[sndbay]

Both Scripture and tradition must be a harmonious foundation for the rule of faith to be infallible.

JoeT

Note that in this quoted posted, you have stated the harmonious foundation... That fact is, that scripture says who formed that foundation. The apostles and prophets with Christ Jesus as the chief corner stone did set the structure to be harmonious and infallible.

Eph 2:20 And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone

The foundation they formed should be the foundation of all Christian churches today. They ensampled what we are to mold ourselves, and follow in doing the Will of God.

That is how the church (christain faith) in all it's teaching remains as the body of Christ.

[sndbay]

As for my disagreement with your reading of 2Thess.2.16, here's what you quoted:

Now you have claimed that this shows that Scripture is "complete" (I put this in quotes because it isn't at all obvious what it would mean to say that Scripture is "complete", this for the reason that "complete" isn't the same thing as "sufficient"--but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt for the time being).

This says that Scripture is profitable, not that it is complete.

What is more complete in knowledge and wisdom then the word of God? According to all that is written the word of God in scriptures has offered us life when we follow HIS words.

Matthew 4:4 But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God. Luke 4:4 And Jesus answered him, saying, It is written, That man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God.

It goes on to tell us that Scripture is profitable for the following things: doctrine, reproof, correction, and instruction in righteousness. This is something no one here has denied: We all believe Scripture to be profitable for these things, which is surely one of the reasons we spend so much time discussing it.

These things for which Scripture is profitable--doctrine, reproof, correction, and instruction in righteousness--equip us for good works, since we need them in order to perform good works; these are the complete set of things required in order to perform genuinely good works, and Scripture is helpful in providing us with them. Again, this is not something with which anyone here disagrees.

Where we do disagree is over your claim that this verse says that Scripture is complete, i.e., the sole authority and standard of truth in matters of doctrine and discipline.

Romans 13:1-2 Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.

Today the multitude of people are divided, apart with the leaven in traditions of man and apart in the Word of God (made flesh in Christ) set in the foundation of the apostles, and prophets. What the famine of hunger today is, for the multitude to join and seek the Word of God which is in the gospel.

Act 14:3 Long time therefore abode they speaking boldly in the Lord, which gave testimony unto the word of his grace, and granted signs and wonders to be done by their hands.

I have taken it at face-value. The word "complete" does not modify the word "Scripture"; the word "profitable" does, however, modify the word "Scripture". I can see no honest way for you to claim that it asserts that Scripture is the sole authority and standard of truth in matters of doctrine and discipline

What is the helmet of salvation and the sword of the Spirit to you?

Eph 6:17 And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God

1 Th 5:8 But let us, who are of the day, be sober, putting on the breastplate of faith and love; and for an helmet, the hope of salvation.

[Akoue]

What is more complete in knowledge and wisdom then the word of God? According to all that is written the word of God in scriptures has offered us life when we follow HIS words.

Yes, Scripture is the word of God. And so is Tradition. This is the point I've been trying to make all along, to wit, that we ought to accept, uphold, and abide by the whole of God's revelation, and this means accepting, upholding, and abiding by both Scripture and Tradition. Scripture is itself clear on this point.

Today the multitude of people are divided, apart with the leaven in traditions of man and apart in the Word of God set in the foundation of the apostles, and prophets. What the famine of hunger today is, for the multitude to join and seek the Word of God which is in the gospel.

And the gospel is not contained excusively in the Scriptures, but in both Scripture and Tradition. I have shown that sola scriptura is precisely a "tradition of man", and it surely has led to division. And this isn't surprising, since so many reject so much of God's revelation to us when they reject Tradition and abide by the un-Biblical and man-made tradition of sola scriptura.

What is the helmet of salvation and the sword of the Spirit to you?

