So, you don't like to be labeled?

[mandym]

IF the labels are just used for the purpose of having convenient ways to allow us to know where others stand in regards to their viewpoints, why is that Ungodly?

First, especially around here, I do not believe that this is the common motivation. Most often it is done with disdain and mockery.

Second, Paul addressed this very clearly, in I Cor.

Thirdly, if you are knowingly labeling someone in a way that is offensive to them then you are in sin. There is no good reason to offend someone just for your personal convenience.

 

[HeirofSalvation]

apparently you did not look at the link that states point by point the major Arminian view.

I didn't assign the label.

But, if the shoe fits...

Quote then, a confessionally ARMINIAN website in lieu of Wiki for crying out loud!!! http://evangelicalarminians.org/

It never ceases to amaze me, when Calvinists literally define an alternative view from (I am not kidding) "monergism.com" And then they cry when those who disagree reject the labels.....Note....Your "Monergistic" brethren are lying to you about what the opposition believes. The opposing views are tired of being "labeled" by definitions that Calvinists and Calvinists alone are creating, and then insisting everyone accept, and then being attacked on those grounds...even if they inaccurately represent the beliefs of others. Whatever the strengths of Cal arguments are...it is believed or accepted by many only upon the basis of a Polemic of lies.

 

[HeirofSalvation]

First, especially around here, I do not believe that this is the common motivation. Most often it is done with disdain and mockery.

Second, Paul addressed this very clearly, in I Cor.

Thirdly, if you are knowingly labeling someone in a way that is offensive to them then you are in sin. There is no good reason to offend someone just for your personal convenience.

Precisely :thumbsup::wavey:

 

[Yeshua1]

Precisely :thumbsup::wavey:

Seems to me that BOTH camps here like to distort at times others sides views, but that the arms seem to get moredefensive if asked to expalin just why they hold those positions?

 

[mandym]

Seems to me that BOTH camps here like to distort at times others sides views, but that the arms seem to get moredefensive[sic] if asked to expalin[sic] just why they hold those positions?

Who are these people who get more defensive and exactly what do they get defensive about and more importantly what does that have to do with this subject?

 

[Yeshua1]

Who are these people who get more defensive and exactly what do they get defensive about and more importantly what does that have to do with this subject?

Just saying that the ones that object sometimes to labels is because they don't know why they believ that way, just that its not the other sides!

 

[mandym]

Just saying that the ones that object sometimes to labels is because they don't know why they believ that way, just that its not the other sides!

Really? And how do you know this? Prove this is the reason they object to labels. You cannot. What I see based on the judgmentalism coming from labelers is that you are more dedicated to your system than you are the word of God. You are more worried about your system and labels that you are at offending your brother and sisters.

I do not really believe that but I can make and jump to negative conclusions to people who have differing views as well. But regardless of what your suspicion is of why someone does not want to be labeled, if it offends them you are in the wrong.

 

[HeirofSalvation]

Just saying that the ones that object sometimes to labels is because they don't know why they believ that way, just that its not the other sides!

No, most "Arms" or "non-Cals" do not believe this...most of them work (IMO) very hard to accurately express what is confessionally believed by Calvinists. On the other hand, most non-Cals believe that most Calvinists (as a rule) falsely represent their beliefs...This is either through pure ignorance, as they might get their information from say....R.C. Sproul (who no more understands Arminianism than the man in the moon) or they literally will quote "monergism.com" as their definition of non-Cal thought. It becomes a serious problem...That is usually why the "label" is rejected. It is because historically, non-Calvinists are truly of the opinion that Calvinists have falsely represented what they confessionally believe.

The tactic has worked magic in terms of creating Calvinists, the down-side is that it has been detrimental to honest debate. Moreover, since Calvinists have fallaciously definied terms to suit their own purposes....now the erstwhile "victims" are refusing to accept those labels, and then these poor put-upon Calvinists are now crying that no one is accepting them again....The new job they now have is to create a meaning for "non-Cal" and create a fallacious rendering of it's meaning. That's all.

