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.

God preserving his word


Recommended Posts

  • Members
1 minute ago, BrotherTony said:

So, you believe in "double inspiration" instead of God being able to preserve his word?

There's no difference. God gives men the inspiration to preserve his word.

Does your bible have errors in it?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrators
14 minutes ago, SureWord said:

If those dead languages are "static" then why a new lexicon with new definitions every year?  

This is what happens when you think God cannot "inspire" a translation, you end up depending on men hopefully getting it right. 

I still haven't found a verse that says God cannot inspire a translation.

You cannot prove a negative.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
23 minutes ago, SureWord said:

There's no difference. God gives men the inspiration to preserve his word.

Does your bible have errors in it?

 

Yes, there IS a difference. The Holy Spirit didn't "breathe" the words to the translators of the KJV...sorry, but that's just the fact. Does my Bible have errors in it? Maybe man derived errors in spelling or punctuation. Are you a Ruckmanite? Just asking...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
1 hour ago, SureWord said:

If those dead languages are "static" then why a new lexicon with new definitions every year?  

This is what happens when you think God cannot "inspire" a translation, you end up depending on men hopefully getting it right. 

I still haven't found a verse that says God cannot inspire a translation.

There are new lexicons to back up the modern versions (also, because the Critical Text is being changed every few years); however, the KJV has not changed, the preserved texts have not changed.

Study it out if you are unaware that the underlying Biblical languages are now dead languages. It is pretty common knowledge - and that fact isn't changed just because you are unaware of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
45 minutes ago, Jerry said:

There are new lexicons to back up the modern versions (also, because the Critical Text is being changed every few years); however, the KJV has not changed, the preserved texts have not changed.

Study it out if you are unaware that the underlying Biblical languages are now dead languages. It is pretty common knowledge - and that fact isn't changed just because you are unaware of it.

From your post above...the preserved texts have not changed.   There you have it...PRESERVED, not INSPIRED. The originals were the only thing "inspired."  Once inspired, even when translated it is the preservation of that inspiration...not a continuation of inspiration. This could also be the answer to the other thread.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Yup, and like I've said multiple times, the Scriptures are still inspired today - not reinspired, but STILL inspired. Some solid Bible teachers refer to this as Derived Inspiration.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Bro. Tony

I agree completely. I haven't been here in a while,  but it sure seems like the Ruckmanites have come in full force to push their heresy.

Time for administrators to get rid of false teachers,  which was the practice when I was an administrator 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
1 hour ago, Pastorj said:

Bro. Tony

I agree completely. I haven't been here in a while,  but it sure seems like the Ruckmanites have come in full force to push their heresy.

Time for administrators to get rid of false teachers,  which was the practice when I was an administrator 

I believe that all of us here fall short and that there are ways that seems right to us man. The way that leads us is to destruction. How can they hear if there is no preacher, or if we kick them out?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

When someone presents their false teachings every chance they get or they buck and kick at everything being taught from the Bible, then they are not searching for the truth or looking for answers, they are here to push heresy or create division.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
44 minutes ago, E Morales said:

I believe that all of us here fall short and that there are ways that seems right to us man. The way that leads us is to destruction. How can they hear if there is no preacher, or if we kick them out?

This isn't a church, but a virtual board for posting,, @E Morales, of which I'm sure you're totally aware. If and when someone is pushing ideas that most would consider heretical here, they should be warned several times about it. If they persist, I believe it's up to the administrators to decide what they want to do. I don't have a problem with someone voicing their opinion on this. Of course, I'm NOT an administrator, nor am I a moderator. So, it wouldn't be up to me. I don't necessarily agree with Jerry on this, but I'm not so over the top that I'd boot him. People have different interpretations of words like inspiration and preservation. There has to be an agreement on what these words mean before there is any agreement on anything else pertaining to the discussion going on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Allowing heresy in this board was never an option in the past. It's one thing to disagree on a topic. It's completely different on doctrine. Double inspiration has been infiltrating our churches and is a very dangerous heretical teaching.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
1 hour ago, Pastorj said:

Allowing heresy in this board was never an option in the past. It's one thing to disagree on a topic. It's completely different on doctrine. Double inspiration has been infiltrating our churches and is a very dangerous heretical teaching.

How is it dangerous?

You just want enough wiggle room to throw doubt on the KJV with your Texts Receptus Only nonsense which you and a few others have been doing unabated in this forum 

The scripture Paul said was inspired were copies of the originals. Were those who copied the originals inspired? According to Paul they were the inspired scripture. If you say they are at least in the "original languages" then you are diminishing the power of God saying he can only preserve his words in Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek and his pure words disappeared long ago.

