Logical Problems with Calvinism

[Bible Highlighter]

Your beliefs, since they are not Scriptural, are laughable. But really, it's quite sad. Especially since 1 Jn 1:8 DIRECTLY addresses your own claims. And refutes.


Sincerity and $2.10 will get you a cup of coffee. Nothing more. People have been sincerely wrong since Adam.


The reality is that you are the one not seeing what the Word clearly says.


Problem is, you've not defended your views from Scripture.

Remember what 1 Jn 1:8 says: those who claim sinless perfection (say they have no sin) have deceived themselves and the truth is not in them.

You push a theology of sinless perfection and defend it. So, that means you yourself must say that you have no sin.

Your view is self deceived and has no truth in it.


The charge of being "out of context" is an easy one to make against anything. However, since that is your charge, please prove it from the Scripture. The fact that the epistle "makes no mention...against sinless perfectionism" is immaterial. FACTS are FACTS.

Those who claim sinless perfection have deceived themselves and the truth is not in them.


Nope. Of course we are commanded to not sin. No one would argue that. But such a command does NOT teach or support the untruth of sinless perfection. Believers are simply NOT to sin. Period. However, just look at the REST of 1 Jn 2:1, which again refutes your notions:

"My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin. And if anyone sins, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous"

OK, let's break this down:
the phrase "so that you MAY NOT sin" doesn't even suggest that one will cease from sin. And it's in the subjunctive mood, which is the mood of probability. There is a HUGE difference between "will not sin" and "may not sin".

Second, he continues with the statement, "and if anyone sins". Showing that this possibility is real and the solution is found in our Advocate, Jesus Christ. Given what he already wrote in ch 1, which was about fellowship with the Father and Son, and the issue of confession, the solution to our sin is to confess it. And we will be cleansed, NOT SAVED AGAIN.

So, 1 Jn 1:8 and 10 and 2:1 ALL refute the notions of sinless perfection. And Paul wrote in the PRESENT TENSE in Romans 7 about his own struggle with his sin nature.


And he also wrote that those who say they have no sin (sinless perfection) have deceived themselves and the truth is not in them. 1:8


That verse says nothing like what you claim here.


This makes no sense. John wrote 1 John so that believers "MAY NOT SIN". It wasn't a command.


Those who have deceived themselves and don't have the truth in them cannot understand much of God's Word.


I guess you'd put Paul in that silly category as well, huh. The FACT is that believers have 2 natures, a sin nature that came from Adam (Romans 5) and a new nature upon regeneration. And these natures are in CONFLICT with each other.

It seems to me that you have no idea that there is a spiritual battle within each believer.


A statement coming from one who has fulfilled 1 Jn 1:8. Self deceived and no truth in them.


I agee. And this does NOT support or prove sinless perfection. And Scripture refutes that in 1 Jn 1:8 and 10.


Again, I agree. And, again, this does NOT support or prove sinless perfection.

In 1 John 2:1, The word "may" is not in the King James (Which is the Bible that was used for hundreds of years before the Modern Translations came about). John says, "sin not." Jesus says, "sin no more." That means exactly what it says.

Do you believe you can stop sinning for 5 minutes? How about 1 hour? How about an entire day? Do you sin when you brush your teeth?
I say this because the OSAS proponent claims that 1 John 1:8 says that a believer will always have sin in their life.

Let me ask you. How do you tell the good guys from the bad guys when you turn on the news or watch a movie? Is it not by their actions that determines if they are a good guy or bad guy. Granted, in most cases, these are unbelievers, but the point is that we are aware of good and evil by what people do and not by any kind of belief alone. For a person can believe in Jesus but if they act like a Hitler and murder tons of people, I know that they are not of God.

Also, how can one live holy and also live in sin? Is that not a contradiction to you?

Anyways, God's people are known by how they live. They are a holy and separate people from the world.
For why on Earth do you think Jesus told those believers to depart from him in Matthew 7?
Do you not know that the whole point that is being made in that part of text is for the believer to do God's will?

For it says,

"And every one that heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them not, shall be likened unto a foolish man, which built his house upon the sand: And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell: and great was the fall of it."
(Matthew 7:26-27).

"Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven." (Matthew 7:21).


....

