Forensic Justification - what's your view about it?

[De_Maria]

Romans 4

English Standard Version (ESV)

What then shall we say was gained by Abraham, our forefather according to the flesh? For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. For what does the Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness.” Now to the one who works, his wages are not counted as a gift but as his due. And to the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness, just as David also speaks of the blessing of the one to whom God counts righteousness apart from works:

Romans 4

New American Standard Bible (NASB)

What then shall we say that Abraham, our forefather according to the flesh, has found? For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. For what does the Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.” Now to the one who works, his wage is not credited as a favor, but as what is due. But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited as righteousness, just as David also speaks of the blessing on the man to whom God credits righteousness apart from works:

Great! Thanks for providing that Scripture. However, I don’t see the words, “credited with the righteousness of Christ” there.

Also, I hope that you read Scripture in context of what the Word of God teaches elsewhere. It is one of the Protestant mottoes that Scripture interprets Scripture. Let us see what Scripture says about this verse. The verse in question is Gen 15:6. How does Scripture itself interpret this verse?

Genesis 15:6
King James Version (KJV)
6 And he believed in the Lord; and he counted it to him for righteousness.

St. James says:
James 2:
21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar?

22 Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect?

23 And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God.

Notice.

1. Abraham believed in God’s promise. If we accept your interpretation, that happened in Gen 15 (although it really happened much earlier).
2. Abraham was not immediately credited righteous by God. He was not credited righteous until he offered Isaac on the altar. That didn’t happen for another 12 years and is recorded in Gen 22.
3. It turns out that Gen 15:6 is simply a narrative comment by the author. Moses. Moses knew it would happen in Gen 15 and that it would be fulfilled in Gen 22.
4. Even St. Paul is aware of this. Read Heb 11:
   Hebrews 11:17-19
   King James Version (KJV)
   17 By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac: and he that had received the promises offered up his only begotten son,

18 Of whom it was said, That in Isaac shall thy seed be called:

19 Accounting that God was able to raise him up, even from the dead; from whence also he received him in a figure.

1. And Scripture also says about Abraham:
   Genesis 26:5
   Because that Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws.
2. Abraham proved his faith by his obedience. And it is because of his obedience that God credited to him righteousness. His own righteousness, not the righteousness of Christ.
3. God doesn’t lie. He looked into Abraham’s heart and proclaimed him just. It is not a simple legal declaration. But both a legal and a transformative declaration. Since God’s word effects what it proclaims:
   Isaiah 55:11
   So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it.

Sincerely,

De Maria

 

[De_Maria]

Perhaps if you do, it would spark the same kind of dialogue you and Guan have had about Catholic teaching. The fact is, however, there is but one belief that Catholicism teaches about baptism, and one belief that Lutheranism teaches, regardless of debate.

Jon

Are you sure? If that is true, why are there so many Lutheran organizations?

De Maria

 

[onemangang]

I know that you (Christian Unity) have mentioned you were baptized an infant and also had a “believers baptism” through a Calvary Chapel.

Much of the discussion between quanophore and De Maria is on the topic I was asking you about in regards to criteria. Matter, Form and INTENT

Intent would be my concern as De Maria and guanophore have debated.

I do not know if you are still part of the Calvary Chapel communion, but here is a little insight into practice in regards to Calvary Chapel people who have entered into full communion with the Catholic Church, they all have received a conditional baptism! At Calvary Chapel they were fully immersed in Water having correct Matter, they all had a Form that consisted of in the Name of The Father, The Son and the Holy Spirit, but the thing in question was INTENT, so all that were received into the Church under went a conditional baptism! Why? Because Calvary Chapel practices a form of “believers baptism”!

Peace and Love in Christ

 

[JonNC]

Are you sure? If that is true, why are there so many Lutheran organizations?

De Maria

i would be surprised to find a difference on a doctrine as basic and clearly defined as baptism. Synodical differences are more often related to fellowship. ecclesiology, and even social issues.

