Are Your Children Members of the New Covenant | Reformation And Revival

[@lectorintellegat]

I mean, when God describes the new covenant, he literally says that our children are part of it. He couldn’t really be more clear: “And as for me, this is my covenant with them,” says the LORD: “My Spirit that is upon you, and my words that I have put in your mouth, shall not depart out of your mouth, or out of the mouth of your offspring, or out of the mouth of your children’s offspring,” says the LORD, “from this time forth and forevermore.” [Isa 59:21]

[@brandonadams07]

I don't think you actually read that verse literally. Furthermore, it is spoken in prophetic idiom kzbin.info/www/bejne/oHvVXnSln8qgbNE

[@lectorintellegat]

@@brandonadams07Of course, ‘prophetic idiom’ takes away the plain sense; got it. One doesn’t need to insist that it has a literal register for the point to be proven, brother. When God describes the new covenant, does he mention and include the children of believers - yes or no?

[@brandonadams07]

​@@lectorintellegat brother, did you watch the linked video? Arguing for the "plain sense" sounds like a Dispensationalist. No, the children of believers are not mentioned. The offspring of Israel down through the generations is mentioned, along with a long, long list of specific details about life in the land of Canaan that we understand typologically.

[@lectorintellegat]

⁠@@brandonadams07arguing for the plain sense sounds like a dispensationalist? What a silly argument, brother. The point is that ANYONE can appeal to ‘idiomatic’ speech or rhetorical devices to explain away the plain sense, which is exactly what you’re doing now. Here in Isa 59:21, the new covenant is described with reference to believers’ children. Whether there’s use of typology is entirely besides the point; a purely literal register is not required to guarantee the referent. Again, answer this question: when God chooses to describe the new covenant in Isa 59:21, he does so by referencing believers’ children - yes or no? PS. Yes I watched the video. With respect, the presentation was unconvincing.

[@brandonadams07]

​@@lectorintellegat No, it's not arbitrary. There is a pattern to the interpretation. And I already answered your question. No, he does not reference believers children. He references the offspring of national Israel (Abraham's carnal offspring) down through their generations. The nation of Israel was a type. See Augustine, Owen, Edwards, etc. kzbin.infoLEEODjzpcy4 "The prophetic idiom is an important aspect of how the Prophets speak of future realities. Here, the central thesis is that the Prophets, which continually talk about the maintenance of and arrangements of Israel and the tribes, their land, and their temple, are very often describing new covenant realities yet to come. Therefore, the reader should constantly be asking the questions, “Are the contemporary matters surrounding the prophet, what he is really talking about? Or, is he speaking of future realities?” The prophetic idiom, therefore, is that manner of expression by which the prophets of the Old Testament use the typological configuration of the things of Israel in order to portray the Messianic realities of the new covenant age. This is the nature of the prophetic idiom, and if we do not recognize it, then we will misunderstand the Prophets. This is what Paul knew well, even in his appeal before Agrippa (Acts 26:19-29). Paul appeals to the prophets, that they speak about Christ and Paul’s mission to the gentiles. The language of the prophets, the kind of figurative idiom in which they express themselves, demands (especially for the new covenant believer) separating the external idiom from the reality of the new covenant promises. In short, in the prophetic idiom, the prophets are often describing the new covenant in the terms of the circumstances of the institutions of the old covenant." www.ligonier.org/learn/articles/how-to-read-the-prophets

[@paulasueInChrist]

Thank you from Breaux Bridge, Louisiana, for your teaching and preaching to the Glory of God.

[@emersonk2551]

Would b nice to see a book answering Fred Malone’s point by point.

[@Guy-xr8lj]

Boom

[@danelmendorf5765]

Agree.

[@josiahkeen]

What do you consider to be the consequences for those who believe and practice otherwise?

[@jacobrobinson2192]

Romans 14.

