Once Saved Always Saved: True, False, or Misrepresented?

[sculleywr]

So this is a different race? Maybe Paul lived so long he couldn't keep his analogies straight.

"I have fought the good fight, I have finished the race, I have kept the faith. Now there is in store for me the crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous Judge, will award to me on that day—and not only to me, but also to all who have longed for his appearing." (2 Tim 4)

Nope, same race.

My point though, is that it might be more profitable to your own race of righteousness to ask Giver whether he has 'finished the race' as Paul did, instead of boldly asserting that his sins remains.

Just my 2 coppers.

are you aware that he still did not claim to have become righteous. In fact, the crown of righteousness mirrors the crown of the marriage ceremony in the early church. One does not become husband until one is crowned husband, likewise, one does not become righteous until one is crowned righteous.

 

[seeingeyes]

are you aware that he still did not claim to have become righteous. In fact, the crown of righteousness mirrors the crown of the marriage ceremony in the early church. One does not become husband until one is crowned husband, likewise, one does not become righteous until one is crowned righteous.

So we do not have the righteousness of Christ in this life? (That is the righteousness that Paul was speaking of in Phillipians.)

 

[sculleywr]

So we do not have the righteousness of Christ in this life? (That is the righteousness that Paul was speaking of in Phillipians.)

We do not become sinless. We still struggle with sin in this daily life and endure temptation. The less a person sins, the more that satan will tempt him. Those who have not sinned in a long while still struggle with temptation, and yes, even they can fall.

From St. Symeon the New Theologian (The Discourses; Paulist Press pg. 91):

"'Strive for peace with all men, and for the holiness without which no one will see the Lord' (Heb. 12:14), Why did he say 'strive'? Because it is not possible for us to become holy and to be saints in an hour! We must therefore progress from modest beginnings toward holiness and purity. Even were we to spend a thousand years in this life we should never perfectly attain it. Rather we must always struggle for it every day, as if mere beginners."

From Lorenzo Scupoli (Unseen Warfare; SVS Press pg. 177):

"... do not allot any definite time for the acquisition of the virtues, neither days, nor weeks, months nor years, saying to yourself: "I shall work, and then rest, and then, having rested, I will start the same work again." No, no rest is allowed here. Prepare yourself for continual labor, struggle and effort, allowing no thought of alleviation, in imitation of St. Paul, who says of himself: 'I therefore so run, - I follow after, if that I may apprehend, - I press toward the mark' (I Cor. 9:26; Phil. 3:12, 14). To stop for rest on the path of virtue means not to gain new strength, but to dissipate the strength one has acquired and to become weakened; and this is the same as turning back, or as destroying what was so laboriously built. By "stopping" I mean - imagining that the virtue is already gained in its perfection, and so paying no attention to its deficiencies and neglecting chances of good actions. Be not like that, but be always watchful and zealous."

From St. Gregory Palamas (The Homilies Vol. 2, Homily Twenty-Three para. 12; St. Tikhon's Seminary Press pgs. 18-19):

"Brethren, there is a warfare of the senses which comes from outside ourselves and drags into sin all who do not courageously resist. But such warfare is not always roused against us, nor are our senses continually active. Sometimes, even when our senses are in action, sin is left undone because of the absence of means, or because the time and place is not suitable. For when appropriate circumstances are lacking, thieves, robbers, the immoral, the adulterous, the rapacious and the greedy cannot perpetuate sin. However, within our own minds there is a different battle, the warfare of thoughts, which is much more grievous than that of the senses. It is always active and needs neither physical means, nor particular times and places to accomplish wickedness. Whereas our senses' struggle with sin originates from the impressions made by things on our sight, hearing and other senses, the battle of the mind is set in motion within us by the direct action of the evil spirits themselves, and by their attacks and provocations. If someone is victorious in the warfare of the senses, that does not mean that he is invincible in that of the mind. But anyone who conquers the inner battle, mightily overcomes in the outer one. As the Apostle says, 'Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfill the lust of the flesh' (Gal. 5:16)."

