Saved From What?

alexandriaisburning said:

As typical, your response is always this. When confronted with a challenge to your thinking that you are unwilling---or unable---to engage, the end result is the cop-out appeal to one's "Spirit-validated" interpretation (which I, of course, could claim the same...).

Click to expand...

Who knows the meaning of the Words of the Holy Spirit but the Holy Spirit Himself?

It seems that if He truly dwelt in you He would explain the plain Words that He spoke concerning Hell.

The Words are very clear when it comes to the existence of Hell and what it is like.

I say again that they should be very clear to anyone who has the Spirit dwelling in him.

You can examine yourself as to whether that is true in your case. I won't be a judge of such things - at least not in a dogmatic way.

There could be other reasons for your inability.

Pride - with a resultant grieving of the Spirit - might account for it.

It may well be in your case as was charged against Paul by Festus. Perhaps your great learning is driving you mad. That would account for your being unable to understand the plain teaching of our Lord.

Marvin Knox said:

Who knows the meaning of the Words of the Holy Spirit but the Holy Spirit Himself?

It seems that if He truly dwelt in you He would explain the plain Words that He spoke concerning Hell.

Click to expand...

And who's to say that my understanding isn't informed by the Holy Spirit? Certainly not you...

Marvin Knox said:

The Words are very clear when it comes to the existence of Hell and what it is like.

Click to expand...

Very clear "to you". You continue to ignore the blatant biases that you bring to the text, taking your personal subjectivities and presuppositions as normative for everyone. But interpretation simply doesn't work that way. Open your eyes and stop deceiving yourself.

Marvin Knox said:

There could be other reasons for your inability.

Click to expand...

Yes, one primary reason is that you are simply bad at interpreting Scripture. That would certainly be an explanation for our disagreement.

Marvin Knox said:

Pride - with a resultant grieving of the Spirit - might account for it.

Click to expand...

The same could be true for you. Perhaps you should examine yourself before so arrogantly suggesting such a course of action for others. Honestly, your arrogance is becoming breathtaking.

thatbrian said:

There is another reason why people seem to not see the obvious, Marvin. When we intentionally disregard truth, we will eventually be given over and blinded.

Click to expand...

Indeed, it does appear possible that Marvin is blind (whether willingly or otherwise) and incapable of honest interpretation.

alexandriaisburning said:

Indeed, it does appear possible that Marvin is blind (whether willingly or otherwise) and incapable of honest interpretation.

Click to expand...

I cannot speak for Marvin, but in your case I believe I see where you are blind. You have this idea that if you were able to push God out of the picture as much as possible, that all men are completely equal having within them the ability to obtain/acquire/advance the same as any other. In other words you believe that every person has the possibility to do whatever he pleases.

Yet what man, on his own, is capable of scaling the chasm between himself and God? When the message is given "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved", the opportunity to believe and be saved has been presented. How simple an offer, right? Or is it? If all are given the opportunity, and all have the potential to do whatever he wants, knowing full well the terrible consequences of NOT believing, why will all not believe? What is to stop them from believing and escaping such a fate? What prevents a man from believing except his very own nature, having a hard heart that which prevents him from believing? Nothing but his own nature, because as much as you'd like to believe otherwise, God must be involved in a man's salvation. He is the only one who can change the condition of men so that they are made willing to believe and be saved.

When you consider the influence that God has on His creation, men are not equal and able to obtain/acquire/advance the same as any other. Experience and Scriptures clearly show otherwise.

alexandriaisburning said:

And who's to say that my understanding isn't informed by the Holy Spirit? Certainly not you...............Very clear "to you". You continue to ignore the blatant biases that you bring to the text, taking your personal subjectivities and presuppositions as normative for everyone. But interpretation simply doesn't work that way. Open your eyes and stop deceiving yourself.........................Yes, one primary reason is that you are simply bad at interpreting Scripture. That would certainly be an explanation for our disagreement........................The same could be true for you. Perhaps you should examine yourself before so arrogantly suggesting such a course of action for others. Honestly, your arrogance is becoming breathtaking.

Click to expand...

We could just settle this by comparing the number of people here who agree with my points vs. your points on this subject and settle it all that way, I suppose. But that isn't really necessary IMO.

The words and warnings of our Lord are so clear in scripture that anyone should be able to understand them.

