Posts by clash_city

11

Can we worship God in a christian disco??

by evangelist in

does any body has something against having a christian disco???.

can god get the glory when we dance and give praise in jesus name at a christian disco???.

can the anointing flow in a disco that has no alchohol, and drugs, violence, and no smoking cigarettes ????.

clash_city_rockers

Evangelist,

Does God command a maonor in which he may be worshiped?

Does the scriptures provide an outline in how to worship the Lord?

looking forward to your answer.

169

X-JWs Who are now bible Christians

by clash_city_rockers in

jw
friends

hi folks,.

i'm just sort of taking role call to all those x-dubs who are now brothers and sisters in christ.

i think it is wise for us to rise up and be counted so that we know who each other are.

I would like to thank all of you for contributing to this thread. It has been very helpful for me in getting some of you a little better. I am also helpful in training me in more effective dialog as I am working on patience and understanding in dealing with those who may disagree.

Gumby asks a great question:

Questions come my my mind about:
1. The way the God of the bible works...Killing millions in the old testament...turning the other cheek and loving your enemy in the NT?

This is a great question and a very complex one that would take more than just one entry on this posting. There is a historic redemptive way in which God works in the bible especially in the O.T. This would call for a particular study in theology called biblical theology. Biblical Theology consists of studying a particular individual author in what he writes concerning redemptive theological themes in the context of progress of progressive revelation. In one sense it is a hermeneutical method. For example if one where to study authors like Moses and Joshua where a lot of the action is in regards to killing he would discover the particular character of God in regards to his holiness, mercy, justice, and faithfulness to his covenant promises. You also get into the particular nature of covenants which may answer why most of the O.T. laws concerning Israel have been abrogated. I have a link I would like you to investigate that maybe helpful in studying the issue.
http://www.two-age.org/index.htm

Also Gumby, let me know what you thought of the Greg Bahnsen article I posted on your thread regarding the biblical canon.

Andi posts:

IMO, if you follow the two main commandments of Jesus:
1. Love the Lord with your whole heart, soul, mind, and body.
2. Love your neighbor as yourself.
...arguments over doctrine and other mainstream Christianity go by the wayside. Love breeds respect. If one can't show love, they can't show respect.

Wow, 1. Love the Lord with your whole heart, soul, mind, and body.
2. Love your neighbor as yourself.
This is no small task. Without Christ or a proper understanding of His active obedience (Christ accomplishing all the works of the law perfectly as the Father demands to be put in the believers account when they believe) a theological concept that you think should go by the wayside. These two great commandments can be overly burdensome and a tyrannical yoke to those who are not saved, or to those who are save but who’s consciences are weak due to a lack of theological understanding to give them the comfort of the truth of Christ’s active obedience. You see God wants these commandments done perfectly all the time. Well, good luck even the most mature Christians that we know can't do this. Love the Lord God with all your heart, soul, mind? And do that perfectly all the time. Right, I can’t even do it for one minute let alone perfectly all the time. Without Christ believers can’t even do this a fraction at a time or grow in these personal acts of obedience. Remember Christ did these in order that his own maybe saved and that they may do them and be pleasing to God even though done imperfectly. So you see theology cant be tossed out the window. Remember it’s on the premise of “not my works but Christ’s that get me to heaven. Andi, to you believe that and trust that message of Christ?

Andi reveals:

I am still trying to understand or grasp some of the doctrinal beliefs of many Christian churches. Some are just too difficult for me to accept, others not to much so. But when I really think about it, my relationship with Christ has nothing to do with what doctrinal issues I believe or NOT believe in. It has nothing to do with how many people I "convert" to Christianity. It has everything to do with how much love I show to them, even when I don't feel like it. It has everything to do with how patient and respectful I am of others...how much dignity I give them - even if they don't deserve it. THAT is how Christ lived his life - that's what I strive to do with mine.

To be truthful with you Andi, I was so sadden and grieved by this part of the posting and I pray that the Lord will open your eyes to what I have to say. Speaking of your relationship with God you said:

“ It has everything to do with how much love I show to them, even when I don't feel like it. It has everything to do with how patient and respectful I am of others...how much dignity I give them - even if they don't deserve it. THAT is how Christ lived his life - that's what I strive to do with mine

This is salvation by ones own works. You cannot look to your own works or deeds and appeal to that for your justification before a Holy God. If that is the case then we are truly grieved at your condition. Paul says in regarding his works Phil. 3:4-8

4though I also might have confidence in the flesh. If anyone else thinks he may have confidence in the flesh, I more so: 5circumcised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of the Hebrews; concerning the law, a Pharisee; 6concerning zeal, persecuting the church; concerning the righteousness which is in the law, blameless.
7But what things were gain to me, these I have counted loss for Christ. 8Yet indeed I also count all things loss for the excellence of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord, for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and count them as rubbish(poop), that I may gain Christ

Trust the Lord alone for salvation appeal to his works not your own. Take the matter to the Lord and let him know that you forsake all of your righteousness and freely receive HIS.

May I ask what doctrines you found hard to except? Also It may be beneficial for you to take advantage of mid-week bible study at your church or a women’s bible study to help you understand the bible.

Plum, I do not wish you ill will. You see that the Lord does have common grace love for you in that he keeps you alive and provides for your needs. I hope that you would share in the peace that we know as Christians and share in his incredible riches. Salvation is a free gift. It’s not about counting field ministry hours making meetings following legalistic rules. Look Plum, Jesus is not one who is looking to pounce on you but to free you from the bondage of sin and give, yes give you his kingdom as an inheritance he has provided a way and his means. Repent and believe Jesus Christ. Read through the gospels and read Paul’s letters carefully and you will see the freeness of this gospel. Not you but Christ. Go to a local Christian bookstore and ask about what and where is a good church to visit. You may have to visit a few before you get settled in provide you receive Christ as your savior.

Soli Deo Gloria,
jr

169

X-JWs Who are now bible Christians

by clash_city_rockers in

jw
friends

hi folks,.

i'm just sort of taking role call to all those x-dubs who are now brothers and sisters in christ.

i think it is wise for us to rise up and be counted so that we know who each other are.

clash_city_rockers

Little Toe said:

but I think that Plm may have hit the nail on the head when she called you on your reliance on men.

