[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
Hmmm… Free Will=/=power necessarily. Agreed?
So a more powerful will (let’s say omnipotent in this case), will always overcome a weaker will (let’s say a human’s). [/quote]See my quote to Cortes. Man freely chooses what God has ordained that he freely chose and I have no idea how that works and don’t even try any more. I don’t understand this: “Free Will=/=power necessarily”.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
Hmmm… Free Will=/=power necessarily. Agreed?
So a more powerful will (let’s say omnipotent in this case), will always overcome a weaker will (let’s say a human’s). [/quote]See my quote to Cortes. Man freely chooses what God has ordained that he freely chose and I have no idea how that works and don’t even try any more. I don’t understand this: “Free Will=/=power necessarily”.
[/quote]
I was a little confused too, and I might be wrong, but judging from the context of his post, my guess is he means that free will does not necessarily grant (much) power, because someone can still have more power than you.
The highest standard of Calvinism (except the bible of course) ever, states the following: [quote]“God hath endued the will of man with that natural liberty, that is neither forced, nor by any absolute necessity of nature determined to good or evil.”[/quote] I agree.
Which part or parts of the following do you find unbiblical? Cortes has already agreed with this in the epistemology thread.
[quote]KingKai25 wrote:
[quote]Cortes wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
You two are talking about different aspects of “God’s will”. Fletch is talking about God’s secret, providential, decreeing, governing will as us reformers would call it. That is to say God’s will in the maintenance of creation and the unfolding of history, especially in the lives of human beings.
Christopher is talking about God’s revealed commanding will in relation to His moral law, as in, thou shalt or thou shalt not along with maybe His wish for how He would like someone’;s life to be lived. (Career, marriage, ministry etc)
Where people WILL NOT concede ignorance of finitude is where and when those two are not the same. Yes, that is absolutely the case. God decrees that which He forbids, once again, by holy, righteous, just, merciful gracious and loving divine mechanisms understood by Himself alone.
If that is not the case then God’s governing will is CONTINGENT upon what he sees or even foresees in the wills of entities external to himself. In other words, autonomous man, who is, if this is were possible, actually MORE sovereign than God Himself who decides based on man. Unthinkable self exalted insolence. Not to mention that the only possible truly objective source of the pragmatic certainty under which every human being(and the rest of creation) is inextricably living, has just been sacrificed on the idolatrous altar of finite created man. Finite SINFUL created man. Nay, NAY a thousand times NAY!!!
[/quote]
This still doesn’t do it for me, Tirib. I can’t see how you can say that certain things occur, “by holy, righteous, just, merciful gracious and loving divine mechanisms understood by Himself alone,” while you refuse to allow the equally comprehensible notion that God could just as easily decree that humans alone are given the opportunity to choose good or evil. Either notion is either paradoxical or, if not, ludicrous.
Indeed, I would say that, when taking the entire Bible and the biblical “story” as a whole, your version is a lot more pointy square to circle. Certainly this assumption of our lack of any will that is not God’s will did not exist in the first 1500 or so years of Christian thought.
Granted, I am NOT suggesting that God’s ultimate will can be thwarted. But that individual possession of human will IS part of that ultimate will.
Not that it’s your job to do so, but you still have not convinced me otherwise. [/quote]
I think Cortes hit the nail on the head - both the belief in two divine wills and the belief that God allows human beings a measure of freedom result in paradox. Arminians and Calvinists alike have to resort to EISegesis to account for these paradoxes - Arminians assume (without direct exegetical foundation) that the apostles would share their belief that “love must be free, or it isn’t love.” Calvinists likewise assume (without explicit exegetical warrant) that God’s sovereignty can only be maintained through a direct determination of everything, including all human choices. The Arminian position is not better simply because it jibes with our (potentially) limited sense of fairness; the Calvinist position is not better simply because of its pious-sounding defenses (“upholding the sovereignty of God!”). In the end, both views have to rely on certain assumptions about the meaning of words (namely, sovereignty and love), and both views are forced into paradox. The Arminian says, “we need to be free to love God, so God grants us freedom, yet somehow God remains in control.” The Calvinist says, “God needs to determine all events to be sovereign, so God determines individual salvation or damnation, yet despite the fact that (based on God’s own revelation of what constitutes ‘love’ in his Word) such determination SEEMs malevolent, God’s choice is somehow ultimately loving.” Thus, at a fundamental level, both views lack explanatory force.[/quote]
I was wondering if I was the only one that struggled with the paradox you presented. Sounds like that one’s been wrestled with for a while. But how could it be that there just isn’t an answer? Is there a third alternative?
