# Wilson: Federal Vision No More?



## greenbaggins

Wilson has posted something distancing himself from the Federal Vision. My response is here.

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 2


----------



## RamistThomist

It's just him being clever again. He hasn't rejected FV. Wilson states: "This statement represents a change in what I will call what I believe. It does not represent any substantial shift or sea change in the content of what I believe."

When he repents of his errors and joins a solid church body and places himself under elder oversight, and then begins apologizing to all of the people he has hurt, then maybe I'll buy it.

Reactions: Like 9 | Amen 1


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

It is to be taken with a skip-load of salt.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Semper Fidelis

greenbaggins said:


> Wilson has posted something distancing himself from the Federal Vision. His post is here, and my response is here.


Lane,

There's no link in the first "here" of your post linking to Doug's post.


----------



## greenbaggins

Rich, not sure what you mean. I checked the links both in the PB post and on the GB, and they all work.


----------



## greenbaggins

Semper Fidelis said:


> Lane,
> 
> There's no link in the first "here" of your post linking to Doug's post.


----------



## greenbaggins

Oh, now I see what you mean. I have fixed it.


----------



## NaphtaliPress

It worked for me too; but very slow loading.


----------



## Jack K

It's interesting, for sure.

I think folks will want to see what he has to say about justification, since that's such a gospel-centric issue where his views have been questioned. But in general, it's good when a man confesses he should have been quicker to listen to criticism, should have been slower to defend questionable views just because he felt his home camp threatened, and needs to seek forgiveness and write with more clarity. The church would be better off if more believers, myself included, did this more readily.

Rather than assume something slippery is going on, I'd like to assume repentance is going on, as it ought to be in all of us. This is not because I admire or despise Wilson, but because I have confidence in Christ, and repentance is one of those things Christ works in his church.

Reactions: Like 1 | Love 1


----------



## Edward

I never thought I'd post that I agreed with what he said, but I'll fully subscribe to his statements:



> So one of the few things I have been successful at doing is persuading a number of people that I am a sly fellow, and one who bears close watching. Heretics are slippery with words, and since I have spent a lot of time trying to grease this particular piglet, I must be a heretic.

Reactions: Like 3 | Funny 1


----------



## RamistThomist

1. He is still in communion with people who can't affirm the WCF on justification. He has not broken with them.
2. He is still Pope of his non-denomination.
3. He is still unordained.
4. The very structure of the CREC makes challenging DW impossible.
5. He has only rejected the name "Federal Vision." He has made clear in my quotation in post #2 that he still affirms the key teachings.
6. He has said he would still sign off on the FV Joint Statement.

Reactions: Like 7


----------



## Gforce9

Good assessing rebuttal, Rev. Keister. It would be good for all of Protestantism for Mr. Wilson to repent fully.....may that happen yet.


----------



## Justified

While agreeing with Jacob that he still needs to distance himself from the movement other ways, I am willing to extend some charity; by that I mean, essentially, we'll see what happens.


----------



## RamistThomist

I know it looks like I am being uncharitable (I probably am), but I have reasons for a healthy "hermeneutics of suspicion." I think Evan knows why, but if any are curious they can PM/email me. And it goes beyond theology.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Semper Fidelis

One of the things that I find most unappealing about Doug Wilson is his constant desire to appear clever in everything he writes. He cannot simply write a heartfelt and serious retraction. It has to come across as clever - for someone to applaud the way he turns a phrase. I can be clever but I don't try to turn a phrase when I'm trying to be contrite.

He makes some good points about how unfair some men in the FV trajectory have been treated. I would never lump myself into the category of really serious thinkers whose knowledg of things Reformed needs to be widely read and respected, but I could see at the time how the idiosyncracies of some Reformed critics of the FV made it difficult for the FV adherents to hear valid criticism.

That said, when you step outside of the theological tradition of the Reformed faith and try to be novel you invite this kind of backlash. There's a reason why ordination vows require us to study the peace and purity of the Church. We don't take vows to study how we might innovate and prove to the Church how much we know and then complain that the Church just doesn't "get us" and complain about the way we were treated. I think Wilson still suffers from the illusion that his particular views (however unnamed) or Leithart's views have no real consequence. He notes (approvingly) of himself that he feels no need to hurl charges at Leithart. Well that's nice. It's because he cares more about his "rights" to theological novelty in some sort of pseudo-Presbyterian ecclesiology that insulates him from real accountability.

