Do you agree with this definition of......

Discussion in 'Baptist Theology & Bible Study' started by IFB Mole, May 29, 2006.

  1. IFB Mole

    IFB Mole
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2005
    Messages:
    197
    Likes Received:
    0
    For many Christians, especially “babes in Christ” or new converts, they may have no or little conception of the alleged conundrum between God’s sovereignty and man’s fee will.


    When a person says they believe in the “Sovereignty of God”, in context of soteriology (doctrine of salvation), they mean what is defined by the Theological term, Theocentric Determinism. This means “God centered determination” (i.e. Calvinism). The roots of Theocentric Determinism lie in a very common spiritual belief that everything happens for a divine purpose or that everything that is, has a sufficient reason for being and being precisely as it is, and not otherwise, from the foundation of the world.


    Now roughly speaking, Theocentric Determinism is the idea that every event that has occurred, including human will, cognition and action, was a direct result and caused by an unbroken “casual chain” of prior divinely determined occurrences and conditions together with the laws by which God governs his creation, or broadly; “cause and effect”. There are no mysterious or wholly random occurrences of events. God has “determined” a purpose and a plan for all events as they have occurred and will occur and no event happens other than the way God has determined it to be (predestination), even an individuals choice to believe in Jesus as Savior.


    Theologically, the term “free will” is defined many ways, but it is best summed up as Anthropocentric Libertarianism (i.e. Arminianism). This essentially means “man centered liberty or freedom of will”. God does not assert coercing power over an individuals will and choices beyond what an individual can resist, this results in individuals being held morally responsible and accountable for their actions. It further implies that the self-caused will can and does control some of the actions and choices of a man’s spiritual consciousness (i.e. accepting or rejecting the Gospel of Jesus Christ and His free gift of salvation)
    Anthropocentric Libertarianism is generally held to be the combination of the following beliefs:
    1. that free will is incompatible with Theocentric Determinism
    2. that human beings do possess self-caused and self-determining free will, and
    3. that Theocentric Determinism is false


    Anthropocentric Libertarians (self-determining free will) subscribe to the belief which states that an action cannot be both “free” and “determined” at the same time. Free choices are ones which could have been different to what they actually were (the ability of ‘contrary choice’). Therefore, this means that there is no “previous cause” prior to the individual freely choosing it; the individual’s will is the originator or determiner of future “casual” actions. The future actions of an individual are known to God (foreknowledge) but an individuals future actions are not determined by God. The will is self-determining, hence it is a “free-will” and not divinely determined. God does “convict” but not “coerce” the will.


    Sovereign Compatibilism is the Theological position that Theocentric Determinism and Anthropocentric Libertarianism are in fact compatible. In other words God’s Sovereignty and man’s free and responsible will are harmonious in God’s eternal decrees. The Compatibilist believes in the incomprehensible ability of God to exercise control over His creation in general and people individually in such a manner necessary to not violate a person’s morally responsible will while maintaining his Divine Sovereignty over everything for His eternal redemptive purpose. Though an individual acts and chooses of his free and unencumbered will, his choices are known by God and in fact fulfill precisely His perfect plan and purpose; hence they were determined from a divine perspective, but uncoerced from a human perspective.

    This can best be illustrated by the Old Testament story of Joseph and his brothers. Their jealousy of Joseph was of their own free will. They acted upon their own free will. They changed their minds from casting him into a pit, to instead selling him to passing Midianite traders. Of all the Midianite traders that have gone by their area of their own free will, they sold Joseph to the one that went into Egypt and sold Joseph to the exact person of the Pharaohs’ palace by his free will. We see a “casual chain of events” where each and every person acted of their own free will, yet at the end of the story we read how Joseph’s brothers meant it for evil, but God meant it for good. We clearly see the Sovereignty of God working harmoniously with the free will of man, not in opposition to it. Yes, God can do all things.
     
    #1 IFB Mole, May 29, 2006
    Last edited by a moderator: May 29, 2006
  2. James_Newman

    James_Newman
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2004
    Messages:
    5,013
    Likes Received:
    0
    Jeremiah 32:27 Behold, I am the LORD, the God of all flesh: is there any thing too hard for me?
     