And what I was suggesting Trib is that one free will can overcome another free will if it is the more powerful of the two.
[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:<<< And what I was suggesting Trib is that one free will can overcome another free will if it is the more powerful of the two.[/quote]I say both are free if the creator is allowed to define freedom for each and they will not be the same. Everyone goes through struggles with paradoxes. I sure did. I simply gave up and began trusting that the answers were known and sufficient unto the Lord. Ultimately speaking? He ALWAYS gets His way. He says so. All over the bible.
[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
[quote]KingKai25 wrote:
[quote]Cortes wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
You two are talking about different aspects of “God’s will”. Fletch is talking about God’s secret, providential, decreeing, governing will as us reformers would call it. That is to say God’s will in the maintenance of creation and the unfolding of history, especially in the lives of human beings.
Christopher is talking about God’s revealed commanding will in relation to His moral law, as in, thou shalt or thou shalt not along with maybe His wish for how He would like someone’;s life to be lived. (Career, marriage, ministry etc)
Where people WILL NOT concede ignorance of finitude is where and when those two are not the same. Yes, that is absolutely the case. God decrees that which He forbids, once again, by holy, righteous, just, merciful gracious and loving divine mechanisms understood by Himself alone.
If that is not the case then God’s governing will is CONTINGENT upon what he sees or even foresees in the wills of entities external to himself. In other words, autonomous man, who is, if this is were possible, actually MORE sovereign than God Himself who decides based on man. Unthinkable self exalted insolence. Not to mention that the only possible truly objective source of the pragmatic certainty under which every human being(and the rest of creation) is inextricably living, has just been sacrificed on the idolatrous altar of finite created man. Finite SINFUL created man. Nay, NAY a thousand times NAY!!!
[/quote]
This still doesn’t do it for me, Tirib. I can’t see how you can say that certain things occur, “by holy, righteous, just, merciful gracious and loving divine mechanisms understood by Himself alone,” while you refuse to allow the equally comprehensible notion that God could just as easily decree that humans alone are given the opportunity to choose good or evil. Either notion is either paradoxical or, if not, ludicrous.
Indeed, I would say that, when taking the entire Bible and the biblical “story” as a whole, your version is a lot more pointy square to circle. Certainly this assumption of our lack of any will that is not God’s will did not exist in the first 1500 or so years of Christian thought.
Granted, I am NOT suggesting that God’s ultimate will can be thwarted. But that individual possession of human will IS part of that ultimate will.
Not that it’s your job to do so, but you still have not convinced me otherwise. [/quote]
I think Cortes hit the nail on the head - both the belief in two divine wills and the belief that God allows human beings a measure of freedom result in paradox. Arminians and Calvinists alike have to resort to EISegesis to account for these paradoxes - Arminians assume (without direct exegetical foundation) that the apostles would share their belief that “love must be free, or it isn’t love.” Calvinists likewise assume (without explicit exegetical warrant) that God’s sovereignty can only be maintained through a direct determination of everything, including all human choices. The Arminian position is not better simply because it jibes with our (potentially) limited sense of fairness; the Calvinist position is not better simply because of its pious-sounding defenses (“upholding the sovereignty of God!”). In the end, both views have to rely on certain assumptions about the meaning of words (namely, sovereignty and love), and both views are forced into paradox. The Arminian says, “we need to be free to love God, so God grants us freedom, yet somehow God remains in control.” The Calvinist says, “God needs to determine all events to be sovereign, so God determines individual salvation or damnation, yet despite the fact that (based on God’s own revelation of what constitutes ‘love’ in his Word) such determination SEEMs malevolent, God’s choice is somehow ultimately loving.” Thus, at a fundamental level, both views lack explanatory force.[/quote]
I was wondering if I was the only one that struggled with the paradox you presented. Sounds like that one’s been wrestled with for a while. But how could it be that there just isn’t an answer? Is there a third alternative?
