Please just read the first few chapters and tell us where Paxton is wrong in his study.
All you have to do is compare the RCC statements from the Council of Trent, and you will see why Adventism has a serious problem if they claim to be heirs of the Reformation.
If you will examine this website carefully, you will see that we have spoken out against anti-SDA websites that go too far. On this site we do not try to antagonize SDAs, but we would like to have honest dialogue.
Stan
Hello Stan; I appreciate the cordial reply and the reference; but I will be honest here. Both this website, and the one by Larry K are not what I consider authoritative, as in speaking officially for the Adventist Church. While they do offer some limited insights; they really just espouse a lot of personal opinions, not always Church sanctioned.
I have been studying for several years now with Catholic theologians and scholars; and I can tell you what both sides do believe, and with references; but that would be another subject. I wonder though; did you have a specific purpose to pointing out this “comparison” at the anti-Adventist site of “present truth?” What does this comparison mean to you about The Adventist Church? Are you saying that Adventist believe the same as in The Council Of Trent? If you wouldn’t mind, please, to clarify this more for me, then maybe i will know more what you are looking for. Thanks, in advance, for your reply.
Based on the “resources” which you have pointed me to, and on your constant hammering about “justification by faith alone;” it is not hard to see why anyone would not see you all here as Reformation Theology adherents.
Are you trying a new approach now that I’ve shown how you misused Gabriel’s words? It would be better to simply admit that you misrepresented what he wrote. I am quite certain that anyone of a Reformed background would be very comfortable with me pointing you to the confessions and catechisms I have and with my “constant hammering” on justification by faith alone. I have to say this is the first time I’ve been accused of not adhering to Reformed Theology because I’ve focused too much on justification by faith alone. The irony of it all....
Protestant 101 - 15 June 2009 10:19 AM
If you read my post, you will see that I did not say you said anything; I was asking for clarification. Asking for clarification is not an accusation. All I want to know is what do you say Reformation Theology is? Can I see a list of the main points which you see in it? You accuse Adventists on this site of not keeping in line with it - I would like it spelled out more clearly. If it’s more than just “justification by faith alone;” what else would you add to that? Do you mean one of the Creeds/Confessions?
You can read the confessions and catechesims I wrote about earlier for a more complete understanding of Reformed Theology and it will be better and more complete than anything I can give you. There is no need for me to reinvent the wheel.
Protestant 101 - 15 June 2009 10:19 AM
If you are not in fact saying that Reformation Theology is summed up by “justification by faith alone;” then that means there is something else we need to add to “justification by faith alone” in order to see what the scope of your view is on this. Why won’t you just come out with it?
Because it is not fruitful to get more specific if we don’t agree on this basic point. I invited you to dialogue with me on this doctrine, but so far you have chosen to avoid it.
What denomination are you then? If you are not a Reformed Theology adherent, then why do you talk about it so much, support it so much, and go along with the accusation to Adventists that they do not go along with it; and why don’t you just tell me what you are to clear up the big mystery? Or, are you not yet finished criticising me? At any rate; I am still waiting for some good news from you.
What denomination are you then? If you are not a Reformed Theology adherent, then why do you talk about it so much, support it so much, and go along with the accusation to Adventists that they do not go along with it; and why don’t you just tell me what you are to clear up the big mystery?
Who said I am not a Reformed Theology adherent? Please re-read what I already wrote, because I did not say this.
Protestant 101 - 16 June 2009 08:40 AM
Or, are you not yet finished criticising me? At any rate; I am still waiting for some good news from you.
Earlier in the thread, I wrote this:
Greg - 13 June 2009 09:32 AM
My assertion is that through Jesus Christ there is forgiveness for all sins—past, present and future. There is nothing that I can do to merit or maintain this forgiveness, it is all of grace. The apostle Paul said that if righteousness were obtained through keeping the law, than Christ died for no purpose (Galatians 2:21).
I already gave you good news on this thread, yet your response above shows that you haven’t received it. You have just proven the major premise of this website that Adventists (thinking they already possess the good news) may not in fact possess it and may even have a difficult time recognizing it when they see it.
