Jump to content
Online Baptist Community
  • Newest Sermon Entry

    • By Jim_Alaska in Jim_Alaska's Sermons & Devotionals
         14
      Closed Communion
      James Foley
       
      I Corinthians 11:17-34: "Now in this that I declare unto you I praise you not, that ye come together not for the better, but for the worse. For first of all, when ye come together in the church, I hear that there be divisions among you; and I partly believe it. For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you. When ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord's Supper. For in eating every one taketh before other his own supper: and one is hungry, and another is drunken. What? have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? or despise ye the church of God, and shame them that have not? What shall I say to you? shall I praise you in this? I praise you not. For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, That the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread: And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me. After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me. For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do show the Lord's death till he come. Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup. For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body. For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep. For if we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged. But when we are judged, we are chastened of the Lord, that we should not be condemned with the world. Wherefore, my brethren, when ye come together to eat, tarry one for another. And if any man hunger, let him eat at home; that ye come not together unto condemnation. And the rest will I set in order when I come."

      INTRODUCTION

      Historic Baptists, true Baptists, have believed in and still believe in closed communion. Baptists impose upon themselves the same restrictions that they impose on others concerning the Lord’s Supper. Baptists have always insisted that it is the Lord’s Table, not theirs; and He alone has the right to say who shall sit at His table. No amount of so called brotherly love, or ecumenical spirit, should cause us to invite to His table those who have not complied with the requirements laid down plainly in His inspired Word. With respect to Bible doctrines we must always use the scripture as our guide and practice. For Baptists, two of the most important doctrines are Baptism and The Lord’s Supper. These are the only two doctrines we recognize as Church Ordinances. The Bible is very clear in teaching how these doctrines are to be practiced and by whom.

      We only have two ordinances that we must never compromise or we risk our very existence, they are Baptism and The Lord’s Supper.

      The moment we deviate from the precise method God has prescribed we have started down the slippery slope of error. True Baptists have held fast to the original doctrine of The Lord’s Supper from the time of Christ and the Apostles.

      Unfortunately, in this day of what the Bible describes as the age of luke warmness, Baptists are becoming careless in regard to strictly following the pattern laid out for us in Scripture. Many of our Bible colleges are graduating otherwise sincere, Godly and dedicated pastors and teachers who have not been taught the very strict, biblical requirements that surround the Lord’s Supper. Any Bible college that neglects to teach its students the differences surrounding Closed Communion, Close Communion and Open Communion is not simply short changing its students; it is also not equipping their students to carry on sound Bible traditions. The result is men of God and churches that fall into error. And as we will see, this is serious error.

      Should we as Baptists ignore the restrictions made by our Lord and Master? NO! When we hold to the restrictions placed upon the Lord’s Supper by our Master, we are defending the "faith which was once delivered to the saints" Jude 3.

      The Lord’s Supper is rigidly restricted and I will show this in the following facts:

      IT IS RESTRICTED AS TO PLACE

      A. I Corinthians 11:18 says, "When ye come together in the church." This does not mean the church building; they had none. In other words, when the church assembles. The supper is to be observed by the church, in church capacity. Again this does not mean the church house. Ekklesia, the Greek word for church, means assembly. "When ye come together in the church," is when the church assembles.

      B. When we say church we mean an assembly of properly baptized believers. Acts 2:41-42: "Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls. And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers."

      The church is made up of saved people who are baptized by immersion. In the Bible, belief precedes baptism. That’s the Bible way.

      Acts 8:12-13, "But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women. Then Simon himself believed also: and when he was baptized, he continued with Philip, and wondered, beholding the miracles and signs which were done."

      When we say properly baptized, we mean immersed. No unbeliever should take the Lord’s supper, and no non-immersed believer should take the supper. Those who are sprinkled are not baptized and cannot receive the supper. The Greek word for baptize is baptizo, and it always means to immerse.

      "In every case where communion is referred to, or where it may possibly have been administered, the believers had been baptized Acts 2:42; 8:12; 8:38; 10:47; 6:14-15; 18:8; 20:7. Baptism comes before communion, just as repentance and faith precede baptism".

      C. The Lord’s Supper is for baptized believers in church capacity: "When ye come together in the church," again not a building, but the assembly of the properly baptized believers.