The word of God in its entirety, i.e. Scripture--all of the Scriptures--along with Tradition. To reject the authority of Tradition is to reject the word of God since Tradition is the word of God, it is to reject God's revelation. And so it is not surprising to find sola-scripturists misunderstanding Scripture since by refusing to accept the whole of God's revelation, they have a distorted view of that portion of it which they do accept. Imagine someone who allowed only the book of Romans into her canon of Scripture. You wouldn't be at all surprised to find her misunderstanding it since she he has rejected so much of God's revelation. In order to understand Romans, we need to understand other parts of Scripture as well. And so when we read Scripture, we read it as a whole, allowing it, as a whole, to inform our reading of any one part of it. Well, the same is true of the relation of Scripture and Tradition: Rejecting Tradition and reading Scripture on its own is like the person who rejects all but the book of Romans. Scripture was never intended to be regarded as the whole of God's word all on its own; this is why Scripture itself instructs us to recognize the authority of Tradition.

[sndbay]

Rejecting Tradition and reading Scripture on its own is like the person who rejects all but the book of Romans. Scripture was never intended to be regarded as the whole of God's word all on its own; this is why Scripture itself instructs us to recognize the authority of Tradition.

Rejection of traditions or changing the tradition which are written in scripture, would be the error. Scripture does include those traditions as Paul stated in traditions heard by (word) or (our epistle). That is completed in all that is written by the inspiration of God.

Man made traditions which I reference as the leaven that has raised up today, has changed Passover feast, baptism, prayer, and repenting which were by instructions build and set upon the corner stone. The foundation in the apostles and prophets that taught the Truth. The Word of God ordained from the beginning. (John 1:1)

2 Thess 2:15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.

And please don't reframe from understand that by word, does mean God's word. The sword of spirit is the sharp twoedged sword known as the word of God, for the testimony of Jesus Christ.

[Akoue]

Rejection of traditions or changing the tradition which are written in scripture, would be the error.

Nowhere in Scripture are we told that all of Tradition--that is to say, the only Tradition we are to uphold and by which we are to abide--is itself contained in Scripture. You are making an assumption that is not itself supported by Scripture. On the other hand, Scripture does repeatedly affirm and instruct us to obey oral Tradition.

Scripture does include those traditions as Paul stated in traditions heard by (word) or (our epistle). That is completed in all that is written by the inspiration of God.

Here again, you are inserting your own interpretive assumptions into Scripture. Paul tells us to abide by those traditions that we have heard by word of mouth or read in his epistle. He precisely does not say that all of the traditions by which we are to abide are themselves written down in Scripture. On the contrary, he acknowledges that there are traditions that are not in Scripture when he distinguishes between those which we learn by word of mouth and those which we read in his epistle. If there weren't traditions outside of Scripture then it would make absolutely no sense for him to tell us to abide by those which we hear by word of mouth.

Man made traditions which I reference as the leaven that has raised up today, has changed Passover feast, baptism, prayer, and repenting which were by instructions build and set upon the corner stone. The foundation in the apostles and prophets that taught the Truth. The Word of God ordained from the beginning. (John 1:1)

I am in complete agreement with you that there are man-made traditions which ought to be rejected. And I have shown that sola scriptura is one of those man-made traditions. Or, rather, Scripture itself shows that sola scriptura is a man-made tradition. In addition to 2Thess.2.15-17, which we have discussed, see also:

1Cor.11.2: "maintain the traditions just as I have handed them on to you"
1Cor.11.23: "you received from the Lord what I also handed on to you"
1Cor.15.3: "I handed on to you as of first importance what I in turn received" (what follows is essentially a creed)
Eph.4.2: "For surely you have heard about him and were taught in him, as truth is in Jesus"
1Tim.4.16: "you will save both yourself and your hearers "
1Tim.6.20: "Timothy, guard what has been entrusted to you"
2Tim.1.13: "Hold fast to the standard of sound teaching that you have heard from me"
2Tim.2.2: "what you have heard from me through my many witnesses entrust to faithful people who will be able to teach others as well"
2Tim.3.14: "continue in what you have learned and firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it"
Heb.2.1: again mention is made of "what you have heard "
Heb.2.3: "it was declared at first through the Lord, and it was attested to us by those who heard him"
Heb.13.7: "Remember your leaders, those who spoke the word of God to you"
2Pet.3.2: ""remember the words spoken in the past"; "spoken through your apostles"