My prayer for you is that you would see Jesus’ righteousness as precious and his free gift of reconciliation with the Father to be the best news you can possess. And if it is a free gift, it is not augmented or maintained in any way by keeping the law, because if this were the case, Christ truly died for no purpose.
What denomination are you then? If you are not a Reformed Theology adherent, then why do you talk about it so much, support it so much, and go along with the accusation to Adventists that they do not go along with it; and why don’t you just tell me what you are to clear up the big mystery?
Who said I am not a Reformed Theology adherent? Please re-read what I already wrote, because I did not say this.
Protestant 101 - 16 June 2009 08:40 AM
Or, are you not yet finished criticising me? At any rate; I am still waiting for some good news from you.
Earlier in the thread, I wrote this:
Greg - 13 June 2009 09:32 AM
My assertion is that through Jesus Christ there is forgiveness for all sins—past, present and future. There is nothing that I can do to merit or maintain this forgiveness, it is all of grace. The apostle Paul said that if righteousness were obtained through keeping the law, than Christ died for no purpose (Galatians 2:21).
I already gave you good news on this thread, yet your response above shows that you haven’t received it. You have just proven the major premise of this website that Adventists (thinking they already possess the good news) may not in fact possess it and may even have a difficult time recognizing it when they see it.
My prayer for you is that you would see Jesus’ righteousness as precious and his free gift of reconciliation with the Father to be the best news you can possess. And if it is a free gift, it is not augmented or maintained in any way by keeping the law, because if this were the case, Christ truly died for no purpose.
Greg
Adventists do not teach that this grace is “augmented” in anyway. You are simply parroting anti-Adventist strawmen of your Pope - Dale Ratzlaff. Your air of gospel superiority here makes the whole thing seem like some sort of twisted contest. Your statements about what Adventists teach are the clearest evidence I could point to that you actually do not know our beliefs as well as you say.
You have not given me any good news. I decided to take some time and click on quite a few of the threads and links for this site - it is all just one big stab at Adventists; you show no concern for the gospel, only for “proving” Adventists wrong about everything they say, think , or do. If this web site is what you call “good news for Adventists;” I’d sure hate to get the bad news. You don’t have Christianity here Greg; you have a cult religion.
Adventists do not teach that this grace is “augmented” in anyway. You are simply parroting anti-Adventist strawmen of your Pope - Dale Ratzlaff.
Well, Greg, evidently you find yourself in quite a unique position. You are accused of being uncharitable towards those at Ratzlaff’s Former Adventist Forum for disagreeing on theological grounds, even having been banned from the site for challenging a possibly unwarranted labeling of the “Adventist Jesus”, yet Dale Ratzlaff is your pope. I’m sure Steve Pitcher would find that humorous along with several others who read and post here. Maybe Protestant 101 needs to keep reading threads and collecting more data before making unfounded (yet hilarious) accusations such as this.
My prayer for you is that you would see Jesus’ righteousness as precious and his free gift of reconciliation with the Father to be the best news you can possess. And if it is a free gift, it is not augmented or maintained in any way by keeping the law, because if this were the case, Christ truly died for no purpose.
Greg
Yessiree, you’re quite the cult leader, Greg. Articulating the gospel itself will now evidently earn you labels such as this.
Adventists do not teach that this grace is “augmented” in anyway. You are simply parroting anti-Adventist strawmen of your Pope - Dale Ratzlaff.
Well, Greg, evidently you find yourself in quite a unique position. You are accused of being uncharitable towards those at Ratzlaff’s Former Adventist Forum for disagreeing on theological grounds, even having been banned from the site for challenging a possibly unwarranted labeling of the “Adventist Jesus”, yet Dale Ratzlaff is your pope. I’m sure Steve Pitcher would find that humorous along with several others who read and post here. Maybe Protestant 101 needs to keep reading threads and collecting more data before making unfounded (yet hilarious) accusations such as this.
OK; so It’s Walter Martin, but Ratzlaff uses Martins material extensively, and all that you say here originates from these men, and their adherents.
Adventists do not teach that this grace is “augmented” in anyway. You are simply parroting anti-Adventist strawmen of your Pope - Dale Ratzlaff.