      D. The fact that the Lord’s Supper is a church ordinance, to be observed in church capacity, is pointed out by the fact that it is for those who have been immersed and added to the fellowship of the church.

      E. The Lord’s Supper is never spoken of in connection with individuals. When it is referred to, it is only referred to in reference to baptized believers in local church capacity I Cor. 11:20-26).

      I want to quote Dr. W.W. Hamilton,

      "The individual administration of the ordinance has no Bible warrant and is a relic of Romanism. The Lord’s Supper is a church ordinance, and anything which goes beyond or comes short of this fails for want of scriptural example or command".

      “The practice of taking a little communion kit to hospitals, nursing homes, etc. is unscriptural and does not follow the scriptural example.”

      IT IS RESTRICTED TO A UNITED CHURCH

      A. The Bible in I Cor. 11:18 is very strong in condemning divisions around the Lord’s table. For first of all, when ye come together in the church, I hear that there be divisions among you; and I partly believe it.
      19 For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you.
      20 When ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord's supper.

      There were no less than four divisions in the Corinthian church.
      I Cor. 1:12: "Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ."

      Because of these divisions, it was impossible for them to scripturally eat the Lord’s Supper. Division in the local church is reason to hold off observing the Lord’s Supper. But there are also other reasons to forego taking the Lord’s Supper. If there is gross sin in the membership we do not take it. Here is scriptural evidence for this: 1Co 5:7 Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our Passover is sacrificed for us:
      8 Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness; but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth. 9 I wrote unto you in an epistle not to company with fornicators:
      10 Yet not altogether with the fornicators of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or with idolaters; for then must ye needs go out of the world. 11 But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat.

      B. At this point, I want to ask these questions: Are there not doctrinal divisions among the many denominations? Is it not our doctrinal differences that cause us to be separate religious bodies?

      IT IS RESTRICTED BY DOCTRINE

      A. Those in the early church at Jerusalem who partook "continued stedfastly in the apostles’ doctrine" Acts 2:42. And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers.

      B. Those that do not hold to apostolic truth are not to partake. This means there is to be discipline in the local body. How can you discipline those who do not belong to the local body? You can’t. The clear command of scripture is to withdraw fellowship from those who are not doctrinally sound.

      II Thes 3:6: "Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us."
      Rom. 16:17: "Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them."
      To commune together means to have the same doctrine.
      II Thes. 2:15: "Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle."
      II John 10-11: "If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed: For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds."

      C. Some Baptists in our day have watered down this doctrine by practicing what they call “Close Communion.” By this they mean that they believe that members of another Baptist church may take communion with us because they are of the same beliefs. Once again, this is unscriptural.

      The welcome to the Lord's Table should not be extended beyond the discipline of the local church. When we take the Lord’s Supper there is supposed to be no gross sin among us and no divisions among us. We have no idea of the spiritual condition of another church’s members. If there is sin or division in the case of this other church’s members, we have no way of knowing it. We cannot discipline them because they are not members of our church. This is why we practice “Closed” communion, meaning it is restricted solely to our church membership. 
      So then, in closing I would like to reiterate the three different ideas concerning the Lord’s Supper and who is to take it. 
      Closed Communion = Only members of a single local church. 
      Close Communion = Members of like faith and order may partake. 
      Open Communion = If you claim to be a Christian, or simply attending the service, you may partake. 
      It is no small thing to attempt to change that which was implemented by our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. 
      Mt. 28:20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen. 
      Many of our Baptist churches have a real need to consider the gravity of the act of observing The Lord’s Supper. It is not a light thing that is to be taken casually or without regard to the spiritual condition of ourselves or our church.
      1Co. 11:27 Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.

       28 But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup.

       29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body.

       30 For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep.

On The Subject Of Womenfolk


Recommended Posts

  • Members

Man, this sort of thing really burns my cookies!

 

Let's actually consider a couple of other Bible verses, from Proverbs 31. Please, note the sarcasm in my comments dripping like rain from the trees.

 

Pro 31:11 The heart of her husband trusts safely in her, so that he shall have no need of plunder

 

This is preposterous!  The Bible has the audacity to suggest that woman can be strong and capable?  Her husband is actually supposed to be able to trust in her judgment and capabilities?   What an outrage!