From St. Maximos the Confessor (Second Century on Theology no. 79, The Philokalia Vol. 2 edited by Palmer, Sherrard and Ware; Faber and Faber pgs. 157-158):

"The man who has struggled bravely with the passions of the body, has fought ably against unclean spirits, and has expelled from his soul the conceptual images they provoke, should pray for a pure heart to be given him and for a spirit of integrity to be renewed within him (cf. Ps. 51:10). In other words, he should pray that by grace he may be completely emptied of evil thoughts and filled with divine thoughts, so that he may become a spiritual world of God, splendid and vast, wrought from moral, natural and theological forms of contemplation."

From St. Gregory Palamas (Homily Twelve para. 3, The Homilies Vol. 1; St. Tikhon's Seminary Press pg. 255):

"Grace comes immediately to meet some of those who strive, giving them assurance of the earnest of their inheritance (cf. Eph. 1:14), letting them taste the promised prizes, as if stretching out a loving hand to welcome them and anointing them for further struggles. With others, however, grace waits for the end of the struggle, and prepares for them the crown of patience as well. As one of the God-bearing Fathers says, 'Some receive holy rewards before their labours, some during labours, and some when they depart' (St. John Climacus)."​

We must constantly strive to defeat sin. Never let us think that we have attained perfection, for we will lay down our shield and armor in laziness, leaving the enemy an opening to attack us at our weakest.

 

[seeingeyes]

We do not become sinless. We still struggle with sin in this daily life and endure temptation. The less a person sins, the more that satan will tempt him. Those who have not sinned in a long while still struggle with temptation, and yes, even they can fall.

From St. Symeon the New Theologian (The Discourses; Paulist Press pg. 91):

"'Strive for peace with all men, and for the holiness without which no one will see the Lord' (Heb. 12:14), Why did he say 'strive'? Because it is not possible for us to become holy and to be saints in an hour! We must therefore progress from modest beginnings toward holiness and purity. Even were we to spend a thousand years in this life we should never perfectly attain it. Rather we must always struggle for it every day, as if mere beginners."

From Lorenzo Scupoli (Unseen Warfare; SVS Press pg. 177):

"... do not allot any definite time for the acquisition of the virtues, neither days, nor weeks, months nor years, saying to yourself: "I shall work, and then rest, and then, having rested, I will start the same work again." No, no rest is allowed here. Prepare yourself for continual labor, struggle and effort, allowing no thought of alleviation, in imitation of St. Paul, who says of himself: 'I therefore so run, - I follow after, if that I may apprehend, - I press toward the mark' (I Cor. 9:26; Phil. 3:12, 14). To stop for rest on the path of virtue means not to gain new strength, but to dissipate the strength one has acquired and to become weakened; and this is the same as turning back, or as destroying what was so laboriously built. By "stopping" I mean - imagining that the virtue is already gained in its perfection, and so paying no attention to its deficiencies and neglecting chances of good actions. Be not like that, but be always watchful and zealous."

From St. Gregory Palamas (The Homilies Vol. 2, Homily Twenty-Three para. 12; St. Tikhon's Seminary Press pgs. 18-19):

"Brethren, there is a warfare of the senses which comes from outside ourselves and drags into sin all who do not courageously resist. But such warfare is not always roused against us, nor are our senses continually active. Sometimes, even when our senses are in action, sin is left undone because of the absence of means, or because the time and place is not suitable. For when appropriate circumstances are lacking, thieves, robbers, the immoral, the adulterous, the rapacious and the greedy cannot perpetuate sin. However, within our own minds there is a different battle, the warfare of thoughts, which is much more grievous than that of the senses. It is always active and needs neither physical means, nor particular times and places to accomplish wickedness. Whereas our senses' struggle with sin originates from the impressions made by things on our sight, hearing and other senses, the battle of the mind is set in motion within us by the direct action of the evil spirits themselves, and by their attacks and provocations. If someone is victorious in the warfare of the senses, that does not mean that he is invincible in that of the mind. But anyone who conquers the inner battle, mightily overcomes in the outer one. As the Apostle says, 'Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfill the lust of the flesh' (Gal. 5:16)."

