Is Dispensationalism Elitist?

Discussion in '2005 Archive' started by OldRegular, Dec 19, 2004.

  1. OldRegular

    OldRegular
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2004
    Messages:
    22,678
    Likes Received:
    53
    Is Dispensationalism Elitist?

    If a new believer and student of Scripture were to begin his study using a plain ‘text’ Bible [or a Bible with references and a concordance only; no study notes] he would find no mention of the dispensations as described below and no clear distinction or teaching as to when an old dispensation ends or a new dispensation starts. In fact he would not find the word dispensation mentioned in the Old Testament. For that matter he could be an learned student of Scripture and, if he had not been exposed to the Darby/Scofield system of interpretation, I believe that he would be unable to isolate any such distinct dispensations. The seven dispensations [Ryrie, [i[Dispensationalism[/i], page 51ff] and the period of time associated with each are listed below. Keep in mind that, according to Scofield, a dispensation is “a period of time during which man is tested in respect to his obedience to some specific revelation of the will of God”.

    1. Innocence, extended from creation until the fall.
    2. Conscience, extended from the fall until the flood.
    3. Civil Government, extended from the flood until the call of Abraham.
    4. Promise, extended from the call of Abraham until Mount. Sinai.
    5. Law, extended from Mount. Sinai until Jesus Christ.
    6. Grace, extended from Pentecost until the “Rapture”.
    7. Millennium.

    Assume that our new believer and student of Scripture begins reading in Genesis. What does he find? He reads the creation story, of Adam and Eve, and of God’s command and promise [Genesis 2:16,17] concerning the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Indeed this is a period of time during which man is tested, and our student sees the disobedience of Adam and Eve. They failed the test. Now does he read of the institution of a dispensation of conscience in which man will once again be tested. No! man has been tested and has failed! Rather he reads [Genesis 3] of the promise of God, that the seed of Eve will bruise the head of [destroy?] the Tempter. Later, as he reads the New Testament, the student may come to understand that this promised seed of Eve is none other than the incarnate Son of God and that the defeat of Satan the Tempter and the redemption of “whosoever will” is accomplished through the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

    Does he read next of a second test that fallen man must meet? No! he will only read of the downward spiral of mankind into sin until God’s judgment is executed in the universal flood. However, one man, Noah, will find grace in the eyes of God [Genesis 6]. Noah believed God, obeyed God, built an ark, and was saved from destruction. Now, for the first time, our student reads of a Covenant. An everlasting Covenant made with Noah and his descendants, that is all mankind [Genesis 9]. A promise, in effect, that God would never again destroy the earth with flood. Notice that this Covenant is instituted by God [as are all His Covenants] and is unconditional. Nowhere is there any mention of a new test that man must pass, nowhere any indication of a dispensation of civil government. In fact, there is little more, if any, indication of government after the flood than before.

    Now our student reads of another man who finds grace in the eyes of God, a pagan man, Abram. [The Old Testament Scripture does not mention grace relative to Abraham, yet the mere fact that God called a man out of paganism constitutes grace.] He reads again that God establishes another Covenant, a unilateral Covenant, for all of God’s Covenants are unilateral. Is the Covenant unconditional? Not at all, the two unconditional Covenants are the promise of a redeemer [Genesis 3:15] and the promise not to destroy the earth again by flood. . Even though God graciously initiated and established this Covenant, Scripture teaches that “Abram departed, as the LORD had spoken unto him” [Genesis 12:4] and later teaches that “he believed in the LORD; and he counted it to him for righteousness.” [Genesis 15:6]. The belief of Abraham was not mere intellectual assent but a faith that resulted in obedience. The Covenant was conditional on Abraham’s obedience. God in His grace reckoned Abraham’s faith for righteousness.

    The above is a Covenant of Promise, not a dispensation of promise. There is no indication of any new way in which all of mankind is tested since the Covenant is only for Abraham and his seed. However this Covenant becomes universal in scope with the advent of Jesus Christ. As the Apostle Paul writes:

    Galatians 3:29 [KJV] And if ye [be] Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.

    As our student continues to read he learns of the sojourn of Israel in Egypt, of God’s deliverance of His people and of the journey to Mount Sinai. At Sinai God renews the Covenant of Promise with the children of Israel with additional conditions, conditions designed to enable His people to confront the paganism that surrounded them. The fruits of obedience are:

    Exodus 19:5 [KJV] Now therefore, if ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people: for all the earth [is] mine:

    There are those dispensationalists who contend that the Israelites foolishly gave up faith and promise at Sinai in exchange for the Law. Such a claim is, in itself, foolish. God does not negotiate Covenants, man does not bargain with God. God unilaterally institutes Covenants. The Israelites had no choice in the institution of the Law. Their choice was obedience rooted in faith or disobedience rooted in unbelief.

