Sabbath School subject discussion thread

[Adventtruth]

1 Timothy 4:9-10: This is a trustworthy saying that deserves full acceptance (and for this we labor and strive), that we have put our hope in the living God, who is the Savior of all men, and especially of those who believe.

Thanks for that scripture sentipente. Can you kindly explain to me in what sense are all men saved? Is this a eternal salvation? Lets look to the passage.

(1Ti 4:10) For to this end we toil and strive, because we have our hope set on the living God, who is the Savior of all people, especially of those who believe.


1)How is the first group who are saved different for the last group who especially believe?

2) Does it mean he brings all to heaven...especially those who believe?

Kindly make sense of this please.



I'l be looking for your answer.

AT

 

[StormyOne]

Well lets kindly look to 2 Tim 3:16 for the word scripture and then look to Thayers for the definition of the word. Will that be authority enough for you?

G1124
γραφή
graphē
Thayer Definition:
1) a writing, thing written
2) the Scripture, used to denote either the book itself, or its contents
3) a certain portion or section of the Holy Scripture
Part of Speech: noun feminine
A Related Word by Thayer’s/Strong’s Number: of uncertain affinity
Citing in TDNT: 1:749, 128

AT

and when that was written to Timothy, scripture based on Paul's view consisted of what? The NT did not exist... so he was referring to??? Where does Paul suggest that there should be additions to the scripture that already existed?

 

[RC_NewProtestants]

RC I asked you to supply the text that show God saves outside of Christ and you have yet to do so. It’s interesting that you would isolate this text as to make it stand on its own, thus make it say what you would have it to say. But a good reading of the context into chapter 1 would manifest what Paul’s real intent was by using such language. Before we look at what was really said from the context let me give you a few reasons why this passage (Rom 2:14-16) is not saying what you say: that God saves those who never heard of Christ.

Well most of what you went on to say has little relevance. But if it is your belief that once Christ came that all people who have never even had the opportunity to even hear the name Jesus Christ cannot be saved in spite of what Paul said here and in spite of common sense that God can grant eternal life as He sees fit, based upon His knowledge and His love then what can I say. As J.B.Phillips is famous for saying; "your God is too small".

Frankly that is what I dislike the most about you fundamentalists. You make God after your own image. You make Jesus who came to save the lost to in effect lose the saved, because before Christ He did not count their sins against them but once Christ came then even those who could never even hear of Christ are condemned to be lost forever. I suppose this fits into your predestination view however because God knew that all those people would never be saved so He had them be born in China for a couple thousand years where they would never hear about Jesus Christ. The ones He wanted to be saved got to be born in areas where knowledge of Christ was present. Thank God for Constantine since he was the main cause for the knowledge of Christ to be spread so that it would be a little easier for God to have people be born where they had the possibility to hear about Christ.

Just yesterday I heard one of your clan on a radio talk show saying that if you don't believe in Jesus they are lost because the only way to salvation is believing in Jesus. Probably like AT when reminded that the Old Testament people did not believe in Jesus she would stumble about and claim it is irrelevant or like AT say look at the verb tense as if non sequitors will help them. All those excuses that AT gave us above could be used to argue that Abraham can't be saved also. That is what fundamentalism does. It causes people to stop thinking. They even deny what the Bible does say so that they can make God less then God because that is how their tradition has trained them.

For you other Progressive Adventists out there, note that most of the above kind of thinking comes because these people believe God cannot freely forgive but had to have Christ pay the penalty for sin therefore as they say God saves us through Christ's actions of suffering the penalty of sin and being our substitute. so that unless one believes that one particular atonement theory one cannot be saved. It logically falls apart however when you look at the Old Testament people but they will then say that they saw Christ in the sacrifices, which of course they did not but once given over to fundamentalism reality is the first casualty.

 

[RC_NewProtestants]

fortunately the above mentioned fundamentalism is on the decline:

Survey Shows U.S. Religious Tolerance

By NEELA BANERJEE
Although a majority of Americans say religion is very important to them, nearly three-quarters of them say they believe that many faiths besides their own can lead to salvation, according to a survey by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life.
The report, the U.S. Religious Landscape Survey, reveals a broad trend toward tolerance and an ability among many Americans to hold beliefs that might contradict the doctrines of their professed faiths.


