Problems with Universalism, Part 2.1

Universalism faces difficulty with a number of biblical texts. I will treat only one here and then get into others in a future post:

Matthew 25:46: At the end of his parable about the sheep and the goats, Jesus says, “These [goats] will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.” The important thing to notice about this text is the parallel between the destinies of the two respective groups. Eternal punishment is of the same duration as eternal life. If we are going to limit eternal punishment and make it a temporal punishment instead, then we must limit eternal life and make it temporal also. This is absurdity, and no universalist would make such a claim. This passage clearly teaches a final, eternal separation between the righteous and the wicked.

The Concordant website cites this verse and then dodges its clear teaching by saying this: “This passage, however, is not concerned with humanity as a whole, or even with individual persons as such. Instead, it has in view, in the day of the Lord, the granting of rewards, or chastenings, to the nations of the earth according to their treatment of Israel. It is not a revelation concerning divine grace, nor of the evangel of our salvation and its transcendent grace. Perhaps the best proof that men do not really believe that our salvation is a matter of gratuitous grace is the fact that Matthew 25:31-46 is commonly perceived as a summary of the gospel for today.”

This interpretation is implausible for several reasons:

(1) It is illegitimate to limit the phrases “eternal punishment” and “eternal life” to mere temporal rewards and chastenings. I challenge anyone to produce clear evidence that these phrases mean anything other than “eternal punishment” and “eternal life” in any other New Testament passage. Show me any other occurrence of “eternal life” in the New Testament that clearly means “temporal reward.” It can’t be done.

(2) Context clearly suggests that this is the final judgment. Note verses 31-32: “But when the Son of Man comes in His glory, and all the angels with Him, then He will sit on His glorious throne. And all the nations will be gathered before Him; and He will separate them from one another, as the shepherd separates the sheep from the goats.” To a Jewish mind in the first century, this can be nothing other than the end of history and the final separation of the righteous from the wicked. If Jesus meant to communicate something else in a cultural milieu that believed very strongly in a final judgment and final separation, then he chose a poor way to do it.

(3) This text has nothing to do with the way certain nations have treated Israel. This is about personal, human-to-human interactions. When Jesus says, “For I was hungry, and you gave me something to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave me something to drink,” etc., he is speaking about the way individual people treated him in their everyday lives. This is not about how one nation acted toward Israel but about how individuals (who make up all nations) acted toward Jesus himself in their interaction with “one of these brothers of mine, even the least of them” (v. 40). Jesus’ “brothers” here are not Israel but believers, particularly suffering believers in need. Jesus knows that, very soon, his followers will be persecuted and will face intense suffering (he has already spoken about this in chapter 24:9-14). Other occurrences of “my brothers” in the Gospels clearly refer to the disciples, not to Israel (see Matt 12:46-50; John 20:17), and the fact that Jesus identifies himself with those who believe in him (Matt 18:20) explains how actions performed with reference to Jesus’ disciples are actions performed with reference to Jesus himself (see also Acts 9:4, where Jesus asks Saul, “Why are you persecuting me [i.e., followers of me]?”). To introduce Israel into this passage is to miss the point, not only of the passage, but of Matthew’s Gospel in general, which has a very strong theme of Israel’s rejection (read Matthew 21-23 for a string of parables and teachings that focus on Israel’s failure and rejection, culiminating in Jesus’ saying in 23:37-39. Why, after all of that, would Jesus then refer to Israel as “my brothers” in chapter 25? The disciples are his brothers, and since there are 12 of them, they represent a new Israel, the beginning of an international messianic community).