These are the verses I listed in my earlier post. Taken together with 2Thess.2.15-17 they make it quite clear that we are instructed by Scripture to recognize the authority of oral Tradition. (Note that this is not an exhaustive list of such verses. These are just the ones that popped into my head. But this is more than sufficient to demonstrate the un-Biblical character of the doctrine of sola scriptura. You may, of course, persist in holding that doctrine despite the fact that Scripture clearly demonstrates its falsity. I cannot change your mind; all I can do is to call your attention to the truth. What you do with that is entirely your own affair. I believe you are honest and thoughtful and I believe you have integrity, sndbay, and so I would urge you to ask yourself why Scripture affirms the authority of oral Tradition, and explicitly instructs us to abide by it, if God wants us to be sola-scripturists. I'm not asking you to concede anything. Just think long and hard about it.)

[JoeT777]

Note that in this quoted posted, you have stated the harmonious foundation... That fact is, that scripture says who formed that foundation. The apostles and prophets with Christ Jesus as the chief corner stone did set the structure to be harmonious and infallible.

This wasn’t a quote, but rather my own words. I used the foundation in the sense of a ‘basis’ from which to lift. This statement: Both Scripture and tradition must be a harmonious foundation for the rule of faith to be infallible. Can also be written: Both Scripture and tradition are the rule of faith to be infallible. Come to think of it, the latter statement seems is more concise. Thanks for pointing it out.

St. Augustine never seemed to have misgivings in stating where his authority originated:

“But those reasons which I have here given, I have either gathered from the authority of the church, according to the tradition of our forefathers, or from the testimony of the divine Scriptures, or from the nature itself of numbers and of similitudes. FIFTEEN BOOKS OF AURELIUS AUGUSTINUS BISHOP OF HIPPO, ON THE TRINITY”

Furthermore, as far as scripture themselves


"But should you meet with a person not yet believing the gospel, how would you reply to him were he to say, I do not believe? For my part, I should not believe the gospel except as moved by the authority of the Catholic Church." St. Augustin, AGAINST THE EPISTLE OF MANICHAEUS CALLED FUNDAMENTAL.(1)[CONTRA EPISTOLAM MANICHAEI QUAM VACANT FUNDAMENTI.] A.D. 397. Chp 5


JoeT

[Wondergirl]

And so it is not surprising to find sola-scripturists misunderstanding Scripture

This is exactly what happens in Lutheranland (Protestantland also?). Despite a minister's leadership and confirmation/membership teaching, despite weekly Sunday School and adult Bible classes, despite his regular contact with parishioners, there really is no "one mind" about what the Bible teaches and what Lutherans believe. I wish I had a dollar for every time someone in one of my adult Bible classes told me, "I never thought that passage meant that" or "I have never understood that passage that way" or "Our teacher at X Church explained it this way."

It all begins at the seminary where men come together to learn/relearn the basics of doctrine and to supposedly get on the same page as pastors, but, since each is coming from a different place and because there is a freedom of interpretation to some extent, all don't end up graduating on the same page. Despite sola scriptura, the Book of Concord, and the three ecumenical Creeds, Lutherans even disagree about the inspiration and authority of the Bible. Theological conservatives use the historical-grammatical method of Biblical interpretation, while theological liberals use the higher critical method. That right there makes for major confusion. (I personally experienced the dichotomy in college when I took classes from both conservative as well as liberal professors. About that same time, a liberal faction broke off from (or were kicked out of) the very conservative M-S Lutheran Synod to form Lutherans in Exile which eventually became part of ELCA).

This mixed interpretation that has continued to exist came clear to me when my all-time favorite minister posed a question to our Lutheran congregation (350 parishioners): "If you were to die tonight, why would God allow you into His heaven?" The answers he got back were amazingly diverse (and often non-Lutheran). Most of them did not mention any of the three Solas, the core of Lutheranism. Many said that faith and works or merely their good works would be their ticket into heaven. Some did not believe they would go to heaven or even that there is a heaven.

Apparently the charge, taken literally, to "work out your own salvation" has created not only a huge number of Protestant divisions but even Lutheran ones. For instance, the conservative Lutheran bodies practice what's known as "close communion" (refusing to commune anyone the pastor does not know and who has not spoken with him before the service), and the more liberal ones open their pulpits to ministers from other denominations/religions and communion to anyone who approaches the altar. There are a number of other differences.

