I was converted from Catholicism to Christ at the age of 19.

[Robert_in_SD]

I responded that way because you continue to respond to Rom 8:30…

The verse says…

[30] And those whom he predestined he also called; and those whom he called he also justified; and those whom he justified he also glorified.

You seem to read it this way:

[30] And [all] those whom he predestined he also called; and [all] those whom he called he also justified; and [all] those whom he justified he also glorified.

But the passage does not say this.

Similarly, this passage does not promise us, as individuals, that we have already been justified in this sense. It promises that those of us who are predestined have been called to be justified and glorified. But these latter two events (justification and glorification) do not occur in the midst of a life. They are only obtained at the “finish line” as Paul analogizes. The justification that is spoken of here is the justification that is the result of a lifetime of perserverence in the faith. The justification that Paul is speaking of in Romans is the justification that comes from endurance. Hence the exhortation to endure - to be justified. It is your faulty presupposition - i.e. that justification is a one-time event and not a process - that leads you into the persistent error that a man can “know with certainty” that they are predestined. At best, a man can have faith that they are called, etc. But it is not the assurance you speak of… It is a matter of faith and hope, and endurance.

God gives all human beings sufficient grace for the possibility of salvation, for we know that God desires that all be saved. Many are baptized and receive the initial justification that comes through Christ, but then fail to respond to that grace by working out their salvation. These persons are never justified in the sense that Paul is using the word in Romans 8:30. So, to the extent you suggest the Church teaches contrary to Paul, you are wrong. It only teaches contrary to your reformed and incorrect understanding of the nature of justification.

sandusky:

The clear statement concerning those God justifies is that He also glorifies them. Perseverance is included in justification.

Perserverence is the result of grace, and perserverence is part of the process of justification that Paul is speaking of. Without perserverence, there is a loss of grace and a loss of faith, from which arises the prospect of fearfull judgment warned of in Hebrews, supra. The justification spoken of by Paul in Romans 8 is never present in such a person. Paul’s use of “justification” here is confined to those who have already endured to the end. Hence, it does not support a personal assurance of personal salvation.

sandusky:

You offer no proof that I can recall,

If salvation were “assured” to those who receive intitial justification (by “accepting” Christ, etc.), then there would be no need to exhort such christians to endure. But the bible urges christians to endure, and warns of the consequences left to those who do not.

[26] For if we sin deliberately after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins,
[27] but a fearful prospect of judgment, and a fury of fire which will consume the adversaries.
[28] A man who has violated the law of Moses dies without mercy at the testimony of two or three witnesses.
[29] How much worse punishment do you think will be deserved by the man who has spurned the Son of God, and profaned the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and outraged the Spirit of grace? (Heb 10:26-29)

And what about…

[4] For it is impossible to restore again to repentance those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, and have become partakers of the Holy Spirit,
[5] and have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the age to come,
[6] if they then commit apostasy, since they crucify the Son of God on their own account and hold him up to contempt.
[7] For land which has drunk the rain that often falls upon it, and brings forth vegetation useful to those for whose sake it is cultivated, receives a blessing from God.
[8] But if it bears thorns and thistles, it is worthless and near to being cursed; its end is to be burned. (Heb. 6:4-8)

Even Jesus uses the parable of the seed sewn on different ground, and the varying results. (Mt. 13:1ff and Mk 4:1ff)

sandusky:

Some of them (and Paul is not speaking certainly), but some of them may have believed in vain from the point of their belief, as I said.

And others sincerely believed, were baptised, but did not endure, like the seed sewn on rocky ground. (Mk 4:5) These received the grace that comes from baptism - initial justification, but did not endure in the faith. They now face damnation unless they repent and return to Christ, and then endure. We cannot know with absolute assurance who among these fellows is “called” in the sense that Paul is using in Romans. But we can hope, and endure with them.

sandusky:

Why is it so hard for you to believe that someone can hear the Gospel, receive it, but not believe it? Receiving is not true believing, but enduring.

I have no doubt that some receive the gospel and believe it, but do not endure, while others never believe it despite hearing it. That’s not really the issue. We are discussing an absolute assurance of personal salvation.

sandusky:

The overarching definition of real belief given by Christ is that it hears the word, holds it fast, and endures. A cast away belief, has heard the word, but not held it fast, and not endured, and is therefore, not a real belief.

