Churches of Christ...Continued

[DHK]

Okay, it's time to put up or shut up. Give book chapter and verse for where the Bible says that baptism earns something.

In Christ,

bmerr

That's a good one bmerr! :laugh:

The Bible does not say that baptism earns anything.
Baptism earns nothing. The great thing about baptism is that it simply gets you wet, and nothing more. You can ask the three thousand that were baptized on the Day of Pentecost. The all got wet, but they got wet after they were saved. It was the first step of obedience in their Christian lives--getting wet by immersion in obedience to the command of Christ (Mat.28:19,20). We do it because Christ commanded it and for no other reason. Baptism is not a sacrament, that is, it does not impart grace; it does not save; it does not make one more holy; it does not give one the Holy Spirit. No, it doesn't do any of those things. It simply makes you wet.
Now think about it seriously bmerr.
How can two atoms of hydrogen to every one atom of oxygen make you any more spiritual or save you, or wash away your sins. What kind of power do you think H2O has?? That is a superstitious belief of the Hindus who think that the holy waters of the Ganges River wash away their sins. Your thinking is the same. Even Jeremiah mocked your practice:

Jeremiah 2:22 For though thou wash thee with nitre, and take thee much soap, yet thine iniquity is marked before me, saith the Lord GOD.
DHK

 

[mactx]

Actually it has been shown to you several times. Let me show you again in case you didn’t read my other posts or ignored them. I actually answered your question in post #5. Here it is again.
Quote:
"Men and brethren, what shall we do?" (Acts 2:37)

What are they asking? They have been told they could be saved by calling on the name of the Lord, and now they're asking, "What shall we do?" Would it be too much of a stretch to imagine that they are asking how to call on the name of the Lord and be saved?

No, I'd say that's probably what they were asking.

Well if you go back to the text and take a look at what is being discussed just prior to their question is not a qestion of what shall we do to be saved, but rather a question of what shall we do to right the wrong of killing our King.

"Therefore let all the house R100 of Israel know for certain that God has made Him both Lord R101 and Christ--this F58 Jesus whom R102 you crucified."

First part of 37 - Now when they heard this, they were pierced F59 to the heart

When they heard what? That they just crucified their Messiah, the Annointed King of Israel.

So the answer to your question
Quote:
Would it be too much of a stretch to imagine that they are asking how to call on the name of the Lord and be saved?

is a definite yes, it is way too much of a stretch of the imagination, because that just wasn't what they were talking about.

So the rest of your post makes no sense. Plain and simple Scripture just doesn't support your stance unless you force, twist and destory the very Scripture you are reading. It's just not there.

Just a quick thought, I have 9 pizzas to prepare, lots of chopping in my immediate future!
Anyway I got to thinking about this, and you are probably right, they are asking what to do to cleanse themselves of the sin of killing their king, and the reply is verse 38, repent and be baptized for the remission ( Definition: acquittal Synonyms: absolution, amnesty, discharge, excuse, exemption, exoneration, forgiveness, indulgence, mercy, pardon, release, reprieve) of their sins, including that of having killed their king.

37 Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do? 38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. 39 For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call. 40 And with many other words did he testify and exhort, saying, Save yourselves from this untoward generation. 41 Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls.

They took baptism to be an immediate needed step. Needed for what? According to Peter to be cleansed of the sin of killing the Son of God. That is what the context indicates with no scolars having to define it, just reading it straight as an entire chapter. I figure if it was good enough for them, then it is good enough and still applies to me as well.
Now I have a cake and pizza toppings to make.
hugs
y'all

 

[DHK]

They took baptism to be an immediate needed step. Needed for what? According to Peter to be cleansed of the sin of killing the Son of God.

So Jeremiah was wrong??

Jeremiah 2:22 For though thou wash thee with nitre, and take thee much soap, yet thine iniquity is marked before me, saith the Lord GOD.
DHK

 

[mactx]

So Jeremiah was wrong??

Jeremiah 2:22 For though thou wash thee with nitre, and take thee much soap, yet thine iniquity is marked before me, saith the Lord GOD.
DHK

No he is not wrong, he just did not have Christ die to wipe away his debt, the men on Pentecost did, and so so we.