 

[nobdysfool]

In 1 John 2:1, The word "may" is not in the King James (Which is the Bible that was used for hundreds of years before the Modern Translations came about). John says, "sin not." Jesus says, "sin no more." That means exactly what it says.

Niggling over words accomplishes nothing. John wrote that he wrote these thing so they would not sin. That is always the goal, to not sin. No one here argues otherwise.

Do you believe you can stop sinning for 5 minutes? How about 1 hour? How about an entire day? Do you sin when you brush your teeth?

Do you sin when you brush your teeth? How about when you take a shower? How about when you get a drink of water? No one sins constantly. The question is ridiculous.

I say this because the OSAS proponent claims that 1 John 1:8 says that a believer will always have sin in their life.

That is a lie, no one I know of is saying that except you. It's a straw man.

Let me ask you. How do you tell the good guys from the bad guys when you turn on the news or watch a movie? Is it not by their actions that determines if they are a good guy or bad guy. Granted, in most cases, these are unbelievers, but the point is that we are aware of good and evil by what people do and not by any kind of belief alone. For a person can believe in Jesus but if they act like a Hitler and murder tons of people, I know that they are not of God.

A ridiculous and totally irrelevant comparison.

Also, how can one live holy and also live in sin? Is that not a contradiction to you?

Committing a sin does not constitute living in sin. You still sin. Does that mean you're living in sin? By your logic, here, it would mean that you are.

Anyways, God's people are known by how they live. They are a holy and separate people from the world.
For why on Earth do you think Jesus told those believers to depart from him in Matthew 7?
Do you not know that the whole point that is being made in that part of text is for the believer to do God's will?

No one is arguing against this.

For it says,

"And every one that heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them not, shall be likened unto a foolish man, which built his house upon the sand: And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell: and great was the fall of it."
(Matthew 7:26-27).

"Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven." (Matthew 7:21).

Why are you so intent on painting all of the rest of us as lying sinners, and unsaved? That's your whole viewpoint, in a nutshell. You claim Sinless Perfection, and yet you tell lies about us, misrepresent us and try to portray us all as something we are not, which is bearing false witness, and a sin, which you commit repeatedly, and seemingly without repentance.

Sinless Perfection? You aren't there, nor have you ever been.

 

[EmSw]

I believe that as well.

So you believe John when he says those who do not keep His commandments are liars and the truth is not in them.

Very good FG2. So tell me how does OSAS work, if one doesn't keep the commandments?

 

[EmSw]

Nonexistant Free will creates so many problems. Calvin said it can never be solved but the arminians keeps trying.
When God called, none answered. They weren't free not to respond, they couldn't respond. Mankind didn't respond. Not being able isn't the same as free will

Man has absolute free will to respond, as you do now. Calvin was wrong in many things, unless you believe he was somehow superior in spiritual knowledge. Just because he had problems solving free will, doesn't mean others do.

 

[FreeGrace2]

Nonexistant Free will creates so many problems. Calvin said it can never be solved but the arminians keeps trying.

There is no problem if something is nonexistent. And, there is no problem that free will, which is nothing other than freedom of choice, which does exist. For God created humanity with a conscience with which to make choices. Free choices. And God has laid out the consequences for the choices that man makes.

18 “Come now, and let us reason together,” Says the LORD, “Though your sins are as scarlet, They will be as white as snow; Though they are red like crimson, They will be like wool.

19 “If you consent and obey, You will eat the best of the land;

20 “But if you refuse and rebel, You will be devoured by the sword.” Truly, the mouth of the LORD has spoken. Isa 1

There it is: God wants to reason together. He's not a puppet master, nor is man a puppet. These verses clearly indicate the choices that face mankind, and the results of either choice.

This is why man is responsible for his choices.

When God called, none answered. They weren't free not to respond, they couldn't respond. Mankind didn't respond. Not being able isn't the same as free will

Not true. Man refuses to answer. That proves a choice that is free.