I think you really don’t understand the dynamics of the church. It’s not a reliance on men alone but on Christ. Christ has his means of feeding his sheep such as gifted men to teach Peter is one good example (John 21:15-17) So in one sense this passage implies that there are those who rely on Peter (a man). Take a look at this passage

Eph 4:11-15

11 And he gave some to be apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;
12 for the perfecting of the saints, unto the work of ministering, unto the building up of the body of Christ:
13 till we all attain unto the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a full grown man, unto the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ:
14 that we may be no longer children, tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, in craftiness, after the wiles of error;
15 but speaking truth in love, we may grow up in all things into him, who is the head, even Christ;

If we are members of a local church in one way ore another we are rely on each other to each member prayer, encouragement, accountability, and so on. We rely on the Deacons to fulfill the ministry of love (feeding the poor helping widows, making sure everyone in the congregation is O.K. when it comes to common provisions). We depend on the elders to teach the word in expository preaching opening up the historic redemptive nature of Christ’s work and other teachers during Sunday school and mid-week bible study. We rely on those who have the gifts in teaching (Eph. 4:11,12). The very idea of ministering implies that there are those who depend or rely on those who are ministering to them. So if your charge is that I rely on men then yes, so what it is the church we rely on each other. This is the nature of the covenant community your elders will agree with me on this. Look it’s not like I am relying on man and his gifts on his own, but on men who have been gifted by Christ to minister to those who depend on that ministering. Remember the church is not Jehovah’s Witnesses. The Lord is with his church first off. And the church is not lead by these freaks that use the bible to concoct some bazaar cultic doctrines like JW’s. Also the fact that you are a member of the Free Church and participate in it’s sacraments demonstrated that you to have reliance on men. Again, reliance in men in the contexts of the church doing its God ordained business. So I don’t think you can live consistently by your objection or agreement with plum. Remember Plum lives and makes her assessment of Christ’s church and His people from the perspective of someone who is in rebellion against God. All of her presuppositions come from the perspective of unbelief. Be wise and do not be quick to run with the ideas that come from darkness think it through and be prudent. She is an antagonist of the very Jesus Christ you claim to embrace. Remember the opening of Proverbs.

Prov. 1:1-9

1 The proverbs of Solomon son of David, king of Israel:
2 for attaining wisdom and discipline;
for understanding words of insight;
3 for acquiring a disciplined and prudent life,
doing what is right and just and fair;
4 for giving prudence to the simple,
knowledge and discretion to the young-
5 let the wise listen and add to their learning,
and let the discerning get guidance-
6 for understanding proverbs and parables,
the sayings and riddles of the wise.
7 The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge,
but fools [1] despise wisdom and discipline.
Exhortations to Embrace Wisdom
Warning Against Enticement
8 Listen, my son, to your father's instruction
and do not forsake your mother's teaching.
9 They will be a garland to grace your head
and a chain to adorn your neck.

And also Proverbs 14:3

In the mouth of the foolish is a rod for his back, But the lips of the wise will protect them.

Little said:

Churches can be a stepping stone to finding Christ, but upon being called the Christian may easily succumb to the advances of men, tradition, theology, etc.
It is a very slippery stone indeed, when one starts to put these ahead of our Saviour. In many respects you would be safer getting out, rather than falling upon the treadmill of pleasing men.

This is a very legitimate concern and one that has been reflected by many bible-believing Christians not just you. In fact you can find that reflection articulated in the Westminster Confession of Faith chapter XXV. I would bet you that there are some in your church that are just as passionate about your concern as you are and maybe some of them can be found in the session. Remember you are not the first guy to read the bible in the last 2000 years you have plenty of company and it is call Christ’s Church. No Little, it would not be safer to get out of the church, for the church is where Christ is proclaimed. If Christ is not proclaimed and exulted in that church then get out and find another church. Remember theology is not a vice as a new Christian Little, you should not be intimidated by it’s pursuits. For learning the Excellencies of Christ is the most noble of studies. What born again Christian would not want to know the things of God?
Acts 11:10-12

10As soon as it was night, the brothers sent Paul and Silas away to Berea. On arriving there, they went to the Jewish synagogue. 11Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true. 12Many of the Jews believed, as did also a number of prominent Greek women and many Greek men.

Little said:

My salvation didn't depend on any doctrine other than accepting Christ.
I don't think your example of having a good or bad relationship with God holds true. I think you'll find that the confession highlights that man is alienated from God (since the fall) and comes into a relationship (communion) with Him. Whether that is rich or poor will likely be a result of drawing close to Him, or otherwise

I think Angie answered perfectly on this point. Second I believed you misunderstood my use of relationships in my previous post. I absolutely believe in the reformed doctrine of the fall.

Little said:

You will not bludgeon me with the Confession, nor any word of man.

OK I will bludgeon you with the scriptures Sola Scriptura
One more thing be more discerning in regard to what books you say amen to. Cello’s book is one of apostasy and misrepresentations of Christ that would offend all bible believing Christians. If you do agree with such a book then why spend time in a church which teaches the opposite to that which is presented in that liberal heretical exposition? I can see if one would buy it to see what the other side believes and for purposes for apologetics so one can apologetically blow that thing out of the sky. But to agree with the books position is not cool. My guess is that you are just being agreeable. But we should be guarded in our agreement with unbelievers. It is not wise to give a favorable comment on a book which one has not read. I do thank you for your interaction and pray for your continual growth in Christ.
Grace and Peace,
jr

31

Could I Make It As A Professional Gambler?

by gilwarrior in

jw
friends

as i have mentioned before, at the end of august i plan on moving to las vegas.

however, i am wondering if i could acually make a living as a professional gambler.

i recently bought a cd-rom game that has many casino games.

clash_city_rockers

go to

http://www.jimfiest.com

http://www.donbest.com

31

Could I Make It As A Professional Gambler?

by gilwarrior in

jw
friends

as i have mentioned before, at the end of august i plan on moving to las vegas.

however, i am wondering if i could acually make a living as a professional gambler.

i recently bought a cd-rom game that has many casino games.

clash_city_rockers

I go to Lake Tahoe and Reno to play the sports book and bet on Football basketball and baseball. I never play slots or table games because the house has overwhelming odds. In the sports book you better know what you are doing you better know your teams know when to take a bet of the hook by buying the half point, know how to use the money line how to parley and all that. The best I did was take $4000 home. I also during baseball season will go to Vegas and test my skills I'll take $1000 stay at the Stardust and see how long I'll Last. My record was 19 days.

