Why we cannot accept the Reformation!

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

You are right, but did the Holy Spirit led Peter to teach hypocrisy in Galatia?

What we can learn is they did not follow Peter, they then turned to Paul and what Paul taught.

God Bless

Till all are one.

Yes, the church went with Paul in this regard (thank God) yet that does not do away with the authority of the Church established in other places within Scripture. Protestantism goes too far in one direction, giving absolute authority to the individual to determine whereas a balanced approach recognises there is a need for both individual authority and communal authority in matters of dispute. Protestantism did away with the latter, preferring free and fleeting association with Church which is not how anyone before them understood the Church to be.

 

[DeaconDean]

Why did the gentiles await decision by the Church to know what they ought to do in the Church with regards to Kosher and circumcision then? Why did the Apostles act as if they had authority or why did Paul act as if Timothy had some authority to those Timothy had been entrusted to? I find this statement baffling.

You miss the whole point of the First Apostolic Council.

Was it right for Jews to demand Gentiles to submit to "legalism"?

And that was the focus. The Law.

"b. The Primitive Community

Up to this point, we have shown the development of the Greek word “nomoV” from a meaning of “to allot” to “Law.” We have seen how the commandments were handed down to Moses from God and were regarded as the Law. We have the view of the Law in the Synoptics and the interrelation of Jesus’ negation and affirmation of the Law and how they are interwoven so that it actually restores and establishes the intent of God in His revealed will.

Now we come to a most difficult area which brought conflict nearly two millennia ago, and one which still brings conflict today. The conflict concerning the Law and its relevance to Christians then and now. There is no clear cut definitive picture of just what the understanding of the Law was in the primitive community. But it is a certainty that they did in fact keep the Law, but as to the extent of the keeping of the Law it is not certain from the account in Acts because no distinctive can be discerned in this record. So what we can do, however, is to look at what records we do have concerning the conflict which are found in the book of Galatians and in Acts 15.

The question of the Law first became an issue when the Apostles began their missionary journeys. When they moved out to the Gentile world, more specifically the Gentile nations, there was so much conflict that the first Apostolic Council is recorded. With regards to this meeting, and the decision they came to, we can work best work out what the fundamental understanding of the Law was in the primitive community.

A problem that had existed from the Day of Pentecost was how to integrate Gentile believers into the church. Apparently, Paul taught his Gentile converts that they did not need to submit to the Law in order to be members in good standing, a point which not all agreed on. Paul’s first missionary journey took him from Jerusalem to Antioch to Galatia and back to Jerusalem which led to the first Apostolic Council meeting. AS in Paul’s day, there were a group of people who are commonly called “legalists.” Of whom believed that not only was a belief in God required, but also a strict observance to the Law of Moses was required.

According to Gal. 2, the data relevant to the council are as follows: first, agreement between Paul’s gospel and that preached by the primitive community is confirmed and not just established. Gal. 2:2: “aneqemhn autoiV to euaggelion o khrussw en toiV eqnesin” (I put before them the gospel which I proclaim in the nations) Vs.6: “emoi oi dokounteV ouden prosaneqento” (to me, for those conferred nothing) Note in the KJV, the translators added the word “important” thus the italics, to emphasize Paul was referring to the Apostolic council.

The second point is equally certain, namely, that practical questions over and above the unanimity of principle was not so fully cleared up as to make impossible the dispute at Antioch as Paul describes it in Galatians 2. To understand this passage it should be noted that neither directly nor indirectly does Paul have any word of censure from James. The concrete question is whether and how far those born Jew may live together in fellowship with Gentile Christians who do not keep the Law. In particular, can they have fellowship with them at table and in the Lord’s Supper? For if they do, they necessarily surrender essential parts of the strict observance of the Law. The measure of clarity reached thus far was simply that purely Gentile Christian churches were free from the Law with the consent of the primitive community, and purely Jewish Christian churches should keep the Law with the consent of Paul.