 

[DHK]

No he is not wrong, he just did not have Christ die to wipe away his debt, the men on Pentecost did, and so so we.

Jeremiah was right, but you don't believe him. He says the exact same thing that John says. See the correlation.

Jeremiah 2:22 For though thou wash thee with nitre, and take thee much soap, yet thine iniquity is marked before me, saith the Lord GOD.

1 John 1:7 But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin.

Jeremiah--water (not even soap) will wash away your sin.
John--only the blood of Jesus Christ will wash away your sin.
COC--water is needed to wash away your sin.
Therefore the COC contradicts both Old and New Testaments.
DHK

 

[mactx]

Nope, the cofChrist takes LITERALLY the commands given by Peter, Paul, Phillip and so on.
You are right water does not wash away sin, but obeying Christ's command (given through Peter, Phillip, Paul and so on) does. Only by obedience can we claim the blood of Jesus. It can't be an I want the grace but give it to me my way deal.
Oh and the coChrist i was raised in did nothing by the OT, only the NT, the OT is for us history of what was, while the NT is what is and will be to the end of time.
If one believes, enough for it to be Faith, they will read and see. Once they see, with Faith they will obey.
I don't see really why there is disagreement, you either obey or you don't, you either believe or you don't. Then again though I only take the Bible literally and i tend to block out what folks say that tries to twist and confuse it. Even in the cofChrist, i take all the NT literally and do not place restriction on it regarding time or place of command. (the exception being Revelation) I figure Jesus went to the uneducated, for the most part so it is not meant to be hard to understand.

 

[Joseph M. Smith]

To get back to the original discussion about the nature and identity of the group called Churches of Christ ... Associated Baptist Press today reports that there has been something of a rapprochement between the Churches of Christ and the North American Christian Conference (i.e., those of the Campbellite tradition historically positioned between the Church of Christ and the Disciples of Christ). According to the article, while merger is not contemplated (and Church of Christ understanding of polity would not allow it anyway), there is a new appreciation for one another's gifts and a desire to back off the musical instruments issue.

 

[MorganT]

Nope, the cofChrist takes LITERALLY the commands given by Peter, Paul, Phillip and so on.
Then again though I only take the Bible literally and i tend to block out what folks say that tries to twist and confuse it. Even in the cofChrist, i take all the NT literally and do not place restriction on it regarding time or place of command. (the exception being Revelation) I figure Jesus went to the uneducated, for the most part so it is not meant to be hard to understand.

What version of the Bible do you take literally. I mean like Eph 5 :19 one of the CoC favorite verses for defending music in the church lets examine it shall we.
(ASV) speaking one to another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody with your heart to the Lord;

(ISV) Then you will recite to one another psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs. You will sing and make music to the Lord with your hearts.

(KJV+) Speaking2980 to yourselves1438 in psalms5568 and2532 hymns5215 and2532 spiritual4152 songs,5603 singing103 and2532 making melody5567 in1722 your5216 heart2588 to the3588 Lord;2962

(KJVA) Speaking to yourselves in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody in your heart to the Lord;

(KJVR) Speaking to yourselves in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody in your heart to the Lord;

(MKJV) speaking to yourselves in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody in your heart to the Lord;


I guess we can discredit the International Standard Version for the Church of Christ because it says Music you get my idea dont try to hold the bible to a word by word book if you do then why dont you hold that to the book of Revaltions if it is all that way then it is dont say we take this and that but not that and this.:Fish:

 

[mactx]

Ok personally i study from the KJV, RSV and NIV mostly. i do have others that i read in tandem with these. The ones I refuse to accept are the gender neutral ones, where God "might be a female, we just don't know"
I have never had a problem with musical instruments, though for me they cause confusion and inhibit what i get out of the hymns. i have never seen a verse that says thou shall never use an organ, or whatever in service. So until I see that verse, I will not make a stand on music being wrong. One thing I have noticed is that once churches get a band women begin to appear on "stage" this is wrong. So yeah i tend to avoid those types of churches, no matter what the name on the door post says.
What I meant about Revelation is it is a vision, it fore told Emperor Nero and what he was going to do. Looking at history from then to now, several men have filled that vision, Nero, Genghis Khan and Hitler to name a few.

