Protestants DENY Tradition?

[Jubilarian]

Yes, you have, repeatedly. The historical definiton is applicable only of those Churches who made formal protests against the Edict of Worms and the Diet of Speyer, which restricted the religious practice of the evangelic Churches in Europe during the Reformation. (And this has nothing to do with the modern evangelical movement.) The name was not, and I repeat not, a reference to a protest against Roman Catholic teaching.

The problem, of course, is that this does not include Anabaptists, baptists, or Pentecostals, to name a few. They have nothing to do with the European Reformation. Anabaptists (and their Baptist offshoot) were in fact contrary to the Reformation, and Pentecostals arose just over 100 years ago.

As I have said numerous times , it is time for you to take the battle of incorrect definitions of “Protestant” up with 99% of internet sources. I am not some lone voice crying in the wilderness.

Seriously!? I never said they were. I said that your definition makes them Protestants. That means your definition is wrong. I just showed you the logical outcome of your own words.

Yes, my definition does make the the Ortodox Protestant because of their separatism from the CC. However, I am not a theologian in charge of creating categories. My point was that you can not find historical sources calling Orthodox “Protestant”, therefore, I can not call them Protestant either. You have not shown me one source that says the words,"LUTHERANS are not Protestant ". Be honest. You want me to rely on your historical ideas and no other information it seems.

And I ask you to stop calling me that, because I am not a Protestant after your definition. Please heed this question from Isaiah45_9: “What are Lutherans protesting still, in order to be called Protestant?”

If the offense is that great to you, I will cease from referring to you as a Protestant. I would advise you though to gather multitudes of Lutherans together and have them shut down any and all source material on the internet calling Lutherans “Protestant”. I wonder why Lutherans have not banded together to rid the world of this “offense?” In addition, it is quite foolish to keep looking for a modern “protest” to support your "non Protestant " claim. Thousands of denominations are comfortable with the term “Protestant” without posting scrolls or knocking on CC doors.

And neither are the Orthodox. Yet they are not ‘Protestants.’ I agree that they are not Protestants. But that means that ‘not being in agreement with the Roman Catholic Church on many issues’ is not the definition of ‘Protestant.’ Yet you cling to it for some reason.

Already dealt with this, see above.

I am not a Protestant according to Jubilarian’s idiosyncratic definition.

Yes, you are unique .

 

[KjetilK]

Yes, my definition does make the the Ortodox Protestant because of their separatism from the CC.

Thanks for admitting that. Since no one would ever call them Protestants, it would mean that the definition you provide is the wrong one.

However, I am not a theologian in charge of creating categories. My point was that you can not find historical sources calling Orthodox “Protestant”, therefore, I can not call them Protestant either. You have not shown me one source that says the words,"LUTHERANS are not Protestant ". Be honest. You want me to rely on your historical ideas and no other information it seems.

I admit that Lutherans are Protestants in its original, historical meaning. But that includes none other than Lutherans and some Reformed Churches.

And the fact is that the word ‘Protestant’ is hardly used outside the US. As a Norwegian I can’t even recall someone ever calling themselves a ‘Protestant,’ mostly because of the historical connections of the term, and because people in Europe usually define themselves as, say, Lutherans (‘Evangelicals’ in Germany, not to be confused with the American evangelical movement), Anglicans, Pentecostals, Baptists, etc. And the reason is that the word ‘Protestant’ is either just another word for Lutherans and Reformed (as they are the only ones who can meaningfully be described as Protestants in the historic sense*), or it is too general – it doesn’t tell you anything significant about the persons you want to include in it, except that they are not members of the Roman Catholic Church and happen to live in the West, or what is culturally western. (I don’t think it makes sense to say that the US, Australia, or Scandinavia are geographically western countries. But they certainly are culturally western.)

But this includes Churches posessing valid ministries with valid bishops, including the Church of England and the Church of Norway. And before you point too Apostolicae Curae, let me remind you that stuff has happened since 1896. For my points on that, see here. The summary is this: According to the Roman Catholic Church the Church of England lost valid episcopal orders. Those orders were regained validly through the ‘dutch touch’ in the 1930s, and in the 1990s this was passed on to the bishops of the Church of Norway (party because of the Porvoo agreement). This includes the bishop who ordained me last year. He was consecrated by the Norwegian chief bishop, along with an Anglican co-consecrator in 2009.