And what I was suggesting Trib is that one free will can overcome another free will if it is the more powerful of the two.[/quote]
I think the problem you are bringing up, Fletch, is ultimately definitional in nature. How do you define “free will?” Some would conclude that if one will is sufficiently more powerful than another so as to determine what choice the weaker one makes, the weaker will cannot rightly be called “free.”
Does ability to choose necessarily mean being able to dictate an outcome?
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
The highest standard of Calvinism (except the bible of course) ever, states the following: [quote]“God hath endued the will of man with that natural liberty, that is neither forced, nor by any absolute necessity of nature determined to good or evil.”[/quote] I agree.
Which part or parts of the following do you find unbiblical? Cortes has already agreed with this in the epistemology thread.
Was this one directed to me, or just to the readers generally? I knew using the term eisegesis might sound harsh, but I did not mean that with its usual negative connotations. I wouldn’t necessarily say anything on there is unbiblical, in the sense that it contradicts something explicitly stated in Scripture. All I meant was that a good deal of assumptions have to be made about the world behind the text (i.e., how and what the apostles thought) in order to come to certain conclusions for both Arminians and Calvinists, and such assumptions could be considered a form of eisegesis.
[quote]KingKai25 wrote:
[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
[quote]KingKai25 wrote:
[quote]Cortes wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
You two are talking about different aspects of “God’s will”. Fletch is talking about God’s secret, providential, decreeing, governing will as us reformers would call it. That is to say God’s will in the maintenance of creation and the unfolding of history, especially in the lives of human beings.
Christopher is talking about God’s revealed commanding will in relation to His moral law, as in, thou shalt or thou shalt not along with maybe His wish for how He would like someone’;s life to be lived. (Career, marriage, ministry etc)
Where people WILL NOT concede ignorance of finitude is where and when those two are not the same. Yes, that is absolutely the case. God decrees that which He forbids, once again, by holy, righteous, just, merciful gracious and loving divine mechanisms understood by Himself alone.
If that is not the case then God’s governing will is CONTINGENT upon what he sees or even foresees in the wills of entities external to himself. In other words, autonomous man, who is, if this is were possible, actually MORE sovereign than God Himself who decides based on man. Unthinkable self exalted insolence. Not to mention that the only possible truly objective source of the pragmatic certainty under which every human being(and the rest of creation) is inextricably living, has just been sacrificed on the idolatrous altar of finite created man. Finite SINFUL created man. Nay, NAY a thousand times NAY!!!
[/quote]
This still doesn’t do it for me, Tirib. I can’t see how you can say that certain things occur, “by holy, righteous, just, merciful gracious and loving divine mechanisms understood by Himself alone,” while you refuse to allow the equally comprehensible notion that God could just as easily decree that humans alone are given the opportunity to choose good or evil. Either notion is either paradoxical or, if not, ludicrous.
Indeed, I would say that, when taking the entire Bible and the biblical “story” as a whole, your version is a lot more pointy square to circle. Certainly this assumption of our lack of any will that is not God’s will did not exist in the first 1500 or so years of Christian thought.
Granted, I am NOT suggesting that God’s ultimate will can be thwarted. But that individual possession of human will IS part of that ultimate will.
Not that it’s your job to do so, but you still have not convinced me otherwise. [/quote]
I think Cortes hit the nail on the head - both the belief in two divine wills and the belief that God allows human beings a measure of freedom result in paradox. Arminians and Calvinists alike have to resort to EISegesis to account for these paradoxes - Arminians assume (without direct exegetical foundation) that the apostles would share their belief that “love must be free, or it isn’t love.” Calvinists likewise assume (without explicit exegetical warrant) that God’s sovereignty can only be maintained through a direct determination of everything, including all human choices. The Arminian position is not better simply because it jibes with our (potentially) limited sense of fairness; the Calvinist position is not better simply because of its pious-sounding defenses (“upholding the sovereignty of God!”). In the end, both views have to rely on certain assumptions about the meaning of words (namely, sovereignty and love), and both views are forced into paradox. The Arminian says, “we need to be free to love God, so God grants us freedom, yet somehow God remains in control.” The Calvinist says, “God needs to determine all events to be sovereign, so God determines individual salvation or damnation, yet despite the fact that (based on God’s own revelation of what constitutes ‘love’ in his Word) such determination SEEMs malevolent, God’s choice is somehow ultimately loving.” Thus, at a fundamental level, both views lack explanatory force.[/quote]
I was wondering if I was the only one that struggled with the paradox you presented. Sounds like that one’s been wrestled with for a while. But how could it be that there just isn’t an answer? Is there a third alternative?