Best thing I ever heard from a truly pious and wise Pastor on the subject of exceptions was to correct the notion that our exceptions to the Confession somehow belong to us. It's common for ministers and elders to treat their exceptions as so much "academic freedom" but our exceptions belong to the Church. We don't confess a Confession as individuals but as a Church and there are far too many troublers of the peace and purity of the Church who think the other way around. They have Doug Wilson as a prime example of this theological approach.

I remain a non-fan. Even if Wilson truly projected Westminsterian theology, his arrogance would belie that the theology has moved from the head to the heart to the hands.

Reactions: Like 9 | Edifying 1


----------



## bookslover

I could be wrong but, having read Wilson's statement, it seems to me that he wants to keep the things he likes about the federal vision, but call it something else? Or carve out his own version of the FV from the larger movement? Hard to tell with ol' Slippery Doug.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Daniel M.

Does anyone else get infuriated reading this man's writings?

Forget the content for a minute... he simply dances around the point for what had to be like, 50 paragraphs!

And he's barely said anything!!!

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## ZackF

The bridge to Rome/Constantinople that Wilson, Leithart and the FV erected should drive said men to their knees for repentance. To my knowledge I am the only person who came to the Gospel from Rome through NPP/FV/AA. I remember reading these guys in the early to mid 2000s and saying to myself, "is this Protestantism? Really? It sounds Catholic to me!" Not to mention all of their ridiculous AA/FV mini-Mes and their grating, pretentious sounding blogs with Latin names. So sad were those misguided young (usually) men. Fortunately, I didn't stop there and went on to read men who valued and cherished the doctrines of grace. By God's grace I left Rome, repented, believed and shortly found a biblical church and the PB. SDG

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## LilyG

Of course I hope there is some genuine repentance, if not in the future, but I don't see reason to believe it is present from his blog post. As I understand and others have noted, he simply wants to distance himself from the name. So?

Ugh, the whole thing is so sad. If I could quote my husband's (David Gadbois) comment on Lane's blog...

"What makes me sad about this whole business, stretching back 15 years now to the 2002 Auburn Avenue Conference, is the destructive divisiveness it has caused within the reformed churches, the churches that have been broken apart, churches leaving their denominations, massive failures of church discipline to correct/expel FV adherents, the apostates to Rome it created, the MASSIVE amount of time, energy, and resources of Christ’s church that were diverted to address these errors (time we could have been reaching the lost, evangelizing, church planting, etc.).

Finally, there is the sad business about Wilson himself, who has wasted his own remarkable and uncommon talents on the FV project. He is a Mt. Vesuvius of ideas, prolific and articulate on a level that God gifts to perhaps only a handful of men in a generation. He has, at times, been an effective spokesman for the Christian faith (notably, in various debates) and at one time a helpful spokesman for the reformed faith (remember when he used to hang out with the Ligonier crowd?). Who knows, maybe he could have been something like the next R.C. Sproul- he is certainly in that class as a communicator. But alas he has now wasted a fair chunk of his adult life on this odious and failed theological project. You could have been a contender, Doug."


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

I am not willing to take what Doug Wilson says here at face value for several reasons, which are basically the same as the ones that Jacob has outlined. Doug has a long history of being slippery and duplicitous in his use of language. All he has said here is that he would like to reject the term "Federal Vision." Why? Probably so that he may continue to teach the same things and more easily deceive the unwary.

The Lord tells us to beware of wolves in sheep's clothing, not wolves in wolves' clothing. One thing that I have learned from my time in my former denomination is that open liberals are less dangerous than heretics who appear to be orthodox. The wolf in wolves' clothing is easier to detect, and so at least you know he is a wolf. The wolf in sheep's clothing, by way of contrast, is much better at camouflaging their evil intentions and thus more readily lure their unsuspecting prey.