(4) So then, what does this text teach about judgment, grace, and works? Like many other passages of Scripture, this one teaches a judgment according to works that is not a contradiction of salvation by grace. I will do my best to explain. Jesus says that at the final separation of the sheep from the goats, the criterion he will use will be the way people of the nations treated him. But notice how the sheep react in verse 37: “Then the righteous will answer Him, ‘Lord, when did we see You hungry, and feed You, or thirsty, and give You something to drink? And when did we see You a stranger, and invite You in, or naked, and clothe You? When did we see You sick, or in prison, and come to You?'” Clearly, the sheep did not realize that they had done these things. They had not been working to merit reward at the final judgment. If they had been seeking to earn Christ’s approval through works, then they clearly would have known what good works they had done. Instead, their works were simply the natural outflow of their lives, just as good fruit is the natural produce of a good tree. The fact that they acted in this way toward suffering disciples of Jesus indicates that their hearts have been transformed by divine grace and that they have identified themselves with these suffering disciples of Jesus. Whoever receives one who represents Jesus receives Jesus himself (Matt 10:40). The way they have treated Jesus’ disciples is not the basis for their salvation; it is the evidence for it. Since their actions clearly prove the sincerity of their faith, they are accepted into eternal life on the basis of faith. Faith is vindicated by works, as James clearly teaches (James 2:14-26). A number of other passages make reference to a final judgment that is according to works without overturning salvation by grace alone through faith alone. See 2 Corinthians 5:10; Romans 2:5-11; Matthew 7:21-23. Any teaching about grace that excludes the possibility that judgment will include reference to our works is a teaching that distorts Scripture. But again, let me reiterate that I believe salvation is by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone. Our only hope for righteousness before God is the imputed righteousness of Christ granted to us by faith. But faith itself must be demonstrated to be true faith. And since true faith is always manifested by a transformed heart and life, we ourselves will be judged completely–including our works–in order to demonstrate the presence or absence of faith in us.

Advertisements

13 Responses to “Problems with Universalism, Part 2.1”

  1. Friend Says:

    Dear Aaron,

    You are a true and dyed-in-the-wool Calvinist, all right. đŸ™‚ Of course, that is fine, and I sensed it from the start. Having been one myself, the first thirty-eight years of my life, I can easily follow what you wrote in this post.

    Since you are an “amillennialist,” it is no use for me to argue with you about your take on Matthew 25:31-46. I trust that you are aware of the fact that your amillennial interpretation of Scripture does not really progressively enlighten the believer, but takes away those things that Scripture reveals concerning the Kingdom of God and its Millennial manifestation.

    The only thing that remains to be discussed, in connection with the salvation of all, is the meaning of the Greek noun “aion” and its adjective form “aionios”.

    The KJV has completely mishandled “aion” in its subjective, interpretive rendering of this Greek noun. Here is how the Greek words “aion” and “aionios” have been translated into the KJV:

    Aion: “age” 2, “beginning of the world” 2, “course”1, “eternal” 2, “ever” 2,” “for ever” 27, “for ever and ever” 21, “for evermore” 3, “never” 7, “world” 32, “world began” 1, “world without end” 1, “while the world standeth”1

    Aionios: “eternal” 42, “everlasting” 25, “the world began” 2, “since the world began” 1, “for ever” 1. (The digits after each word show the number of times it has been translated that way in the KJV.)

    Aren’t the words “age” and “eternal” opposite in meaning, what with age signifying limited time, and “eternal meaning unlimited time? How, in any language, can one word be used to express opposite meanings??

    Interestingly enough, the Greek words “aion” and “aionios” have been transliterated into our English language as “eon” and “eonian” according to Webster’s Unabridged Dictionary. These words are never used to express endless time.

    In the Concordant Literal New Testament, the Greek word “aion” has always been translated as “eon” and the Greek word “aionios,” as “eonian”.

    You might find it interesting to take a look at the following web pages, which gives adequate information about ‘aion’ and ‘aionios’:
    http://www.godstruthfortoday.org/Library/abbott/abbot000.htm
    http://www.godstruthfortoday.org/Library/miscellaneous/allin.htm

    God, in His word, has as not revealed to us anything about the time after the eons. His eonian purpose is to become ALL in all. Once that has been achieved, we do not need any written revelation about how and what things will then be. Now we are to keep our focus on what is revealed concerning His eonian operations, culminating in Him becoming our ALL.

    The human mind, as it is presently constituted, cannot meaningfully relate to anything eternal, anyway. This makes Luke 1:31-33 somewhat enigmatic. It states that the reign of the Son of the Highest will be for ever and ever and that the Kingdom will never end.

    Lk 1:31(KJV) And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS. (:32) He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David: (:33) And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end.

