As a Presbyterian in the PCA, when we are brought in as members into the congregation we undergo vows that we perform before the church and one of those vows is to submit under the leadership and understanding that if we go off into grievous sin and show an unrepentant heart about the situation we will be disciplined even to the point of excommunication which I believe is very important. Coming from a Pentecostal background, it’s nice to be in a church where church discipline is actually present as I’m sure if true for our Lutheran Borthers
@@MrSeanschickens that’s great! It’s very important for churches to practice church discipline. Especially as how in American evangelicalism as a whole it has become something foreign.
I'm sorry I'm also Lutheran (though admittedly of the pietist strain) but from a Reformed background and the goal of church discipline is always repentance as well. There is a definite understanding of the church pleading and praying for the individual and discipline is not entered into lightly. Was reading Wisløff here the other day and he commented about how certain Lutherans seem to view anything reformed as necessarily bad. While I moved from reformed to lutheran I find lots of good in the reformed tradition.
Sadly, Jordan did a horrible job in explaining the Church discipline. He only brings extreme cases. The church disciple is about pursuing holy living. Just as Paul sent epistles to admonish churches to help them pursue holy living, it's the same concept. In reality, Reformed just separately out the Word of God and the Church discipline while Lutheran believes that the pure proclamation of the Gospel should be understood that there is constant repentances. Frankly, I think too many pastors/clergy play word games. Take Predestination for example. Both Lutherans and Catholics criticize Reformed predestination while believing in the same Predestination described differently. I had Lutherans who INSIST that Lutherans do not believe in the predestination. Martin Luther literally wrote "The Bondage of the Will" with God's sovereignty and predestination as the “hinge on which all turns". All three traditions follow St. Augustine.....
Well in fairness it depends on what Reformed tradition we're talking about. The guys on the Theocast channel have a very good grasp of historical Reformed doctrine, and they sound very much like us Lutherans on a number of points (which is why I don't mind listening to most of their stuff). On the other hand, John MacArthur, Paul Washer, or Joel Webbon make some assertions that I would shake my head at. Even the Puritans could be a mixed bag at times.
@@Outrider74 Well I think it is only really fair to be talking about confessionally Reformed Churches when you talk about Reformed theology. John MacArthur is about as reformed as Swedish Baptists are Lutheran. He is a predestinationist but also believes in dispensationalism and a whole heap of non-reformed things. Lutherans have less foundational impact so they have less offshoots but when a denomination breaks from the confessional church over 100 years ago it seems unfair to keep calling it Reformed. The ELCA would be a good example of where not to go for what Lutherans believe. Though they might call themselves Lutheran. I haven't listened to Theocast in a bit. Did enjoy them for a good while but I think and I can't exactly remember why so maybe I'm wrong but they started to sound a bit antinomian...maybe I'm wrong about that.
@@thomasc9036 Nah, I think Dr. Cooper did a fair job at explaining atleast the basics of Church discipline. Secondly, the error with the calvinist predestination is that its double predestination, is the idea that God actively predestines people to hell, as well as your hardcore determinism which makes God the author of Evil. Lastly, I have never heard a Lutheran reject the idea of Predestination, at least an educated one. Stop misrepresenting us.
@@EcclesiaInvicta Let me test you because 99% of what people call "Calvinist predestination", they just repeat what they heard what some others said instead of actually reading it. From what you described, you are one of the 99% considering it's plainly incorrect. Have you ever read it or just repeating what someone said?
By implication, this misrepresents the Reformed approach to church discipline. (I say this as a Lutheran who came from a Reformed background.) First, it is applied to a pattern of unrepentant serious sin. Second, there are several steps in the process with many opportunities for repentance. Third, repentance and restoration is always the goal. No one is excommunicated for the sin, but for not repenting and turning away from that pattern of sin. But this also explains why I see so many LCMS churches do nothing about 1.) members who rarely attend and 2.) members who get divorced outside of biblical guidelines.
That’s a low blow argument, I could make the same argument against Liberal Progressive Calvinist, but that’s misrepresentation of what real Calvinism doesn’t it?