 

[Darron Steele]

...
Anyway I got to thinking about this, and you are probably right, they are asking what to do to cleanse themselves of the sin of killing their king, and the reply is verse 38, repent and be baptized for the remission ( Definition: acquittal Synonyms: absolution, amnesty, discharge, excuse, exemption, exoneration, forgiveness, indulgence, mercy, pardon, release, reprieve) of their sins, including that of having killed their king.

37 Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do? 38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. 39 For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call. 40 And with many other words did he testify and exhort, saying, Save yourselves from this untoward generation. 41 Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls.

They took baptism to be an immediate needed step. Needed for what? According to Peter to be cleansed of the sin of killing the Son of God. That is what the context indicates with no scolars having to define it, just reading it straight as an entire chapter.

A different picture comes through reading this passage in foreign language translations of the ancient languages. Spanish and Portuguese have more nuanced verb tenses than ours. At Acts 2:38, the equivalent to KJV "repent" is imperative, but the equivalent to KJV "be baptized" is subjunctive, making it an obligation. The obligation was from the commanded repentance. Hence, the command is to repent for the remission of sins, and the baptism in the name of Jesus Christ was how to obey the command to repent. Whether or not the penitent Jews would have been saved without baptism being completed is another matter because Peter obviously expected all of them to live that day, but the passage in Spanish and Portuguese suggests that repentance itself was what was for Spanish "perdón" = pardon of sins, but that submission to baptism was obligated from that repentance.

For an example of this, I posted this link to a reproduction of the relevant page of an old Portuguese D'Almeida New Testament:
http://www.sbb.org.br/images/originais_nt2/0130.tif .

 

[MorganT]

OK now I have a question and I am generalizing here a bit. The CoC around here are what I would call hardcore they say we speak were the bible speaks and are silent were the bible is silent why can no one answer my question and say this is the version we refer to when we say this, but no, I have seen refernces out of the KJV and then out of ASV just so that there POINT can be made. I would like to know what version you SPEAK out of and what version you are SILENT out of, how hard a question is that. I already know the answer but I want to see what you say. You see this is exacty why the CoC gets a reputation of being a cult which I know for a fact that they are not they are just strong in belief for what they have been taught I do realize that however there is a point were the CoC has went beyond what the bible teaches and they have added man made laws so to speak like Baptism saves were the bible clearly teachs that you are baptized because you are saved. Peace:Fish:

 

[DHK]

The CoC around here are what I would call hardcore they say we speak were the bible speaks and are silent were the bible is silent

This statement has been used much by the COC.
I have a pastor friend who, in his daily devotions, reads straight from his Greek New Testament. If the COC were to take this statement of theirs literally they would also do the same. They would only read from the Greek New Testament, and from the Hebrew Old Testament, ensuring that they speak only where the Bible speaks and are silent where the Bible is silent. Otherwise, they really don't know. But, alas they are hypocritical in this area as well.
DHK

 

[bmerr]

Hi. I am new here. I am going to jump in and announce that I attend a Church of Christ, but that I was saved at a Baptist church.

Darron,

bmerr here. If you don't mind my asking, how exactly, were you saved at a Baptist church? Did you respond to an invitation as found in the Scriptures?

While it indicates that we are obligated to be baptized if we have repented, we are saved by that repentance. I Peter 3:21 is clear when the clarifying part is NOT left off and disregarded: "which also after a true likeness doth now save you, even baptism| (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but |as an appeal to God for a clear conscience|,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ" (ASV|KJV|RSV 1952|KJV). Peter at 1 Peter 3:21 clearly states that the ritual of baptism, in itself resembling a bath, saves no one. Rather, he explains that one is saved by the repentance baptism represents -- refusal to be baptized = no repentance.

