Featured "Original Sin" and Romans 5:12-14

JamesL

No...I will just let the readers decide for themselves

No secret there it was the Apostle Paul rom3:23 romans5: 12-21

I do post some really good links and web sites....everyone likes them except you and DHK.

I forgot only "you" can do that.

My friends and buddies are very solid...I learn from them everyday.It must be hard on you being so smart that you cannot learn from regular Christians.

 

I stated earlier that you've got the premise pretty well, but I shouldn't have been so quick - because Paul is not finished. There's much more that's goung to happen at the time of our resurrection than just our resurrection.

Christ will return. The voice of an Archangel, the dead in Christ will rise, we who are alive and remain shall be caught up to meet Him in the air and be changed in the twinkling of an eye. And He shall come and all His saints with Him. The earth will be judged, the dead will stand before Him and the books will be opened.

That's where Paul is going from chapter 5. And as I said earlier, he reiterates in chapter 8 some of the same stuff.

5:5 Holy Spirit has been given to us
8:9-11 Spirit of God dwells in you

5:2 we boast in our hope of sharing the glory of God
8:17 glorified with Christ
8: 29-30 predestined....those He justified He also glorified

5:3 we boast in our sufferings
8:18 present sufferings not worthy to be compared with the glory...

5:5 the love of God has been poured out in our hearts
8:35 who will separate us from the live of Christ?
8:38-39 neither life nor death....can separate us from the live of God

4:25 Christ died for our trespasses, raised for our justification
5:10 having been reconciled by His death, we shall be saved by His life
5:18 justification of life
8:11 the Spirit of Him who raised Christ will give life to your mortal body

5 times in chapter 8, Paul revisited what he mentioned in chapter 5
He made bookends. What's in between is a parenthetical treatment of how vile the body is, and how we should not let it have dominion over us.

And that part in 5:12-14, he's saying that when Adam sinned, physical death came into the world. And death spread to all because all....sinned? At least one lexicon (Zodhiates) suggests it should be "all were made to feel the effects of sin." - which is physical death.

 

Alas, probably not. But it's always a pleasure to discuss with you.

The discussion is on original sin and Romans 5:12-14. I don't see how you can do that without asking whether there was law before there was sin and whether Adam was under law. However, after this post, I will withdraw and let others have a go.

Well, no. As you no doubt realise it was simply a typo on my part. I have adjusted it on my OP. The point is that if death came to all men because all sinned, and if sin is not imputed where there is no law, then there are only two possibilities. Either no one died before Moses brought the law, or the law existed before Adam sinned. You have to decide which one it is. I don't think that will be too hard for an intelligent chap like you.

You have taken this word 'transgression,' parabasis, and are bouncing up and down on it like a trampoline. But Adam's Fall is also described as a 'sin,' hamartia, 'offense,' paraptoma and 'disobedience,' parakoe. Now each of these words has a slightly different meaning when used separately, but surely here, Paul is just piling up synonyms to show that every sin, whatever its type is taken away by the Lord Jesus.

I will stop here, but I want you to answer one question as I ask it for the third time. Do you believe that Adam in the Garden was free to sin as much, as seriously and how ever many times and in however many ways he wanted just so long as he didn't eat the fruit? Yes or no. I know that it is not actually declared in the Bible (save perhaps in Hosea 6:7) that Adam was under the Moral law, but is it not necessarily contained there (1689 Confession 1.6)?

As you are well aware, I am not unsupported in my assertions. In accusing me of this, you are accusing a lot of very great men. I am happy to be lumped together with them.

I will now let this thread alone and leave you to your discussions.

 

Frankly, I have not considered Adam being under any "moral law" or code pre-consuming of the forbidden.

I am not certain that I know enough of the Scriptures to support that Adam had such a moral code given.

However, from a philosophical approach, it can be true that the moral code was a part of him because he was made a copy of the second Adam as the first Adam. Then it follows that because of that image of God, every human has that moral code as an integral part of their being formed, and therefore, are responsible.

Could Adam have become as the enemy of believers having iniquity found in him before the "fall?" Did any creator have that ability? What of the non-human creatures of this day, do they sin? When Adam sinned was just the humankind condemned, or was the whole "kosmos" condemned?