  3. whatever

    whatever
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2004
    Messages:
    2,088
    Likes Received:
    0
    The old Calvinist confessions affirmed both the sovereignty of God and the willful choices of man. Would you consider the quotation below an example of "Sovereign Compatibilism"?

     
  4. npetreley

    npetreley
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2002
    Messages:
    7,359
    Likes Received:
    0

    It is incomprehensible because it is a logical contradiction.

    God cannot do all things. He cannot lie. Why? Because God cannot do logical contradictions. God is truth, therefore anything He says is truth. It would be a logical contradiction for truth to be a lie.

    Put more simply, He cannot make a boulder so large that He, Himself cannot lift it. It isn't that He can't make a large boulder, it's that He can't do something that makes no sense because it is a logical contradiction.
     
  5. IFB Mole

    IFB Mole
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2005
    Messages:
    197
    Likes Received:
    0
    Can you be more specific exactly HOW is it a "logical contradiction" Isn't God's "logic" far above man's logic? Just because it isn't "logical" by YOUR definaition of logic, is YOUR definition of logic a definition that God must conform with? If you can agree with something by YOUR logic then you accept it as trutht? If it is "logical" then it can be true but if it contradicts man's logic then it CAN'T be true, right?

    Is it logical that Jeus is both 100% God and 100% man? Is the Trinity "logical"??

    Just wondering............
     
  6. Helen

    Helen
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/Helen2.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2001
    Messages:
    11,703
    Likes Received:
    1
    Logic is logic. God's WAYS are higher than man's, but logic is still logic. "A" will never be "non-A" for God or man. In Isaiah 1, God invites man to reason with Him so that man will understand the horror of sin and repent and be cleansed. This indicates clearly that God is dealing with man in terms that man can understand and respond to -- and God is NOT talking to saved people in this passage! So the passage is necessarily God talking to unsaved people and inviting them to reason with him. That involves logic and conclusions based on that logic.

    Often those who decry free will seem to think that to want something means that one can accomplish, or help accomplish it. That is in no way implied in 'free will.' Free will simply means the freedom to want, whether it is attainable or not. Sometimes I want to stay in bed all day. I can't. At the very least I have to get up and go to the bathroom! All my life that I can remember, I have wanted to fly -- not in an airplane; me, myself, fly. I have bad legs. I have so often stood on a hillside or high place and looked out over a vista and daydreamed of swooping across it on my own. Does this mean that it is even remotely possible for me to accomplish? Nope.

    Every religion in the world is based on the fact that man knows something is not right with him and he wants to change/improve. This by itself shows Calvinism to be wrong, because men are NOT happy they way they are. Many find excuses for what and who they are and harden their hearts, deliberately, to the reality of wrong and evil. Many others, who acknowledge wrong and evil, try desperately to change things or themselves BY themselves, via religion, education, money, power, etc.

    But some want the truth and do not suppress it in favor of themselves (see Romans 1). That does not mean they can find the truth for themselves or save themselves or anything else. It does mean, however, that they will respond positively to the truth when presented with it, and follow it. And those are the ones the Father will lead to the Son, who IS the Truth.

    But the fact is that EVERY man initially wants to be something other than what he is, or finds himself to be. This is the freedom to want, or free will, which is God's gift to every single one of us. What we do with it is what makes all the difference.
     
  7. 2BHizown

    2BHizown
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2005
    Messages:
    763
    Likes Received:
    0
    When God speaks

    When God speaks--as He has clearly done in Romans 9--then we are simply to follow and believe, even if we cannot understand, and even if it seems to be a contradiction to our puny minds. (Edwin Palmer in The Five Points of Calvinism, speaking on reprobation)

    This is when I refer to Psalm 131:1 Lord. my heart is not haughty, nor mine eyes lofty: neither do I exercise myself in great matters, or in things too high for me!

