Sunday, February 24, 2008

From The Mailbag

This post continues a conversation from Founders. First, let's bring the readers here up-t0-date.

Mike Rucker wrote,

i'm not a fan of calvinism. it leads to what i determined were untenable conclusions. and, taken down to similarly ultimate terminii, so does arminianism
So, what you're saying, I take it, Mike, is that you have determined what is acceptable and unacceptable on the basis of what exactly? When I read statements like this, be it from Calvinists or nonCalvinists, I read the same thing I hear from High Church Roman Catholics who argue against Protestantism. They have an aprioristic idea of what is acceptable and unacceptable, so they say "Protestantism can't be true because if it is then..." We get this from the Orthodox too. In Orthodoxy, Christology controls everything. An exegetical conclusion is ruled out of bounds, even if it comes by way of sound exegetical thinking, on the basis that if true x is the result and x is unacceptable due to Orthodox tradition.


the lesson that we seem incapable of learning is that the answers are along a continuum, and do not reside at opposite ends.
So, I take it that binary logic escapes you?
did God intentionally make finding ultimate answers akin to nailing jello to a wall?
That's cute, but the question I have for you, Mike is this: Can you substantiate your position exegetically?
calvinism is no better - and no worse - than arminianism. and vice versa.
These are assertions in lieu of arguments.
God is no more sovereign than the free will man exercises. and vice versa.
Another assertion in lieu of an argument. We can figure this out easily. Where does the Bible define "free will" in libertarian terms? Please posit a theory of agent action and causality that you have derived from Scripture.
we want it to fit in a nice orderly outline here in the west - because that's how we do things.
Notice that on the one hand you're denying binary logic in your post and yet on the other, you are positing a binary difference between Eastern and Western thinking.

It's also fallacious. Christianity arose not from the West, but from the East. The "literal" method of the School of Antioch, from which the Grammatical Historical Method arose later comes not from "the West" but from the East. If you know of another way of interpreting the Bible, what's your alternative? Allegory?

All human beings employ logical thinking. We recognize truth and falsity, contradiction, etc. We are created in God's image, so we do this because we reflect God's mind in these ways. It's a basic presupposition, one you are taking for granted every time you form a sentence. Since logic is one of God's attributes, then we should certainly think that His revelation would be intelligible and that the propositions in the Bible can be linked together in a systematic, logical fashion.

Mike's reply was deleted by Tom Ascol per the rules he has for Founders. Mike has emailed me and wishes to continue this discussion. I am continuing it here, since he posted his comments publicly.

gee... now i know how samson must have felt.

can someone bring me the jawbone of an ass?

hey mike - looks like you've already got one - right under your nose!

ha, ha, ha, yeah, what a funny guy.


where to start, where to start. how about this: after millions of men have wrestled with these arguments for thousands of years, i do not have the pride nor the patience to explain to you that i have managed to figure it all out.

the corollary statement is this: you haven't either.

and it's a bit of humility that we need in nearly all circles today - from the water cooler, to the political arena, to the pulpit, to the ivory towers. however, i don't want it to be the old, 'agree to disagree' deal. i want us, this time, to use that old AA adage, 'take what we need and leave the rest.'
This is cute, but it doesn't tell us anything about truth. Is your position that truth cannot be known? If so, how do you know this? Wouldn't that be a truth statement?

gene said,
So, what you're saying, I take it, Mike, is that you have determined what is acceptable and unacceptable on the basis of what exactly?

i think that's an excellent starting point for all of us to look at. as i near the half-century mark on this third rock from the sun (yeah, i know, i know, i only look 25 - thanks), some things seem to almost have what you all would call a 'ring of (absolute) truth' about them. one of them is this: no matter how much you tell your kids how they should live, they won't assimilate all those lessons until they get out from under your wing and start living life. at that point, they can begin to put their walk to your talk, so to speak. in a nutshell: words only take them so far.
what i determine is acceptable and unacceptable, gene, in the juicy matters of life, is based on one main thing: the God Who i believe has been at work in my life. his characteristics. his persistence. his never-give-up-on-me-ism. and his intelligence and grace to allow me to have kids so i can see in my relationship with them a vivid picture of what his relationship with me is.

i think some guy said we could even call God, 'Father'. lots to learn in that little paradigm shift
How do you know what God is like, Mike? How do you know about His persistence? How do you know anything about him? Are you saying you're relying on your own autonomous intuitions? How do you measure your experience? What role does the Bible have in your understanding of God?