So, by your own definition here “real belief” can only be determined at the end of life, because it is only at the end that we know a person has endured.

(continued below)

 

[sandusky]

By what outward signs?

How would someone who doesn’t make use of the Sacraments know - that is, what outward signs would he notice - that he had moved out of the state of being damned to Hell, and into the state of grace? (So as to be certain that he was not merely thinking wishfully, or deceiving himself.)

(Especially if he is allowed to continue in sin after entering the state of grace, given the assumption that sin cannot remove grace.)

Judith, baptism is certianly more to you as a Catholic than an outward sign.

ISTM that you’re wanting to direct me to a point; why not just make the point?

 

[jmcrae]

Judith, baptism is certianly more to you as a Catholic than an outward sign.

It’s an outward sign that tells us about an inward reality.

ISTM that you’re wanting to direct me to a point; why not just make the point?

Not really, no - I’m just curious how a non-Sacramental Christian knows for certain that he or she is “saved”. What is the outward sign that signifies the inward reality that the person is now in the state of grace?

And if there is no outward sign, then where is the certainty - the absolute assurance?

 

[Mickey]

Or blinds you to its meaing.

The great darkness came when y’all started interpreting things hunderds of different ways.

Sacred Tradition allows us to see clearly the teachings of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.

 

[Robert_in_SD]

(continued from post #393)

God forces no one to believe. What He does is bring them to life thereby enabling them to freely believe (Eph 2:4-5). There is a reason the HS uses the analogy of “born again” and being “dead in trespasses and sins.” Everyone is born “dead to the things of God.” God’s possession will never perish Robert. 1 Peter 1:3-9

You did not respond to my point. I agree that those who are predestined for salvation will ultimately be saved. My point to you is that despite your argument, you have yet to present any evidence upon which one can absolutely assure himself (or herself) that they are in FACT one of the elect. Instead, it is a matter of hope.

sandusky:

3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who according to His great mercy has caused us to be born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead,

Amen. Living Hope! Not absolute assurance of personal salvation despite lack of endurance.

sandusky:

4 to obtain an inheritance which is imperishable and undefiled and will not fade away, reserved in heaven for you,

Amen. I sure hope I can endure in Christ as the scriptures exhort. With His grace I hope that, in Him, I will make it to my reserved spot.

sandusky:

5 who are protected by the power of God through faith for a salvation ready to be revealed in the last time.

Lord, may I always remain under that protection, and not fall away as the writer of Hebrews warns.

sandusky:

6 In this you greatly rejoice, even though now for a little while, if necessary, you have been distressed by various trials,

I rejoice in my trials for Christ’s sake, and in my flesh may I complete what is lacking in Christ’s afflictions for the sake of His body, that is the Church. (Col. 1:24)

sandusky:

7 so that the proof of your faith, being more precious than gold which is perishable, even though tested by fire, may be found to result in praise and glory and honor at the revelation of Jesus Christ;

Amen. At the revelation of Christ may I be by my actions in Christ be an instrument of his glory.

sandusky:

8 and though you have not seen Him, you love Him, and though you do not see Him now, but believe in Him, you greatly rejoice with joy inexpressible and full of glory,

Amen.

sandusky:

9 obtaining as the outcome of your faith the salvation of your souls.

[/indent]The words of your first Pope, so-called.Amen. So, as the OUTCOME of my life lived in faith and enduring in Him, I will receive salvation. Hmm? Where’s the part about knowing with absolute assurance at the present time that this is going to happen?

Perhaps he wasn’t speaking ex-cathedra?

Sure he was. He just wasn’t saying what you seem to think he was saying. He was speaking Catholic doctrine. God bless Pope Peter I

sandusky:

And there’s the primary bone of contention between us—along with many others, I reject the self-proclaimed authority of your church.

If I thought it was self-proclaimed, I would think as you do. However, I believe the authority was God-given and proclaimed truthfully as such. Like I said, I understand where you are coming from, and why you need to see it differently.

sandusky:

Stop preaching Holy Mother the Church, and start preaching Christ—he’s the one with ability to save.