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## TylerRay

At the risk of sounding like I'm endorsing Wilson or approving his views (which I am _not_ doing), I thought I might provide some context to what he is saying in his post.

It's sometimes hard for folks with no experience of the Federal Vision circles to understand the distinctions that exist within them. As someone who was a member of a CREC church in my younger and more ignorant days, I can understand where he is coming from.

There are essentially two groups within those circles. The terminology they have used to distinguish them is "FV Dark" and "FV Light." While at first the difference may seem merely external, it is not.

The "FV Dark" folks embrace a lot stranger stuff than white robes. For instance, they embrace James Jordan's interpretive maximalism, which can make any passage of Scripture teach anything you want it to teach. They also tend to embrace the New Perspective on Paul. Further, they deny the imputation of the active obedience of Christ. Finally, they tend to distance themselves from labels like Protestantism, preferring a fuzzy ecumenism that embraces all branches of Christianity.

The "FV Light" folks, on the other hand, hold to the more standard historical-grammatical and redemptive-historical hermeneutics, take the traditional Protestant reading of Paul, affirm the imputation of the active obedience of Christ, and view themselves as merely tweaking Reformed Protestantism (not that I agree with their assessment of themselves).

In the FV circles, the "Dark Side" of the Federal Vision has become wildly popular. When I was associated with the CREC, I once attended a Presbytery meeting in which someone asked if an individual who was not present was "FV," to which one responded, "FV Light, I think," which sounded more like, "yeah, sort of." You might say that it is somewhat uncool to not embrace the "Dark Side."

The proportion of "FV Dark" folks to "FV Light" folks has caused people on the outside to sometimes assume that the "Light" folks embrace the distinctives of the "Dark" folks. That is unnecessary confusion that I can understand Mr. Wilson desiring to distance himself from. In his article, he essentially says, _Let the FV Dark folks have the term Federal Vision._ He doesn't want their views ascribed to him.

That being said, it is clear that Mr. Wilson has not changed his views. He still holds to an erroneous view of justification, as well as several other errors. He has a lot to repent of yet.

There have always been those outside of the FV circles who essentially hold to all of the distinctives of that movement, while avoiding the label. John Frame comes to mind. So it's not surprising that Wilson thinks that he can drop the label and still embrace his views.

Reactions: Like 5 | Informative 4


----------



## Bill The Baptist

I am still waiting for a post from Wilson entitled "Equivocation no more." Until then, this is yet another example of ink being sacrificed upon the altar of obfuscation.

Reactions: Like 5


----------



## bookslover

Wilson wrote that Leithart has not gone over to the RC. Is that true? I was under the impression that he has already swum the Tiber.


----------



## MW

Thankyou, Tyler, for that background information. Does Doug Wilson properly distinguish the active and passive obedience of Christ? I recall a video where he equates active obedience with Christ's life and passive obedience with His death and resurrection. There was nothing about the preceptive and punitive relation to the law. Are there any publications or media where he makes a proper distinction.


----------



## RamistThomist

bookslover said:


> Wilson wrote that Leithart has not gone over to the RC. Is that true? I was under the impression that he has already swum the Tiber.



No. Leithart envisions a day when there will be no differences between Prots and Romanists. He even says most of the apologizing needs to be done by Prots. With that said, however, he is still either CREC or PCA. I think he is CREC.


----------



## RamistThomist

MW said:


> Thankyou, Tyler, for that background information. Does Doug Wilson properly distinguish the active and passive obedience of Christ? I recall a video where he equates active obedience with Christ's life and passive obedience with His death and resurrection. There was nothing about the preceptive and punitive relation to the law. Are there any publications or media where he makes a proper distinction.



I do not think he has updated his position on that point. I have not seen him make the distinctions you listed, though I only read his blog maybe once a month now.


----------



## Edward

ReformedReidian said:


> Leithart envisions a day when there will be no differences between Prots and Romanists. He even says most of the apologizing needs to be done by Prots. With that said, however, he is still either CREC or PCA. I think he is CREC.