How is it that you quote 1 Pet 3:21, which says in black and white that "baptism doth also now save us", and then turn around and "explain" that it is the repentance prior to baptism that saves us, and not baptism?

I would agree that apart from repentance, there is no salvation, but this fact does not rule out the neccessity of baptism.

The comparison of the flood of Noah's day and baptism is in water being used as the separation from the old and the new. The text says that baptism is the believer's appeal to God for a good conscience. As the believer trusts God to uphold His word, he submits to baptism, counting on God to remove his sins. It's the operation of God that one trusts in (Col 2:12).

Romans 4:5 says “And to the one who does not work but trusts him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness” (ESV). We are saved before we do anything. However, Philippians 2:12b has "ocupaos en vuestra salvación con temor y temblor" (RVR 1909/1960/1995, LBLA, RVA) = "you-busy-you in your salvation with fear and tremble." Our faith will go to work. Ephesians 2:8-10 clarifies this also -- we are saved by faith apart from works, and then from that salvation we do works "ordained" (KJV) for Christians by God. Baptism specifically fits that category.

So what good is faith apart from works (James 2:22)? Paul, in his letter to the Romans, speaks against the works of the Law, not obedience to God's commands. In fact, the book of Romans opens (1:5) and closes (16:26) by speaking of obedience.

Baptism is not a work of the Law, nor is it a work of merit. It is, however, something commanded by God to man, for a specific purpose. It is ours to obey, or reject.

In Christ,

bmerr

 

[bmerr]

I know it is sometimes claimed that baptism is God's work. Scripture does not support this.

Darron,

bmerr here. I've not heard this claim, myself, but I would say what is meant by baptism being "God's work", is that it is a work commanded by God. Similarly, to believe on Jesus Christ is called "the work of God" by Jesus Himself (John 6:29). It was something the people were to do that was commanded by God. Same thing for baptism.

Throughout the New Testament, those who baptize are always shown to be people. We start with John 4:2 where Jesus’ disciples are given credit for baptizing. At Matthew 28:19a Jesus Himself commands "Go, therefore, and make disciples of all the nations, |bautizad = baptize| them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, |enseñad = teach| them to observe everything that I have commanded you" (NBV|RVA margin and translated|NBV|RVA margin and translated|NBV). These disciples were to make converts who would follow the Lord as disciples, they were to baptize, and they were to teach. Here, those baptizing are the disciples. At Acts 8:38, Philip is given credit for baptizing the Ethiopian official. At 1 Corinthians 1:16 Paul indicates he baptized the household of Stephanus. In Scripture, every time the baptizer is specified, it is always a person and never God. Hence, when a person is baptized, the baptism is considered done by a person and received by another person.

Absolutely correct. This is the "one baptism" of Eph 4:5. It is to be administered by men (Matt 28:19), and is to last until the end of the world (Matt 28:20). No other baptism fits these criteria.

Some look to 1 Cor 12:13 in an attempt to hold on to the baptism of the Holy Spirit, but this is again, a reference to the baptism commanded in the Great Commission. It was commanded through the apostles and others (such as Phillip) by, or in accordance with, the one Spirit, as they all spoke by inspiriation of that Spirit.

In Christ,

bmerr

 

[bmerr]

So Jeremiah was wrong??

Jeremiah 2:22 For though thou wash thee with nitre, and take thee much soap, yet thine iniquity is marked before me, saith the Lord GOD.
DHK

DHK,

bmerr here. No, Jeremiah was not wrong. Jereimiah was speaking to apostate Israel under the Old Testament. Baptism for the remission of sins is a New Testament command. That's the one in Jesus' blood. Jesus hadn't come yet when Jeremiah spoke the words you so frequently misuse.

One might as well insist on making atonement for one's sins by offering a bullock, since God commanded it.

In Christ,

bmerr

 

[Charles Meadows]

Bmerr,

Baptism is not a work of the Law, nor is it a work of merit. It is, however, something commanded by God to man, for a specific purpose. It is ours to obey, or reject.

Baptism is a work of the law if we localize salvation in the baptism.