 

[Herald]

No, most "Arms" or "non-Cals" do not believe this...most of them work (IMO) very hard to accurately express what is confessionally believed by Calvinists. On the other hand, most non-Cals believe that most Calvinists (as a rule) falsely represent their beliefs...This is either through pure ignorance, as they might get their information from say....R.C. Sproul (who no more understands Arminianism than the man in the moon) or they literally will quote "monergism.com" as their definition of non-Cal thought. It becomes a serious problem...That is usually why the "label" is rejected. It is because historically, non-Calvinists are truly of the opinion that Calvinists have falsely represented what they confessionally believe.

The tactic has worked magic in terms of creating Calvinists, the down-side is that it has been detrimental to honest debate.

You are the epitome of misrepresentation. First, if you are going to use words like "most" then produce your empirical data to back up your claim. You sound like a politician who tries to spin the narrative his way by just assuming facts with fudged statistics or by confident assertion. Any theologian who argues that way is either being dishonest or choosing the lazy way to make a point.

Second, you malign R.C. Sproul, a man who has labored over the scriptures more than most. No man, regardless of what theological disposition he claims, is a primary source of truth. That domain is occupied by Scripture alone. That said, Dr. Sproul has spent his life trying to understand what the Scripture says. He is a humble and gracious man who is not known to possess a confrontational spirit. He carries his argument back to the scriptures. You can disagree with his conclusions, but you prove yourself ignorant when you claim he doesn't understand Arminianism.

There are those who hold to the D.o.G who parrot individual teachers or websites such as Monergism.com. The occasional quote or link can prove quite helpful; but if that is the substance of their argument then they need to stop arguing and start learning.

Reformed theology (synonymous with the D.o.G.) knows exactly what Arminianism believes. Acquaint yourself with the Synod of Dordt and its response to the Remonstrants (first line followers of Jacobus Arminius). They were allowed to present their position to the synod. The synod, after careful consideration, rejected their conclusion soundly. They understood exactly what was presented to them. Both Presbyterian and Baptist scholars since that time have understood it too. Today we have men such as Al Mohler, R.C. Sproul, Ligon Duncan, Mark Dever, Sinclair Furgeson, John Piper, John MacArthur, Richard Barcellos et. al who have studied the scriptures in this area and add greatly to the understanding of the Church. These are men who are known. Besides them I know dozens of others, Baptists and Presbyterians, who love God and His holy Word. They are not concerned with some of the petty squabbles that take place over the Internet. They wrestle with doctrines that explain God's holiness and the covenant of redemption. They are greater men than me, but yet I try to emulate their devotion to the Word.

There may be some who hold to the D.o.G. who enjoy debating for the sake of debating. They may even try to get their opponents in a "gotcha" moment. Shame on them. Shame on the Arminians who use similar tactics. But shame on those who refuse to deal with the scriptures honestly and try to throw dirt on the other side.

 

[mandym]

You are the epitome of misrepresentation. First, if you are going to use words like "most" then produce your empirical data to back up your claim. You sound like a politician who tries to spin the narrative his way by just assuming facts with fudged statistics or by confident assertion. Any theologian who argues that way is either being dishonest or choosing the lazy way to make a point.

Hmmm.....maybe some of your fellow cals should heed this themselves.

Second, you malign R.C. Sproul,

This is just false I read his post and there was no maligning Sproul.

Reformed theology (synonymous with the D.o.G.) knows exactly what Arminianism believes.

If that is in fact the case then they should begin representing it correctly.

There may be some who hold to the D.o.G. who enjoy debating for the sake of debating. They may even try to get their opponents in a "gotcha" moment. Shame on them. Shame on the Arminians who use similar tactics. But shame on those who refuse to deal with the scriptures honestly and try to throw dirt on the other side.

Yep

 

[MB]

MB, Arminianism does not believe in total depravity. Even if one eschews the Arminian label they de facto disregard total depravity by believing that man possesses faith even while unsaved. At the end of your post you state:

You are absolutely sure of this I suppose. Then why did Arminius write;

Depravity is total: Arminius states "In this [fallen] state, the free will of man towards the true good is not only wounded, infirm, bent, and weakened; but it is also imprisoned, destroyed, and lost. And its powers are not only debilitated and useless unless they be assisted by grace, but it has no powers whatever except such as are excited by Divine grace."

I see no difference between this and what Calvinist believe. Maybe I should start calling Calvinist, Arminians. Isn't it by grace that you believe?