Chance is not a being,
jr

65

WHO..decided the Bible canon?

by gumby in

jw
friends

so with all the writers around during,and after jesus time....who decided which books would be part of the bible?.

did god say...."i want his book, and his book and...let's see....his book....,to be part of my word.

is that how it happened?

clash_city_rockers

Gumby, Please read the following artical I hope this would be helpfull in the doctrine of cannonicity. Please let me knoew what you think.

The Concept and Importance of Canonicity
by Greg Bahnsen
Scripture as Final Authority
The Christian faith is based upon God's own self-revelation, not the conflicting opinions or untrustworthy speculations of men. As the Apostle Paul wrote: "your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God" (I Cor. 2:5).

The world in its own wisdom would never understand or seek God (Rom. 3:11) but always suppress or distort the truth in unrighteousness (Rom. 1:18, 21). So Paul concluded that "the world in its wisdom did not know God" (I Cor. 1:21), and he set in sharp contrast "the words which man's wisdom teaches" and those which "God revealed unto us through the Spirit" (I Cor. 2:10, 13). In light of that contrast, we need to see that the apostolic message did not originate in persuasive words of human wisdom or insight (I Cor. 2:4). The light of the knowledge of God's glory in the face of Jesus Christ was, as they said, "of God and not from ourselves" (II Cor. 4:6-7). Paul thanked God that the Thessalonians received his message "not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God" (I Thess. 2:13). As Peter wrote, "no prophecy ever came by the will of man, but men spake from God, being moved by the Holy Spirit" ( II Peter 1:21). Paul said of the sacred writings which make us wise unto salvation that every one of them is "God-breathed," inspired by God (II Tim. 3:15-17).

It is for this reason that the Scriptures are profitable for our doctrine, correction, and instruction. We must pay attention to the message which is divine - and all of it, as Jesus said: "Man shall live... by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God" (Matt. 4:4). But God's people must not submit to uninspired words of men. "Thus says Jehovah of hosts, Hearken not unto the word of the prophets... speak a vision of their own heart, and not out of the mouth of Jehovah" (Jer. 23:16). Nor should God's people allow their faith to be compromised by any philosophy which is "after the tradition of men... and not after Christ" (Col. 2:8). Christ Himself condemned those who "have made void the word of God because of [their] tradition" (Matt. 15:6). Human philosophy and human traditions have no place in defining the Christian faith.

The message of the Christian faith is, therefore, rooted in and circumscribed by God's own revealed word - not the authoritative words of men. Where is God's Word found? "In the past God spoke to our forefathers through the prophets at many times and in various ways, but in these last days he has spoken to us by His Son" (Heb. 1:1-2). God verbally revealed Himself in many ways: from His personal address to Adam or Abraham to the inspired preaching of Jonah, Amos, or Ezekiel. He also sent His word in writing to His people: from the tablets of the Mosaic law to the written message or Isaiah or Jeremiah. Even the word of God which was originally delivered orally needed to be reduced to writing in order for us to know about it and for it to function as an objective standard for faith and obedience. The word of false teachers was to be exposed by the previously inscribed law (Deut. 13:1-5) or written testimony (Is. 8:20).

The grandest expression of God's Word was found in the very person of Jesus Christ, who is called "the Word of God" (John 1:1; Rev. 19:13). Again, what we know of Christ is dependent upon the written word of the gospels by men like Matthew and Luke. Christ commissioned certain men to act as His authorized representatives, His apostles. He inspired them with His word (John 14:26), so they spoke for Him (Matt. 10:40). It is noteworthy, however, that the oral preaching and teaching of the apostles were to be tested against the Scriptures, as we see from Paul's commendation of the Bereans (Acts 17:11). What the apostles themselves wrote was to be accounted as the very word of the Lord (I Cor. 14:37). Their written epistles came to have for the church the same authority as "the other scriptures" (II Pet. 3:16).

A key work of the apostles was precisely that of revelation: their confessing Christ, testifying to Him, interpreting and applying His person and work for the church (Matt. 16:18; John 15:27; 16:13; Acts 1:8, 22; 4:33; 10:39-41; 13:31). They did not speak by flesh and blood or according to human instruction, but rather by revelation of the Father and Son (Matt. 16:17; Gal. 1:11-12), being taught of the Spirit (John 14:26). In virtue of this revelatory work, Christ builds His church upon the foundation of the apostles (Matt. 16:18; Eph. 2:20; cf. 3:5).

The teaching of the apostles was received as a body of truth which was a criteria for doctrine and life in the church; because this teaching was passed down to the church and through the church, it was called the "tradition" (what had been "delivered") or the "deposit" (to be distinguished from the uninspired traditions of men which the Bible elsewhere condemns (e.g. Col. 2:8; Matt. 15:3). The apostolic deposit or tradition formed a "pattern of sound words" for the church (II Tim. 1:13-14) which was to be guarded (I Tim. 6:20-21) as the standard for Christian life (II Thess. 3:6; II Pet. 2:21) and for all future teaching in the church (II Tim. 2:2). This apostolic tradition was found in both oral instruction and written epistle (II Thess. 2:15); obviously only the latter is available to us today.

In the very nature of the case, apostolic revelation did not extend beyond the apostolic generation, the "foundational days" of the church.[1] Thus Jude in his day could speak of "the faith" - meaning the teaching content of the Christian faith - as now "once for all delivered to the saints" (v. 3). About this verse, F.F. Bruce comments: "Therefore, all claims to convey an additional revelation... are false claims... whether these claims are embodied in books which aim at superseding or supplementing the Bible, or take the form of extra-Biblical traditions which are promulgated as dogmas by ecclesiastical authority."[2]

The Question of the Canon
As we have seen from the Scriptures themselves, "the faith which has once for all been delivered to the saints" must be defined and circumscribed by God's revelation as it is found particularly in the written Word, from the law of Moses to apostolic deposit. The Christian faith is defined by all of Scripture, but only Scripture. From the Scriptures we may not add or subtract anything (Deut. 4:2; e.g. Rev. 22:18-19), lest our doctrine and conduct be governed by a defective standard. This, then, brings us to the question of what literary works ought to be recognized as the word of God -- the question of "the canon." The word "canon" denoted a rod used for measuring (defining) things. In the context of theological discussion, "the canon" is the term used to name that established list of authoritative writings which are the rule of faith and life for God's people.