These are all valid questions that would in some manner pertain to taking Romans as supporting the view of the OP.

 

Specifically a reference to the first occurrence of sin and it's consequences.

A misleading doctrine meant to explain man's condition but fails to do so properly. We do not inherit sin in the sense a baby inherits a mother's addiction, malady, or disease. Sin is the result of an absence, not something passed down, and what is absent is relationship with God.

That is what Adam lost, and the "condition" we (all who descend from Adam) are born into. The Remedy for this condition is for man to be brought back into relationship with man, which is accomplished in the Atonement/Reconciliation.

I would have to see passages that state this. In the general sense we can understand the difference between sin which is charged to the sinner, and sin which is forgiven. We see indication that people can sin and not be aware of it, which makes it no less sin, the only question being the accountability that sinner is given.

If this is a doctrine of a particular system, I admit ignorance of it.

Romans 5:12-14

King James Version (KJV)

12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:


Adam sinned and the consequences continue unbroken. It speaks of entrance of sin and death into the world suggesting a starting point for both.


13 (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.


Speaks of the period prior to the specific Covenant of the Law, in my view.

The "imputation" should not, I feel, be equated to "imputed righteousness," for in the case of sin, that in view here was real and the sinner culpable, whereas in regards to imputed righteousness, when in regards to the righteousness of Christ, the righteousness does not belong to the subject it is imputed to.

This simply states that the sins committed were still sin, but, not held in the same perspective as sin committed after revelation is given. We might look to the growth of a child for an example, where, repeatedly, children do things that, afterwards, the parents tell them "Don't do this again." The first occurrence may have been unintentional, whereas, after specific instruction, it becomes a matter of rebellion and disobedience.

Now, consider this from the parents' perspective, and consider the difference of punishment for the transgression of the child. After the child has specific instruction, the parent is forced to enforce discipline which was not demanded in the first occurrence of the transgression. The transgression is still a transgression, so the one factor that changes is the responsibility of the one who, or Who, has placed those regulations into effect by making them known to the Child.

In other words, prior to the Law God could view man in a similar perspective we might view the young child who sins without having been given specific restrictions concerning their conduct.

This reminds me of my nephew when he was little, who, having done something worthy of discipline, basically nullified my anger. I said "Brian, you _________! (and I can't remember what he had done)" He looked at me and said, "Yeah! Ain't it great!"

This indicated he was completely unaware that he had done something that was wrong, thus my own anger was nullified concerning what he had done. I think we might see a similar perspective of God in regards to sin prior to the establishment of the Law. The sin was still sin, but there was a different relationship between the sin, God, and Man in regards to culpability.


14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.


The wages of sin is death. That is a constant Bible Basic. This is still true for Christians today.

Now, the primary point I think we must grasp from this passage is...the culpability, in regards to the Gospel, is greater. Just as when the Law was established and man became more accountable to that revelation of God's Will, even so, men are held to a higher degree of accountability in this Age.


The Revelation of the Gospel of Jesus Christ is the pinnacle of God's Will for man, and having reached that pinnacle of revelation we understand the consequences are eternal, rather than temporal. A man was put to death physically under the Law, but, a man's death in regards to Gospel Truth will be eternal.


God bless.

 

Glanced over it and have to disagree with the presented view that we are born with a sin nature in an inherited sense. We sin because we are separated from God and that nature we are born with is one lacking the Life Christ came to give. This was why God intended to bring about the New Covenant at which time He would put His Spirit within us.

This confusion only leads to more confusion, and some logical (or at least seem to be logical) conclusions are drawn by those of Arminian views. One question they will ask is "Can a baby be charged with sin?" The obvious answer is no, because that baby, whether in the womb or fresh out of the womb has no conscious awareness that might result in conscious thought or deed.

Then we consider Imputed Sin, which again fails to identify the true condition of man, which is, again, separation from God, which is the result of Adam's sin. The baby does not stand in a place of condemned because sin is ascribed to him/her, but stands condemned because they are not in relationship, on an eternal and spiritual level, with God.

