Luther and Erasmus: The Controversy Concerning the Bondage of the Will

Let me put it this way, you know the parable about the mustard seed. That seed is not the smallest seed that exists and a mustard plant does not become a tree. Nevertheless, that was not the point of the parable. The truth of the parable was revealed by God, the story was recounted as known to the author.

I actually don't mind arguing these details and will answer them all as best as I can. It is very important to me to show that the Bible is factually accurate. Yes, today we know that the mustard seed is not the smallest seed, but it was the smallest seed known to any farmer in that part of the world at that time. So, it was factually true to the very limit of any listener's possible ability to understand. It's also true that black mustard seeds could produce a plant that was up to 12 feet tall, plenty tall enough for a bird's nest. See this link for a fuller explanation.

If you read some of the "science" in the Bible it is obvious that either God was telling us lies or that the authors simply didn't know the world as we know it. I would say definitely the latter.

And I would say definitely the neither! :) If God did allow the errors you claim, then the scriptures could not have been God-breathed unless the intention was to include error. Man choosing to reclassify animals does not make the original authors wrong. "Science" is ALWAYS changing, God never does. By your standards, it would be impossible for God to be "correct" as measured against your science at any given time.

The inspired authors did [write the Bible] to the best of their knowledge.

Were the spiritual truths they wrote also to the best of their knowledge?

If Bible were to be the source of physical, zoological and astronomical truths, it would have said such unbelievable things that the earth is round and that people stand upside downs on opposite poles but don't fall off ...

You are adding a false premise. No one is saying it was the purpose of the Bible to be the source of these disciplines, I am saying that nonetheless, what the Bible does say on these issues is true in the proper context. If your faith is in today's state of ever-changing science, then of course the Bible will disappoint you.

Another example is "Was the earth created in 6 days?" It depends on whether one takes the inspired writer's literary genre as a scientific tract, or as a literary work of art that conveys the message that God wanted to reveal - that He is the creator of the universe who loves the pinnacle of His visible creation, mankind.

Do you believe that God couldn't have created the earth in six literal days? Would that be beyond His powers? I can't prove to you that He did, or if there is an interpretation of which I am unaware that says He didn't. The bottom line is that I certainly do not dismiss the idea because it "sounds" fantastical. I will assume it is literally true until someone can give me a scripturally sound reason why it should be interpreted otherwise.

In the end, the Scriptures are inerrant, NOT because EVERY piece of information is absolutely historically accurate, but because EVERYTHING that God wanted to tell mankind is infallible.

Why do you presume that God would employ error to teach us, TODAY, infallible truth? Parables and the like are self-evident and a legitimate means of teaching. The Biblical errors that you and Kosta are claiming are not self-evident. It takes a specific disbelief on your parts to cast those scriptures aside.

In addition, it becomes especially dangerous to start throwing out scripture as being factually untrue, but "spiritually" correct because how are you to know where to draw the line? Did God literally part the Red Sea? Was there a spiritual teaching in this act by itself? Did God really appear to Moses in the form of a burning bush, as opposed to in some other form? Is there a spiritual teaching in that? I think that once you start throwing out these Biblical accounts because they do not match with what our scientists say today, then you have to throw out a huge portion of the text, and there is no way to know when fact stops and fiction starts.

I know that you wouldn't consider the patristic witness to be authoritative (even though most of it points toward a belief in six 24 hr days.) Some of the early Church Fathers, though, speculated that creation didn't take literally six 24 hr days on the basis of the "one day is as a thousand years" of Scripture. So there is nothing new about the use of that particular passage to posit the possibility of these "days" being figurative.

St. Basil's Hexameron has been appealed to, interestingly, by those on both sides of this issue, which is understandable because of the ambiguity of what he says. I personally feel that the evidence is more on the side of St. Basil believing that the 24 hr period was a unit of time that preceded the creation of the sun and moon, but I'm not sure it matters.

I hadn't read the Hexameron in many years, but one thing interesting that I ran across when browsing through it just now was this passage:

"I know the laws of allegory, though less by myself than from the works of others.

There are those truly, who do not admit the common sense of the Scriptures, for whom water is not water, but some other nature, who see in a plant, in a fish, what their fancy wishes, who change the nature of reptiles and of wild beasts to suit their allegories, like the interpreters of dreams who explain visions in sleep to snake them serve their own ends.