Quite true. However you believe the gift is given to every man and he is in possession of it even while unsaved. I see just the opposite in scripture. The oft cited verses (Gen. 6:5; Rom. 3:10; 8:7; 1 Cor. 2:14) reveal that man is evil, does not desire God, and is incapable of desiring God. It takes God to change the status quo of total inability (Eph. 2:4-5). That is when the gift of faith is given, when God breaks the status quo.

Chapter 12 :3 of Romans Paul states that a measure of faith is given to everyman. So what would you say Paul is saying here? Is he lying to us or what?
I mean really if you want to understand Romans try looking at it as a whole instead of a few select verses at a time.
MB

 

[HeirofSalvation]

You are the epitome of misrepresentation. First, if you are going to use words like "most" then produce your empirical data to back up your claim.

I am not at all...I expressly said, and I will quote myself:

(IMO)

it was merely an opinion, and I admitted it as such...

You sound like a politician who tries to spin the narrative his way by just assuming facts with fudged statistics or by confident assertion.

Dude....I did merely "confidently assert" and I admitted no more....Please quote my denial of the fact that (as you say) this was merely bald assertion on my part and not a "hard empirical" fact with a "statistic" I never claimed other-wise....I merely stated that this is how "many" or "most" non-Cals feel. That is a perfectly legitimate statement.

Second, you malign R.C. Sproul, a man who has labored over the scriptures more than most.

Who disagreed with his "laboring over the Scriptures" not I...please quote me saying this....Please quote me "maligning him" as opposed to merely claiming he fails to understand "Arminianism".

No man, regardless of what theological disposition he claims, is a primary source of truth.

True, who argues this point? why make it? who disagrees with you on this?

That domain is occupied by Scripture alone.

Seconded....so what?...Please explain why the point of this thread is a debate over the authority of Scripture? This is a point debated by no one...not one person. Please furnish the quote of anyone who denies this.

That said, Dr. Sproul has spent his life trying to understand what the Scripture says. He is a humble and gracious man who is not known to possess a confrontational spirit. He carries his argument back to the scriptures.

This is fine, My contention was that, and ONLY that, he does not understand "confessional Arminianism". Not the "Scriptures" Can you read? That is no where near an unfair contention: I will now destroy your own ill-advised post with this argument, the premises of which, you cannot deny:

1.) R.C. Sproul has humbly dedicated his life to the understanding of Scripture. (you accept this)
2.) R.C. Sproul has learned that the Scriptures clearly teach the Soteriological postion here-to-fore commonly known as "Calvinism" or the "D.O.G." (you accept this)
3.) The Scriptures do not teach the commonly held notions expressed by what is known as "Arminianism", nor do they teach a "synergistic" view of Salvation. (you accpet this)
4.) "Arminianism" is not Scriptural (you accept this)
given premises 1-4:
5.) As R.C. Sproul has "dedicated his life" to understanding the truth of Scripture alone....he has not learned to believe in, nor become an authority on the teachings of "Arminianism" (this follows by default)

Therefore: R.C. Sproul does not understand Arminian theology.

You can disagree with his conclusions, but you prove yourself ignorant when you claim he doesn't understand Arminianism.

Yes sir....I can...and he doesn't. See above, and please falsify the argument.

There are those who hold to the D.o.G who parrot individual teachers or websites such as Monergism.com. The occasional quote or link can prove quite helpful; but if that is the substance of their argument then they need to stop arguing and start learning

Yes, and previously, I had never thought you personally to be one of them, but rather a far more reasonable and engageable poster whose arguments were worth hearing and noting. Please prove me right again.

Reformed theology (synonymous with the D.o.G.) knows exactly what Arminianism believes.

My contention is that (by and large) they don't. That is the problem: As long as you lay claim to the definition of the word "Grace" you can never rightly and fairly comprehend, negotiate with, nor engage the ideas of those who disagree with you. That is why they reject your "labels". You have defined them at will, and that renders interraction nearly impossible. It is effective as far as creating more Calvinists is concerned...but it is detrimental to meaningful debate. When this tactic is employed....you cannot whine and cry when no one is willing to further debate you nor accept the "label" you want to give them...You cannot create a cuss word out of every label and then cry when no one engages it, or admits to being a party to it. Pick your poison, pick your tactic, and then stick with it. Your own "Sproul" wrote a book entitled: "The Pelagian Captivity of the Church"....can you find me any educated Arminian Theologian who accepts the contentions of Pelagius? Can you cite a respected Arminian Theologian who will contend that they are "Pelagians"? No, you can't. But Sproul equates the two...I am contending he is not an authority on Arminianism....that is all. and vis-a-vis my perfectly construed argument above....it is now non-debatable. Thus your false accusation that I "maligned" him is a lie...you are "maligning" me.