From St. Maximos the Confessor (Second Century on Theology no. 79, The Philokalia Vol. 2 edited by Palmer, Sherrard and Ware; Faber and Faber pgs. 157-158):

"The man who has struggled bravely with the passions of the body, has fought ably against unclean spirits, and has expelled from his soul the conceptual images they provoke, should pray for a pure heart to be given him and for a spirit of integrity to be renewed within him (cf. Ps. 51:10). In other words, he should pray that by grace he may be completely emptied of evil thoughts and filled with divine thoughts, so that he may become a spiritual world of God, splendid and vast, wrought from moral, natural and theological forms of contemplation."

From St. Gregory Palamas (Homily Twelve para. 3, The Homilies Vol. 1; St. Tikhon's Seminary Press pg. 255):

"Grace comes immediately to meet some of those who strive, giving them assurance of the earnest of their inheritance (cf. Eph. 1:14), letting them taste the promised prizes, as if stretching out a loving hand to welcome them and anointing them for further struggles. With others, however, grace waits for the end of the struggle, and prepares for them the crown of patience as well. As one of the God-bearing Fathers says, 'Some receive holy rewards before their labours, some during labours, and some when they depart' (St. John Climacus)."​

We must constantly strive to defeat sin. Never let us think that we have attained perfection, for we will lay down our shield and armor in laziness, leaving the enemy an opening to attack us at our weakest.

What is the difference between 'righteousness' and 'sinlessness'?

 

[Going Merry]

What is the difference between 'righteousness' and 'sinlessness'?

nothing

 

[Nanopants]

So we do not have the righteousness of Christ in this life? (That is the righteousness that Paul was speaking of in Phillipians.)

We're told to put on Christ (Rom 13:14), but also that we will go in and out and find pasture (John 10:9). That doesn't sound very frightening or urgent does it? It's a funny thing, I think, that when we start listening to the sheep instead of the Shepard, we sometimes find more fear than solace.

 

[sculleywr]

What is the difference between 'righteousness' and 'sinlessness'?

nothing

GM, wrong.

Righteousness (Greek: dikaiosuné) means:
justice, justness, righteousness, righteousness of which God is the source or author, but practically: a divine righteousness.

Sinlessness (Greek: anamartétos) means:
without blame, faultless, unerring.

Many Western theologians equate the two with eachother. However, they are wrong.
Righteousness is a state which is given by God. Sinlessness is an attribute of God Himself. The closest we can ever come to sinlessness is that we sin less and less. We never become truly sinless, for we still suffer temptation.

 

[seeingeyes]

GM, wrong.

Righteousness (Greek: dikaiosuné) means:
justice, justness, righteousness, righteousness of which God is the source or author, but practically: a divine righteousness.

Sinlessness (Greek: anamartétos) means:
without blame, faultless, unerring.

Many Western theologians equate the two with eachother. However, they are wrong.
Righteousness is a state which is given by God. Sinlessness is an attribute of God Himself. The closest we can ever come to sinlessness is that we sin less and less. We never become truly sinless, for we still suffer temptation.

So we will never be sinless then?

The temptation in the garden stands for all eternity. As long as God is greater than us, temptation will exist.

 

[Going Merry]

Jesus was tempted

 

[Rick Otto]

She's got a point.
Did we just equate suffering temptation with willful intent?

 

[squint]

She's got a point.
Did we just equate suffering temptation with willful intent?

Scripture is very specific in addressing the temptation of Jesus.

Tempted 'like' we are with ah, one very major difference. Him being without sin.

Zero of the balance of us are God in the flesh. Our temptations are internal.

His was not.

Satan had 'nothing' in him.

When we are tempted it is, for the most part, internal. And that is also the 'origination place' of evil, within.

s

 

[Fireinfolding]

Suffering a temptation doesnt always have to be in the form of lust. But ones trial or proving in other ways. For example you can actaully see someone suffering an infirmity of the flesh as a temptation, as Paul calls it. And catch why its called that as interlocking with the objective of the one through whom they come, goes something like this.

For example (just to set it up)

Tempter (Satan) might say what a man will do

A MAN WILL (curse thee/God) or give all he hath or whatever if you TOUCH HIS FLESH... So we have a Satan desires to sift thee thing here. God doesnt do it, Satan is allowed to go forth to afflict (touching the flesh of Job) right?

I mean what a strange way to put this, "and MY TEMPTATION IN MY FLESH ye did not despise.

