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.

The Morality Behind Christian Women Wearing Pants


Recommended Posts

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
1 hour ago, Jim_Alaska said:

Try telling a woman in Alaska that she should be wearing a dress or skirt when the temp is minus 40 degrees below zero or lower. I'm just saying that there are legitimate exceptions, it is not a "one size fits all" issue.

I find it interesting that whenever this subject of what church members should wear is brought up, it is always about women wearing pants. the subject of what a man should wear is avoided. How many sermons have you heard that focus on the last clause of this verse:  De 22:5 The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God. 

Well the young lady I am courting is from Alaska, Fairbanks to be specific, and both she and her mother ALWAYS wear skirts.Last time I was there it was negative 30 degrees..so how exactly they pull it off, I’m not sure, but they do. 

Edited by Jordan Kurecki
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrators
28 minutes ago, heartstrings said:

In Scottish culture, a "kilt'', is masculine attire, brother.

 

 

yup, right you are Bro. Wanye.

3 minutes ago, Jordan Kurecki said:

Well the young lady I am courting is from Alaska, Fairbanks to be specific, and both she and her mother ALWAYS wear skirts.Last time I was there it was negative 30 degrees..so how exactly they pull it off, I’m not sure, but they do. 

Bro. Jordan, may I ask what church she and you attended while in Fairbanks? There are four Independent Baptist churches in Fairbanks. I may even know your young lady or her parents because these churches fellow-shipped with each other a lot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
21 minutes ago, Jim_Alaska said:

yup, right you are Bro. Wanye.

Bro. Jordan, may I ask what church she and you attended while in Fairbanks? There are four Independent Baptist churches in Fairbanks. I may even know your young lady or her parents because these churches fellow-shipped with each other a lot.

 Bible Baptist

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
1 hour ago, swathdiver said:

As for your last, a man is a visual creature, we see things differently then women and it does not matter how much we love our wives or that we hate seeing that which we ought not to see but our fallen society sees nothing wrong with.  Immodest and improper dress can be a stumbling block to men.  Without thought, our eyes go here and there automatically and I for one have to shield them and my brain lest I fall into sin myself!  Praise God that I am not like I used to be!

If you claim you "can't help" looking then I think you need to develop some SERIOUS self-control. 

And, if you think a woman in pants looks like a man, then you've obviously not understood part of this conversation. Women's pants are cut MUCH differently than men's pants. 

1 hour ago, swathdiver said:

adies should not be medics or firemen, they lack the physical strength to do the job

That's funny! I know a few female medics, firemen and police officers who could take down a man in a minute. A friend of mine is a retired officer from my hometown. She's 5'-nothing and 110lbs on a good day. She had NO problems taking down men twice her size. 

But, I get it...you want to control women...because YOU can't control YOUR OWN thoughts...Ok...my advice on that is grow up and get you some of that fruit of the spirit...that self-control fruit. I have a husband and two sons who don't turn into slobbering fountains of testosterone around women. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
11 hours ago, Saved41199 said:

If you claim you "can't help" looking then I think you need to develop some SERIOUS self-control. 

And, if you think a woman in pants looks like a man, then you've obviously not understood part of this conversation. Women's pants are cut MUCH differently than men's pants. 

That's funny! I know a few female medics, firemen and police officers who could take down a man in a minute. A friend of mine is a retired officer from my hometown. She's 5'-nothing and 110lbs on a good day. She had NO problems taking down men twice her size. 

But, I get it...you want to control women...because YOU can't control YOUR OWN thoughts...Ok...my advice on that is grow up and get you some of that fruit of the spirit...that self-control fruit. I have a husband and two sons who don't turn into slobbering fountains of testosterone around women. 

I don't believe your statements about the female medics, firemen and police officers.  The women medics and firemen are just too physically weak (as God created them) to lift and move large men like men can do.  The police officer's ability to control men was no doubt assisted by her badge and gun.  History is replete with lady officers being overwhelmed and subdued by criminals who were not deterred by their guns and badges.  

Ma'am, you know much that isn't so and you're being haughty.  I shall say no more in this post, God's Word is clear.

Suggested Reading: 

https://www.amazon.com/Bobbed-Bossy-Wives-Women-Preachers/dp/0873980654

51RYTD0FEGL._SX320_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrators
12 hours ago, Jordan Kurecki said:

 Bible Baptist

Well Jordan, I guess I probably do not know them. I only fellow-shipped with Independent Baptist Churches in Alaska. The Bible Baptist church on Farmers Loop Rd. is affiliated with the Bible Baptist Fellowship, so is not Independent. Thanks for the information though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators
On 5/27/2018 at 7:36 PM, Jim_Alaska said:

Try telling a woman in Alaska that she should be wearing a dress or skirt when the temp is minus 40 degrees below zero or lower. I'm just saying that there are legitimate exceptions, it is not a "one size fits all" issue.