Well, Greg, evidently you find yourself in quite a unique position. You are accused of being uncharitable towards those at Ratzlaff’s Former Adventist Forum for disagreeing on theological grounds, even having been banned from the site for challenging a possibly unwarranted labeling of the “Adventist Jesus”, yet Dale Ratzlaff is your pope. I’m sure Steve Pitcher would find that humorous along with several others who read and post here. Maybe Protestant 101 needs to keep reading threads and collecting more data before making unfounded (yet hilarious) accusations such as this.
OK; so It’s Walter Martin, but Ratzlaff uses Martins material extensively, and all that you say here originates from these men, and their adherents. Ratzlaff would accuse his own mother if it suited his purposes; so I wouldn’t worry about his criticisms if I were you. But you might want to examine just where on this site you are parroting his teachings.
OK; so It’s Walter Martin, but Ratzlaff uses Martins material extensively, and all that you say here originates from these men, and their adherents.
My good news came from the Bible, not from Dale Ratzlaff or Walter Martin.
It is very sad that you don’t consider my quote from Scripture to be good news and that you would rather make false judgments against me. It is also sad that despite my repeated invitations for you to discuss and endorse the Protestant doctrine of justification by faith alone, you refuse to do so.
I conclude that we have a fundamental disagreement on the gospel itself, which again shows why this web site is necessary.
I don’t have anything else to say to you at this point, but I will pray for you.
The Bible is written by inspired men, but it is not God’s mode of thought and expression. It is that of humanity. God, as a writer, is not represented. Men will often say such an expression is not like God. But God has not put Himself in words, in logic, in rhetoric, on trial in the Bible. The writers of the Bible were God’s penmen, not His pen. [Selected Messages, Vol. 1, Chapter One “The Inspiration of the Prophetic Writers"]
In stark contrast to the preceding statement, The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy, adopted at a meeting of more than two hundred evangelical leaders in October 1978, rightly affirms that “authority of Scriptures is a key issue for the Christian church in this and every age.” The authority of the Bible is based on its being the written Word of God, and because the Bible is the Word of God and the God of the Bible is truth and speaks truthfully, authority is linked to inerrancy. If the Bible is the Word of God, and if God is a God of truth, then the Bible must be inerrant--not merely in some of its parts, as some modern theologians are saying, but totally, as the church for the most part has said down through the ages of its history.
The human writers were not machines and ought not be conceived of as being without personality. What is overcome or overriden by inspiration is not human personality, style or literary structure, but human tendencies to distortion, falsehood, and error. If the original text were errant, the church would have the option of rejecting the teachings of that errant text. If the original text is inerrant (and the science of textual criticism must be depended upon to reconstruct that inerrant text), we have no legitimate basis for disobeying a mandate of Scripture where the text is not in doubt. Truly, the Bible is God’s voice speaking to us.
Indeed, “All Scripture is inspired [literally meaning ”God-breathed”] by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness” (2 Tim. 3:16 NASB). There is a technical difference between “infallible” and “inerrant.” But anything that is infallible, that is, incapable of erring, cannot at the same time err. For if it errs, it proves that it is capable of erring and therefore is not infallible. In fact, however, the term infallibility in its original and technical meaning is a higher term than the term inerrant. Again, it is important to see that something which is fallible could theoretically be inerrant. But that which is infallible could not theoretically be at the same time errant.
CREDIT: Selected excerpts taken from Explaining Inerrancy by Dr. R. C. Sproul; Ligonier Ministries, 1980).
OK; so It’s Walter Martin, but Ratzlaff uses Martins material extensively, and all that you say here originates from these men, and their adherents.
My good news came from the Bible, not from Dale Ratzlaff or Walter Martin.
It is very sad that you don’t consider my quote from Scripture to be good news and that you would rather make false judgments against me. It is also sad that despite my repeated invitations for you to discuss and endorse the Protestant doctrine of justification by faith alone, you refuse to do so.
I conclude that we have a fundamental disagreement on the gospel itself, which again shows why this web site is necessary.
I don’t have anything else to say to you at this point, but I will pray for you.
Greg
Well, while you would like to claim this kind of credit, how that your “good news came from the Bible;” you have a long ways to go before you can say that you have “good news for Adventists.”
Just because you quote Scripture, does not mean it is “scriptural;” as in “good news,” for good news has to be the truth, in verity.Throughout this site, you use the Scriptures as a whip, and a club, inflicting the slash and burn theology that many embittered anti-Adventist cult groups have adopted.