For me grass is grass; plant, fish, wild beast, domestic animal, I take all in the literal sense. "For I am not ashamed of the gospel."

Those who have written about the nature of the universe have discussed at length the shape of the earth. If it be spherical or cylindrical, if it resemble a disc and is equally rounded in all parts, or if it has the forth of a winnowing basket and is hollow in the middle; all these conjectures have been suggested by cosmographers, each one upsetting that of his predecessor.

It will not lead me to give less importance to the creation of the universe, that the servant of God, Moses, is silent as to shapes; he has not said that the earth is a hundred and eighty thousand furlongs in circumference; he has not measured into what extent of air its shadow projects itself whilst the sun revolves around it, nor stated how this shadow, casting itself upon the moon, produces eclipses.

He has passed over in silence, as useless, all that is unimportant for us. Shall I then prefer foolish wisdom to the oracles of the Holy Spirit? Shall I not rather exalt Him who, not wishing to fill our minds with these vanities, has regulated all the economy of Scripture in view of the edification and the making perfect of our souls?

It is this which those seem to me not to have understood, who, giving themselves up to the distorted meaning of allegory, have undertaken to give a majesty of their own invention to Scripture. It is to believe themselves wiser than the Holy Spirit, and to bring forth their own ideas under a pretext of exegesis. Let us hear Scripture as it has been written."

This is a good example of the reaction that the Cappadocian Fathers in general had to what they considered to be the excessive allegorization of some in the "Alexandrian school."

It seems to me that unbelief gives rise to pride and not the other way around.

There's a lot of truth in that statement. At times when I'm most worried and uncertain, that's when I have to stop and remind myself that everything I believe is really true. And because it's true, and because my faith is based on actual events, and because Christ really truly rose from the dead, I should have no fear.

And because of that assurance, I find myself capable of living a more generous, obedient life.

"We shall now have a full definition of faith if we say that it is a firm and sure knowledge of the divine favor toward us, founded on the truth of a free promise in Christ, and revealed to our minds, and sealed on our hearts, by the Holy Spirit...none hope well in the Lord save those who confidently glory in being the heirs of the heavenly kingdom. No man, I say, is a believer but he who, trusting to the security of his salvation, confidently triumphs over the devil and death, as we are taught by the noble exclamation of Paul, "I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come, nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord," (Rom. 8:38). In like manner, the same Apostle does not consider that the eyes of our understanding are enlightened unless we know what is the hope of the eternal inheritance to which we are called (Eph. 1:18). Thus he uniformly intimates throughout his writings, that the goodness of God is not properly comprehended when security does not follow as its fruit."

INSTITUTES OF THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION - BOOK 3, CHAPTER 2

"If all a priest ever said was "your sins will be forgiven" then that would be fine. It would simply be declaring what scripture says. But as I understand it, and please correct me if I am wrong, it is perfectly normal for a priest to say "I forgive you". To me, that is radically different, and is the basis for my objection."

In a sense, what you would prefer is sort of like what an Orthodox priest says. Here are the words of absolution usually used by Greek Orthodox priests.

" My spiritual child, who have made your confession to my humble person: I, humble and sinful, have no power to put away sins on earth unless God does it. But, trusting in the divnely uttered pronouncement that was addressed to the Apostles after the Resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ, saying, "If you remit the sins of any persons, they are remitted; if you you retain the sins of any persons, they have been retained"--in that import we also boldly say: As many offences as you have owned up to to my most humble lowliness, and as many as you have failed to say either though ignorance or forgetfulness--of whatever kind--may GOD absolve you both in the present age and in the age to come.'

Then bidding the penitent to kneel, the priest places his stole and hand over the head of the penitent, and touching it in four places in the form of a Cross, says the following Prayer of Absolution:

'May GOD, Who through Nathan the Prophet forgave David when he confessed his sins; and Peter, who wept bitterly over his denial; and the harlot who shed tears on His feet; and the Publican and the Prodigal; may the very same God, through sinful me, absolve you of all transgressions both in the present age and in the age to come; and may He let you stand uncondemned before His dread Judgment Seat. As for the sins that you have confessed, have no further anxiety about them; go in peace.
The Grace of the All-Holy Spirit, through me, least of all, has exonerated and forgiven you. At the prayers of our holy Fathers, Lord Jesus Christ, God, have mercy and save us. Ameen."