The commentaries, documents and creeds throughout the church age testify to the truth of my interpretations. Shall we compare notes on those as well?

Unless - of course - you think that the majority of the people involved in those interpretations were bereft of the Spirit of God.

I've read back through many of your posts. Talk about arrogance. It really was a breathtaking experience - and not just concerning arrogance.

They fulfilled everything I have thought about your ideas on scripture in many areas. You are a liberal in more than this one doctrine. That's very often the case concerning people who question the idea of Hell as an eternal punishment executed by God for sin.

People can decide for themselves if that is a good thing or a bad thing. I'm just pointing it out.

GillDouglas said:

I cannot speak for Marvin, but in your case I believe I see where you are blind. You have this idea that if you were able to push God out of the picture as much as possible, that all men are completely equal having within them the ability to obtain/acquire/advance the same as any other. In other words you believe that every person has the possibility to do whatever he pleases.

Click to expand...

Huh? I haven't said anything regarding the "ability" of human persons. This is just your unrestrained biases leading you to unnecessary and unwarranted conclusions. Do try to stay on topic.

Marvin Knox said:

We could just settle this by comparing the number of people here who agree with my points vs. your points on this subject and settle it all that way, I suppose. But that isn't really necessary IMO.

Click to expand...

How would that settle anything? Popularity does not equate to truth...surely you agree with this.

Marvin Knox said:

The words and warnings of our Lord are so clear in scripture that anyone should be able to understand them.

Click to expand...

"...are so clear [to those that share my philosophical biases]"...

Yes, we've established that it is unsurprising that you find your interpretations of Scripture to be "so clear"; given your presuppositions and starting hermeneutical biases, obviously your interpretations appear "clear" to you. I don't deny that. What I do deny is that this self-referential clarity is normative for everyone who reads the Scriptures; you have given no basis upon which such an assumption should be accepted.

Marvin Knox said:

I've read back through many of your posts. Talk about arrogance. It really was a breathtaking experience - and not just concerning arrogance.

Click to expand...

Hopefully it was enlightening and corrective to your ways of thinking as well.

Marvin Knox said:

They fulfilled everything I have thought about your ideas on scripture in many areas. You are a liberal in more than this one doctrine. That's very often the case concerning people who question the idea of Hell as an eternal punishment executed by God for sin.

Click to expand...

It is easy to label others and ignore their challenges to one's thinking, instead of dealing directly with what are legitimate questions that they might raise. If you are incapable of engaging these topics in an intellectually honest way, just admit it and move on.

alexandriaisburning said:

How would that settle anything? Popularity does not equate to truth...surely you agree with this.

Click to expand...

I do agree with that. I didn't say that it would settle anything.

alexandriaisburning said:

It is easy to label others and ignore their challenges to one's thinking, instead of dealing directly with what are legitimate questions that they might raise. If you are incapable of engaging these topics in an intellectually honest way, just admit it and move on.

Click to expand...

I agree with you here as well concerning your first sentence above.

Also, I am capable of engaging in an intellectually honest way.

So let's get on with it shall we?

The topic at hand is, "Saved from what?".

You started out by claiming that my answer to the question (from God) was absurd and a philosophical dead end.

alexandriaisburning said:

How absurd. Being saved from Godself by Godself is a patently ridiculous idea and a philosophical dead-end.

Click to expand...

How is my answer absurd?

How is it a dead end "philosophically"? (This statement particularly intrigues me considering some of your other "philosophical" musings in other areas.)

You further said,

alexandriaisburning said:

If I were Reformed, I would say "the caprice of divine will".

Click to expand...

Caprice is:
1. A sudden, impulsive, and seemingly unmotivated notion or action
2. A disposition to do things impulsively

Where did you get the idea that Reformed theologians view God or any of His actions as capricious?

You said,

alexandriaisburning said:

Certainly, but you are assuming quite a bit in the definition of "wrath". There are a significant number of ways in which "wrath" can be interpreted with arriving at the insipid idea that humans must be "saved from God, by God".

Click to expand...

Tell us about these ways that "wrath" can be interpreted and tell us how it applied to Hell.

alexandriaisburning said:

We don't need saving from the wrath of God, for in our own sinfulness we find a sufficient amount of "wrath" to last an eternity. What we need is a rescue from our own prisons.

