How are we saved?

[Prodigal_Son1]

Roman catholics will make excuses or come up with something to justify the baptizing of infants.Why don’t you just accept the Bible’s version where there is no infant baptizing. Ralph

It’s not excuses, it’s intercessory action. The Bible of course gives examples of whole households being baptized, but you probably require something more specific, on the other hand private interpretation of scriptures is spoken against and sola scriptura is not even mentioned, yet that’s rock foundation to you.

 

[paul_c]

In this same manner some Protestants today baptize as an outward indication / sign of the work all ready taken place “born again”. No Gentiles were baptized by John the baptist nor did any of the disciples baptize them. You can see right there they were saved the same as the Apostates with the HS. The baptism in context of the time with the separation of Jew and Genital, could be seen as a falling away of the veil between them. The baptism that Peter is calling for could be seen as a symbolic jester between Jew and Gentile.

How do you become more saved after you receive the HS?
What did it provide the Gentiles that had already received the HS by being baptized?
Or is this a tell - tell sign of the discussion to come between Paul and Peter about circumcision?

Baptism has nothing to do with a symbolic gesture between jew and Gentile.
This is theology create by you or some other but it is certainly not biblical.
John’s baptism clearly was different than that of Christians. He was in no position to baptize in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, now was he? Baptism is an individual acknowledgement of your faith in the Trinity.

Clearly Peter thought that baptism had merit after they recieved the Holy spirit, or else he wouldn’t have done it.

 

[jean8]

Ralphy-

I’m sure that serving Jesus is your deepest desire…good for you. The problem, as I see it, is that you serve Him on your terms - not His.

Jesus did not start your Bible church…He built the Catholic Church, beginning with the Apostles, and He left Peter in charge after His ascension.

He has not abandoned His Bride in 2,000 years and He never will.

If you are truly interested in pursuing the Truth, wherever it leads you, then you must consider that being Catholic is part of Jesus’ plan and that the words in my signature deserve deep consideration.

catholic means universal. You are referring to the RCC.
The early church was referred to as apostolic.
The word 'catholic is not in the bible.

God bless,
jean

 

[tukfryer]

Baptism has nothing to do with a symbolic gesture between jew and Gentile.
This is theology create by you or some other but it is certainly not biblical.
John’s baptism clearly was different than that of Christians. He was in no position to baptize in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, now was he? Baptism is an individual acknowledgement of your faith in the Trinity.

Clearly Peter thought that baptism had merit after they recieved the Holy spirit, or else he wouldn’t have done it.

No created theology here I did same as you Catholics do and offered an explanation “outside of scripture” not a theology as you do.
I do believe that the Apostles were also learning about grace and works. There was some difference of opinion about how the Gentiles were to be accepted into salvation by the Apostles themselves, just how much of the Law must they practice? Is a man saved by following the Law? in context of repentance yes, must you / he be perfect in the Law? impossible, only Jesus succeeded. Don’t get me wrong I think that baptism should be a part of everyone’s walk in Christ just as desiring to keep any part of the Law. But is it necessary? the indication from scripture is no. I notice you did not address my questions.

How do you become more saved after you receive the HS?
What did it provide the Gentiles that had already received the HS by being baptized?
Or is this a tell - tell sign of the discussion to come between Paul and Peter about circumcision?

 

[davidv]

Roman catholics will make excuses or come up with something to justify the baptizing of infants.Why don’t you just accept the Bible’s version where there is no infant baptizing. Ralph

I don’t accept your version of it, because is a false gospel.

 

[tukfryer]

I don’t accept your version of it, because is a false gospel.

Aside from every thing else that makes no sense at all. The NT letters about Jesus are the most numerous and written more closely to the original that any other account of a person in history. Do you question historians about Caesar, Aristotle, Homer, Plato or any other notable figure from history? If not then you by measure of evidence can not dispute Jesus. More to the point the NT was the most publicized document in history. Turning your head to that fact and choosing rather to listen to another gospel is foolishness.