So what good is faith apart from works (James 2:22)? Paul, in his letter to the Romans, speaks against the works of the Law, not obedience to God's commands.

Much good in itself! True faith will be accompanied by works. That is the point of James' statement. But an individual who is saved on his deathbed is saved by his faith despite the fact that he has not any "works" to show for it.

You refer to baptism as "God's command" and not a work of the law. Were not the OT laws commanded by God as well?

The CoC cannot claim to be a NT church when they are stuck in the OT mindset. Paul inveighs against "works of the law" because the Jews perceived these as being salvific in and of themselves. The whole point of Jesus' coming is that God has now performed all necessary "work of the law" for us. All we have to do is believe. That is the gospel in a nutshell. The CoC errs in an intent to be faithful to scriptures (like 1 Pet 3:21). But in doing so they miss the entire big picture. Jesus has done away with meritorious works.

Once again my "proof" is the example of the man who is saved and schedules a pyblic profession of faith and baptism in his church the following week but is killed in a car accident. Is he saved? If you answer "no" then you deny the very efficacy of the blood of Christ!!

 

[bmerr]

To get back to the original discussion about the nature and identity of the group called Churches of Christ ... Associated Baptist Press today reports that there has been something of a rapprochement between the Churches of Christ and the North American Christian Conference (i.e., those of the Campbellite tradition historically positioned between the Church of Christ and the Disciples of Christ). According to the article, while merger is not contemplated (and Church of Christ understanding of polity would not allow it anyway), there is a new appreciation for one another's gifts and a desire to back off the musical instruments issue.

Joseph,

bmerr here. What!?! Leave the "rabbit-trail", and actually discuss the OP? Unheard of! The nerve of some people! :smilewinkgrin:

The whole thing about mechanical instruments of music in the worship has to do with the fact that while some people desire it, God has not authorized it. The instrument used in true NT worship is the voice, or that with which one "sings". It is the fruit of the lips (Heb 13:15).

NT music must meet the following criteria:

It must be the fruit of our lips (Heb 13:15)
It must be able to teach and admonish (Col 3:16)
It is to include the congregation speaking to "yourselves", or to "one another" (Eph 5:19; Col 3:16)
It is to be accompanied by the melody of the heart, or the proper attitude (same texts).

No mechanical musical instrument can meet these criteria. Please understand that instrumental music is not objected to out of personal preference. I, myself, am a musician. The bottom line is that worship is not to please men, but God. As soon as one says, "But I like...", then God is no longer the object of worship. When phrases such as this are used in the descisions of a religious group, Man has supplanted God as the authority.

Any reconciliation between the church of Christ and the Christian Church/Disciples of Christ must be based on truth not on some spurious desire for "unity". Have you ever noticed that those who call for "compromise" always insist that the instrument be allowed into the worship? They never seem to be willing to give up that which God has not authorized.

In Christ,

bmerr

 

[bmerr]

Darron,

bmer here. So what's the difference between something being "imperative", and something being "obligatory"? They are both synonymes for "neccessary", are they not?

It's doubtless that it is imperative to believe the facts of the gospel. It's also quite clear that it's obligatory to obey the commands of the gospel. Both belief of the facts, and obedience to the commands are neccessary to be saved. How are they different?

In Christ,

bmerr

 

[bmerr]

Bmerr,

Baptism is not a work of the Law, nor is it a work of merit. It is, however, something commanded by God to man, for a specific purpose. It is ours to obey, or reject.

Baptism is a work of the law if we localize salvation in the baptism.

Charles,

bmerr here. Salvation is no more "localized" in baptism than it is in faith, repentance, or confession. All of these are neccessary works, which God has commanded. One's baptism will not save him if he has not repented of sins, or if he is not willing to confess Christ before men.

It gets down to what God said.

God said "baptism doth also now save us". You say it doesn't.

God said baptism was "for the remission of sins". You say it's not.

God said baptism is to "wash away thy sins". You say it's not.

God said baptism is the way "into Christ". You say one can get "into Christ" apart from baptism.

We can either believe what God said, or not. I'm not writing it, I'm just reading it.