@@ministeriosemmanuel638 _"Who said anything about the LCMS being liberal?"_ You seemed to when you reacted to his comment about what he observed in the LCMS by calling it a "low blow argument" and paralleling it with "Liberal Progressive Calvinists". That is the only thing that could be seen as a "low blow" towards conservative and confessional Lutherans as everything else was explaining the Reformed view of discipline. Maybe you just didn't read the comment carefully enough or misread what it said as being about the ELCA? Your reply seemed rather knee-jerk. From my perspective if someone saw discipline problems even in conservative Reformed churches, I wouldn't be surprised (I am Reformed). Not because I think it is particularly common in confessional conservative Reformed churches, but because I don't think any denomination is perfect or without its outliers. I wouldn't be surprised that the LCMS also has its own share of problems in disciplining and isn't perfect. Why should anyone expect perfection this side of eternity? The LCMS or any other Lutheran denomination (and Reformed, and any other with sinners involved in it) will make mistakes, sorry to break it to you. The mark of a true church is how it responds to its error, not in how perfect they are.
Very surface level understanding of reformed position. If interested consult the BCO found on the PCA website (chapter 27). The ARP and OPC constitutions would be helpful as well.
There are modern challenges with church discipline that I don’t feel are being adequately considered. There is a language barrier between generations, life styles (such as the “chronically online,” men and women, political affiliations, and so on. Take for example “racism.” If one asks Google is something is racist the answer is almost invariably yes. So when a person says “racism is bad,” those of us operating on a pre millennial definition say “of course,” while the youth hear that the morality of their mere existence is bad if their skin is a shade too light. What is worse is that the only thing not called racism is actual racism such as segregation. Should a church then have organizations or caucuses that are race based then the younger among us immediately feel justified in assuming that the church doesn’t mean the classical definition of “racism,” but rather the modern definition where segregation is the only thing not racist. Repeating the words of Martin Luther King Jr today is considered “racist.” We say “violence is bad,” but to the online crowd we are told that “silence is violence,” passing gas can be violence, speaking the truth is violence if you disagree with someone, but again arson and attacks are not considered violence but “the voice of the unheard.” “Far right,” years ago referred to specifically the European far right, monarchy, fascism, etc (American conservatism is actually European left wing as what is conserved depends on the start point). Today is we compare the policies of JFK and even Clinton in the 90’s even they would be called “far right.” So this term also in modern vernacular means anything right of chairman Mao. Unfortunately every word today has half a dozen definitions depending on sub groups and the repercussions of the wrong word in the wrong group is increasing becoming a life or death mistake which then leads young people to ally themselves which any group they don’t feel attacked by. As such people on both sides are extremely on guard and sensitive to words. The Left (in my opinion) to find targets to destroy, the right to try to build a bulwark around what precious few organizations we maintain and to ensure we don’t have picketers in front of our homes for reading Genesis 1 or our homes burned for exhibiting “racism” by mowing our lawn. This makes all issues far more divisive. The use of a single media buzzword can ignite it conservatives into extremely defensive postures and the left into attack mode. This then creates massive confusion about church disciplinary actions. Should a church (hypothetically) respond to accusations of slipping towards the left and the church responds with accusations of racism and far right extremism without specific in context examples the individual church goer can not understand because by racism do they mean “he is literally Hitler” because he enjoys fresh air? Is he far right because he isn’t a communist? or is he goose stepping on his way to a lynching with a picture of Mussolini with a halo on a picket sign. Every person who has been paying attention to definition creep and is right of a rainbow shirt Stalin fanatic is already asking “Am I to be excommunicated as “far right” too because I delete all the “pride month” emails without even opening them? Am I to be labeled a “racist” because I say I don’t like certain genres of music?” When someone (for example) says a certain document or statement of church leadership is “woke” a response of threatening disciplinary action against the “Far right racist!” Will only cause division as each person without greater context then examines the arguments on almost no information battle lines are drawn. A single confusing statement in the only information available, the document and last five emails from the church regardless of subject, suddenly has swords drawn in the pews. That was a really long winded way of saying that in a society with no remaining standard definitions unprecedented political and cultural divisiveness, and concern over being utterly destroyed and dragged in front of cameras for the crime of smiling at a native gentleman church discipline has challenges if they don’t want to look like a rainbow flagged draped pope shouting “off with his head” when people disagree. I certain recent church discipline actions please compare the public reactions of both sides and perhaps on one side of the church the statements rang like Martin Luther racking up a 95 thesis and unjustly being served a papal bull, while the other says “can you believe the nerve of this guy,” and the two of us as ushers in the center isle not having a clue because we understand that the definition of words is completely destroyed and have no clue what anyone is talking about because nobody wants to define the definition or definitions in an apolitical and objective way.