Jon

 

[Christian_Unity]

I know that you (Christian Unity) have mentioned you were baptized an infant and also had a “believers baptism” through a Calvary Chapel.

Much of the discussion between quanophore and De Maria is on the topic I was asking you about in regards to criteria. Matter, Form and INTENT

Intent would be my concern as De Maria and guanophore have debated.

I do not know if you are still part of the Calvary Chapel communion, but here is a little insight into practice in regards to Calvary Chapel people who have entered into full communion with the Catholic Church, they all have received a conditional baptism! At Calvary Chapel they were fully immersed in Water having correct Matter, they all had a Form that consisted of in the Name of The Father, The Son and the Holy Spirit, but the thing in question was INTENT, so all that were received into the Church under went a conditional baptism! Why? Because Calvary Chapel practices a form of “believers baptism”!

Peace and Love in Christ

I left Calvary Chapel about 15 years ago or so. It is ironic that many of the pastors over there are ex-Catholics. I prefer historical creedal confessional Protestant Christianity than non-denominational kinds of Christianity which have very little disregard for church history. I guess as far as intent goes, being baptized as an infant in the Triune formula, I didn’t have much of a say in regards to the intent of my infant baptism. Being baptized at Calvary Chapel was an identification of what already occurred prior to my water baptism. I do identify with a Protestant church who believes that baptism is a sacrament and a sign and a seal; it is a means of grace.

 

[SteveVH]

This may come as a shock to you, but you are not the one who gets to determine their intent, or what type of faith is valid, and what is not. This is the duty of the Magesterium, and “Rome has spoken” on the subject. You seem to see yourself on a mission to “prove” that Protestant baptism is not valid because they don’t believe in the power of the sacrament, and do not baptize with Catholic intention. While I agree with your points, they are irrelevant. The Church accepts them, and therefore, the case is closed.

I have been following your conversation with De Maria and I have to say that I have always had a problem with this as well. If intent (to do what the Church does) is necessary, and the Church has said that it is, then how is a Batism vaild when it is done with a different intent (i.e. public statement of one’s acceptance of Christ while denying the cleansing of sin and the infusion of supernatural life)?

This is a question that I do not believe has been adequately answered, or if it has I am unaware. At the same time I am in total acceptance of the fact that the Magesterium as spoken on the subject and that is that. The Church was given the authority to bind and loose and I will always defer to the Church even if I don’t understand. But I would like to understand how the Magesterium arrived at this position.

 

[Christian_Unity]

I have been following your conversation with De Maria and I have to say that I have always had a problem with this as well. If intent (to do what the Church does) is necessary, and the Church has said that it is, then how is a Batism vaild when it is done with a different intent (i.e. public statement of one’s acceptance of Christ while denying the cleansing of sin and the infusion of supernatural life)?

This is a question that I do not believe has been adequately answered, or if it has I am unaware. At the same time I am in total acceptance of the fact that the Magesterium as spoken on the subject and that is that. The Church was given the authority to bind and loose and I will always defer to the Church even if I don’t understand. But I would like to understand how the Magesterium arrived at this position.

That’s an interesting post. Since Protestant churches have various views of infant baptismal regeneration and baptism in general. It’s hard for me to think that the particular Protestant denomination within the Triune belief can determine the saving fate of an individual. I was really baptized as an infant because I have a Certificate to poof it. So, are we trying to conclude if that baptism is valid depending on what that particular denomination believes in regards to baptism? I know of Protestant churches who practice infant baptism, but not with the same intent as the Catholic Church. Many Protestants who become Catholic come from Baptist churches with Baptist theology. I don’t think the Catholic Church requires the ex-Baptist to be baptised again, correct?

 

[KathleenGee]

As a mother, and knowing anything can happen, I wanted my children to be united to Christ at the beginning of their lives. So most were baptized within a month. I almost lost 2 at childbirth, although everything was taken care of right then and there.