The idea of a canon -- a set of writings bearing unique, divine, authority for God's people -- goes back to the very beginning of Israel's history. A covenant document which defined the proper understanding of God, redemption, and life was placed in the ark of the covenant in the Holiest Place of the tabernacle, thus setting it apart from the words and opinions of men. Moreover, the notion of a canon is at the theological foundation of the Christian faith. Without revealed words available to God's people, there would be no exercise by God of Lordship over us as servants, and there would be no sure promise from God the Savior to save us as sinners.

Nature of Canonicity Distinguished from Its Recognition
What books properly make up the canon for the church? In answering this question, it is imperative that we not confuse the nature of the canon with the recognition of certain writings as canonical. The legitimate authority of canonical books exists independently of their being personally acknowledged as authoritative by any individual or group. The nature (or grounds) of canonicity is thus logically distinct from the history (or recognition) of canonicity.

It is the inspiration of a book that renders it authoritative, not human acceptance or recognition of the book. If God has spoken, what He says is divine in itself, regardless of human response to it. It does not "become divine" through human agreement with it.

Accordingly, the canon is not the product of the Christian church. The church has no authority to control, create, or define the Word of God. Rather, the canon controls, creates and defines the church of Christ: "...having been begotten again, not by corruptible seed, but by incorruptible, by the word of God which lives and abides forever.... And this is the word of good news which was preached unto you" (I Peter 1:23-25).

When we understand this, we can see how erroneous it is to suppose that the corporate church, at some council of its leaders, voted on certain documents and constituted them the canon. The church cannot subsequently attribute authority to certain writings. It can simply receive them as God's revealed word which, as such, always has been the church's canon. Authority is inherent in those writings from the outset, and the church simply confesses this to be the case.

The Canon Not Identical with Special Revelation
In order for a book to be accounted canonical, it is necessary that it be inspired. However, while inspiration is a necessary condition of canonicity, it is not a sufficient one. Otherwise all of God's special (verbal) revelation would constitute the canon of the church; yet this is not the case, as we can see for a couple of reasons.

First, remember that not all special revelation was given in written form or subsequently committed to writing (e.g., many discourses by Jesus while on earth, John 21:25; private revelations to the apostles, II Cor. 12:4,7; Rev. 10:4; unpublished messages from New Testament prophets, I Cor. 12:28).

Second, we must note that not all of those inspired messages which were reduced to writing have been preserved by God's providence for use by His people through history, such as "The Wars of Jehovah," "The Book of Asher," Paul's previous letter to the Corinthians, etc. (c.f., Num. 21:14; Josh. 10:13; II Chron. 9:29; 12:15; I Cor. 5:9; II Cor. 2:4; 7:8). Therefore, we should say more precisely that the canon of the Christian church is constituted by those inspired writings which God has preserved for His people in all subsequent ages.

Inspiration is Self-Attesting and Self-Consistent
Scripture teaches us that only God is adequate to witness to Himself. There is no created person or power which is in a position to judge or verify the word of God. Thus: "when God made promise to Abraham, since He could swear by none greater, He swore by Himself..." (Heb. 6:13).

Accordingly, men are not qualified or authorized to say what God might be expected to reveal or what can count as His communication. That is why Scripture draws such a sharp distinction between "words which man's wisdom teaches" and those "which the Spirit teaches" (I Cor. 2:13). The wisdom of man cannot be relied upon to judge the wisdom of God (I Cor. 1:20-25). Indeed, in its natural condition, man's mind will always fail to receive the words of God's Spirit: "the natural man receives not the things of the Spirit of God...he cannot know them because they are Spiritually discerned" (I Cor. 2:14).

Only God can identify His own word. Thus God's word must attest to itself -- must witness to its own divine character and origin. "And you do not have His word abiding in you, for whom He sent you believe not. You search the scriptures..., and these are what bear witness of Me" (John 5:38-39).

Throughout the history of redemption God has directed His people to find His message and words in written form. Indeed, God Himself provided the prototype of written revelation when He delivered the tablets of law upon Mount Sinai. And when God subsequently spoke by His Spirit through chosen messengers (II Peter 1:21), their words were characterized by self-vindicating authority. That is, it was evident from their message that they were speaking for God -- whether the claim was explicit (e.g., "Thus saith the Lord...") or implicit (the arresting power or demand of their message as a word from the Lord of the covenant: e.g., Matt. 7:28-29).

Moreover, their messages were of necessity coherent with each other. A genuine claim to inspiration by a literary work minimally entailed consistency with any other book revealed by God, for God does not lie ("...it is impossible for God to lie," Heb. 6:18) and does not contradict Himself ("But as God is faithful, our word to you is not yes and no," II Cor. 1:18). A genuine word from God could always be counted upon, then, to agree with previously given revelation -- as required in Deut. 13:1-5, "If there arises among you a prophet..., saying `Let us go after other gods...,' you shall not hearken unto that prophet....You shall walk after Jehovah your God, and fear Him, and keep His commandments, and obey His voice...."

The Old Testament Jews had to beware of false prophets, and caution was likewise necessary in the early days of the New Testament church because of misleading messages from false teachers -- words which were not revealed by God. For instance, Paul says "If any man preaches to you any gospel other than that which you received, let him be accursed" (Gal. 1:9). Spurious "apostolic" letters sometimes circulated and troubled the early church, as we see from Paul's words: "...be not unsettled or alarmed by some prophecy, report, or letter supposedly having come from us" (II Thess. 2:2).

It was necessary to instruct the church to "believe not every spirit, but prove the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world" (I John 4:1). And the criterion for judging was consistency with previous revelation -- whether the Old Testament (e.g., "Now these were more noble than those at Thessalonica, in that they received the word [of Paul] with all readiness of mind, examining the [Old Testament] scriptures daily, whether these things were so," Acts 17:11) or the teaching of the apostles (e.g., I John 4:2-3; Gal. 1:9).

