The fallacy of CENI

[lancelot]

One who has faith is saved John 3:16.  So yes I know I am saved and who to teach.  Faith and love of God causes one to live as close to God as they can according to their knowledge.  It will be up to God to determine if those works are good or bad but they have nothing to do with salvation.

I will be gone for a couple of weeks so I may not be on the board much for a while.

Ah, the old lowest common denominator as if faith alone were enough and toss out the rest of what the Bible says.   

Repentance is before salvation; confession is before salvation; baptism is before salvation.  It takes more than faith alone.  Men believed in John 8 and were trying to kill Jesus a few minutes later.  They believed in Acts 2:37 or they wouldn't have asked what they must do.  Yet they weren't saved yet (v.38).  In John 12:42 men believed but wouldn't confess Jesus and so He'll deny them (Matt.10:32,33).  They obviously believed in Jesus in Matt.7:21-23 but He never knew them.

Lancelot

[Johnb]

Please be accurate.
I said faith coupled with love causes one to spend their life trying to walk as close to God as they can.  It is faith that saves and the live is the evidence of the faith.  Repentance is simply turning from the old to the new it is not a paint by numbers process.  True faith is a much more difficult life process than your pattern or paint by numbers or check list salvation.
God tells us that our works will be tested by fire and if they are not good they will be burned ,  However, that person will still be saved as one escaping from the fire. 
Our works may have something to do with reward but not salvation.

[Livelysword]

One who has faith is saved John 3:16.  So yes I know I am saved and who to teach.  Faith and love of God causes one to live as close to God as they can according to their knowledge.  It will be up to God to determine if those works are good or bad but they have nothing to do with salvation.

I will be gone for a couple of weeks so I may not be on the board much for a while.

Lively:  Be safe while you are gone John...   :)

Peace be unto you...

[Johnb]

Lively
Thanks.  I don't want to debate this week.  Just enjoy God's beautiful creation.  It is clear and about 75 today and I got to see some of my grand kids we brought with us enjoy the Gulf for the first time.

[Livelysword]

Lively
Thanks.  I don't want to debate this week.  Just enjoy God's beautiful creation.  It is clear and about 75 today and I got to see some of my grand kids we brought with us enjoy the Gulf for the first time.

Lively:  And I am fine with that John... by all means enjoy the week and the great weather the Lord has blessed us with...  but please contemplate in your heart some of the things which are discussed here...  we can still enjoy while we meditate and contemplate right?


Psa 1:2  But his delight is in the law of the LORD; and in his law doth he meditate day and night.

Psa 119:15  I will meditate in thy precepts, and have respect unto thy ways.

Psa 119:48  My hands also will I lift up unto thy commandments, which I have loved; and I will meditate in thy statutes.

Psa 119:78  Let the proud be ashamed; for they dealt perversely with me without a cause: but I will meditate in thy precepts.

Deu 12:28  Observe and hear all these words which I command thee, that it may go well with thee, and with thy children after thee for ever, when thou doest that which is good and right in the sight of the LORD thy God.

May the Lord of Glory bless you...

[Mere Nick]

The fallacy of CENI.  When taken as the proper method of understanding the bible this is a flawed theology.

Commands, (approved) examples and necessary inference but also law of exclusion and law of silence is added to round out the method.

Problems
1. If we must obey NT commands then we must obey them all.  However, every group wants to pick and choose or quibble over semantics and say certain commands were not for all times etc. 

2. Human logic is applied also to approved examples.  Those who hold to CENI insist that we must take the LS but not in an upper room when both are approved examples. If we must follow approved examples we must follow them all.  If not who get to make the call?

3. Necessary inference now here is a good one.  Clearly human logic is at work here.  What seems to be inferred to one is not clear to another.  God will determine our salvation on how well we decipher some secrete code?

4. Law of exclusion.  CENI folks are not willing to apply this law to all NT verses.

The legalistic person uses CENI but only wants to debate certain conclusions they arrive at not the validity of their method.  Like all methods of interpretation it is flawed.  It is no better or worse than many other methods.  However, the conclusions of ones human logic should not be used to judge who is or is not in good standing with God.

And after five pages your observations remain pretty much intact.  I do believe there are worse methods, but CENI, or more accurately, CEHR, is not perfect.