And what I was suggesting Trib is that one free will can overcome another free will if it is the more powerful of the two.[/quote]
I think the problem you are bringing up, Fletch, is ultimately definitional in nature. How do you define “free will?” Some would conclude that if one will is sufficiently more powerful than another so as to determine what choice the weaker one makes, the weaker will cannot rightly be called “free.”[/quote]
I would define “free will” as the ability of one to choose good or evil, necessarily constrained within the limits of his ability.
God’s will would be of a different kind, as he is, by nature, not bound to “choose” one thing over another. His will, as far as we are concerned, would be the manifestation of his nature in creation.
That stated, if we, as humans, are going to try and describe it, it is impractical for us NOT to anthropomorphize God’s will to a “thought” process much as we would make a decision. This necessarily carries with it the danger of, well, anthropomorphism, in this case the faulty assumption that our own will functions in any manner similar to that of God Almighty.
None of this seems to cause me any cognitive dissonance at this point while reading what Tirib has posted so far, but I will address those posts a bit later. Already late for work as it is.
[quote]Cortes wrote:<<< This still doesn’t do it for me, Tirib. I can’t see how you can say that certain things occur, “by holy, righteous, just, merciful gracious and loving divine mechanisms understood by Himself alone,” while you refuse to allow the equally comprehensible notion that God could just as easily decree that humans alone are given the opportunity to choose good or evil. Either notion is either paradoxical or, if not, ludicrous. >>>[/quote]Because the former maintains an uncontingent God and hence the integrity of the comprehensive system of thought I see spawned from the scriptures and extrapolated from their being wielded upon human logic and the latter does not. It breaks the system. This is KingKai’s cue for what he will see as an inadvertent fatal concession here, but it’s getting late and I need sleep. (Yes, I see it too, but it ain’t really there, go ahead please =] ) Where was that last post I promised you a response to Cortes. I cannot find it.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Tirib, help me out here man. Honestly, I have thought about this for years, but I still don’t understand why Calvinists feel the need to use and redefine their opponents terms when those terms are not explicitly found in Scripture. Many Arminians argue that one’s will is not constrained by one’s nature; if you believe Arminians are fundamentally wrong in that, why talk about freedom at all? The Bible doesn’t constrain you, for nowhere does it say that human beings possess free will. Free will is a concept Arminians read back into Scripture to explain human responsibility and, consequently, divine goodness. You don’t have to harmonize your system with a passage that reads, “human beings possess free will,” so why redefine the terms? Is it that Calvinists see some force to the Arminian argument that a constrained will is an irresponsible will?
[quote]KingKai25 wrote:<<< Was this one directed to me, or just to the readers generally? I knew using the term eisegesis might sound harsh, but I did not mean that with its usual negative connotations. I wouldn’t necessarily say anything on there is unbiblical, in the sense that it contradicts something explicitly stated in Scripture. All I meant was that a good deal of assumptions have to be made about the world behind the text (i.e., how and what the apostles thought) in order to come to certain conclusions for both Arminians and Calvinists, and such assumptions could be considered a form of eisegesis. [/quote]This is now officially my fault. I have to get out of the habit of assuming that people will know a post is to them if it directly follows there’s. A few folks have brought that up to me now.
You and I, as it turns out, DO communicate soundly KK. Whatever that winds up meaning. I always know what you mean and you usually do me as well. I knew what you meant by that somewhat utilitarian vulgarized use of the term and took no offense.