The Spirit's Persuasion
The self-attestation of Scripture as God's Word makes it objectively authoritative in itself, but such authority will not be subjectively received without an internal, spiritual change in man. The Holy Spirit must open our sinful eyes and give personal conviction concerning the Scripture's self-witness: "Now we have not received the spirit of the world, but the Spirit which is from God, in order that we might know the things that are freely given to us by God" (I Cor. 2:12).

We must be especially careful not to confuse this with subjectivism, which is ultimately relativistic. The internal testimony of the Holy Spirit does not stand by itself or operate in a vacuum; it must be teamed with the objective self-witness of the Scriptures themselves.

Moreover, this work of the Spirit is not an individual or idiosyncratic matter, as though the internal testimony operated uniquely upon one person by himself. Thus it is the corporate church, not mystical religious mavericks, which recognizes -- through the Spirit's gracious, internal ministry -- that the objective self-witness of the Scriptures is genuine.

The Canon Historically Settled Under God's Providence
Those works which God gave to His people for their canon always received immediate recognition as inspired, at least by a portion of the church (e.g., Deut. 31:24-26; Josh. 24:25; I Sam. 10:25; Dan. 9:2; I Cor. 14:37; I Thess. 2:13; 5:27; II Thess. 3:14; II Peter 3:15-16), and God intended for those writings to receive recognition by the church as a whole (e.g., Col. 4:16; Rev. 1:4). The Spiritual discernment of inspired writings from God by the corporate church was, of course, sometimes a drawn-out process and struggle. This is due to the fact that the ancient world had slow means of communication and transportation (thus taking some time for epistles to circulate), coupled with the understandable caution of the church before the threat of false teachers (thus producing dialogue and debate along the way to achieving one mind).

Historical evidence indicates that, even with the difficulties mentioned above, the Old and New Testament canons were substantially recognized and already established in the Christian church by the end of the second century.[3] However, there is adequate Biblical and theological reason to believe that the canon of Scripture was essentially settled even in the earliest days of the church.

By the time of Jesus there existed a well-defined body of covenantal literature which, under the influence of the Old Testament prophets, was recognized as defining and controlling genuine faith. When Jesus or the apostles appealed simply to "the Scriptures" against their Jewish opponents, there is no suggestion whatsoever that the identity and limits of such writings were vague or in dispute. Confirmation of the contents of the Jewish canon is found toward the end of the first century in the writings of Josephus (the Jewish historian) and among the rabbis of Jamnia.

The New Testament church acknowledged the canonical authority of this Old Testament corpus, noting that "...not one jot or tittle" (Matt. 5:18) of "the law of Moses, and the prophets, and the psalms" (Luke 24:44) was challenged or repudiated by our Lord. His full submission to that canon was evident from the fact that He declared "the Scripture cannot be broken" (John 10:35). As Paul later said: "whatever things were previously written were written for our instruction" (Rom. 15:4).

The traditional Jewish canon was divided into three sections (Law, Prophets, Writings), and an unusual feature of the last section was the listing of Chronicles out of historical order, placing it after Ezra-Nehemiah and making it the last book of the canon. In light of this, the words of Jesus in Luke 11:50-51 reflect the settled character of the Jewish canon (with its peculiar order) already in his day. Christ uses the expression "from the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah," which appears troublesome since Zechariah was not chronologically the last martyr mentioned in the Bible (cf. Jer. 26:20-23). However, Zechariah is the last martyr we read of in the Old Testament according to Jewish canonical order (cf. II Chron. 24:20-22), which was apparently recognized by Jesus and his hearers.

As for the New Testament, the covenantal words of Christ -- which determine our lives and destinies (e.g., John 5:38-40; 8:31; 12:48-50; 14:15, 23-24) -- have been, through the power of the Holy Spirit, delivered faithfully to us by Christ's apostles: "But the Comforter, even the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I said unto you" (John 14:26; cf. 15:26-27; 14:16-17; 16:13-15).

The very concept of an "apostle" in Jewish jurisprudence was that of a man who in the name of another could appear with authority and speak for that other man (e.g., "the apostle for a person is as this person himself," it was said). Accordingly, Jesus told His apostles, "He who receives you receives Me, and he who receives Me receives Him who sent me" (Matt. 10:40). And through these apostles He promised to "build My church" (Matt. 16:18).

We know that in this way there came about a body of New Testament literature which the church, "being built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone" (Eph. 2:20), came to recognize as God's own word, being the canon of their covenantal relation with Him. This recognition traces from the days of the apostles themselves, who either identified their own works as canonical (e.g., Gal. 1:1, 11-12; I Cor. 14:37), or verified the canonical authority of the works by other apostles (e.g., II Peter 3:16) and writers (e.g., I Tim. 5:18, citing Luke 10:7).

But whether or not each was given particular written attention by an apostle, the individual books of the New Testament came to be seen for what they were: the revelation of Jesus Christ through His chosen messengers. It is in this body of literature that God's people discern the authoritative word of their Lord -- as Jesus said: "My sheep hear My voice, and they follow Me" (John 10:27).

To recapitulate: we know from God's Word (1) that the church of the New Covenant recognized the standing canon of the Old Testament, and (2) that the Lord intended for the New Covenant church to be built upon the word of the apostles, coming thereby to recognize the canonical literature of the New Testament. To these premises we can add the conviction (3) that all of history is governed by God's providence ("...according to the plan of Him who works all things according to the counsel of His own will," Eph. 1:11). So then, trusting Christ's promise that He would indeed build His church, and being confident in the controlling sovereignty of God, we can be assured the God-ordained recognition of the canon would be providentially accomplished -- which, in retrospect, is now a matter of historical record.

To think otherwise would be, in actual effect, to deprive the Christian church of the sure word of God. And that would in turn (a) undermine confidence in the gospel, contrary to God's promise and our spiritual necessity, as well as (b) deprive us of the philosophical precondition of any knowledge whatsoever, thus consigning us (in principle) to utter scepticism.

Application of Canonicity
In terms of the previous discussion, then, what should we make of the Roman Catholic decision in 1546 (the Council of Trent) to accept as canonical the apocryphal books of "Tobit," "Judith," "Wisdom," "Ecclesiasticus," "Baruch," "I and II Maccabees"?

Such books do not claim for themselves ultimate divine authority. Consider the boldness of Paul's writing ("if anyone thinks he is spiritual, let him acknowledge that what I write is the commandment of the Lord" -- I Cor. 14:37-38; if anyone "preaches any other gospel that what we preached to you, let him be accursed" - Gal. 1:8). Then contrast the insecure tone of the author of II Maccabees: "if it is poorly done and mediocre, that was the best I could do" (15:38). Moreover, when the author relates that Judas confidently encouraged his troops, that boldness came "from the law and the prophets" (15:9), as though this were already a recognized and authoritative body of literature to him and his readers. (This is also reflected in the prologue to Ecclesiasticus.) I Maccabees 9:27 recognizes the time in the past when "prophets ceased to appear among" the Jews.

The ancient Jews, to whom were entrusted the "oracles of God" (Rom. 3:2), never accepted these apocryphal books as part of the inspired canon -- and still do not to this day.[4] Josephus speaks of the number of Jewish books which are divinely trustworthy, not leaving a place for the apocryphal books. Josephus expressed the common Jewish perspective when he said that the prophets wrote from the time of Moses to that of Artaxerxes, and that no writing since that time had the same authority. The Jewish Talmud teaches that the Holy Spirit departed from Israel after the time of Malachi. Now, Artaxerxes and Malachi both lived about four centuries before Christ, while the books of the Apocrypha were composed in the vicinity of two centuries before Christ.

When Christ came, neither He nor the apostles ever quoted from the apocryphal books as though they carried authority. Throughout the history of the early church, the acceptance of the Apocrypha was no better than spotty, inconsistent, and of ambiguous import -- the bottom line being that the books never gained universal respect and clear recognition as bearing the same weight and authority as the very Word of God.

The first early Christian writer to address explicitly the question of an accurate list of the books of the Old Covenant was Melito (bishop of Sardis, about 170 A.D.), and he does not countenance any of the apocryphal books. Athanasius forthrightly rejected Tobit, Judith, and Wisdom, saying of them: "for the sake of greater accuracy... there are other books outside these [just listed] which are not indeed included in the canon" (39th festal letter, 367 A.D.).[5]

The scholar Jerome was the main translator of the Latin Vulgate (which Roman Catholicism later decreed has ultimate authority for determining doctrine). About 395 A.D., Jerome enumerated the books of the Hebrew Bible, saying "whatever falls outside these must be set apart among the Apocrypha." He then lists books now accepted by the Roman Catholic church and categorically says they "are not in the canon." He later wrote that such books are read "for edification of the people but not for establishing the authority of ecclesiastical dogmas." Likewise, many years later (about 1140 A.D.), Hugo of St. Victor lists the "books of holy writ," adding "There are also in the Old Testament certain other books which are indeed read [in church] but are not inscribed...in the canon of authority"; here he lists books of the apocrypha.

The apocryphal books were sometimes highly regarded or cited for their antiquity or for their historical, moral, or literary value,[6] but the conceptual distance between "valuable" and "divinely inspired" is considerable.

Thus the 1395 Wycliffe version of the Bible in English included the Apocrypha and commends the book of Tobit in particular, yet also acknowledges that Tobit "is not of belief" -- that is, not in the same class as inspired books which can be used for confirming Christian doctrine. Likewise, the Thirty-Nine Articles of the Church of England (1562) names the canonical books of Scripture in one separate class, and then introduces a list of apocryphal books by saying: "And the other books the Church doth read for example of life... by yet doth it not apply them to establish any doctrine."[7] This is likewise the attitude of most Roman Catholic scholars today, who regard the books of the Apocrypha as only "deutercanonical" (of secondary authority).[8]

The Protestant churches have never received these writings as canonical, even though they have sometimes been reprinted for historical value. Even some Roman Catholic scholars during the Reformation period disputed the canonical status of the apocryphal books, which were accepted (at this late date) it would seem because of their usefulness in opposing Luther and the reformers -- that is, for contemporary and political purposes, rather than the theological and historical ones in our earlier discussion.

Finally, the books of the Apocrypha abound in doctrinal, ethical, and historical errors. For instance, Tobit claims to have been alive when Jeroboam revolted (931 B.C.) and when Assyria conquered Israel (722 B.C.), despite the fact that his lifespan was only a total of 158 years (Tobit 1:3-5; 14:11)! Judith mistakenly identifies Nebuchadnezzar as king of the Assyrians (1:1, 7). Tobit endorses the superstitious use of fish liver to ward off demons (6: 6,7)!

The theological errors are equally significant. Wisdom of Solomon teaches the creation of the world from pre-existent matter (7:17). II Maccabees teaches prayers for the dead (12:45-46), and Tobit teaches salvation by the good work of almsgiving (12:9) -- quite contrary to inspired Scripture (such as John 1:3; II Samuel 12:19; Hebrews 9:27; Romans 4:5; Galatians 3:11).

The conclusion to which we come is that the books of the Roman Catholic Apocrypha fail to demonstrate the characteristic marks of inspiration and authority. They are not self-attesting, but rather contradict God's Word elsewhere. They were not recognized by God's people from the outset as inspired and have never gained acceptance of the church universal as communicating the full authority of God's own Word. We must concur with the Westminster Confession, when it says: "The books commonly called Apocrypha, not being of divine inspiration, are no part of the canon of scripture; and therefore are of no authority in the Church of God, nor to be any otherwise approved, or made use of, than other human writings" (I, 3).

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Footnotes
[ 1 ] The theological error of believing that special, verbal revelation or quasi-revelation continued beyond the time of the apostles is made equally by Roman Catholics (imputing inspired authority to papal "interpretations" and unwritten tradition) and Charismatics (teaching tongues and prophecy as gifts to be expected throughout the life of the church). Both the office of Apostle and the gifts which accompanied the ministry of the apostles (cf. II Cor. 12:12; Heb. 2:3-4) were intended to be temporary, confined to the founding of the church. To be an Apostle, it was required to be a witness of the resurrected Christ (Acts 1:22; e.g. I Cor. 9:1) and to be commissioned directly by Him (Gal. 1:1), thus restricting the apostolic office to the first generation of the church. Paul indicated that he was the last of the apostles (I Cor. 15:7-9); his successor, Timothy, is never given that title. By the later New Testament epistles we have no further mention or discussion of revelatory gifts like tongues and prophecy, for with the completing (bringing to its end or "perfection") of that which was "partial" - namely, the process of revelation - the temporary revelatory gifts of tongues and prophecy had to "cease" (I Cor. 13:8-10).