I can't speak to every Lutheran group, but from what I've observed there is little to no church discipline generally, and at every level. There is also little to no teeth in various ecclesiastical structures, no courts either. At the local level pastors are often undermined and people church hop to avoid discipline. Pastors will also often not support other pastor's efforts.
This is a broad overview of what the fullest implications of what has been the historic stance toward church discipline in both traditions. These aren’t just arbitrary distinctions either. These are just the logical conclusions drawn from each theology. There are different ditches to avoid in each. Praise God that pastors can use their own wisdom to discern what is appropriate in each case. It’s just a fact that Reformed Baptists for example are going to hold their members much more personally accountable than Lutherans. To their credit I think that the Reformed approach can be done in a way that’s more effective the Lutheran approach. It just seems a bit too idealistic and far riskier. My mom goes to a reformed baptist church where they manage to do it pretty well. It’s really more about the culture of the church and how bought into the community each member is that determines how effective church discipline will be. If the community doesn’t hold each other accountable or give each other encouragement it’s going to make much less of a difference what the pastor says to the individual.
Dr. Cooper, can you make a video sometime where you talk about the "Two-Part Romans" interpretation of Romans 1-8? The theory claims Romans 1-8 applies to the jews, not gentiles. Pretty depressing. It's being pushed heavily by Jason Breda, would like to know your thoughts. If it's true that Romans 1-8 is for jews only, that is extremely depressing. I think they are just trying to get around Romans 8.
Neither of these are, in a biblical and Lutheran understanding, grounds for church discipline. Since people are sometimes poor and wear what clothes they have, there are biblical grounds for the denominational authorities to discipline THE CONGREGATION for even having a dress code. See James 2. As for contemporary music, the words make the difference. Even there, no issue of excommunication arises here. Neither is there any biblical justification for a dress code. You might want to watch the video again.
@@RobertEWaters Contemporary worship does need to be corrected. It is not just the words that matter. Lex orandi, lex credendi. Everything we do is a confession of what we believe. And everything we practice, we either received from secular tradition or Christian tradition. Simply put, worship is to be sacred, set apart, reverent, and awe-inspiring. Contemporary Christian Music was created to sound like contemporary secular music to try to attract unbelievers to the church. Liturgical worship was the form of worship prescribed to the Israelites by God, continued and developed by the early Church, and is the most Biblical form of worship that also reflects heavenly worship.
I think it depends on the cultural context. When Paul tells women to wear head coverings that’s because it’s the first century equivalent of a wedding ring. It would be a bit absurd to expect everyone to adhere to Victorian era standards of modesty wouldn’t it? Modesty is one of those things which members of a congregation have a duty to politely and privately discuss. I agree about contemporary worship being inferior to a traditional service, but if we are trying to evangelize all people wouldn’t it be a bit absurd to do a church plant in Compton that had nothing but organ music? Like all pastoral decisions balancing the practical with the ideal is a challenge.
@@martinsg2202 I’m Reformed so therefore a Calvinist yet I have no issues with assurance, what were the issues you were facing? I hope you mean you can’t stand the system and not your reformed brothers in the faith. To not look at your brothers in love would seem to be sinful at minimum
@@emilianoking9400 I'll answer the rest in a later moment but for the short answer: It's not the people I can't stand, it's the theology. I have affection for the reformed people as I had a somewhat reformed background and learned so much from them. It's the reformed distinctives I have a problem with.
As a Presbyterian in the PCA, when we are brought in as members into the congregation we undergo vows that we perform before the church and one of those vows is to submit under the leadership and understanding that if we go off into grievous sin and show an unrepentant heart about the situation we will be disciplined even to the point of excommunication which I believe is very important. Coming from a Pentecostal background, it’s nice to be in a church where church discipline is actually present as I’m sure if true for our Lutheran Borthers
The Church of the Lutheran Brethren practices a confessing membership and in theory church discipline.
@@MrSeanschickens that’s great! It’s very important for churches to practice church discipline. Especially as how in American evangelicalism as a whole it has become something foreign.
Ditto!