But it is quite obvious why you are so obsessed with calling me, and other Lutherans, ‘Protestants.’ You want to point and say ‘see how inconsistent and disunited they are lol.’ Well, that is a bit like pointing to Europe and wondering why we have so many borders. The fact is that if you want to have a honest dialogue on religion, you need to look at each Church – or at least each communion of Churches – separately.

• Perhaps one could include English Roman Catholics during the English Reformation. They did protest against the edicts of King Henry VIII, enforced by the – in my mind – evil Cromwell.

 

[Jubilarian]

Thanks for admitting that. Since no one would ever call them Protestants, it would mean that the definition you provide is the wrong one.

There is nothing to hide, nor did I provide the “wrong one.” I “admitted” that Othodox are not Protestant much earlier in our thread conversation. I said, “except Orthodox” when you brought up their seperation from the CC. A fabricated “gotcha” moment if I ever saw one.

I admit that Lutherans are Protestants in its original, historical meaning. But that includes none other than Lutherans and some Reformed Churches.

Yes, you admit it, but initially complete defiance was your approach with the “P” word. Slowly you conceded my point by attaching the word “historically” to “Protestant”.

And the fact is that the word ‘Protestant’ is hardly used outside the US. As a Norwegian I can’t even recall someone ever calling themselves a ‘Protestant,’ mostly because of the historical connections of the term, and because people in Europe usually define themselves as, say, Lutherans (‘Evangelicals’ in Germany, not to be confused with the American evangelical movement), Anglicans, Pentecostals, Baptists, etc. And the reason is that the word ‘Protestant’ is either just another word for Lutherans and Reformed (as they are the only ones who can meaningfully be described as Protestants in the historic sense*), or it is too general – it doesn’t tell you anything significant about the persons you want to include in it, except that they are not members of the Roman Catholic Church and happen to live in the West, or what is culturally western. (I don’t think it makes sense to say that the US, Australia, or Scandinavia are geographically western countries. But they certainly are culturally western.)

But this includes Churches posessing valid ministries with valid bishops, including the Church of England and the Church of Norway. And before you point too Apostolicae Curae, let me remind you that stuff has happened since 1896. For my points on that, see here. The summary is this: According to the Roman Catholic Church the Church of England lost valid episcopal orders. Those orders were regained validly through the ‘dutch touch’ in the 1930s, and in the 1990s this was passed on to the bishops of the Church of Norway (party because of the Porvoo agreement). This includes the bishop who ordained me last year. He was consecrated by the Norwegian chief bishop, along with an Anglican co-consecrator in 2009.

But it is quite obvious why you are so obsessed with calling me, and other Lutherans, ‘Protestants.’ You want to point and say ‘see how inconsistent and disunited they are lol.’ Well, that is a bit like pointing to Europe and wondering why we have so many borders. The fact is that if you want to have a honest dialogue on religion, you need to look at each Church – or at least each communion of Churches – separately.

• Perhaps one could include English Roman Catholics during the English Reformation. They did protest against the edicts of King Henry VIII, enforced by the – in my mind – evil Cromwell.

I don’t doubt that word meanings become altered abroad. However this does not negate the meaning I applied to the word. It now comes down to an issue of culture. If an American traveled to Norway, I can tell you that they would still look upon you as Protestant. With that aside, I still see the significance of “Lutheran” being connected to Protestantism, and my statement is supported by multiple sources that have been continually presented.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Well, that depends on what you mean by Sola Scriptura. It is quite true that the term itself was not used by the Apostles or the early Church. But that doesn’t tell you anything, really. Theologians invent new terminology all the time. The question is: What does Sola Scriptura mean, and can this be either found in, or be seen as compatible with, the apostolic faith?

Well, I have explained before what Sola Scriptura means, but I can repeat it here.

We can start off by this quote from the Apology of Confessio Augustana, art I:50: “For this reason our preachers have diligently taught concerning these subjects, and have delivered nothing that is new, but have set forth Holy Scripture and the judgments of the holy Fathers.” This is pretty typical of the arguments made by the early Lutherans. The emphasis is on Scripture, but it is read in the context of Tradition and with emphasis on the consensus of the Fathers. Luther, for instance, fameously held that even though there is not a strict example of a child being baptised in the New Testament, we should still hold to it, because the undivided Tradition held to it, the tradition which gave us the Creeds.*] For Luther, Sola Scriptura was a principle which gave preeminence to Scripture, but which read it through Tradition, in the Church, and with emphasis on reason.

