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.

Which hymns do you believe contain bad theology


Bouncing Bill
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Members

I would hope that the bad theology hymns (or songs/music) , any or all,  would simply not be introduced or sung or permitted in churches that are abiding in Jesus,  right ?    The testing all through Scripture ,  of differentiating what is right and what is wrong is fairly straitforward,  and I believe should always be done before something, anything, is permitted.

In churches (people) that don't care,  it won't matter, will it ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Well, let's start with what I would surely hope would be the most obvious: The Battle Hymn of the Republic.

This song really has nothing to do with Christianity at all, and if you try to make it fit, it puts us in the  battle of Armageddon, sort of, I think. It's very unclear. Verse 3 says this:

I have read a fiery gospel writ in burnish'd rows of steel
As ye deal with my condemners so with you my grace shall deal
Let the hero, born of woman, crush the serpent with his heel
His truth is marching on

Basically if you want the grace of God, kill the condemners.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, jeff_student_of_Jesus said:

I would hope that the bad theology hymns (or songs/music) , any or all,  would simply not be introduced or sung or permitted in churches that are abiding in Jesus,  right ?    The testing all through Scripture ,  of differentiating what is right and what is wrong is fairly straitforward,  and I believe should always be done before something, anything, is permitted.

In churches (people) that don't care,  it won't matter, will it ?

What hymns do you believe contains bad theology?

Edited by Bouncing Bill
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
14 hours ago, Bouncing Bill said:

What hymns do you believe contains bad theology?

This link provides a good starting list. I've always felt these hymns were off, and for most of the reasons stated in this article. 

https://www.crosswalk.com/slideshows/6-hymns-that-have-been-teaching-you-bad-theology.html

There are many more in the hymnal I grew up with, and in the songs that our youth group sang in Pekin, IL.  Most don't want to correct the bad theology, instead putting their writers "freedom of poetic license" into the picture instead of the Gospel of Christ.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrators

I'm not necessarily disagreeing with with bad theology in some hymns, but I do think we sometimes take liberty in assuming what the author of the Hymn was thinking. I only got to the first song so far and he/she mentions this for the song He Lives...

Quote

What we really need from our hymns is not a subjective declaration but firm trust that Christ lives because the Bible says he does. This hymn teaches us to ground our faith in subjectivity. You ask me how I know he lives…because the Bible says he does.

Yes, I know the Bible tells me He lives, and the Bible also says He dwells within me.

Eph 3:17 "17 That Christ may dwell in your hearts by faith; that ye, being rooted and grounded in love,"

I've always took that as the author of that song was using Scripture to say that He dwells in our hearts. 

I wouldn't say it's theologically wrong as Scripture will back up what the song is saying, but I do think more can be added to the song.  Of course this not Scripture so it pretty much is opinion based.

Shallow yes, bad theology...I'm not so sure

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
50 minutes ago, PastorMatt said:

I'm necessarily disagreeing with with bad theology in some hymns, but I do think we sometimes take liberty in assuming what the author of the Hymn was thinking. I only got to the first song so far and he/she mentions this for the song He Lives...

Yes, I know the Bible tells me He lives, and the Bible also says He dwells within me.

Eph 3:17 "17 That Christ may dwell in your hearts by faith; that ye, being rooted and grounded in love,"

I've always took that as the author of that song was using Scripture to say that He dwells in our hearts. 

I wouldn't say it's theologically wrong as Scripture will back up what the song is saying, but I do think more can be added to the song.  Of course this not Scripture so it pretty much is opinion based.

Shallow yes, bad theology...I'm not so sure

I agree, PastorMatt. I had read this post in the past and my thoughts were, well I do know that he lives in my heart. I don't even think it's that shallow. I think a lot of Christians discredit this side of the Christian life because it makes them uncomfortable to feel like they are approaching anywhere near to what the Charismatics believe. The things of God are not perceived by logic, therefore it's not really enough to say, "it's this way because I read it". It's all well and good to say, "I know he lives because the Bible tells me so" but that will get you nowhere with someone who doesn't believe the Bible. Do I know he lives because the Bible says so? Yes. Do I know that he lives because he's in my heart and I talked with him this morning? Yes. His Spirit bears witness with our Spirit that we are the son's of God.

 

I had hoped that Bouncing Bill would repost the songs he had listed before with a reason for why he feels they contain bad theology. Bouncing Bill, would you do that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrators
10 hours ago, Musician4God1611 said:

I had hoped that Bouncing Bill would repost the songs he had listed before with a reason for why he feels they contain bad theology. Bouncing Bill, would you do that?

Come At Me Lets Go GIF by Yellowstone

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Some that come right to mind:

1) Lead on King Eternal 

2) Battle Hymn of the Republic 

3) And Can it Be?