Unless something has changed very recently, he's CREC. When he moved to Alabama, the PCA there wouldn't let him labor out of bounds in their Presbytery. As I recall, his old Presbytery wouldn't give a satisfactory response to the folks in Alabama, but Leithart finally left the PCA and officially moved to CREC - which he should have done years ago, and which would have avoided causing a lot of pain. 

Reminds me a bit of the guy in Monroe, who caused as much pain and disruption in the PCA as he could before he was finally cornered.


----------



## Edward

Semper Fidelis said:


> One of the things that I find most unappealing about Doug Wilson is his constant desire to appear clever in everything he writes.



I always found his writing style to be his most endearing characteristic. He was always entertaining to read.


----------



## ZackF

Edward said:


> I always found his writing style to be his most endearing characteristic. He was always entertaining to read.



I have too though I agree with Rich the man just needs to be clear on this. It's like a politician who gets caught with his pants down. He's sorry that getting caught has broken his family's heart and embarrassed them but he is not really sorry for the adultery itself. With Wilson, it seems the more important the doctrinal issue the cuter he has to be. He's not ambiguous about where he stands on gay marriage, so why must the work of Christ and Justification be 'explained' as to leave such important teaching languishing for clarity. Faux-nuance on the Gospel is a sign of a teacher with a heart for vain philosophies and not souls.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## greenbaggins

I have written an open letter to Wilson on the blog now.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## NaphtaliPress

I read somewhere Owen said something along the lines that Baxter needed to go back to school. I don't this will have any different result.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Ironically, I think Baxter is a favorite among many in the FV.


----------



## TylerRay

MW said:


> Thankyou, Tyler, for that background information. Does Doug Wilson properly distinguish the active and passive obedience of Christ? I recall a video where he equates active obedience with Christ's life and passive obedience with His death and resurrection. There was nothing about the preceptive and punitive relation to the law. Are there any publications or media where he makes a proper distinction.



Rev. Winzer,

You may be referring to this video. He refers to the imputation of Christ's active obedience as "his perfect, sinless life being ... imputed to his people." He refers to the imputation of Christ's passive obedience as "his sacrifice on the cross." 

I may be missing something, but it seems that he is saying that Christ's meritorious obedience to the law (active obedience) is imputed to his people, as well as his suffering the penalty for the breaking of that law (passive obedience).

I'll also say that, when it comes to this video and others like it, Wilson is speaking off the cuff, and is only giving a "short and sweet" answer to questions from ordinary Christians. That is to say, the "Ask Doug" videos should not be thought of as a representation of just what Wilson would say if he were to give the fullest, most precise presentation of what he believes.


----------



## greenbaggins

NaphtaliPress said:


> I read somewhere Owen said something along the lines that Baxter needed to go back to school. I don't this will have any different result.



You are probably right. But surely it is good to make the attempt. Who knows? The Lord may be merciful to him.


----------



## MW

TylerRay said:


> I may be missing something, but it seems that he is saying that Christ's meritorious obedience to the law (active obedience) is imputed to his people, as well as his suffering the penalty for the breaking of that law (passive obedience).



Perhaps he holds this and does not state it as clearly as he might, but as an impartial listener I don't hear an affirmation of the doctrine; the listener must assume he holds it and interpret him accordingly.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Semper Fidelis said:


> Ironically, I think Baxter is a favorite among many in the FV.


He should be. He was a neonomist basically. Supposedly he repented of his strange view of justification later in his life.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

greenbaggins said:


> I have written an open letter to Wilson on the blog now.


@greenbaggins Lane,
I quit responding on blogs a long time ago. It got to be a task for me to keep up on things. Especially when dealing with DGH. I actually like him. I find him to be honest and ignorant at the same time. LOL. Or should I say ignorant and then honest about some of his lack of propriety? Anyways, I actually posted on your blog. Here was my reply.