Prov 21:7 - The violence of the wicked will drag them away, Because they refuse to act with justice.
21:25 - The desire of the sluggard puts him to death, For his hands refuse to work;
Isa 1:20 see above
Isa 30:9 - For this is a rebellious people, false sons, Sons who refuse to listen To the instruction of the LORD;
Jer 9:6 - “Your dwelling is in the midst of deceit; Through deceit they refuse to know Me,” declares the LORD.
13:10 - ‘This wicked people, who refuse to listen to My words, who walk in the stubbornness of their hearts and have gone after other gods to serve them and to bow down to them, let them be just like this waistband which is totally worthless

As well, Deut 11 and 30 are all about choices. And their consequences.

The fact of man refusing proves freedom of choice.

 

[FreeGrace2]

So you believe John when he says those who do not keep His commandments are liars and the truth is not in them. Very good FG2.

Glad you approve of what I believe.

So tell me how does OSAS work, if one doesn't keep the commandments?

I'd be glad to tell you how OSAS works.

God has promised every believer for the day of redemption. By sealing each believer with the Holy Spirit, the promise and guarantee for the day of redemption.

References: Eph 1:13,14, 4:30, 2 Cor 1:22, 5:5

Oh, and don't forget that eternal life is a gift of God for those in Christ, per Rom 6:23.

And God's gifts are irrevocable, per Rom 11:29.

Any other questions?

 

[FreeGrace2]

In 1 John 2:1, The word "may" is not in the King James (Which is the Bible that was used for hundreds of years before the Modern Translations came about).

If one wants to discuss with any type of credibility, one needs to have more than just the antiquated KJV. How long it was used is of NO importance or relevance.

The ONLY THING that is important is what the GREEK says. So you need an interlinear Bible that has the Greek text and a lexicon so you can look up the Greek words to learn what they actually mean. Anything less that this simply removes any credibility.

The actual Greek text is this: "I write to you in order that you sin not." The word for "sin not" is in the subjunctive mood. If your view were correct, the mood would have been indicative. The subjunctive mood refutes your view.

John says, "sin not." Jesus says, "sin no more." That means exactly what it says.

Yep. And I just explained what it means from the Greek.

Do you believe you can stop sinning for 5 minutes? How about 1 hour? How about an entire day? Do you sin when you brush your teeth?

Why would anyone think those who reject sinless perfection think they are continually sinning. The whole point of the issue in sin is to sin less. But there is no evidence of being sinless. We are to sin less, but we will never be sinless this side of eternity.

[QUTOE]I say this because the OSAS proponent claims that 1 John 1:8 says that a believer will always have sin in their life.[/QUOTE]
But not continually. Which is why John wrote 2:1. Because when a believer sins, he has an Advocate, Christ, who died for all sin. So when the believer confesses his sins, he will be forgiven and cleansed. Not saved again.

Let me ask you. How do you tell the good guys from the bad guys when you turn on the news or watch a movie? Is it not by their actions that determines if they are a good guy or bad guy. Granted, in most cases, these are unbelievers, but the point is that we are aware of good and evil by what people do and not by any kind of belief alone. For a person can believe in Jesus but if they act like a Hitler and murder tons of people, I know that they are not of God.

Obviously you're unaware of the fact that a believer can commit any sin that an unbeliever can do.

Also, how can one live holy and also live in sin?

They can't. We're supposed to be holy. So, how does that work? Regular confession of sin keeps one in fellowship, keeps one being filled with the Spirit (Eph 5:18) and walking by means of the Spirit (Gal 5:16).

Those who don't regularly confess their sins are grieving the Spirit (Eph 4:30) and quenching the Spirit (1 Thess 5:19).

I surely hope you are looking up each verse I provide, because they affirm my points.

Is that not a contradiction to you?

Sure. One cannot be holy and live a life of sin. No one is claiming that on this thread. To be holy, one must sin less. But no one this side of eternity will be sinless. Because we still have our sin nature, which battles with our new nature. Which Paul taught in Romans 7 and Gal 5.

Anyways, God's people are known by how they live. They are a holy and separate people from the world.
For why on Earth do you think Jesus told those believers to depart from him in Matthew 7?

Uh, they weren't believers. Just look at their appeal for entering heaven. Based on works. Which don't save.