    I do know that God is sovereign in all things from His decree before the foundation of the world! To understand all His ways is not possible. He told Job, (paraphrase) You thought you were such a one as I am!
    We'll never get all the tiny details straight. Bottom line remains: What will we do with Jesus?

    Speaking of 'free will', of course man does have free will but chooses against God, unless having His guidance!
    Nebuchadnezzar when he grazed had free will also, to choose which pasture he grazed in! So many great examples of men doing what would ordinarily be against their will yet fulfilling God's will, even as pharaoh heart was hardened to the point that he cast the Israelites from his country to achieve God's will for their exit!
     
    #7 2BHizown, May 30, 2006
    Last edited by a moderator: May 30, 2006
  8. J.D.

    J.D.
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2006
    Messages:
    3,553
    Likes Received:
    8
    Hello IFB Mole, to answer your OP question, yes, you seem to have properly defined the theological terms as far as I can see, but let's wait for more input from some better trained theologians than myself.

    But given that the terms are defined properly, are they understood properly? Compatibility, as you've presented it here, is a compromise position on the predeterminate counsel of God. It leaves as its final conclusion that the work of God in determining the end from the beginning is mystery and can not be known. Now we might be able to go along with that, for the secret things belong to God after all. But we can not call something a mystery that is not a mystery. The answers to these questions are in the scripture - not hidden, but in plain view for all to see. No, we do not know everything there is to know about God, for we are finite beings, but nevertheless there are many things we can know if we will receive them.

    Truth is both scriptural and logical. Would you say that scripture is ILLOGICAL? I don't think so. Don't confuse human philosophy with sound logic. One plus one must equal 2 or something is askew. That a truth may be apparently contradictory, such as the union of God and man in Christ, does not make it illogical. It may be supernatural, but not illogical. Just as the order of the universe points to an intelligent God, so does the order of thoughts - logic. Logic is our friend, not our enemy. As a matter of fact, in my own posting, I've begun to appeal first to logic and then to scripture due to the fact that I've found that people who claim to be bible-believers are very unimpressed with the number of scriptures I can display in support of my views. When I first came to this forum Rippon had posted over 100 scripture verses which prove unconditional election. The reply from so-called "Biblicists"? "Proves nothing - anyone can quote scripture. So I don't bother posting scripture as much as I used to.

    There are no personal definitions of logic. I am no expert, but I have studied logic briefly and I know that it is a hard science, applying a mathematical analysis to verbal expression. Here's an example: If A is trued, and B is true, then both A and B is true. Too simple? Let's look at the implications:

    Let A= God's predeterminate counsel
    Let B= Man's responsibility

    If A is true, and B is true, then BOTH A and B are true.

    Therefore, that God has determined the end from the beginning, and man is responsible for his own actions, are both true.

    In which theological system to we see this born out?

    Arminianism: A is not true, B is true, so BOTH can not be true. Only B is true.

    Arminianism teaches that man, in order to be responsible, must have an absolutely sovereign will, so therefore God's sovereignty is limited and therefore not truly sovereign.

    Compatibilism: A is true, B is true, But both are not true.

    How is that? Look at the statement: "God’s Sovereignty and man’s free and responsible will are harmonious in God’s eternal decrees."

    You've used the word "harmonious" here. Do you mean that these "truths" are both true in a complimentary sense or in a supplementary sense? Are they separate but true, but never meet together into one unified truth? If they do not unify together into a single truth, then you are logically saying that the union of the truths (BOTH A and B) is not true. By "harmony", you imply, maybe unintentionally, that they are separate truths, as the two singers sing different lines, not in unison. In order for man's responsibility and God's sovereignty to be BOTH true, they must sing in unison, not harmony. They are not separate but equal truths; they are subsets of a greater truth.

    What you've presented by compatiblism is that two CONTRADICTIONS exist, yet both true, in scripture. This is not possible. The rub comes in the use of the term "free" will. The scripture does not support the notion of a free will in man, except perhaps in the case of Adam. Man's will is in bondage to sin until God changes his will to love Him. Human will can only be said to be free inasmuch as his will follows his desires. The natural man does not desire God.