The following paragraph (#442) of The Apostolicity of the Church, a study document of the Lutheran-Roman Catholic Commission on Unity, encapsulates the early Lutheran view of Sola Scriptura:

Catholics and Lutherans agree, not only that Scripture developed historically from a process of tradition both in Israel and the apostolic church, but as well that Scripture is oriented toward a process of being interpreted in the context of ecclesial tradition.

Source: The Apostolicity of the Church, p.190. It is also available online, but without the page numbers of the book.

What is meant by Sola Scriptura is that Scripture is the most central source of Revelation, but that it should be read in the context of Tradition (especially the Creeds, Dogmas, and the teachings of the Church Fathers). The classical way of putting this is that Scripture is norma normans non normata (the norm or rule that regulates all other norms but is not itself regulated by them), and that Tradition is norma normata (the norm or rule that regulates us, but does not regulate Scripture). Scripture and Tradition is to be interpreted by those who are properly called – and ordained – to do so (cf. Confessio Augustana XIV).

This is, interestingly, pretty much the position of Joseph Ratzinger, which can be found in his book Dogma and Preaching (Ignatius Press 2011), pp.26-39. These pages are all available at Google Books.

So Sola Scriptura, understood in its historical context, is not necessarily “unknown to the apostles and the early church.”

• The only source I have for this, at the moment, is Norwegian. Oddvar Johan Jensen, a Norwegian professor of Church History (with specialisation in the Reformation and Luther studies) at my alma mater in Bergen, Norway, explains Luther’s positionin a feature article in Norwegian Christian Newspaper Dagen, November 29, 2013, p.35. This article was part of a long debate in said newspaper when some students at my Lutheran alma mater was horrified when the teachers wasn’t fundamentalists and/or calvinists. There is an overview of the debate here, with links to the different posts and articles. Unfortunately it is all in Norwegian.

In the famous 1997 debate between Catholic apologist Gerry Matatics and Reformed Apologist James White, the following exchange took place:

Matatics: Did the people in Jesus’ day practice sola scriptura? The hearers of our Lord, Yes or No, Mr. White.

White: I have said over, and over, and over again, that sola scriptura –

M: It’s a Yes or No.

W: – is a doctrine that speaks to the normative condition of the church, not to times of enscripturation.

M: So your answer is No?

W: That is exactly what my answer is.

M: Thank you.

W: It is no.

M: Did the apostles practice sola scriptura, Mr. White? Yes or No?

W: No.

M: Thank you.

So, I will ask you the same question, Kjetilk: Did the people in Jesus’ day practice sola scriptura? Yes or No.

Did the apostles practice sola scriptura? Yes or No.

 

[benjohnson]

So, I will ask you the same question, Kjetilk: Did the people in Jesus’ day practice sola scriptura? Yes or No.

Did the apostles practice sola scriptura? Yes or No.

Not to tread on KjetilK’s answer who will do a better job than I:

That’s a pretty bold question from a good Catholic - given that the “people in Jesus’ day” didn’t have a Pope.

If scripture is to be understood as the canonical written word of God as evidenced in the NT, then (of course) no.

But if Scripture as understood to be the word of God, then yes, God’s word would cut through any of our own tradition and authority.

And good thing too! - because I’m rather fond of grilled shrimp.

 

[KjetilK]

So, I will ask you the same question, Kjetilk: Did the people in Jesus’ day practice sola scriptura? Yes or No.

Did the apostles practice sola scriptura? Yes or No.

From the Lutheran view of Sola Scriptura – yes, they did.

And that view is basically the Roman Catholic view, too, at least the position of Joseph Ratzinger.

James White does not have a Lutheran view of Sola Scriptura.

 

[Randy_Carson]

From the Lutheran view of Sola Scriptura – yes, they did.

And that view is basically the Roman Catholic view, too, at least the position of Joseph Ratzinger.

How could the Apostles practice sola scriptura when the NT had not yet been written and they themselves were the only authorities concerning what Jesus said and did?

Can you imagine someone is Ephesus saying, “Yeah, Paul, we hear you, but could you put that in writing first?”