    Once again the question must be asked, is there a dispensation of law? And the answer must be a resounding, No! The law at Sinai is given to the Israelites. Nothing is said about the Gentiles. The Gentiles knew nothing of the Law of Moses just as they knew nothing of the Promise to Abraham. Yet a new dispensation was presumably for all mankind. [Paul addresses the Gentiles responsibility before God in Chapters 1&2 of Romans.]

    Our student reads of the conquest of Canaan, of the apostasy of Israel, of the establishment of the kingdom, and the “man after God’s own heart”, David [1 Samuel 13.14]. He reads of God’s promise [Covenant] to David and his descendants regarding an everlasting kingdom [2 Samuel 7:4-17]. He will later come to see this promise fulfilled in the Kingdom of the Incarnate God, Jesus Christ, “of the house and lineage of David” [Luke 2:4]. Yet he will continue to read of the apostasy of Israel. Finally he will read of the New Covenant from the prophecy of Jeremiah.

    Jeremiah 31:31-34 [KJV]
    31. Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:
    32. Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day [that] I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD:
    33. But this [shall be] the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.
    34. And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.

    Unlike the Covenant at Sinai where God’s moral law was written on tablets of stone, under the New Covenant God will write His laws on the heart of man. When the student reads the Gospels he will understand that the New Covenant is the fruition of the promise in Eden and is that Covenant instituted by Jesus Christ and sealed by His blood and is extended to “Whosoever will”.

    No mention throughout of different dispensations and different tests. He reads of only only one test that man failed and then he reads of God working in history through His chosen vessel, Israel, to bring to fruition His promise in Eden. Consequently, I believe that the dispensational system of Biblical interpretation by its nature and structure is elitist. It is not indicated by a straightforward reading and interpretation of the Bible. Rather indoctrination or training by someone or something else is required before one can what? understand it, find it, I don’t know! Charles C. Ryrie in his book Dispensationalism [page 52], inadvertently perhaps, admits such when he writes “The average dispensationalist has been schooled to designate the second economy as Conscience.” Thus the remarks above regarding the influence of Scofield on the spread of Dispensationalism. [Many people who use the Scofield Reference Bible do not distinguish between the inspired text and Scofield’s notes. As John Newport comments in The Lion and the Lamb [page 100] “It is not surprising that some persons find it difficult to remember whether they had read something in the text or at the bottom of the page in the notes.”]

    I believe it is clear that dispensationalism is an unnatural system of interpretation and that its adherents must be indoctrinated in its intricacies. It does not follow from a natural reading of Scripture. Darby and Scofield did not “Rightly Divide The Word” they “splintered” it.
     
  2. DeafPosttrib

    DeafPosttrib
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2002
    Messages:
    2,662
    Likes Received:
    0
    OldRegular,

    Amen! [​IMG] Preach it!

    In Christ
    Rev. 22:20 -Amen!
     
  3. av1611jim

    av1611jim
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2002
    Messages:
    3,511
    Likes Received:
    0
    Eph 1:10
    That in the dispensation of the fulness of times he might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; even in him:
    -------------------------------------------------
    There are other uses of this word, but for this post; this Scripture is applicable. That there are seperate dispensations is clearly seen in this Scripture. It is a Biblical word, and is used here to describe one era in which God deals with fallen man in a different way than in other eras of man's sojourn on this planet.

    BTW, in your very long post, you missed one dispensation I found before I heard of dispensations. That of the Dispensation of the Tribulation. Read it in Revelation. They must obey the everlasting Gospel, i.e. Rev. 14:6-7. Concerning that of Conscience, it was judged at the Tower of Babel. Just FYI. You claim that the "student" (Biblical term is disciple, BTW) reads of only one test. Not true. The second test was to "fill the earth". They did not. They gathered together to build the Tower. God condemned and judged them for disobedience.

    Other than that, you are pretty accurate in your presentation. I commend you for that much at least. Your Covenatal Theology is a bit innaccurate though. How you come to the assertion that Dispensationalism is elitist is beyond me. You have presented NOTHING to prove it. You just lay it out there. I would submit, that you need to prove it. I may disagree with your proof, nevertheless, you do need to provide it before you can hurl such an accusation.