This takes us to the next logical question, "Do babies that die before having the chance to believe in Christ or be obedient to His will (and there we appeal to Paul's teaching of the internal witness, the testimony of Creation, and direct revelation, which leaves no man with an excuse for disobedience) go to Hell (are eternally separated)?"

The answer is no, because God is Just to judge men according to their response to His revealed will, whether that came in the form of the internal witness, the testimony of Creation, or direct revelation (the primary means being the Ministry of Conviction performed in the hearts of men today by the Comforter). In other words, the same grace and just nature of God's judgment will extend to the aborted baby or young child who dies just as it was to the Old Testament Saint who was equally separated and died apart from having his sins redeemed through the Cross. Only the grace of God allowed for a decision or verdict of Just in those days prior to the Cross and Pentecost, and that same grace we can, based on the Just nature of God, easily assume being bestowed on those who can only be found not to have transgressed His will.

In the fellowships I am usually a part of it is taught that only those who hear the Gospel and obey it will be saved, but, that is simply not the case. No man will be excused from judgment because God has in one of three ways revealed Himself to all men. Those who do receive specific revelation, particularly in this Age, will be held far more accountable, and that speaks of both those who receive Christ and those who reject Him.


God bless.

 

do you have any scruptures stating anything close to this?

 

First, I have no burden to present Scripture that refers to something I see as a construct of men.

Do you have any Scripture saying we inherit sin like a disease?

How else would you explain a state of condemnation from birth? Does it start the first time a child tells their parent "No!"?

This conclusion is based on the Redemptive History as it is seen throughout Scripture. The culmination of Redemption in regards to (the penalty of) sin is realized in the Cross of Christ. One of the results of Atonement is Reconciliation. And it is in that event of salvation that men are brought into an eternal relationship which is a union of God and man. So we can say that this is a reunion, one which I believe Paul speaks of here:


Titus 3:4-5

King James Version (KJV)

4 But after that the kindness and love of God our Saviour toward man appeared,

5 Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;


While some will look at this as speaking of what the Holy Ghost does for the believer, that is, He "renews" them (which is a reasonable conclusion, seeing we are made new), I view it to refer to the renewing of the relationship between God and man in the indwelling that occurs at salvation.

The cleansing is already spoken of, and this ascribed to regeneration, so it seems reasonable to me that in view are the two primary aspects of salvation, regeneration and Eternal Indwelling (which is contrasted to the ministry of the Spirit coming upon people in the Old Testament).

And it is that lack of the Holy Ghost which is, I believe, the true reason why all sin. The New Covenant Promise should be considered when we consider that we were created in Christ Jesus unto good works:


Ezekiel 36:27

King James Version (KJV)

27 And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them.


God never expected men to actually keep the Law. It is simply an impossibility which is verified in both Old and New Testaments and summed up in Romans 3:10-18 (i.e., no man...all men...et cetera). The New Covenant was not an afterthought or Plan B when the Covenant of Law failed to justify. This course of action was prepared from before the world was formed, and again, we consider that it was not a matter of sin being a disease, but that sin bears the consequence of something that we could ascribe as being passed down...

...death.


God bless.

 

What's lacking in virtually every version of "original sin" is whether, and how it does or does not relate to Christ.

Also, does a particular view remain faithful to some scriptures which seem to be set in concrete.

If the scriptures are true that Jesus was for a little while made lower than the angels, and made like His brethren in all things, what do those mean? Are they pertinent to the discussion? Does a view of Original Sin necessarily lead one to develop splinter doctrines in order to relieve tension?

The scriptures seem clear that our body is procreated, while our spirit comes from God. Does a view of Original Sin remain faithful to that premise? Or does that even matter?

The scriptures seem clear that unless one believes the gospel, he cannot hope to be saved. Yet many alsohold that a dying baby, who cannot believe, will be saved. Does a particular view of Original Sin offer any relief for this apparent tension?

 

Wait a minute. It seemed to me that you were offering your own view that
Sin is not passed down, but rather is something missing - namely, a relationship with God.

That's what I asked about. Was that your position, or someone else's?

