Tom, please consider the following insights:

“By His word God has bound Himself to execute the penalty of the law on all transgressors.” (6BC 1095)

“In the plan of redemption there must be the shedding of blood, for death must come in consequence of man’s sin.” (CON 22)

“Justice demands that sin be not merely pardoned, but the death penalty must be executed. God, in the gift of His only-begotten Son, met both these requirements. By dying in man’s stead, Christ exhausted the penalty and provided a pardon.” (1SM 340)

In DA 764 she writes:



The previous paragraph makes clear that the wicked are destroyed not as the result of something God does to them but as a result of their own choice. In what I've quoted here it says that had Satan and his followers been "left" to reap the "full result of their sin" they would have perished, which also brings out that the result is something which happens to Satan as a result of sin as opposed to something God did to him. If it were the result of capital punishment, for example, she could hardly have written of God's *leaving* Satan to reap the full result of his sin, as in this case God's killing him would the result of his sin, which is something God would be causing. If you cause something to happen yourself, you cannot speak of "leaving" someone to the consequences of their actions.

So the "penalty for the law on all transgressors" should be understood as "the inevitable result of sin," or the "full result of sin," which is something that is "reaped," and something God "leaves" the wicked to. This is how God executes the penalty for sin; He leaves the wicked to suffer the consequences of their actions.

This type of language is common in the SOP and Scripture as well. For example, consider the following:



The destruction of Jerusalem was something which God "left" the wicked to, a result of their "reaping the full result of their sin." This action is described as the most decisive testimony to God's hatred of sin and the certain punishment that will fall upon the guilty.

There's no better example of the punishment of the wicked than this event, we are told, and this is an event where God's actions, His judgments, His punishments, are executed by way of His "leaving" the wicked to suffer the consequences of their decisions.

Many more examples of this principle could be given. God is often presented, in both Scripture and the SOP, as doing that which He permits.



This principle applies as much to Lucifer's condition as to man's, so it begs the question as to why there was no shedding of blood for Lucifer, yet he was offered pardon. I'm not disagreeing with the statement, with which I agree, but just pointing out that the meaning of the statement cannot be a strictly legal one, because this argument would apply as much to Lucifer as to man.



Same comment. Actually, you've brought up this statement many times, and many times I've responded with an explanation by Fifield, so I see no reason why to not repeat this, since Fifield's explanation is so eloquent:

I think this is more a question of semantics. I’ll try to explain myself once again. What I’m saying is, Why can’t our works, our obedience, merit eternal life for us? Isn’t it because they are imperfect? That’s why we can obtain eternal life only through Christ’s obedience, which stands in place of ours, and which we accept by faith.

“Works will never save us; it is the merit of Christ that will avail in our behalf. Through faith in Him, Christ will make all our imperfect efforts acceptable to God.” {FW 48.3}

“The condition of eternal life is now just what it always has been--just what it was in Paradise before the fall of our first parents—perfect obedience to the law of God, perfect righteousness. If eternal life were granted on any condition short of this, then the happiness of the whole universe would be imperiled. The way would be open for sin, with all its train of woe and misery, to be immortalized.” {AG 134.5}

So God looks to our disposition and effort to obey Him, accepts this as our best service and Jesus makes up for our deficiency with His own divine merit:

“When it is in the heart to obey God, when efforts are put forth to this end, Jesus accepts this disposition and effort as man's best service and he makes up for the deficiency with his own divine merit; for he is the source of every right impulse.” {OW, December 1, 1909 par. 10}

The reality is that our obedience (righteousness) is imperfect, but God considers it perfect. Why? This is evidently a legal provision which makes no sense under your theology. We don’t consider those whom we forgive as perfect, and we don’t need to.


When they have faith, they are considered perfectly obedient to the law from the moment of birth to the moment of death – because Christ’s life stands in place of theirs, and He was obedient from the moment of birth to the moment of death.

“There is an inexhaustible fund of perfect obedience accruing from His obedience. In heaven His merits, His self-denial and self-sacrifice, are treasured up as incense to be offered up with the prayers of His people. As the sinner's sincere, humble prayers ascend to the throne of God, Christ mingles with them the merits of His life of perfect obedience. Our prayers are made fragrant by this incense.” {HP 69.3}

No, I’m not saying that. Man’s obedience, most of his life at least, is imperfect. But even if one day his obedience, through God’s power, becomes perfect, he still has a past debt of transgression he can’t pay, as Arnold has been pointing out. Therefore, Christ’s righteousness alone can avail for the obtainment of eternal life.