Acquaint yourself with the Synod of Dordt and its response to the Remonstrants (first line followers of Jacobus Arminius).

I have, and they also disagreed with Jacobus Arminius on some issues.

They were allowed to present their position to the synod.

No, sir, they simply were not, in fact, allowed to do any such thing. Try again.

The synod, after careful consideration, rejected their conclusion soundly.

Of course they did, they were a "synod" of Calvinists and non-Baptists. So what? "Careful consideration" is laughable of course. I am a Baptist, and might confidently care less what a collusion of infant Baptizers...or, as I call them...(heretics)....thought. Paedo-baptists, and their "synods" are not, to an actual Baptist, the sole authority of all faith and doctrine. As this is Baptist Board who cares what they thought? Why do the Calvinists on this board continuously seem to appeal to Romish Popery in lieu of strict Baptist belief in Scripture alone?

They understood exactly what was presented to them.

Probably....but what was presented was not the view of the "Remonstrants" as they were no more allowed to speak freely than a Baptist would be...Hey, they would have burned any Baptist at the stake just as quickly. As a Baptist, and subsequently, not a party to your Romanism...I simply do not care what they thought anyway.

Both Presbyterian and Baptist scholars since that time have understood it too. Today we have men such as Al Mohler, R.C. Sproul, Ligon Duncan, Mark Dever, Sinclair Furgeson, John Piper, John MacArthur, Richard Barcellos et. al who have studied the scriptures in this area and add greatly to the understanding of the Church. These are men who are known. Besides them I know dozens of others, Baptists and Presbyterians, who love God and His holy Word. They are not concerned with some of the petty squabbles that take place over the Internet. They wrestle with doctrines that explain God's holiness and the covenant of redemption. They are greater men than me, but yet I try to emulate their devotion to the Word.

Soaring rhetoric!!!! Also, not inherently germaine to my contention: which I already admitted was merely an opinion....that they don't understand "Arminianism". You are also consistently quoting Presbyterians....I note this because you either:
1.) Are a Baptist, and therefore think them wrong on the nature of Baptism and most likely, Church identity and Church Governance....or.....
2.) No more care what their opinions are on any of these issues, and are therefore only utilizing them to strengthen your "appeal to authority" on a subject in which they happen to agree with you.

My question is this: Are they right about your D.o.G. and merely wrong about all the others? And if so, why accept their opinion on Calvinist doctrine alone and not the others? Are you, in fact a Baptist, or are you lying about what your faith is, and pretending to be one? If they are wrong about Baptism and Church Government, why appeal to them? You are attempting an "appeal to Authority" (Fallacious on it's face) but why these issues specifically? If they are wrong about the other issues why not this one?

This is fallacious argumentation, and it will get past some people...But it will not get past me. Try again.

There may be some who hold to the D.o.G. who enjoy debating for the sake of debating. They may even try to get their opponents in a "gotcha" moment. Shame on them. Shame on the Arminians who use similar tactics. But shame on those who refuse to deal with the scriptures honestly and try to throw dirt on the other side

.

Yes, O.K. agreed......and..............????????

 

[HeirofSalvation]

You are absolutely sure of this I suppose. Then why did Arminius write;

Depravity is total: Arminius states "In this [fallen] state, the free will of man towards the true good is not only wounded, infirm, bent, and weakened; but it is also imprisoned, destroyed, and lost. And its powers are not only debilitated and useless unless they be assisted by grace, but it has no powers whatever except such as are excited by Divine grace."

This is meaningless to a Calvinist MB, and that is where you err: You are of the opinion that the beliefs and statements by Jacobus Arminius himself are actually germaine to what "Arminianism" and the label itself means...in this you err greatly....To Calvinists....only what Calvinists CLAIM he stated and believed are at issue. And when they relate it falsely, you are not, under any conditions, allowed to offer these types of corrections. You are to be "labelled" only upon the definitions of the words as they set forth and you are not, in any way, permitted to quote the man himself.