The touching of His flesh is given WITH the expressed intent of the Tempter (and shown to us) so no wonder Paul says MY TEMPTATION IN MY FLESH

Even as Paul says God (Who) being in control of all things (as he was with Job) will not suffer you to be what? Tempted above that ye are able, and Who WITH THE TEMPTATION also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it. And we are told there hath no temptation taken you but such as is common to man (we see it in Job, and Paul). We see it in a woman with a spirit of infirmity (and because of which) she could in no wise lift up herself (whom Satan had bound) from which Jesus loosed (after 18 years). Paul himself said, Ye know how through infirmity of the flesh I preached the gospel unto you at the first.

Though Job didnt curse God for it, and Paul gloried in the same, and we are told to rejoice when divers of temptations come our way knowing the trying of our faith worketh the patience we have need of (and to behold the very parience of Job) and the whole story encompasses the various things he endured, the suffering inflicted upon him variously.

 

[Grace8642]

One thing that bothers me about the "Once saved always saved" discussion is the fact that we are treating salvation like a wrist band you get at a concert. Something that is handing to you that you have to make sure to wear and show to God to get into Heaven. Like it is something we can walk away from or lose. Salvation is something so much deeper than that.

"Therefore if any man is in Christ, he is a new creature; the old things are passed away; behold, new things have come."(2 Corinthians 5:17)

Once we accept Christ and decide to live our lives for Him, we are a different creature, completely new in everyway. It is not just a ticket that we hold for salvation but instead we are the one's that are tranformed.


"For I am convinced that neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons, neither the present nor the future, nor any powers, neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord." (Romans 8:38-39)


And now once we are transformed and become new creatures in Christ, there is nothing that can change that. If you heart is genuine and you are truly committed to the Lord and have accepted His amazing gift of salvation, then that is it. You heart is forever changed. Totally amazing!!!
To think that there is a sin strong enough or terrible enough to seperate us from God's love is to think poorly of our Father in Heaven. His love for us is deeper than we could ever understand, there is nothing we could do to shock God into stop loving us.


With that being said, as we are now new creatures in Christ there is more than just a change of heart that takes place. Once you are accepted into God's family, with the perks of family comes responsibility. God WILL disipline and teach us when we go astray from His Word. Just like a Father to a child. We should try our very hardest to stay away from sin and to abstain from it...but TRUE love is loving someone even when they don't deserve it and when they expect nothing from it. That is the kind of love God has for us.

 

[sculleywr]

So we will never be sinless then?

The temptation in the garden stands for all eternity. As long as God is greater than us, temptation will exist.

since being sinless means never having sinned, no we cannot. We can be freed from sin and be cleansed of the damage and effects of sin, but we cannot, ourselves, become sinless.


When we are glorified in the end, we will be made as though we were sinless, but it is a reflection of who God is, and not of who we are. We will be freed of the sin nature and God will not hold our sin against us through the grace He offers.

 

[sculleywr]

Jesus was tempted

Yes, He was tempted, but He never faltered. Not once. He remained on the true path.

We need to be reconciled to the true path, and even then, we stumble many times.

 

[Rev Randy]

Yes, He was tempted, but He never faltered. Not once. He remained on the true path.

We need to be reconciled to the true path, and even then, we stumble many times.

We are not in sin when we are tempted. We sin when we fall to the temptation.

 

[squint]

We are not in sin when we are tempted. We sin when we fall to the temptation.

Thoughts of temptation are sin, however brief they may be.

If one thinks about murder, adultery, theft in their heart, it is as a fact an evil internal sin thought.

And is so of the tempter. Which places that working also within.

It's only unfortunate when it's 'excused' and 'covered up' for not being what it factually is.

Some men call their adulterous thoughts natural. That is the sight of a natural man, not a spiritual man. A spiritual man knows such thoughts are demonic in origin and calls them for what they factually are.

s

 

[Fireinfolding]

James speaks of lust conceiving also

James 1:15 Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death.

 

[Rev Randy]

Thoughts of temptation are sin, however brief they may be.

If one thinks about murder, adultery, theft in their heart, it is as a fact an evil internal sin thought.

And is so of the tempter. Which places that working also within.

It's only unfortunate when it's 'excused' and 'covered up' for not being what it factually is.