[Livelysword]

The fallacy of CENI.  When taken as the proper method of understanding the bible this is a flawed theology.

Commands, (approved) examples and necessary inference but also law of exclusion and law of silence is added to round out the method.

Problems
1. If we must obey NT commands then we must obey them all.  However, every group wants to pick and choose or quibble over semantics and say certain commands were not for all times etc. 

2. Human logic is applied also to approved examples.  Those who hold to CENI insist that we must take the LS but not in an upper room when both are approved examples. If we must follow approved examples we must follow them all.  If not who get to make the call?

3. Necessary inference now here is a good one.  Clearly human logic is at work here.  What seems to be inferred to one is not clear to another.  God will determine our salvation on how well we decipher some secrete code?

4. Law of exclusion.  CENI folks are not willing to apply this law to all NT verses.

The legalistic person uses CENI but only wants to debate certain conclusions they arrive at not the validity of their method.  Like all methods of interpretation it is flawed.  It is no better or worse than many other methods.  However, the conclusions of ones human logic should not be used to judge who is or is not in good standing with God.

And after five pages your observations remain pretty much intact.  I do believe there are worse methods, but CENI, or more accurately, CEHR, is not perfect.

Lively:  CENIS is what God has shown as ways of interpretation himself in his own word.  I believe his ways are far better then our own.  If anyone knows how to interpret the words of God, it is God.

[Mere Nick]

I believe his ways are far better then our own.  If anyone knows how to interpret the words of God, it is God.

I agree with those two sentences.  Yet, Johnb's observations remain pretty much intact.

[OkiMar]

The fallacy of CENI.  When taken as the proper method of understanding the bible this is a flawed theology.

Commands, (approved) examples and necessary inference but also law of exclusion and law of silence is added to round out the method.

Problems
1. If we must obey NT commands then we must obey them all.  However, every group wants to pick and choose or quibble over semantics and say certain commands were not for all times etc. 

2. Human logic is applied also to approved examples.  Those who hold to CENI insist that we must take the LS but not in an upper room when both are approved examples. If we must follow approved examples we must follow them all.  If not who get to make the call?

3. Necessary inference now here is a good one.  Clearly human logic is at work here.  What seems to be inferred to one is not clear to another.  God will determine our salvation on how well we decipher some secrete code?

4. Law of exclusion.  CENI folks are not willing to apply this law to all NT verses.

The legalistic person uses CENI but only wants to debate certain conclusions they arrive at not the validity of their method.  Like all methods of interpretation it is flawed.  It is no better or worse than many other methods.  However, the conclusions of ones human logic should not be used to judge who is or is not in good standing with God.

John,
I have to disagree. First, while it might be semantics, most people I know do not refer to it as CENI. I suppose the acronym would be DSAEI: Direct Statements, Approved Examples, and Implication. Something is not a requirement because man inferred it; rather it is a requirement because God implied it. Subtle differences, perhaps, but they are more accurate.
1. Yes, we must obey all the ones that apply to us. Clearly, every declarative statement does not apply to Christians today. We must apply reason, knowledge, and scriptural consistency. 
2. Human logic is required regardless. In fact, the Bible provides abundant examples of proper reasoning. Acts 17:2; Acts 18:4, 19 are but a few examples. Peter tells us that Paul is difficult to understand at times. Consequently, we must use our reasoning abilities to understand. DSAEI rejects the requirement for an upper room because the location for the Lord's Supper is irrelevant. I know you concur with this, so the upper room is really not a good argument. Who makes the call? God.
3. Again, something is not a requirement because man inferred it; rather it is a requirement because God implied it. Your sentence here seems to indicate that you are averse to applying logic, reasoning, and knowledge. I am a bit surprised since logic, reason, and knowledge is exactly what God expects. Hosea wrote, "My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge: because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will also reject thee, that thou shalt be no priest to me: seeing thou hast forgotten the law of thy God, I will also forget thy children.” This warning does not merely apply to the ancient Israelites. The Hebrew word for knowledge is “da’ath” and means:
a) knowledge, perception, skill
b) discernment, understanding, wisdom
4. Because it doesn't apply to all NT verses.