I'm sorry I'm also Lutheran (though admittedly of the pietist strain) but from a Reformed background and the goal of church discipline is always repentance as well. There is a definite understanding of the church pleading and praying for the individual and discipline is not entered into lightly.
Was reading Wisløff here the other day and he commented about how certain Lutherans seem to view anything reformed as necessarily bad. While I moved from reformed to lutheran I find lots of good in the reformed tradition.
Sadly, Jordan did a horrible job in explaining the Church discipline. He only brings extreme cases. The church disciple is about pursuing holy living. Just as Paul sent epistles to admonish churches to help them pursue holy living, it's the same concept. In reality, Reformed just separately out the Word of God and the Church discipline while Lutheran believes that the pure proclamation of the Gospel should be understood that there is constant repentances.
Frankly, I think too many pastors/clergy play word games. Take Predestination for example. Both Lutherans and Catholics criticize Reformed predestination while believing in the same Predestination described differently. I had Lutherans who INSIST that Lutherans do not believe in the predestination. Martin Luther literally wrote "The Bondage of the Will" with God's sovereignty and predestination as the “hinge on which all turns".
All three traditions follow St. Augustine.....
Well in fairness it depends on what Reformed tradition we're talking about. The guys on the Theocast channel have a very good grasp of historical Reformed doctrine, and they sound very much like us Lutherans on a number of points (which is why I don't mind listening to most of their stuff). On the other hand, John MacArthur, Paul Washer, or Joel Webbon make some assertions that I would shake my head at. Even the Puritans could be a mixed bag at times.
@@Outrider74 Well I think it is only really fair to be talking about confessionally Reformed Churches when you talk about Reformed theology. John MacArthur is about as reformed as Swedish Baptists are Lutheran. He is a predestinationist but also believes in dispensationalism and a whole heap of non-reformed things. Lutherans have less foundational impact so they have less offshoots but when a denomination breaks from the confessional church over 100 years ago it seems unfair to keep calling it Reformed.
The ELCA would be a good example of where not to go for what Lutherans believe. Though they might call themselves Lutheran.
I haven't listened to Theocast in a bit. Did enjoy them for a good while but I think and I can't exactly remember why so maybe I'm wrong but they started to sound a bit antinomian...maybe I'm wrong about that.
@@thomasc9036 Nah, I think Dr. Cooper did a fair job at explaining atleast the basics of Church discipline.
Secondly, the error with the calvinist predestination is that its double predestination, is the idea that God actively predestines people to hell, as well as your hardcore determinism which makes God the author of Evil.
Lastly, I have never heard a Lutheran reject the idea of Predestination, at least an educated one. Stop misrepresenting us.
@@EcclesiaInvicta Let me test you because 99% of what people call "Calvinist predestination", they just repeat what they heard what some others said instead of actually reading it. From what you described, you are one of the 99% considering it's plainly incorrect. Have you ever read it or just repeating what someone said?
By implication, this misrepresents the Reformed approach to church discipline. (I say this as a Lutheran who came from a Reformed background.) First, it is applied to a pattern of unrepentant serious sin. Second, there are several steps in the process with many opportunities for repentance. Third, repentance and restoration is always the goal. No one is excommunicated for the sin, but for not repenting and turning away from that pattern of sin. But this also explains why I see so many LCMS churches do nothing about 1.) members who rarely attend and 2.) members who get divorced outside of biblical guidelines.
Strawman, doesn't represent what historical Lutheranism at all.
That’s a low blow argument, I could make the same argument against Liberal Progressive Calvinist, but that’s misrepresentation of what real Calvinism doesn’t it?
LCMS is liberal?
@@comfy8250 Who said anything about the LCMS being liberal?
@@ministeriosemmanuel638 _"Who said anything about the LCMS being liberal?"_
You seemed to when you reacted to his comment about what he observed in the LCMS by calling it a "low blow argument" and paralleling it with "Liberal Progressive Calvinists". That is the only thing that could be seen as a "low blow" towards conservative and confessional Lutherans as everything else was explaining the Reformed view of discipline. Maybe you just didn't read the comment carefully enough or misread what it said as being about the ELCA? Your reply seemed rather knee-jerk.