Comments?

"Comments?"

Well, my comment would be to say that your words remind me that it's been too many weeks since my last confession! I'll go Wednesday evening...

The reference to David and Nathan the prophet reminds me of the fact that the most emphasized Psalm in the Orthodox Church is Psalm 50 (51 for those following a Hebrew numbering,) which is the Psalm that David wrote after his repentance before Nathan the prophet (We in the Orthodox Church actually now refer to the king David -- whose repentance was a model of completeness -- as the "Prophet David" because of the fact that the Psalter, especially in the LXX, is so full of references to the coming Christ.)

This Psalm recurs so much in our services and personal prayers that it is hard not to know it by heart.

Here is the translation from the LXX that our church and many others use (from the HTM Psalter). It has been said that just about everything one needs to know about the Orthodox spiritual life is contained in this one Psalm:

Have mercy on me, O God, according to Thy great mercy; and according to the multitude of Thy compassions blot out my transgression.

Wash me thoroughly from mine iniquity, and cleanse me from my sin.

For I know mine iniquity, and my sin is ever before me.

Against Thee only have I sinned and done this evil before Thee, that Thou mightest be justified in Thy words, and prevail when Thou art judged.

For behold, I was conceived in iniquities, and in sins did my mother bear me.

For behold, Thou hast loved truth; the hidden and secret things of Thy wisdom hast Thou made manifest unto me.

Thou shalt sprinkle me with hyssop, and I shall be made clean; Thou shalt wash me, and I shall be made whiter than snow.

Thou shalt make me to hear joy and gladness; the bones that be humbled, they shall rejoice.

Turn Thy face away from my sins, and blot out all mine iniquities.

Create in me a clean heart, O God, and renew a right spirit within me.

Cast me not away from Thy presence, and take not Thy Holy Spirit from me.

Restore unto me the joy of Thy salvation, and with Thy governing Spirit establish me.

I shall teach transgressors Thy ways, and the ungodly shall turn back unto Thee.

Deliver me from blood-guiltiness, O God, Thou God of my salvation; my tongue shall rejoice in Thy righteousness.

O Lord, Thou shalt open my lips, and my mouth shall declare Thy praise.

For if Thou hadst desired sacrifice, I had given it; with whole-burnt offerings Thou shalt not be pleased.

A sacrifice unto God is a broken spirit; a heart that is broken and humbled God will not despise.

Do good, O Lord, in Thy good pleasure unto Sion, and let the walls of Jerusalem be builded.

Then shalt Thou be pleased with a sacrifice of righteousness, with oblation and whole-burnt offerings.

Then shall they offer bullocks upon Thine altar.

Do you believe that God couldn't have created the earth in six literal days?

Of course it is possible. Do you believe the Christ can feed His followers His flesh?

I certainly do not dismiss the idea because it "sounds" fantastical. I will assume it is literally true until someone can give me a scripturally sound reason why it should be interpreted otherwise.

When science shows that a passage in Scripture is NOT meant to be taken literally, WE must readjust WHAT God is trying to say. Let me quote you a something a smart guy once said...

"It is very important to me to show that the Bible is factually accurate. Yes, today we know that the mustard seed is not the smallest seed, but it was the smallest seed known to any farmer in that part of the world at that time. So, it was factually true to the very limit of any listener's possible ability to understand." a.k.a Forest Keeper, Post #4281

A word to the wise. When science tells us that the Earth was created over a millions of years, we must learn to realize that God wasn't teaching science, anymore than Jesus was teaching botany.

Why do you presume that God would employ error to teach us, TODAY, infallible truth?

Refer to your post above. God uses the information that man has available at the time to teach HIS revelation. The Scripture is a theological book. Thus, the information that man knows at the time is utilized by God without "correcting" man's lack of scientific knowledge. God's point of Scripture is to reveal Himself. Whether He uses stories, myths, parables, history, narrative, or whatever, the inerrant word is often behind the litarary devices that the human authors employ. Generally, we take the Scriptures as literal, unless we can determine that God has used something not meant to be taken as such. For example, aren't poems more expressive of human desires than the coldness of scientific or historical language? Thus, some of God's greatest revelations are found in the Psalms - which use poetic words and ideas to bring across the broad spectrum of human emotion.