Mike, you said that you have determined what constitutes an acceptable/unacceptable consequence if Calvinism is true. On what basis? Shouldn't we let God determine what is unacceptable or acceptable? What I'm reading here is that you have come to this conclusion based on your own autonomous thinking, not anything the Bible says. Can you give us a nonarbitrary warrant for your intuitions? If not, how does your thinking differ, in principle, from that of the Village Atheist?

gene said,
When I read statements like this...etc. An exegetical conclusion is ruled out of bounds...etc.


exegesis is fun, but please - always wear a condom. gene, how many times do we need to parse the same verbs and arrive at the same pre-determined conclusions, only to find them again at odds with the guy across the aisle who is finishing up his own parsimony of the same verbs and arriving at his own pre-determined conclusions? like hawkeye said, "we looked in the back of your bible, frank - the devil did it." we know where those roads lead by now, i'm almost positive.

with calvinism, you always reach the point in the logic where God becomes somehow culpable for men spending eternity in hell. with arminianism, you always reach the point where it looks like Jesus didn't, in the end, really have to die because everyone could be saved.

1. Grammatical-Historical exegesis doesn't select for a particular interpretation of Scripture.

2. If you believe Calvinists are coming to Scripture with certain aprioristic ideas about God, then it's up to you to demonstrate this assertion.

3. Arminians do admit to using their ideas about the love of God and libertarian freedom.

4. If the Bible taught, as you say, that God is somehow culpable for men spending eternity in hell, wouldn't you be obligated to believe it?

it's just like on jeopardy: we already HAVE the answers.

perhaps our problem has been we've been using the wrong QUESTIONS.
What questions should we be asking? What's your alternative to exegeting Scripture?

gene said,
So, I take it that binary logic escapes you?

ha! let it never be said that i didn't always defend God's incredible sense of humor. no, gene, i've only spent my life in 1s and 0s as a Georgia Tech grad and an IT professional (but don't try this at home...). it's almost like He knew - maybe He did, after all, i mean, He's God, right? - that i would try that same approach with the Bible, and the deeper questions of life, and He was just going to sit back and laugh like hell watching me, well, like i said before, try my darndest to nail jello to the wall.

1. You said that "answers range along a continuum." That struck me and at least one other in the combox as a denial of binary logic. Is it your position that truth can contradict itself?

2. You're comparing, I gather, the Bible to "jello on the wall." This is an assertion if lieu of an argument.

3. Reading your post, it strikes me that you're mirror-reading. The Bible isn't the problem, it's your thinking process that's appropriately labeled "jello on the wall."

which brings me to another of gene's points:

That's cute, but the question I have for you, Mike is this: Can you substantiate your position exegetically?

i not only can substantiate your position, gene, i can substantiate mine, too, and just about everyone's. that's what makes this so dangblasted irritating... (i hear God laughing at me again...)
Then, by all means, Mike, present us with an exegetical argument for your position.

gene said,
These are assertions in lieu of arguments.

maybe, but they are simply the final words of someone who has walked both paths, and learned all the arguments, and learned that, in the end, God really didn't intend for us to do all this arguing.


Somehow, I don't think you've "learned all the arguments" at all, considering that, on your blog, you've accused people of "bibliolatry." It seems to me, Mike, that you're operating with a double standard, namely, you think people are being "judgmental" and believing things that you find "unacceptable," and you are sitting in judgment over them based on your own autonomous thinking. How is that not irrational?

I offered,
God is no more sovereign than the free will man exercises. and vice versa.
to which gene said,
Another assertion in lieu of an argument.

two weeks ago i was taking my kids to school on a rainy morning. we came around a curve just in time to see a car coming the opposite direction leave the road and go airborne. we pulled over as fast as we could, and ran back to see what shape the car and driver were in. the car had wound up in a clearing, the driver was ok. i walked back up to where the car had left the road. she sideswiped a lone tree that pushed her back up on the shoulder and kept her car from rolling over and down the embankment, where she no doubt would have been killed. driving 40 or 45 mph, it was just a matter of milliseconds that could have placed her either ahead of, or after, that tree.

i heard God say, "see how it all works? that free will and sovereignty thing?"

i said, "uh...i'm not sure."

he said, "don't tell anyone, but neither am I... but here's the thing: somehow, together, we get where I want us to go."

i said, "right."