"Let no one take the limited, narrow position that any of the works of man can help in the least possible way to liquidate the debt of his transgression. ... God always demanded good works, the law demands it, but because man placed himself in sin where his good works were valueless, Jesus' righteousness alone can avail." {OHC 122.2}

"But are good works of no real value? Is the sinner who commits sin every day with impunity, regarded of God with the same favor as the one who through faith in Christ tries to work in his integrity? ... We are accepted through Christ's merit alone; and the acts of mercy, the deeds of charity, which we perform, are the fruits of faith; and they become a blessing to us; for men are to be rewarded according to their works. It is the fragrance of the merit of Christ that makes our good works acceptable to God, and it is grace that enables us to do the works for which He rewards us. Our works in and of themselves have no merit. . . . We deserve no thanks from God. We have only done what it was our duty to do, and our works could not have been performed in the strength of our own sinful natures." {OHC 122.3}

By the way, the passage says that one reason why our works have no merit is because they could not have been performed in the strength of our own sinful natures. If this is the case, and if Christ also had a sinful nature, it follows that His works, His obedience, His character, couldn’t be meritorious either. And, in that case, we would be lost.

Eternal life, according to Jesus Christ, is knowing God. (John 17:3) That's not something which one merits. One knows God by choosing to do so, the ability to do so being given to us as a free give. However, because of our fall, we could not know God without the sacrifice of Christ (which should not be limited to His death, as His whole life was a sacrifice given to us for our redemption). So God gave His only Son that whosoever believes in Him (this is how we know God, by believing in Christ) should not perish, but have everlasting life.

Regarding the sinful nature question, Waggoner addresses this issue, I think in "Christ and His Righteousness." I'll see if I can find it. No, I couldn't find it. Anyway, the basic idea is that without being converted, as we exercise our sinful nature, we simply dig ourself into a deeper and deeper hole, so to speak.

Ellen White says that divinity combined with humanity does not sin. She says that Christ took our sinful nature upon His own sinless nature. She also said, during the time she was preaching with Jones and Waggoner, and they were questioned about what they were teaching (and we know what Jones and Waggoner's position was on this!):



So there's no question that Christ took our sinful nature. One could hardly say this more clearly than by saying "Christ took our sinful nature." Thus taking our sinful nature could not have disqualified Him in any way, or He couldn't have done it.

Anyway, the problem for us is that sinful nature of itself cannot do anything good. It must be combined with divinity. In Christ's case, it always was, because He lived by faith.

I didn't see that you addressed my argument regarding our being righteous, and not just being called righteous. John says that one who does righteousness "is righteous, even as He is righteous." Who is righteous? One who "does righteousness." So not only can one be actually righteous (and not simply called such), but one can also actually do righteousness (righteousness is done by faith).

Now if one could only be righteous by keeping the law perfectly one's whole life, how could John say this?

I also pointed out this statement:



You claimed this isn't dealing with justification, but I presented arguments that it is, as the underlined sentence shows. And regardless of what you want to call it, the point is it applies to *every* believer:



This is just a little bit earlier. it says the righteousness of Christ is imparted to *all* who "receive Him as their personal Savior" (which is justification, btw). You might wish to point out that she uses the word "impart" here, but there are two points to this.

1.She often uses the words "impart" and "imputed" interchangeably. I produced a number of statements where she used the meaning "imputed," but the meaning clearly conveyed "imparted," the concepts not being forensic at all, but applying to practical righteousness.

2.What word she uses doesn't matter. The point is that the following applies *to every believer*



Now if *every believer* has this (regardless of what you want to call it), every believer is righteous, because anyone whose heart is united to Christ's, whose will is merged with His will, whose mind is one with His mind, and who lives Christ's life is righteous. The righteousness which God gives to us really becomes ours! It's not a legal fiction.

Now the fact that believers are righteous does not mean that they have done anything meritorious nor that this righteousness is intrinsic. The only righteousness there is is the righteousness of Christ. Any other righteousness than that is not the wedding garment, but the fig leaf.

Tom,
It seems we won't agree.