 

Pro 31:16 She considers a field, and buys it; with the fruit of her hands she plants a vineyard. 

 

Yikes!  You mean a woman is actually allowed to engage in an honest-to-goodness business transaction, even a transaction as significant as real-estate? Who would have thought it possible!

 

Pro 31:26 She opens her mouth with wisdom; and in her tongue is the law of kindness. 

 

Wisdom!?  Wisdom!?  I thought only men knew anything about that.  This is the last straw.  A woman is capable and allowed to engage in deep thought and is actually able to speak with serious thought and wisdom?!  This can't really be true, can it?

 

 

I hope you all get the point.  All this dandy-rot about inferiority of women is just that.  I understand, accept, and agree with the Biblical pattern of male leadership and authority in the home and church.  But, many of these types of conversations about women just end up being insulting to women beyond the statements and intentions of the Bible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 40
  • Created
  • Last Reply
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

The wise woman of Proverbs was not only an entrepreneur who could buy and develop real estate but she was also a boss; she had female servants, Yet I believe she did all that and still helped, supported and honored her husband as her head....AND...her husband honored and praised her as well, the Bible says so. When we love and lift each other up, instead of tearing one another down, it honors God.

 

"Honey, sweetie, sugar plumb, cutie....I love you, that meal was the finest I ever had....you sure are cute!". Help her with the laundry. with the dishes. give her a back rub. Smile! Put some honey back in the honeymoon fellas! :) AND your prayers will not be hindered.......

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Man, this sort of thing really burns my cookies!

 

Let's actually consider a couple of other Bible verses, from Proverbs 31. Please, note the sarcasm in my comments dripping like rain from the trees.

 

Pro 31:11 The heart of her husband trusts safely in her, so that he shall have no need of plunder

 

This is preposterous!  The Bible has the audacity to suggest that woman can be strong and capable?  Her husband is actually supposed to be able to trust in her judgment and capabilities?   What an outrage!

 

Pro 31:16 She considers a field, and buys it; with the fruit of her hands she plants a vineyard. 

 

Yikes!  You mean a woman is actually allowed to engage in an honest-to-goodness business transaction, even a transaction as significant as real-estate? Who would have thought it possible!

 

Pro 31:26 She opens her mouth with wisdom; and in her tongue is the law of kindness. 

 

Wisdom!?  Wisdom!?  I thought only men knew anything about that.  This is the last straw.  A woman is capable and allowed to engage in deep thought and is actually able to speak with serious thought and wisdom?!  This can't really be true, can it?

 

 

I hope you all get the point.  All this dandy-rot about inferiority of women is just that.  I understand, accept, and agree with the Biblical pattern of male leadership and authority in the home and church.  But, many of these types of conversations about women just end up being insulting to women beyond the statements and intentions of the Bible.

That woman was also not allowed to wear clothes of mixed fibers or eat a porkchop.  Do you understand the difference from before and after Jesus?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

That woman was also not allowed to wear clothes of mixed fibers or eat a porkchop.  Do you understand the difference from before and after Jesus?

 

Please be reminded that part of your "What a true Christian Believes" doctrine relies on "before Jesus"?   :eusa_naughty:

 

I personally don't think you believe any of this silliness that you're posting.  I think you're... 

  1. an unbeliever who is trying to prove a point of some kind; such as, taking the Bible literally.  If so, you're not succeeding; you're only making yourself look foolish.
  2. just here to have some type of...what you think will be fun.

Either way, I will put Romans 16:17 into use now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Please be reminded that part of your "What a true Christian Believes" doctrine relies on "before Jesus"?   :eusa_naughty:

 

I personally don't think you believe any of this silliness that you're posting.  I think you're... 

  1. an unbeliever who is trying to prove a point of some kind; such as, taking the Bible literally.  If so, you're not succeeding; you're only making yourself look foolish.
  2. just here to have some type of...what you think will be fun.

Either way, I will put Romans 16:17 into use now.