    In the Concordant Literal New Testament, this passage reads: Luke 1:31-33 And lo! you shall be conceiving and be pregnant and be bringing forth a Son, and you shall be calling His name Jesus. (:32) He shall be great, and Son of the Most High shall He be called. And the Lord God shall be giving Him the throne of David, His father, (:33) and He shall reign over the house of Jacob for the eons. And of His kingdom there shall be no consummation.”

    That there will not be an end to the Kingdom is Scriptural (1Cor.15:24), but I am not able to accept that the reign of Christ is for all eternity, according to 1Corinthians 15:25,28.

    It is plain from 1Cor.15:24 that at the consummation of the eons the Son will hand over the Kingdom to God the Father

    However, in 1Cor.15:25, it tells us that the reign of Christ has an end (i.e., if the word “until” means anything). In verse 28, it clearly shows that Christ will be subjected to the Father, in order that the Father may be ALL in all.

    Here are these texts from the CLNT:

    1Cor. 15:24 (CLNT) thereafter the consummation, whenever He may be giving up the kingdom to His God and Father, whenever He should be nullifying all sovereignty and all authority and power.

    1Cor.15:25 For He must be reigning until He should be placing all His enemies under His feet.

    1Cor.15:28 (CLNT) Now, whenever all may be subjected to Him, then the Son Himself also shall be subjected to Him Who subjects all to Him, that God may be All in all.

    Friend

  2. Anonymous Says:

    Friend:
    Arguing from a rational and clearly logical point of view, while laudatory, with someone who has very little training in this area is that his a priori judgement indicated in his first sentence will in the end over-rule said argument in any case. But your effort is commendable.

  3. Aaron Says:

    Friend,

    I will address the issue of the meaning of “aion” and “aionios” in a future post. For right now, I would prefer to stay with the topic that this particular post is about.

    You did not address any of my specific arguments. You merely labelled me an “amillennialist” a wrote me off for that reason. This is not conducive to fair dialogue for a number of reasons:

    (1) It does not deal with the issue at hand. Instead, it throws out labels and in that way conveniently avoids dealing with substantive issues.

    (2) Nothing that I have written in this post demands and amillennial eschatology. I know many historic premillennialists (and even a few Dispensational premillennialists) who would agree with the substance of what I have written here. And, of course, I believe postmillennialists would agree as well. You can attack amillennialism (which you didn’t really do–you just wrote it off) and yet still not land any substantive argument against what I have here written about Matthew 25:46.

    Friend, you are, of course, welcome to say anything you want (I know you will not get ugly, profane, and abusive, so I feel comfortable about telling you that). But I would like to make this request of you: please deal with specific issues raised in my posts; no single post can address everything. If we follow every topic here and there in a willy-nilly manner, we are liable to miss important points along the way. That is, I fear, what is happening right now.

    So, would you like to try again and respond to the specific arguments that I gave in this post?

    Anonymous,

    Please, don’t be shy. Feel free to log in and post. Or, if you don’t have a blogger account, please sign your name at the end of each post. There is no need to hide behind the cloak of anonymity if you believe in your words. I will extend the same invitation that I extended to Friend: if I have made poor arguments, please show them to me. Let’s deal with specifics instead of throwing out generalities.

  4. Friend Says:

    You were commenting that arguing from a rational and logical point of view is laudable. I agree that we have to use our God-given rationality. This is especially true after we realize that God has graciously given us faith (Rom.12:3; Eph.2:8-9; Phil.1:29) and an earnest of His spirit (1Cor.2:10-16; 1Cor.12:3; 2Tim.1:7).

    In a discussion about what God has revealed to us, it is important to remember what is said in Psalm 12:6 and in 2Tim.1:13, as follows:

    Ps.12:6 The words of the LORD are pure words, Like silver tried in a furnace of earth, Purified seven times.
    2Tim.1:13 Hold fast the pattern of sound words which you have heard from me, in faith and love which are in Christ Jesus.

    Words are the carriers of thoughts and concepts. Many popular versions of Scripture have been far too subjectively and interpretively translated. This has introduced the erroneous idea of “hell” and of “eternal punishment.”

    The result is that theologies, such as Calvinism and Arminianism, have presented ideas about God which are grotesque and very unscriptural.