You want me to “endorse” the “Protestant doctrine of justification by faith alone,” as if somehow your interpretation of it is the litmus test of who is a Christian, and who is not. I have actually started to ask some questions, make some comments re “justification by faith alone;” and for the most part you are ignoring them, and just spilling out your pre-programmed mantra; which, whether you like it or not does come from Ratzlaff, Martin, and the like. And the “icing” on that cake is that your objections to Adventists are very close to the Catholic’s reasoning against us.
You accuse me of making false judgements against you, because I do not accept your claimed authority to make the heretical judgment of who is saved and who is not. After all, according to your reasoning on this site, if I do not have what you say is the exact, correct view of “the gospel;” then I am not a Christian, and therefore, not saved.
I will agree with you on one thing in your last post, we do have a fundamental disagreement on what is the gospel. There are fundamental aspects of the gospel which you consistently leave out, you only use Scripture quotes which appear to give credence to your mantra. You call me hard-nosed, but maybe you should recall how that when you point a finger at myself or another Adventist, there are always three fingers pointing back at you.
While this forum has done a heroic job of quoting the Reformers, and making them to appear “united” on the gospel fundamentals, you still have not been able to show me the scripture which comes right out and says we are “saved by faith alone.” You seem to prefer to quote Reformers in the same way you acuse Adventists of quoting Ellen G White. You need to face the fact that you in fact do not have a clear message to give Adventists; you guys have admitted there is no official definition of “Reformation Theology,” meaning that it is wide open to the personal interpretation and cause of all the groups and individuals out there who want to have their own religion.
While this forum has done a heroic job of quoting the Reformers, and making them to appear “united” on the gospel fundamentals
Making them appear “united” on the gospel fundamentals? Making them appear that they are united on the subject of justification by faith alone? But all their confessions with one voice confess justification by faith alone, and for this doctrine the reformers, lutherans, calvinists, anglicans, were anathemized by Rome. These are simple facts, and if you are unable or unwilling to admit they are true, I see no reason to continue since you are unable or unwilling to deal with simple facts.
Protestant 101 - 04 July 2009 11:48 PM
you still have not been able to show me the scripture which comes right out and says we are “saved by faith alone.”
Ah, you’re asking for an explicit formulation of “justification by faith alone” but you had not yet refuted Calvin’s quotation which I put on another thread. Calvin shows that the concept is present even if the word “alone” is not present. By excluding works from justification, faith remains the sole instrument by which justification is obtained.
Protestant 101 - 04 July 2009 11:48 PM
You need to face the fact that you in fact do not have a clear message to give Adventists; you guys have admitted there is no official definition of “Reformation Theology,” meaning that it is wide open to the personal interpretation and cause of all the groups and individuals out there who want to have their own religion.
I proved that justification by faith alone was the common creed of all reformers. That’s not open to personal interpretation. You’re the one who want to have your own religion by taking a different position. You want to be recognized as “protestant” by your nickname “protestant 101” but take a schismatic position regarding the essence of protestant gospel, the true gospel, justification by faith alone.
Protestant 101 - 04 July 2009 11:48 PM
I have actually started to ask some questions, make some comments re “justification by faith alone;” and for the most part you are ignoring them, and just spilling out your pre-programmed mantra; which, whether you like it or not does come from Ratzlaff, Martin, and the like.
I have answered your question and until now I saw no engagement of the issue on your part. And if we happen to agree with Ratzlaff, Martin and the like, it’s because we are believing in the same gospel of justification by faith alone testified by the Bible, because we have drink from the same fountain, the word of God.
Protestant 101 - 04 July 2009 11:48 PM
After all, according to your reasoning on this site, if I do not have what you say is the exact, correct view of “the gospel;” then I am not a Christian, and therefore, not saved.
But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed. Galatians 1:8,9
There is one single gospel, not two, nor three, and as Paul said, even if he would come and preach another gospel, a different gospel, he would be accursed, eternally condemned, anathema.
Protestant 101 - 04 July 2009 11:48 PM
You call me hard-nosed, but maybe you should recall how that when you point a finger at myself or another Adventist, there are always three fingers pointing back at you.