 

 

Addressing the above scenario only: I have a friend who is a missionary in Saint Mary, AK. His wife wears dresses. I have a son working with the Russian speakers near Delta Junction, AK - his wife and daughter wears dresses. One of my daughters-in-law lived in Magadan and Krasnoyarsk Russia (both in Siberia) - she, her mother and both her sisters wore dresses. My wife and daughters-in-law wore (or wear) dresses in Kansas -- but it only dipped to a balmy 14 below zero with winds that seldom drop below 10mph.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators
1 hour ago, heartstrings said:

An old timer, I knew years ago, once said "It's a sin if you look twice". I do think there's some wisdom in that. But I remember a deacon's daughter, in the IFB church I was a member of, coming to God's house wearing a dress with a "slit" WAY up her thigh. Another lady would come to the church exposing most of her "cleavage"....Really, WHY? . Just last week, my wife mentioned that the pastor's daughter showed up downtown with shorts so minuscule that her "gluteus maximi" were "protruding".  Ma'am, I agree, men should not be "slobbering fountains of testosterone", but at least when we come to GOD'S HOUSE, we shouldn't be having to walk around looking at the ceiling to prevent ourselves from "seeing once" just because some of the "women professing godliness" can't seem to dress better than "the attire of an harlot" (1 Timothy 2::10) and (Proverbs 7:10) Responsibility goes BOTH ways as God expects women to "control" themselves too;  and most do. God bless you ma'am.

My wife said "AMEN!"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
15 hours ago, swathdiver said:

I don't believe your statements about the female medics, firemen and police officers.  The women medics and firemen are just too physically weak (as God created them) to lift and move large men like men can do.  The police officer's ability to control men was no doubt assisted by her badge and gun.  History is replete with lady officers being overwhelmed and subdued by criminals who were not deterred by their guns and badges.  

Are you calling me a liar? You think women are too "physically weak"? Sir, before I got hurt, I could bench press 225lbs, leg lift over 400lbs. I was a competitive swimmer. Athletically I could take on the boys and beat them in just about anything including wrestling. My father taught judo and taught me well. 

It seems to me YOU have an issue with women. I invite you into the 21st century where women excel in many careers from firefighter to astronaut. I double dog dare you to walk up to a veteran like Senator Tammy Duckworth and tell HER that you think she was too weak to pilot that Apache. Go ahead. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrators
On 5/27/2018 at 8:36 PM, Jim_Alaska said:

Try telling a woman in Alaska that she should be wearing a dress or skirt when the temp is minus 40 degrees below zero or lower. I'm just saying that there are legitimate exceptions, it is not a "one size fits all" issue.

I find it interesting that whenever this subject of what church members should wear is brought up, it is always about women wearing pants. the subject of what a man should wear is avoided. How many sermons have you heard that focus on the last clause of this verse:  De 22:5 The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God. 

Where we are, its not uncommon to see drag queens in the mall or other public events. Needless to say in our solid churches around here both is preached evenly.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
10 hours ago, heartstrings said:

An old timer, I knew years ago, once said "It's a sin if you look twice". I do think there's some wisdom in that. But I remember a deacon's daughter, in the IFB church I was a member of, coming to God's house wearing a dress with a "slit" WAY up her thigh. Another lady would come to the church exposing most of her "cleavage"....Really, WHY? . Just last week, my wife mentioned that the pastor's daughter showed up downtown with shorts so minuscule that her "gluteus maximi" were "protruding".  Ma'am, I agree, men should not be "slobbering fountains of testosterone", but at least when we come to GOD'S HOUSE, we shouldn't be having to walk around looking at the ceiling to prevent ourselves from "seeing once" just because some of the "women professing godliness" can't seem to dress better than "the attire of an harlot" (1 Timothy 2::10) and (Proverbs 7:10) Responsibility goes BOTH ways as God expects women to "control" themselves too;  and most do. God bless you ma'am.

Although I have engaged in this discussion with a push toward a more precise understanding of God's Word on the matter (which causes me to appear as the "contrarian"), I have NO ARGUMENT WHATSOEVER AT ALL with the above posting.  Something IS wrong among believers in the matter of attire, and it is NOT just about "pants on women."

By the way, I wish to add that something is NOT just wrong with the choices that the adult women and young ladies are making for their attire; but something is also VERY wrong with husbands and fathers who are not doing anything to prevent it.  Not all may agree with me on the following, but -- I say shame on the women; and I say shame on the men much, much MORE.