The findings of the Apostolic Council, then, are that the Law is not to be kept as though one could be righteous by its observance, that faith in Jesus brings salvation to both Jew and Gentile alike, and that the Law is still binding on Jews. On this basis, it seems that the separation of Gentile and Jewish evangelization (Gal. 2:7) had to be accepted by both Paul and the primitive as necessary and appropriate.

c. But this raises the question of why Jewish Christians were obliged to keep the Law. The main reason is concern for the possibility of the Jewish mission. The preaching of Jesus as the Christ of scripture could not be believed by Jews if His followers left the Law of God. That Paul could agree with this view is shown beyond any question in 1 Cor. 9:20. He neither demands nor makes any demonstration of his freedom from the Law which might consist in transgression of the Law.

d. From the basic and practical decision of the primitive community in these matters we may work out its understanding of the Law during the preceding period. The actual commitment to the Law was not monism in the sense that fulfillment of the Law w regarded as a presupposition of belonging to the Messianic kingdom. On the contrary, it regarded observance of the Law as the obedience concretely required of it as this people - an obedience which it had also to render for loves sake in the service of the Gospel. What constituted the community and separated it from others, however, was not a specific understanding of the Law but faith in Jesus as Lord and Christ. Historically speaking, it is probable that the Synoptic accounts of Jesus’ attitude to the Law are correct and that fundamentally the primitive community took its attitude to the Law from Jesus Himself.

e. Further developments in the primitive community is also to be understood in light of the conflicts, motives, and decisions brought to light in the first Apostolic Council and the events relating to it. The radical party, traditionally called the Judaizers, insisted that in spite of the councils decision, circumcision and the Law must be laid on Gentile Christians, since otherwise they could not enjoy salvation or belong to the community of Christ. They evidently propagated this view with zeal, especially in the Pauline churches, though it is open to question whether the situation presupposed in Rome can be explained by Judaising propaganda.

f. Distinct from the position of the Judaizers is that of James, Peter, and the community controlled by them, who seem to have kept essentially to the lines laid down by the Apostolic Council. This certainly corresponds to the depiction of James in Acts 21:148, and it is confirmed by the account of his death in Josephus.[9] In regards to Peter, it is best to assume that he returned to the position of the Apostolic Council and James after accepting the view of Paul for a period in Antioch. Certainly the attempt to make Peter a champion of the Judaizers lacks enough exegetical support in the available sources and it suffers from intrinsic improbability.

As concerning the understanding of the Law in normative circles of primitive Christianity, it may thus be said that they regarded the Law as the obedience to be rendered by Jewish Christians. They were also conscious of being under this obligation for the sake of winning the Jewish world for the Gospel. They did not believe that by achieving this obedience man could attain to righteousness before God. They were prepared to extend brotherly fellowship to Gentile Christians even though the latter did not keep the Law. In mixed congregations, Gentile Christians were obliged to observe such points as would make fellowship of Jewish Christians with them defensible in the eyes of the Jewish world.

Continued...

[1] Adolph von Harnack, Beitrage zur Einlertung in das NT, II: “Sprucle u. Reder Jesu” (1907), 11f.

[2] T. Zahn, Kommentar z. Matthausev, 1905

[3] A. Schlatter, Kommentar z. Mk., 1930

[4] For further information on this subject, see the article by Roy l. Aldrich, “Causes for Confusion of Law and Grace,” Bibliotheca Sacra, 116:463:221-29, July 1959

[5] G. Coleman Luck, “Christian Ethics,” Bibliotheca Sacra, 118:471 - July 1961, Theological Electronic Library, Galaxie Software

[6] The verb “train” or “instruct” is paideuo,,,” to bring up, instruct, educate, train,” then, “correct, practice, discipline, give guidance.”

[7] Charles C. Ryrie, The Grace of God, Moody Press, Chicago, 1963, pp. 51-52

[8] In this clause, “but” is alla, a conjunction that expresses strong contrast.

[9] Josephus, Ant., 20, 200"

The Law and the Christian

It was not about indulgences, or any of that crap.

It was about the Law.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

Which brings us back to the point that if anybody dared to stand up or disagree with the "Catholic" church, persecution is sure to follow.

God Bless

Till all are one.

Depends, Ignatius Loyala was imprisoned by the inquisition a few times and yet he became a prominent and important figure in Catholic history. I think you will also find it was secular authorities which persecuted those who dissented and Calvin's Geneva certainty wasn't a home for freedom or dissension from the Gospel he preached. Standing up to authority is hard and can result in bad.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

You miss the whole point of the First Apostolic Council.