Silly MD, don't you know that Trix are for kids, and the beliefs of all others are to be understood only as explained by Calvinists themselves???

I see no difference between this and what Calvinist believe. Maybe I should start calling Calvinist, Arminians. Isn't it by grace that you believe?

No, Calvinists have taken it upon themselves the right to define the meaning of all terms.....Arminius is not EVER allowed to speak for himself...only a Calvinist is allowed to speak for him...Where have you been?

 

[Darrell C]

~A Parable~​

A feathered creature was walking along, trying to mind his own business, when he happened upon a group of birds having a discussion. Some of them claimed to be ducks. Others claimed to be swans.

They looked at him and asked,

"What are you?"

He looked at the ducks and knew the ducks had a bad reputation. He really did not want to be called a duck!

Then he looked at the swans, and he had been told that they were too cold and snooty. He really did not want to be called a swan!

So he drew himself up to his full height, stuck his beak in the air, and said,

"I am a Bird!"

And with a self satisfied air about him, he waddled down the road, quacking his pleasure at having escaped being classified as anything other than a bird!

Hello Herald, nice to meet you. Just a few thoughts on this, starting with, I like to be labeled...a Christian.

I have gotten in the habit of witnessing to Atheists, and I thought for a change of scenery I might turn the thread to another perspective of "labeling."

You need but go to an atheist forum to see that the label "Christian" is branded upon just about anyone that can be imagined. Where they make their mistake is that they have no basis for actually making a judgment as to what a Christian is, or what is t is that makes a Christian...a Christian.

Yet, say "I believe in Jesus Christ" and boom!...you too can be labeled a Christian! Yet most of us here know that this is not an evidence of Christianity, merely a profession of faith.

Statements such as, "I was a Christian, but after my son died I realized it was all a scam," or, "I was a Christian when I was young but when I got older and started thinking for myself, I saw all the contradictions in scripture and turned away from believing in fairy tales" is pretty much the testimony of many atheists.

And when we ask them if they are sure they were saved, they appeal to the "No True Scotsman" argument, seeing our examination of their statement of belief as an escape clause. It goes roughly like this, if one is not familiar with it: A Scotsman reads a newspaper article and see that a murder of a particularly heinous nature was committed, and the police suspect a Scotsman did it. He says, "A Scotsman would do no such thing!" Much like we would (some of us) say "No Christian would do such and such." The next morning, the Scotsman reads in the paper that a Scotsman was indeed the culprit, and he says, "Well, no true Scotsman would do such a thing," much like we might say something like "No true American would support Communism." Again, this is an escape clause for the believer, they feel.

Some atheists believe that Hitler was a Christian, for example. How many of us would lay money on seeing Hitler in Heaven?

But if you pursue the atheist and try to force him to give his basis for believing that he was saved, you will find out that his understanding will usually read like a third grade sunday school student. Some of the commentary on scripture is ridiculaous to the point that it astounds how someone could centextually wrest scripture as they do to prove the "contradictions" they have found in scripture.

But listen to this: call the beliefs of the group in which they were affiliated with into question and they may get upset. Call their own understanding into question and they might...will...get upset.

So how do we address the problem of atheists labeling vereyone that professes belief in Christ...Christians?

It is very simple: you force them to examine the basis of their belief. And what you will find is that for most of them, the basis for their belief (which is...there is no God) is at the heart...anger. Perhaps anger at parents that taught them what scripture taught...and were themselves hypocrites. Perhaps anger at some Christian that failed to show the love of Christ toward them.

But it is usually anger, bred into a hatred that rules their thoughts, words, and actions. Lack of self control is evident. Playing by their own rules is evident.

So I guess on the topic of labeling, when it comes to the label of Christian, keep in mind that there are those that will label people Christians and they do not mean it in a complimentary fashion. And when we label someone with a tag that we openly show derision for, is it much different than what they do?

I would just also add that as we discuss the very doctrine that is bringing changes in all of our lives, if we would first ouselves examine the basis for our belief, and then make a concerted effort to, before labeling anyone, be interested in finding out the basis for belief that others hold, we would probably find out enough to keep us from getting to a point where we ourselves lose self-control and give ourselves over to emotional response.

And just so it is not thought I am just talking about how we discuss beliefs with Christians, consider that we may speak to an atheist that has gone through tragedy, such as losing a child, and his anger toward God is the foundation for his profession of unbelief. How often do we consider that there may be one that professes atheism that is just as insincere as those that profess Christ?