Stop pretending there is a difference between the gospel message of the Church and the gospel message of Christ. We all agree Christ is the only one with the ability to save. That’s what the Church tells us.

Peace,
-Robert

 

[Mickey]

Your dispensationalism is a modern heresy that hacks Scripture to pieces under the pretense of “rightly dividing” it.

Yes. I was trying to figure out where moondweller was coming from.

 

[sandusky]

Robert in SD:

The verse says…

[30] And those whom he predestined he also called; and those whom he called he also justified; and those whom he justified he also glorified.

You seem to read it this way:

[30] And [all] those whom he predestined he also called; and [all] those whom he called he also justified; and [all] those whom he justified he also glorified.

But the passage does not say this.

That’s what it says, Robert; you’re bracketed additions make that clear.

What you would have it say (and I’ve made this point before) is this: some of all of those He justified, He didn’t glorify, but left them completely to their own free will.
Robert in SD:

Similarly, this passage does not promise us, as individuals, that we have already been justified in this sense. It promises that those of us who are predestined have been called to be justified and glorified. But these latter two events (justification and glorification) do not occur in the midst of a life. They are only obtained at the “finish line” as Paul analogizes.

Not so, Robert; they occured in eternity, are brought to fruition in time, and you misunderstand Paul because of your tradition.
Robert in SD:

The justification that is spoken of here is the justification that is the result of a lifetime of perserverence in the faith.

”Having been justified by faith… an aorist participle (having happened in the past—justification), and it’s passive (was done to, and not by the believer). Justification is done.
Robert in SD:

The justification that Paul is speaking of in Romans is the justification that comes from endurance.

Justification (also called righteousness) comes from faith—Abraham believed God and it was credited to him as righteousness (Rom 4:3).
Robert in SD:

Hence the exhortation to endure - to be justified.

The exhortation to the believer is to endure because he is justified (the indicative/imperative—you are Christ’s, live as Christ’s), not so that he may be justified.
Robert in SD:

It is your faulty presupposition - i.e. that justification is a one-time event and not a process - that leads you into the persistent error that a man can “know with certainty” that they are predestined. At best, a man can have faith that they are called, etc. But it is not the assurance you speak of… It is a matter of faith and hope, and endurance.

According to Rom 8:30, the one God called HE ALSO justified, and the one He justified HE ALSO glorified (occurred in eternity).
Robert in SD:

God gives all human beings sufficient grace for the possibility of salvation, for we know that God desires that all be saved.

God does not give all human beings sufficient grace to be saved as evidenced by many passages, including those in Jn 6—only those drawn to Christ by the Father can and will come; those not drawn by the Father do not have the ability to come, and therefore, they won’t come.
Robert in SD:

Many are baptized and receive the initial justification that comes through Christ, but then fail to respond to that grace by working out their salvation. These persons are never justified in the sense that Paul is using the word in Romans 8:30. So, to the extent you suggest the Church teaches contrary to Paul, you are wrong. It only teaches contrary to your reformed and incorrect understanding of the nature of justification.

I don’t believe in baptismal regeneration—those regenerated by God will respond to the Gospel, and will understand the Gospel as the power of God to salvation; those who are not regenerated may hear the Gospel, but they will not respond positively, and they will view the Gospel as foolishness (1 Cor 1:18).
Robert in SD:

Without perserverence, there is a loss of grace and a loss of faith, from which arises the prospect of fearfull judgment warned of in Hebrews, supra. The justification spoken of by Paul in Romans 8 is never present in such a person. Paul’s use of “justification” here is confined to those who have already endured to the end. Hence, it does not support a personal assurance of personal salvation.

I’ll speak as generally as you and state that perseverance is inherent in Rom 8; therefore, you need to re-think your understanding of the Hebrews passages in light of it, and Jn 5, 6, 10, et al.

(continued below)

 

[sandusky]

(continued from post #443)
Robert in SD:

If salvation were “assured” to those who receive intitial justification (by “accepting” Christ, etc.), then there would be no need to exhort such christians to endure. But the bible urges christians to endure, and warns of the consequences left to those who do not.