Perhaps McMahon presents the subject better than I. I don't believe EGW's position is the Protestant position in the strictest sense (as he presents it), but it's not also altogether Roman Catholic, as Waggoner presents it. Our position (based on EGW) is the position of Luther, not of Calvin (and Luther is sometimes accused of retaining part of the Catholic theology). Thus, justification or imputed righteousness includes the new birth, but everything which happens in our character from that moment onward is sanctification, imparted righteousness (although imputed righteousness is always present providing perfection to the process).

Your assertion that Ellen White uses the words "imputed" and "imparted" interchangeably is by no means true (if you want to analyze the EGW quotes one at a time we can do that). Although the two can't be separated, she distinguishes between the two roles Christ's righteousness (character) plays in our salvation - it stands in place of our character, providing forgiveness and perfection, and its elements are imparted to the human agent, making his character more and more similar to that of Christ.

McMahon's analysis can be found here: http://www.presenttruthmag.com/7dayadventist/Waggoner/7.html

By the way, I've found two more quotes of Waggoner in total disagreement with what Ellen White says:

1) Christ's "beginning" [quoted by McMahon in the same article]:

"In arguing the perfect equality of the Father and the Son, and the fact that Christ is in very nature God, we do not design to be understood as teaching that the Father was not before the Son...While both are of the same nature, the Father is first in point of time. He is also greater in that He had no beginning, while Christ's personality had a beginning" (E. J. Waggoner, "The Divinity of Christ," Bible Echo and Signs of the Times, October 1, 1889, p.298).

2) Christ could not sin because of His divinity [also partly quoted by McMahon, the link at the bottom leads to the full article]:

"One more point, and then we can learn the entire lesson that we should learn from the fact the 'the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us.' How was it that Christ could be thus 'compassed with infirmity' (Heb. 5:2), and still know no sin? Some may though [sic], while reading this article thus far, that we are depreciating the character of Jesus, by bringing him down to the level of sinful man. On the contrary, we are simply exalting the 'divine power' of our blessed Saviour, who himself voluntarily descended to the level of sinful man, in order that he might exalt man to his own spotless purity, which he retained under the most adverse circumstances. 'God was in Christ,' and hence he could not sin. His humanity only veiled his divine nature, which was more than able to successfully resist the sinful passions of the flesh. There was in his whole life a struggle. The flesh, moved upon by the enemy of all unrighteousness, would tend to sin, yet his divine nature never for a moment harbored an evil desire, nor did his divine power for a moment waver. Having suffered in the flesh all that men can possibly suffer, he returned to the throne of the Father, as spotless as when he left the courts of glory. When he laid in the tomb, under the power of death, 'it was impossible that he should be holden of it,' because it had been impossible for the divine nature which dwelt in him to sin. 'Well,' some will say, 'I don't see any comfort in this for me; it wasn't possible that the Son of God should sin, but I haven't any such power.' Why not? You can have it is you want it. the same power which enabled him to resist every temptation presented through the flesh, while he was 'compassed with infirmity,' can enable us to do the same. Christ could not sin, because he was the manifestation of God" ("God Manifest in the Flesh," The Signs of the Times, January 21, 1889).

http://maranathamedia.com/start/index.php?option=com_docman&task=doc_view&gid=1979

Rosangela, please respond to the points I've been making. You made the claim that God calls us righteous, but we aren't really righteous. Where is a single statement where Scripture or Ellen White says that a born again Christ exercising faith in Christ is not really righteous?

In order to disprove your assertion, I presented the following quote.



I asked you the question if a person with these characteristics would not be righteous. As I recall, you didn't answer my question. You commented that this statement was talking about sanctification, not justification. I presented several arguments that this was not the case, including the fact that the very next sentence (in the FILB quote) is unquestionably dealing with justification.



I also pointed out that regardless of what one calls this "imparted" or "imputed," "justified" or "sanctified," it is something which applies to every believer. So if every believer has these traits, and these traits characterize a righteous person, then it followers that believers are not merely called righteous but are righteous.

Here are some things Ellen White regarding Waggoner's theology:



She never referred to Luther's message, nor any other message (even her own) in these terms. There was something special about their message. Do you how many times she endorsed Jones and Waggoner's message? Almost 2,000 times! How many times did she endorse Luther? Once?