    In HIS service;
    Jim
     
  4. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    The delineation of dispensations is remarkably clear in Scripture. The exact number and names can certainly be debated, but the fact that God deals with people in different ways at different times is indisputable unless you have been taught to ignore them.

    When the OP says that no one could sit down with their Bible and come up with this, he does a great disservice to the ones who have seen it clearly in Scripture throughout church history in various forms.

    As a clear example of the mistakes made in thinking in the OP, the author asks if there is a dispensation of Law and answers with s "resounding No." But such an answer ignores the clear teaching of John who talks about Law and Grace (John 1:17) and the clear teaching of Paul who clearly dilineates such a distinction in numerous places including Galatians 3.

    Dispensationalism is by far the most reasonable interpretation of Scripture. It is not elitist in teh least, whatever that means.
     
  5. OldRegular

    OldRegular
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2004
    Messages:
    22,678
    Likes Received:
    53
    Which of the seven dispensations, or eight if you include one for the tribulation, is Paul referring to? :D

    The word dispensation does not occur in the Old Testament. It may be informative to see how the Greek word oikonomia, which is translated either dispensation or stewardship, is used in the New Testament.

    Luke 16:2 And he called him, and said unto him, How is it that I hear this of thee? give an account of thy stewardship; for thou mayest be no longer steward.

    Luke 16:3 Then the steward said within himself, What shall I do? for my lord taketh away from me the stewardship: I cannot dig; to beg I am ashamed.

    Luke 16:4 I am resolved what to do, that, when I am put out of the stewardship, they may receive me into their houses.

    1Corinthians 9:17 For if I do this thing willingly, I have a reward: but if against my will, a dispensation of the gospel is committed unto me.

    Ephhesians 1:10 That in the dispensation of the fulness of times he might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; even in him:

    Ephesians 3:2 If ye have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which is given me to you-ward:

    Colossians 1:25 Whereof I am made a minister, according to the dispensation of God which is given to me for you, to fulfil the word of God;

    Perhaps there are not just 7 or 8 dispensations but 13 or 14.
    :confused: :rolleyes:
     
  6. OldRegular

    OldRegular
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2004
    Messages:
    22,678
    Likes Received:
    53
    You mistakenly state that I have done a great disservice to the ones who have seen it clearly in Scripture throughout church history. No one clearly saw them throughout Church History until Darby came along 1800 years after the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Is it that no one was as smart or tuned into God as Darby was? Also why didn't the Jewish scholars develop the five so-called dispensations in the Old Testament?

    I realize that John speaks of Law and Grace, why did he omit the other five. Also what does Paul give as the purpose of the law:

    Romans 7:7 What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.

    Galatians 3:24 Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.

    Was grace absent after the Law was given?
     
  7. OldRegular

    OldRegular
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2004
    Messages:
    22,678
    Likes Received:
    53
    Why worry about dispensations when you have Covenants which are clearly taught in Scripture. [​IMG]
     
  8. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    THat is simply not true. Dispensations were clearly recognized throughout church history from the first century on. What Darby did more than anyone else is systematize the idea. He did not create it by any means. It is historical revisionism to suggest that the ideas of dispensationalism did not exist until the 1800s.

    Because it wasn't germane to his point, presumably.

    Well, that is a pretty broad question which your two proof texts without explanation will not adequately handle. The GAl 3 passage uses "schoolmaster" in a temporal context, showing that it was a temporary thing until the time of grace. The law did show sin, but that is probably not the Mosaic Law, but rather than universal law of God. The two are different, although many people confuse them since they are untaught.

    Of course not. Ryrie has answered this very well, along with most of the rest of your OP in his book.
     
  9. OldRegular

    OldRegular
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2004
    Messages:
    22,678
    Likes Received:
    53
    Actually Ryrie is one of the reasons I say that dispensationalism, or Darbyism if you prefer, is Elitist. Ryrie in his book Dispensationalism [page 52], writes “The average dispensationalist has been schooled to designate the second economy as Conscience.”

    Schooled means taught. That is the basis for my OP. Unless one is taught the dispensations he will not find them in Scripture, unless he is like Darby. [​IMG]
     
  10. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    YOu misreprsent what he was saying. He was talking about being taught the name of it. The concept of dispensations is clear in Scripture; the various names of hte dispensations are not necesssarily.

    BTW, in that very same paragraph he answers the question you asked at the end of your last post, to which I recommended you read Ryrie.