I’m guilty of many sins, and I’m far from being a model Christian, still I praise God for the fact that I’m forgiven and justified, counted righteous, blameless, have my sins blotted out, washed away, because of Christ’s life, death for my sins, and resurrection, apart from any works, anything I was and I’ll ever be. Maybe one day you’ll understand that all your deeds are filthy rags and cling to Christ alone, by faith alone because you badly need his righteousness in the judgment.
Protestant 101 - 04 July 2009 11:48 PM
Throughout this site, you use the Scriptures as a whip, and a club, inflicting the slash and burn theology that many embittered anti-Adventist cult groups have adopted.
As I stated in another place, it’s a problem of perspective. Inevitably, since the adventist’s gospel is Roman Catholic in essence, the relations between the gospel of justification by faith alone and the adventist gospel is tensioned. Since there is only one gospel, one of the two gospels must go, one must die. Adventists understand this when they classify all the Christian churches, without distinction, under the category of Babylon, apostate Christiantiy. They see themselves as the only visible church which has the true gospel, and consequently condemn any gospel that doesn’t match theirs. In consequence, when they condemn the gospel of reformation, which we believe is biblical and true, they condemn the true gospel and pronounce a curse on themselves. When the true gospel is presented to adventists, they will perceive it as a threat to their belief, their system of faith built on a different understanding of the Bible. But they should not forget that they voluntarily entered into this condition when they established their doctrine about Babylon and apostasy of all Christian denominations, without exceptions.
With this, I think that I have nothing to say, since I see no engagement on your part with the answers we put up, just a reiteration of previous accusations without any meaningful interaction. Good luck in the judgment day with your gospel of justification by faith plus works. Maybe your works will pass the test.
While this forum has done a heroic job of quoting the Reformers, and making them to appear “united” on the gospel fundamentals
Making them appear “united” on the gospel fundamentals? Making them appear that they are united on the subject of justification by faith alone? But all their confessions with one voice confess justification by faith alone, and for this doctrine the reformers, lutherans, calvinists, anglicans, were anathemized by Rome. These are simple facts, and if you are unable or unwilling to admit they are true, I see no reason to continue since you are unable or unwilling to deal with simple facts.
Protestant 101 - 04 July 2009 11:48 PM
you still have not been able to show me the scripture which comes right out and says we are “saved by faith alone.”
Ah, you’re asking for an explicit formulation of “justification by faith alone” but you had not yet refuted Calvin’s quotation which I put on another thread. Calvin shows that the concept is present even if the word “alone” is not present. By excluding works from justification, faith remains the sole instrument by which justification is obtained.
Protestant 101 - 04 July 2009 11:48 PM
You need to face the fact that you in fact do not have a clear message to give Adventists; you guys have admitted there is no official definition of “Reformation Theology,” meaning that it is wide open to the personal interpretation and cause of all the groups and individuals out there who want to have their own religion.
I proved that justification by faith alone was the common creed of all reformers. That’s not open to personal interpretation. You’re the one who want to have your own religion by taking a different position. You want to be recognized as “protestant” by your nickname “protestant 101” but take a schismatic position regarding the essence of protestant gospel, the true gospel, justification by faith alone.
Protestant 101 - 04 July 2009 11:48 PM
I have actually started to ask some questions, make some comments re “justification by faith alone;” and for the most part you are ignoring them, and just spilling out your pre-programmed mantra; which, whether you like it or not does come from Ratzlaff, Martin, and the like.
I have answered your question and until now I saw no engagement of the issue on your part. And if we happen to agree with Ratzlaff, Martin and the like, it’s because we are believing in the same gospel of justification by faith alone testified by the Bible, because we have drink from the same fountain, the word of God.
Protestant 101 - 04 July 2009 11:48 PM
After all, according to your reasoning on this site, if I do not have what you say is the exact, correct view of “the gospel;” then I am not a Christian, and therefore, not saved.
But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed. Galatians 1:8,9
There is one single gospel, not two, nor three, and as Paul said, even if he would come and preach another gospel, a different gospel, he would be accursed, eternally condemned, anathema.