1. Mike, when you're hearing voices, I suggest it's not God's voice you're hearing. You may need to visit a specialist for some medication. I used to live in Midtown Atlanta myself, I've seen my share of mental illness there. So, I'll ask you, since you deny the clarity of the Bible, how would you know it is God speaking if God did speak to you?

2. This story does nothing to illustrate your point. Please argue your statement: God is no more sovereign than the free will man exercises. and vice versa. You could begin simply by defining terms like "free will."

gene continued,
Notice that on the one hand you're denying binary logic in your post and yet on the other, you are positing a binary difference between Eastern and Western thinking.

i'm not denying anything.
I'm following your own argument. Earlier you said that answers range along a continuum. That's a denial of binary logic. Yet later, you posit a binary difference between Eastern and Western thinking.
the point i'm trying to make is that, here in the west, we have met our enemy and he is us. look at politics and congress and talk radio and the presidential race. we have reached the end of the road, where we have once and for all finally split into two camps who each intend to sit there like brats until the other side comes across the aisle.
How do "politics and congress and talk radio and the presidential race" have any bearing on theological truth?

we've answered all the easy questions on life's test by now. it's essay questions from here on, gene. the bible will give us guidance, God will give us wisdom, but the answer we pick today may be different a year from now. on everything. yes, everything.
So, in the end, you have only your own autonomous reasoning process to guide you. Sorry, Mike, you can chase your Cartesian demons all day. I'll take Scripture over that any day. If that's biblioatry, I'm guilty as charged.

10 comments:

  1. thanks for the free press, and the thoughtful comments, gene.

    can i ask you one question - and i think your answer will go a long way towards showing the differences you and i have, specifically around absolute truth, the inerrancy of the Bible, and a view of an unchanging God.

    here it is: what, if anything, does the Bible tell us about God's position on the internet?

    thanks - i look forward to reading your reply.

    mike rucker
    http://mikerucker.wordpress.com

    ReplyDelete
  2. Bible-believing Christian site TheAmericanView.com; please visit, comment.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Gene,

    I think you messed up a bit on the formatting around this paragraph:

    "exegesis is fun, but please - always wear a condom. gene, how many times do we need to parse the same verbs and arrive at the same pre-determined conclusions, only to find them again at odds with the guy across the aisle who is finishing up his own parsimony of the same verbs and arriving at his own pre-determined conclusions? like hawkeye said, "we looked in the back of your bible, frank - the devil did it." we know where those roads lead by now, i'm almost positive."

    I got a bit confused where you were talking and where Mike was.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Carrie,

    Actually it's easy. The part that makes sense is the part that Gene said.

    >:-D

    ReplyDelete
  5. Mike asked:
    ---
    what, if anything, does the Bible tell us about God's position on the internet?
    ---

    The problem with this question is that it's not specific enough. What are you referring to by the "internet"? Do you mean the hardware & software that enables people to communicate across vast distances, or do you mean the content of various websites? There's a vast difference between the two.

    Furthermore, it seems to me that sometimes instead of clarifying ambiguity you resort to the "it's all along a spectrum" claims. IOW, you hide in ambiguity to avoid appearing dogmatic (perhaps because you fear being wrong?). But once ambiguity is removed (like, for instance, when one side clearly defines what they are talking about), you can no longer pretend the logical binary doesn't exist.

    In other words, either a proposition is true or it is not true; it is not both at the same time and in the same relationship (a man cannot be both a father and not a father at the same time and in the same relationship). If you tweak the relationship, however, you can get a proposition being both true and false (a man can be both a father and not a father at different times and/or in different relationships). If you ignore the fact that the relationship has changed, you can argue: "It's all a continuum from fatherhood to non-fatherhood, and who knows where it really balances out?" But as soon as someone points out you're playing with ambiguity (the true jello on the wall) you can no longer use this tactic.

    ReplyDelete
  6. >Actually it's easy. The part that
    >makes sense is the part that Gene
    >said.

    ha! that was funny, peter. i even laughed out loud.

    of course, i have to ask you: who helped you come up with it?...

    your answer to my question is no less 'jello' that what you accuse mine of being.

    but the answer to my question is a lot more simple than that.

    it shouldn't surprise me, but the book you all like to throw at everybody was better made for reading and studying. perhaps you should try that occasionally... maybe everybody you're throwing it at will give it back to you if you ask them.