Gal 1:6 I marvel that you are turning away so soon from Him who called you in the grace of Christ, to a different gospel, 7 which is not another; but there are some who trouble you and want to pervert the gospel of Christ. 8 But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed. 9 As we have said before, so now I say again, if anyone preaches any other gospel to you than what you have received, let him be accursed.
10 For do I now persuade men, or God? Or do I seek to please men? For if I still pleased men, I would not be a bondservant of Christ.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

catholic means universal. You are referring to the RCC.
The early church was referred to as apostolic.
The word 'catholic is not in the bible.

God bless,
jean

St. Ignatius was a disciple of St. John and received his appointment from St. Peter. In 106AD, a few years after St. John had written Revelations and approximately 300 years before the canon of the New Testament was defined, St. Ignatius wrote the following.

See that ye all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as ye would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution(55) of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper(56) Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.

If you’d like, we can compare the doctrines practiced by the first Christians as documented by the writings of the early Church fathers and see which Church of today is more closely following the same doctrines?

At the very least, there should be no doubt in your mind that the founder of the Lutheran Church came from the Catholic Church, of course that was around the 1500s at which time there was no dispute that there was only one Church started by Christ and it was the Catholic Church.

 

[davidv]

Aside from every thing else that makes no sense at all.

When one believes a false gospel, many things don’t make sense.

The NT letters about Jesus are the most numerous and written more closely to the original that any other account of a person in history.

If it were not for Catholics who identified the inspired writings from among the many possibilities and preserved then for centuries, you would have no knowledge of these letters.

Do you question historians about Caesar, Aristotle, Homer, Plato or any other notable figure from history?

How is this germaine to the subject?

If not then you by measure of evidence can not dispute Jesus. More to the point the NT was the most publicized document in history. Turning your head to that fact and choosing rather to listen to another gospel is foolishness.

I accept the fact that the Catholic Church is the Church Jesus found and blessed with the Holy Spirit on Pentecost.

Foolishness is believing that one individual with limited resources and limited knowledge can proclaim that an instutution created by God that has grown for ~2000 years is incorrect.

 

[twb1621]

PaulC, This is Ed, I’ve asked, and asked, and asked for any Catholic on this thread to show me precisely how to get saved. No one has responded to my plea thus far. Can you do it for me by showing me precisely the steps by steps required to be certain that, If I stay in the state of grace, I’ll be certain of going to heaven?

Of course you must believe in the word of our Lord Jesus… Follow His Teachings and you will be saved. That would be those Teachings where the compilation of books called the Holy Bible Comes from and in its unaltered state.

Ephesians CH 4; 1 I, then, a prisoner for the Lord, urge you to live in a manner worthy of the call you have received, 2 with all humility and gentleness, with patience, bearing with one another through love, 3 striving to preserve the unity of the spirit through the bond of peace: 4 one body and one Spirit, as you were also called to the one hope of your call; 5 one Lord, one faith, one baptism; 6 one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all. 7 But grace was given to each of us according to the measure of Christ’s gift. 8 Therefore, it says: “He ascended on high and took prisoners captive; he gave gifts to men.” 9 What does “he ascended” mean except that he also descended into the lower (regions) of the earth? 10 The one who descended is also the one who ascended far above all the heavens, that he might fill all things. 11 **And he gave some as apostles, others as prophets, others as evangelists, others as pastors and teachers, 12 to equip the holy ones for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ, **13 until we all attain to the unity of faith and knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the extent of the full stature of Christ, 14 so that we may no longer be infants, tossed by waves and swept along by every wind of teaching arising from human trickery, from their cunning in the interests of deceitful scheming. 15 Rather, **living the truth in love, we should grow in every way into him who is the head, Christ, **16 from whom the whole body, joined and held together by every supporting ligament, with the proper functioning of each part, brings about the body’s growth and builds itself up in love.