Not that I think you should in any way be motivated by this, in fact I’d respect you much less if you were, but this response reflects very positively on you as far as I’m concerned. Because NOBODY in whom dwells the Spirit of the most high God will fail to recognize His true sovereign majesty in that section of the confession. My closest most beloved brother on this Earth thinks he’s an Arminian. I would die for this man without a second thought and trust his fatherly counsel implicitly.(He’s much older than I am) When I first read him that quote, I asked him the same thing. He just looked at me and I saw our Father in his eyes. “There is no way you are going to try to probably even qualify any of that. Are you?” They ARE NOT scripture, but I love those catechisms and that confession. Imperfect though they are, I do not believe they will be improved upon in any of the true majors this side of the resurrection.
Have you read them? How about Augustine’s “City of God”? Augustine got more “reformed” the older he got btw. In the 4th century.
[quote]KingKai25 wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Tirib, help me out here man. Honestly, I have thought about this for years, but I still don’t understand why Calvinists feel the need to use and redefine their opponents terms when those terms are not explicitly found in Scripture. Many Arminians argue that one’s will is not constrained by one’s nature; if you believe Arminians are fundamentally wrong in that, why talk about freedom at all? The Bible doesn’t constrain you, for nowhere does it say that human beings possess free will. Free will is a concept Arminians read back into Scripture to explain human responsibility and, consequently, divine goodness. You don’t have to harmonize your system with a passage that reads, “human beings possess free will,” so why redefine the terms? Is it that Calvinists see some force to the Arminian argument that a constrained will is an irresponsible will? [/quote]No, it’s that Calvinists see passages of scripture asserting the responsible choice of man and are therefore happy to embrace those passages, but only under a hermeneutic by which the creator God defines created man and not the other way around.
[quote]CHAPTER I.
Of the holy Scripture. >>>
VI. The whole counsel of God, concerning all things necessary for his own glory, man’s salvation, faith, and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men. Nevertheless we acknowledge the inward illumination of the Spirit of God to be necessary for the saving understanding of such things as are revealed in the Word; and that there are some circumstances concerning the worship of God, and the government of the Church, common to human actions and societies, which are to be ordered by the light of nature and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the Word, which are always to be observed.[/quote] Wherever I’ve given it my nod this beloved confession has not lemme down yet. I don’t agree with everything though.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]KingKai25 wrote:<<< Was this one directed to me, or just to the readers generally? I knew using the term eisegesis might sound harsh, but I did not mean that with its usual negative connotations. I wouldn’t necessarily say anything on there is unbiblical, in the sense that it contradicts something explicitly stated in Scripture. All I meant was that a good deal of assumptions have to be made about the world behind the text (i.e., how and what the apostles thought) in order to come to certain conclusions for both Arminians and Calvinists, and such assumptions could be considered a form of eisegesis. [/quote]This is now officially my fault. I have to get out of the habit of assuming that people will know a post is to them if it directly follows there’s. A few folks have brought that up to me now.
You and I, as it turns out, DO communicate soundly KK. Whatever that winds up meaning. I always know what you mean and you usually do me as well. I knew what you meant by that somewhat utilitarian vulgarized use of the term and took no offense.
Not that I think you should in any way be motivated by this, in fact I’d respect you much less if you were, but this response reflects very positively on you as far as I’m concerned. Because NOBODY in whom dwells the Spirit of the most high God will fail to recognize His true sovereign majesty in that section of the confession. My closet most beloved brother on this Earth thinks he’s an Arminian. I would die for this man without a second thought and trust his fatherly counsel implicitly.(He’s much older than I am) When I first read him that quote, I asked him the same thing. He just looked at me and I saw our Father in his eyes. “There is no way you are going to try to probably even qualify any of that. Are you?” They ARE NOT scripture, but I love those catechisms and that confession. Imperfect though they are, I do not believe they will be improved upon in any of the true majors this side of the resurrection.