 

[GillDouglas]

It seems that folks like @EmSw and @Jason0047 would deny complete human depravity, the need for an effective grace, and exalt the human will above the Divine will. Their views exalts man's freedom at the expense of God's sovereignty. They hold that Christ died equally and indiscriminately for every individual, for those who eventually perish no less than for those who are eternally saved. They believe that man can resist the regenerating power of the Holy Spirit. They believe that man can become holy and spotless, securing God's grace and their salvation through their own good works, to never sin again. Finally they believe that the saving grace is not a permanent gift and can be tossed aside to perish eternally instead. So how is this any more logical than the perceived Calvinist point of view? Let's argue some more about who is right and wrong, see where it gets us.

 

[FreeGrace2]

It seems that folks like @EmSw and @Jason0047 would deny complete human depravity, the need for an effective grace, and exalt the human will above the Divine will. Their views exalts man's freedom at the expense of God's sovereignty. They hold that Christ died equally and indiscriminately for every individual, for those who eventually perish no less than for those who are eternally saved. They believe that man can resist the regenerating power of the Holy Spirit. They believe that man can become holy and spotless, securing God's grace and their salvation through their own good works, to never sin again. Finally they believe that the saving grace is not a permanent gift and can be tossed aside to perish eternally instead. So how is this any more logical than the perceived Calvinist point of view? Let's argue some more about who is right and wrong, see where it gets us.

As neither an Arminian nor Calvinist, I take issue with the statement about "Christ dying equally and indiscriminately for every individual".

What does "indiscriminately" look like? How can the Son of God die indiscriminately? He KNOWS everyone for whom He died. And the Bible could not be more clear about the scope of His death. He died for all. Not some. And there are no verses that say that He died for only some group, or less than everyone.

2 Cor 5:14,15
Heb 2:9

I also take issue with "man can resist the regenerating power of the Holy Spirit". Is this what is meant by "irresistible grace"? Well, I know of no one who would argue against God's regenerating those who believe. Are there any verses that tell us that God regenerates people so that they will believe? No, there are not.

Whether one's view is right or wrong is based on what Scripture actually SAYS about one's views, or does not say.

Calvinism cannot provide any verses that tell us that Christ died only for the elect, or less than everyone.
Calvinism cannot provide any verses that tell us that God chooses who will believe.
Calvinism cannot provide any verses that tell us that God regenerates people so that they can believe.

Arminianism cannot provide any verses that tell us that one can lose salvation.
Arminianism cannot provide any verses that tell us that any individual can break the sealing with the Holy Spirit and thereby lose salvation.
Arminianism cannot provide any verses that tell us that man must do good works for salvation.

Both sides will provide verses that they think does support their claims. But when actually pressed, they must admit that the verses only imply what they claim.

 

[EmSw]

Glad you approve of what I believe.


I'd be glad to tell you how OSAS works.

God has promised every believer for the day of redemption. By sealing each believer with the Holy Spirit, the promise and guarantee for the day of redemption.

References: Eph 1:13,14, 4:30, 2 Cor 1:22, 5:5

Oh, and don't forget that eternal life is a gift of God for those in Christ, per Rom 6:23.

And God's gifts are irrevocable, per Rom 11:29.

Any other questions?

You must believe those who are liars and have no truth in them are saved. I'm afraid you can't manipulate the Bible to say this, or, maybe you can.

 

[EmSw]

It seems that folks like @EmSw and @Jason0047 would deny complete human depravity, the need for an effective grace, and exalt the human will above the Divine will. Their views exalts man's freedom at the expense of God's sovereignty. They hold that Christ died equally and indiscriminately for every individual, for those who eventually perish no less than for those who are eternally saved. They believe that man can resist the regenerating power of the Holy Spirit. They believe that man can become holy and spotless, securing God's grace and their salvation through their own good works, to never sin again. Finally they believe that the saving grace is not a permanent gift and can be tossed aside to perish eternally instead. So how is this any more logical than the perceived Calvinist point of view? Let's argue some more about who is right and wrong, see where it gets us.

If I am right, you lose everything. If you are right, I gain everything.

 

[GillDouglas]

As neither an Arminian nor Calvinist, I take issue with the statement about "Christ dying equally and indiscriminately for every individual".

What does "indiscriminately" look like? How can the Son of God die indiscriminately? He KNOWS everyone for whom He died. And the Bible could not be more clear about the scope of His death. He died for all. Not some. And there are no verses that say that He died for only some group, or less than everyone.