“And Peter, we understand that God has shown you that Gentiles do not need to be circumsized, but Sacred Scripture requires it. Since this is something new that you are proposing, we have no Tradition of allowing Gentiles to skip this rite of initiation nor is there any verse of Scripture which seems to suggest that we can allow this change. Sorry, dude.”

 

[KjetilK]

Yes, it is always easy to win discussions against non-existant positions.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Yes, it is always easy to win discussions against non-existant positions.

Just so you know, I’ve chatted with Jon quite a bit over the past couple of years, and I’ve read the joint declarations. It’s my hope that Catholics and Lutherans (not Protestants) can be be re-united within my lifetime.

I’m not sure how the issue of the universal jurisdiction of the pope will be handled, but there will probably be some formula devised that is agreeable to those who actually WANT to end the schism. There is also the matter of the infallibility of the Church, but that, too, is evident in the scriptures and the ECF’s for those who are willing to be open minded on the subject.

So, let’s pray and hope for the best.

 

[KjetilK]

How could the Apostles practice sola scriptura when the NT had not yet been written and they themselves were the only authorities concerning what Jesus said and did?

Can you imagine someone is Ephesus saying, “Yeah, Paul, we hear you, but could you put that in writing first?”

“And Peter, we understand that God has shown you that Gentiles do not need to be circumsized, but Sacred Scripture requires it. Since this is something new that you are proposing, we have no Tradition of allowing Gentiles to skip this rite of initiation nor is there any verse of Scripture which seems to suggest that we can allow this change. Sorry, dude.”

Well, i think that is a bit like asking why the Constitution of the United States is the most central legal document when it didn’t fall down from heaven.

I see Scripture as the equivalent of a constitution.

 

[Jubilarian]

Well, i think that is a bit like asking why the Constitution of the United States is the most central legal document when it didn’t fall down from heaven.

I see Scripture as the equivalent of a constitution.

And what would Tradition be since within Lutheran theology it is embraced if compatible with scripture ? A semi constitution?

 

[Randy_Carson]

Well, i think that is a bit like asking why the Constitution of the United States is the most central legal document when it didn’t fall down from heaven.

I see Scripture as the equivalent of a constitution.

That’s good, because the founders who wrote the constitution also gave us the Supreme Court which is the final interpreter of that document.

Similarly, hockey is a game with a formal set of rules. It also has referees who interpret and apply those rules.

Court Justices and hockey refs are not infallible, but infallibility is something that God provides - not man. He has chosen to protect His flock from from going astray through human error by preventing the Pope and the Church from formally teaching error.

 

[Randy_Carson]

And what would Tradition be since within Lutheran theology it is embraced if compatible with scripture ? A semi constitution?

Where does the Constitution state that we are to stand and place our hands over our hearts when the National Anthem is played?

Is this Tradition?

Where does scripture state that infants are to be baptized by immersing, pouring, or sprinkling?

Is this Tradition?

 

[KathleenGee]

I would also refer back to the post I shared from Called to Communion regarding the politicizing of the Bible…the rise of nationalism…along with the denial of apostolic succession…this fracturing the sense of tradition…I have to get back to it…as I think it will provide alot of insights of why we are what we are today in separated communities of faith.

 

[benjohnson]

I would also refer back to the post I shared from Called to Communion regarding the politicizing of the Bible…the rise of nationalism…along with the denial of apostolic succession…this fracturing the sense of tradition…I have to get back to it…as I think it will provide alot of insights of why we are what we are today in separated communities of faith.

There’s a parallel in the Lutheran separation of the two swords - or the separation of the church and state.

Ideally, we should center our lives around the community of the church - but sadly, we’ve sometimes centered our lives around our own government with the church becoming an adjunct Sunday-only obligation.

There was a Papal encyclical about the heresy of *Americanism *that speaks to this problem - the predicates are a bit incorrect, but the document is worth reading:

papalencyclicals.net/Leo13/l13teste.htm

 

[KathleenGee]

Yes…and how Christ said what belongs to Caeser, etc…Yet…how can we say our churches belong to the State?..how Christ fulfilled the prophecy that He would have zeal for His Father’s house.