[@brandonadams07]

“Jeremiah here speaks hyperbolically.” The problem with this claim is that it is contrary to how Jesus understood Jeremiah’s prophecy. He did not interpret “all” as hyperbole meaning “a lot more” but rather as referring to everyone in the covenant: the elect (John 6:45 - check your Bible’s cross references). They shall all know me, saith the Lord, that is, as Christ doth interpret it, They shall be all taught of God, Joh. 6. 45. David Dickson, THERAPEUTICA SACRA Ch. VII God saith only of, and to the invisible Church and not of the visible Church in his gratious purpose, Jerem 32. 38. And I will be their God, and they shall be my people, Jer. 31. 33. I will put my Law in their inward parts, 34. They shall all know me (all within the covenant) I will for∣give their iniquity… A church in covenant with God, and the Spouse of Christ, and his mysticall Body, and a church which he redeemed with the Blood of God, Acts 20.28. Eph. 5.25. 26. Col. 1.18. 1 Cor. 12.12. Is a church whereof all the members without exception are taught of God. Jerem. 31.34. They shall all know me (saith the Lord) from the least, unto the greatest. Esa. 54.13. All thy children shall be taught of the Lord. And therefore they all haveing heard and learned of the Father, come to Christ, John 6.45. and therefore have all the anointing within them which teacheth them all things, 1 John 1.27 Samuel Rutherford, The Due Right of Presbyteries The idea that the covenant is fully realized only in the elect is a perfectly Scriptural idea, as appears, for instance, from Jer. 31:31-34; Heb. 8:8-12. Louis Berkhof. Systematic Theology IV.III.III.B The proposition is universal, as to the modification of the subject, “all;” but in the word “of them,” it is restrained unto those alone with whom this covenant is made… Where there is not some degree of saving knowledge, there no interest in the New Covenant can be pretended. Owen, Exposition of Hebrews 8:11 ‘They shall all know me,’ (Jer 31:34)…All the seed, without exception…all these predestinated, called, justified, glorified ones, shall know God by the grace of the new testament, from the least to the greatest of them. Augustine, A Treatise Against Two Letters of the Pelagians, 406-407 contrast2.wordpress.com/2023/11/01/re-jared-longshore-are-your-children-members-of-the-new-covenant/

[@Osinachi-Nwoko]

Thank you.

[@bigtobacco1098]

We only baptize the elect ???

[@brandonadams07]

@@bigtobacco1098 Did I say that anywhere?

[@bigtobacco1098]

@@brandonadams07 perhaps I misunderstood you...

[@SemperReformanda17]

I would like to know whether I can expect my adult son to be saved even though he wasn't baptized as an infant and I wasn't either. I came to faith in my 30s in an IFB church. My son was a teen at the time and is now 47 and on drugs, living very wickedly. He professed faith in Christ once, and appeared to change for a time, but then went back to his former ways. I'm broken hearted and so burdened for him!

[@micahlantz905]

I would only expect judgement and condemnation for this one. Repentance, faith and baptism in the name of the Triune God is needed and apart from that, there's no hope.

[@Guy-xr8lj]

Cute little guy in the thumbnail.

[@MrKC23]

There are no unbelievers in Christs body, which is the Church, which is clean

[@bigtobacco1098]

Every person in your church is regenerate ??

[@MrKC23]

@@bigtobacco1098 the church is not a building, but a group of regenerated people. Cleansed by his blood. Are there unclean people in Christ's body? Certainly not

[@bigtobacco1098]

@@MrKC23 and? You only baptize regenerate humans ??

[@mosesking2923]

@@MrKC23 then why does Jesus describe the Kingdom of God as including BOTH wheat and chaff?

[@bigtobacco1098]

Unfortunately, for western Christians, they mostly are not

[@alidal.2857]

C’mon Jared. How can you not realize your hermeneutical gymnastics applied to Jeremiah 31: 31-34? For they shall ALL know me. Not the same promises applied more effectively, but better promises altogether. Read Hebrews lately? Love you brother but your hermeneutics on this can’t get off the ground.

[@hammerbarca6]

Yeah just start throwing around form and substance and then pretend like you’ve explained the passage

[@mykaelarsenault2032]

Jeremiah 6.13 “For from the least to the greatest of them, everyone is greedy for unjust gain; and from prophet to priest, everyone deals falsely."

[@fallingup1986]

Ever heard of a baptist church excommunicating a member who professed Christ and got baptized?

[@hammerbarca6]

@@fallingup1986 baptists don’t view the visible church as the same thing as being a member of the new covenant, it’s one of the big differences

[@johnoliver1207]

Yes, ours, many times....@@fallingup1986

[@brandonadams07]

"Calvin tracks with this distinction between substance and form throughout his exegesis.. 'He then does not promise anything different as to the essence of the doctrine, but he makes the difference to be in the form only.'" Calvin quoted Augustine (way) more than any other theologian. Yet on this point he departed from Augustine. "I beg of you, however, carefully to observe, as far as you can, what I am endeavouring to prove with so much effort. When the prophet promised a new covenant, not according to the covenant which had been formerly made with the people of Israel when liberated from Egypt, he said nothing about a change in the sacrifices or any sacred ordinances, although such change, too, was without doubt to follow, as we see in fact that it did follow, even as the same prophetic scripture testifies in many other passages; but he simply called attention to this difference, that God would impress His laws on the mind of those who belonged to this covenant, and would write them in their hearts, (Jer 31:32-33) whence the apostle drew his conclusion,-“not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God; not in tables of stone, but in fleshy tables of the heart;” (2 Cor 3:3) and that the eternal recompense of this righteousness was not the land out of which were driven the Amorites and Hittites, and other nations who dwelt there, (Josh 12) but God Himself, “to whom it is good to hold fast,” (Ps 73:78) in order that God’s good that they love, may be the God Himself whom they love, between whom and men nothing but sin produces separation; and this is remitted only by grace. Accordingly, after saying, “For all shall know me, from the least to the greatest of them,” He instantly added, “For I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.” (Jer 31:34) By the law of works, then, the Lord says, “Thou shalt not covet:” (Ex 20:17) but by the law of faith He says, “Without me ye can do nothing;” (John 15:5) for He was treating of good works, even the fruit of the vine-branches. It is therefore apparent what difference there is between the old covenant and the new,-that in the former the law is written on tables, while in the latter on hearts; so that what in the one alarms from without, in the other delights from within; and in the former man becomes a transgressor through the letter that kills, in the other a lover through the life-giving spirit." A Treatise on the Spirit and the Letter. Chapter 42 [XXV.]-Difference Between the Old and the New Testaments. www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf105.xi.xlv.html For more on this, see Joshua Moon's "Jeremiah's New Covenant: An Augustinian Reading (Journal of Theological Interpretation Supplements)" www.amazon.com/Jeremiahs-New-Covenant-Augustinian-Interpretation/dp/1575067021/ref=sr_1_5?crid=420WHKZJ7XD0&keywords=joshua+moon&qid=1699306847&sprefix=joshua+moon%2Caps%2C219&sr=8-5

[@micahlantz905]

Excellent

[@colinwhite7266]

The new covenant is a far better covenant. There was two peoples in the OT; the nation of Israel and true regenerate Israel. Now in the NT there is only one people in one covenant - the new covenant - for the true people of God born again by the spirit of God. The verse in acts: Acts 2:39 NIV The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off---for all whom the Lord our God will call.”… Is speaking of salvation in the light of repentance and faith not about covenantal community. It also mirrors the verse in Acts 1:8 reflecting the expanding nature of the kingdom of God by the word of God: Acts 1:8 NIV [8] But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth.” The way into the covenant people is by faith alone so those without faith are not part of that new and better covenant people yet as they do not have a new heart by the Spirit of God (John 3, Ezekiel 36 and Jeremiah 31).

[@reformationranch]

The branches grafted in can be broken of just like the natural ones. Romans 11:19-22

[@colinwhite7266]

Thank you brother for your comment. I think though the key point in this passage is that the way into the covenant community is by faith. As Paul encourages us to stay humble as it says in Romans 11:20 ESV: [20] That is true. They were broken off because of their unbelief, but you stand fast through faith. So do not become proud, but fear. It gives a clear explanation that the way into the covenant is always by faith and not whether we’re Jew or Gentile. Yet it doesn’t give a clear teaching on either predo or credo baptism. That is why people often cite the verses in Acts 2 which, as I noted above don’t give a strong and clear enough teaching on pedo/infant baptism. That’s why I’m a Baptist; as the new covenant is truly a far better covenant for all those who believe. There is only one way to salvation and that is through faith in the Saviour. Praise God!

[@cosmictreason2242]

@@reformationranchthe branches are peoples not individuals

[@bigtobacco1098]

​@@colinwhite7266OIKOS covenant baptism is the standard for all new testament baptisms... if Acts 2:38 means something different when Peter repeated it, I have yet to see any examples of it

[@natedowney9590]

If they are actual members of the NC, then apostatize, that means Christ work in securing that covenant for his elect is not perfect, and we hope in vain.

[@vejoshiraptor]

Being a member of the covenant is not the same as being a member of the elect. This holds true for both the Old Covenant and the New Covenant. It hasn’t changed. As Jared described, it is still possible for individuals to break the covenant, but it will never be the case that the covenant itself ceases or is completely broken.

[@natedowney9590]

@@vejoshiraptor The NC is fulfilled by Christ, not anyone else. The benefits of his perfect obedience are given to those who believe, hence covenant of Grace. There is no category for people breaking or keeping the NC, it's nonsensical. You need to start with rejecting the premise that the OC and NC are the same, with different "administrations."

[@vejoshiraptor]

⁠@@natedowney9590The idea that a covenant cannot be broken is antithetical to the concept of what a covenant is. It wouldn’t make sense to use the word in that case. The Abrahamic Covenant was also fulfilled by God - think of Abraham’s vision of the oven representing God passing between the parted animals. A normal covenant ceremony would have both parties walking down together, but in Abraham’s dream, God did it alone for him. God alone fulfills the covenant. And yet man can still break it, and always will if he is not of the elect.

[@mkshffr4936]

@@natedowney9590 The covenant of grace did not begin in the first century.

[@lcs-salam]

"Bountiful" should be defined by Scripture. The New Covenant is more "bountiful" in that it includes ONLY people with the Spirit inside them and God's Law in their hearts.

[@bigtobacco1098]

Sooo, we only baptize the elect ??

[@lcs-salam]

@bigtobacco1098 It's a sign for those who profess to be a part of God's elect. So, yes, though man cannot discern the full intent of the heart. Like Simon the Sorcerer in Acts, some may have wrong motives.

[@bigtobacco1098]

@@lcs-salam correct... we baptize adults on profession...

[@bigtobacco1098]

@@lcs-salam we any other baptisms performed in the new testament ??

[@lcs-salam]

@@bigtobacco1098 Besides people who profess faith? I know of none. We should not make arguments from silence regarding believers' households though (Lydia and the Philippians jailer, for example).

[@cosmictreason2242]

Abraham is given a covenant of grace and works and the covenant of works is further developed in the mosaic administration, but the new covenant is the full realization of the covenant of grace and is totally distinct from the mosaic covenant and that part of it (circumcision) which was given to Abraham. New covenant believers are members of the unconditional covenant of grace which was made with Abraham before he was given the sign of circumcision

[@bigtobacco1098]

OIKOS covenant

[@hammerbarca6]

They’ll be included! Just not by natural birth :) John 3:3-5

[@bigtobacco1098]

No visible church ??

[@ee7364]

Just debate James White

[@jarrodjames5673]

I think he just adopted this baptizing baby idea because he wanted to follow on the heals of Doug Wilson and become someone. Little did he know that he was following after a false teacher.

[@bigtobacco1098]

Offer something meaningful

[@Rio_Seco]

None of the apostles baptized babies. There are no babies baptized in the Bible. There were no babies baptized in the 1st century Church. The new covenant is not a covenant between a race and God, it’s not a covenant between a nation and God, or families and God. It’s a covenant between Believers and God. We hear the gospel and a moral choice must me made. We either choose to believe, obey, and repent and join Christ in his death and resurrection via baptism, or we choose the lake of fire. This example is found over and over in the Bible.

[@vejoshiraptor]

It’s not true that there were no babies baptized in the 1st century church. It would be more accurate to say that there are no RECORDS of such baptisms. However, that is unremarkable, as records would not commonly have been kept, let alone survive the centuries. That may seem like a cop out to you, but bear in mind there are ALSO NO RECORDS of adults who grew up in Christian homes getting baptized after coming of age. Not a single one. So, if records are how we are to base our argument, then it fails on both sides. However, we do have records that baptism in general, as it was practiced in Judea by Jews prior to Christ’s coming, did indeed routinely include children. So it would be odd to take up the practice and yet exclude children without ever making the point clear that their exclusion is necessary. Lastly, it’s also not really fair to say that none of the apostles baptized babies. The New Testament says in more than one place that “entire households” were baptized. Why would it be worded that way if we’re meant to assume that none of these households included children, especially when baptism was already understood in the ancient world as including children? Not much of a “household” if it’s just a husband and wife. One of those households was Lydia’s, who was a widow, and the fact that she was working as a business woman strongly implies there was no other male relative in her household. So if her household didn’t include any children or any adult males, what exactly is left to call it a household? Of course the meaning of “entire households” being baptized is that it included children. Hope this adds to your understanding of the topic, friend!

[@SemperReformanda17]

@@vejoshiraptor So what would you say to me, a single, divorced woman (divorced before my conversion) who came to faith in Christ in adulthood, wasn't baptized as an infant and wasn't raised in a Christian home who has an adult son who is lost? Can I ever expect him to be saved? He also wasn't baptized as an infant because he was 17 when I was born again and is now 47. Please give me your thoughts, and thank you.

[@vejoshiraptor]

⁠@@SemperReformanda17I think pretty much every Christian denomination would say the same basic things about how your son could be saved, so I assume you already know the answer since you say you’re a Christian. You can’t necessarily “expect” that he’ll be saved, in the sense that you have no reason to assume it, but you can certainly pray and hope for it, and if he repents and believes, he will be saved. If he had been born into a Christian home from his birth, and grew up in church, then obviously his life experience would have been different, but ultimately as an adult his salvation still depends on the same thing. Repentance and faith.

[@SemperReformanda17]

@@vejoshiraptor That's what I believe of course, that if he repents and believes he will be saved, the same way I was. I know I am God's elect, but I have no idea if my son is or not. I was just trying to understand his situation in light of those who believe in infant baptism/covenant household for salvation theology. Thanks for your reply.

[@ArcherWarhound]

Read Acts again, especially chapters 10, 16, and 18, there are 4 separate instances of "the whole household" being baptized. Household means children and even servants. This mirror how Israel had faith, but all his sons were circumcised along with him. Baptism replaces circumcision; it's really that simple.

[@brettmagnuson8318]

Yes, after their second birth.

[@bigtobacco1098]

Every person in your church is regenerate ??

[@brettmagnuson8318]

@@bigtobacco1098 you stalking me big tobacco? 😂

[@paulchamberlain4810]

The error here is conflating the two covenants given to Abraham in Genesis - the seed one covenant, and the seed many covenant. Compare the seed one covenant with the covenant of circumcision and you will see singular versus plural verb/pronouns connected with seed, all peoples of the earth versus the nation of Israel, primarily using the personal name of God versus just God, faith and promise versus works, and the covenant of circumcision being first performed on Ishmael not the heir of promise. In fact, just look at the language that is contrasted in Galatians by the apostle Paul, and you'll see how he contrasts the covenant of circumcision with promise. So, we shouldn't conflate the national, non-salvific covenant of circumcision with the Genesis 3:15 based covenant (Galatians 4:21-31). And this might explain why those who do conflate them have a history of persecuting those who are of the Spirit (Galatians 4:29).

[@ChristisLord70]

If they are God’s elect they will not be lost in the new covenant. John 6:38-40 [38] For I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will but the will of him who sent me. [39] And this is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up on the last day. [40] For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.”

[@SemperReformanda17]

Maybe you can help me with a burden I have on my heart. I came to faith in Christ later in life as an adult. I was not raised in church but had been going to an IFB church for a number of years when the Lord truly regenerated me. After a few years I left that little Baptist church and in the Lord's providence began going to a Presbyterian church. They practice infant baptism, which I do not agree with, but they are the only reformed church near me. The church leadership hasn't really given me a satisfactory answer to my question regarding my adult son. At the time of my salvation, my son was a teenager and lost. He still is lost 30 years later. Can I ever expect to see him saved because I personally am in the new covenant? He wasn't baptized as a baby, and neither was I. I was baptized by immersion as an adult soon after the Lord saved me. I understand what you were saying about those who are elect will be saved, I'm just confused by this covenant children idea. Thank you for any thoughts you have.

[@mkshffr4936]

@@SemperReformanda17 The idea in Presbyterian covenant baptism takes into account the covenant community which is the visible church and the universal church which includes all of the redeemed. The baptism of the child is a point of entry into the covenant community just as circumcision was in Israel. Also like Israel it does not guarantee that the recipient will be redeemed but it does confer benefits of membership in the community. As Paul noted not all are Israel who are of Israel. In both the new and old covenant redemption is by faith. Continue to pray that the spirit will grant him repentance. The lord grant you peace and confidence in His perfect will.

[@MrSeanschickens]

Ultimately, Lutheran's know their children are beloved of the Lord. As many as were baptised have put on Christ. (Gal 3:27) They are given the Spirit and regenerated in baptism. ( Rom 6:3-4) Pretty simple. Reformed have to hope theirs don't happen to be reprobate and condemned to death eternal before all eternity.

[@GracetoThee]

The only problem is that the Bible says “for we have become partakers of Christ if”… (IF!!) “we hold the beginning of our conference steadfast to the end.” (Heb 3:14 NKJV). You see? If you hold the faith firm to the end, you had become a partaker at some point. If you don’t, you weren’t. There is no “state of grace” from which a regenerate person may depart and become unregenerate, unjustified, unadopted, etc. Lutheranism has a fatal flaw, as much as I can appreciate its gospel fixation.

[@oracleoftroy]

I don't see how what you say about the Reformed position follows, unless you are confusing "Reformed" with "Baptist". The historic Reformed Confessions align well with Lutheran theology on the sacraments in most areas, whereas Baptists (including Reformed Baptists) have strayed from the position of the original reformers. If you are saying that the mere ordinance of water baptism saves your children apart from any work of God, you are well outside of Lutheran theology. If you are saying that Baptism has no relationship with repentance, then you contradict Luther when he says in the Large Catechism, Holy Baptism 74-76: " And here you see that Baptism, both in its power and signification, comprehends also the third Sacrament, which has been called repentance, as it is really nothing else than Baptism. For what else is repentance but an earnest attack upon the old man [that his lusts be restrained] and entering upon a new life? Therefore, if you live in repentance, you walk in Baptism, which not only signifies such a new life, but also produces, begins, and exercises it. For therein are given grace, the Spirit, and power to suppress the old man, so that the new man may come forth and become strong." But if you are expressing the fully fleshed out Lutheran position that sees Baptism as more than an ordinance but a sacrament and means of grace, it's hard to see how your position contradicts anything taught in the Westminster Confession or Three Forms of Unity. Lutherans too can't just assume that their apostate children are saved by a mere ordinance given as an infant. In either case, we trust God to do what is right and pray that he enter the lives of our children, all while giving them the sign and seal of his covenant promises.

[@MrSeanschickens]

@@GracetoThee To start with I do think Reformed and Lutheran's are actually fairly close and are brothers and I admire the courage of my Reformed brothers. The problem for the Reformed (though Federal Vision is maybe an exception) is that they believe that their children can be condemned from before the foundation of the world for God's glory and then the sacraments are of no avail. They don't believe that the Sacrament actually regenerates the child and places them into a state of grace. If the child is reprobate then the Sacrament has no effect. Same thing with the preaching of the Word. It is not the external preaching that does anything to all who hear but the internal work of the Holy Spirit who alone works in the elect. This links into the perseverance of the elect which goes to say that if a child walks away from the Lord they were never loved by God to begin with and he had no desire for their salvation because he only desired the salvation of his elect. That child was forsaken in his sins. That child in fact was hated by some reformed accounts from before even Adam and Eve fell. Whereas the Lutheran's believe "that all God's thoughts toward me are love and grace" because we know that certainly he desires all to come to salvation even if there is a mystery as to why some and not others.

[@Osinachi-Nwoko]

No, they are not members of the New Covenant. We know those who are members, i.e., the elect of God when they have been regenerated by the Holy Spirit.

[@micahlantz905]

Shame be upon you

[@bigtobacco1098]

Do we only baptize the elect ??

[@velcrow101]

Debate Sam Renihan.

[@TheChristianHouse-2022]

This guy is not very smart

[@bigtobacco1098]

Baptists aren't

[@bigtobacco1098]

Deep rebuttal 😅