    Ask yourself "how can God work all things after the pleasure of His own will" and yet man be sovereign in his choices? It is a contradiction of both logic and scripture. Only one can be sovereign. That God controls the choices of men, and thereby controls the outcomes of history, through His own power, is the only right conclusion.

    Now for the Calvinist system:

    A is true, and B is true, therefore, BOTH A and B are true.

    Calvinism teaches that man is fully responsible for sin, because sin is what he willfully chooses to do. That God created man knowing that he would sin does not mitigate man's responsibility, for God's commandment was "Thou shalt not", and man did it anyway. Yet this was all in God's plan, knowing that through the fall He would condemn all; and yet save some according to his good pleasure, mercy, and grace; and through the redemption of some, those he had redeemed would despise their own glory, and would live eternally to the praise of God's glory.
     
    #8 J.D., May 30, 2006
    Last edited by a moderator: May 30, 2006
  9. npetreley

    npetreley
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2002
    Messages:
    7,359
    Likes Received:
    0
    Sure. You can justify even the most ridiculous interpretations with this reasoning. Since God's ways are so much higher than our ways, then He can create a boulder that's so big He, Himself can't lift it. Just because we don't understand how this can be true doesn't mean it isn't true. See where your reasoning leads you?

    Virtually anywhere you want it to go. Which is why it's useless.
     
  10. webdog

    webdog
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2005
    Messages:
    24,691
    Likes Received:
    0
    Excellent post:thumbs:
     
  11. 2BHizown

    2BHizown
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2005
    Messages:
    763
    Likes Received:
    0
    wrong?

    I heartily disagree that man seeks anything other than what God is opposed to? Hence all the manmade religions on earth that reject Christ!
    God Himself said, there is none that doeth good, no not one. There is none that seeketh after God. There is none that understandeth, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no not one!
    We are each spiritually dead from birth until God does an act of regeneration in our heart! Read Romans 5.
    Romans 8:1 There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.
    No matter how good, no matter what the religion the only way to God is through Christ. Man have never sought Christ on his own until Christ first sought him and claimed him!
     
  12. IFB Mole

    IFB Mole
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2005
    Messages:
    197
    Likes Received:
    0
    J.D. and others,

    Excellent and thought provoking responses - much appreciated. Not quite sure where Helen was coming from, but good post never the less. This post is to solicate a response from J.D. on what Spurgeon had to say about God's determinism and man's will.......


    "I see in one place, God presiding over all in providence; and yet I see and I cannot help seeing, that man acts as he pleases, and that God has left his actions to his own will, in a great measure. Now, if I were to declare that man was so free to act, that there was no precedence of God over his actions, I should be driven very near to Atheism; and if, on the other hand, I declare that God so overrules all things, as that man is not free enough to be responsible, I am driven at once into Antinomianism or fatalism. That God predestines, and that man is responsible, are two things that few can see. They are believed to be inconsistent and contradictory; but they are not. It is just the fault of our weak judgment. Two truths cannot be contradictory to each other. If, then, I find taught in one place that everything is fore-ordained, that is true; and if I find in another place that man is responsible for all his actions, that is true; and it is my folly that leads me to imagine that two truths can ever contradict each other. These two truths, I do not believe, can ever be welded into one upon any human anvil, but one they shall be in eternity: they are two lines that are so nearly parallel, that the mind that shall pursue them farthest, will never discover that they converge; but they do converge, and they will meet somewhere in eternity, close to the throne of God, whence all truth doth spring.... You ask me to reconcile the two. I answer, they do not want any reconcilement; I never tried to reconcile them to myself, because I could never see a discrepancy.... Both are true; no two truths can be inconsistent with each other; and what you have to do is to believe them both."


     
  13. npetreley

    npetreley
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2002
    Messages:
    7,359
    Likes Received:
    0
    What Spurgeon said is not the same thing you are saying. Spurgeon is talking in generalities, and he also states that God does, in fact, take precedence over man's actions. Put simply, I think Spurgeon's point is that God is sovereign AND man is responsible.