[26] For if we sin deliberately after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins,
[27] but a fearful prospect of judgment, and a fury of fire which will consume the adversaries.
[28] A man who has violated the law of Moses dies without mercy at the testimony of two or three witnesses.
[29] How much worse punishment do you think will be deserved by the man who has spurned the Son of God, and profaned the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and outraged the Spirit of grace? (Heb 10:26-29)

And what about…

[4] For it is impossible to restore again to repentance those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, and have become partakers of the Holy Spirit,
[5] and have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the age to come,
[6] if they then commit apostasy, since they crucify the Son of God on their own account and hold him up to contempt.
[7] For land which has drunk the rain that often falls upon it, and brings forth vegetation useful to those for whose sake it is cultivated, receives a blessing from God.
[8] But if it bears thorns and thistles, it is worthless and near to being cursed; its end is to be burned. (Heb. 6:4-8)

Even Jesus uses the parable of the seed sewn on different ground, and the varying results. (Mt. 13:1ff and Mk 4:1ff)

The context of both passages has to do with the desire of some to leave Christ, and return to the Jewish system—anyone who would desire to do that doesn’t have a Spirit-given faith, with a Spirit-given understanding that the old system cannot save, but only Christ. Again the destruction mentioned in the passages comes upon those who are opposed to the Gospel (cf 1 Cor 1:18).

You do not understand regeneration, and all that it entails.
Robert in SD:

I have no doubt that some receive the gospel and believe it, but do not endure, while others never believe it despite hearing it. That’s not really the issue. We are discussing an absolute assurance of personal salvation.

Some have assurance, some don’t; that’s not the important issue for me. The important issue is that anyone justified by God will also be glorified by God.
Robert in SD:

So, by your own definition here “real belief” can only be determined at the end of life, because it is only at the end that we know a person has endured.

We can also know that someone hasn’t endured if they cease to endure before our eyes; nevertheless, if that person was justified by God, he will repent, and be finally glorified by God—assurance is not necessary, but is nice to have.
Robert in SD:

You did not respond to my point. I agree that those who are predestined for salvation will ultimately be saved. My point to you is that despite your argument, you have yet to present any evidence upon which one can absolutely assure himself (or herself) that they are in FACT one of the elect. Instead, it is a matter of hope.

Two major reasons exist for lack of assurance: 1) church leadership says it’s a sin to have it; 2) your ultimate hope of salvation lies not in God, but in you.
Robert in SD:

Amen. Living Hope! Not absolute assurance of personal salvation despite lack of endurance.

Amen. I sure hope I can endure in Christ as the scriptures exhort. With His grace I hope that, in Him, I will make it to my reserved spot.

Lord, may I always remain under that protection, and not fall away as the writer of Hebrews warns.

I rejoice in my trials for Christ’s sake, and in my flesh may I complete what is lacking in Christ’s afflictions for the sake of His body, that is the Church. (Col. 1:24)

Amen.

Thank you for your hope-so prayer of uncertainty.
Robert in SD:

Amen. So, as the OUTCOME of my life lived in faith and enduring in Him, I will receive salvation. Hmm? Where’s the part about knowing with absolute assurance at the present time that this is going to happen?

Your lack of uncertainty is due to two things: the fact that your leadership says it’s sinful for you to be certain, and because, as your prayer indicates, your hope of salvation is that you’ll make it happen with a little help from God, rather than being confident that God has given it to you to completion (Php 1:6). Note in that Philippians passage that Paul’s confidence is not that God will complete the work in some of those in whom He’s begun the good work.
Robert in SD:

Stop pretending there is a difference between the gospel message of the Church and the gospel message of Christ. We all agree Christ is the only one with the ability to save. That’s what the Church tells us.

I’m not pretending. My church proclaims the true Gospel; yours changed the Gospel, for certain, when it added as a requirement for salvation the belief in certain of the Marian doctrines.

 

[sandusky]

jmcrae:

It’s an outward sign that tells us about an inward reality.

I agree with you that baptism is the outward sign of the inward reality, if the inward reality is real. If it’s not, then baptism accomplishes nothing. (I think the latter is the position presented in the CCC as well).

 

[jmcrae]

I agree with you that baptism is the outward sign of the inward reality, if the inward reality is real. If it’s not, then baptism accomplishes nothing. (I think that’s the latter is the position presented in the CCC as well).

So (making sure I understand you), even in your own tradition, people know they are in the initial state of grace, because they have been baptized.