4) Glorious Things of Thee Are Spoken 

5) Many of the Christmas hymns seem to be teaching Postmillennialism.

I still like these hymns I just ignore the stanzas that contain bad theology. Also, my three favorite hymn writers are Charles Wesley, Isaac Watts and John Newton. While their hymns contain some of the deepest theology they at times contain the worse. I guess when a writer wads out into deeper theology they also will make some more noticeable mistakes.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
9 hours ago, SureWord said:

Some that come right to mind:

1) Lead on King Eternal 

2) Battle Hymn of the Republic 

3) And Can it Be?

4) Glorious Things of Thee Are Spoken 

5) Many of the Christmas hymns seem to be teaching Postmillennialism.

I still like these hymns I just ignore the stanzas that contain bad theology. Also, my three favorite hymn writers are Charles Wesley, Isaac Watts and John Newton. While their hymns contain some of the deepest theology they at times contain the worse. I guess when a writer wads out into deeper theology they also will make some more noticeable mistakes.

 

 

 

Can you substantiate your claims? It isn't going to be much of a discussion if everybody gives a list a songs and says they contain bad theology. It would be like saying, "These are bad. Why? Because I said so." Why do you say they contain bad theology?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

The Church in the Wildwood:

    Promotes the false idea that the 'church' is the building the actual church meets in, rather than just a sanctified building. 

I agree with the Battle hymn of the Republic:

    In all honestly, however, it is called "the battle hymn of the REPUBLIC", meaning in truth, it isn't designed to be a hymn to or of God, but for the State, so in that, it is at least honest in its title, though speaking a lot of false doctrine, (as has been mentioned before, as well as other problems), it ought to be avoided. Another song uses the same tune, called the Circuit-Riding Preacher", which I much prefer.

Brighten the Corner Where You Are:

    Maybe not a lot of bad theology, but overly-simplistic, too repetitive, more allegory, no clear mention of Christ, the gospel, salvation, God, just too vague. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
Posted (edited)
6 hours ago, Musician4God1611 said:

Can you substantiate your claims? It isn't going to be much of a discussion if everybody gives a list a songs and says they contain bad theology. It would be like saying, "These are bad. Why? Because I said so." Why do you say they contain bad theology?

1) It mentions God's kingdom being brought to Earth through our deeds of love and mercy.

2) It's talking about the Lord's coming to trample out Southerners via Yankee troops and dying to make men free nonsense. Not a very spiritual hymn but political propaganda.

3) It says Christ "emptied" himself which is heretical. 

4) It speaks of the Church as Mount Zion which smacks of Replacement Theology.

5) Some Christmas hymns contain a Amillennial (not Post as I said before) slant as if the Lord has already returned and he's reigning over the world through his Church, i.e. the Roman Catholic Church of course. A hymn like "Joy to the World" really isn't fulfilled until the Second Coming. Heaven and Nature doesn't presently sing they groan.

"I Love thy Kingdom, O Lord" is another one that confuses the kingdom with the church and can lead to further heretical beliefs and practices. The church is not the kingdom nor the kingdom the church. When you go down that road you always end up with a church/state situation. 

Edited by SureWord
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
15 hours ago, SureWord said:

1) It mentions God's kingdom being brought to Earth through our deeds of love and mercy.

2) It's talking about the Lord's coming to trample out Southerners via Yankee troops and dying to make men free nonsense. Not a very spiritual hymn but political propaganda.

3) It says Christ "emptied" himself which is heretical. 

4) It speaks of the Church as Mount Zion which smacks of Replacement Theology.

5) Some Christmas hymns contain a Amillennial (not Post as I said before) slant as if the Lord has already returned and he's reigning over the world through his Church, i.e. the Roman Catholic Church of course. A hymn like "Joy to the World" really isn't fulfilled until the Second Coming. Heaven and Nature doesn't presently sing they groan.

"I Love thy Kingdom, O Lord" is another one that confuses the kingdom with the church and can lead to further heretical beliefs and practices. The church is not the kingdom nor the kingdom the church. When you go down that road you always end up with a church/state situation. 