    Many, very true and sincere believers, have their belief rooted and grounded in- and on these wrongly translated key ideas. This has greatly affected their rationality and logic, since it is ever so intimately and inseparably woven into their faith. What will be needed is a gracious intervention from above, before they will truly see the plan and purpose of God (cp John 3:27; John 6:65; 1Cor.4:7). It is my joy to know that in God’s good time, He will be giving it to each and everyone.

    It is enough for me to have the privilege to be a mere billboard or road sign. I very well know that I am not able to argue anyone into seeing what Scripture really reveals. That is God’s prerogative, because it is revealed that God is to become ALL in all (1Cor.15:28c; Eph.1:22-23).

    May I wonder if you believe in the salvation of all?

    Friend

  5. Friend Says:

    To All,

    My previous post was addressed to Anonymous.

    I’m sorry I neglected to show that clearly.

    Friend

  6. Friend Says:

    Dear Aaron,

    In all sincerity and truth, I do not believe that a Universal Pre-millennialist and an Amillennialist can ever agree on Matthew 26:31-46, no matter how many words each of us would write.

    I commend you for having checked the Concordant website on Matthew 25:31-46. Since your comments come across to me that you completely reject what was written there, it also helped me to conclude that the only detail left to be discussed is the proper translation of the Greek words ‘aion’ and ‘aionios’.

    Your comments on Matthew 25:31-46 were such, that once I accept your perspective to be right, I might as well blot out from Scripture the following texts: John 1:29; John 12:32; Rom.5:18,19; Rom.11:32-36; 1Cor.15;22,28, Eph,1:10,22,23; Phil.2:9-11; Col.1:20; 1Tim.2:1-7; 1Tim.4:9-11; 1John 2:2.

    However, if you would like to know my thoughts about any specific detail of Matthew 25:31-46, please indicate which it is, and I will gladly let you know what I believe concerning it.

    I appreciate the fact that it is easy to be talking past each other, but that is not my intention, at all.

    By the way, it is not my prerogative to judge my fellow believer’s status as a believer. In other words, it makes no difference to me whether you are an Amillennialist, a Pre-millennialist or a Post-millennialist. Knowing what one believes concerning the millennium, merely tells us how Scripture is interpreted and believed.

    Friend

  7. Anonymous Says:

    Yes to Friend’s question. The theological matrix that Aaron presents is far to enclosed of a system to be complete.

  8. Aaron Says:

    Friend,

    How about the four reasons I gave in my post for dismissing the Concordant interpretation of the passage? Why don’t you address those and tell me where I have gone wrong on them?

    This is how the argument is going right now. I make a specific claim and then you respond by saying, “Well, you are a [fill in the blank: Calvinist, Amillennialist, etc.]; therefore, you are wrong.” But that is to dodge the real issue at hand. It is to be unfair to the positions that you criticize, since you don’t really argue against them but merely write them off. Even worse, it is to ignore what I have actually written as clear arguments in this post. This is the last invitation I am going to extend for fair dialogue. If we this conversation does not move on to something more constructive, then I will no longer respond. I will continue to offer posts on these issues, as I said I would, but if I’m going to spend time dialoguing in the comments section, then I want it to be productive time. That is currently not happening.

    Please consider my concerns here. I hope we can come to this with open minds.

  9. Friend Says:

    Dear Aaron,

    You wrote: “How about the four reasons I gave in my post for dismissing the Concordant interpretation of the passage?”

    Your first point was:
    < << It is illegitimate to limit the phrases "eternal punishment" and "eternal life" to mere temporal rewards and chastenings. I challenge anyone to produce clear evidence that these phrases mean anything other than "eternal punishment" and "eternal life" in any other New Testament passage. Show me any other occurrence of "eternal life" in the New Testament that clearly means "temporal reward." It can't be done. >>>

    I feel that I have answered this comment in the post in which I stated that the Greek words “aion” and “aionios” do not convey the concept of unlimited time.

    Furthermore, in Eph 1:22,23, it is clearly shown that the believers (the Church, the Body of Christ) are to serve Christ, as His complement, to complete the all in all (cp 1Cor.15:28c). This is to be done during the last two eons, before “eternity” is to begin, when God will be ALL in all.

    Eph.1:22,23 (CLNT) and subjects all under His feet, and gives Him, as Head over all, to the ecclesia (:23) which is His body, the complement of the One completing the all in all.