Was it right for Jews to demand Gentiles to submit to "legalism"?

And that was the focus. The Law.

"b. The Primitive Community

Up to this point, we have shown the development of the Greek word “nomoV” from a meaning of “to allot” to “Law.” We have seen how the commandments were handed down to Moses from God and were regarded as the Law. We have the view of the Law in the Synoptics and the interrelation of Jesus’ negation and affirmation of the Law and how they are interwoven so that it actually restores and establishes the intent of God in His revealed will.

Now we come to a most difficult area which brought conflict nearly two millennia ago, and one which still brings conflict today. The conflict concerning the Law and its relevance to Christians then and now. There is no clear cut definitive picture of just what the understanding of the Law was in the primitive community. But it is a certainty that they did in fact keep the Law, but as to the extent of the keeping of the Law it is not certain from the account in Acts because no distinctive can be discerned in this record. So what we can do, however, is to look at what records we do have concerning the conflict which are found in the book of Galatians and in Acts 15.

The question of the Law first became an issue when the Apostles began their missionary journeys. When they moved out to the Gentile world, more specifically the Gentile nations, there was so much conflict that the first Apostolic Council is recorded. With regards to this meeting, and the decision they came to, we can work best work out what the fundamental understanding of the Law was in the primitive community.

A problem that had existed from the Day of Pentecost was how to integrate Gentile believers into the church. Apparently, Paul taught his Gentile converts that they did not need to submit to the Law in order to be members in good standing, a point which not all agreed on. Paul’s first missionary journey took him from Jerusalem to Antioch to Galatia and back to Jerusalem which led to the first Apostolic Council meeting. AS in Paul’s day, there were a group of people who are commonly called “legalists.” Of whom believed that not only was a belief in God required, but also a strict observance to the Law of Moses was required.

According to Gal. 2, the data relevant to the council are as follows: first, agreement between Paul’s gospel and that preached by the primitive community is confirmed and not just established. Gal. 2:2: “aneqemhn autoiV to euaggelion o khrussw en toiV eqnesin” (I put before them the gospel which I proclaim in the nations) Vs.6: “emoi oi dokounteV ouden prosaneqento” (to me, for those conferred nothing) Note in the KJV, the translators added the word “important” thus the italics, to emphasize Paul was referring to the Apostolic council.

The second point is equally certain, namely, that practical questions over and above the unanimity of principle was not so fully cleared up as to make impossible the dispute at Antioch as Paul describes it in Galatians 2. To understand this passage it should be noted that neither directly nor indirectly does Paul have any word of censure from James. The concrete question is whether and how far those born Jew may live together in fellowship with Gentile Christians who do not keep the Law. In particular, can they have fellowship with them at table and in the Lord’s Supper? For if they do, they necessarily surrender essential parts of the strict observance of the Law. The measure of clarity reached thus far was simply that purely Gentile Christian churches were free from the Law with the consent of the primitive community, and purely Jewish Christian churches should keep the Law with the consent of Paul.

The findings of the Apostolic Council, then, are that the Law is not to be kept as though one could be righteous by its observance, that faith in Jesus brings salvation to both Jew and Gentile alike, and that the Law is still binding on Jews. On this basis, it seems that the separation of Gentile and Jewish evangelization (Gal. 2:7) had to be accepted by both Paul and the primitive as necessary and appropriate.

c. But this raises the question of why Jewish Christians were obliged to keep the Law. The main reason is concern for the possibility of the Jewish mission. The preaching of Jesus as the Christ of scripture could not be believed by Jews if His followers left the Law of God. That Paul could agree with this view is shown beyond any question in 1 Cor. 9:20. He neither demands nor makes any demonstration of his freedom from the Law which might consist in transgression of the Law.

d. From the basic and practical decision of the primitive community in these matters we may work out its understanding of the Law during the preceding period. The actual commitment to the Law was not monism in the sense that fulfillment of the Law w regarded as a presupposition of belonging to the Messianic kingdom. On the contrary, it regarded observance of the Law as the obedience concretely required of it as this people - an obedience which it had also to render for loves sake in the service of the Gospel. What constituted the community and separated it from others, however, was not a specific understanding of the Law but faith in Jesus as Lord and Christ. Historically speaking, it is probable that the Synoptic accounts of Jesus’ attitude to the Law are correct and that fundamentally the primitive community took its attitude to the Law from Jesus Himself.