So what good is faith apart from works (James 2:22)? Paul, in his letter to the Romans, speaks against the works of the Law, not obedience to God's commands.

Much good in itself! True faith will be accompanied by works. That is the point of James' statement.

James' statement is that works perfect, or complete, faith. Faith without works is dead. Works without faith is dead, too. They are two sides of the same coin.

But an individual who is saved on his deathbed is saved by his faith despite the fact that he has not any "works" to show for it.

The Bible does not contain an example of anyone saved on their deathbed. I cannot speak of it.

You refer to baptism as "God's command" and not a work of the law. Were not the OT laws commanded by God as well?

They certainly were. They were commanded by God to make the Jews aware of their sin (Gal 3:19) and to prepare the Jews for the Messiah. That's the whole reason for the OT.

The Jews learned that Man can never live up to God's standard of perfection. The pagan religions showed that Man's religions can never take away the guilt of sin.

In Christianity, man's guilt is taken away, restoring him to God, and God's perfect standard is met in Christ. The shortcomings of Judaism and paganism are fulfilled in Christ.

The CoC cannot claim to be a NT church when they are stuck in the OT mindset.

If the church of Christ were insisting on some OT command, such as tithing, or burning insence, you would have a valid point. But such is not the case.

Paul inveighs against "works of the law" because the Jews perceived these as being salvific in and of themselves. The whole point of Jesus' coming is that God has now performed all necessary "work of the law" for us. All we have to do is believe. That is the gospel in a nutshell.

Not so, sir. Acts 16:31 is often misused to support this statement, but there are other commands implied in the converison account of the Phillipian jailer. Why did he repent, and wash the stripes of Paul and Silas? Is the command to repent not contained in the gospel (Acts 2:38)? What motivated PJ to be baptized in the middle of the night? Is the command to be baptized not contained in the gospel (same text)?

Heb 5:9 very clearly states that Jesus is the author of eternal salvation unto all that obey him. Would one dare to "draw the line" on which commands of Christ he will obey, and which one he won't? "I'll believe and repent, but I'm not going to be baptized for the remission of my sins!" How foolish would that be?

The CoC errs in an intent to be faithful to scriptures (like 1 Pet 3:21). But in doing so they miss the entire big picture. Jesus has done away with meritorious works.

It is never erroneous to be faithful to what the Scriptures say. Error occurs when one tries to be faithful to a poor interpretation of what the Scriptures say.

For example, one might attempt ot hold fast to an interpretation of a passage that says we are "saved by faith", when the interpretation is that we are "saved by faith only/alone". That's where error starts.

Once again my "proof" is the example of the man who is saved and schedules a pyblic profession of faith and baptism in his church the following week but is killed in a car accident. Is he saved? If you answer "no" then you deny the very efficacy of the blood of Christ!!

Again, the Bible nowhere speaks of such an example. I believe such an example would be of a person who has not been taught the truth concerning baptism.

In Christ,

bmerr

 

[bmerr]

MorganT,

bmerr here. Regarding which version is used, I usually use the KJV. Sadly, the list of reliable translations is quite short. I have to trust the scholarship of others in making my choices of which translation to use, as well as many others. Even one who is educated in the original languages trusts the one who taught him, does he not?

To my knowledge, the KJV, ASV 1901, and the NKVJ are held as "reliable translations" of the available texts. I personally do not recommend the NKJV, just because of the little "triquetra" symbol it has on the cover, or on the opening pages.

Perhaps that's silly of me, I don't know. The explanation in my NKJV says, "The triquetra (from a Latin word meaning "three-cornered") is an ancient symbol for the Trinity. It comprises three interwoven arcs, distinct yet equal and inseparable, symbolizing that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three distinct yet equal Persons and indivisibly One God."

That may be so, but Acts 17:29 says, "Forasmuch as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device." Certainly the triquetra falls into this category.

If that weren't enough, (and for many, the Bible is not), the same symbol is often associated with the occult, and Christians are not to let their good be evil spoken of (Rom 14:16).

I just don't like it.

In Christ,

bmerr