Click to expand...

Spoken like a true liberal.


If Hell is not as depicted by our Lord, and if God isn't the one who consigns us to Hell - what is Hell in your view and how does one end up in Hell?

How is your refusal to read the texts concerning Hell as literally as possible not bringing your own presumptions to the process of interpretation?

alexandriaisburning said:

Indeed, it does appear possible that Marvin is blind (whether willingly or otherwise) and incapable of honest interpretation.

Click to expand...

Please help me to see. I'm trying so hard.

Help us all to see please. All we can see is a proud liberal philosopher trying to change widely accepted doctrine.

That's OK, I suppose. But you are the one who needs to supply good reason before anyone is likely go along with you.

So far - you've come up short.

Marvin Knox said:

I do agree with that. I didn't say that it would settle anything.

Click to expand...

Actually, you did say it: "We could just settle this by comparing the number of people..."

Marvin Knox said:

Also, I am capable of engaging in an intellectually honest way.

Click to expand...

Could have fooled me. So many threads in, and I have yet to see evidence of it. Perhaps you're ready to start?

Marvin Knox said:

You started out by claiming that my answer to the question (from God) was absurd and a philosophical dead end.

How is my answer absurd?

How is it a dead end "philosophically"? (This statement particularly intrigues me considering some of your other "philosophical" musings in other areas.)

Click to expand...

It's absurd because if the "end" of salvation is union with God in Christ, then you are understood as being united with the one whom from you are supposedly being saved. This is like being saved from a snake by being swallowed whole by the same snake.

You have in mind "being saved from the consequences that God capriciously doles out", but in your frequently-demonstrated imprecise use of language, you equate the same with the nature and being of God.

But even if we forgive your imprecise speech and assume what you really meant, the conclusion is still equally absurd. This is necessarily true, as you can have no assurance that this "state" of salvation will persist. That is, if God can capriciously decide against punishing you, what is to guarantee that God won't later, and will equal caprice, change positions? If God's choice in not punishing you was a free choice, we must allow for (and possibly expect, given the capricious nature of these decisions) that an equally free choice might change your position to this salvation.

So, then, you are not ultimately saved "from God", as this God who has capriciously pardoned you might, and with equal caprice, damn you. Your relationship to the caprice of the divine will has not changed, only the particular state in which you might currently exist.

Marvin Knox said:

Caprice is:
1. A sudden, impulsive, and seemingly unmotivated notion or action
2. A disposition to do things impulsively

Where did you get the idea that Reformed theologians view God or any of His actions as capricious?

Click to expand...

It's the necessary philosophical conclusion based on the free choices of God that the Reformed understand God to make prior to the creation of the universe (which is also equally absurd, but dealt with elsewhere). If I were Reformed, I would be intellectually honest about the necessary conclusions of the philosophical underpinnings of the theology I affirmed. Thus, that is the language I would use, and rightly so.

Marvin Knox said:

Tell us about these ways that "wrath" can be interpreted and tell us how it applied to Hell.

Click to expand...

I've written enough on this today. I'll try to come back later.

alexandriaisburning said:

Could have fooled me. So many threads in, and I have yet to see evidence of it. Perhaps you're ready to start?

Click to expand...

That kind of insult won't get us anywhere near a meaningful dialog.

I have never said that your conversation isn't intelligent - at least I don't think so. I have only said that your logic leaves something to be desired in my opinion.

alexandriaisburning said:

It's absurd because if the "end" of salvation is union with God in Christ, then you are understood as being united with the one whom from you are supposedly being saved. This is like being saved from a snake by being swallowed whole by the same snake.

Click to expand...

So people in Hell are saved and united with God?

Are you a believer of universal salvation for all?

alexandriaisburning said:

You have in mind "being saved from the consequences that God capriciously doles out", but in your frequently-demonstrated imprecise use of language, you equate the same with the nature and being of God.

Click to expand...

Any talk about God being "capricious" has only come from you.

I certainly don't believe that God does anything capriciously - nor does any Reformed theologian that I know of.

alexandriaisburning said:

..............but in your frequently-demonstrated imprecise use of language, you equate the same with the nature and being of God.

Click to expand...

I equate all thing that God brings to past as demonstrations of what is part of the innate knowledge of God.

There is a difference.