e. Further developments in the primitive community is also to be understood in light of the conflicts, motives, and decisions brought to light in the first Apostolic Council and the events relating to it. The radical party, traditionally called the Judaizers, insisted that in spite of the councils decision, circumcision and the Law must be laid on Gentile Christians, since otherwise they could not enjoy salvation or belong to the community of Christ. They evidently propagated this view with zeal, especially in the Pauline churches, though it is open to question whether the situation presupposed in Rome can be explained by Judaising propaganda.

f. Distinct from the position of the Judaizers is that of James, Peter, and the community controlled by them, who seem to have kept essentially to the lines laid down by the Apostolic Council. This certainly corresponds to the depiction of James in Acts 21:148, and it is confirmed by the account of his death in Josephus.[9] In regards to Peter, it is best to assume that he returned to the position of the Apostolic Council and James after accepting the view of Paul for a period in Antioch. Certainly the attempt to make Peter a champion of the Judaizers lacks enough exegetical support in the available sources and it suffers from intrinsic improbability.

As concerning the understanding of the Law in normative circles of primitive Christianity, it may thus be said that they regarded the Law as the obedience to be rendered by Jewish Christians. They were also conscious of being under this obligation for the sake of winning the Jewish world for the Gospel. They did not believe that by achieving this obedience man could attain to righteousness before God. They were prepared to extend brotherly fellowship to Gentile Christians even though the latter did not keep the Law. In mixed congregations, Gentile Christians were obliged to observe such points as would make fellowship of Jewish Christians with them defensible in the eyes of the Jewish world.

Continued...

[1] Adolph von Harnack, Beitrage zur Einlertung in das NT, II: “Sprucle u. Reder Jesu” (1907), 11f.

[2] T. Zahn, Kommentar z. Matthausev, 1905

[3] A. Schlatter, Kommentar z. Mk., 1930

[4] For further information on this subject, see the article by Roy l. Aldrich, “Causes for Confusion of Law and Grace,” Bibliotheca Sacra, 116:463:221-29, July 1959

[5] G. Coleman Luck, “Christian Ethics,” Bibliotheca Sacra, 118:471 - July 1961, Theological Electronic Library, Galaxie Software

[6] The verb “train” or “instruct” is paideuo,,,” to bring up, instruct, educate, train,” then, “correct, practice, discipline, give guidance.”

[7] Charles C. Ryrie, The Grace of God, Moody Press, Chicago, 1963, pp. 51-52

[8] In this clause, “but” is alla, a conjunction that expresses strong contrast.

[9] Josephus, Ant., 20, 200"

The Law and the Christian

It was not about indulgences, or any of that crap.

It was about the Law.

God Bless

Till all are one.

I'm not reading all that. My only point in referring to the council was to demonstrate that the Church had some level of authority or did the Jerusalem council have no authority according to you, it simply being "some church"?

 

[DeaconDean]

We've been through this before. You don't believe there is a historical connection between the Anabaptists and Donatists,

Here is where you are not only wrong, but dead wrong.

I have argued the contrary.

And have been castigated by I don't know how many Catholics for suggesting that.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[DeaconDean]

Yes, the church went with Paul in this regard (thank God) yet that does not do away with the authority of the Church established in other places within Scripture.

Show me that in scripture please.

Peter was confronted by Paul about his hypocrisy in Gal. 2. How long did Paul stay there before he returned to Jerusalem?

So the church in Galatia went with Paul and not the church's ruling.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

Here is where you are not only wrong, but dead wrong.

I have argued the contrary.

And have been castigated by I don't know how many Catholics for suggesting that.

God Bless

Till all are one.

I must have mis-remembered our last conversation in which I would say you have been rightly castigated for a rather absurd opinion. There is no way you can trace Donatism through the centuries to the Protestant Ana-baptists of the more radical side of the reformation.