From my perspective if someone saw discipline problems even in conservative Reformed churches, I wouldn't be surprised (I am Reformed). Not because I think it is particularly common in confessional conservative Reformed churches, but because I don't think any denomination is perfect or without its outliers. I wouldn't be surprised that the LCMS also has its own share of problems in disciplining and isn't perfect. Why should anyone expect perfection this side of eternity? The LCMS or any other Lutheran denomination (and Reformed, and any other with sinners involved in it) will make mistakes, sorry to break it to you. The mark of a true church is how it responds to its error, not in how perfect they are.
Very surface level understanding of reformed position. If interested consult the BCO found on the PCA website (chapter 27). The ARP and OPC constitutions would be helpful as well.
There are modern challenges with church discipline that I don’t feel are being adequately considered.
There is a language barrier between generations, life styles (such as the “chronically online,” men and women, political affiliations, and so on.
Take for example “racism.” If one asks Google is something is racist the answer is almost invariably yes. So when a person says “racism is bad,” those of us operating on a pre millennial definition say “of course,” while the youth hear that the morality of their mere existence is bad if their skin is a shade too light. What is worse is that the only thing not called racism is actual racism such as segregation. Should a church then have organizations or caucuses that are race based then the younger among us immediately feel justified in assuming that the church doesn’t mean the classical definition of “racism,” but rather the modern definition where segregation is the only thing not racist. Repeating the words of Martin Luther King Jr today is considered “racist.”
We say “violence is bad,” but to the online crowd we are told that “silence is violence,” passing gas can be violence, speaking the truth is violence if you disagree with someone, but again arson and attacks are not considered violence but “the voice of the unheard.”
“Far right,” years ago referred to specifically the European far right, monarchy, fascism, etc (American conservatism is actually European left wing as what is conserved depends on the start point). Today is we compare the policies of JFK and even Clinton in the 90’s even they would be called “far right.” So this term also in modern vernacular means anything right of chairman Mao.
Unfortunately every word today has half a dozen definitions depending on sub groups and the repercussions of the wrong word in the wrong group is increasing becoming a life or death mistake which then leads young people to ally themselves which any group they don’t feel attacked by. As such people on both sides are extremely on guard and sensitive to words. The Left (in my opinion) to find targets to destroy, the right to try to build a bulwark around what precious few organizations we maintain and to ensure we don’t have picketers in front of our homes for reading Genesis 1 or our homes burned for exhibiting “racism” by mowing our lawn.
This makes all issues far more divisive. The use of a single media buzzword can ignite it conservatives into extremely defensive postures and the left into attack mode.
This then creates massive confusion about church disciplinary actions. Should a church (hypothetically) respond to accusations of slipping towards the left and the church responds with accusations of racism and far right extremism without specific in context examples the individual church goer can not understand because by racism do they mean “he is literally Hitler” because he enjoys fresh air? Is he far right because he isn’t a communist? or is he goose stepping on his way to a lynching with a picture of Mussolini with a halo on a picket sign.
Every person who has been paying attention to definition creep and is right of a rainbow shirt Stalin fanatic is already asking “Am I to be excommunicated as “far right” too because I delete all the “pride month” emails without even opening them? Am I to be labeled a “racist” because I say I don’t like certain genres of music?” When someone (for example) says a certain document or statement of church leadership is “woke” a response of threatening disciplinary action against the “Far right racist!” Will only cause division as each person without greater context then examines the arguments on almost no information battle lines are drawn. A single confusing statement in the only information available, the document and last five emails from the church regardless of subject, suddenly has swords drawn in the pews.
That was a really long winded way of saying that in a society with no remaining standard definitions unprecedented political and cultural divisiveness, and concern over being utterly destroyed and dragged in front of cameras for the crime of smiling at a native gentleman church discipline has challenges if they don’t want to look like a rainbow flagged draped pope shouting “off with his head” when people disagree.
I certain recent church discipline actions please compare the public reactions of both sides and perhaps on one side of the church the statements rang like Martin Luther racking up a 95 thesis and unjustly being served a papal bull, while the other says “can you believe the nerve of this guy,” and the two of us as ushers in the center isle not having a clue because we understand that the definition of words is completely destroyed and have no clue what anyone is talking about because nobody wants to define the definition or definitions in an apolitical and objective way.
Dr. Cooper, have you ever talked about familiar abuse (parents and other family members), persecution and psychological abuse (such as gaslighting)?
I have been meaning to record something on the issue, specifically as it relates to the church.