    You asked earlier, Why worry about dispensations when you have Covenants which are clearly taught in Scripture. The answer is this: We dispensationalists are big on covenants. But unlike covenantalists, we limit it to covenants actually found in Scripture. For instnace, there is the Abrahamic covenant, the Davidic covenant, and the New Covenant. These are all clearly found and delineated in Scripture. Scripture is amazingly silent on the issue of a covenant of works of covenant of redemption. And the funny thing is that covenantalists attack us for dispensations that are supposedly not found in the Scripture, as you did in this very thread. Pretty inconsistent isn't it?
     
  11. OldRegular

    OldRegular
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2004
    Messages:
    22,678
    Likes Received:
    53
    What was Genesis 3:15? :D
     
  12. OldRegular

    OldRegular
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2004
    Messages:
    22,678
    Likes Received:
    53
    By the way I read Ryrie, at least Dispensationalism. I still contend that Darbyism is not derived from a natural reading of Scripture but must be taught. I hesitate to say that people must be brainwashed. :D

    Surely you will not disagree that the Scofield Bible has resulted in the spread of Darbyism throughout the Baptist denominations. This doctrine was unheard of in the writings of the early Southern Baptists such as Boyce, Broadus, the Manlys, Dagg, Mell, Carroll, Conner, Mullins and many others. [​IMG]
     
  13. Craigbythesea

    Craigbythesea
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    5,500
    Likes Received:
    20
    That is a rather excessively polite word for it. Personally, I would use a more Biblical word than "elitist" to describe it!

    [​IMG]
     
  14. Craigbythesea

    Craigbythesea
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    5,500
    Likes Received:
    20
    But as Christians we have an obligation to tell the truth, and dispensationalism is non-biblical fiction and those who believe that fiction have been . . . is it against the rules to use the word "brainwashed"? Let’s just say they are brain contaminated. :eek:

    [​IMG]
     
  15. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    A promise. It is the protoevangelium ... the "first gospel."

    I can't see any possible way to come to that conclusion. Dispensationalists treat the langauge of Scripture normally, just as we treat any language. That is hte way it should be treated.

    Not only should you hesitate, you should repent. It is utterly ridiculous to pretend that dispensationalism is fiction, or that it has no biblical basis.

    I agree that the Scofield Bible was instrumental in the spread of dispensationalism, but it clearly didn't start with either him or Darby. The roots of the dispensational ideas go back to the OT, find themsleves in the NT, and in the church writings since then. As I pointed out earlier, DArby is the one who began to systematize it.

    Dispensationalism is the only system that does not require turning the language of Scripture on its head to extract meaning. Dispensationalists alone can let the plain meaning of the language stand without reading into it. BTW, don't assume that dispensationalism is monolithic. There are many different varieties, almost as many as there are covenantalists.
     
  16. Aki

    Aki
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2001
    Messages:
    454
    Likes Received:
    0
    scriputures teach of different times, the most basic of which is the law vs. grace as written by Paul. neverthelesss it would seem that Paul had no complete knowledge of all that is to come, as it was revealed, presumably, only to John, which John wrote in Revelation. he had knowledge, however, of the rapture of the saints and the tribulation.

    the details beings given in separate books, a system of taught must be developed, upon contributions from different scholars. thus, especailly for dispensation, having a complete and systematic view of it to come later is completely understandable.

    notice that even the smartest of the jews were not able to apprehend the coming of the person of Jesus Christ, though numerous amounts of prophecies were revealed to them.

    as of our generation, while it may be true that the system of teaching the division and connection of times as taught by the scriptures may be relatively new, it is still undeniably clear that the bible teach of dispensations.

    as to how many, and as to gap, such is the one that is discovered upon continuous study.
     
  17. Craigbythesea

    Craigbythesea
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    5,500
    Likes Received:
    20
    Hogwash! Dispensationalism is a modernist, divisive doctrine with no Biblical support whatsoever that was dreamed up in the vain imaginations of Biblically incompetent individuals who took it upon themselves to mutilate the word of God in the Holy Bible. To write that anyone should repent for exposing false teachings for what they really are and teaching the truth rather than a false doctrine comes down to writing that those who obey Jesus should repent for doing so. Personally, I don’t believe that repenting from obeying Jesus is all that spiritual, and it most definitely is not scriptural.

    Some people today who have virtually no grasp of Biblical reality would have us to believe that a modernist doctrine invented in recent times by delusional individuals is obviously the correct interpretation of the Scriptures from Genesis to Revelation, but if it is that obvious, why didn’t anyone notice that doctrine in the Bible until the day before yesterday? And why is it that the vast majority of Biblical scholars believe that dispensationalism is a false and spurious doctrine?