 

[DeaconDean]

Depends, Ignatius Loyala was imprisoned by the inquisition a few times and yet he became a prominent and important figure in Catholic history. I think you will also find it was secular authorities which persecuted those who dissented and Calvin's Geneva certainty wasn't a home for freedom or dissension from the Gospel he preached. Standing up to authority is hard and can result in bad.

Your right, but you seem to forget the ultimate "reformer".

And that was long before there was a "catholic" church.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[DeaconDean]

I must have mis-remembered our last conversation in which I would say you have been rightly castigated for a rather absurd opinion. There is no way you can trace Donatism through the centuries to the Protestant Ana-baptists of the more radical side of the reformation.

Go back in the Denomination Specific forum and look.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

Show me that in scripture please.

Peter was confronted by Paul about his hypocrisy in Gal. 2. How long did Paul stay there before he returned to Jerusalem?

So the church in Galatia went with Paul and not the church's ruling.

God Bless

Till all are one.

What do you mean the Church of Galatia went with Paul agaisnt the Church's ruling? What Church ruling are you talking about? Was it mandated that Galatians be circumcised or were they convinced by judaisers to do these things? Clearly it was the latter.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

Your right, but you seem to forget the ultimate "reformer".

And that was long before there was a "catholic" church.

God Bless

Till all are one.

I have no idea what you are referring to here.

 

[DeaconDean]

Go back in the Denomination Specific forum and look.

God Bless

Till all are one.

Excuse me, it was in the Fundamentalist area.

Why is there so much hate in fundamentalism toward Catholics and Orthodox

Beginning with post#82, I said there:

The Donatists were "re-baptizers".

The very meaning of Anabaptist is "re-baptizers".

And if you will take note, my position has not changed.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[DeaconDean]

What do you mean the Church of Galatia went with Paul agaisnt the Church's ruling? What Church ruling are you talking about? Was it mandated that Galatians be circumcised or were they convinced by judaisers to do these things? Clearly it was the latter.

The First Apostolic Council met after both Peter and Paul were in Galatia.

Peter set the example of hypocrisy.

Paul corrected it, and continued to stay for a while.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

Excuse me, it was in the Fundamentalist area.

Why is there so much hate in fundamentalism toward Catholics and Orthodox

Beginning with post#82, I said there:



And if you will take note, my position has not changed.

God Bless

Till all are one.

I'm sure it hasn't. So I would ask, is there evidence for the Donatists re baptising Adults in rejection of infant baptism? Or is that a later theological development within your tracing of Anabaptist history?

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

The First Apostolic Council met after both Peter and Paul were in Galatia.

Peter set the example of hypocrisy.

Paul corrected it, and continued to stay for a while.

God Bless

Till all are one.

So why did you seem to imply there was a conflict between official Church position and Paul? I'm aware of Peter's error but that does not mean the Church is irrelevant or that the SPirit has nothing to do with the administration of it. Would you describe the Church of the Apostles as merely "a church" rather than "the church"?

 

[DeaconDean]

Now, if you wish, we can go at this all night if you want.

But what good will that do.

I am thankful for the "Reformation" for had it not happened, everybody in the world would be required to work towards their salvation and justification.

You have you POV, I have mine.

And fact is, nothing has changed in 600 years.

Do you believe your or my arguments are going to forever settle this matter?

No.

EO and RCC have their beliefs.

But it is clear that Protestants shouldn't be allowed their because it disagrees with the mother Church.

Guess that makes me doomed to hell, or the very least, purgatory.

Have you ever read Milton Captain?

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

Now, if you wish, we can go at this all night if you want.

But what good will that do.

I am thankful for the "Reformation" for had it not happened, everybody in the world would be required to work towards their salvation and justification.

You have you POV, I have mine.

And fact is, nothing has changed in 600 years.

Do you believe your or my arguments are going to forever settle this matter?

No.

EO and RCC have their beliefs.

But it is clear that Protestants shouldn't be allowed their because it disagrees with the mother Church.

Guess that makes me doomed to hell, or the very least, purgatory.



God Bless

Till all are one.

I never said Protestants can't have their opinions. I presenting a harsh criticism of the reformation which can be ignored or responded to but I am doing out of sincerity for what I consider true. If you don't want to continue this discussion fine, but don't play victim when all we have been doing is going back and forth regarding our disagreements. I'll leave it to others to determine who had the better argument.