I'm not understand the approach you're taking here, Rosangela. I don't understand why you would prefer Luther to Waggoner (in regards to whose message in regards to righteousness by faith is more correct), or McMahon to Ellen White (in regards to what the truth in regards to Waggoner is).

Ellen White stated many times that these were messengers specially chosen by God with a lesson which He Himself gave to them to proclaim. She warned those who were rejecting them that rejecting the Lord's messengers was rejecting Christ.



Now if God gave them a work to do, and a message to bear, how could it be wrong? I'm not understanding this. If you are correct, then Jones and Waggoner were wrong, not in regards to some unimportant side issues, but at the very core, including:

a.Imputed righteousness.
b.The human nature of Christ.

Jones said the fact that Christ took our fallen nature was salvation itself, so important did he view this aspect of the message of righteousness by faith (I'm making this point to bear out my claim that this was a core issue).

In regards to imputed righteousness being a core issue to righteousness by faith, I'm sure you must agree with this. So again I ask, how could Waggoner and Jones have a message of God, truth to bear to our church in regards to righteousness by faith, and be wrong in regards to imputed righteousness?

I've repeatedly asked you if you think what I've said in regards to imputed righteousness is different to what Waggoner taught. I don't believe you have answered this question. When you suggested I was selecting passages where Waggoner was concerned with the relational aspect of imputed righteousness, and not the legal aspect, I invited you to select any passage you wished in regards to this subject from Waggoner, and you produced nothing.

I've made the following argument.

a.If no statement of Waggoner's in regards to imputed righteousness differs from what I've presented, it's reasonable to assert that my position on this subject is the same as his.
b.Given Ellen White endorsed Waggoner's position of righteousness by faith, and given that imputed righteousness is such a crucial aspect to rbf, it is reasonable to assert Waggoner's position on this is correct (and hence mine).

I don't believe you responded to this.



There are many statements like this, warning those who spoke against the message Jones and Waggoner were bringing. I think it's very dangerous to go looking for things wrong with their message. Again, it wasn't their own message, but a message from the Lord, and Ellen White repeatedly warned against precisely this sort of approach. She spoke of those who looked for something wrong to have a place to hang the hooks of their doubts on. She said God would never remove every hook, but that He had presented ample evidence that the message they were bringing was truth. She repeatedly warned of the danger in regards to how the message and the messengers were treated. For example:



In point of fact, this is the most common objection raised against Jones and Waggoner, yet Ellen White warns of this being a "fatal delusion"!

In regards to the "two more" statements you found where they disagree with Ellen White, what are they "two more" in relation to? Regarding the statement that Waggoner said Christ couldn't sin, I pointed out to you that this was the only statement I was aware of where Ellen White corrected his theology, and that he did so. This idea was not included in his book "Christ And His Righteousness." I wasn't aware of the other statement.

Tom,

I did respond to the points you’ve been making. I’ve presented several quotes both from the Bible and from Ellen White. I quoted 1Tim. 1:12, where Paul calls himself a sinner (In which way can a righteous man be a sinner?) I also quoted from Ellen White:

“Sinners can be justified by God only when He pardons their sins, remits the punishment they deserve, and treats them as though they were really just and had not sinned, receiving them into divine favor and treating them as if they were righteous." {OHC 52.3}

“In ourselves we are sinners; but in Christ we are righteous. Having made us righteous through the imputed righteousness of Christ, God pronounces us just, and treats us as just." {1SM 394.1}

From que quote you provided:

“Those who accept of Christ are looked upon by God, not as they are in Adam [present tense], but as they are in Jesus Christ, as the sons and daughters of God.” (FILB 113)

Please note the use of the present tense in the two last quotes. Ellen White does not say “In ourselves we were sinners,” or “Those who accept Christ are looked upon by God, not as they were in Adam.” She says, “are sinners”/”are righteous”, and “are in Adam”/”are in Jesus Christ.” The states contrasted are simultaneous. We are at the same time sinners and righteous, and are at the same time in Adam and in Christ.