    (as we go to commercial the score is: peter 1, mike 1...)

    mike rucker
    http://mikerucker.wordpress.com

    ReplyDelete
  7. Mike said:
    ---
    of course, i have to ask you: who helped you come up with it?...
    ---

    Well I was driving my car and side-swiped a van. One thing led to another, and a voice came out saying: "Deposit another $0.25 to continue." I said: "Is that you, God?" And the voice said: "Player 2 Has Exited The Game."

    I figured it was a sign of how freewill interacts with determination.

    Mike said:
    ---
    your answer to my question is no less 'jello' that what you accuse mine of being.
    ---

    That's good since I didn't answer your question but instead asked you to clarify what you meant by your question.

    Mike said:
    ---
    it shouldn't surprise me, but the book you all like to throw at everybody was better made for reading and studying. perhaps you should try that occasionally... maybe everybody you're throwing it at will give it back to you if you ask them.
    ---

    At what point did I even quote anything from Scripture at all to you? I asked you to clarify what you meant by your question and pointed out the problems associated with the logical problem of ambiguity.

    I have to wonder if you're talking to me or somebody you invented.

    Mike said:
    ---
    (as we go to commercial the score is: peter 1, mike 1...)
    ---

    I always like hockey....

    ReplyDelete
  8. can i ask you one question - and i think your answer will go a long way towards showing the differences you and i have, specifically around absolute truth, the inerrancy of the Bible, and a view of an unchanging God.

    here it is: what, if anything, does the Bible tell us about God's position on the internet?


    1. How is this convertible with discussing, for example, Calvinism and Arminianism?

    2. Who here is arguing that the Bible is, for example, a science book?

    3. Why not just come right out and state your position instead of hiding in a cloak of obscurity? Instead of asking a question and punting to me, when I've already asked you some questions and critiqued your comments at Founders, just be straightforward enough to argue your point.

    What you're doing, as far as I can tell, is using your own autonomous intuitions in order to posit an acceptable or unacceptable outcome and then, if Scripture doesn't meet that standard, you either (a) reject it's authority, or (b) reinterpret it. This isn't very different from somebody like Barr, who will exegete Genesis 1 to 3 no differently in substance that a standard conservative commentator. The difference between Barr and, let's say, Poythress or Kline isn't over the exegesis of the text, it's over the authority of the text.

    On what basis do you make the determination that a particular outcome is unacceptable? To take one example, what you said about God being complicit in people going to hell. What is "unacceptable" about this? If that's what the Bible actually teaches, shouldn't we accept what it says?

    Or, we can entertain another question. How do you know what God is like apart from the Bible? Common grace only gets you so far.

    You have problems with absolute truth? Is that an absolute or relative statement?

    ReplyDelete
  9. put the shotgun down, gene - you don't want buckshot messing up the head of this trophy deer in your sights...

    when i went through a rough period during which i had to question a lot of what i believed from childhood, i came out of that with a commitment to myself that i would not try to convert (or "un"convert) others, realizing that the path i had been on was incredibly painful, and not for everyone. most people - not only bible-literalist Christians - who have faith don't need to have that faith questioned by me.

    but, i seem to have a weakness for getting in groups like this and trying to stir the pot. no personal offense meant, but i hope the particular strain of Christianity that you all preach dies out with our generation.

    that said, let me share my piece on God and the internet. i sincerely ask you to step outside the paradigm you're in and look back at your beliefs objectively. trust me, it is the hardest thing in the world to do, but i think your faith will be stronger, not weaker - and your God bigger - when you do that.

    everything we need to know about God's apparent position on the internet comes surprisingly early in Scripture: genesis 11, the account of the tower of babel.

    to refresh your memory, God comes 'walking on earth' and sees man's great technical achievement of the day: a pile of rocks. man, in the scientific ignorance he was to remain in for thousands of years, believed he could stack rocks high enough to reach the heavens.

    what's more frightening is that God actually seemed worried that man might.