What you suggest is that I believe is pantheism.

"... he is before all things, and in him all things consist." Colossians 1:17

"...in Him we live and move and exist." Acts 17:28

Each person can determine for himself what He thinks about what God says in these verses and elsewhere.

But what He definitely does not mean is that God is the universe and that the universe is God. That is indeed heresty.

What I actually believe is that God is absolutely omniscient.

He is omnipresent as well. He is not only transcendent - but immanent in all things as well. He not only creates out of nothing. He also providentially controls everything through His omnipresence.

There is a world of difference between that and pantheism.

alexandriaisburning said:

But even if we forgive your imprecise speech and assume what you really meant, the conclusion is still equally absurd. This is necessarily true, as you can have no assurance that this "state" of salvation will persist. That is, if God can capriciously decide against punishing you, what is to guarantee that God won't later, and will equal caprice, change positions? If God's choice in not punishing you was a free choice, we must allow for (and possibly expect, given the capricious nature of these decisions) that an equally free choice might change your position to this salvation.

Click to expand...

You are the only one who has said anything about God being "capricious".

God has given us ample assurances in His Word about the eternal nature of our status. The gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable. Salvation is a gift.

God has also given non-believers ample warning that His wrath against unforgiven sin is eternal.

alexandriaisburning said:

So, then, you are not ultimately saved "from God", as this God who has capriciously pardoned you might, and with equal caprice, damn you. Your relationship to the caprice of the divine will has not changed, only the particular state in which you might currently exist.

Click to expand...

I have no idea where you got the idea that I or any so called "Reformed" theologian believes for one minute that God is capricious.

This is a straw man of your own construction and I don't need to defend myself against your straw men.

alexandriaisburning said:

It's the necessary philosophical conclusion based on the free choices of God that the Reformed understand God to make prior to the creation of the universe (which is also equally absurd, but dealt with elsewhere). If I were Reformed, I would be intellectually honest about the necessary conclusions of the philosophical underpinnings of the theology I affirmed. Thus, that is the language I would use, and rightly so.

Click to expand...

You seem to take some pride in your knowledge of the principles of philosophy. Yet your knowledge of those principles is evidently very weak.

You have arrived at and continue to arrive at some conclusions that basic logic do not dictate.

I may not be as "precise" as you in my language. But my conclusions are head and shoulders above yours.

alexandriaisburning said:

I've written enough on this today. I'll try to come back later.

Click to expand...

Me too.

Marvin Knox said:

So people in Hell are saved and united with God?

Are you a believer of universal salvation for all?

Click to expand...

Please do try to keep up. We're talking about the "saved". If you want to talk about universal reconciliation, please start a new thread and I'll be happy to engage you there.

Marvin Knox said:

Any talk about God being "capricious" has only come from you.

Click to expand...

Yes, as I said, if I were a believer in Reformed theology, this is the language I would use based on my principle of being intellectually honest in expressing my views. As "caprice" is the only philosophically consistent way in which to describe the god of Calvinism, that is the language I would use in my efforts to be precise.

That the Reformed don't use this language isn't surprising...I don't expect the majority of the Reformed to be intellectually honest enough to analyze the necessary philosophical foundations of their theological beliefs.

Marvin Knox said:

I certainly don't believe that God does anything capriciously - nor does any Reformed theologian that I know of.

Click to expand...

I don't doubt that. You'd have to dig much deeper into the foundations of your belief to come to this conclusion.

Marvin Knox said:

What you suggest is that I believe is pantheism.

Click to expand...

I don't think you believe in pantheism, but it is one of few possible outcomes of an honest examination of the doctrine of unconditional election.

Marvin Knox said:

But what He definitely does not mean is that God is the universe and that the universe is God. That is indeed heresty.

Click to expand...

Agreed. So why you would assent to a theology that naturally leads to such a conclusion is your decision.

Marvin Knox said:

What I actually believe is that God is omniscient and that He is not only transcendent - but immanent in all things as well.

There is a world of difference between that and pantheism.

Click to expand...

Yes, the transcendence and immanence of God are not pantheism...far from it, to be precise. But those concepts aren't what leads to pantheism within Reformed theology. It is the theology's loose and rather uncritically formulated conception of the relationship of God's knowledge to the existence of creation that does this.