For example, 70 percent of Americans affiliated with a religion or denomination said they agreed that “many religions can lead to eternal life,” including majorities among Protestants and Catholics. Among evangelical Christians, 57 percent agreed with the statement, and among Catholics, 79 percent did.


Among minority faiths, more than 80 percent of Jews, Hindus and Buddhists agreed with the statement, and more than half of Muslims did.


The findings seem to undercut the conventional wisdom that the more religiously committed people are, the more intolerant they are, scholars who reviewed the survey said.

Of course polls encompass opinions of people who really have little knowledge upon the subject whether political or religious. But I think it also shows that many of the fundamentalist assumptions simply cannot be respected and therefore are not believed even by the people who grew up with them. But as research has shown fundamentalist are most likely to abandon their religion rather then modify their religion. But it is pretty much impossible to go back to fundamentalism once you leave it behind because frankly no religion becomes far more attractive then the view of God and man that fundamentalism creates.

 

[moicherie]

Hate? don't think I hate dear lady....And its not that those who reject the bible don't think like me....its that they don't think like the bible.


AT

Lets see Jesus said people will know his disciples by their ability to quote from the Torah and think alike............ er no by love. I am under no obligation to think 'like the bible' (whatever that means) only to be a follower of Christ unless you want me to go around stoning sabbath breakers...

 

[moicherie]

Well, thanks.
I await your Scriptural answer for a multiple-selection means of salvation, while I brush up on my observation capabilities

Keep waiting, for am I under no obligation to prove something that you made up about me so keep brushing.

 

[Adventtruth]

Well most of what you went on to say has little relevance.

And yet you have not even attempted to refute it other than saying it has little relevance. This suggest that you don't care for the truthfulness and authority of scripture as much as your own common sense which is a carnal way of thinking when it comes to spiritual matters.

But if it is your belief that once Christ came that all people who have never even had the opportunity to even hear the name Jesus Christ cannot be saved in spite of what Paul said here and in spite of common sense that God can grant eternal life as He sees fit, based upon His knowledge and His love then what can I say. As J.B.Phillips is famous for saying; "your God is too small".

And yet the bible still teaches that Gods elects who He wills. Now we can argue what is Gods elect, which is another discussion for another time. But now you say God grants eternal life as He see's fit. Is this what I have been arguing? Yes it is...God has chosen how He see's fit to save humanity, and it is you who has been arguing the contrary....you what God to save humanity the way you see fit, that has been your argument all the while, you reject the literal plain reading of scripture that teaches this truth.

Frankly that is what I dislike the most about you fundamentalists. You make God after your own image. You make Jesus who came to save the lost to in effect lose the saved, because before Christ He did not count their sins against them but once Christ came then even those who could never even hear of Christ are condemned to be lost forever.

This is one of the wackiest Ideas I have seen from you RC. You are slipping, and starting to show your hand. You need to think about what you are saying. Sin is much more that a negative responce, and yet people still died because of sin did they not? You sound like you have been reading Jack Sequera, Robert J. Wieland and Donald K. Short of 1888 Message Study Committee and Maxwell and his MIT oh and btw they all loved EGW and her writtings. So in reality, thats just plain old Adventist Doctrine wrapped in anothers clothing.

I suppose this fits into your predestination view however because God knew that all those people would never be saved so He had them be born in China for a couple thousand years where they would never hear about Jesus Christ. The ones He wanted to be saved got to be born in areas where knowledge of Christ was present. Thank God for Constantine since he was the main cause for the knowledge of Christ to be spread so that it would be a little easier for God to have people be born where they had the possibility to hear about Christ.

If this is what you think predestination is all about??? IF you do then you have a lots to learn. Why don't you pick up a bible and learn what the truth is about that doctrine? Oh I briefly forgot....you don't trust the bible, so you make it all up.