My younger daughter was baptized after 1 week. She was not taken care of properly when born and this former Catholic nurse and the zero population obstetric dr were harrassing me to get my tubes tied and I refused. My daughter started to express some phlegm and was turning blue, and my husband froze holding her. The father next to me left his wife and baby, took Therese out and ran down to the nursing station. She was turning blue when she arrived.

Anyway, when she was being baptized, she literally swooned and her arms dropped out. The priest noted it. When I was taking the Rite to Christian Initiation, we had to draw posters of someone becoming part of the Church. So I drew a picture of her and had the baptismal font held within and part of a tree.

St Therese the Little Flower had as she called it, arrows of divine love touch her…and it was like an arrow of Christ’s love touched my Therese. My friends saw her as an infant, thought she the prettiest, and told me she would be my saint.

She grew up very short. But very committed and spoke out against abortion in the public school, turning some kids for her and others against her. And she suffered the consequences. Her friends call her ‘Napoleon’, she left the church for awhile, and now she is coming back in.

But yes, I am all for infant baptism, Peter baptized entire households, and surely we can assume there were infants in there. I want my children to experience Christ as soon as they can.

 

[Christian_Unity]

As a mother, and knowing anything can happen, I wanted my children to be united to Christ at the beginning of their lives. So most were baptized within a month. I almost lost 2 at childbirth, although everything was taken care of right then and there.

My younger daughter was baptized after 1 week. She was not taken care of properly when born and this former Catholic nurse and the zero population obstetric dr were harrassing me to get my tubes tied and I refused. My daughter started to express some phlegm and was turning blue, and my husband froze holding her. The father next to me left his wife and baby, took Therese out and ran down to the nursing station. She was turning blue when she arrived.

Anyway, when she was being baptized, she literally swooned and her arms dropped out. The priest noted it. When I was taking the Rite to Christian Initiation, we had to draw posters of someone becoming part of the Church. So I drew a picture of her and had the baptismal font held within and part of a tree.

St Therese the Little Flower had as she called it, arrows of divine love touch her…and it was like an arrow of Christ’s love touched my Therese. My friends saw her as an infant, thought she the prettiest, and told me she would be my saint.

She grew up very short. But very committed and spoke out against abortion in the public school, turning some kids for her and others against her. And she suffered the consequences. Her friends call her ‘Napoleon’, she left the church for awhile, and now she is coming back in.

But yes, I am all for infant baptism, Peter baptized entire households, and surely we can assume there were infants in there. I want my children to experience Christ as soon as they can.

As a Protetstant, I am for infant baptism but understand Baptist theology which is okay too. Paul seems to consider baptism differently than Catholic theology. Paul tells us that he wasn’t sent to baptize, but rather he was sent to preach the gospel (gospel regeneration). In 1 Cor 7, Paul writes that children from a household of faith is holy, sanctifed, and clean… in comparison to infants from an unbelieving household. Paul does not mention that a infant from a household of faith has to be baptised to be holy, sanctified, and clean. What are your thoughts on that?

 

[SteveVH]

That’s an interesting post. Since Protestant churches have various views of infant baptismal regeneration and baptism in general. It’s hard for me to think that the particular Protestant denomination within the Triune belief can determine the saving fate of an individual. I was really baptized as an infant because I have a Certificate to poof it. So, are we trying to conclude if that baptism is valid depending on what that particular denomination believes in regards to baptism? I know of Protestant churches who practice infant baptism, but not with the same intent as the Catholic Church. Many Protestants who become Catholic come from Baptist churches with Baptist theology. I don’t think the Catholic Church requires the ex-Baptist to be baptised again, correct?

No, I am fairly certain that the Catholic Church accepts Bapist Baptisms. Let me be very clear. I am certain that the Church’s reasoning on this issue is absolutely correct. For the reasons stated, I don’t understand that reasoning and hope someone can help me understand it. God’s mercy is wide and the Church should never hold back that mercy. Anyway, I’m sure there is someone here who can better explain the Church’s reasoning.