We are sinners both in the sense that we have sinned in the past and in the sense that, even now, after conversion, our obedience is imperfect and we sometimes sin. We are righteous in the sense that all this is covered by Christ’s righteousness if we have faith in Him. This is righteousness by faith in a legal sense. You said that a righteous person is someone who practices righteousness, and this is true, but I replied that God requires perfect righteousness, with no sin at all. You then said, in your post #103570, that this standard “is one which we will attain, unless we interpose a perverse will and thus frustrate His grace.” If this is a standard which we will attain, then it follows that only when we do attain it can we be called righteous. Therefore, if we are called righteous before we attain that standard, we are called righteous without in fact being righteous.


If I understood what you are asking, the answer would be the same as above. After we are born again, indeed our heart is united with His heart, our will is merged in His will, we live His life. But we still have “unavoidable deficiencies.” Therefore, again, we are called righteous without in fact being righteous (in the absolute sense of perfect righteousness). We are righteous due to the imputed righteousness of Christ (in a legal sense).


What? She was thankful to them because they preached the right message in the right time, but she was exalting the message – the biblical message – not the messengers.


It seems your view and the view he expressed in his published writings is similar. However, nobody knows exactly what his view was in 1888, and his theology underwent changes in the course of years. McMahon, for instance, says that "before the 1888 conference Waggoner held a Protestant meaning of justification. He believed that justification was a forensic act in which God pronounces the believer righteous on the ground of the imputed righteousness of Christ."


Why are you saying that? The writings of anyone must be tested by the Bible and, after that, by the Spirit of Prophecy. Anything which is in disagreement with these should be rejected.


The others we’ve already discussed in the past.


How did she correct him? Did she write to him?
It’s interesting that when we discussed in April the statement

Letters have been coming in to me, affirming that Christ could not have had the same nature as man, for if he had, he would have fallen under similar temptations. If he did not have man's nature, he could not be our example. If he was not a partaker of our nature, he could not have been tempted as man has been. If it were not possible for him to yield to temptation, he could not be our helper. It was a solemn reality that Christ came to fight the battles as man, in man's behalf. His temptation and victory tell us that humanity must copy the Pattern; man must become a partaker of the divine nature. (1888 Mat. 533)

I said in my post #98605:

A common idea at that time, as today, was that Christ had taken the human nature but was not capable of yielding to temptation [because He was God] ... Again, this was the subject of the letters that had been coming to Ellen White. They had nothing to do with what Jones and Waggoner were preaching.
http://www.maritime-sda-online.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=98649&fpart=4

I wouldn’t say the same thing today.

Thank for your response (addressing the points I was raising)



I didn't see you answer this. I saw some quotes dealing with the process of being converted, but what I've specifically asking for is a quote where either Scripture or Ellen White says that a person who born again and exercising faith in Jesus Christ is not really righteous. The only argument I saw addressing this was that we are called sinners, and how could be righteous if we are sinners? You specifically mentioned Paul.

My understanding of Paul's comment is that he saw, in the light of the cross, the he was the chief of sinners. He was touched by God's grace in saving him, and saw who evil he was apart from the grace of God.

I believe Paul's exclamation will be that of any true Christian. "God, be merciful to me a sinner!" will ever be our prayer. I won't go into more detail about this right now (btw, this is covered in detail at the end of the chapter "The Two Worshipers" in COL), as I think we are probably in agreement on this point.

I don't see that this addresses my question, however. Our vision of ourselves as sinners rests in our having crucified Christ by our sins. That won't change regardless of our faith or obedience.

What do you do with John who says, "He who does righteousness is righteous, even as He is righteous?" How can this be reconciled with the idea that we are not really righteous? What didn't John write something like "He who does righteousness is called righteous (but not really righteous) even as He is righteous"?



It's easier if you respond to questions the first time they come up. Then I don't need to scratch where it doesn't itch. The reason I asked you if a person who had the characteristics of COL 312 was righteous was because if you said, "no" then that leads the discussion in one direction. If you say, "yes," it goes down another path. Since you didn't answer, I had to guess, and it looks like I guessed wrong. It looks to me like you would say a person who has the characteristics described here:



is not really righteous, but is simply called righteous. I guess we'll have to disagree on this point because I believe the above describes a righteous person (not one who is merely called such).

Another quote I presented was this one:



It seems to me that a person who is not sinning is really righteous. If Christ always separates the contrite soul from sinning, wouldn't that mean he's not sinning, as long as he is contrite? And aren't all justified persons contrite?



I don't understand your response here. I said, "There was something special about their message." I didn't say "There was something special about the messengers." So why this response?