Yes. Regarding the heresy of Americanism…it pop its head up here in 1987 with American archbishops coming to see Pope John Paul II to let him know things go differently here…JPII must have been sitting on a stack of letters from those bishops who did not agree with him, as well as countless lay people who stood by the pope during his pontificate…to the point of experiencing marginalization in their own parishes.

During the visit, I saw a picture of him smiling and laughing confidently before all the archbishops and it taught me something…that when the Pope is animated by the Holy Spirit and not the thinking of men, he holding steadfast to our doctrine and tradition of faith and that the Lord is our sustenance, he must have been experiencing the Lord carrying him.

There is quite a bit in the article…and the book even more so. I am thinking I really need to study and may be later on to articulate…

It looks like it is well researched, highly academic…and may hopefully help us to let go of what we don’t need and where it is to truly keep our focus in hopes we are in greater Christian unity…the world is in such need to witness Christian unity.

 

[crai7]

The only reason it is phrased as “talking with”, is because Jesus was physically in front of Moses and Elijah.

Jesus spoke with departed Saints and the Bible commands us to walk as Jesus did, there is no reason why we can’t speak with Saints who have overcome the world and have been perfected and glorified. So how is it that Catholics are violating some divine precept supposedly forbidden by Scripture? How is it that Catholics are disobeying the teachings of Jesus and the Scriptures when Jesus himself set the example? Some might argue and say, “Hey, Jesus was God and can speak to anyone he wants.” Never in the Scriptures do we see Jesus breaking any Commandment. Jesus was not free to violate any of the commandments because if he did his sacrifice at Calvary would have been nullified by sin.

When a Christian petitions in prayer for prayer and aid from a glorified heavenly saint he/she is communing with the saints which are still part of the body of Christ; this is no different then had they asked family and friends still here on earth to pray for them.

Precisely, they appeared physically, which suggests bi-directional flow of information - they had a conversation. Prayer is uni-directional, to an unseen being.

We could never follow this example, it is supernatural and beyond our ability.

Yes I agree with Jesus not breaking any Commandment. He didn’t come to change the law, he came to fulfill it. However, that does not then lead to the conclusion that we must follow every act that he carried out. In fact we cannot - simply because we are not equal to the Son of God, he will always have power and authority beyond our own.

You say “How is it that Catholics are disobeying the teachings of Jesus and the Scriptures when Jesus himself set the example?” Again, if you are saying we should always follow his example that leads to the problem of the supernatural. We do not have the same supernatural powers he had. Yes in terms of the law and his commands to us in terms of attitude and behaviour, obviously we must aim to follow that.

 

[Jubilarian]

Precisely, they appeared physically, which suggests bi-directional flow of information - they had a conversation. Prayer is uni-directional, to an unseen being.

We could never follow this example, it is supernatural and beyond our ability.

Yes I agree with Jesus not breaking any Commandment. He didn’t come to change the law, he came to fulfill it. However, that does not then lead to the conclusion that we must follow every act that he carried out. In fact we cannot - simply because we are not equal to the Son of God, he will always have power and authority beyond our own.

You say “How is it that Catholics are disobeying the teachings of Jesus and the Scriptures when Jesus himself set the example?” Again, if you are saying we should always follow his example that leads to the problem of the supernatural. We do not have the same supernatural powers he had. Yes in terms of the law and his commands to us in terms of attitude and behaviour, obviously we must aim to follow that.

Number one, what is the relevance of “bi directional flow of information?” Are you saying that prayer only has significance when one person is speaking? Moreover, the fact is that Jesus spoke to the departed as an earthly man and did not tell us in scripture not to do so, especially since he had an opportunity to do so.

Prayer itself is a supernatural occurrence, consider that. “Supernatural powers” are possible with us as well. I hope you haven’t ruled that out.

 

[crai7]

Sure, but it is part of the scriptural treasure of the Church. As Lutherans, we wouldn’t set doctrine by it, but it certainly provides great understanding and insight.

Jon

Even if Maccabees were a reliable historical record, and even if it were describing someone requesting intercession from a saint (though reading it I don’t see how this interpretation is reached, especially since it relates a vision/dream) I’m not sure how ONE record of what an individual did/said in the bible can automatically be interpreted as an instruction for our behaviour now - especially if other records of prayer behaviour throughout the old testament do not mention this, even in passing? Perhaps Maccabees relates the views of a sect or minority deviation from Jewish practice?