    so, God decides to submit a question, "What should I do when man tries his hand at technological endeavors like this?" to a beta release of "Ask Jeevesus." the answer He receives: "This would be the appropriate time to scatter them all to remote parts of the earth and give them all different languages." apparently, Jeevesus forgot that one day we'd be trying to unite everyone again via the Great Commission, plus we'd have that crazy speaking in tongues thing where one guy could speak and everyone would hear what he was saying in his own language.

    still, God thought this was a good idea, did as directed, dusted off His hands and said, "There - that'll fix him."

    well, it should be obvious to the most casual observer that, if God felt threatened by a pile of rocks, the internet must have him scared spitless.

    which should cause the objective reader to reach one or more of a number of possible conclusions:

    a) the Tower of Babel account is, like many other things in Scripture (e.g., Genesis 1 and 2, Genesis 6, etc.), simply a myth - this particular one used to explain how man got to different sections of the planet with different languages. it is a myth that has a good moral, but a myth nonetheless;

    b) God, apparently, isn't the same yesterday, today and tomorrow, as it appears He has grown a large set of spiritual cojones since His encounter with the rockpile;

    c) the fact that the bible contains myths need not affect one's faith, only the concrete structures erected around it by the obviously faulty and, because of the presence of this myth, indefensible 'inerrant bible' stance.

    d) the bible was never intended to be a one-stop shopping destination - if nothing else, we have to develop reasoning skills outside of it, and use those skills to balance what we read there with other sources and our own life experiences.

    e) there is no such thing as 'the eternal word of God' that does not have a capital 'W', and the zipper on the cover of the 'word' that people want to elevate above the 'W' Word needs to be opened occasionally so that the little god kept in there can get some air.

    since gene asked me something twice, i'll go ahead and respond, and then move on. he asked me, To take one example, what you said about God being complicit in people going to hell. What is "unacceptable" about this? If that's what the Bible actually teaches, shouldn't we accept what it says?

    obviously not. this conclusion should be compared with the God one sees at work in his own life. i feel sorry for you, gene, if this is the God that has been at work in yours - He has operated quite differently in mine. like anything we read, we have to use our God-given reasoning abilities, an objective look at the world around us, and the events in our personal lives to determine a statement's validity. reaching the conclusion you talked about made me realize there was something wrong in the theology that had brought me there. unlike you, i was never able to throw up my hands in the presence of obvious falsehoods and say, 'well, it has to be true - my interpretation of what is written in the bible confirms it. God will obviously explain all of this when i get to heaven.' (if you're interested, i have a piece related to this on my blog called, "good and bad, i define these words.") i had to ask further questions, and admit that my conclusion was ultimately a slap in God's face - certainly the God who had pursued me relentlessly and forgiven me repeatedly.

    thanks for the interchange. i now return you to your regularly scheduled discussions.

    please think about what i said. i believe that any meaningful presence of our faith in the world depends on it.

    mike rucker
    http://mikerucker.wordpress.com

    ReplyDelete
  10. but, i seem to have a weakness for getting in groups like this and trying to stir the pot. no personal offense meant, but i hope the particular strain of Christianity that you all preach dies out with our generation.

    Oh, I should think there is considerable offense meant here. You're just trying to cloak it in respectable attire. We've heard this before from the likes of John Shelby Spong.

    God decides to submit a question, "What should I do when man tries his hand at technological endeavors like this?"

    The text does not include a question.

    "What should I do when man tries his hand at technological endeavors like this?" to a beta release of "Ask Jeevesus." the answer He receives: "This would be the appropriate time to scatter them all to remote parts of the earth and give them all different languages." apparently, Jeevesus forgot that one day we'd be trying to unite everyone again via the Great Commission, plus we'd have that crazy speaking in tongues thing where one guy could speak and everyone would hear what he was saying in his own language.

    The fact that you would write this in such language that belittles the text betrays your lack of integrity and ability to actually interact with the text.

    well, it should be obvious to the most casual observer that, if God felt threatened by a pile of rocks, the internet must have him scared spitless.

    Your construal of the story is way off the mark. God is not "threatened" by the building of a ziggurat. Rather, God confounds the languages and thus the thinking processes of humanity because humanity is not fulfilling the terms of the Noahic Covenant, which is, in turn, a recapitulation of the Adamic Covenant in which the Covenant of Creation is embedded. God had already destroyed humanity in the Flood for this failure, so this is an act of discipline and an act of mercy.