Obviously sola scriptura with no church Tradition/authority alongside it opens the door to dangerous private interpretations of the Scriptures.

[Tj3]

As for my disagreement with your reading of 2Thess.2.16, here's what you quoted:

Actually, that is not the passage that we were discussing. You may wish to go back and get back on track.

[Akoue]

Actually, that is not the passage that we were discussing. You may wish to go back and get back on track.

That's right. I've been discussing 2Thess.2 with sndbay. You and I were discussing 2Tim.3. I inadvertently inverted the citation. But notice that I quoted the relevant Scripture and carefully explained your misreading of it, so something as simple as this shouldn't have posed any problems for your understanding what I was talking about.

Now, why don't you try addressing the substance of my posts. Or do you intend to continue to pretend that they lack sustance and are unserious (an odd charge, to be sure, since I have discussed Scripture with patience and care--and since I wouldn't have thought that you regard the patient and careful discussion to be an unserious or unworthy thing)? I've shown sola scriptura to be at once un-Scriptual and both historically and theologically unviable. Rather than dancing around the point it would be more profitable both for you and for anyone who may be reading this thread were you either (a) to defend sola scriptura and demonstrate the error of the appeal to Tradition by showing us that the passages I've cited do not affirm the authority of Tradition in matters of doctrine and discipline and that the appeal to Tradition lacks both historical and theological support or (b) to concede that the doctrine of sola scriptura is false and that you have been in error. I'm sure you can find some typos in the present post (I won't re-read it in order to eliminate them), but when you post in order to point out the occasional inverted citation or mis-spelling, etc. all the while blatantly avoiding the substance of the discussion, you give the appearance of precisely avoiding the substance for the reason that you haven't the wherewithal to come to grips with it. It also looks a bit petulant. Please, consider this an invitation to engage in the very thing you yourself so often call for: a serious discussion. I have made numerous attempts to encourage your participation in a substantive exchange. Your refusal has come to reflect rather uncharitably on the merits of your assertions.

(Oh, and there's a dangling preposition in there. You can post in order to call attention to that. Or you can make a serious and thoughtful attempt to vindicate your claim--in the face of considerable evidence of its falsity--that Scripture alone is the sole authority and standard of truth in matters of doctrine and discipline.)

[Akoue]

This is exactly what happens in Lutheranland (Protestantland also?). Despite a minister's leadership and confirmation/membership teaching, despite weekly Sunday School and adult Bible classes, despite his regular contact with parishioners, there really is no "one mind" about what the Bible teaches and what Lutherans believe. I wish I had a dollar for every time someone in one of my adult Bible classes told me, "I never thought that passage meant that" or "I have never understood that passage that way" or "Our teacher at X Church explained it this way."

It all begins at the seminary where men come together to learn/relearn the basics of doctrine and to supposedly get on the same page as pastors, but, since each is coming from a different place and because there is a freedom of interpretation to some extent, all don't end up graduating on the same page. Despite sola scriptura, the Book of Concord, and the three ecumenical Creeds, Lutherans even disagree about the inspiration and authority of the Bible. Theological conservatives use the historical-grammatical method of Biblical interpretation, while theological liberals use the higher critical method. That right there makes for major confusion. (I personally experienced the dichotomy in college when I took classes from both conservative as well as liberal professors. About that same time, a liberal faction broke off from (or were kicked out of) the very conservative M-S Lutheran Synod to form Lutherans in Exile which eventually became part of ELCA).

This mixed interpretation that has continued to exist came clear to me when my all-time favorite minister posed a question to our Lutheran congregation (350 parishioners): "If you were to die tonight, why would God allow you into His heaven?" The answers he got back were amazingly diverse (and often non-Lutheran). Most of them did not mention any of the three Solas, the core of Lutheranism. Many said that faith and works or merely their good works would be their ticket into heaven. Some did not believe they would go to heaven or even that there is a heaven.