    You were talking more specifically about soteriology, and part of your compatibilism includes the requirement that God does not take precedence over man's actions. To quote:

    God does, in fact, violate the morally responsible will of men by changing hearts and/or directing their paths, and there is a ton of scriptural evidence for this with respect to soteriology, and without respect to soteriology.


     
  14. doulous

    doulous
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2006
    Messages:
    278
    Likes Received:
    0
    Regarding the OP...are you asking a question or just making a statement?
     
  15. IFB Mole

    IFB Mole
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2005
    Messages:
    197
    Likes Received:
    0
    J.D.

    I continue to ponder how can man be responsible if he doesn't have the choice to believe or reject? I agree that the will is in bondage to sin but the will is part of the soul, not the SPIRITUAL part of man. Man's spirit is ALIVE, but reveling in sin. 'A' and 'B' or "more true" in Compatibilism than Calvinism because Campatibilists beleive that both A and B are true -perhaps I need to define "harmonious" - but I thought the illustration of Joseph's life was a clear example how men act of their "own free will" yet even though they do, it is precisely what God had intended. The Gospel is preached to a sinner and when it is, some are "pricked in the hearts" and believe others are pricked in their hearts and reject. The Holy Spirit convicts man's SPIRIT not HIS WILL and man must either believe by faith (when man believes his spirit controls his will) or reject in unbelief (when he rejects his will controls his spirit)

    My experience has been Calvinists SAY man is "wholly responsible" but thier rhetoric says otherwise because man does not have a choice to believe by faith or reject in unbelief BECAUSE God regenerates FIRST so a person can not otherwise believe because he is regenerate.

    It rings of Spurgeons words:

    C. H. Spurgeon states in a sermon entitled “The Warrant of Faith” in the Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit:

    In our own day certain preachers assure us that a man must be regenerated before we may bid him believe in Jesus Christ; some degree of a work of grace in the heart being, in their judgment, the only warrant to believe. This also is false. It takes away a gospel for sinners and offers us a gospel for saints. It is anything but a ministry of free grace . . . If I am to preach faith in Christ to a man who is regenerated, then the man, being regenerated, is saved already, and it is an unnecessary and ridiculous thing for me to preach Christ to him, and bid him to believe in order to be saved when he is saved already, being regenerate . . . So, then, I am only to preach faith to those who have it.Absurd, indeed! Is not this waiting till the man is cured and then bringing him the medicine? This is preaching Christ to the righteous and not to sinners . . .Brethren, the command to believe in Christ must be the sinner’s warrant, if you consider the nature of our commission. How runs it? “Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.” It ought to run, according to the other plan, “preach the gospel to every regenerate person, to every convinced sinner, to every sensible soul.” But it is not so; it is to “every creature.”
     
    #15 IFB Mole, May 31, 2006
    Last edited by a moderator: May 31, 2006
  16. npetreley

    npetreley
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2002
    Messages:
    7,359
    Likes Received:
    0
    Not according to the Bible.
     
  17. IFB Mole

    IFB Mole
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2005
    Messages:
    197
    Likes Received:
    0
    If it isn't ALIVE how can a man's spirit be TORMENTED in hell for all eternity? Man has a spiritual consciousness- the "light" mentioned in the Gospel of John.
     
  18. J.D.

    J.D.
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2006
    Messages:
    3,553
    Likes Received:
    8
    Hello again IFB Mole, I don't have time right now to answer all your questions, but for now let me just touch on your quote of Spurgeon and the parallel lines. Of all the things of Spurgeon, this may be the one analogy of his I've never liked, and I'm not alone in this. Caution: we should never develope our theology based on an analogy, but rather we use analogies to convey theological truth. Now, to say that the parallel lines meet in eternity is, of course, mathematically untrue, or else they would not be parallel. This has nothing to do with what Spurgeon was trying to convey, but I will use it make my point, which is, that though it may be in the infinite realm that these truths intersect, they weld into each other nevertheless at some point.