I'm a bit confused about number 3. Why do you say Christ emptying himself is heretical? Doesn't Philippians say that he humbled himself and became obedient? Isn't that, in essence, emptying himself? Also, the song doesn't say that he merely emptied himself, but rather that he emptied himself of all but love. Now I know some people say that this isn't true, but you have to consider this from a poetical standpoint. Obviously it isn't saying that there was no other attribute but love left, but rather that he removed from him any potential for an attribute that is opposing of love. Some would argue that because he is God that he didn't have to empty himself of anything, because it wasn't already there, but if that logic were to stand then we would have to also say that he couldn't humble himself because he was already meek. When the author says emptied himself of all but love, he isn't saying that he had unloving things deep within that he had to remove, but rather that he humbled himself as the Bible says.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
Posted (edited)
9 hours ago, Musician4God1611 said:

I'm a bit confused about number 3. Why do you say Christ emptying himself is heretical? Doesn't Philippians say that he humbled himself and became obedient? Isn't that, in essence, emptying himself? Also, the song doesn't say that he merely emptied himself, but rather that he emptied himself of all but love. Now I know some people say that this isn't true, but you have to consider this from a poetical standpoint. Obviously it isn't saying that there was no other attribute but love left, but rather that he removed from him any potential for an attribute that is opposing of love. Some would argue that because he is God that he didn't have to empty himself of anything, because it wasn't already there, but if that logic were to stand then we would have to also say that he couldn't humble himself because he was already meek. When the author says emptied himself of all but love, he isn't saying that he had unloving things deep within that he had to remove, but rather that he humbled himself as the Bible says.

Christ humbled himself he didn't empty himself. He still remained fully God.

The "emptied" heresy is promoted by many new versions such as the RSV, NASB and ESV in Philippians 2:7.

Edited by SureWord
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

I still don't get where you are coming from. If the Bible says that God is love, then isn't emptying himself of all but love still remaining God since God is love. It is in essence saying emptied himself of all but God. You can't arbitrarily pronounce something to be a heresy without establishing the premises whereby you came to such a conclusion. I can promise you that Charles Wesley did not negate the deity of Christ.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
10 hours ago, Musician4God1611 said:

I still don't get where you are coming from. If the Bible says that God is love, then isn't emptying himself of all but love still remaining God since God is love. It is in essence saying emptied himself of all but God. You can't arbitrarily pronounce something to be a heresy without establishing the premises whereby you came to such a conclusion. I can promise you that Charles Wesley did not negate the deity of Christ.

No, the "emptying" was that Jesus removed all his divinity but love. The word was altered to support the doctrine of kenosis to satisfy to liberal translators who rejected the deity of Christ. Even the term sounds ridiculous. What does it even mean? Sounds like some Hindu nonsense of obtaining nirvana. Christ humbled himself not emptied himself. We are to be like him in humility not "emptility".

So, I'll stick with the KJV.

Charles got this one wrong just like he got eternal security wrong. He's still one of the greatest hymn writers, though IMO, and I still love this hymn.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
13 hours ago, SureWord said:

No, the "emptying" was that Jesus removed all his divinity but love. The word was altered to support the doctrine of kenosis to satisfy to liberal translators who rejected the deity of Christ. Even the term sounds ridiculous. What does it even mean? Sounds like some Hindu nonsense of obtaining nirvana. Christ humbled himself not emptied himself. We are to be like him in humility not "emptility".

So, I'll stick with the KJV.

Charles got this one wrong just like he got eternal security wrong. He's still one of the greatest hymn writers, though IMO, and I still love this hymn.

The “doctrine” of kenosis was said to be first taught by Gottfried Thomasius, who was born in 1804. Charles Wesley died in 1788. I’m pretty sure that isn’t what he was perpetuating.

Additionally, just because you think a term sounds ridiculous, doesn’t nullify it.

On top of that, I repeat that it doesn’t merely say that Christ emptied himself, but rather that he emptied himself of all but love. If God is love, then he couldn’t possibly empty himself of his deity and retain pure love.

This is not even mentioning the implication that those who disagree with you about this don’t stick with the KJV, which is an ungrounded basis.

 I believe at this point it would be safe to assume we won’t be reaching an agreement on this so we’d best just agree to disagree and go on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

"The Church's One Foundation" by Samuel J. Stone 

I've always found something sketchy about this hymn. Very papist sounding.

1) "Her charter of salvation, One Lord, one faith, one birth".

Paul said, "one Lord, one faith, one baptism" Eph. 4:5 

This always made me think the verse was being tweaked to teach baptismal regeneration.

2) "Partakes one holy food".

Is this referring to the Eucharist?

3) "And mystic sweet communion With those whose rest is won."

Prayers to the Saints?

Sure enough, Samuel J. Stone was a CoE priest and he based the hymn on The Apostles Creed. He wrote 12 hymns based on the 12 Articles of the Apostles Creed this one being based on the 9th Article:

"The holy Catholic Church; the Communion of Saints".

Now, the hymn can be viewed differently by the singer for example:

"partake one holy food"

could be thought of as "Jesus, the bread of heaven" but understand the author's original intent.

 

 

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, 14 Guests (See full list)

×
×
  • Create New...