The Biblical errors that you and Kosta are claiming are not self-evident. It takes a specific disbelief on your parts to cast those scriptures aside.

We don't disbelieve Scriptures is from God. We believe that God teaches man through even flawed human knowledge. If the author was not aware that the earth was round and said the entire world was flat, does that mean that God lied - since the entire world is not flat? Man's knowledge is not perfect, nor will it ever be. God speaks to us from where we are at.

Did God literally part the Red Sea?

This is a matter of faith, not something that science or history or botany can later disprove as being incorrect. Recognizing these differences will not disrupt your faith. Just because the mustard seed is NOT the smallest seed has nothing to do with the truth of the Resurrection.

I think that once you start throwing out these Biblical accounts because they do not match with what our scientists say today, then you have to throw out a huge portion of the text, and there is no way to know when fact stops and fiction starts.

I thought that when I first came to Christianity. No, we don't have to accept everything that science tells us as infallible. But on the other hand, we should not base our faith on every little detail of the Bible as if those details were revealed by God. Scripture is not that way. Scripture was written by MAN - INSPIRED by God. Man didn't just merely hold the pen/quill. God ensured that His message got written down. But man is often times wrong on what exactly that message is. If one approaches the Bible as a science tract, they will find themselves thoroughly embarrassed and have a lot of explaining to do. I don't find myself in that position because I know God taught man through other men. Whether that information got put into books or by word of mouth, we believe that it came to us through men. God protected what He wanted said, but we must try to recognize the literary genre and knowledge that man had available - through which God spoke to us. For example, is Jonah a parable or a real accounting? Who cares. The message that God wanted said is there - for example, that God's message is often seen more clearly by outsiders than the religiously self-righteous. That God's salvation is for all, not just the Jews. And so forth. IF there was a man named Jonah and he was swallowed by a whale, HOW does that effect my experience of God?

Regards

But yet, Adam sinned. As a result, we have lost that sanctifying presence that enables man to choose the good. This sanctifying presence is restored upon our regeneration. But all of this is not part of OUR nature. ... If our nature is sinful, then Christ did not take on a human nature. The Scriptures says that Christ was born sinless. Thus, if human nature = sinfulness, Christ only APPEARD human.

I suppose the only way this could work is that humans are not born with human nature, they are born with some other nature. Is there a name for this non-human nature that we are born with? Christ, therefore, was the only one born with a real human nature, a nature of sinlessness. But even here, we still run into all of your objections to Christ being born unlike us. OTOH, if you have Christ being born with a fallen nature, then you have Christ fighting against Himself. Very odd result.

So, Christ was born without sanctifying presence in order to be like us? Did He receive this sanctifying presence at His Baptism, as an adult believer? If so, how was Jesus able to do any good before that? It really seems like you are completely redefining what the human "nature" is. You are forced to reject that there is any blemish in human nature. Of course this goes directly against scripture.

What does any of that have to do with the Spirit interceding to the Father for us - IF all is "done"?

All is done but the doing, so to speak. Fortunately, we do not have to rely on ourselves for the doing, or else it would be as you say, and not really done. However, since God promises us He will take care of the doing we can know for sure that it will happen, thus, for all intents and purposes, it is "done" if one believes that God is reliable. The Spirit is a part of all this.

So how do you know you have "truly" asked for forgiveness of sins? Again, you are basing your "salvation" on a human quality - the manner of asking for forgiveness.

I would call it faith, but if I am basing my knowledge of my own salvation on a human quality, then you do the same thing. You rely on the teachings of extra-Biblical men for your salvation. You say the Spirit leads them only, I say the Spirit leads them and all believers.

FK: "Paul correctly reiterates that perseverance is necessary."

Perseverence from what? Falling away as the Jews did...

Yes, this is evidence that those Jews never had faith to begin with. I read 1 Cor 10:1-12 and it doesn't say that any of them ever had true faith, it says they acted like others of faith and practiced similar rituals. So what? Anyone can do that.

"For example, is Jonah a parable or a real accounting? Who cares. The message that God wanted said is there - for example, that God's message is often seen more clearly by outsiders than the religiously self-righteous. That God's salvation is for all, not just the Jews. And so forth. IF there was a man named Jonah and he was swallowed by a whale, HOW does that effect my experience of God?"

The significance of Jonah as seen by the Orthodox Church is far more than a simple morality tale as you describe above, although it is certainly also that.

The Prophet Jonah's prayer from the belly of the whale is one of the half-dozen or so passages from the OT most highlighted by the Church. It is one of the Biblical Canticles that form the basis for our hymn-form known as the canon. Therefore, the irmos (or "hook") that starts each ode of the canon ties into that canticle.

The most important typology seen in the life of Jonah is that of Christ's three day burial in the tomb. This is a recurrent theme in our hymnology.

A second theme is that of us being cast about on the sea of life, and of drowning in the abyss, and our need to call out to God for salvation, just as Jonah did. And Jonah's prayer reminds us that God's profound mercy is always waiting for us, and that it is our failure to turn to Him that keeps us from experiencing that mercy: "They that observe vain and false things have abandoned mercy for themselves."

One of the things that I have thought about a fair amount lately as a result of this thread is that the Gospels usually make it clear when Christ is telling a parable. The parables are very general, for the most part, and in these parables there are rarely much specificity of detail, unless there is some point to that detail (such as identifying the Good Samaritan as a Samaritan, rather than some unspecified person.)

Christ's references to Jonah and Ninevah in St. Matthew 12 and St. Luke 11, especially when taken in the context of the entire passages, personally don't strike me as being representing a shift into parable. The specificity of whom he is talking to and of the references he makes, is not at all similar to his telling of parables. He refers to these events as having actually been there to witness them (which of course, as the Lord God of the OT, he was.)

In fact, if we are to take as as a parable Christ's words: "For as Jonas was a sign unto the Ninevites, so shall also the Son of man be to this generation," then the direct equivalency of this statement leads inexorably to Christ saying that his own death and Resurrection would be a parable.

St. John Chrysostom touches on this very point, which is not surprising, given the fact that the Cappadocian Fathers were very consistent in their teaching that the events of human history recorded in Scripture were types -- not in a mythological or allegorical sense, but in God's acting through history to reveal himself to mankind. This is from his 43rd homily explaining the Gospel of St. Matthew:

"But see how exactly He expresses it, even though in a dark saying. For He said not, “In the earth,” but, “In the heart of the earth;” that He might designate His very sepulchre, and that no one might suspect a mere semblance.

And for this intent too did He allow three days, that the fact of His death might be believed. For not by the cross only doth He make it certain, and by the sight of all men, but also by the time of those days.

For to the resurrection indeed all succeeding time was to bear witness; but the cross, unless it had at the time many signs bearing witness to it, would have been disbelieved; and with this disbelief would have gone utter disbelief of the resurrection also.

Therefore He calls it also a sign. But had He not been crucified, the sign would not have been given. For this cause too He brings forward the type, that the truth may be believed.

For tell me, was Jonah in the whale’s belly a mere appearance? Nay, thou canst not say so. Therefore neither was Christ in the heart of the earth such. [i.e. neither was Christ's 3 day burial a mere appearance. -- A.]

Whence it is clear, that they who are diseased in Marcion’s way are children of the devil, blotting out these truths, to avoid the annulling whereof Christ did so many things, while to have them annulled the devil took such manifold pains: I mean, His cross and His passion."

[FK to jo kus] The Biblical errors that you and Kosta are claiming are not self-evident. It takes a specific disbelief on your parts to cast those scriptures aside

[jo kus to FK] We don't disbelieve Scriptures is from God

When did I say that I don't believe the Scriptures? "Seek and ye shall find," says the Lord. Did not +Thomas doubt and remain an Apostle? Why condemn someone who is struggling from the bottom of his heart but never abandons his faith nonetheless? It is faith after all, and I believe it regardless of what my reason says.

So, why condemn someone who believes Scripture is true and inerrant but not as you see it? I never said I wanted to throw any part out, or intentionally disbelieve? Perhaps you, the accusers, have failed to show that what you believe is the undisputed truth but can't show it?

Nonetheless, I take the position that I am the greatest sinner and this is my burden that I confess. It is not up to me to concern myself with your sins. God knows my intentions and He shall be my Judge.

Who are you to take away God's Freedom to designate men to provide visible manifestations of God's graces among us?

I am merely a humble defender of God's Holy word, and the sovereignty of God. :) I'm not saying that God couldn't do anything He wanted to, I'm saying He wouldn't do this because of the resulting carnage to His word that is necessarily thereby required.

Can you show one verse that PREVENTS God from dealing with men in such a way?

Perhaps not specifically, but you are the champion of things being true that are not in the Bible. I'm just saying that it is not consistent with scripture, as I have shown. Therefore, I don't believe it.

Catholics KNOW they have been forgiven of sin.

But how fleeting is this knowledge. It's not like knowing that 2 + 2 = 4, it is like knowing that it is sunny today, but who knows about tomorrow? My knowledge is like the former.

Protestants always wonder "did my sinner's prayer take?

HA! I don't think so. Ever since I learned about what God has to say about it, I've never had any worries.

I'll have to give your post serious thought prior to responding with any fullness.

I would like to address a couple of things, though.

First is your comment "The Christian Aristotelian (oxymoron, yes i know) believes that the historical Christ, the individual, was sucked back into the borg, into pure being, but was reincarnated as the Church. This reincarnation allows us halflings to participate in pure being to some extent while we are yet halflings..."

I didn't see this original post, but I can unequivocally state that the Orthodox Church does not take this kind of view at all. What you are articulating is an idea popularized as "extreme kenosis," and it has no place in our belief.

The clearest statement from Scripture that demonstrates that this cannot be true is of course that of the angels at the Ascension, who said to the Apostles that they would see Christ return again in like manner.

St. John of Damascus puts it thusly: "And the Lord shall come out of heaven, just as the holy apostles beheld Him going into heaven, perfect God and perfect man, with glory and power... Let no one, therefore, look for the Lord to come from earth, but out of Heaven, as He himself has made sure."

And again, St. John on the Holy Mysteries (i.e. Holy Communion): "The body which is born of the holy Virgin is in truth body united with divinity, not that the body which was received up into the heavens descends, but that the bread itself and the wine are changed into God's body and blood. But if you enquire how this happens, it is enough for you to learn that it was through the Holy Spirit, just as the Lord took on Himself flesh that subsisted in Him and was born of the holy Mother of God through the Spirit."

"...over against the Greek philosophy of meta-physical transformation"

If you mean that the following has roots in Greek philosophy, then I'm not quite sure what to say: "And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind..."

But that is a cheap shot. :-) Keep in mind that our understanding of salvation is inextricably linked with our understanding of Christology. If by "transformation," you mean a transformation from one nature to another, then Orthodoxy would completely reject that. For we do not even believe that Christ's human nature was transformed in any way.

St. John again: "It is worthy of note that the flesh of the Lord is not said to have been deified and made equal to God and God in respect of any change or alteration, or transformation, or confusion of nature....

...nor on the other hand, was the flesh, when deified, changed in its own nature or in its natural properties. For even after the union, both the natures abode unconfused and their properties unimpaired. But the flesh of the Lord received the riches of the divine energies through the purest union with the Word, that is to say, the union in subsistence, without entailing the loss of any of its natural attributes. For it is not in virtue of any energy of its own but through the Word united to it, that it manifests divine energy: for the flaming steel burns, not because it has been endowed in a physical way with burning energy, but because it has obtained this energy by its union with fire."

Thus, any "transformation" that takes place is not a transforming of ourselves into a divine nature, but rather the result of the "riches of the divine energies" through union with God.

Or as St. Paul says, "it is no longer I who live, but Christ who liveth in me." St. Paul obviously does not mean that Christ's body is inside of his body, or that his body has turned into Christ's body. He is rather talking about the "riches of glory" to which he repeatedly refers in his epistles.

"We see in the writings of the Patriarchs terms such as, "stasis". "kinises", "energia", "eremia", which are all greek philosophical terms based in Platonic or NeoPlatonic philosophy."

Most New Testament terms that were used by pagan Greek philosophers -- does that mean that the Apostles intended thereby to follow pagan Greek philosophical concepts?

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.