We also know the Textus Receptus is a patchwork of different MSS and readings that was put together AFTER the KJV was translated.

Again, inspiration is God given the spirit of men understanding (Job 32:8). You are conflating inspiration with revelation.

Also, how do you explain the added words, i.e. italics. Please don't give me the old alibi that the Hebrew and Greek MSS "suggested" these words they still had to be added by the translators and this required some kind of inspiration from God. How did the MSS suggest the word  "unknown" as in "unknown tongue"? That word was added by the translators making the English reading superior to the Greek reading.

Do I believe that God gave new revelations to the translators? No. But I do believe the translators were inspired by God to preserve his pure words without errors.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
10 minutes ago, SureWord said:

You just want enough wiggle room to throw doubt on the KJV with your Texts Receptus Only nonsense which you and a few others have been doing unabated in this forum 

We also know the Textus Receptus is a patchwork of different MSS and readings that was put together AFTER the KJV was translated.

Textus Receptus Only nonsense? If you are knocking the TR manuscripts, then how can you be in support of the KJV? It was faithfully translated from the OT Masoretic Text and the NT Textus Receptus.

Also, your second statement above is less than a half truth. Scrivener's Greek NT is the one that was put together after that translation of the KJV (ie, he put it together in the 19th century to backup the mansucript support of the KJV when Westcott and Hort were pushing their corrupt Greek text); however, he didn't create it but based it upon all the manuscript readings that were in line with the KJV.

There are other editions of the Textus Receptus that were way before the KJV - such as Stephanus'. I don't know all the names, but these manuscripts existed since the first century and weren't just invented in the last four hundred years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
Posted (edited)
13 hours ago, Jerry said:

Textus Receptus Only nonsense? If you are knocking the TR manuscripts, then how can you be in support of the KJV?

The way that Brother SureWord can "knock" the Masoretic Text and Received Text manuscripts, but still hold firmly to the King James translation, is because he actually believes that the King James translators were inspired by the Holy Spirit of God, such that they were moved with divine perfection.  

13 hours ago, SureWord said:

Do I believe that God gave new revelations to the translators? No. But I do believe the translators were inspired by God to preserve his pure words without errors. (emphasis added by Pastor Scott Markle)

However, from my perspective Brother SureWord presented his statement without precision.  He stated his belief that "the translators were inspired by God to PRESERVE His pure words without errors."  Yet he is applying the idea of preservation to a translation.  The doctrine of "jot and tittle" preservation would require the pure words of God in every precise "jot and tittle" to remain exactly the same as previous.  By definition translations CANNOT do this.  By definition translations CHANGE the "jots and tittles" into a different language set of "jots and tittles."  Thus with precision it would have been more accurate for Brother SureWord to present his belief that the translators were inspired by God to TRANSLATE His pure words without errors.

Even so, because of his belief that the translators were directly inspired by God in their translation work, Brother SureWord further holds that the King James English translation is superior to the preserved Greek and Hebrew texts, as per the following:

13 hours ago, SureWord said:

That word was added by the translators making the English reading superior to the Greek reading. (emphasis added by Pastor Scott Markle)

However, from my perspective Brother SureWord has presented a self-contradiction in his presentation above, with the following statements:

13 hours ago, SureWord said:

Also, how do you explain the added words, i.e. italics. Please don't give me the old alibi that the Hebrew and Greek MSS "suggested" these words they still had to be added by the translators and this required some kind of inspiration from God. How did the MSS suggest the word  "unknown" as in "unknown tongue"? That word was added by the translators making the English reading superior to the Greek reading.

Do I believe that God gave new revelations to the translators? No. But I do believe the translators were inspired by God to preserve his pure words without errors.

 

Herein Brother SureWord made reference to the italicized words in the King James translation, and specifically called them "added words" (which is factually accurate).  He then indicated that when these "added words" were thus added by the King James translators, it required "inspiration from God."  Thus we might conclude that in His work of inspiration God gave ADDED (and superior) words to the original wording, which by definition would be ADDED revelation.  However, Brother SureWord then stated his position that he did not believe "that God gave new [added] revelation to the translators."  This indeed appears to me as a self-contradiction in his position.  If God Himself directly inspired the ADDED words and wording, then by definition it would appear that He Himself DID directly give ADDED revelation to the King James translators.

(Note: I myself most certainly do NOT agree with the position that Brother SureWord has presented above on this matter.)