Apparently the charge, taken literally, to "work out your own salvation" has created not only a huge number of Protestant divisions but even Lutheran ones. For instance, the conservative Lutheran bodies practice what's known as "close communion" (refusing to commune anyone the pastor does not know and who has not spoken with him before the service), and the more liberal ones open their pulpits to ministers from other denominations/religions and communion to anyone who approaches the altar. There are a number of other differences.

Obviously sola scriptura with no church Tradition/authority alongside it opens the door to dangerous private interpretations of the Scriptures.

This is fascinating. Thank you so much for sharing the fruit of your experience in this matter. I think this should give all of us, even those who are not sola-scripturist and who recognize the authority of Tradition, a lot to think about.

Do you have the sense that, among Lutherans, what you describe is regarded as a problem? I guess what I'm trying to get your take on is this: Do you get the sense that many Lutherans see a problem here, or is this sort of thing regarded as nothing to be too bothered about? And, if it is seen as a problem, is there any consensus regarding a solution?

I ask, in part at least, because I don't for a moment believe that this is something that only happens among Lutherans. On the contrary, I suspect it is a fairly widespread phenomenon.

Thanks again for this contribution to the discussion. Really interesting.

[Tj3]

That's right. I've been discussing 2Thess.2 with sndbay. You and I were discussing 2Tim.3. I inadvertantly inverted the citation. But notice that I quoted the relevant Scripture and carefully explained your misreading of it, so something as simple as this shouldn't have posed any problems for your understanding what I was talking about.

I saw no reason to read further if you were not addressing the actual scripture reference. It has not been clear from your responses that you have been reading my posts in any case.

I have been watching to see if you would actually deal with any the points that I have been raising.

[Wondergirl]

I saw no reason to read further if you were not addressing the actual scripture reference. It has not been clear from your responses that you have been reading my posts in any case.

I have been watching to see if you would actually deal with any the the points that I have been raising.

You haven't been raising any points. All you have done every fourth page or so is give some form of this, your avoidance to be involved in the discussion: "I have given one passage, but so far all you and your friends have done is to say that it doesn't say what it says, and to try to push your denomination. Unless you are prepared to have a serious discussion, why should I waste my time posting more passages, only to have you deny, deny, deny."

[Tj3]

You haven't been raising any points.

Go back to the my first post and start reading.

[sndbay]

Nowhere in Scripture are we told that all of Tradition--that is to say, the only Tradition we are to uphold and by which we are to abide--is itself contained in Scripture. You are making an assumption that is not itself supported by Scripture.

The assumption is on your part to think they are not the ONLY traditions. Our Father is clear to say nothing of HIS Word is to be changed or added to it.

Deu 4:2 Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.

My assumption is based on what is written .. Scripture is complete and we should hold stedfast in what God intended as the traditions he ordained without changing them or adding to them..

1 Thessalonians 2:13For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe.

Here again, you are inserting your own interpretive assumptions into Scripture. Paul tells us to abide by those traditions that we have heard by word of mouth or read in his epistle.

Where does it say word of mouth... Scripture is in reference to the inspiration of God.. His Word and His Will.
(Man can't write or by oral mouth word, make his own bible up for people to follow.)

I am in complete agreement with you that there are man-made traditions which ought to be rejected.

Difficult to find fellowship that hasn't attempted their own ways in some method. Give me one that you feel has held to God's Will? (Different thread someday)

1Cor.11.2: "maintain the traditions just as I have handed them on to you"
1Cor.11.23: "you received from the Lord what I also handed on to you"
1Cor.15.3: "I handed on to you as of first importance what I in turn received" (what follows is essentially a creed)
Eph.4.2: "For surely you have heard about him and were taught in him, as truth is in Jesus"
1Tim.4.16: "you will save both yourself and your hearers "
1Tim.6.20: "Timothy, guard what has been entrusted to you"
2Tim.1.13: "Hold fast to the standard of sound teaching that you have heard from me"
2Tim.2.2: "what you have heard from me through my many witnesses entrust to faithful people who will be able to teach others as well"
2Tim.3.14: "continue in what you have learned and firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it"
Heb.2.1: again mention is made of "what you have heard "
Heb.2.3: "it was declared at first through the Lord, and it was attested to us by those who heard him"
Heb.13.7: "Remember your leaders, those who spoke the word of God to you"
2Pet.3.2: ""remember the words spoken in the past"; "spoken through your apostles"

These are the verses I listed in my earlier post. Taken together with 2Thess.2.15-17 they make it quite clear that we are instructed by Scripture to recognize the authority of oral Tradition.