One is not a legalist because one uses CENI or DSAEI. John, that's just silly, and you know it. Naturally, people make mistakes when applying hermeneutics. Does that mean the hermeneutic is flawed, or that the person has failed in his application? I say the latter. God has repeatedly provided us with 2 facts:
1) Truth is knowable
2) But most will get it wrong
Getting it right is not necessarily easy, but the Bible assures us that we can know the truth. Doing so requires using logic, our reasoning abilities, and prayerful study.

[Johnb]

Okimar
Just doing quick check ins right now.  Enjoying life to much for serious debate.  Just a quick thought.  Human logic plus scripture does not = scripture alone.  One mans clear logic is anothers muddled view.  I see nothing in scripture that is absolutley required save the simple gosple story of the death of the Son of God to attone for all that walk by faith.  I will leave it to God to judge the accuracy of others walk.  God bless

[zoonance]

God - The Great Implier

[OkiMar]

Okimar
Just doing quick check ins right now.  Enjoying life to much for serious debate.  Just a quick thought.  Human logic plus scripture does not = scripture alone.  One mans clear logic is anothers muddled view.  I see nothing in scripture that is absolutley required save the simple gosple story of the death of the Son of God to attone for all that walk by faith.  I will leave it to God to judge the accuracy of others walk.  God bless

John,
Agreed. I've got no problem with that (human logic plus scripture does not = scripture alone). Scripture avails nothing without knowledge and understanding. I also concur that one man's clear logic is another's muddled view; however, that doesn't mean that truth is not knowable/doable...it just means that one of them, and perhaps both, are wrong.
Hope you are well.

[OkiMar]

Here is an example of a command not followed by the CENI CoC folks today.

In John 13 the Son of God put on the apron of a slave and washed the feet of the apostles.  When Peter objected Jesus told him that if he did not allow him to wash his feet he would have no part of him.  After He finished He commanded the apostles to do the same for others.

Here we have a clear command to wash feet and an approved example by the Son of God.  According to the CENI theology this should be a command to be followed.  However, they say He was teaching a lesson in humility and that could be done in other ways.

Lets examine that idea.  It is clearly a command followed by an approved example.  In addition the so called law of exclusion applies.  He did not say you can show humility some other way He said wash feet.   If the law of exclusion excludes playing with singing and excludes any thing from the LS but bread and fruit of the vine then this command excludes everything but foot washing.  If not why not?  Break out the water and towels! 

Here is a good article by Wayne Jackson on the subject of foot washing:

Did Jesus Institute Ceremonial “Feet-Washing”?

It should be observed first of all that just because Christ gave a command to someone, at some time, during his ministry, does not mean that that same command was required of all people for all time. One must look at the nature of the command, to whom it was given, the purpose thereof (if stated), and whether or not it initially applied in a limited way, or whether it was for every person throughout history.

For example, the Lord once commanded a man, “take up your bed and walk” (Jn. 5:8). Surely it is not difficult to understand that this particular injunction was not universal in its application. To another he said, “Go, wash in the pool of Siloam” (Jn. 9:7). That requirement applied to no one but the man to whom it was given. To the apostles Jesus said, “Wait in the city [of Jerusalem], until you are clothed with power from on high” (Lk. 24:49). That command was for the apostles exclusively. Keep this principle in mind as we explore John 13:3ff.

In order to appreciate the situation that occurred during the Passover supper, one has to have some “background” knowledge in a couple of areas – pertaining to the customary act of feet-washing itself, and that of the events that led up to the “supper” incident.

The Act of Feet-Washing Generally
Most Bible students are aware of the fact that folks in ancient days did not wear the type of footwear that most of us in America do today. They wore sandals. Furthermore, most of the nearby travel was by walking. The combination of these factors meant that the citizens’ feet became very dirty during their journeys. It was a common act of hospitality, therefore, when a visitor came calling, to provide him with water for the washing of his feet (cf. 1 Tim. 5:10). One may recall that Christ once reproved Simon the Pharisee for not having furnished him with water for his feet, as the Savior visited in his home (Lk. 7:44).

Further, if a man was wealthy enough to have servants, he might well dispatch one of them to wash his guest’s feet. This is illustrated by a case from the time of king David. When the ruler sent messengers to a lady named Abigail, she gladly received them, and said, “Behold, let your handmaid act as a servant in washing the feet of the servants of my lord” (1 Sam. 25:41). Generally, it was the servant’s role to wash the master’s feet. Keep this thought in mind.