Ephesians CH 1; 18 May the eyes of (your) hearts be enlightened, that you may know what is the hope that belongs to his call, what are the riches of glory in his inheritance among the holy ones, 19 and what is the surpassing greatness of his power for us who believe, in accord with the exercise of his great might, 20 which he worked in Christ, raising him from the dead and seating him at his right hand in the heavens, 21 far above every principality, authority, power, and dominion, and every name that is named not only in this age but also in the one to come. 22 And he put all things beneath his feet **and gave him as head over all things to the church, 23 which is his body, the fullness of the one who fills all things in every way. **

No protestant faith follows the complete teachings of the Church founded by Christ and if they did they would not be protestant. If we base our answer on scripture, unless their beliefs where the same as those teachings of the True Church founded by Christ, no IMO they certainly would not be “one Body” in the complete sense of teachings and beliefs. And I agree with the article you referred to completely. “…until we all Attain to the Unity of Faith” would mean gather in the one true Faith or belief system.

notice the Word says specifically; "…5 one Lord, one faith, one baptism; 6 one God and Father of all,"

Notice It nowhere refers to subsidiaries or altered derivatives of that one Faith but it does go on to say beware of the wolves… Yet so many do not consider or question those “mere men” who 1500 years after the inception of the Holy Bible altered the text and books contained in the Bible and no one sees the oddity of those who would say certain sacraments provided by God are unnecessary or invalid and the Bible can be self taught. Now who would Benefit from such changes?

Why do you blanketly criticize those responsible for the origin of the Holy Bible and what Faith do you practice?

 

[Daniel_Keeran]

First, Tertullian died separated from the Church, a Montanist heretic. Stop trying to make him the poster boy for Catholic Orthodoxy. He obviously opposed or discouraged much that was considered orthodox practice in the early Church. That’s what made him a heretic.

Second, it has already been pointed out that you have twisted Tertullian just as you attempted to twist Eusebius on Novation previously. Tertullian said, “A is better than B”. He never said, “B is invalid”.

Third, Hippolytus was a disciple of Irenaeus. I never knew that before. Thus, the incredibly powerful quote from Hippolytus supporting infant baptism that I gave you above came from a disciple of Irenaeus, the disciple of Polycarp, the disciple of John, the disciple of Christ.

Jesus > John > Polycarp > Irenaeus > Hippolytus

No wonder you were hedging earlier about the “possible” reference to infant baptism in the quote from Irenaeus. Hippolytus confirms the doctrine that he had learned from Irenaeus who had learned it from Polycarp, etc, etc.

One final point, Daniel, and then I’m about done wasting more time on your endless denials: Jesus left behind an authoritatitive Church; one with the power to bind and loose. Either the Church is merely mirroring what is already loosed or bound in heaven (in which case the Church cannot err) or the Church is binding and loosing what is subsequently bound and loosed in heaven (in which case the Holy Spirit must act to prevent the Church from ever binding or loosing something that cannot be ratified in heaven). Either way, the Church has real, infallible authority under the protection of the Holy Spirit.

So, regardless of when baptism of infants was authorized (by the apostles or by the Church at some later date), the decision either reflects the will of Heaven or has been ratified in heaven.

Doesn’t really help you much either way, does it?

My point still holds: Tertullian would not have recommended the delay of baptism for infants if he knew it was fully biblical and in full swing from the time of the apostles. Your view points out the central argument against papal authority: such a view accepts the right of a man or group of men to preach a different gospel!! (read Galatians 1:8,9)

 

[twb1621]

My point still holds: Tertullian would not have recommended the delay of baptism for infants if he knew it was fully biblical and in full swing from the time of the apostles. Your view points out the central argument against papal authority: such a view accepts the right of a man or group of men to preach a different gospel!! (read Galatians 1:8,9)

First of all, where does the bible say when a person can be baptized or that Children cannot be baptized? Also, doesn’t the Bible say the parents are responsible for the salvation of the child through the teachings of God and His ways to the child? Is a child not born of original sin? Does not Baptism remove that sin? Would it not then be prudent for parents to have their child Baptized and cleansed of original sin should something take their life before the time of reason and the ability to choose of their own free will? And from you who write books pertaining to the interpretation of scripture, I still have not received responses to many posts from other threads pertaining to your biblical misinterpretations. Some of which you claimed the ECF’s didn’t know what they were talking about, or had no idea of who they were referring to in their recognition of the authority of Peter if I am not mistaken. Seeing as how they are of related subject matter, perhaps you would like to go back over those and now offer your responses.
As far as the reference you made above, that would more appropriately suit the protestant and other movements away from the Catholic teachings while using their “revised” Bible.