By this I mean He shows no partiality or favoritism.

 

[tulipbee]

Man has absolute free will to respond, as you do now. Calvin was wrong in many things, unless you believe he was somehow superior in spiritual knowledge. Just because he had problems solving free will, doesn't mean others do.

None means none. Not some. Not a little bit. It's none. It's not the ability. None wants god.

 

[tulipbee]

There is no problem if something is nonexistent. And, there is no problem that free will, which is nothing other than freedom of choice, which does exist. For God created humanity with a conscience with which to make choices. Free choices. And God has laid out the consequences for the choices that man makes.

18 “Come now, and let us reason together,” Says the LORD, “Though your sins are as scarlet, They will be as white as snow; Though they are red like crimson, They will be like wool.

19 “If you consent and obey, You will eat the best of the land;

20 “But if you refuse and rebel, You will be devoured by the sword.” Truly, the mouth of the LORD has spoken. Isa 1

There it is: God wants to reason together. He's not a puppet master, nor is man a puppet. These verses clearly indicate the choices that face mankind, and the results of either choice.

This is why man is responsible for his choices.


Not true. Man refuses to answer. That proves a choice that is free.

Prov 21:7 - The violence of the wicked will drag them away, Because they refuse to act with justice.
21:25 - The desire of the sluggard puts him to death, For his hands refuse to work;
Isa 1:20 see above
Isa 30:9 - For this is a rebellious people, false sons, Sons who refuse to listen To the instruction of the LORD;
Jer 9:6 - “Your dwelling is in the midst of deceit; Through deceit they refuse to know Me,” declares the LORD.
13:10 - ‘This wicked people, who refuse to listen to My words, who walk in the stubbornness of their hearts and have gone after other gods to serve them and to bow down to them, let them be just like this waistband which is totally worthless

As well, Deut 11 and 30 are all about choices. And their consequences.

The fact of man refusing proves freedom of choice.

"If" can be used in other ways. Not just one way.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Niggling over words accomplishes nothing. John wrote that he wrote these thing so they would not sin. That is always the goal, to not sin. No one here argues otherwise.

So the goal is Sinless Perfectionism? I agree.

"He that saith he abideth in him ought himself also so to walk, even as he walked" (1 John 2:6).

Do you sin when you brush your teeth? How about when you take a shower? How about when you get a drink of water? No one sins constantly. The question is ridiculous.

I agree. That was the point in asking such a question. It was to point out to you that 1 John 1:8 is not saying that we are always abiding in some kind of sin.

That is a lie, no one I know of is saying that except you. It's a straw man.

Well, it is not a lie. There are people here and on other forums I have discussed with that believe that 1 John 1:8 is saying they always have some kind of sin in their life. For what do you think 1 John 1:8 is saying? By what people have said here so far, they have not explained themselves clearly enough in regards to 1 John 1:8.

A ridiculous and totally irrelevant comparison.

Is it really? Do you believe you can die in unrepentant sin such as lying, adultery, hate, etc. and still be saved?
Others here believe they can die in unrepentant sin such as lying, adultery, hate, etc. and still be saved.

Committing a sin does not constitute living in sin.

Where did I say commiting a one time sin is the equivalent of living in sin? I didn't.

In any event, you are getting away from the main point of question I was asking. Let me rephrase the question, to help you better understand. Can a person be holy and also be sinful?

You still sin. Does that mean you're living in sin? By your logic, here, it would mean that you are.

If a person lives in sin day in and day out, then they are living in sin. If a believer stumbles into sin on rare occasion and confesses and forsakes such a sin, then they are on the road to recovery in overcoming sin. There is a difference.

An example of the life of an Antinomian would sort of be like an alcoholic who claims he does not have a drinking problem and yet he continues to drink himself into oblivion. An example of a true believer faced with the same choice would be like an alcoholic who may stumble once or twice on his road to recovery in becomng sober.

No one is arguing against this.

On the one hand you may say this, but on the other hand, if you believe in a sin and still be saved doctrine like many here, then they are arguing against doing God's will in Matthew 7.

Why are you so intent on painting all of the rest of us as...sinners....