And the difference is that they believe they remain in the state of grace even if they commit sin, whereas we believe that, just as Adam fell out of the state of grace when he sinned (taking the whole human race with him), so also, we fall out of the state of grace when we sin.

 

[emeraldisle]

It’s an outward sign that tells us about an inward reality.

Have you ever considered that it is possible for a person to go through the process of being baptized and not be saved?

Not really, no - I’m just curious how a non-Sacramental Christian knows for certain that he or she is “saved”. What is the outward sign that signifies the inward reality that the person is now in the state of grace?

Salvation in Christ and a person receives His salvation by grace through faith. A person has faith in Christ for their salvation and this is how a person knows they are saved. Then this persons faith in Christ is proved to be genuine by the persons works, they do what God wants them to do.

.

 

[sandusky]

jmcrae:

So (making sure I understand you), even in your own tradition, people know they are in the initial state of grace, because they have been baptized.

I wouldn’t say that; I would say that the grace of salvation—regeneration and faith— precedes baptism.

jmcrae:

And the difference is that they believe they remain in the state of grace even if they commit sin, whereas we believe that, just as Adam fell out of the state of grace when he sinned (taking the whole human race with him), so also, we fall out of the state of grace when we sin.

I don’t believe that grace is lost by sin—continuous and habitual sin may bring about discipline, but salvation is not lost.

 

[jmcrae]

I wouldn’t say that; I would say that the grace of salvation—regeneration and faith— precedes baptism.

In which case, Baptism is not the outward sign, in your case. What, then, is the outward sign that shows that regeneration is taking place in the individual, so that the individual may be assured that he is not simply imagining things, or engaging in wishful thinking?

I don’t believe that grace is lost by sin—continuous and habitual sin may bring about discipline, but salvation is not lost.

Then how did Adam, who was created in the state of grace, manage to condemn the whole human race to Hell, simply by committing one sin?

 

[jmcrae]

Have you ever considered that it is possible for a person to go through the process of being baptized and not be saved?

No, since it is God who acts in Baptism to wash the soul clean of every sin. It is simply not possible for God not to act through His Sacraments.

If afterwards they sin, they can fall out of the state of grace, but they do in fact ener into the state of grace at the time of Baptism.

 

[sandusky]

jmcrae:

In which case, Baptism is not the outward sign, in your case.

I had a feeling we’d wind up here.

My recollection of the CCC statements concerning baptism is that it is an external ritual that creates an internal reality; namely regeneration; therefore, it’s not merely an outward sign of an internal reality for the Catholic.

jmcrae:

What, then, is the outward sign that shows that regeneration is taking place in the individual, so that the individual may be assured that he is not simply imagining things, or engaging in wishful thinking?

Baptism for me is an external sign of an internal reality.

Assurance is found in the proper understanding of God’s salvation, and His promises concerning it, and again, assurance is not a necessary component of salvation.

Baptism assures one of nothing, other than he’s submitted to baptism.

jmcrae:

Then how did Adam, who was created in the state of grace, manage to condemn the whole human race to Hell, simply by committing one sin?

You’d first have to make the case that Adam was created in a state of grace.

I think you’ll have a difficult time doing so, as grace presupposes a need for it; namely, evil, wickedness and sin which were not in the world until Adam fell.

 

[jmcrae]

I had a feeling we’d wind up here.

My recollection of the CCC statements concerning baptism is that it is an external ritual that creates an internal reality; namely regeneration; therefore, it’s not merely an outward sign of an internal reality for the Catholic.

Baptism doesn’t do this; God does this, when we are baptized. Same as your water tap is not the river; water from the river pours out of it when you turn it on, but it is not itself the river - Baptism is not God, but God pours out over the soul when Baptism is performed.

You’d first have to make the case that Adam was created in a state of grace.

I think you’ll have a difficult time doing so, as grace presupposes a need for it; namely, evil, wickedness and sin which were not in the world until Adam fell.

To be in a state of grace is to be in a right relationship with God. Do you say that Adam was created in the state of sin?

 

[sandusky]

jmcrae:

Baptism doesn’t do this; God does this, when we are baptized. Same as your water tap is not the river; water from the river pours out of it when you turn it on, but it is not itself the river - Baptism is not God, but God pours out over the soul when Baptism is performed.