    If the advocates of this false doctrine would admit that they had a nightmare that their therapist interpreted as being a special revelation from God, or admit that they came to believe in this grossly ridiculous and totally unbiblical doctrine through some means comparable to that, we might have some sympathy for them, but they come right out and declare that this ridiculously false, modernist, divisive doctrine is obviously the truth and accuse the teachers of Biblical truth of sin in need of repentance.

    This scenario reminds of an incident that occurred some years ago. A young college student whom I had known since grade school slipped into a delusional state that became so severe that his psychiatrist called the police and described him to them as a man so dangerous that an all-points police bulletin was immediately put out and every available police unit in the metropolis was out searching for this dangerous man who was soon found hiding in some bushes. Several weeks later, when he was allowed to have visitors in the high-security hospital facility where he was locked up, he asked me to tell the hospital administrators and doctors that he was not crazy . . . and I sat there and looked at the madness in his eyes and I was very thankful that his psychiatrist had taken the necessary steps to protect society from this man.

    If only they had gotten to Darby a little bit sooner.

    [​IMG]
     
  18. Daniel David

    Daniel David
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Messages:
    5,316
    Likes Received:
    0
    While I am a New Covenant Dispy, like MacArthur, who see one people of God, dispy teaching is what one comes to if inerrancy is believed and words have meaning.

    Are we elitist? Well, if that means that our theology is superior to others, then YES! By all means, we have the better theology.

    It might be lonely at the top, but it is comforting looking down upon the butchered eschatologies that people come up with.
     
  19. OldRegular

    OldRegular
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2004
    Messages:
    22,678
    Likes Received:
    53
    Well DD according to Chafer and Ryrie, two of the leading dispensationalist theologians you are not a "true blue" dispensationalist.

    You may believe that God has only one people, however, classic Dispensational Theology [perhaps I should say Darbyism] holds an entirely different view of Israel and the Church. The sine qua non [the absolutely indispensable part] of Dispensational Theology is that an intrinsic and enduring distinction exists between Israel and the Church. Lewis Sperry Chafer, in his book Dispensationalism [page 107] writes. “The dispensationalist believes that throughout the ages God is pursuing two distinct purposes: one related to the earth with earthly people and earthly objectives involved, which is Judaism; while the other is related to heaven with heavenly people and heavenly objectives involved, which is Christianity.” Charles C. Ryrie in his book Dispensationalism writes about the above statement [page 39]: “This is probably the most basic theological test of whether or not a person is a dispensationalist, and it is undoubtedly the most practical and conclusive. The one who fails to distinguish Israel and the Church consistently will inevitably not hold to dispensational distinctives; and the one who does will.”

    As to inerrancy and believing that words have meaning I believe in the plenary verbal inspiration of Scripture. Surely you are not going to say that for 1800 years Christians did not believe in the innerancy of Scripture. Surely you are aware that the cry of the reformers was Scripture alone and Faith alone.

    As for what I mean by Darbyism being elitist I take Ryrie's words at "face value". He said in his book Dispensationalism [page 52] “The average dispensationalist has been schooled to designate the second economy as Conscience.” Darbyism does not come from a natural reading of Scripture, Covenant Theology does. Scripture teaches that God deals with chosen men through covenants, not mankind in general through various dispensations. People must be indoctrinated in Darbyism.

    I would remind you that eschatology is only a part of Darby's theology, though that is what most people see as dispensationalism. They seem to be hung up on "a couple of ideas"; the so-called Rapture and the Great Tribulation.

    Your final statement: "It might be lonely at the top, but it is comforting looking down upon the butchered eschatologies that people come up with." is another reason I call Darbyites elitist. Darbyites have a superior air about them that is sometimes insulting. They believe that only Darbyites understand Scripture. Anyone who is not a Darbyite is a liberal and their salvation is questionable, though Darby's theology is one of those theologies developed in the 19th century along with Mormonism, Jehovah's Witnesses, Seventh Day Adventism, and Christian Science.
     
  20. swaimj

    swaimj
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/swaimj.gif>

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2000
    Messages:
    3,426
    Likes Received:
    0
    Is Dispensationalism elitist? No. Dispensationalism is the doctrine held at the grassroots of American fundamentalism and evangelicalism. While there are seminaries that promote it and teach it, its strength is the fact that it is understood and held to by the common man. That is why elitists like Craig-By-The-Sea use such histrionic terms to attack it, as can be seen on this thread.
     

Share This Page

Loading...