Just yesterday I heard one of your clan on a radio talk show saying that if you don't believe in Jesus they are lost because the only way to salvation is believing in Jesus. Probably like AT when reminded that the Old Testament people did not believe in Jesus she would stumble about and claim it is irrelevant or like AT say look at the verb tense as if non sequitors will help them. All those excuses that AT gave us above could be used to argue that Abraham can't be saved also. That is what fundamentalism does. It causes people to stop thinking. They even deny what the Bible does say so that they can make God less then God because that is how their tradition has trained them.

You know RC...You have yet to give a good argument from the bible. All you care about is spreading your immature talk about what others say that you believe is wrong.If you read the bible you would understand the heritage of Gods people passed down through time. If you want to take jabs at me, go ahead, I don't care, but while you are doing it, kindly bring some substance to the forum. Bring a bible study or something we can make a good debate about, rather than these posting that have no substance. I've noticed here alots that Adventist don't like to bring any substance to the table. Its all conjecture and relativism with a jab thrown here and there.

For you other Progressive Adventists out there, note that most of the above kind of thinking comes because these people believe God cannot freely forgive but had to have Christ pay the penalty for sin therefore as they say God saves us through Christ's actions of suffering the penalty of sin and being our substitute. so that unless one believes that one particular atonement theory one cannot be saved. It logically falls apart however when you look at the Old Testament people but they will then say that they saw Christ in the sacrifices, which of course they did not but once given over to fundamentalism reality is the first casualty.

I'm wondering how many people on these boards actually believe what you just said. This quote by you shows a few things about you.

1) You don't trust the bible.

2) You don't trust the God of the bible.

3) You don't think Chirst was the all sufficient atonement for sin, that there is another way to gain heaven.

4)That you don't believe that Christ was humanities substitute for our sin.

5) That there was no legal reason why Christ had to die.

6) That you lack knowledge and are unlearned in old testament studies.

There are a number of other things that could be mentioned of your skills. But for now I will leave it at that so others can see.


AT

 

[VictorC]

Keep waiting, for am I under no obligation to prove something that you made up about me so keep brushing.

In the post you wrote <untitled> regarding the text of Acts 4:12, you had this to opine:

So which part of that text says all humans must personally be aquainted with the name Jesus Christ?

Questioning the Scriptures wasn't something I "made up" about you.
I wrote in response apologetics requires the use of Scripture, not conjecture an appeal to determine where you find a multple-choice salvation:

It is incumbent on you to show that salvation is available to those the Gospel hasn't reached from the Scriptures. In a response to another member, I had mentioned that common sense is carnal, and isn't representative of the means God has established to save His elect.

I'm still waiting for you to demonstrate that there is salvation outside of the only Redeemer God has provided for us.

Victor

 

[moicherie]

In the post you wrote <untitled> regarding the text of Acts 4:12, you had this to opine:

Questioning the Scriptures wasn't something I "made up" about you.

Victor

I questioned your use of the text not the text itself, yet you cannot tell the difference. A characterics that is common to Adventists who believe their interpretation of a text is infallible.

 

[VictorC]

I questioned your use of the text not the text itself, yet you cannot tell the difference. A characterics that is common to Adventists who believe their interpretation of a text is infallible.

Moicherie, I'm still waiting for your redress of Acts 4:12.
Isn't calling the text presented into question, and asserting that it doesn't really mean what it really says an act of interpretation, if not downright eisegesis?

 

[RC_NewProtestants]

And yet you have not even attempted to refute it other than saying it has little relevance. This suggest that you don't care for the truthfulness and authority of scripture as much as your own common sense which is a carnal way of thinking when it comes to spiritual matters.

...



I'm wondering how many people on these boards actually believe what you just said. This quote by you shows a few things about you.

1) You don't trust the bible.

2) You don't trust the God of the bible.

3) You don't think Chirst was the all sufficient atonement for sin, that there is another way to gain heaven.

4)That you don't believe that Christ was humanities substitute for our sin.

5) That there was no legal reason why Christ had to die.

6) That you lack knowledge and are unlearned in old testament studies.

There are a number of other things that could be mentioned of your skills. But for now I will leave it at that so others can see.