 

[DeaconDean]

but I am doing out of sincerity for what I consider true.

And I aint?

Hello pot, this is kettle.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[DeaconDean]

And I named the thread Ichabod, saying, The glory is departed.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[Halbhh]

I'm often fascinated by how little understanding there is about the Reformation and the history of the period, by both Protestants and Catholics. The irony is that often both seem to agree to a common false narrative: that the Reformation was about protesting and splitting away from Rom/the Catholic Church. It wasn't. The Reformation was not a protest against Rome, or against the Catholic Church; in fact the "protest" in Protestant refers to a specific historical event, the Protestation at Speyer, in which a number of German princes protested the decision of the 2nd Imperial Diet of Speyer.

Indeed, we Lutherans brought forward and explained our doctrine at the Diet of Augsburg, in this text known as the Augustana or Augsburg Confession we confess:

"This is about the Sum of our Doctrine, in which, as can be seen, there is nothing that varies from the Scriptures, or from the Church Catholic, or from the Church of Rome as known from its writers. This being the case, they judge harshly who insist that our teachers be regarded as heretics. There is, however, disagreement on certain abuses, which have crept into the Church without rightful authority. And even in these, if there were some difference, there should be proper lenity on the part of bishops to bear with us by reason of the Confession which we have now reviewed; because even the Canons are not so severe as to demand the same rites everywhere, neither, at any time, have the rites of all churches been the same; although, among us, in large part, the ancient rites are diligently observed. For it is a false and malicious charge that all the ceremonies, all the things instituted of old, are abolished in our churches. But it has been a common complaint that some abuses were connected with the ordinary rites. These, inasmuch as they could not be approved with a good conscience, have been to some extent corrected.

Inasmuch, then, as our churches dissent in no article of the faith from the Church Catholic, but only omit some abuses which are new, and which have been erroneously accepted by the corruption of the times, contrary to the intent of the Canons, we pray that Your Imperial Majesty would graciously hear both what has been changed, and what were the reasons why the people were not compelled to observe those abuses against their conscience. Nor should Your Imperial Majesty believe those who, in order to excite the hatred of men against our part, disseminate strange slanders among the people. Having thus excited the minds of good men, they have first given occasion to this controversy, and now endeavor, by the same arts, to increase the discord. For Your Imperial Majesty will undoubtedly find that the form of doctrine and of ceremonies with us is not so intolerable as these ungodly and malicious men Besides, the truth cannot be gathered from common rumors or the revilings of enemies. But it can readily be judged that nothing would serve better to maintain the dignity of ceremonies, and to nourish reverence and pious devotion among the people than if the ceremonies were observed rightly in the churches." - Augsburg Confession, Article XXI, 5-15

-CryptoLutheran

That was interesting. Who really 'left'? one can ask.... We had been looking some at Martin Luther's experience in a Saturday study group at a Lutheran Church recently, and at one point I got out my phone to look up the beginning of the Augsburg Confession, which was being presented in response to challenge from the holy roman emperor (whose empire had military threat on its border at that time) and noticed the interesting wording at the start. But notice the intent, and the hoped for attitude they sought --

1] Most Invincible Emperor, Caesar Augustus, Most Clement Lord: Inasmuch as Your Imperial Majesty has summoned a Diet of the Empire here at Augsburg to deliberate concerning measures against the Turk, that most atrocious, hereditary, and ancient enemy of the Christian name and religion, in what way, namely, effectually to withstand his furor and assaults by strong and lasting military provision; 2] and then also concerning dissensions in the matter of our holy religion and Christian Faith, that in this matter of religion the opinions and judgments of the parties might be heard in each other's presence; and considered and weighed 3] among ourselves in mutual charity, leniency, and kindness, in order that, after the removal and correction of such things as have been treated and understood in a different manner in the writings on either side, these matters may be settled and brought back to one simple truth and Christian concord, 4]that for the future one pure and true religion may be embraced and maintained by us, that as we all are under one Christ and do battle under Him, so we may be able also to live in unity and concord in the one Christian Church."

Imagine that -- to weigh and consider among ourselves with mutual charity, leniency, and kindness....