6 5 6 I am amazed that you are so quickly forsaking the one who called you by (the) grace (of Christ) for a different gospel 7 (not that there is another). But there are some who are disturbing you and wish to pervert the gospel of Christ. 8 But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach (to you) a gospel other than the one that we reached to you, let that one be accursed! 7 9 As we have said before, and now I say again, if anyone preaches to you a gospel other than the one that you received, let that one be accursed!

 

[tukfryer]

When one believes a false gospel, many things don’t make sense.

tukfryer The NT letters about Jesus are the most numerous and written more closely to the original that any other account of a person in history.

The number of letters “copies” is evidence in itself that they intended this message to survive IN THE ORIGINAL TEXT. The Catholic church as you say in light of the number of documents had no choice but to receive them in the original form.

tukfryer Do you question historians about Caesar, Aristotle, Homer, Plato or any other notable figure from history?

How is this germaine to the subject?

From the perspective of a non believer refuting the claims or accuracy of the NT in context of evidence.

tukfryer If not then you by measure of evidence can not dispute Jesus. More to the point the NT was the most publicized document in history. Turning your head to that fact and choosing rather to listen to another gospel is foolishness.

I accept the fact that the Catholic Church is the Church Jesus found and blessed with the Holy Spirit on Pentecost.

I chose to compare what the Catholic church teaches TODAY in context of the first witness “the writers of the NT”

Foolishness is believing that one individual with limited resources and limited knowledge can proclaim that an instutution created by God that has grown for ~2000 years is incorrect.

Proverbs 16:21
The wise in heart are called discerning,
and pleasant words promote instruction.

 

[davidv]

The number of letters “copies” is evidence in itself that they intended this message to survive IN THE ORIGINAL TEXT. The Catholic church as you say in light of the number of documents had no choice but to receive them in the original form.

OK?

From the perspective of a non believer refuting the claims or accuracy of the NT in context of evidence.

Why do you think I’m an non believer and refute the accuracy of the NT?

I chose to compare what the Catholic church teaches TODAY in context of the first witness “the writers of the NT”

Perhaps you have not taken into account that the “mustad seed” has grown considerably since then.

Proverbs 16:21
The wise in heart are called discerning,
and pleasant words promote instruction.

Amen

 

[Daniel_Keeran]

First of all, where does the bible say when a person can be baptized or that Children cannot be baptized?

The bible only describes the baptism (immersion) of people capable of hearing, believing, and repenting. It does not have to list all the excluded circumstances, e.g. baptizing a corpse, baptizing with spittle, oil or wine, etc. We must do what we KNOW is right and cannot be wrong.

Also, doesn’t the Bible say the parents are responsible for the salvation of the child through the teachings of God and His ways to the child?

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

The bible only describes the baptism (immersion) of people capable of hearing, believing, and repenting.

I trust what these men wrote over a person’s private interpretation 2000+ years later.

The Didache
After the foregoing instructions, baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in living [running] water. If you have no living water, then baptize in other water, and if you are not able in cold, then in warm. If you have neither, pour water three times on the head, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Before baptism, let the one baptizing and the one to be baptized fast, as also any others who are able. Command the one who is to be baptized to fast beforehand for one or two days (Didache 7:1 [ca. A.D. 70]).

Justin Martyr
As many as are persuaded and believe that what we [Christians] teach and say is true, and undertake to be able to live accordingly, and instructed to pray and to entreat God with fasting, for the remission of their sins that are past, we pray and fast with them. Then they are brought by us where there is water and are regenerated in the same manner in which we were ourselves regenerated. For, in the name of God, the Father… and of our Savior Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit [Matt. 28:19], they then receive the washing with water. For Christ also said, “Unless you are born again, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven” (First Apology 61 [A.D. 151]).