Then we’ve established that even though we can describe baptism using the same words, we mean different things by those words.

jmcrae:

To be in a state of grace is to be in a right relationship with God.

You’ve yet to make the case for that concerning Adam.

jmcrae:

Do you say that Adam was created in the state of sin?

The statement I made was that no evil, wickedness and sin were in the world until Adam fell.

Does that really, even remotely, sound to you as though I’m saying ”Adam was created in the state of sin?”

 

[fbl9]

St. Matthew 12:37’'FOR BY THY WORDS THOU WILT BE JUSTIFIED AND BY THY WORDS THOU WILT BE CONDEMNED" sure sounds like one is judged by what they do…and if you do not do thou wilt be condemned…St.Matthew7:15-23 are not those whom our Lord is talking about people who say they are saved…yet the Lord “knows” them not…

 

[fbl9]

moondweller we read of David begging the Lord "take not your Holy Spirit from me"David knew his sin was cause for God to take the Holy Spirit from him…

 

[benedictus2]

sandusky:

According to her.

There are only two positions here. Either Christ founded a Church or He didn’t. And the Church that Christ founded derived it’s authority from Him (“what you bind on earth will be bound in heaven…”)
And if he did build a Church as it is written in the Bible, which Church is it then? There are over 33,000 contenders out there so please tell me which one it is and why.

sandusky:

List the moral teachings that only she teaches.

Contraception (which most protestant churches have allowed
Homosexuality: Some Anglicans think the practice is okay.
sandusky;:

List the teachings of Christ that to one to degree or another other churches have watered down.

The sacraments for one.
That works is needed (Matthew 25) which I mention in my post (post 165) which by the way you still have not replied to.
From what little I know (and I emphasize little), protestants ever hardly talk about ‘taking up the daily cross’ to follow Christ (this is only what I get from my protestant friends). That is why the “Prosperity Gospel” is alive and well in the evangelical circles.
sandusky;:

Cite the verse in which Christ states that He will send the Holy Spirit “to the Church to lead her into all truth.”

John 16:13
sandusky;:

Assumes that I have come to hold my position in a vacuum.

Not at all. All I am asking is if your denomination is xyz which broke away from abc, which in turn broke away from Luther or Calvin as Luther and Calvin originally taught, what are the doctrinal differences that cause the breaking away.
Because if there are no doctrinal differences, there would only be one protestant church.
sandusky;:

Begs the question: what adulterated version of Christ am I preaching?

Mostly the fixation with certain passages from the bible and ignoring the rest (but then again, I am probably not being fair to you as I am not sure which denomination you are and you’re interpretation may again be different from my protestant friends)
sandusky;:

I have dealt with passages presented by others, and not just with passages that suit my point of view. .

Okay then, I go back to Matthew 25. You may have answered that but I may have overlooked the post. So please tell me the post no.
sandusky;:

Go back to post 317 and click on the two “blue underlined” sentences—they are hyperlinks to another website to answer your questions. .

Oops! Sorry, the link did not work before. But have read it since.
Thank you so much. I have found out the extent of Luther’s arrogance and pride. What an ego-maniac. Yup, pride was Adam’s sin too. And you know where that got us.
As to the others: though they may have interpreted it as alone, they never tried to come up with the Bible as such. That he tried to get rid of James as well says highlights his intent. The others never did such a thing. I doubt very much if they advocate Sola Fide.
Furthermore, they were talking about “works of the law” which was the legalistic observance of the Mosaic law.
Surely Paul would not contradict himself considering that in 1Corinthians 13 he wrote” if I have all faith so as to move mountains but do not have love, I am nothing. ……… So faith, hope, love remain, these three; but the greatest of these is love”
sandusky;:

No you’re not. .

Yes I was. I was saying it was not in the Bible which is usually how the protestant’s argue isn’t it?
sandusky;:

Those are Peter’s words—did you read the scripture passage I cited? .

I know the passage. But as per above, don’t protestant’s argue, that if it aint in the bible it aint admissible as evidence.

And by the way, you still have not answered me whether God would have sent you to hell if you had died prior to your being saved in 1993. If you have answered this, can you direct me to your post.