It is most definitely a construct of man, as far as I know. But I thought I'd ask if you have any scriptures stating any of that, just in case I've missed something. If that's not your position, you owe no support. But maybe tell us who's view that is...?

First, I don't think you and I are using terms in the same manner. Every single statement, question, conclusion, etc. from me is from one starting premise - man is a dichotomy of being. Spirit and body. Enjoined, yet distinct. If you're not thinking along those lines, you're not asking the right question in the right way..."we inherit"
What part of "we" are you talking about? spirit or body?

Scripture does answer your question, but not as though "we" are made without any distinction between inner and outer man.

There is no condemnation from birth other than physical death.

The spirit inside becomes "dead in trespasses" as each turns his own way. Scripture never mentions any potential that a baby is born condemned to hell


I'm gonna stop right here for now. You know my stamina level within one post. I have no desire to write a book. But maybe later, or in a differentthread

 

I would think that most are fairly much in agreement that Christ's body was not a result of procreation, hence the lack of debate over it.

Secondly, because He was God manifest in the flesh, the issue of separation from God is not relevant, and that again distinguishes the difference between Christ in His humanity and all other men.

Not sure if you "that particular view," meaning my own.

I think it does, if that is the case. But you know we all think our views are correct, lol.

In Hebrews the point is that Christ was made like man, not Angels, and this for the purpose fo redeeming them, for an Angel cannot die in the stead of man, only a man can.

And I think you are combining the reference to being tempted in all points with His being made like unto the seed of Abraham.

I don't see anything that states specifically that He was made like His brethren in all points. This would conflict with Scripture's Testimony that He was not a product of procreation and that the Body He came in was prepared by God:


Hebrews 10

King James Version (KJV)

5 Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me:

Keep in mind that even animals have spirits, though they be distinguished from each other.

Secondly, we distinguish between the Spirit of God and the spirit of a man.

I view man as a two part being (as contrasted with the trichotomy many embrace), being made of body and spirit, the two together comprising the soul. God fashioned Adam's body and breathed the breath of life into him, and he became, not received, a living soul. Adam was in direct relationship with God, and when he exits the Garden he still possesses both body and spirit (the spirit concluded on because of later references to man's spirit), but, that direct relationship no longer exists.

And as mentioned before, this is one element of salvation in Christ which, if we are going to ascribe it to man prior to the Cross, I would like to know where, and how it nullifies Christ's teaching of the distinction made to the disciples that the Spirit was with them, but would be in them (in that day/in the future).

And again, seeing this is only a promise in Ezekiel 36:27, and we correlate that to Christ's teaching (see also Acts 1:4-5) in regards to the Promise of the Spirit, it seems reasonable to distinguish this from the relationships we read of under Old Testament Economies.

I addressed that issue in an earlier post, and just to make a long story short, again we consider that sin is not something inherited, and separation from God is the condition we are born into.

Christ makes it clear that no man not trusting in His Death has life, and that all men sit under condemnation. They are condemned already, yet many will draw up an image of a baby being born, then sinning, and then falling into condemnation.

Apart from the grace of God, which restrained penalty for sin from being exacted immediately in the Old Testament, both in the temporal (right after sinning in the body) or in the eternal perspective (exacting it after they died), all babies would remain in that state of separation from God when aborted, or dying in birth, or as a young child.

But it is because of the grace of God that neither babies or the Old Testament Saint had/have to remain in that state of separation, because God judges justly, and I believe we see a pattern that His judgment is according to man's response to the revelation He provides to all men.

So we don't view it as unfair for babies not to be eternally separated, just as we do not view it as unfair that the Just from among the Old Testament Saints were not condemned to eternal separation. The fact is that they died still in that condition they were born into, which was a state of separation from God. It was not until Christ died that their transgressions were redeemed, or in other words, their sins forgiven. When they died, at best, they had offered up the death of an animal as a substitute for the required death demanded as the wage for sin.

But, that substitute death was never meant to be equated with the Cross of Christ, and most of us will willingly acknowledge that.