> As someone who has been somewhat controversial, I would admonish Doug Wilson to seek a good place of known Respectable Men to be accountable to. That has been a place I found to be refining and protecting. It refined me. God protected me and His testimony. The later is what I really desired. I want God’s Testimony to be true through my life. And my critics where some of his as I criticized them. I have been justified in my some of my criticisms by the OPC report.
> 
> Finding a place of submission among those whose conversation is good (their way of life) is of vital importance. I would admonish DW to seek that out and to keep clear of things that are and might be found confusing. All of NAPARC spoke on the issues of the Federal Vision. Their voices were one. He needs to deal with that. It is a good place to start.
> 
> Heb 13:5 Keep your life free from love of money, and be content with what you have, for he has said, “I will never leave you nor forsake you.”
> 
> Heb 13:6 So we can confidently say, “The Lord is my helper; I will not fear; what can man do to me?”
> Heb 13:7 Remember your leaders, those who spoke to you the word of God. Consider the outcome of their way of life, and imitate their faith.
> Heb 13:8 Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever.
> Heb 13:17 Obey your leaders and submit to them, for they are keeping watch over your souls, as those who will have to give an account. Let them do this with joy and not with groaning, for that would be of no advantage to you.
> Heb 13:18 Pray for us, for we are sure that we have a clear conscience, desiring to act honorably in all things.
> 
> If Doug Wilson wants to be right with God and good men then he has some work to do. One place to start would be to find some good authority to submit to in my estimation. If he doesn’t believe that exists in NAPARC then let it be known he is not one of us. He seems to be claiming to be.
> 
> In Humility
> Randy Martin Snyder

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist

PuritanCovenanter said:


> @greenbaggins Lane,
> I quit responding on blogs a long time ago. It got to be a task for me to keep up on things. Especially when dealing with DGH. I actually like him. I find him to be honest and ignorant at the same time. LOL. Or should I say ignorant and then honest about some of his lack of propriety? Anyways, I actually posted on your blog. Here was my reply.



Amen 100%. I know everyone is excited because it looks like Wilson is repenting (he isn't), but the proof is in the pudding. Will he step down from power and hold himself accountable to other men who aren't yes men?

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## greenbaggins

Yes, Randy, I agree with your comment, and I think Alan Strange's comment is important, too. Just how catholic is Wilson, anyway? Not very much, if you look at his thumbing of the nose at all the NAPARC denominations who have rejected the FV.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## RamistThomist

"Catholicity" for Wilson simply means an abbreviated Book of Common Prayer type liturgy


----------



## NaphtaliPress

His comment is here: https://greenbaggins.wordpress.com/2017/01/17/douglas-wilson-federal-vision-no-more/#comment-133912


greenbaggins said:


> Yes, Randy, I agree with your comment, and I think Alan Strange's comment is important, too. Just how catholic is Wilson, anyway? Not very much, if you look at his thumbing of the nose at all the NAPARC denominations who have rejected the FV.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Dr. Strange is always so spot on and gracious. What a gift to the Church.


----------



## JesusIsLord

Good day Gents. I read some of this thread and was kinda confused. I didn't know anything about Doug Wilson hurting people before I read this. My church has a pretty strong relationship with Christ church and Pastor Doug. Would anyone have an article explaining what he has done? Also explaining what Federal Vision is?

Thanks guys


----------



## Edward

JesusIsLord said:


> My church has a pretty strong relationship with Christ church and Pastor Doug.



Tomorrow might be a good day to start visiting other churches. Desert Palms 4265 S Arizona Ave Chandler, AZ 85248 http://www.dpc-pca.org/ looks reasonably close. 

For your reading enjoyment
http://theaquilareport.com/a-question-for-doug-wilson-fans/

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## arapahoepark

JesusIsLord said:


> Good day Gents. I read some of this thread and was kinda confused. I didn't know anything about Doug Wilson hurting people before I read this. My church has a pretty strong relationship with Christ church and Pastor Doug. Would anyone have an article explaining what he has done? Also explaining what Federal Vision is?
> 
> Thanks guys


Oh, that's a long question. A lot of the posts above deal with Wilson's failures, I think.
As for FV, it is a form of hyper covenantalism emerging from Norm Shepherd's teaching. In sum justification is turned on its head and it becomes Catholicism without a pope.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist

arapahoepark said:


> Oh, that's a long question. A lot of the posts above deal with Wilson's failures, I think.
> As for FV, it is a form of hyper covenantalism emerging from Norm Shepherd's teaching. In sum justification is turned on its head and it becomes Catholicism without a pope.