 

[De_Maria]

I have been following your conversation with De Maria and I have to say that I have always had a problem with this as well. If intent (to do what the Church does) is necessary, and the Church has said that it is, then how is a Batism vaild when it is done with a different intent (i.e. public statement of one’s acceptance of Christ while denying the cleansing of sin and the infusion of supernatural life)?

Let me try to untangle the mess. Here’s an explanation from L’Osservatore Romano which is reprinted on the EWTN website. I’ve emphasized the words which convey the meaning of what I have been trying to say.

*The most recent documents of the Catholic Church maintain the same teaching. The Code of Canon Law prescribes that those who have been baptized in non-Catholic ecclesial communities (**as long as there is no doubt regarding the matter or the form or the intention of the minister or of the person being baptized) ** should not be baptized again (cf. Code of Canon Law, can. 869 §2), *…
ewtn.com/library/theology/mormbap1.htm

As long as there is no doubt regarding…the intention of the minister or the person being baptized. If there is a doubt as to the intention of the minister or the person being baptized, then the baptism is considered invalid. Please note the word, “doubt”. That means that the true intention is not ascertained.

However, we have not, in this discussion been discussing a “doubt” about the intention to do what the Church does. But an intention which is clearly in opposition of the Church. The opposition to the Church is not in question.

This is a question that I do not believe has been adequately answered, or if it has I am unaware.

I believe it has.

At the same time I am in total acceptance of the fact that the Magesterium as spoken on the subject and that is that. The Church was given the authority to bind and loose and I will always defer to the Church even if I don’t understand. But I would like to understand how the Magesterium arrived at this position.

I disagree that the Catholic Church has set aside intention. If anyone can show me the document which you believe does so, I will appreciate it.

Sincerely,

De Maria

 

[Christian_Unity]

Let me try to untangle the mess. Here’s an explanation from L’Osservatore Romano which is reprinted on the EWTN website. I’ve emphasized the words which convey the meaning of what I have been trying to say.

*The most recent documents of the Catholic Church maintain the same teaching. The Code of Canon Law prescribes that those who have been baptized in non-Catholic ecclesial communities (**as long as there is no doubt regarding the matter or the form or the intention of the minister or of the person being baptized) *** should not be baptized again (cf. Code of Canon Law, can. 869 §2), …
ewtn.com/library/theology/mormbap1.htm

As long as there is no doubt regarding…the intention of the minister or the person being baptized. If there is a doubt as to the intention of the minister or the person being baptized, then the baptism is considered invalid. Please note the word, “doubt”. That means that the true intention is not ascertained.

However, we have not, in this discussion been discussing a “doubt” about the intention to do what the Church does. But an intention which is clearly in opposition of the Church. The opposition to the Church is not in question.

I believe it has.

I disagree that the Catholic Church has set aside intention. If anyone can show me the document which you believe does so, I will appreciate it.

Sincerely,

De Maria

As I mentioned from the start, Catholic teaching, dogma, and official sources do require intepretation; therefore, Catholics disagree with each other all the time just like Protestants. Most Protestants who have become Catholics were probably baptised with a different intent than what the Catholic Church believes; therefore, I think you guys should have all Protestants converting to Catholic rebaptized to be consistent with the Catholic understanding on the sacrament of baptism. I think a few Protestant denominations believe in infant baptismal regeneration, but I don’t think any Protestant denominations believe in adult baptismal regeneration. Instead, we all tend to believe in gospel proclamation regeneration. I believe the Church of Christ believes in baptismal regeneration but they do not consider themselves to be Protestant.

 

[De_Maria]

As a Protetstant, I am for infant baptism but understand Baptist theology which is okay too. Paul seems to consider baptism differently than Catholic theology.

As in St. Paul?