So as we have a precedent in the Old Testament Saint of someone dying yet not remaining in a condition of the separation from God (and made perfect at the Cross), even so we can, I think, concede that the Grace of God will be extended in Just judgment unto those who die in a separated state, i.e., aborted babies, young children, the mentally challenged (which itself is a result of sin and the curse).


God bless.

 

You asked for a Scripture proving a negative statement, I asked for a positive one reflecting the opposite view: neither one of us has a burden to provide one, because doctrines do not rely on a positive or negative statement for them to be valid.

That was my position and has been for some time: that sin is not a result of an inherited trait, but the absence of relationship with God.

The construct of men I referred to was that sin is inherited like a disease. If that were the case, then we might see the Lord as having inherited it from Mary, but that would be absurd, right?

We don't inherit, so to speak, our body and spirit...in the sense of the context concerning sin. And I am not sure I would actually view procreation as an inheriting, seeing it is a creative process where someone who did not exist before comes into existence.

And if Scripture answers my question, I would ask both that you supply the Scripture as well as supply me with one minor detail as well...

...what is the question?

lol

There is condemnation from birth, unless you think that condemnation is, after all, something that occurs as one grows up and sins, which seems to be what you say here.

This suggests that there is a possibility that men might not transgress thus incurring condemnation.

I would disagree on two fronts: first, you are denying Christ's teaching that it is only through faith in the Cross that men obtain life:


John 6:49-53

King James Version (KJV)

49 Your fathers did eat manna in the wilderness, and are dead.

50 This is the bread which cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and not die.

51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.

52 The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat?

53 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.


The Lord does not ascribe this life to those who ate of the manna, and that would include Moses. "Eating of His flesh and drinking of His blood" is a reference to faith in the Cross (His death). The life is provided through His giving of His flesh/body (v.51).


The second front would be in regards to Christ's teaching here:


John 3:18

King James Version (KJV)

18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

While it might seem a bit syllogistic, I think it still reasonable to view this to mean that condemnation is the state of those who do not believe, and we can say without controversy that babies do not trust in Christ, right?


I see a distinction between the physical life men have and the Life that John 6 seems to make clear became available when that Life came down from Heaven. That is why He is the True Bread which contrasts an Old Testament source for life, which is here clarified to be physical life only.

"You fathers ate of that manna and are dead." The Jews spoken to would not be appealing to "fathers" who were sinful, but to men like Moses:


John 6:32-33

King James Version (KJV)

32 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Moses gave you not that bread from heaven; but my Father giveth you the true bread from heaven.

33 For the bread of God is he which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life unto the world.


I'll leave you with that, and say, it has been a while since I debated this view. Perhaps you could start a thread on it?


God bless.

 

Darrel, not to side track the train on the thread, but I wanted you to visit a small bit with the idea of "we sin because we are separated from God..."

Specifically, if "we sin because we are separated from God, " then what brought about Adam's sin? And is not that the same condition the unknowing child resides until their first "known sin?" Does not that original sin of Adam and the original sin of all humankind what separates? If it did not, then Augustine would be correct by insisting on infant baptism, or by proclaiming extra biblically (imo) that children born to Christian parents are "safe" those who are not are automatically doomed.

Just wanted your take on that small area.

I apologize if the question has already been addressed, I skipped much of the conversation, just point me in the right direction with a post # .

 

No, not a side track and a great question.

The statement quoted doesn't entail all that I have presented in my view. We do sin because we are separated from God, but that is not what is presented as the focal issue, which is a counter to the thought that sin is something inherited like a disease. And your question adds, I feel, to that very issue, because we know Adam sinned yet he did inherit this proclivity.

Then, we consider that even though we have been born again and indwelt by God...we still sin, right?

So the quoted statement has to fit within the framework of what was expressed, which was, again, a counter to inherited sin.

As far as the condition of the child, again we are dealing with a condition that is solely based on their separation from God. Though a baby does not sin, he/she is no less separated from God and dependent upon the grace of God for a remedy which keeps them from undergoing a fate of eternal separation.

And just like the Old Testament Saint did not have the penalty of sin exacted upon death, but received grace until that time when Christ would redeem their transgressions, even so, I believe, that same grace is extended to infants murdered or who die, young children, and the mentally impaired.