The message she endorsed was a specific message, that message being what they were preaching, not simply righteousness by faith in some generic way which didn't involve the specific truths they were presenting.



McMahon is dead wrong on this. You're taking a wrong and dangerous tack here by relying on secondary sources. We have what Waggoner wrote, and we have what Ellen White wrote. You should research these sources, and not rely on McMahon.

Here are some sources you should consider. One is "The Law in Galations." This pamphlet was passed out at the 1888 GC session. So this can be read to ascertain his views on justification by faith. If you look at this pamphlet, you will see that he speaks of the desire to write a book on Galatians without reference to responding to a specific argument (i.e., Butler's pamphlet "The Law in Galatians"), which he did in writing the book "The Glad Tidings." This would be another good book to look at.

According to Froom, Waggoner's wife recorded Waggoner's sermons, and these sermons were published in Signs of The Times articles, and later gathered into the book "Christ and His Righteousness." So this book contains the message Waggoner presented at the 1888 GC session. I've been quoting mostly from this book.

Another point to take into consideration is that EGW endorsed Jones and Waggoner almost 2,000 times over the course of almost 10 years. Even if it were true that we didn't know what was presented at the 1888 GC Session (which it isn't) it would be a moot point. Ellen White preached along side Jones and Waggoner, and continued endorsing them at the same time that they were writing many, many articles in our church papers.

Returning to your response, I understand you as saying that you agree that the view I have been presenting is in harmony with Waggoner's, but that Waggoner's view changed, and his original view was really the same as what you believe (which you believe is what Ellen White believed).

This response falls short because Waggoner's view did not change from Mpls. to the time following. This is easily verified by comparing "Christ and His Righteousness" or "The Law in Galatians" with his following works. For example, consider "Bible Studies in the Book of Romans" (1890 I think) or "Articles in Romans" (around 1895) and you'll see they present the same concepts as the aforementioned works.

Therefore we're back to square one. Waggoner's view agrees with what I've been presenting in regards to imputed righteousness, and that view was endorsed by Ellen White (assuming that an endorsement of rbf includes an endorsement of one's teachings regarding imputed righteousness, which I assume you would agree must be the case since how could one teach rbf correctly and be wrong on imputed righteousness?)



Have you read the 1888 Materials, written by Ellen White? If not, I'd suggest you do so. The answer to your question as to why I'm saying this is in those writings. It's one thing to verify from inspired works the veracity of something being presented. It's quite another to go looking specifically for things which are wrong. It is this last point the Ellen White warned against.

She proclaimed the message was light from heaven, a message from God, which He had given to His messengers, and that rejecting their message was rejecting Christ. Those rejecting the message looked for any excuse to do so. She spoke of what they did as looking for hooks upon which to hang their doubts. She said that a person doing so could always find an excuse for rejecting light, but this isn't the approach they should take. The should ask, "Has God been sending us light?" She said there was ample evidence that God had been.

This is all in the 1888 Materials. I suggest you don't take my word for what happened in 1888, or McMahon's, as this is too important a subject to treat this way. There are over 2,000 pages released by the Ellen White estate relating to 1888 (this is just considering what Ellen White wrote) and many articles written by Jones and Waggoner. There are ample primary sources to study.



Which were what?




This doesn't make sense. If this had been the case, she would have said that questions had been coming to her regarding Christ's being able to yield to temptation, not to His taking our nature. Nobody didn't believe that Christ didn't take human nature at all. The question was if He took a human nature such as we have (which is what Jones and Waggoner preached -- and her, of course, and she was preaching by their side).



"They" are the letters? You are saying the letters that were coming to Ellen White had nothing to do with what Jones and Waggoner were preaching? That's hardly a credible theory. Or perhaps I misunderstood you here.



What do you mean you wouldn't say the same thing today?

Anyway, in regards to the idea that Waggoner presented in regards to Christ's not being able to sin, his logic ran that because Christ had perfect faith he could not sin. This is the only theological mistake I'm aware of EGW correcting Waggoner on. This was immediately corrected by Waggoner, and does not appear in his book "Christ and His Rightouesness." This had become a non-issue before the time Ellen White was preaching alongside Jones and Waggoner, before her quote "letters have been coming to me," was written.

Is it possible to sin while having perfect faith?