    In addition, 1Timothy 4:10 reveals that the living God is the Saviour of all mankind, especially of believers. The Greek word rendered “especially” is never used to express “exclusivity”. In every other instance, where the Greek word “malista” is found, it always means “especially.”

    1Tim.4:10 (CLNT) (for for this are we toiling and being reproached), that we rely on the living God, Who is the Saviour of all mankind, especially of believers.

    This special salvation will be experienced and enjoyed during the last two eons as their promised eonian life. After the consummation of the eons, all mankind will have “eternal life.” But nothing specific has been revealed concerning conditions after the eons have consummated except that all will have God as their ALL.

    Your Point number two was:
    < << Context clearly suggests that this is the final judgment. Note verses 31-32: "But when the Son of Man comes in His glory, and all the angels with Him, then He will sit on His glorious throne. And all the nations will be gathered before Him; and He will separate them from one another, as the shepherd separates the sheep from the goats." To a Jewish mind in the first century, this can be nothing other than the end of history and the final separation of the righteous from the wicked. If Jesus meant to communicate something else in a cultural milieu that believed very strongly in a final judgment and final separation, then he chose a poor way to do it.>>>

    In my understanding and belief of Scripture, the context of the passage under discussion clearly reveals a national judgment. The word “nations” in Mat.25:31-32 is in full harmony with what is stated in Revelation 19:15,

    Rev.19:15 (CLNT) And out of His mouth a sharp blade is issuing, that with it He should be smiting the nations. And He will be shepherding them with an iron club. And He is treading the wine trough of the fury of the indignation of God, the Almighty.
    See also: Ps.2:8-9, Rev.2:26-27, Rev.12:5.

    All these Scriptures (and more) make harmonious sense for those who believe in the Millennial Reign of Christ, while they are meaningless for Amillennialists. This I know from personal experience, because I was an Amillennialist the first thirty-eight years of my life.

    Your point number three was:
    < << This text has nothing to do with the way certain nations have treated Israel. This is about personal, human-to-human interactions....>>>

    At Christ’s return for Israel, His special nation, the apple of His eye (Deut.32:8-10; Zech.2:8-10), God will establish the literal New Covenant with Israel (Jer.31:31-34; Eze.36:25-27) to fulfill the promises made to the fathers (Rom.11:15,25-29). Then, Israel will become the head of the nations according to Deut.26:19; Deut.28:1,13).

    I know these Scriptures do not fit in with Calvinism, but that does not nullify any of them.

    Yes, during the present Administration of Grace (Eph.3:2,9), Israel as a nation is temporarily set aside, but as Rom.11:15,25-29 shows, all Israel will be saved. Israel, as a nation, will receive the irrevocable promises which God made to the fathers (Rom.11:29). All this has everything to do with what is revealed in Matthew 25:31-46.

    Your point number four was:
    < << So then, what does this text teach about judgment, grace, and works? Like many other passages of Scripture, this one teaches a judgment according to works that is not a contradiction of salvation by grace. ...>>>

    Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are an integral part of the gospel of the Circumcision, that was entrusted to Peter (the Twelve), in sharp contrast to the gospel of the Uncircumcision, that was entrusted to Paul. (Gal.2:1-9).

    The gospel of the Circumcision requires works (Mat.7:21; Mat.13:1-50; Mat.24:13; Mat.25:1-13, etc., etc.) in order for an individual Israelite to qualify for entrance into- and enjoyment of the Millennial Kingdom.

    Matthew 25:31-46 is a prophecy that applies to the nations, at the beginning of the thousand years eon, when Israel, will become the head over the nations, under Christ, for a thousand years. During those thousand years Israel will fulfill the great commission given in Matthew 28:18-20.

    Matt.28:18-20 (CLNT) And, approaching, Jesus speaks to them saying, “Given to Me was all authority in heaven and on the earth. (:19) Going, then, disciple all the nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the holy spirit, (:20) teaching them to be keeping all, whatever I direct you. And lo! I am with you all the days till the conclusion of the eon! Amen!” (cp. Rev.20:4-6).

    Some gentile nations (sheep nations) will experience the thousand year eon as a great blessing (eonian life), whereas some nations (the goat nations) will experience the thousand years as eonian chastisement (severe correction).