Irenaeus
He [Jesus] came to save all through himself – all, I say, who through him are reborn in God; infants, and children, and youths, and old men. Therefore he passed through every age, becoming an infant for infants, sanctifying infants; a child for children, sanctifying those who are of that age . . . [so that] he might be the perfect teacher in all things, perfect not only in respect to the setting forth of truth, perfect also in respect to relative age (Against Heresies 2:22:4 [A.D. 189]).

Tertullian
[N]o one can attain salvation without baptism, especially in view of the declaration of the Lord, who says, “Unless a man shall be born of water, he shall not have life” (On Baptism 12:1 [A.D. 203]).
When we are about to enter the water — no, just a little before — In the church and under the hand of the bishop, we solemnly profess that we renounce the devil and his pomps and his angels. Thereupon we are immersed three times (The Crown 3:2 [A.D. 211]).

Hippolytus
Where there is no scarcity of water the stream shall flow through the baptismal font or pour into it from above; but if water is scarce, whether on a constant condition or on occasion, then use whatever water is available. Let them remove their clothing. Baptize first the children, and if they can speak for themselves let them do so. Otherwise, let their parents or other relatives speak for them (The Apostolic Tradition 21:16 [A.D.215]).

Recognitions of Clement
But you will perhaps say, ‘What does the baptism of water contribute toward the worship of God?’ In the first place, because that which has pleased God is fulfilled. In the second place, because when you are regenerated and born again of water and of God, the frailty of your former birth, which you have through men, is cut off, and so . . . you shall be able to attain salvation; but otherwise it is impossible. For thus has the true prophet [Jesus] testified to us with an oath: “Verily, I say to you, that unless a man is born again of water . . . he shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven” (Recognitions of Clement 6:9 [A.D. 221]).

Origen
The Church received from the apostles the tradition of giving baptism even to infants. The apostles, to whom were committed the secrets of divine sacraments, knew there is in everyone innate strains of [original] sin, which must be washed away through water and the Spirit (Commentaries on Romans 5:9 [A.D. 248]).

Cornelius I
As [the heretic Novatian] seemed about to die, he received baptism in the bed where he lay, by pouring. . . . (Letter to Fabius of Antioch 6:43 [A.D. 251]).

Cyprian
[l]t behooves those to be baptized . . . so that they are prepared, in the lawful and true and only baptism of the holy Church, by divine regeneration, for the kingdom of God . . . because it is written “Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God” (Epistles 72 [73]: 21 [A.D. 252]).
As to what pertains to the case of infants: You [Fidus] said that they ought not to be baptized within the second or third day after their birth, that the old law of circumcision must be taken into consideration, and that you did not think that one should be baptized and sanctified within the eighth day after his birth. In our council it seemed to us far otherwise. No one agreed to the course which you thought should be taken. Rather, we all judge that the mercy and grace of God ought to be denied to no man born" (Letters 64:2 [A.D. 253]).
In the saving sacraments, when necessity compels and when God bestows his pardon, divine benefits are bestowed fully upon believers, nor ought anyone be disturbed because the sick are poured upon or sprinkled when they receive the Lord’s grace" (Letter to a Certain Magnus 69(76):12 [A.D. 254]).

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

(continued)

Ambrose
The Church was redeemed at the price of Christ’s blood. Jew or Greek, it makes no difference; but if he has believed, he must circumcise himself from his sins [in baptism (Col. 2:11-12)] so that he can be saved . . . for no one ascends into the kingdom of heaven except through the sacrament of baptism… “Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God” (On Abraham 2:11:79-84 [A.D. 387]).

Augustine
It is this one Spirit who makes it possible for an infant to be regenerated . . . when that infant is brought to baptism; and it is through this one Spirit that the infant so presented is reborn. For it is not written, “Unless a man be born again by the will of his parents” or “by the faith of those presenting him or ministering to him,” but, “Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit.” The water, therefore, manifesting exteriorly the sacrament of grace, and the Spirit effecting interiorly the benefit of grace, both regenerate in one Christ that man who was generated in Adam (Letters 98:2 [A.D. 408]).

 

[Randy_Carson]

Roman catholics will make excuses or come up with something to justify the baptizing of infants.Why don’t you just accept the Bible’s version where there is no infant baptizing. Ralph

Oh, the Bible version. Of course!