I personally think you, sadly, believe the unBiblical silliness that you're posting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Maybe Deacon is from Westboro Baptist Church. Or a white supremacy church in Montana or Utah. I think he's throwing stuff on the wall to see if it will stick.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Some of that nasally northeastern Yankee accent seems more foreign and hard to listen to than hearing and Englishman, Aussie or Kiwi.

Nasally? Do you mean Brooklyn accents? Being from the NE this is the only accents I've heard that might fit your profile.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Honestly it seems strange to se someone preach an entire sermon about women. Nowhere in the Bible do I see any sermons preached solely on the subject of women. Yes, women are touched on, as are men and children, but I never see sermons on them. Not sure I see any reason to preach an entire sermon on 'women-folk'.

I have on a few occasions. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Nasally? Do you mean Brooklyn accents? Being from the NE this is the only accents I've heard that might fit your profile.

Yes. That and many of those around Boston. So hard on the ears!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Lady Administrators

I didn't listen to the whole sermon this time (it's been posted before, right "Deacon"?), but I did notice that he was talking about Deut. 22:5 and said that it's just as much an abomination for a man to put on women's apparel as vice versa (I know not in those words, I just shortened it).  And that is what we've always been taught, right?  Well, that isn't what the Bible says.  See, by wording it that way, it is the act that is an abomination. But that isn't what God said.  He said, "...for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God."

 

It isn't the act of putting on opposite apparel that is abomination.  It is the PERSON who does it that is.  

 

And, BTW - it is pure speculation that Adam didn't know what fruit he was eating. I don't believe he was ignorant of it.  After all, he was the dresser and keeper of the garden.  But then, when one wants to put their own spin on what God says, it's easy to add opinions and try to make them sound like fact.  Sadly, that happens all too often in pulpits today.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

I didn't listen to the whole sermon this time (it's been posted before, right "Deacon"?), but I did notice that he was talking about Deut. 22:5 and said that it's just as much an abomination for a man to put on women's apparel as vice versa (I know not in those words, I just shortened it).  And that is what we've always been taught, right?  Well, that isn't what the Bible says.  See, by wording it that way, it is the act that is an abomination. But that isn't what God said.  He said, "...for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God."

 

It isn't the act of putting on opposite apparel that is abomination.  It is the PERSON who does it that is.  

 

And, BTW - it is pure speculation that Adam didn't know what fruit he was eating. I don't believe he was ignorant of it.  After all, he was the dresser and keeper of the garden.  But then, when one wants to put their own spin on what God says, it's easy to add opinions and try to make them sound like fact.  Sadly, that happens all too often in pulpits today.

I believe Adam is fully to blame.  The Bible tells us that by one man sin entered the world.  This would be Adam.  In Genesis 3:6 we read that Eve  "gave also unto her husband with her."  It sounds like Adam was there with her and letting this snake talk to his wife.  Shame on him for not defending his wifes honor and telling the snake that he didnt have the right to talk with his wife, especially trying to deceive her.  The same today with the "spineless" men who force their wife to answer the door and deal with the salesmen or the soul-winner or Jehovah's witness.  The front door is the way into the house and the man is supposed to provide protection to his family.  Men need to be protective of their wives and Adam was not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Lady Administrators

I believe Adam is fully to blame.  The Bible tells us that by one man sin entered the world.  This would be Adam.  In Genesis 3:6 we read that Eve  "gave also unto her husband with her."  It sounds like Adam was there with her and letting this snake talk to his wife.  Shame on him for not defending his wifes honor and telling the snake that he didnt have the right to talk with his wife, especially trying to deceive her.  The same today with the "spineless" men who force their wife to answer the door and deal with the salesmen or the soul-winner or Jehovah's witness.  The front door is the way into the house and the man is supposed to provide protection to his family.  Men need to be protective of their wives and Adam was not.

:goodpost:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

I believe Adam is fully to blame.  The Bible tells us that by one man sin entered the world.  This would be Adam.  In Genesis 3:6 we read that Eve  "gave also unto her husband with her."  It sounds like Adam was there with her and letting this snake talk to his wife.  Shame on him for not defending his wifes honor and telling the snake that he didnt have the right to talk with his wife, especially trying to deceive her.  The same today with the "spineless" men who force their wife to answer the door and deal with the salesmen or the soul-winner or Jehovah's witness.  The front door is the way into the house and the man is supposed to provide protection to his family.  Men need to be protective of their wives and Adam was not.