    At the conclusion of the thousand years, there will be the Great White Throne judgment (Rev.20:11-15), which is an individual judgment, altogether different then the judgment that is revealed in Matthew 25:31-46, which is a national judgement at the beginning of the thousand years.

    Friend

  10. Anonymous Says:

    Aaron also made the common mistake of interpreting James’s faith/works issue as meaning “eternal” salvation, not temporal salvation which was clearly James’s intent. Someone who’s faith can die, by definition, means their faith was once alive, not that it wasn’t “true” faith, or ever alive. Faith is animated by works, made lively by works. It’s not meant to convey that works proves true or false faith or put in another way demonstrates its veracity.

  11. Aaron Says:

    Thank you, gentlemen (I say “gentlemen,” assuming that the anonymous poster is male). This is much more like what I had in mind.

    The problem with all of these arguments is that they read the Scripture through a presupposed grid, a theological system that is actually foreign to the text. If you will notice in my post, I gave several arguments from within Matthew’s Gospel itself to support my interpretation. I used linguistic, contextual, and Matthean theology to support my arguments. You have come to the text with an a priori assumption about what it refers to but have not given me any reason to believe that what you have written is correct. In other words, I have to adopt your complete system before I can see any sense in your conclusions.

    It’s time to move on, and that’s what I plan to do with an upcoming post about “aion”.

  12. Friend Says:

    Dear Aaron,

    You wrote;
    < << The problem with all of these arguments is that they read the Scripture through a presupposed grid, a theological system that is actually foreign to the text. >>>

    This is a another criticism you level against me to discredit me. You could not be more wrong in saying that I am reading Scripture through a presupposed grid. When I was a Calvinist, there were far too many Scriptures which preachers could not explain to me. The same was the case when I tried Arminianism. Not until becoming a Scriptural Universalist could I believe all of Scripture, from Gen.1:1–Rev.22:21.

    However, I am deeply grateful for having been granted, first to experience, for thirty-eight years, a thorough “course” in Calvinism, followed by an equally thorough “course” of eleven years in Arminianism, succeeded by a thorough “course” of twenty-eight years in Scriptural Universalism, and still growing in receiving new insights.

    For you to say that Scriptural Universalism is foreign to the Bible, does not establish it as such.

    < << You have come to the text with an a priori assumption about what it refers to but have not given me any reason to believe that what you have written is correct. >>>

    Of course, you are entitled to your opinion, but it is more true that you have come to the text with a priori assumption about its meaning than myself. I humbly believe that it is to my advantage to have gone through the schools of Calvinism and Arminianism.

    < << In other words, I have to adopt your complete system before I can see any sense in your conclusions. >>>

    Who am I to ask you to adopt a complete system of anything? Please know that I am not asking you to agree with me on anything. Each of us believes unto God. All we are doing is discussing aspects of what we believe. I very much appreciate your willingness to do this.

    Friend

  13. Aaron Says:

    What I meant was that your arguments about Matthew 25:46 do not draw any contextual support from within Matthean theology, word usage, themes, etc. I gave several arguments from within Matthew’s Gospel itself to confirm my interpretation. For example,

    1. How Jesus’ “brothers” in Matthew and in the other Gospels typically refers to his disciples, not to Israel;
    2. How the theme of Israel’s rejection in Matthew 21-23 makes it implausible that Jesus would refer to Israel as his “brothers” in Matthew 25;
    3. How, according to Jesus in Matthew’s Gospel, to receive one Jesus sends is to receive Jesus himself; Jesus identifies with his people, thereby confirming what I have argued about the reference to the nature of the judgment envisioned as based on how people relate to followers of Jesus.

    Note: nothing I have said in the above presupposes Calvinism, Amillennialism, or any theological system. I happen to be a Calvinist and Amillennialist (for other reasons), but I am not coming to the text saying, “Let me see how this text confirms what I already believe.” In order to be a universalist, I would have to suppose that there is a whole theological reality behind the text itself, one to which I have no access (because God has not revealed anything about what happens after the ages, as you yourself mentioned, and yet you seem to know for sure that he will save everybody).

    I think you need to shave with Ockham’s Razor. I don’t know if you will understand my reference there, but if you don’t, I encourage you to look it up.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: