# CREC and ESS



## LaurenC (Aug 25, 2021)

I have read things on these boards about Doug Wilson and federal vision so I think from certain angles I have heard why CREC is not good, But I'd like to know if anyone has found good articles on how CREC churches believe in eternal subordination (submission?) of the son (ESS)

I have searched online and here, and I'm not coming up with much( nothing really) but I did bump into this discussion board, for all the same key words, I bet.

I'm looking for this right now because a friend has begun to go to A CREC church and has not heard that this has been taught there, but I just warned him generally, and I'd like to know if it is just hit-or-miss if some CREc's do not believe in ESS...

Thanks [emoji120][emoji259]

Sent from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## greenbaggins (Aug 25, 2021)

I would be surprised if CREC churches believed in ESS. That's more of a general evangelical heresy, with people like Grudem advocating it. I have certainly not heard of any CREC minister holding to ESS.

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 1


----------



## RamistThomist (Aug 25, 2021)

Wilson holds to it. He and Bayly got in a spat over who was better on it.








Triune Botherations | Blog & Mablog


Sharing Options Contents Introduction Maybe Not Quite Not at All Arbitrary Caution . . . Postscript Introduction: I feel like the guy right before Pickett’s charge who thought he could make peace by walking between the armies in a gray coat and blue trousers. So wish me luck everybody. As many...




dougwils.com





***I agree that true and ultimate authority/submission must be grounded within the Godhead. I agree with Grudem there. ****

As to other CREC churches, it just depends. Those closer to the power structures in Moscow probably hold to it, as they will soon jockey for control once Wilson fades from the scene.

Wilson's really heretical statements are when he says Fatherhood is ad intra and that the Son's existence is obedience. I'm working on a somewhat Thomist rebuttal to that that will show, if successful, that he is an Arian.

Reactions: Like 8 | Informative 2


----------



## Irenaeus (Aug 25, 2021)

_Now someone will point out that they don’t see how it is possible to have “authority and submission within the Godhead coupled with complete ontological equality” without that position logically entailing three wills, which would then be heterodox. I frankly confess that it would be heterodox, and that I don’t know how there can be anything resembling authority and submission with only one will. I get the problem. But I also don’t see, and on exactly the same grounds, how there can be anything like a Father and a Son with only one will._

One paragraph later:

_And I say all this while embracing the classic Nicene understanding of Trinitarian orthodoxy — one divine will, divine simplicity, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, world without end, amen._

This is so glaring that it's hard to believe it's not satire. I say 2+2 =5 while embracing the classic traditional understanding that 2+2 =4. It's the same mistake... "I don't see..." Of course you don't, Mr. Wilson. Look at things through the lens of your own mental vocabulary, and you're not likely to see much of God. If only there was some quote about the ability of temporal beings to comprehend a transcendent God.

Reactions: Like 9


----------



## RamistThomist (Aug 25, 2021)

Irenaeus said:


> _Now someone will point out that they don’t see how it is possible to have “authority and submission within the Godhead coupled with complete ontological equality” without that position logically entailing three wills, which would then be heterodox. I frankly confess that it would be heterodox, and that I don’t know how there can be anything resembling authority and submission with only one will. I get the problem. But I also don’t see, and on exactly the same grounds, how there can be anything like a Father and a Son with only one will._
> 
> One paragraph later:
> 
> ...



You just summarized every Wilson blog post.

Reactions: Like 2 | Funny 5


----------



## RamistThomist (Aug 25, 2021)

_But I also don’t see, and on exactly the same grounds, how there can be anything like a Father and a Son with only one will._

That's because classical theology saw the person as a mode of the essence. Full stop. Because the person is a tropos of the huparxis, the early Fathers (and Turretin and Shedd) didn't have to worry about whether this matches up with a Father having a distinct will and a Son having a distinct will. Wilson is reading human analogies of Father and Son into the godhead, and that's why he gets it wrong.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Taylor (Aug 25, 2021)

BayouHuguenot said:


> Wilson is reading human analogies of Father and Son into the godhead...


In my estimation, this is where ESS begins. Am I right? It is a fundamental error in method.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Irenaeus (Aug 26, 2021)

BayouHuguenot said:


> You just summarized every Wilson blog post.


I so badly want to do some kind of parody of this. I at least have a fair measure of respect for Grudem, who attempts to make a real case for his views and has shown at least some amenability to change and retraction. Even Wilson shows elsewhere that he is capable of better argumentation... but this particular post (which I hadn't seen prior to your link) is more ripe than a month-old banana.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Aug 26, 2021)

Irenaeus said:


> _Now someone will point out that they don’t see how it is possible to have “authority and submission within the Godhead coupled with complete ontological equality” without that position logically entailing three wills, which would then be heterodox. I frankly confess that it would be heterodox, and that I don’t know how there can be anything resembling authority and submission with only one will. I get the problem. But I also don’t see, and on exactly the same grounds, how there can be anything like a Father and a Son with only one will._
> 
> One paragraph later:
> 
> ...



You have pinpointed the real problem with Doug Wilson: his use of paradox theology. It is the failure to understand this fundamental error in his theological method that has led astray many into thinking that he is orthodox (in a Reformed sense) just because he says orthodox things. Mr Wilson can say orthodox and heterodox things at the same time about the same subject on the basis that it is an irreconcilable paradox. So, when you point out his heterodoxy, his defenders will argue, "That is a straw man because Doug also said x." To paraphrase what David Lloyd George said about Eamon de Valera, trying to argue with Wilsonites is like trying to pick up mercury with a fork.

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Aug 26, 2021)

I'm no expert and frankly never want to be, but it seems that Wilson is smart, bold (he finds some way to double down rather than retreat from his view), read in things that interest him at least (I assume; I mean, how many puritans has he read; what is is preaching actually like? I honestly don't know). How much of this use of paradox is convenience because he doesn't know the acceptable boundaries of orthodoxy? I.e., winging it? Or if I can paraphrase what John Owen said to Richard Baxter which I read once but have not documented myself, "you need to go back to school. "


Reformed Covenanter said:


> You have pinpointed the real problem with Doug Wilson: his use of paradox theology. It is the failure to understand this fundamental error in his theological method that has led astray many into thinking that he is orthodox (in a Reformed sense) just because he says orthodox things. Mr Wilson can say orthodox and heterodox things at the same time about the same subject on the basis that it is an irreconcilable paradox. So, when you point out his heterodoxy, his defenders will argue, "That is a straw man because Doug also said x." To paraphrase what David Lloyd George said about Eamon de Valera, trying to argue with Wilsonites is like trying to pick up mercury with a fork.

Reactions: Like 5


----------



## RamistThomist (Aug 26, 2021)

"But he's such a great communicator!"

If one is always "constantly misunderstood," then perhaps he isn't that good a communicator. Just thought I would throw that out there.

Reactions: Like 3 | Amen 3


----------



## Eyedoc84 (Aug 26, 2021)

BayouHuguenot said:


> "But he's such a great communicator!"
> 
> If one is always "constantly misunderstood," then perhaps he isn't that good a communicator. Just thought I would throw that out there.


He’s good with words...that doesn’t mean he’s clear

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## ChristianLibertarian (Aug 26, 2021)

BayouHuguenot said:


> "But he's such a great communicator!"
> 
> If one is always "constantly misunderstood," then perhaps he isn't that good a communicator. Just thought I would throw that out there.


Hitler was a great communicator too. In fact, lots of people in error are great communicators. As for Wilson, he is more personality than communicator. You are right, a good communicator isn't misunderstood. Wilson is constantly misunderstood in his mind, which makes him not so great at communication.

Reactions: Like 5


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Aug 26, 2021)

ChristianLibertarian said:


> Hitler was a great communicator too.



That is a bit harsh on Uncle Addie.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## ChristianLibertarian (Aug 26, 2021)

Reformed Covenanter said:


> That is a bit harsh on Uncle Addie.


Too much? How about Jim Jones instead?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## SolaScriptura (Aug 26, 2021)

I know that after nearly 20 years of no orthodox theologian saying anything (a fact I absolutely refuse to let slip by), Aimee Byrd cited a bunch of egalitarians and liberals to defend her feminist friendly position and in a rush to defend their friend a couple podcasters waged a war against Grudem and co., and I know that in the aftermath it’s become the en Vogue thing to be against “ESS”… all that aside… aside from the pronouncement of individuals, out of curiosity: Has an actual court of any church judged the position of D James Kennedy, Grudem, et al, to be a heresy? That’s the question I want answered.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist (Aug 26, 2021)

SolaScriptura said:


> I know that after nearly 20 years of no orthodox theologian saying anything (a fact I absolutely refuse to let slip by), Aimee Byrd cited a bunch of egalitarians and liberals to defend her feminist friendly position and in a rush to defend their friend a couple podcasters waged a war against Grudem and co., and I know that in the aftermath it’s become the en Vogue thing to be against “ESS”… all that aside… aside from the pronouncement of individuals, out of curiosity: Has an actual court of any church judged the position of D James Kennedy, Grudem, et al, to be a heresy? That’s the question I want answered.



Aside from Nicea, I don't think a modern court has judged it such. First, someone has to bring formal charges. Grudem is a Baptist, so he's basically answerable only to his session. Kennedy is dead, so he probably won't face charges. The only paedobaptists I know of that hold to this heresy are Wilson and the Baylys, and they are more or less autonomous.

Those who are confessionally Reformed do not hold to semi-Arianism, so there is no reason for anyone to bring charges on this topic in a real Presbyterian system.