The Tense Supper Scene
As devoted as the Savior’s disciples were, they still had “rough edges” that needed to be eliminated, and not the least of these problems was the spirit of egotistical competition that prevailed among them. One recalls that James and John had requested of Christ that they might have places of preeminence when the Lord entered into his glory (Mk. 10:37). In fact, that very evening there was a dispute among the twelve as to who would be considered the “greatest” (Lk. 22:24). They desperately needed to learn that “greatness” is achieved in serving others; it is not a tribute merely to be bestowed arbitrarily.

It was in this setting that the Master laid aside his outer garments and girded himself with a towel, subsequently commencing to wash his disciples’ feet.

Contextual Clues
In considering the entire context of this episode, it is important that the Bible student look carefully at all of the details, so that he may draw such conclusions as the evidence warrants.

1. Notice first that Jesus washed the feet of all the disciples. If one is going to bind precisely this “example” as a church ordinance, as a few small religious groups have done, then the feet of everyone present will have to be cleansed. Further, everyone who washes the feet of others will need to have his own feet bathed by everyone else. If there should be a group of several hundred people, this “ceremony” would consume the better part of a day – or even longer.
That Jesus was not washing the disciples’ feet as a literal act to be required henceforth is very clear from what happened in the meantime, and how the Lord responded. When Christ came to where Peter was, the apostle asked, “Do you intend to wash my feet?” The Savior replied, “What I am about to do you don’t understand right now, but you will presently.” Get this point, please. Peter knew that Jesus was about to wash his feet (in a literal sense), but Christ says, “You do not know what I’m doing.” Obviously, it was not the act of washing feet per se that was the point; rather, it was the lesson to be conveyed. And so, in a mild rebuke, Jesus told his apostle (if we may paraphrase), “If you do not learn the lesson I am attempting to demonstrate, you will have ‘no part’ in my ministry” (v. 8).

2. Then, after he had finished this symbolic act, the Lord asked, “Do you know what I have done unto you?” (v. 12). Certainly they knew what he had done physically. But had they perceived the real significance of the act? They had not. But he explained the matter. “You call me Teacher, and, Lord. You are correct; that is my relationship to you. If I then, the Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you ought to wash one another’s feet.” In what sense? Literally? No, the lesson is this. If I, your Lord, have humbled myself, assuming the role of a servant, you ought to do the same (cf. v. 16). The pathway to “greatness” is not by self-assertion; it is through service! The Son of God was demonstrating an attitude, not requiring a literal act.

The error, then, on the part of some religious people, is in not discerning the difference between what the Lord was doing literally, and the symbolic significance of the act.

The Testimony of History
It is important to note that the early church did not perceive this incident as a “binding example” of literal feet-washing for a required practice throughout Christian history. One prominent historian has observed:

“There is no indication in the New Testament, or in the Christian literature of the first three centuries, that our Lord was understood to have instituted an ordinance [feet-washing] by the acts and words under consideration [in John 13]. Feet-washing was a common and needed act of hospitality in Palestine at the time, and the teaching that Christ intended to convey was the manifestation of the spirit of brotherly love in acts of humble service. . . The earliest reference to the ceremonial use of feet-washing is in the canon of the synod of Elvira (A.D. 306) where it is condemned” (A.H. Newman, A Manual of Church History, Philadelphia: The American Baptist Publication Society/Judson Press, 1933, Vol. I, p. 140).

[Livelysword]

The fallacy of CENI.  When taken as the proper method of understanding the bible this is a flawed theology.

Commands, (approved) examples and necessary inference but also law of exclusion and law of silence is added to round out the method.

Problems
1. If we must obey NT commands then we must obey them all.  However, every group wants to pick and choose or quibble over semantics and say certain commands were not for all times etc. 

2. Human logic is applied also to approved examples.  Those who hold to CENI insist that we must take the LS but not in an upper room when both are approved examples. If we must follow approved examples we must follow them all.  If not who get to make the call?

3. Necessary inference now here is a good one.  Clearly human logic is at work here.  What seems to be inferred to one is not clear to another.  God will determine our salvation on how well we decipher some secrete code?

4. Law of exclusion.  CENI folks are not willing to apply this law to all NT verses.

The legalistic person uses CENI but only wants to debate certain conclusions they arrive at not the validity of their method.  Like all methods of interpretation it is flawed.  It is no better or worse than many other methods.  However, the conclusions of ones human logic should not be used to judge who is or is not in good standing with God.

John,
I have to disagree. First, while it might be semantics, most people I know do not refer to it as CENI. I suppose the acronym would be DSAEI: Direct Statements, Approved Examples, and Implication. Something is not a requirement because man inferred it; rather it is a requirement because God implied it. Subtle differences, perhaps, but they are more accurate.
1. Yes, we must obey all the ones that apply to us. Clearly, every declarative statement does not apply to Christians today. We must apply reason, knowledge, and scriptural consistency. 
2. Human logic is required regardless. In fact, the Bible provides abundant examples of proper reasoning. Acts 17:2; Acts 18:4, 19 are but a few examples. Peter tells us that Paul is difficult to understand at times. Consequently, we must use our reasoning abilities to understand. DSAEI rejects the requirement for an upper room because the location for the Lord's Supper is irrelevant. I know you concur with this, so the upper room is really not a good argument. Who makes the call? God.
3. Again, something is not a requirement because man inferred it; rather it is a requirement because God implied it. Your sentence here seems to indicate that you are averse to applying logic, reasoning, and knowledge. I am a bit surprised since logic, reason, and knowledge is exactly what God expects. Hosea wrote, "My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge: because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will also reject thee, that thou shalt be no priest to me: seeing thou hast forgotten the law of thy God, I will also forget thy children.” This warning does not merely apply to the ancient Israelites. The Hebrew word for knowledge is “da’ath” and means:
a) knowledge, perception, skill
b) discernment, understanding, wisdom
4. Because it doesn't apply to all NT verses.

One is not a legalist because one uses CENI or DSAEI. John, that's just silly, and you know it. Naturally, people make mistakes when applying hermeneutics. Does that mean the hermeneutic is flawed, or that the person has failed in his application? I say the latter. God has repeatedly provided us with 2 facts:
1) Truth is knowable
2) But most will get it wrong
Getting it right is not necessarily easy, but the Bible assures us that we can know the truth. Doing so requires using logic, our reasoning abilities, and prayerful study.

Lively:  This is about one of the wisest posts I have Seen in awhile...  +1 Manna...

[Livelysword]

Here is an example of a command not followed by the CENI CoC folks today.

In John 13 the Son of God put on the apron of a slave and washed the feet of the apostles.  When Peter objected Jesus told him that if he did not allow him to wash his feet he would have no part of him.  After He finished He commanded the apostles to do the same for others.

Here we have a clear command to wash feet and an approved example by the Son of God.  According to the CENI theology this should be a command to be followed.  However, they say He was teaching a lesson in humility and that could be done in other ways.

Lets examine that idea.  It is clearly a command followed by an approved example.  In addition the so called law of exclusion applies.  He did not say you can show humility some other way He said wash feet.   If the law of exclusion excludes playing with singing and excludes any thing from the LS but bread and fruit of the vine then this command excludes everything but foot washing.  If not why not?  Break out the water and towels! 

Here is a good article by Wayne Jackson on the subject of foot washing:

Did Jesus Institute Ceremonial “Feet-Washing”?

It should be observed first of all that just because Christ gave a command to someone, at some time, during his ministry, does not mean that that same command was required of all people for all time. One must look at the nature of the command, to whom it was given, the purpose thereof (if stated), and whether or not it initially applied in a limited way, or whether it was for every person throughout history.

For example, the Lord once commanded a man, “take up your bed and walk” (Jn. 5:8). Surely it is not difficult to understand that this particular injunction was not universal in its application. To another he said, “Go, wash in the pool of Siloam” (Jn. 9:7). That requirement applied to no one but the man to whom it was given. To the apostles Jesus said, “Wait in the city [of Jerusalem], until you are clothed with power from on high” (Lk. 24:49). That command was for the apostles exclusively. Keep this principle in mind as we explore John 13:3ff.

In order to appreciate the situation that occurred during the Passover supper, one has to have some “background” knowledge in a couple of areas – pertaining to the customary act of feet-washing itself, and that of the events that led up to the “supper” incident.

The Act of Feet-Washing Generally
Most Bible students are aware of the fact that folks in ancient days did not wear the type of footwear that most of us in America do today. They wore sandals. Furthermore, most of the nearby travel was by walking. The combination of these factors meant that the citizens’ feet became very dirty during their journeys. It was a common act of hospitality, therefore, when a visitor came calling, to provide him with water for the washing of his feet (cf. 1 Tim. 5:10). One may recall that Christ once reproved Simon the Pharisee for not having furnished him with water for his feet, as the Savior visited in his home (Lk. 7:44).

Further, if a man was wealthy enough to have servants, he might well dispatch one of them to wash his guest’s feet. This is illustrated by a case from the time of king David. When the ruler sent messengers to a lady named Abigail, she gladly received them, and said, “Behold, let your handmaid act as a servant in washing the feet of the servants of my lord” (1 Sam. 25:41). Generally, it was the servant’s role to wash the master’s feet. Keep this thought in mind.

The Tense Supper Scene
As devoted as the Savior’s disciples were, they still had “rough edges” that needed to be eliminated, and not the least of these problems was the spirit of egotistical competition that prevailed among them. One recalls that James and John had requested of Christ that they might have places of preeminence when the Lord entered into his glory (Mk. 10:37). In fact, that very evening there was a dispute among the twelve as to who would be considered the “greatest” (Lk. 22:24). They desperately needed to learn that “greatness” is achieved in serving others; it is not a tribute merely to be bestowed arbitrarily.

It was in this setting that the Master laid aside his outer garments and girded himself with a towel, subsequently commencing to wash his disciples’ feet.

Contextual Clues
In considering the entire context of this episode, it is important that the Bible student look carefully at all of the details, so that he may draw such conclusions as the evidence warrants.

1. Notice first that Jesus washed the feet of all the disciples. If one is going to bind precisely this “example” as a church ordinance, as a few small religious groups have done, then the feet of everyone present will have to be cleansed. Further, everyone who washes the feet of others will need to have his own feet bathed by everyone else. If there should be a group of several hundred people, this “ceremony” would consume the better part of a day – or even longer.
That Jesus was not washing the disciples’ feet as a literal act to be required henceforth is very clear from what happened in the meantime, and how the Lord responded. When Christ came to where Peter was, the apostle asked, “Do you intend to wash my feet?” The Savior replied, “What I am about to do you don’t understand right now, but you will presently.” Get this point, please. Peter knew that Jesus was about to wash his feet (in a literal sense), but Christ says, “You do not know what I’m doing.” Obviously, it was not the act of washing feet per se that was the point; rather, it was the lesson to be conveyed. And so, in a mild rebuke, Jesus told his apostle (if we may paraphrase), “If you do not learn the lesson I am attempting to demonstrate, you will have ‘no part’ in my ministry” (v. 8).

2. Then, after he had finished this symbolic act, the Lord asked, “Do you know what I have done unto you?” (v. 12). Certainly they knew what he had done physically. But had they perceived the real significance of the act? They had not. But he explained the matter. “You call me Teacher, and, Lord. You are correct; that is my relationship to you. If I then, the Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you ought to wash one another’s feet.” In what sense? Literally? No, the lesson is this. If I, your Lord, have humbled myself, assuming the role of a servant, you ought to do the same (cf. v. 16). The pathway to “greatness” is not by self-assertion; it is through service! The Son of God was demonstrating an attitude, not requiring a literal act.

The error, then, on the part of some religious people, is in not discerning the difference between what the Lord was doing literally, and the symbolic significance of the act.

The Testimony of History
It is important to note that the early church did not perceive this incident as a “binding example” of literal feet-washing for a required practice throughout Christian history. One prominent historian has observed:

“There is no indication in the New Testament, or in the Christian literature of the first three centuries, that our Lord was understood to have instituted an ordinance [feet-washing] by the acts and words under consideration [in John 13]. Feet-washing was a common and needed act of hospitality in Palestine at the time, and the teaching that Christ intended to convey was the manifestation of the spirit of brotherly love in acts of humble service. . . The earliest reference to the ceremonial use of feet-washing is in the canon of the synod of Elvira (A.D. 306) where it is condemned” (A.H. Newman, A Manual of Church History, Philadelphia: The American Baptist Publication Society/Judson Press, 1933, Vol. I, p. 140).

Lively:  Got to love that article by Wayne... it seams to me I had just got through teaching that very point...  It still was not received by some here.   Lets hope a second teaching of the same identical point in different wording may  help them.   Thanks for the post Oki...