    My poor illustration in the AuB logical test was to show that those two truths, though APPARENTLY contradictory, are not in fact contradictory, or else they would not be true, and if they are both true individually they must convey a unified truth together. I believe that compatabilsm denies what I've labeled here as unified truth - it accepts that they may be both true individually, but denies that they are ever true in unison. Now if that's what Spurgeon believed, so be it, but I don't think so. Keep in mind that Spurgeon was set against the backdrop of hyper-calvinism which denied indescriminate preaching and various other tenants of orthodox calvinism. That's why he was labeled a practical arminian by the "stronger" calvinists. So his defenses of human responsibility and means in salvation is not to be taken farther than he intended.

    Also, in regards to your reference to Joseph, notice how the bible says, quoting Joseph, I believe under inspiration, "but God meant it for good". So it was something that God MEANT. That's important, because it shows that the whole event was orchestrated by God himself. It wasn't something just sort of happened and then God "turned it around". No, it was His doings all along.
     
    #18 J.D., May 31, 2006
    Last edited by a moderator: May 31, 2006
  19. IFB Mole

    IFB Mole
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2005
    Messages:
    197
    Likes Received:
    0
    J.D.

    I agree with you 100%, but I still don't understand how compatibilism doesn't believe in both truths, either by themselves or together. That is the essence of it - BOTH are true. God did control the events on Joseph's life however all the "characters" in the "story" acted of their own "free will", they were not coerced. God can in fact determine all events and at the same time hold man wholly culpable for his actions - since they were contrived by their own will. This does NOT make man a "sovereign" as you alluded to previously. We are accountable and responsible for our uncoerced actions, which stem from our sinful nature.

    J.D. - you seem like a very level headed and balanced Christian, which we all should be. I have read many of your previous posts on other threads and they are really insightful and well written, I appreciate the "spirit" of them. Thanks.
     
  20. J.D.

    J.D.
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2006
    Messages:
    3,553
    Likes Received:
    8
    IFB - Well, let me just poke out my chest and say thank you for the compliment! But you probably didn't go back far enough to see some of my overheated ranting. As I write this I am very sad to learn on another thread that many people actually believe that the blood of Christ was not sufficient to gaurantee the salvation of those for whom he died.

    Now for you question - let's take it back to the creation. God created Adam sinless, but with the capacity to sin. Sproul puts it this way:

    Man before the fall: Able not to sin, Able to sin
    Man after the fall: Unable to not sin, Able to sin
    Man after regeneration: Able not to sin, Able to sin
    Man after resurrection: Able to not sin, unable to sin

    So God created Adam without sin, but nevertheless able to sin. Adam's ability to sin was not active until he was first commanded to obey, and then tempted to disobey. Satan came in to the garden and did the work of tempting, tipping as it were the scale to sin. Adam's decision to sin was fully his, therefore, he is responsible, and as his posterity, we inherit this condition.

    The fact that Adam, and we, were fully responsible for sin in no way infringes on God's sovereignty because everything that happened in the garden, and everything since then, was according to God's intent and plan. Satan was there by design - to say otherwise is to place God under Satan in power. Here we understand that Satan, unchangingly fixed as God's contrary adversary, is in fact God's fool in that he, in supposing that he thwarts God's plans, in fact ACCOMPLISHES that which God intends for him to do all along. The entering into Judas stands as a prime example of this - Satan foolishly thought to destroy the Son, but instead drove ahead God's plan of redemption in the attempt.

    So we see that Satan brought the evil presence into the mix. Therefore, God is not the author of sin - that is, while God PERMITTED Satan's work and the fall of man, he neither COMMITTED the temptation of man Himself, nor did he COMMAND man to sin; on the contrary, God commanded obedience, not sin.

    So we can see in the garden scenario, and apply the principle throughout the revelation, that God not only knew the end before it began, but determined the end, the beginning, and the events between.

    Man has sinned and is fallen, and God has sovereignly chosen to call a great multituide by His mercy out of that condition by His own power.

    Therefore, man is fully responsible and God is fully sovereign.

    As far as compatiblism is concerned, I struggle to make the point so perhaps a better theologian can take over the point and explain it.
     

Share This Page

Loading...