Paul tells us that he wasn’t sent to baptize, but rather he was sent to preach the gospel (gospel regeneration).

The words, gospel regeneration, are yours. They are not St. Paul’s.

St. Paul was not sent to Baptize. But he did not refuse to baptize and he baptized many. Nor did he advise people to reject Baptism.

In 1 Cor 7, Paul writes that children from a household of faith is holy, sanctifed, and clean… in comparison to infants from an unbelieving household. Paul does not mention that a infant from a household of faith has to be baptised to be holy, sanctified, and clean. What are your thoughts on that?

St. Paul assumes that the child in a household of faith has been baptized.

Sincerely,

De Maria

 

[Christian_Unity]

As in St. Paul?

The words, gospel regeneration, are yours. They are not St. Paul’s.

St. Paul was not sent to Baptize. But he did not refuse to baptize and he baptized many. Nor did he advise people to reject Baptism.

St. Paul assumes that the child in a household of faith has been baptized.

Sincerely,

De Maria

You cannot assume that Paul assumed that the children of a household of faith were all baptised. This is going beyond what is written. If you believe the sacrament of baptism if required for regeneration, then we can assume that Paul was a heretic because he was not sent to baptize, and he only baptized a few people according to Paul. Your handling of Scripture is one of the main causes of the Protestant Reformation and the case for sola scriptura.

 

[De_Maria]

As I mentioned from the start,

I believe I’ve responded to this comment before.

Catholic teaching, dogma, and official sources do require intepretation;

Who said they didn’t?

therefore, Catholics disagree with each other all the time just like Protestants.

Not so.

Protestants accept no human authority to interpret for them the Scriptures. Nor are they united under one Authority.

Most Protestants who have become Catholics were probably baptised with a different intent than what the Catholic Church believes; therefore, I think you guys should have all Protestants converting to Catholic rebaptized to be consistent with the Catholic understanding on the sacrament of baptism.

If a different intention is confirmed, then they are conditionally rebaptized.

I think a few Protestant denominations believe in infant baptismal regeneration, but I don’t think any Protestant denominations believe in adult baptismal regeneration. Instead, we all tend to believe in gospel proclamation regeneration. I believe the Church of Christ believes in baptismal regeneration but they do not consider themselves to be Protestant.

Regardless, the Catholic Church has an effective Rite of Christian Initiation which investigates case by case, whether an individual needs to be rebaptized.

Sincerely,

De Maria

 

[Christian_Unity]

I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius, so that no one may say that you were baptized in my name. (I did baptize also the household of Stephanas. Beyond that, I do not know whether I baptized anyone else.) For Christ did not send me to baptize but to preach the gospel, and not with words of eloquent wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power.

For the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. For it is written,

“I will destroy the wisdom of the wise,
and the discernment of the discerning I will thwart.”

Where is the one who is wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom, it pleased God through the folly of what we preach to save those who believe. For Jews demand signs and Greeks seek wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles, but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. For the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men.

For consider your calling, brothers: not many of you were wise according to worldly standards, not many were powerful, not many were of noble birth. But God chose what is foolish in the world to shame the wise; God chose what is weak in the world to shame the strong; God chose what is low and despised in the world, even things that are not, to bring to nothing things that are, so that no human being might boast in the presence of God. And because of him you are in Christ Jesus, who became to us wisdom from God, righteousness and sanctification and redemption, so that, as it is written, “Let the one who boasts, boast in the Lord.”

Apostle Paul

 

[De_Maria]

You cannot assume that Paul assumed that the children of a household of faith were all baptised.

Why not? Faithful people seek to baptize their children.

This is going beyond what is written.

You have gone beyond what is written when you claimed insinuated that St. Paul was against Baptism and in favor of gospel regeneration.

If you believe the sacrament of baptism if required for regeneration, then we can assume that Paul was a heretic because he was not sent to baptize, and he only baptized a few people according to Paul.

How does that make sense? St. Paul preached Baptismal regeneration. It was not necessary that he baptize anyone at all. By preaching the necessity of Baptism, he proved his true faith in Christ. And in baptizing even a few, he practiced what he preached.

Your handling of Scripture is one of the main causes of the Protestant Reformation and the case for sola scriptura.

That is true. It is those who cast out Tradition who no longer understand the true meaning of the Scriptures and have adopted the false doctrine of Sola Scriptura which leads them to further error.

Sincerely,

De Maria

 

[Christian_Unity]

I
Regardless, the Catholic Church has an effective Rite of Christian Initiation which investigates case by case, whether an individual needs to be rebaptized.

Sincerely,

De Maria

Really, so every Protestant baptized in the Triune formula gets examined by the Catholic Church to determine if their baptism is valid prior to becoming Catholic. If their Protestant baptism is not valid by the Catholic Church, then are you saying that Protestant was never united to Christ by faith? I think your position is incorrect, since it is clear that Protestants are considered separated brethrens even though we believe in a different intent of the sacrament of baptism. You can’t have your cake and eat it too my friend.

 

[De_Maria]

I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius, so that no one may say that you were baptized in my name. (I did baptize also the household of Stephanas. Beyond that, I do not know whether I baptized anyone else.)

This is a quote from the 1st Epistle to the Corinthians. Just because St. Paul said this to the Corinthians is not proof that he did not Baptize many Galatians, Thessalonians and many others.

For Christ did not send me to baptize

And yet, as he admitted, he did baptize. Because, although it was not his main duty, it was a very important job to be done.

but to preach the gospel, and not with words of eloquent wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power.

And a wonderful job he did.

For the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. For it is written,

“I will destroy the wisdom of the wise,
and the discernment of the discerning I will thwart.”

Where is the one who is wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom, it pleased God through the folly of what we preach to save those who believe. For Jews demand signs and Greeks seek wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles, but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. For the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men.

For consider your calling, brothers: not many of you were wise according to worldly standards, not many were powerful, not many were of noble birth. But God chose what is foolish in the world to shame the wise; God chose what is weak in the world to shame the strong; God chose what is low and despised in the world, even things that are not, to bring to nothing things that are, so that no human being might boast in the presence of God. And because of him you are in Christ Jesus, who became to us wisdom from God, righteousness and sanctification and redemption, so that, as it is written, “Let the one who boasts, boast in the Lord.”

Apostle Paul

True. I don’t see any preaching against Baptism in there. And elsewhere he says:
Romans 6:4
Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.

Colossians 2:12
Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.

So, obviously, he believed that God operated through the Sacrament to regenerate the believer.

Sincerely,

De Maria

 

[Christian_Unity]

This is a quote from the 1st Epistle to the Corinthians. Just because St. Paul said this to the Corinthians is not proof that he did not Baptize many Galatians, Thessalonians and many others.

And yet, as he admitted, he did baptize. Because, although it was not his main duty, it was a very important job to be done.

And a wonderful job he did.

True. I don’t see any preaching against Baptism in there. And elsewhere he says:
Romans 6:4
Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.

Colossians 2:12
Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.

So, obviously, he believed that God operated through the Sacrament to regenerate the believer.

Sincerely,

De Maria

You have to understand that Protestants interpret that as the baptism done by the Spirit of God and not by the hands of men. Let me find verses to help you understand the Protestant perspective. Do you consider circumcision an OT sacrament which regenerates?

For circumcision indeed is of value if you obey the law, but if you break the law, your circumcision becomes uncircumcision. So, if a man who is uncircumcised keeps the precepts of the law, will not his uncircumcision be regarded as circumcision? Then he who is physically uncircumcised but keeps the law will condemn you who have the written code and circumcision but break the law. For no one is a Jew who is merely one outwardly, nor is circumcision outward and physical. But a Jew is one inwardly, and circumcision is a matter of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter. His praise is not from man but from God. – Rom 2