Oh no. They have a pope.

Reactions: Informative 1 | Funny 3


----------



## arapahoepark

ReformedReidian said:


> Oh no. They have a pope.


As I typed it, I figured someone would say that.

Reactions: Like 1 | Funny 1


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion

*Mod...*

Let's remind ourselves of the obligations of the ninth commandment when discussing this matter, especially the individuals involved. Posts laden with scoffery and _shadenfreude_ are beyond the bounds. Stick to the facts without untoward seasoning.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> *Mod...*
> 
> Let's remind ourselves of the obligations of the ninth commandment when discussing this matter, especially the individuals involved. Posts laden with scoffery and _shadenfreude_ are beyond the bounds. Stick to the facts without untoward seasoning.



I've seen first hand the damage he has done to my community. Even those who disagree with him in my community have still been infected by him. I wasn't joking about hiding your women from him. I was deadly serious.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Edward

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> Posts laden with scoffery and _shadenfreude_ are beyond the bounds.



_Schadenfreude? _Because I don't recall anyone's misfortune that is being gloated upon. In fact, Wilson seems to be prospering quite well.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## RamistThomist

No. I wasn't going for _Schadenfreude. _In order for that to obtain, his ministry must be in ashes and the CREC disbanded. Since that didn't happen, I couldn't have been gloating. 

But to prove that any doctrinal repentance didn't happen, read the initial comments to his post, "Straight outa Calvin." A Federal Visionist asks him, quite reasonably, to stop posting until other FVers get this figured out, Wilson responds, "Why should I?"

Wilson. Is. Not. Accountable. To. Men.

Given his quasi-godlike status in the CREC, Wilson's earlier post probably created an earthquake. This is their identity, both spiritually and personally (since Wilsonista membership negates previous ties). That is why some FVers are asking Wilson to stop posting.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> *Mod...*
> 
> Let's remind ourselves of the obligations of the ninth commandment when discussing this matter, especially the individuals involved. Posts laden with scoffery and _shadenfreude_ are beyond the bounds. Stick to the facts without untoward seasoning.



There are going to be some readers of this thread who will need to hear the facts. Calling Wilson derogatory names without factual disclosure is harmful and will turn off inquirers sometimes. It might fit well with a group of people who know the situation. We also need to be careful to not involve ourselves with gossip. I am prone to listen and speak sometimes in a manner that needs reeled in to being mindful of biblical standards. I have had to repent from such sin. So I am in agreement with Mr. Religion here. I know there are some sore spots in lives and that tends to cause us to paint things in a darker manner than is needful when we speak. Please heed the Moderator's admonition.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Edward said:


> _Schadenfreude? _Because I don't recall anyone's misfortune that is being gloated upon. In fact, Wilson seems to be prospering quite well.



I think we are all familiar with what some consider failures though.


----------



## RamistThomist

PuritanCovenanter said:


> There are going to be some readers of this thread who will need to hear the facts. Calling Wilson derogatory names without factual disclosure is harmful and will turn off inquirers sometimes. It might fit well with a group of people who know the situation. We also need to be careful to not involve ourselves with gossip. I am prone to listen and speak sometimes in a manner that needs reeled in to being mindful of biblical standards. I have had to repent from such sin. So I am in agreement with Mr. Religion here. I know there are some sore spots in lives and that tends to cause us to paint things in a darker manner than is needful when we speak. Please heed the Moderator's admonition.



Everything I said was backed up with facts. Police documents and even court cases. Aside from calling him the pope of the CREC, I am not sure what "name" I called him.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion

*Mod...*

Let's not belabor my previous moderation note any longer. I named no names in that post as it was intended for all of us. If my caution speaks to you personally, then take it under advisement, if it does not, then rest in your peace with the matter. 

I remind all:

We reserve the rights to remove or modify any Content submitted for any reason without explanation.

...we must be tireless in upholding the good name of our neighbor at all costs even if we're critical. Christ demands it of us toward our enemies and especially toward those that name Christ.

Anyone that feels inwardly provoked to continue commenting on this matter is free to contact me privately.

Reactions: Like 1


----------