Marvin Knox said:

God has given us ample assurances in His Word about the eternal nature of our status. The gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable. Salvation is a gift.

God has also given non-believers ample warning that His wrath against unforgiven sin is eternal.

Click to expand...

As I mentioned earlier, the same caprice could be in operation within the promises. Perhaps they will stand, perhaps not. It's difficult to tell with caprice. Given that election and promise are rooted in the same capricious choice, it's tough to place a lot of assurance in it.

Marvin Knox said:

I have no idea where you got the idea that I or any so called "Reformed" theologian believes for one minute that God is capricious.

Click to expand...

I never said you believed that. I used that word when I said what I would say if I were a Reformed believer. You can say what you like; I'm just telling you what my analysis of the situation is.

Marvin Knox said:

You seem to take some pride in your knowledge of the principles of philosophy. Yet your knowledge of those principles is evidently very weak.

You have arrived at and continue to arrive at some conclusions that basic logic do not dictate.

Click to expand...

And those are, exactly, what?[/QUOTE]

alexandriaisburning said:

Please do try to keep up.

Click to expand...

I'm keeping up just fine.

Stop with that kind of talk unless you want to just talk to yourself after this.

alexandriaisburning said:

We're talking about the "saved". If you want to talk about universal reconciliation, please start a new thread and I'll be happy to engage you there.

Click to expand...

No -we're taking about Hell or "saved from what?"

alexandriaisburning said:

Yes, as I said, if I were a believer in Reformed theology, this is the language I would use based on my principle of being intellectually honest in expressing my views. As "caprice" is the only philosophically consistent way in which to describe the god of Calvinism, that is the language I would use in my efforts to be precise.

Click to expand...

That is not "the only philosophically consistent way in which to describe the god of Calvinism".

That is the language you use to set up a straw man to beat on.

alexandriaisburning said:

That the Reformed don't use this language isn't surprising...I don't expect the majority of the Reformed to be intellectually honest enough to analyze the necessary philosophical foundations of their theological beliefs.

Click to expand...

Some are not willing to analyze and reexamine what they believe. That is true.

But if they did, they would find that "the necessary philosophical foundations of their theological beliefs" are spot on logically.

alexandriaisburning said:

I don't think you believe in pantheism, but it is one of few possible outcomes of an honest examination of the doctrine of unconditional election.

Click to expand...

No it is not.

I have well considered the implications of what I believe. Those implications are completely logical and they are not pantheism.

By the way - I would likely explain "unconditional election" more nuanced than is usually done by 5-point Calvinists. Their failure to do so is one of the troubles they have with so many non-Calvinists. The same is true for so called limited atonement.

alexandriaisburning said:

Yes, the transcendence and immanence of God are not pantheism...far from it, to be precise. But those concepts aren't what leads to pantheism within Reformed theology. It is the theology's loose and rather uncritically formulated conception of the relationship of God's knowledge to the existence of creation that does this.

Click to expand...

I would agree with this statement. But probably not for the reasons you mean.

alexandriaisburning said:

As I mentioned earlier, the same caprice could be in operation within the promises. Perhaps they will stand, perhaps not. It's difficult to tell with caprice. Given that election and promise are rooted in the same capricious choice, it's tough to place a lot of assurance in it.

Click to expand...

So long as you insist on referring to Reformed theology believing in a capricious God - you are just punching a straw man around with comments like that.

Capriciousness has nothing to do with what God does.

His Word is good enough for me that He won't and indeed can't go back on His Word to believers.

alexandriaisburning said:

.............. I used that word when I said what I would say if I were a Reformed believer. You can say what you like; I'm just telling you what my analysis of the situation is.

Click to expand...

My analysis of the situation is that you have erroneously arrived at certain conclusions thinking that they are necessary if you are to stay logical.

In fact - your conclusions demonstrate a certain lack of logic in what you maintain.

A lot of 5-point Calvinists also arrive at what they think logic demands.

They are often wrong in doing that just as you are. Limited atonement (as often taught by them) is one example of so called logic being taken too far IMO.

I've gotta take a break for a while. Let's just chew on things for a while. I'll be back sooner or later.

Marvin Knox said:

Some are not willing to analyze and reexamine what they believe. That is true.

But if they did, they would find that "the necessary philosophical foundations of their theological beliefs" are spot on logically.