Agreed! Scripture tells us that Eve was deceived but Adam knew what he was doing. Adam failed to protect his wife, failed to protect himself, failed to honour God.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

1 Tim.2:11-15
"Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Adam was created first, and the woman was formed afterwards. God formed the man to lead, and He formed the woman to follow. This does not mean the woman is to be a door mat. She is a highly exalted creature made in God's image; she has beautiful gifts which have brought manifold benefits to mankind; she is to be valued and cherished. Her place in creation is simply different from that of the man.  ...Things Hard To Be Understood: 1 Timothy 2:11-14 (Excerpts)

 

(A woman is by no means inferior to a man.  Any man who believes he can “rule the roost” with an “iron fist” because he believes a woman (and I’m speaking of a husband/wife relationship) to be inferior, is a very insecure man.  If he believes he has the right to “spank” his wife as he does his children, is a coward and is unable to “rule his own home” in a godly way. --- My own comments)

 

Things Hard to be Understood (Excerpts)
1Timothy 2:15

“Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.” – 1Timothy 2:15

 

WHAT 1 TIMOTHY 2:15 DOES NOT MEAN ---

 

1. It does not promise salvation of a woman’s soul through child bearing.  Therefore, if a woman is physically unable to bear children and remains barren, that does not mean she cannot be saved, for childbearing has NOTHING to do with salvation of the soul...no matter how much some people like to twist this verse and use it as a “proof text”.  Ephesians 2:8-9 teaches that salvation is a free gift, (grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone) therefore, everybody is saved the exact same way.  God is no respecter of persons. 

 

2. It does not promise escape from the pain of childbirth. Godly women usually suffer as much as others in childbearing.

 

3. It does not promise that a godly woman will never die in childbirth. Many godly women have died while bearing children.

 

WHAT 1 TIMOTHY 2:15 DOES MEAN ---

 

The Holy Spirit through Paul is saying that a woman’s main ministry and sphere of fruitfulness and reward before God is in rearing children and guiding the home. Paul is using the expression “bear children” in a wider context than we normally do today, referring to the training of the children as well as to the birthing. First, this is proven by the context of the verse (1 Timothy Chapter 2). Paul is speaking about spiritual ministry and position. Second, the pronoun changes from “she” to “they.” “They” refers to the children. Paul is saying that women can have effective ministries by rearing children in such a way that the children follow Christ and live godly lives. The verse means that a Christian woman shall be saved from unfruitfulness through child bearing, if her children continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Lady Administrators

:goodpost: , Linda

 

The woman was deceived. The man was not.

 

Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned: (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law. Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

1 Tim.2:11-15
"Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing"

So, DD, if Adam was NOT deceived, he sinned deliberately and in full knowledge of his sinful disobedience. The childbearing that saved the woman saves us all. See Genesis 3.

 

certainly the man has responsibility for teaching. Is Paul saying that a saved man is less likely to be led astray than a saved woman?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Similar Content

    • By MountainChristian
      As we have seen in some other threads, Les teaches two gospels, (grace vs kingdom or gentile vs jew) we know there is only one.
      Also we have learned he teaches two creations. 
      Now we find out the King James Version is wrong and Adam gave up a gonad to create Woman.
      Keep in the back of your mind Les teaches this on TV and if you disagree with his ideas on the verses you are not "rightly dividing" the scriptures. (right in my own eyes dividing) 
       
      We believe the Bible, it says rib so we believe rib. Nothing fancy, nothing added to scriptures. Its sad to see Les who knows the scriptures so well not being satisfied and adding leaven. This could be anyone of us so beware friends and say a little prayer for Les. 
    • By DeaconDixon
      I often preach about the women due to the fact that sisters of Eve are, by their inferiority, more inclined to sin then the men.  But we must also talk about the men and their responsibility to their wives.
       
      Here's a good lesson from James the Preacher:
       
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M4jYrvaKbKQ
       
      Deacon Dixon
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Who's Online   0 Members, 0 Anonymous, 15 Guests (See full list)

    • There are no registered users currently online
×
×
  • Create New...