    By the way, it's also reversed in Acts 2, where the same table of nations appears at the time the gospel is heard by the multitude, each in his own tongue. God "forgot" nothing.

    No wonder you have such a low view of the Bible and a contempt for biblical Christianity, you haven't made the least bit of an attempt to exegete the text.

    So, how exactly does this tell us something about the internet? Of course, it doesn't. If it does, it shows us that the internet is a benefit of the New Covenant, and under the New Covenant the gospel spreads in centrifugal fashion, not centripetal fashion. So, if this text is a prooftext for how God feels about the internet, it is only so in light of Acts 2.

    a) the Tower of Babel account is, like many other things in Scripture (e.g., Genesis 1 and 2, Genesis 6, etc.), simply a myth - this particular one used to explain how man got to different sections of the planet with different languages. it is a myth that has a good moral, but a myth nonetheless;

    "Myth" is a particular literary genre. What characteristics of "myth" are present in Genesis 1, 2, etc.? Talking serpents? Talking serpents do not select for "myth." They do select for typology. Try interacing with, oh, let's see, Vern Poythress or Meredith Kline or Kurt Wise, or even James Barr.

    b) God, apparently, isn't the same yesterday, today and tomorrow, as it appears He has grown a large set of spiritual cojones since His encounter with the rockpile;

    An assertion, not an argument.

    c) the fact that the bible contains myths need not affect one's faith, only the concrete structures erected around it by the obviously faulty and, because of the presence of this myth, indefensible 'inerrant bible' stance.

    Another assertion built on a faulty premise.

    d) the bible was never intended to be a one-stop shopping destination - if nothing else, we have to develop reasoning skills outside of it, and use those skills to balance what we read there with other sources and our own life experiences.

    We've never argued that the Bible is a "one stop shopping destination" for all things on this blog. For example, we've never argued that the Bible is a science textbook. You seem to be confusing what a group of Reformed bloggers who subscribe to Covenant Theology believe with a what a group of dispensationalists claim. We interpret the Bible according to the GHM, not a "literal" hermeneutic. We also don't adhere to bibilomancy in these parts, namely the Henry Blackaby school of 'finding God's will." The irony here is that, while you reject the Bible, you're still practicing the Henry Blackaby method.


    obviously not. this conclusion should be compared with the God one sees at work in his own life.

    How do you know that God is a work in your life apart from the Bible? You have yet to answer this question.

    i feel sorry for you, gene, if this is the God that has been at work in yours - He has operated quite differently in mine. Actually, I find this doctrine in Scripture in a very straightforward manner. Try Proverbs 16:4 and Jude 4, just for starters.

    And it's not as if this is a uniquely Calvinist issue. Arminians believe this too, though they go to great lengths to deny it. They believe God knows who will believe and not believe before they are created by God, and yet He creates them anyway. So, how would their position be preferable to ours? The only alternative left for you is universalism. Are you a universalist? If so, on what basis do you know this to be true?

    we have to use our God-given reasoning abilities, an objective look at the world around us, and the events in our personal lives to determine a statement's validity.

    1. How are your reasoning abilities "objective?" How do you know this?
    2. A look at the world around you requires an objective epistemic warrant for you to call it "objective." What is that warrant? Your "reason?"
    3. Events in our personal lives? Well, by your own admission, God works differently in different people's lives, so this can't be a nonarbitrary warrant either.

    reaching the conclusion you talked about made me realize there was something wrong in the theology that had brought me there. A classic case of begging the question. How do you know that this is an unacceptable conclusion? All you've done is appeal to your subjective experience. That's not an objective warrant.

    unlike you, i was never able to throw up my hands in the presence of obvious falsehoods and say, 'well, it has to be true - my interpretation of what is written in the bible confirms it. God will obviously explain all of this when i get to heaven.'

    Falsehoods? Earlier you said that answers range along a continuum. Now you're invoking binary logic for truth and falsity. Which is it, MIke? Is there such a thing as true and false, or do all life's answers range along a continuum?

    What "obvious" falsehoods do you have in mind?

    please think about what i said. i believe that any meaningful presence of our faith in the world depends on it.

    You're just an atheist masquerading as a theist and pretending to be a Christian. Your faith and mine are clearly not the same faith.

    ReplyDelete