Click to expand...

Hmm, you can believe that, if you like. I've yet to find an advocate of Reformed theology that is willing to do such a thing. My experience (admittedly not exhaustive) has been that the inevitable outcome is a blind appeal to the creeds of Reformed belief. Now in all honesty, I don't mind appeals to alleged sources of "authority"--this is ultimately the basis of theology in general. But the crucial step of honest philosophical analysis is generally skipped before such a recourse is made.

Marvin Knox said:

No it is not.

Click to expand...

True, there are probably many more terrible outcomes that could be considered in a more thorough analysis of every aspect of Reformed theology. For brevity, I was merely dealing with some of the more obvious.

Marvin Knox said:

I have well considered the implications of what I believe. Those implications are completely logical and they are not pantheism.

Click to expand...

Hmm, are you sure? What you posted in the other thread sounds very much like it.

Marvin Knox said:

By the way - I would likely explain "unconditional election" more nuanced than is usually done by 5-point Calvinists. Their failure to do so is one of the troubles they have with so many non-Calvinists. The same is true for so called limited atonement.

Click to expand...

Okay, I'll bite. Give us a more nuanced version of unconditional election, and preferably do so with answering the challenges already raised.

Marvin Knox said:

Capriciousness has nothing to do with what God does.

Click to expand...

I agree, but then I don't assent to the categories of Reformed theology, so such a conclusion is not something with which I must grapple.

Marvin Knox said:

His Word is good enough for me that He won't and indeed can't go back on His Word to believers.

Click to expand...

His Word === your interpretation. If it helps you sleep at night...

Marvin Knox said:

My analysis of the situation is that you have erroneously arrived at certain conclusions thinking that they are necessary if you are to stay logical.

Click to expand...

And your analysis is what, exactly? Where have I erred in my logic?

Marvin Knox said:

In fact - your conclusions demonstrate a certain lack of logic in what you maintain.

Click to expand...

Which conclusions? Where is the lack of logic?

alexandriaisburning said:

.................................And your analysis is what, exactly? Where have I erred in my logic?....................................Which conclusions? Where is the lack of logic?

Click to expand...

I'm going to go away for a while to consider whether I will engage with you in the future.

This post is rather straight forward in and of itself.

But I have been looking at the last post from you on the other thread we have been on together. I'm considering a number of things that I see in you that make me think that I would be wasting my time with you if I engaged further.

It isn't at all that I don't think my points would be unable to refute you. It's something else entirely that is weighing on me.

While I think on it - anyone following us here can refer to the post I'm talking about to see where I'm coming from.

It is --- Thread = "Verses that Prove Calvinism to be a false Dogma" Page 2 post number 26

I'm looking there particularly at your obvious pride as well as your attitude. I'm wondering whether I would be casting my pearls before swine to keep this up with you.

(I'm not literally calling you a swine - you understand. Just thinking that a person with so much pride might not be someone who would really consider what I say seriously and therefore keep arguing out of simple pride.)

I may get back to answering your post here. But if my decision is negative after looking at the other post a few more times - I'll probably just sign off there and call it quits with you.

GillDouglas said:

I cannot speak for Marvin, but in your case I believe I see where you are blind. You have this idea that if you were able to push God out of the picture as much as possible, that all men are completely equal having within them the ability to obtain/acquire/advance the same as any other. In other words you believe that every person has the possibility to do whatever he pleases.

Yet what man, on his own, is capable of scaling the chasm between himself and God? When the message is given "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved", the opportunity to believe and be saved has been presented. How simple an offer, right? Or is it? If all are given the opportunity, and all have the potential to do whatever he wants, knowing full well the terrible consequences of NOT believing, why will all not believe? What is to stop them from believing and escaping such a fate? What prevents a man from believing except his very own nature, having a hard heart that which prevents him from believing? Nothing but his own nature, because as much as you'd like to believe otherwise, God must be involved in a man's salvation. He is the only one who can change the condition of men so that they are made willing to believe and be saved.

When you consider the influence that God has on His creation, men are not equal and able to obtain/acquire/advance the same as any other. Experience and Scriptures clearly show otherwise.

Click to expand...

You said.."God must be involved in a man's salvation. He is the only one who can change the condition of men so that they are made willing to believe and be saved."

That part is key.