Some men call their adulterous thoughts natural. That is the sight of a natural man, not a spiritual man. A spiritual man knows such thoughts are demonic in origin and calls them for what they factually are.

s

I disagree but no biggie. I would say thought of sinning is sin. When I am tempted I think about it (and hopefully about how I'm not falling for the trick) when I entertain the sin the temptation was about, in my mind, I might have well done it as in my heart I already did.
The concept we have about covering up sin is silly. We can hide it from men but as men are not where the real forgiveness comes from, that matters little in the big picture. Excused? Please explain your meaning about that? Are you speaking of excusing without repentance?

 

[Gxg (G²)]

I came across this question while surfing the web on the topic of OSAS and it intrigues me :

"If a Christian is in bed with a prostitute committing adultery, and during the very act of intercourse a stray bullet from the gun of a drive-by shooter strikes him in the head and kills him instantly, will he go to heaven or hell?"

I was wondering what you guys thought .

If interested, from a Messianic perspective, I thought Dr.Michael Brown gave some of the best explanations on the subject ever as it concerns why Conditional Salvation is more Biblical than Unconditional - or Universal salvation where you get in regardless.



For more:

• Can Jewish People Be Saved Without Believing in Messiah ... - Ask Dr. Brown
• Messianic Jewish Scholar Dr. Michael L. Brown Affirms Conditional Salvation ...

Truthfully, I think it will always come down to the issues of the heart - for even those doing righteous actions can have evil and corrupt motives for such as I John 2:15-16 ("For if anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in Him. For the lust of the eyes, the cravings of the flesh and the boasting of what man has or does comes not from the Father - but the world") - and thus, one cannot think that someone speaking good truth/advocating it is more "safe" than someone who sleeps around even after claiming Christ. Someone could've been involved in deep depression and gave into temptation - truly sorrowful over their action - and then died right there. That person may not be in the category of someone unrepenant..and would make it, based on their heart and God's Mercy for His own.

On the same token, someone could be like those Christ spoke of in Luke 18 with the Pharisee priding himself on all the "good things" he did and how he compared himself to a horrible tax-collector who was considered far worse...and yet the Tax-Collector who threw himself on God's mercy was justified because of the fact that he threw himself on God's mercy/didn't act self-righteous, he ended up being exalted.

When you love others, I do think you'll get more grace. Like a kid who may have messed up throughout the day on many assignments his father asked him to do - and yet the one assignment the father said was the most important (i.e cleaning the garage) the kid did and thus the Father had grace. I Corinthians 13 notes that when saying that love is what matters ultimately.

I Peter 4:7
The end of all things is near. Therefore be clear minded and self-controlled so that you can pray. 8 Above all, love each other deeply, because love covers over a multitude of sins.

​

To give further clarity - in the event that what I said wasn't making any sense - Many times, where things get sticky is when we start to not treat those sins which're SOCIABLY acceptable just as heinous as what he has done.

When looking at the churches in Revelation, one can see the Church at Ephesus and how they got blasted despite any resisting of false teaching, due to not having any love for Brethren----seeing that Matthew 22:37-40 this “first love” that had characterized this church earlier in its existence is love that is demonstrated through action...and we know this because Jesus said, “do the deeds you did at first.”/In the New Testament, love for God is shown by one’s love for the brethren (1John 4:20, 21). Love for one’s neighbor is show by the one who takes concrete action to help those in need (Luke 10:27-37).)


ORTHOPRAXY---And God's a RUTHLESS GOD when it comes to issues :

James 1:22-27

22Do not merely listen to the word, and so deceive yourselves. Do what it says. 23Anyone who listens to the word but does not do what it says is like a man who looks at his face in a mirror 24and, after looking at himself, goes away and immediately forgets what he looks like. 25But the man who looks intently into the perfect law that gives freedom, and continues to do this, not forgetting what he has heard, but doing it—he will be blessed in what he does.

​

James 4:17
Anyone, then, who knows the good he ought to do and doesn't do it, sins.
​

I'm reminded of many of the Reformers who are repeatedly celebrated in Christendom. Regarding the way many of those men are treated since I often hear many comparing them to those leaders in other parts of the churchand saying " HORRIBLE!!!!!----but man, the Reformers were men who held it down for truth!!"..and yet many of those men held support for many attrocities, from slavery to abuse of others ...and no one says anything. Being Afro-Hispanic and valuing what happend for many Black CHristians historically, it has always shocked me seeing the ways actions done by others toward groups get minimized - and yet those same people whom others exalt are ignored whenever you discuss things they did that are just as bad as sleeping around. Supporting slavery/kidnapping and yet talking on how man needed to repent..