God judges according to the response of man to the revelation of His will, and I believe this is true of all Ages. So for the baby, we see a remedy to that condition of separation based upon His grace, and this is in keeping with His just judgment. Babies cannot be judged for sin that was never committed, so, we are left with either deciding God judges solely on sin, or, we recognize man's separation at birth (conception, really), and that judgment simply determines the severity of the punishment, or the measure of reward.

And if you quote this, and see the red lines, I apologize, lol. It's a nice little computer program that corrects, and sometimes it gets a little funny.


God bless.

 

I think I understand your view, I just need a bit more clarification (I think).

Isaiah 59 presents:

But your iniquities have made a separation between you and your God,
And your sins have hidden His face from you so that He does not hear.​

And as a result of the ongoing sins:

Therefore justice is far from us,
And righteousness does not overtake us;
We hope for light, but behold, darkness,
For brightness, but we walk in gloom.​

And just a bit later he states:

Transgressing and denying the LORD,
And turning away from our God,
Speaking oppression and revolt,
Conceiving in and uttering from the heart lying words.​

Now the reason I am pursuing the mater is that it seems the sins and iniquities were a purposed determined turning away from the light of God.

Therefore, Isaiah declares that because when God looked:

And He saw that there was no man,
And was astonished that there was no one to intercede;​

And as a result, God provided for the need:

Then His own arm brought salvation to Him,
And His righteousness upheld Him.
He put on righteousness like a breastplate,
And a helmet of salvation on His head;
And He put on garments of vengeance for clothing
And wrapped Himself with zeal as a mantle.​

What man refused to do, God did.

Now, I gave all this to show both your foundation statement of sin separating is valid, but doesn't Isaiah teach a bit different WHY folks sin?

Here Isaiah is teaching that the sins and iniquities are the cause of separation. Not that the separation is the cause for the sins and iniquities. This is a bit at odds with how you presented, but never-the-less there is that estrangement that is common to all.

David may be used to show that before birth, one is conceived in iniquity, but is that iniquity of the deed that brings about the conception, or is it the conception is itself iniquitous, or that conceived is iniquitous.

Augustine held (IF my memory isn't faulty) that the act of husband and wife was iniquitous, and therefore all that resulted from that act was "born iniquitous." That is one reason for his hold on infant baptism.

However, Isaiah seems to place the emphasis upon the purposed and determined turning of humankind from God resulting in the iniquity and sin that separates. First the turning, then the sinful life.

I bring up Isaiah because John uses the same sequence. Folks purposely turn from God (the light) - the result being, their deed are evil and they don't want them exposed so they shun, mock, don't understand ... God (the light).

Again, it is a really small matter, for all have sinned.

However, I am just not certain that Augustine was not persuaded more by his background than he was by actual scriptural principle.

There comes a time when every person who had a belly button chose or will choose to sin, except Christ. Just as Adam chose to sin (though he didn't have a belly button).

Previously, Adam had no propensity to sin, no nature or desire for sin, but like all men, purposely and determinedly chose to turn from God, to separate himself from God, to hide from God.

Therefore, all babies are not separated from God, but are as Adam, before he consumed that which was forbidden. They have no propensity to sin, no desire to sin.

There doesn't need to be some generated "safe" or as Augustine believed, safe because of heritage. But safe (no condemnation) because they just have no sin, that child has not chosen as Adam but will by nature of Adam to one day purposely choose to sin.

Just for clarification, I do embrace much of the doctrines of Grace, I just consider some areas need to be better aligned with the teaching of Scriptures.

Therefore, does not the Scriptures teach that humankind certainly are born with a nature that one day will choose to sin, but remains without sin until such maturity of intellect and personality obliges that nature to be disclosed in choosing iniquity rather than God. And at that point, just as the first Adam, that person is separated by their own choice from God.

Another example may be in the statements as to the formation and fall of the enemy of believers. He was perfect in every aspect, until iniquity was found in him. That purposed choice that all humankind make to turn from God, to separate themselves from God and God confirming that separation, being first found in the enemy of believers.

Just asking.