possible answers why He would leave us in confusion and division but i will let others present them.

 

[guanophore]

great: then Catholics when arguing against Sola Scriptura should be lifting up their Sacred Tradition instead of lowering Sacred Scripture:
agreed?

Lifting up Sacred Tradition means using Scripture in the way Jesus taught the Apostles to use it. That includes knowing “what is Scripture”, something that is part of our Sacred Tradition that you have resisted consistently, and not forcing the characteristics of persons into the Sacred Text (another element you have consistently resisted). For us, lifting up Sacred Tradition elevates the Scriptures, but from your point of view, it “lowers” them.

I think trying to force the Scriptures into a role they were never intended to play “lowers” them. It causes misuse, abuse, and confusion in the Body.

 

[guanophore]

All Apostles and their successors had authority, but only Peter had “the keys”

This does not seem to be consistent with the Scriptures.

 

[onenow1]

Hi Just on face value sola is obsurd, it would mean every one has the truth without exception.

 

[eddie_too]

where does Jesus command the apostles to write down all that you have heard? and if he did command that, why are there only four Gospels when there were twelve apostles? also, if Jesus thought that the written word was sufficient for our salvation, why did He not provide us with a written Gospel? obviously Jesus could have provided the best written documentation of His Gospel.

these are questions that come to my mind when i ponder the doctrine of sola scriptura. if i could answer them with anything that i found sensible, i would not merely answer these questions. i would answer them with rational and sensible responses

in other words, i am not asking the above questions as a merely rhetorical device. so many, perhaps with the best of intentions, tout sola scriptura, but they do not answer questions that the sola scriptura doctrine raises for those who find it lacking. i found that often, when people refuse to respond to questions about their beliefs, they do not have any answers to the questions.