Could that be a possibility?

I think so.

Anyway, just a few thoughts concerning labels. I have been called Calvinist, a Catholic, and just recently, similar to JWs...lol. I do not view myself as any of those, just a Christian with a desire to understand God and His word better. And, to try to understand those I talk to better, before I can label them, and then really let 'em have it.

Just kidding about this last part.

God bless.

 

[HeirofSalvation]

The problem with the "No true Scotsman"....was that he didn't eat or like hagis, not that he would or wouldn't commit murder. Then again....as an erstwhile and wannabe Englishman, I think hagis ROCKS!!!

 

[MorseOp]

What's confusing to me is that the people who criticize using labels use them all the time. When I read "those Arminians" or "those Calvinists", aren't they labels?

 

[MorseOp]

While I'm thinking about it are the labels "Arminian" and "Calvinist" the right terms to use when debating the two most popular views of salvation? The free will view of salvation does share some similarities to Arminianism in that man must exercise faith without the compulsion of God. But within that camp there are a variety of other beliefs. Some believe a person can fall from grace. Others deny original sin. Some believe in total depravity and others don't. Even Arminius was a bit confused on that one; he believed in total depravity, but not really because he also believed man has a sort of latent faith that makes it possible for him to believe. Some Arminians embrace the term while others view it as a pejorative.

Calvinists are all over the map as well. You have some Calvinists who claim to be 4 pointers. They don't agree with definite atonement. Most 5 point Calvinists claim the 4 pointers aren't Calvinists at all. Some extreme "hyper" Calvinists teach that the gospel should only be preached to the elect. Others don't like the term "Calvinist" because they don't practice infant baptism or run their churches like Presbyterians. Instead they use terms like "doctrines of grace" to emphasize that salvation is by grace alone.

I guess my point is that both of these popular labels aren't completely accurate when applied to Baptists.

 

[humblethinker]

People do not like to be labeled because they are man made and fail to represent what they believe. Further thy are used to demonize people and cause division. Using labels against someones will is mean spirited and arrogant. These labels are a lot like cussing. One's inability to deal with people without them shows their low intelligence. When you cannot function in life without them them you need to learn to be kinder and more thoughtful of those you are dealing with. It is just iucalled for.

Yes, being kind and thoughtful is admirable but that is in no way necessarily incongruent with being labeled... besides, you can label yourself and most people will accept that. If your beliefs are communicable then there's a label for it and if not a new label can be created. If you don't communicate your beliefs then you have no defense against the claim that you don't have them. To me labels are just a condensed expression of what's inside. Of course labels can be abused but that seems like a poor arguement for refusing to wear one...

 

[mandym]

Yes, being kind and thoughtful is admirable but that is in no way necessarily incongruent with being labeled... besides, you can label yourself and most people will accept that. If your beliefs are communicable then there's a label for it and if not a new label can be created. If you don't communicate your beliefs then you have no defense against the claim that you don't have them. To me labels are just a condensed expression of what's inside. Of course labels can be abused but that seems like a poor arguement for refusing to wear one...

First I do not need an argument for not wearing one. And If someone does not want to be labeled an arm or an cal and you or anyone insists on doing it Anyway then yes that is "incongruent" and ungodly.

 

[MorseOp]

I'm not trying to be thick, I'm just want to understand the logic in all of this.

If person "A" believes that man possesses a measure of faith, even though in a state of sin, and can use that faith to believe the gospel and trust in Christ, how do we describe that person's theological position regarding salvation?

If person "B" believes that man is not only in a state of sin, but unable to respond by faith, except that Holy Spirit first regenerates him, and then becomes able to believe the gospel and trust in Christ, how do we describe that person's theological position regarding salvation?

I suppose we could say about "A" that he "believes that man possesses a measure of faith, even though in a state of sin, and can use that faith to believe the gospel and trust in Christ" every time we discuss that particular view of salvation. The same for person "B." We could say (when discussing that view), "man is not only in a state of sin, but unable to respond by faith, except that the Holy Spirit first regenerates him, and then becomes able to believe the gospel and trust in Christ."

If we're not going to use some descriptive label to differentiate between beliefs then we're going to have the vowel and consonant police after us!