AT

Now why would I refute irrelevant ideas? In fact why would I even argue the subject with someone like you who assumes facts not in evidence and who can't stay on a subject without waffling (when asked to explain your statements you respond "look at my verb tense") about as you have done on every thread I have encountered you on. So you let your assumptions dictate what I know and don't know. I am used to this from the fundamentalists of Christianity. They have in effect lost the ability to reason and read things only through their limited interpretation.

Again your God is too small, but it may be that it is the only God you will allow yourself to see. The problem is that you want to assert your small God upon others and God Himself. Your philosophy, I am afraid, are one of the biggest threats to Christianity, people with poorly thought out philosophy that make God out a fool. I suppose it gives people like you some kind of feeling of superiority as your concluding list seems to indicate, but to me it a tragedy.

 

[Adventtruth]

Now why would I refute irrelevant ideas? In fact why would I even argue the subject with someone like you who assumes facts not in evidence and who can't stay on a subject without waffling (when asked to explain your statements you respond "look at my verb tense") about as you have done on every thread I have encountered you on. So you let your assumptions dictate what I know and don't know. I am used to this from the fundamentalists of Christianity. They have in effect lost the ability to reason and read things only through their limited interpretation.

Again your God is too small, but it may be that it is the only God you will allow yourself to see. The problem is that you want to assert your small God upon others and God Himself. Your philosophy, I am afraid, are one of the biggest threats to Christianity, people with poorly thought out philosophy that make God out a fool. I suppose it gives people like you some kind of feeling of superiority as your concluding list seems to indicate, but to me it a tragedy.

RC you may attack me all you want. It does not bother me. So have at it.

But you have yet to defend your position from the scriptures. And it is as if your constant attacks of me is a red herring for the real issues of faith and salvation.

If you feel as if I have made assumptions about your conjecture, its because you have failed to present bible text in context to support your beliefs. So from your constant conjecture and relatisim I can only make the following observation.

I'm wondering how many people on these boards actually believe what you just said.

1) You don't trust the bible.

2) You don't trust the God of the bible.

3) You don't think Chirst was the all sufficient atonement for sin, that there is another way to gain heaven.

4)That you don't believe that Christ was humanities substitute for our sin.

5) That there was no legal reason why Christ had to die.

6) That you lack knowledge and are unlearned in old testament studies.




I suggest if you don't want assumptions about your beliefs, that you not make the statements that you make. So if you deny any of these 6 statements I have made from your remarks, why don't you refute them with scripture in context. Can you do it? If memory serves me right, you and I and woob had a discussion a few years ago about the Atonement. He and I both gave you scripture upon scripture and all you gave us was more of your conjecture and logic without bible text. You also offered us many web addresses to go read, to which we both refused to read your web sites. So can you put together a good argument from scripture? I betcha you can't do it. You will make some excuse or throw in big Red Herring, so prove me wrong RC. Lets get some substance




AT

 

[Adventtruth]

Bump For RC. Refute with scripture!

Your text can't stand alone.

….God saves, He can save people in the Old testament just as well as He can save those who have never heard of Christ but live to the revelation of God however revealed to them in their conscience. I have pointed this out before but this is Biblical.
​

Romans 2:14 For when Gentiles who do not have the Law do instinctively the things of the Law, these, not having the Law, are a law to themselves, 15 in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them, 16 on the day when, according to my gospel, God will judge the secrets of men through Christ Jesus.
That last phrase is interesting because it points to God judging through Jesus Christ, the same Jesus Christ who promised a thief on the cross that he would be with Christ in paradise, the same Jesus who forgave even those who tortured and killed Him.

Quite different from the exlusivity that many want to insert upon God's gift of
​

salvation.


RC I asked you to supply the text that show God saves outside of Christ and you have yet to do so. It’s interesting that you would isolate this text as to make it stand on its own, thus make it say what you would have it to say. But a good reading of the context into chapter 1 would manifest what Paul’s real intent was by using such language. Before we look at what was really said from the context let me give you a few reasons why this passage (Rom 2:14-16) is not saying what you say: that God saves those who never heard of Christ.


1) No one is saved by works.

2) Gentiles have not the law, but show the works of the law which is wrath! (Rom 4:15)

3) The text you supplied shows Judgment according to works.

4) There is no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus (Rom 8: 1)

5) The thief on the cross was saved by faith apart from the works of the law.

6) Those that have law will be judged by it.

7) The heathen or gentile who has not the law will be judged according to the light of conscience and not by grace, in the last days by Christ Jesus.

8) Condemnation and Justification are contray to one another.



(Rom 1:16-17)For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek. 17 For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith.


Paul In addressing the Roman Church that consisted of Jews and perhaps even more Gentiles, has just put forth the notion that it is the gospel of God in Christ, and faith in that gospel that enables one to secure salvation by grace alone through faith. He establishes and qualifies that all men…Jew and Greek (gentile) are entitled to behold and partake of the righteousness of God that is reveal only through faith by saying that every one that believeth .

(Rom 1:18) For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;

This wrath is revealed against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men. Paul here is proving that sense Gods righteousness is through faith as stated in verse 16-17, and that men have no righteousness of their own, then all men stand under condemnation of God. God’s punishment is against sin, and all who have not Christ fall under sin and are subject to wrath. And that includes the gentile who have not the law, who have there conscience accusing them or defending them. Now RC how are you going to argue against this truth from the bible…you can reason your way around it, or you can receive this truth from the bible.

In Chapter two, Paul understanding the Jew, knowing that they thought that they had a covenant relationship with God through the promise made with Abraham, in that He would be Abrahams God and his seeds after him…. but not as individuals, but as a whole nation or community. They though this connection was secure by observing the law and circumcision.

Rom 2:1-31 Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest doest the same things. 2 But we are sure that the judgment of God is according to truth against them which commit such things. 3 And thinkest thou this, O man, that judgest them which do such things, and doest the same, that thou shalt escape the judgment of God?


I’m sure I don’t have to tell you that Jew’s thought they where free from the judgments of God, and wanted God to judge the Gentile. Paul here is letting them know that Gods judgment according to works will be fair…to the Jew first as well as the Gentile. They thought God would judge them according to their national relationship with Him….they thought as a whole they where in the safety zone. But Paul is quick to help them understand if they judge the heathen; they themselves are to be judged as well, being destitute of Gods righteousness without real faith.

Rom 2:4-6Or despisest thou the riches of his goodness and forbearance and longsuffering; not knowing that the goodness of God leadeth thee to repentance? 5 But after thy hardness and impenitent heart treasurest up unto thyself wrath against the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God; 6 Who will render to every man according to his deeds:

Here we see what happens when those who abuse the goodness of God that leads to repentance. (Keep in mind that Paul is showing the Roman Church Gods judgment according to work.) They store up wrath for themselves…God then judges according to works, because they are free of grace through a lack of faith. They are not judged because of there profession but according to there works.

Roman2:7-11To them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, eternal life: 8 But unto them that are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath, 9 Tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Gentile&#65279; 10 But glory, honour, and peace, to every man that worketh good, to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile&#65279; 11 For there is no respect of persons with God. 12


Now what are we to make of these remarks by Paul? Is he teaching that salvation is by work? Has Paul just disqualified all his teachings on justification by grace alone through faith alone apart from works? No…keep in mind the context. Paul is only declaring what a divine judgment according to works will bring out. This is what the Jews where clinging to for justification by God, Judgment according to works. So Paul was merely exposing their flaws because of there rejection of that righteousness that was provided through the gospel.

(Romans 2:12) For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law; 13

This passage is clear to understand RC. And you excluded it from you text in your posting as to make your text stand alone. Do you see the word perish in the text? Does your text make void this text? Those who sin without law….That would be the whole gentile community. They will perish is clear, and what you and Stormy are saying that God saves apart from Chirst...That those who have not heard of Christ are saved, can’t be confirmed from the bible as being the correct view… They will perish without the law, unless they trust Christ by faith alone. It is the Jewish nation that has law and will be judged by that law, being free of grace through a lack of faith.


(Romans 2:14-16)For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: 15 Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience&#65279;c also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another16 In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel.

Finally your passage. The gentile believer has not the Mosaic Law, or the Ten Commandments. But they become a law to themselves seeing they have the light or law of nature within them. They understand what is right and wrong because the bible declares that their conscience bears witness and the thoughts are accusing or excusing one another. Now if we stick to the context of chapter one, we know that these gentiles held the truth in unrighteousness. If we look to the immediate context of verse 12 we see that they perish without law. But they do have the light of nature and a sense of what is right and wrong. If they do what is right, it is not in a love relationship with God and is worthless for salvation. The work of the law is to point out right and wrong actions and to declare wrath for disobedience.

The context suggest Paul had something else in mind and not what you say.

You have failed at your attempt to supply scripture to support you theory that God saves man outside of Christ RC.


AT
__________________
The greatest gift God gave to humanity is HIMSELF!

 

[StormyOne]

you happy now AT? The fact is you and RC have reached an impasse, there will be no reconciling the two positions.... you wish to claim it as a victory? Do so and quit beating this dead horse....

 

[moicherie]

Moicherie, I'm still waiting for your redress of Acts 4:12.
Isn't calling the text presented into question, and asserting that it doesn't really mean what it really says an act of interpretation, if not downright eisegesis?

It seems the more I write 2+2 = 4 you keep insisting I wrote 2+2 = 7 so its no point reasoning with you since going round and round in circles becomes boring.

 

[VictorC]

It seems the more I write 2+2 = 4 you keep insisting I wrote 2+2 = 7 so its no point reasoning with you since going round and round in circles becomes boring.

Hardly.
I have sat in the same place since you've questioned the sole Name given for salvation presented in Acts 4:12.
In contrast, you have intentionally avoided this verse ever since you initially questioned it.

 

[StormyOne]

What's with the badgering? Moicherie has stated what she believes, you all don't agree, another dead horse being beaten into paste.... can we move on?

 

[RC_NewProtestants]

RC you may attack me all you want. It does not bother me. So have at it.

But you have yet to defend your position from the scriptures. And it is as if your constant attacks of me is a red herring for the real issues of faith and salvation.

If you feel as if I have made assumptions about your conjecture, its because you have failed to present bible text in context to support your beliefs. So from your constant conjecture and relatisim I can only make the following observation.

I'm wondering how many people on these boards actually believe what you just said.

1) You don't trust the bible.

2) You don't trust the God of the bible.

3) You don't think Chirst was the all sufficient atonement for sin, that there is another way to gain heaven.

4)That you don't believe that Christ was humanities substitute for our sin.

5) That there was no legal reason why Christ had to die.

6) That you lack knowledge and are unlearned in old testament studies.




I suggest if you don't want assumptions about your beliefs, that you not make the statements that you make. So if you deny any of these 6 statements I have made from your remarks, why don't you refute them with scripture in context. Can you do it? If memory serves me right, you and I and woob had a discussion a few years ago about the Atonement. He and I both gave you scripture upon scripture and all you gave us was more of your conjecture and logic without bible text. You also offered us many web addresses to go read, to which we both refused to read your web sites. So can you put together a good argument from scripture? I betcha you can't do it. You will make some excuse or throw in big Red Herring, so prove me wrong RC. Lets get some substance




AT

Very well believe what you want and lie as you want. Yes you are lying, read the part in red. I have a large article on the subject of the atonement with many verses to back up my position.
What is wrong with the Substitutionary theory of the Atonement?

If you think that your lies and attacks are showing how you are such a real Christian I am sorry for your ignorance and delusions.

 

[moicherie]

Hardly.
I have sat in the same place since you've questioned the sole Name given for salvation presented in Acts 4:12.
In contrast, you have intentionally avoided this verse ever since you initially questioned it.

I don't give into bullying tactics, especially ones based on either false accusations or people who insist on misintepreting what I write, so lets move on shall we?

 

[VictorC]

I don't give into bullying tactics, especially ones based on either false accusations or people who insist on misintepreting what I write, so lets move on shall we?

Since you're not willing to stand behind your posts, I suppose there's no alternative to abandonment of them.