Reading - 2 Maccabees 15:14
"Onias then said of him, “This is a man* who loves his fellow Jews and fervently prays for the people and the holy city—the prophet of God, Jeremiah.”

 

[crai7]

They are there…you just need to look at it more…and look at them at a vastly different angle…away from the protestant angle.

The following articles give a view of early Church history and practices…and the Jewish roots of the communion of saints, for after all, Jesus and the apostles were Jews:

In this article below, you will find out that it was actually the pagans who abhorred the early Christians practice of the communion of saints:

calledtocommunion.com/2012/08/relics-saints-and-the-assumption-of-mary/

The first real blow to this interpretation came when I read Peter Brown’s book, The Cult of Saints: Its Rise and Function in Latin Christianity.
Brown challenged my view that the place of saints and relics in the church was a mere holdover from paganism, and that the practice was somehow peripheral to true Christianity. Instead, Brown painted a picture of ancient Christianity and paganism in which relics were indispensable to the former, and repulsive to the latter. Far from a holdover from paganism, the place of relics in the Church appeared as something intensely Jewish, Hebraic, and Old Testament. Pagans, like Julian-the-Apostate, found the practice revolting and legislated against it. (Paganism, with its notions of ritual purity, had strictly delimited the realm of divine worship and neatly separated it from the realm of corpses and the dead.)

And the article below gives the Jewish practice, to this day of asking for intercession from those who have passed to the afterlife:

chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/562222/jewish/Is-it-okay-to-ask-a-deceased-tzaddik-to-pray-on-my-behalf.htm/mobile/false

Is it okay to ask a deceased tzaddik to pray on my behalf?

Question:
I was always under the impression that Judaism firmly believed that there are no intermediaries between man and G d, and to pray to the deceased is blasphemous and outlawed by the Bible. If so, why is it permissible to ask the Rebbe to intercede on one’s behalf at the Ohel?

Answer:
Yes, Jewish customs can be perplexing. Judaism is all about having a direct connection to G-d. An intermediary is a form of idolatry (see “Unidolatry” for more explanation of why this is forbidden.). Yet for as long as there are records, Jews have been in the habit of asking righteous men and women to have a chat with G-d on their behalf.

We see that the Jewish people asked Moses to intercede many times and he accepted their request. If he hadn’t, we wouldn’t be here–so G-d obviously figured it was okay. The Talmud (Baba Batra 116a) tells us that “If there is someone ill in your house, go to the wise man of the city and ask that he should pray for him.” Of course, this person also needs to pray for himself, as his family should as well–and any Jew who knows that another Jew is ill should pray for him. But you need to go to that wise man as well.

Just how ancient and popular is this custom? The Torah tells us that Caleb, one of the twelve spies that Moses sent to spy out the Land of Canaan, made a personal detour to Hebron. What was his interest in Hebron? The Talmud (Sotah 34b) tells that he wished to pray at the cave where Abraham, Sarah, Isaac, Rebecca, Jacob and Leah are buried. He prayed there for mercy on his soul and he was saved from the fateful decision of the other spies.

“They are there…” well I would like to know where, because so far I’ve not come across anything indicating a direct command, instruction or even an indication of a common practice in scripture.

As far as early church tradition goes - I looked at the article in the first link - and I first noticed the reference to Augustine. Augustine is already 4th century, extremely late.

Anything later than the writings of the apostles, and perhaps his brother James who knew Christ first hand (he wrote the book of James, not the apostle James) is suspect due to the ‘broken telephone’ effect. If things are not written down, they are quickly corrupted. In fact there were already deviant ‘churches’ running parallel to the churches of the early apostles, and the apostles had to constantly work to correct errors that crept into the church.

Even during Jesus time on earth, the tendency to want to add and change the faith was there. For instance a woman attempted to shift the focus to Mary, but was quickly put down by Jesus. Luke 11:27-28.

By 100AD, the original apostles were probably no longer alive and no one else with the same level of authority existed to correct error, so errors could easily start to creep in and eventually be elevated to tradition.

Even today, Protestants battle with ‘nice sayings’ and ideas turning into traditions within their own denominations. It is an ongoing battle to eliminate often unhelpful - even contrary - ‘add ons’ to the bible that creep in. The WRITTEN bible is essential in combating this.