I can't speak to every Lutheran group, but from what I've observed there is little to no church discipline generally, and at every level. There is also little to no teeth in various ecclesiastical structures, no courts either. At the local level pastors are often undermined and people church hop to avoid discipline. Pastors will also often not support other pastor's efforts.
These are all serious issues. Undoubtedly.
Unfortunately, discipline is something so difficult to see in churches nowadays that it seems the ones in need of repentance are the offended 🥴
The American tradition bristles at discipline.
This is a broad overview of what the fullest implications of what has been the historic stance toward church discipline in both traditions. These aren’t just arbitrary distinctions either. These are just the logical conclusions drawn from each theology. There are different ditches to avoid in each. Praise God that pastors can use their own wisdom to discern what is appropriate in each case. It’s just a fact that Reformed Baptists for example are going to hold their members much more personally accountable than Lutherans. To their credit I think that the Reformed approach can be done in a way that’s more effective the Lutheran approach. It just seems a bit too idealistic and far riskier. My mom goes to a reformed baptist church where they manage to do it pretty well. It’s really more about the culture of the church and how bought into the community each member is that determines how effective church discipline will be. If the community doesn’t hold each other accountable or give each other encouragement it’s going to make much less of a difference what the pastor says to the individual.
Dr. Cooper, can you make a video sometime where you talk about the "Two-Part Romans" interpretation of Romans 1-8? The theory claims Romans 1-8 applies to the jews, not gentiles. Pretty depressing. It's being pushed heavily by Jason Breda, would like to know your thoughts. If it's true that Romans 1-8 is for jews only, that is extremely depressing. I think they are just trying to get around Romans 8.
Or sheep and goats; wheat and weeds
Who is this in the interview with Dr. Cooper?
Flame the rapper
Yes there is a lack of Church discipline in most Lutheran Churches. Starting with the dress code, and the encroachment of contemporary music
Neither of these are, in a biblical and Lutheran understanding, grounds for church discipline. Since people are sometimes poor and wear what clothes they have, there are biblical grounds for the denominational authorities to discipline THE CONGREGATION for even having a dress code. See James 2. As for contemporary music, the words make the difference. Even there, no issue of excommunication arises here.
Neither is there any biblical justification for a dress code. You might want to watch the video again.
There is a lack of Bible in the Lutheran Church
@@RobertEWaters there very much is a biblical command to dress modestly. This applies especially in Church. YOU might wanna read the BIBLE again
@@RobertEWaters Contemporary worship does need to be corrected. It is not just the words that matter.
Lex orandi, lex credendi. Everything we do is a confession of what we believe. And everything we practice, we either received from secular tradition or Christian tradition. Simply put, worship is to be sacred, set apart, reverent, and awe-inspiring. Contemporary Christian Music was created to sound like contemporary secular music to try to attract unbelievers to the church. Liturgical worship was the form of worship prescribed to the Israelites by God, continued and developed by the early Church, and is the most Biblical form of worship that also reflects heavenly worship.
I think it depends on the cultural context. When Paul tells women to wear head coverings that’s because it’s the first century equivalent of a wedding ring. It would be a bit absurd to expect everyone to adhere to Victorian era standards of modesty wouldn’t it? Modesty is one of those things which members of a congregation have a duty to politely and privately discuss. I agree about contemporary worship being inferior to a traditional service, but if we are trying to evangelize all people wouldn’t it be a bit absurd to do a church plant in Compton that had nothing but organ music? Like all pastoral decisions balancing the practical with the ideal is a challenge.
Can't stand Calvinists, but great videos anyways!
You seem oh so graceful.
@@gustavoabreu3097 When you have endured the abuse that their theology produces on a troubled conscience and soul, you wouldn't stand them either.
@@martinsg2202 I’m Reformed so therefore a Calvinist yet I have no issues with assurance, what were the issues you were facing? I hope you mean you can’t stand the system and not your reformed brothers in the faith. To not look at your brothers in love would seem to be sinful at minimum
@martinsg2202 that's how I feel about free will dispensational charismatics
@@emilianoking9400 I'll answer the rest in a later moment but for the short answer: It's not the people I can't stand, it's the theology. I have affection for the reformed people as I had a somewhat reformed background and learned so much from them. It's the reformed distinctives I have a problem with.
Calm down
No