Because you and others have said so yourself. In fact, you are against Sinless Perfectionism or in a believer who stops sinning. The opposite of that concept would be sinning which would make one a sinner and not a righteous person. For the Bible says, be not deceived, he that does righteousness is righteous (1 John 3:7). He that commits sin is of the devil (1 John 3:8). Everyone who does evil hates the light (John 3:20).

That's your whole viewpoint, in a nutshell. You claim Sinless Perfection, and yet you tell lies about us, misrepresent us and try to portray us all as something we are not, which is bearing false witness, and a sin, which you commit repeatedly, and seemingly without repentance.

Sinless Perfection? You aren't there, nor have you ever been.

Doesn't matter if nobody lives perfectly sinless in this world right now. It does not change what is in God's Word. Noah and his family were the only ones on the planet God found righteous.

In fact, the Bible says, Noah was a preacher of righteousness (2 Peter 2:5).
This is important to understand because God spared not the old world of those living during Noah's time and God did not spare the city of Sodom and Gomorah because they both were an example to all who live ungodly (2 Peter 2:5-6).


....

 

[sdowney717]

So the goal is Sinless Perfectionism? I agree.

"He that saith he abideth in him ought himself also so to walk, even as he walked" (1 John 2:6).



I agree. That was the point in asking such a question. It was to point out to you that 1 John 1:8 is not saying that we are always abiding in some kind of sin.



Well, it is not a lie. There are people here and on other forums I have discussed with that believe that 1 John 1:8 is saying they always have some kind of sin in their life. For what do you think 1 John 1:8 is saying? By what people have said here so far, they have not explained themselves clearly enough in regards to 1 John 1:8.



Is it really? Do you believe you can die in unrepentant sin such as lying, adultery, hate, etc. and still be saved?
Others here believe they can die in unrepentant sin such as lying, adultery, hate, etc. and still be saved.



Where did I say commiting a one time sin is the equivalent of living in sin? I didn't.

In any event, you are getting away from the main point of question I was asking. Let me rephrase the question, to help you better understand. Can a person be holy and also be sinful?



If a person lives in sin day in and day out, then they are living in sin. If a believer stumbles into sin on rare occasion and confesses and forsakes such a sin, then they are on the road to recovery in overcoming sin. There is a difference.

An example of the life of an Antinomian would sort of be like an alcoholic who claims he does not have a drinking problem and yet he continues to drink himself into oblivion. An example of a true believer faced with the same choice would be like an alcoholic who may stumble once or twice on his road to recovery in becomng sober.



On the one hand you may say this, but on the other hand, if you believe in a sin and still be saved doctrine like many here, then they are arguing against doing God's will in Matthew 7.



Because you and others have said so yourself. In fact, you are against Sinless Perfectionism or in a believer who stops sinning. The opposite of that concept would be sinning which would make one a sinner and not a righteous person. For the Bible says, be not deceived, he that does righteousness is righteous (1 John 3:7). He that commits sin is of the devil (1 John 3:8). Everyone who does evil hates the light (John 3:20).



Doesn't matter if nobody lives perfectly sinless in this world right now. It does not change what is in God's Word. Noah and his family were the only ones on the planet God found righteous.

In fact, the Bible says, Noah was a preacher of righteousness.


....

If you want to know what Calvin wrote on sin and 1 John 3, read this.

http://www.sacred-texts.com/chr/calvin/cc45/cc45014.htm

 

[Bible Highlighter]

If you want to know what Calvin wrote on sin and 1 John 3, read this.

http://www.sacred-texts.com/chr/calvin/cc45/cc45014.htm

Not interested. I do not find the belief of Calvinism or OSAS to be Biblical.


....

 

[FreeGrace2]

You must believe those who are liars and have no truth in them are saved.

I'm glad to tell you who are saved. Those who have believed in the Lord Jesus Christ for salvation. And only those.

I'm afraid you can't manipulate the Bible to say this, or, maybe you can.

lol I haven't manipulated anything.

It's those who think that salvation can be lost by a variety of ways who manipulate or at least fail to understand Scripture.

 

[FreeGrace2]

By this I mean He shows no partiality or favoritism.

Got it. Thanks for the clarification.

 

[FreeGrace2]

"If" can be used in other ways. Not just one way.

Such as?