Could you please show me a verse that says, “Thou shalt not baptize infants” or something like that?

Thanks.

 

[Randy_Carson]

catholic means universal. You are referring to the RCC.
The early church was referred to as apostolic.
The word 'catholic is not in the bible.

God bless,
jean

Actually, the word is found in scripture, Jean.

“Catholic Church” in the Bible

Many people argue that the Catholic Church is not the Church founded by Jesus Christ beginning with Peter and the Apostles. One argument often made is that the phrase “Catholic Church” does not appear within the pages of Scripture.

Aside from the fact that this argument is weak since the words “trinity” and “Bible” are not contained in Holy Writ either, is it really true that the Catholic Church is not named in the Bible? Well, take a look at the following verse from the Acts of the Apostles, and decide for yourself:

Acts 9:31 (Greek)
ἡ μεν ουν **εκκλησια καθ****᾽ **ὁλης της ιουδαιας και γαλιλαιας και σαμαρειας ειχεν ειρηνην οικοδομουμενη και πορευομενη τω φοβω του κυριου, και τη παρακλησει του ἁγιου πνευματος επληθυνοντο.

Act 9:31 (Transliteration)
aye men oon ekklaysiaye kath olays tays ioodayeas kaye galilayeas kaye samarayas aycon ayraynayn oikodomoomenaye kaye poryoomenaye tow fobow too kurioo kaye tay paraklaysay too agioo pnyoomatos eplaythunonto (russ.org/gtb/luke.html#a9)

Acts 9:31
So the Church throughout all Judea and Galilee and Samaria had peace and was built up; and walking in the fear of the Lord and in the comfort of the Holy Spirit it was multiplied.

From this text, we can see the Greek word “kath olays” which is rendered “Catholic” in modern English and the word “ekklaysiaye” which becomes “ecclesia” in English and is commonly translated as “church”.

**εκκλησια καθ****᾽ **ὁλης = ekklaysiaye kath olays = “the church throughout all” = Catholic Church.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Aside from every thing else that makes no sense at all. The NT letters about Jesus are the most numerous and written more closely to the original that any other account of a person in history. Do you question historians about Caesar, Aristotle, Homer, Plato or any other notable figure from history? If not then you by measure of evidence can not dispute Jesus. More to the point the NT was the most publicized document in history. Turning your head to that fact and choosing rather to listen to another gospel is foolishness.

http://atechworld.com/files/BIBLE/Bible_manuscripts.gif

I think what davidv meant was that he accepts the Bible but not your fallible interpretation of it.

 

[Randy_Carson]

My point still holds: Tertullian would not have recommended the delay of baptism for infants if he knew it was fully biblical and in full swing from the time of the apostles. Your view points out the central argument against papal authority: such a view accepts the right of a man or group of men to preach a different gospel!! (read Galatians 1:8,9)

Dan, could you please explain to us how Tertullian, writing around the year 200 A.D., would have known whether or not anything was “fully biblical”, as you put it, when the first (and final, btw) canon of scripture would not be established for another 150 years?

This one man, who died a Montanist heretic, preferred delaying baptism until someone reached an older age. Who cares? He obviously had many ideas that were deemed to be unorthodox. That’s why he was a heretic!

The Church, having listened to all the arguments from both sides, determined that baptism of infants is valid.

This is infallible and it is final.

Now, you really need to get your head around the validity of the development of doctrine.

Did the Apostles understand the papacy as we do? No.
Did the Apostles understand the trinity as we do? No.
Did the Apostles understand transubstantiation as we do? No.
Did the Apostles understand the hypostatic union as we do? No.
Did the Apostles understand the canon of scripture as we do? NO!

Again, so what? Doctrine develops. This is not to say that it changes or that it is added to but simply that we see more over time.

Think of an acorn that is planted in the soil. 100 years later it will have become a large tree and it will look very different from what was planted. Yet, it is the same tree. Similarly, you may hold an onion in your hand and begin to peel the layers one at a time. With each layer you reveal something new which was there all along but not visible until some effort was made to uncover it.

Doctrine is like these two analogies.