Edited by Pastor Scott Markle
added further comment
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

I would still hold that the passage is pertinent for us today. However, what clothing pertains to a man in 2018 is far different than what pertained to a man in 1930 or in 1750 or in 77AD

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
1 minute ago, Pastorj said:

I would still hold that the passage is pertinent for us today. However, what clothing pertains to a man in 2018 is far different than what pertained to a man in 1930 or in 1750 or in 77AD

Brother "PastorJ,"

I whole-heartedly agree that the principles of Deuteronomy 22:5 are still relevant and applicable unto the present day.  However, I do NOT believe that we can rightly discern that relevance and application until we have FIRST discerned the Biblical meaning of the verse within its immediate context.  Attempting to apply the "principles" before we have discerned the Biblical, contextual meaning is likely to lead us astray in our doctrinal position on the matter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
2 hours ago, BroMatt said:

Where we are, its not uncommon to see drag queens in the mall or other public events. Needless to say in our solid churches around here both is preached evenly.  

Exactly. What many seem to overlook is that if one of those "drag queens" walked into most churches wearing a frilly dress, folks would be shocked or at least do a double -take because a MAN just walked in wearing women's clothes. But let a woman walk into that same church wearing a plaid shirt and a pair of blue jeans and most wouldn't even notice(at least in Southern Baptist churches).  It's because, long ago, THAT became accepted. But why should it be considered any different?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
19 minutes ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

Brother "PastorJ,"

I whole-heartedly agree that the principles of Deuteronomy 22:5 are still relevant and applicable unto the present day.  However, I do NOT believe that we can rightly discern that relevance and application until we have FIRST discerned the Biblical meaning of the verse within its immediate context.  Attempting to apply the "principles" before we have discerned the Biblical, contextual meaning is likely to lead us astray in our doctrinal position on the matter.

I absolutely agree. I believe that the passage is clear that Men should not wear that which pertaineth to a women. The problem is the passage was written to Jewish people around 2000BC. 4000 years later culture has changed and what pertains to a man and a woman is different. This is why God wrote it this way. So that the principle would remain even though culture changes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

The struggle for a lot of people is how culture changes in their own lifetime. What pertained to a man in the 1940's is totally different than 2018. Someone said on this thread that the key is that from 50 feet away, can you tell that they are a woman or a man. I think that is really the key.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrators
3 hours ago, BroMatt said:

Where we are, its not uncommon to see drag queens in the mall or other public events. Needless to say in our solid churches around here both is preached evenly.  

I do understand that situation BroMatt. But in my case I have always lived remote enough that this sort of thing is not seen. I do understand that this is quite common in larger cities and towns.

Actually the post I made that you quoted was meant more about Christians in general that home in on women wearing pants  rather than having it actually coming from the pulpit. All my Christian life I have heard this subject beat to death, but nary a word about men in the same context.

I do agree that if this subject is coming from the pulpit then both should be addressed equally, that was sort of the point I was making; the inequality when it comes to this subject and from Christians in general.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
5 minutes ago, Jim_Alaska said:

I do understand that situation BroMatt. But in my case I have always lived remote enough that this sort of thing is not seen. I do understand that this is quite common in larger cities and towns.

Actually the post I made that you quoted was meant more about Christians in general that home in on women wearing pants  rather than having it actually coming from the pulpit. All my Christian life I have heard this subject beat to death, but nary a word about men in the same context.

I do agree that if this subject is coming from the pulpit then both should be addressed equally, that was sort of the point I was making; the inequality when it comes to this subject and from Christians in general.

 

For the past six years or so, we have been attending a Southern Baptist church, where the women regularly wear "pants", even to church. But neither my wife and daughter, nor myself, have said ANYTHING to anyone there about it. We just treat them like brothers and sisters in Christ. Likewise, nobody there, to my knowledge, has said anything to or about my wife and daughter about their always wearing dresses. They just love us an treat us like family. And I figure that they were wearing pants when I got there, why judge them? But the QUESTION was asked, at the top of this thread, about the "morality" of it, so, here we are. You say "nary a word about men in the same context"? I have heard preachers preach against men wearing indecent clothes, quite a few times, and I would not allow my two boys to go shirtless or wear shorts out in public. But the reason you don't hear much about men wearing "women's attire" is because it just aint too common for men to be wearing dresses or even flowery "pant suits" to Baptist churches. They MAY wear them when they get home, but I haven't seen it. 😄

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Who's Online   1 Member, 0 Anonymous, 16 Guests (See full list)

×
×
  • Create New...