[ 2 ] Bruce, F.F., The Defence of the Gospel in the New Testament, (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1959), p. 80.

[ 3 ] For a good discussion of the evidence, see Bruce Metzger, The Canon of the New Testament, (New York: Oxford Univ. Press, 1987).

[ 4 ] Fragments of three Apocryphal books are among extant Qumran texts, with no evidence that they were considered canonical even by the sect that produced them. Philo shows no sign of accepting them either. Sometimes appeal is made to the Greek version of the Old Testament (the "Septuagint") to suggest "the canon of the Alexandrian Jews was more comprehensive." F.F. Bruce goes on to say, "There is no evidence that this was so: indeed, there is no evidence that the Alexandrian Jews ever promulgated a canon of scripture" (Canon, pp. 44-45). Indeed, the Septuagint manuscripts we possess were produced by Christians much later, and extant manuscripts differ between themselves, some excluding books of the Apocrypha which Rome accepted, while others included apocryphal books which even Rome denied.

[ 5 ]Those who study the history of canonicity will trip themselves up badly if attention is not paid to the varying and unsettled use of terms at this point in church history (late fourth century). For instance, the term "apocrypha" itself carries different import between Athanasius and Jerome. Athanasius spoke of three categories of books: canonical, edifying, and "apocryphal" - meaning heretical works to be avoided altogether. Jerome on the other hand, used the term "apocryphal" for the second category of books, those which are edifying (and Rufinus termed them "ecclesiastical," since they could be read in the church). The same is true of the early use of the term "canon." Athanasius appears to be the first to use it in the strict sense that we do today; naturally, such usage was not immediately inculcated by all writers. Sometimes "canonical" was used broadly and indiscriminately to include what other authors more carefully delineated as the books of highest, inspired authority (the church's standard - "canon") as well as the edifying or "ecclesiastical" books which could be read in the church. We see this, for instance, at the provincial (non-ecumenical) Third Council of Carthage in 397, which explicitly identifies "the canonical writings" with what "should be read in the church" - and includes the works deemed "edifying" by Athanasius or "apocryphal" by Jerome. Contemporary Roman Catholic scholars recognize the varying use of the term "canonical" by speaking of the apocryphal books as "deuterocanonical."

[ 6 ]Roman Catholic apologists sometimes jump to canonical conclusions from the simple fact that the books of the Apocrypha were copied and included among ancient manuscripts or from the fact than an author draws upon them. But obviously a writer can quote something from a work which he takes to be true without thereby ascribing diving authority to it (for instance, Paul quoting a pagan writer in I Cor. 15:33).

[ 7]Roman Catholic apologists often misunderstand the Protestant rejection of the Apocrypha, thinking it entails having no respect or use for these books whatsoever. Calvin himself wrote, "I am not one of those, however, who would entirely disapprove the reading of those books"; his objection was to "placing the Apocrypha in the same rank" with inspired Scripture ("Antidote" to the Council of Trent, pp. 67,68). Likewise, Luther placed the Apocrypha in an appendix to the Old Testament in his German Bible, describing them in the title as "Books which are not to be held equal to holy scripture, but are useful and good to read."

[ 8 ]The preceding history and quotations concerning the canon can be pursued in F.F. Bruce, The Canon of Scripture, passim

169

X-JWs Who are now bible Christians

by clash_city_rockers in

jw
friends

hi folks,.

i'm just sort of taking role call to all those x-dubs who are now brothers and sisters in christ.

i think it is wise for us to rise up and be counted so that we know who each other are.

clash_city_rockers

Some books that had an effect on me and my walk with the Lord in understanding evangelicalism and modern Christianity I hope they can be just as bennificial to you as they were to me. you can go to http://www.amazon.com and check these out.

David Wells--No Place for Truth or What ever happen to Evangelical Theology
David Wells--God in the Waistland
John Armstrong--The Compromiesed Church
John Armstrong--The Comming Evangelical Crisis
R. Fowler White--What Ever Happen to the Reformation
Michael Horton--In the Face of God, the Dangers and Delights of Spiritual Intamacy
Michael Horton--Made in America
Nathan O'Hatch--Democratization of American Christianity

169

X-JWs Who are now bible Christians

by clash_city_rockers in

jw
friends

hi folks,.

i'm just sort of taking role call to all those x-dubs who are now brothers and sisters in christ.

i think it is wise for us to rise up and be counted so that we know who each other are.

clash_city_rockers

Hi folks,

I hope everyone here had a good memorial day. Wow, I didn’t expect this much negative response. Look my aim is not to be offensive but to clearly speak my conviction and to be faithful to the scriptures. The first thing I want to do is address my Christian brothers who may have voiced some objection to the way I communicate my apologetics. I feel that since some of you guys are my confessing brothers and sisters in Christ that I owe you some sense of explanation and that I do appreciate you keeping me accountable. First of all that this thread was to do was to identify bible believing evangelicals for the purpose of gathering brothers and sisters together for the edification prayer teaming up for evangelism and so on. Now I did take into account that some who would response would not be truly Christian by doctrinal profession. For example RR who is one who is set in his ways of rejecting key essential doctrines such as Justification by faith alone, substatutionary atonement and the trinity. He can’t be considered a Christian because he has a different Jesus (Gal. 1:6-9). Now I have made it very clear on this thread that when one is saved they may not have to understand these doctrines, but Christ’ Lordship dictates that if one is truly converted by HIM they will not reject these doctrines. There is a difference between not understanding a doctrine and rejecting a doctrine. This is a fact my brothers and sisters that you must acknowledge. For example, Little Toe, when you got saved you didn’t understand the trinity but you didn’t reject it either. That is something that you should reflect on. Now I don’t know all of you but I would like to and this thread is a means of finding out who are my brothers and sisters are. I also realize that there is a great dynamic range of people here and where they are at in their relationship with God whether they are saved (good relationship) or not saved (bad relationship) and for the saved at what level of walk they are at. Now at this point I’m not trying to say that I’m better than you, you must understand that I’ve been at this for some 11 years. That is being a Christian and trying to work out through God’s word and reflecting on His word as a spirit filled Christian (as all Christians are spirit filled) what the Christian life is and what it means to walk with him in light of our modern world. One thing that the JWs take advantage of is the weakness to the church and the weakness of those who say they know Christ. As a new Christian one of the things I set out to do was to figure out why this was happening. The biblical message has the power to turn the world up side down and yet the modern evangelical church has no influence on culture. A lot of it sadly has to do with the fact that there are a lot who profess they are Christians when maybe they are not. As one who takes the message of Christ seriously I have to give an account for this. Finally to the ones I am familiar with in this board I do know and am always encouraged by Angie’s posts she speaks as one with joyful gratitude and who knows that her sins are forgiven and with the full assurance that she is right with God for all eternity. I am also glad so far and am edified by Penn this bro also speaks as one who knows and trusts Christ. And the same hopefully Lord willing can be said with Little. That is very cool that he goes to the Free Church, hopefully he will grow into a likeminded brother as one who appreciates the Westminster Confession of Faith.

Little Toe posted:

Your demeanor and dogmatism do neither you or the gospel any credit.
Sorry, bro, but you either need to lighten up or realise what really are the fundamentals.
Did you never hear of the story of the Calvinist whose main detractor (an Arminian) died. Upon being told by a colleague "You'll never see HIM again", he replied "You are right, because he will be so much nearer the face of God than I" (inaccurate quote from memory).

Sorry Little if I came off a little offensive but I do have a firm grip on what the fundamentals are. The Lord has been gracious in overseeing my growth in Him and has been the source of enthusiasm to learn his biblical truths for the last eleven years. Others in the church including the session have observed that I do have a solid grip (by His grace) on the fundamentals. I’m sure that if your session is just as like minded they would say the same and agree with me. As for the quote it was George Whitefield account of John Wesley. I may have think that the statement was a bit unguarded given the fact that Whitefield held to the forensic view of justification which is the heart of the gospel. Sadly Wesley wasn’t so solid on this point as he wavered back and forth from a forensic view of justification to a transformitive view. My guess and hope is that he may have trusted and exercised his faith and lived as if the forensic view was true.

Little Toe, how does one take seriously a passage like 2 Cor. 10:4-5 in light of a Christ hating world. One has to walk as if this were true.
2 Corinthians 10:4-5

4For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal but mighty in God for pulling down strongholds, 5casting down arguments and every high thing that exalts itself against the knowledge of God, bringing every thought into captivity to the obedience of Christ,

My only exhortation Little comes from 2 Peter 3:17-18

17Therefore, dear friends, since you already know this, be on your guard so that you may not be carried away by the error of lawless men and fall from your secure position. 18But grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To him be glory both now and forever! Amen.

Now Little to “grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ” one has to “give a monkey’s *ass*” about doctrine. How can one know Jesus apart from doctrine.
One more thing. Little Toe said this:

I sincerely believe, by virtue of my own experience, that if we have difficulty understanding or accepting something that is not a salvation issue, the Holy Spirit will let it pass (maybe just for the moment, maybe for our lifetime - who knows?).
To the extent that you seek out understanding, approaching it with a fresh slate and in obedience, the greater your comprehension may be.

This is what your church say’s on the matter. Remember your elders and pastor at the free church has thought these issues through so the are not a bunch of bumbling boobs when it comes to the matter of what is saving faith. I hope you will study the matter further and seek the fellowship and guidance of other fellow Christians in your congregation.
From the Westminster Confession of Faith. Little Toe’s official church documents

Chapter XIV
Of Saving Faith
I. The grace of faith, whereby the elect are enabled to believe to the saving of their souls, is the work of the Spirit of Christ in their hearts, and is ordinarily wrought by the ministry of the Word, by which also, and by the administration of the sacraments, and prayer, it is increased and strengthened.
II. By this faith, a Christian believes to be true whatsoever is revealed in the Word, for the authority of God Himself speaking therein; and acts differently upon that which each particular passage thereof contains; yielding obedience to the commands, trembling at the threatenings, and embracing the promises of God for this life, and that which is to come. But the principal acts of saving faith are accepting, receiving, and resting upon Christ alone for justification, sanctification, and eternal life, by virtue of the covenant of grace.
III. This faith is different in degrees, weak or strong; may often and many ways assailed, and weakened, but gets the victory: growing up in many to the attainment of a full assurance, through Christ, who is both the author and finisher of our faith.

Grace and Peace,
jr

169

X-JWs Who are now bible Christians

by clash_city_rockers in

jw
friends

hi folks,.

i'm just sort of taking role call to all those x-dubs who are now brothers and sisters in christ.

i think it is wise for us to rise up and be counted so that we know who each other are.

clash_city_rockers

Hillary,

to box my ears in theologically you need the bible to do that and yet you have not nor do you have the ability to litteral-gramical exigete a single passage. In if you go back to our thead with AlanF he got smoked. I documented my references Author book chapter and page just like it was end notes and those referenses distroyed his silly claims. Where are your referenses I see you havent given me any pages. Your a weak apologist for paganism. You make a claim back it up with references it is the intellectually honest thing to do unless you are just as dishonest and crooked as the WT.

sloppy agape,
jr

169

X-JWs Who are now bible Christians

by clash_city_rockers in

jw
friends

hi folks,.

i'm just sort of taking role call to all those x-dubs who are now brothers and sisters in christ.

i think it is wise for us to rise up and be counted so that we know who each other are.

clash_city_rockers

Hillary in his slanderous ways claims

Read your History - he may have been raised Lutheran but did not remain so. His personal philosophy, like your own was a deadly mix of mythology / Calvanism and bent Christian ethic.

I’m calling you out on this one Give some references in which Heinrich Himmler borrowed from or used Calvinist philosophy. Start giving sources. Give me Book author page all that. If not stop slandering all you do is just make yourself look real bad and loose your credibility as one who has academic credibility. You are a fraud just like Chuck Russell.

Give me the page number of Try Martin Gilbert's 'World In Torment' so I can see this claim and to see if you are not misrepresenting this guy. and I'll check if this author has any credability and historical circles.

Experience is not always a valid test of truth you apeal to experience is falty at best.

What does one do with a Degree in English get a welfare job as a public librarian? Anyone can do that.

Snuggles and bear hugs,
jr

clash_city_rockers

Posts by clash_city_rockers