Note:

1 Thessalonians 3:8 For now we live, if ye stand fast in the Lord.

And you must note that Paul added as commanded--> (2 Thessalonians 3:6 Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us. )

So we must not go in fellowship with any that teach disorderly or that hold traditions not after that which they provided in scripture for us.

[Wondergirl]

Go back to the my first post and start reading.

All those points you raised 'way back then were addressed. You failed to respond to questions and comments that arose from them.

[Tj3]

All those points you raised 'way back then were addressed. You failed to respond to questions and comments that arose from them.

Are we going to go down this route again? You keep doing this - claiming that I have not responded, and many times recently it was a matter that you either ignored my post or missed it.

I did respond. The responses were to deny that the reference said "complete" or to promote the responders denomination. Not compelling.

If you have a more compelling response, or if you gave one that I may have missed, feel free to post it or a link here.

[Wondergirl]

I did respond. The responses were to deny that the reference said "complete" or to promote the responders denomination.

But you offered no counter argument and simply told the responder that you were not going to continually repeat yourself. You offered no food for further discussion.

[Akoue]

I saw no reason to read further if you were not addressing the actual scripture reference.

That's an interesting reading habit you've developed. Yikes!

It has not been clear from your responses that you have been reading my posts in any case.

I have been watching to see if you would actually deal with any the points that I have been raising.

Well, I've clearly and precisely responded, in a substantive way, to each of the points you have cared to post. I notice, however, that you have been engaged in an extended program of avoidance. This is all the more striking since your posts early in the thread were so very strident, bordering on cocky. We have seen you go from strident to petulance and truculence. It's come to look like you are trying to avoid actually saying anything, posting the occasional barb, as though you are trying to run out the clock, hoping that the thread will close--as though if you can just avoid conceding your error or posting anything that will show the flimsiness of your position will somehow constitute a victory for you. Again, this is all the more striking since you started the thread in such a strident way. And now all we get are these feeble little barbs--when it's obvious that I've been offering substantive posts and replies to the posts of others. You know as well as we do that I've dealt exhaustively with the very few points you've cared to make.

If you find the conversation here unworthy of you then why do you keep posting barbs? Is it because you know that it would look bad if you just stopped posting altogether? That this would make it looks like you really have nothing to say in defense of an indefensible view? What you may not realize is that the feeble barbs make it look that way too. Your earlier claims have been decimated. You can either concede that, or you can try to resuscitate them by offering some substantive posts, or you can stop posting altogether. I have repeatedly encouraged you to do the second of these, which should put to rest any thought that I am not willing to hear from people who disagree with me. At the same time, you haven't offered a single substantive post addressing the case I've made against sola scriptura and for the authoritativeness of Tradition. Many pages ago you mentioned two bits of Scripture, both of which--it has been shown--you either misunderstood or misrepresented.

So, Tom, you can either continue with the feeble little barbs and snide remarks, or you can try your hand at a meaty, substantive, grown-up vindication of the doctrine of sola scriptura. I'm fine either way: As things stand, it's obvious to anyone who reads this that you can't justify sola scriptura. If you choose to try your hand at what you so often claim to desire, to wit, "a serious discussion", then I win too, since I'd rather have one of those than watch a grown man embarrass himself. I've invited you to participate in a thoughtful conversation more times than I can remember, and I'm not going to ask anymore. You decide how you want to present yourself. You decide what you'd like people to take away from this thread about the merits of sola scriptura.

[Tj3]

That's an interesting reading habit you've developed. Yikes!

You mean reading what you are saying?

I noticed that you last post was just a lengthy set of personally demeaning comments. Is that what you define as a detailed scholarly response?

[Tj3]

But you offered no counter argument and simply told the responder that you were not going to continually repeat yourself. You offered no food for further discussion.

When I see the points that I raised addressed, I'll comment further.