Asone of my good friends/brothers in Christ seemed helpful (as he has wrestled with the question you raised in the OP many times as someone who was BLACK & REFORMED):

As I think about Slave Ships, the destruction of families, little to no value for the life of blacks as they were beat, spit on, abused, sold as commodity, and then preached to as if their souls had more value than their lives, tears begin to form in the corner of my eyes. I then think about my library and how little of these men that I esteem for their doctrine, spoke out against such heinous activities.​

..... I then say to myself “would I want to go to any of their churches or sit in their ministries or listen to them expound scripture in one voice and live the exact opposite to the “Gospel” they preach so passionately about?​

I am sure someone knows, but I don’t so I wonder. ​

... Many fought for theological truth, while ignoring practical truth.​

More at What&#8217;s A Couple of Slaves When You Have Good Theology? << A Better Covenant

1 John 3

Anyone who does not do what is right is not a child of God; nor is anyone who does not love his brother.

Love one another

1 John 3:10
This is how we know who the children of God are and who the children of the devil are: Anyone who does not do what is right is not a child of God; nor is anyone who does not love his brother.
1 John 3:9-11 1 John 3
​

7Dear friends, let us love one another, for love comes from God. Everyone who loves has been born of God and knows God. 8Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love. 9This is how God showed his love among us: He sent his one and only Son[b] into the world that we might live through him. 10This is love: not that we loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son as an atoning sacrifice for[c] our sins. 11Dear friends, since God so loved us, we also ought to love one another. 12No one has ever seen God; but if we love one another, God lives in us and his love is made complete in us.

1 John 4:7-9 1 John 4
​

Dang......ya'll feel that? BAD Orthopraxy, if I take this verse seriously, is just as serious as ORTHODOXY Many fight for theological truth, while ignoring practical truth.


BAD Orthopraxy, if I take this verse seriously, is just as serious as ORTHODOXY......To that, I say AMEN----as especially for those coming from a BLACK perspective (and for many growing up in WOF churches where those within Reformed/Conservative traditions often call out those churches, but leave their own "PILLARS OF FAITH" alone and often think "You accept what that teacher says---even if he's not living right/teaching wrong things? Stupid MEAT & Bones Theology---I'd never do that").....

Some questions:

1. Would you sit under a pastor who was homosexual, if he were sound on every other point of scripture?

2. Would you recommend a theological work of a man who was solid biblically but was a pedophile all of his life?
​

Does the same logic apply that they are still human and if that is the case shouldn&#8217;t we excuse other areas of immorality for pastors today as long as they are biblically sound? This is what I am wrestling through. Why should we widely accept their body of work over others who lived a life of heinous sin? Are we guilty of ignoring their lives versus their doctrine? Why do we reject the doctrine of immoral men today but give dead preachers a free pass.

I believe there is a double standard. If we reject one why not the other? Where do we draw the line? Once again who gets a pass and for what reason? Or who and what do we speak out against?

If some of the theologians were alive today that I esteem, would I blog against them? Being into the Great Reformers, those I esteem and recommend their writings I would blog against today. Luther had some horrible teachings but I would recommend his writings. Calvin had a man burned at the stake but I would recommend his Institutes and even go by the title &#8220;Calvinisitc&#8221;.

It's easy to listen to the voice whispering that I have chose which sins to speak out against and that sin is mostly &#8220;unorthodoxy&#8221;. But if I would not read a book by a homosexual pastor from Covenant Seminary regardless of the truth (as I would write him off immediately because of his sin - and perhaps even think he went to Hell once he died still in sin) maybe I should do the same for many of the Reformers who were pro-slavery and pro-Jim Crow.

Or am I being hyprocrital if I don&#8217;t measure with the same standard? If I ignore or give a pass because it was &#8220;just the times&#8221; why not do the same for sexual immorality, bad doctrine, or even GOOD doctrine but BAD PRACTICE?