Have you read them? How about Augustine’s “City of God”? Augustine got more “reformed” the older he got btw. In the 4th century.[/quote]
Yes sir, I have read the Westminster Confession and bits of other confessions, as well as the “City of God.” Though you already know I don’t agree with everything written therein, I do think the Westminster Confession in particular is a testament to the consistent masterpiece that IS reformed theology. Comparatively, most church confessions are pathetic, exhibiting neither the depth of thought nor the careful choice of words that characterizes the Westminster Confession. Moreover, I agree about Augustine’s “reformed” (I so appreciate that you put that otherwise anachronistic word in quotes :)) temperament - there really is no basis to the claim that the Reformed theology was essentially “invented” in the 16th-17th centuries. Interestingly, Augustine also moved away from cessationism as he got older, a fact which warms my moderate-charismatic heart 
[quote]KingKai25 wrote:<<< my moderate-charismatic heart :)[/quote]And mine as well. You and I just may get along after all. =] Of course I pretty much agree with the rest of this post. The Westminster divines were NOT playin around. However I perceive that the “masterpiece” comment caries with it the steganographic trojan horse of, “but not that biblical”. =] The City of God is awesome.
I need sleep man.
[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
Does ability to choose necessarily mean being able to dictate an outcome?
[/quote]only for God. We can choose to stay out of a situation that is not our business. God cannot. Everything is His business.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]Cortes wrote:<<< This still doesn’t do it for me, Tirib. I can’t see how you can say that certain things occur, “by holy, righteous, just, merciful gracious and loving divine mechanisms understood by Himself alone,” while you refuse to allow the equally comprehensible notion that God could just as easily decree that humans alone are given the opportunity to choose good or evil. Either notion is either paradoxical or, if not, ludicrous. >>>[/quote]Because the former maintains an uncontingent God and hence the integrity of the comprehensive system of thought I see spawned from the scriptures and extrapolated from their being wielded upon human logic and the latter does not. It breaks the system. This is KingKai’s cue for what he will see as an inadvertent fatal concession here, but it’s getting late and I need sleep. (Yes, I see it too, but it ain’t really there, go ahead please =] ) Where was that last post I promised you a response to Cortes. I cannot find it.
[/quote]
Fair enough. And if I considered a system’s inner consistency an indication of its truth value, I would be a whole-hearted Calvinist Calvinism, after all, has an answer for everything, even if it ends up in paradox. It is not the inherent logic of Calvinism that is questionable - there isn’t an inconsistent element in the scheme. Rather, what I find fundamentally questionable is its view of the canon and its understanding of Scripture, i.e., that it is “that system of doctrine,” that it “spawned… a comprehensive system of thought.” I know you know that I don’t believe Scripture is errant; I also don’t buy the notion of apostolic documents reflecting contradictory and competing theologies. But even though I firmly believe that Scripture REFLECTS the complementary and consistent thought of the various apostolic witnesses, I do not believe that Scripture contains the ENTIRETY of the apostolic preaching. I’m not saying there are other legitimate Scriptures; I am simply saying that I don’t subscribe to the belief that the entirety of apostolic preaching (i.e., everything they taught) is contained within the canon. I am sure Jesus said things that didn’t make it into the New Testament, and I would not consider them any less binding than what is contained in the canon. Consequently, I depart from most Calvinists in that I don’t consider the exegetical task to revolve around discerning the system the text expounds, but rather in reconstructing the possible system which the texts reflect and to which the apostles adhered. The difference is subtle but significant.
And with that, I realize I have hijacked this thread. Sorry everybody…
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]KingKai25 wrote:<<< my moderate-charismatic heart :)[/quote]And mine as well. You and I just may get along after all. =] Of course I pretty much agree with the rest of this post. The Westminster divines were NOT playin around. However I perceive that the “masterpiece” comment caries with it the steganographic trojan horse of, “but not that biblical”. =] The City of God is awesome.
I need sleep man.
[/quote]
Me too! Go to bed brother. Goodnight!
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Where was that last post I promised you a response to Cortes. I cannot find it.
[/quote]
Just a hair past halfway down this page:
Thanks.
[quote]KingKai25 wrote:<<< I don’t consider the exegetical task to revolve around discerning the system the text expounds, >>>[/quote]Nor do I.(not the way I think you mean it here anyway)[quote]KingKai25 wrote:<<< but rather in reconstructing the possible system which the texts reflect and to which the apostles adhered. The difference is subtle but significant. >>>[/quote]I believe that IS the system I hold. Large topics, little time now (shoot, darn, heck, time is at a premium lately)