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

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
14 hours ago, SureWord said:

Also, how do you explain the added words, i.e. italics. Please don't give me the old alibi that the Hebrew and Greek MSS "suggested" these words they still had to be added by the translators and this required some kind of inspiration from God. How did the MSS suggest the word  "unknown" as in "unknown tongue"? That word was added by the translators making the English reading superior to the Greek reading.

Do I believe that God gave new revelations to the translators? No. But I do believe the translators were inspired by God to preserve his pure words without errors.

1 hour ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

However, from my perspective Brother SureWord has presented a self-contradiction in his presentation above, with the following statements:

Herein Brother SureWord made reference to the italicized words in the King James translation, and specifically called them "added words" (which is factually accurate).  He then indicated that when these "added words" were thus added by the King James translators, it required "inspiration from God."  Thus we might conclude that in His work of inspiration God gave ADDED (and superior) words to the original wording, which by definition would be ADDED revelation.  However, Brother SureWord then stated his position that he did not believe "that God gave new [added] revelation to the translators."  This indeed appears to me as a self-contradiction in his position.  If God Himself directly inspired the ADDED words and wording, then by definition it would appear that He Himself DID directly give ADDED revelation to the King James translators.

(Note: I myself most certainly do NOT agree with the position that Brother SureWord has presented above on this matter.)

With further reflection I wish to add some further thoughts to my comments above.  To claim that the King James translators were directly inspired by God the Holy Spirit, such that every "jot and tittle" of the English King James translation was precisely translated with inerrant perfection, but then to claim that God gave NO new added revelation at that time, seems from my perspective to be a logical inconsistency.  Such is one of the reasons why I myself (and others similar in position to me) oppose that viewpoint so firmly - because it appears to necessitate ADDED revelation.

Furthermore, I would ask of those who hold such a position -

1.  Was William Tyndale inspired by God the Holy Spirit when he produced the Tyndale English translation of the Bible?

2.  Was the 1769 "reviser" of the King James translation inspired by God the Holy Spirit when he revised the King James translation? 

(Note: If the answer is NO, then that "reviser" had no divine authority to change a single "jot or tittle" of the original King James translation, not in a "jot or tittle" of spelling or a "jot or tittle" of punctuation."  On the other hand, if the answer is Yes, then we see a "sequence" of divine inspiration upon the King James English translation.  As such, it would be logically possible for the Lord our God yet to inspire another "reviser" or "revision committee" for yet another revision of the King James translation.)

3.  Were the translators of the New King James translation inspired by God the Holy Spirit when they produced the New King James translation?  

(Note: If the answer is NO, then upon what doctrinal grounds, being logically consistent within your belief system, do you deny this possibility to them?  If the answer is Yes, then we all should have switched to using that which the Lord our God has most lately inspired for us.)

4.  Are there any other translations in any other languages that have also received God's direct hand of inspiration upon them?

(Note: If the answer is NO, then I would ask why the Lord our God singled out the English language translation for His special work of inspiration, but not any other language.  If the answer is Yes, then I would ask whether those Holy Spirit inspired translations agree with the King James English translation in "jot and tittle" agreement.  If they do not agree in "jot and tittle" agreement, then may we conclude that the Lord our God intends his Holy Word to be "jot and tittle" different for different language groups?)

_______________________________________

Note:  The questions above are NOT presented because I stand against the King James translation, for I most certainly do NOT.  In fact, I hold firmly to the King James translation for English speaking peoples.  However, I most certainly do NOT come to that position through any form of "re-inspiration" viewpoint.  Indeed, I stand just as firmly AGAINST a "re-inspiration" viewpoint, as I stand FOR the King James English translation.  Thus the questions above are intended to reveal and confront the consistencies (or inconsistencies) of the "re-inspiration" viewpoint.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
1 hour ago, Pastorj said:

It's impossible to argue with heretics

Administrators, It's time to remove these heretics.

Extreme.

 

on that note, this entire discussion is just mans babble. It’s up to the Holy Spirit to teach us scripture anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
1 minute ago, Hugh_Flower said:

Extreme.

 

on that note, this entire discussion is just mans babble. It’s up to the Holy Spirit to teach us scripture anyway.

Not at all.  This board was founded by like minded IFB people. There was no place on this board for heretics. Threads were locked and people were banned. That has been the process historically. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Actually, this discussion is about the BIBLICAL doctrines of inspiration and preservation - how they are Biblically defined, how they relate Biblically to each other, how they relate Biblically to the matter of translation, and how they provide for a divinely authoritative Scriptures for us today.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. 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, 13 Guests (See full list)

×
×
  • Create New...