Protestant 101 - 04 July 2009 11:48 PM
You call me hard-nosed, but maybe you should recall how that when you point a finger at myself or another Adventist, there are always three fingers pointing back at you.
I’m guilty of many sins, and I’m far from being a model Christian, still I praise God for the fact that I’m forgiven and justified, counted righteous, blameless, have my sins blotted out, washed away, because of Christ’s life, death for my sins, and resurrection, apart from any works, anything I was and I’ll ever be. Maybe one day you’ll understand that all your deeds are filthy rags and cling to Christ alone, by faith alone because you badly need his righteousness in the judgment.
Protestant 101 - 04 July 2009 11:48 PM
Throughout this site, you use the Scriptures as a whip, and a club, inflicting the slash and burn theology that many embittered anti-Adventist cult groups have adopted.
As I stated in another place, it’s a problem of perspective. Inevitably, since the adventist’s gospel is Roman Catholic in essence, the relations between the gospel of justification by faith alone and the adventist gospel is tensioned. Since there is only one gospel, one of the two gospels must go, one must die. Adventists understand this when they classify all the Christian churches, without distinction, under the category of Babylon, apostate Christiantiy. They see themselves as the only visible church which has the true gospel, and consequently condemn any gospel that doesn’t match theirs. In consequence, when they condemn the gospel of reformation, which we believe is biblical and true, they condemn the true gospel and pronounce a curse on themselves. When the true gospel is presented to adventists, they will perceive it as a threat to their belief, their system of faith built on a different understanding of the Bible. But they should not forget that they voluntarily entered into this condition when they established their doctrine about Babylon and apostasy of all Christian denominations, without exceptions.
With this, I think that I have nothing to say, since I see no engagement on your part with the answers we put up, just a reiteration of previous accusations without any meaningful interaction. Good luck in the judgment day with your gospel of justification by faith plus works. Maybe your works will pass the test.
Gabriel
It wasn’t Adventists who established the doctrine about Babylon: Rev 18:4
It seems that you would rather follow Calvin than the Bible’s picture on the doctrine of salvation. Your view is so limited that no one could possibly be saved; except by your narrow say-so. I am not the one that will need “good luck.”
I perceive absolutely nothing you say here as “a threat to my belief system” for you have done nothing to convince me of anything yet. So far; my posts are geared to finding out where you are coming from. You are making that very plain.
As far as I can see, you have misrepresented both The Reformers, and Seventh-day Adventists on this web site, and I am not yet decided exactly what I will refute in detail here, if anything. Maybe if I endure a few more of your insults and characterizations, enough information will come to light for me to make an informed decision.
It seems that you would rather follow Calvin than the Bible’s picture on the doctrine of salvation.
This is odd criticism coming from an Adventist with an extrabiblical “source of truth” in Ellen White, who was all over the map on the doctrine of salvation. It is one thing to assert that you hold the biblical doctrine of salvation but another thing for this assertion to be backed by evidence. The only evidence you’ve provided so far is that you disagree with the Protestant position on justification by faith alone and stand squarely with the Roman Catholics in opposing it.
Protestant 101 - 05 July 2009 02:59 PM
Your view is so limited that no one could possibly be saved; except by your narrow say-so.
Where did Gabriel claim to have the power to decide who was saved? Please stop bearing false witness (again). His point was that anyone who insists on a faith + works formula for salvation is on perilous ground. The apostle Paul’s warning in Galatians 1:8-9 is enough for us to see that anyone who believes in a different gospel than the one he preached is accursed. If you have a problem with this, your argument is with Paul, not with Gabriel.
Protestant 101 - 05 July 2009 02:59 PM
As far as I can see, you have misrepresented both The Reformers, and Seventh-day Adventists on this web site…
Ironic comment, especially coming from someone who can’t endorse justification by faith alone. Please show me a Protestant reformer who shared your position and I might take you seriously. You continue to assert that we are misrepresenting Adventists, but your posts keep confirming that we are not. By denying the Protestant doctrine of justification by faith alone, you cannot be Protestant (even if you’d like to name yourself as such) and you do need to hear the gospel, just like the Roman Catholics who anathemetize it. Repent and trust in Jesus alone for your salvation, because even your good works are like filthy rags and will only condemn you in the judgment.
“And to the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness...” (Romans 4:5)