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## A.Joseph (Aug 26, 2021)

SolaScriptura said:


> I know that after nearly 20 years of no orthodox theologian saying anything (a fact I absolutely refuse to let slip by), Aimee Byrd cited a bunch of egalitarians and liberals to defend her feminist friendly position and in a rush to defend their friend a couple podcasters waged a war against Grudem and co., and I know that in the aftermath it’s become the en Vogue thing to be against “ESS”… all that aside… aside from the pronouncement of individuals, out of curiosity: Has an actual court of any church judged the position of D James Kennedy, Grudem, et al, to be a heresy? That’s the question I want answered.


On the flip side, I check in with Byrd’s tweets and blog once in a while. She is flying away from sound teaching. She may have already checked out… 
But Wilson is too far gone. He’s way past rebranding at this point.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Irenaeus (Aug 26, 2021)

Reformed Covenanter said:


> You have pinpointed the real problem with Doug Wilson: his use of paradox theology.


This is not what I consider "paradox theology", which I understand to be the deliberate and thoughtful use of tension and/or outright contradiction as an element of one's theology. What I see in posts like this is someone very intelligent but who has lost some of the humility and self-awareness that would cause him to think twice before hitting "post".

In other words, this is gross carelessness and hubris on his part. He's not saying two contradictory things as part of a consciously articulated theological approach; he's saying two contradictory things because he doesn't know what either thing really means and, as he is rather self-impressed at this point in his career, it hasn't occurred to him that he doesn't know what he's talking about and that posts like this are several standard deviations below his potential IQ. Lack of checks and balances.

And, just so that we're clear, for myself I would willingly assert that this post is patently and unequivocally heterodox in a way not at all changed by the presence of orthodox-sounding statements in there. I don't think he leaves any room for ambiguity on that point. I'm deliberately and knowingly declining to make any judgments beyond this specific post; the post itself puts forth a heretical proposition.

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## SolaScriptura (Aug 26, 2021)

BayouHuguenot said:


> Aside from Nicea, I don't think a modern court has judged it such. First, someone has to bring formal charges. Grudem is a Baptist, so he's basically answerable only to his session. Kennedy is dead, so he probably won't face charges. The only paedobaptists I know of that hold to this heresy are Wilson and the Baylys, and they are more or less autonomous.
> 
> Those who are confessionally Reformed do not hold to semi-Arianism, so there is no reason for anyone to bring charges on this topic in a real Presbyterian system.


Given how remarkably influential Grudem’s work is, and given how long it has circulated without any real criticism, I think it would be wise for denominations to formally repudiate the position if not the man.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist (Aug 26, 2021)

SolaScriptura said:


> Given how remarkably influential Grudem’s work is, and given how long it has circulated without any real criticism, I think it would be wise for denominations to formally repudiate the position if not the man.



Perhaps. Not much I can do on that front, as I am not very important.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Irenaeus (Aug 26, 2021)

SolaScriptura said:


> Given how remarkably influential Grudem’s work is, and given how long it has circulated without any real criticism, I think it would be wise for denominations to formally repudiate the position if not the man.


That process would start how? Presumably, a pastor in one of these denominations leading the charge?

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## RamistThomist (Aug 26, 2021)

How many confessional theologians are quoting Grudem? If you are confessional, you are likely to be using Bavinck or Berkhof or Reymond (let's be honest: as a pastor you will likely be using whatever text used in seminary). Usually when Grudem's name is brought up people think, "That's the charismatic guy, right?"

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Irenaeus (Aug 26, 2021)

BayouHuguenot said:


> How many confessional theologians are quoting Grudem? If you are confessional, you are likely to be using Bavinck or Berkhof or Reymond (let's be honest: as a pastor you will likely be using whatever text used in seminary). Usually when Grudem's name is brought up people think, "That's the charismatic guy, right?"


I'm confessional and have no issue quoting Grudem where he gets something right. Some parts of his Systematic Theology are very lucidly explained. Maybe it's because I'm not a theologian... yes, that's it. Just confessional. If I got a seminary degree, I would probably need to stop quoting him.

But then I'm of the mindset that one should cast a somewhat wide net and draw it in discerningly. So I have no problem quoting Grudem, Keller, Lombard, Aquinas, the Catholic Catechism, Piper, Frame, TGC, where they get something right. Others, including many of my friends, are of the mindset that if the author is tainted you throw out his entire work. I guess I do that too past a certain point, as there are some writers I wouldn't quote on principle. And Grudem doesn't get as much airtime as Bavinck, Berkhof, or Calvin, to be sure.


----------



## RamistThomist (Aug 26, 2021)

Irenaeus said:


> I'm confessional and have no issue quoting Grudem where he gets something right. Some parts of his Systematic Theology are very lucidly explained. Maybe it's because I'm not a theologian... yes, that's it. Just confessional. If I got a seminary degree, I would probably need to stop quoting him.
> 
> But then I'm of the mindset that one should cast a somewhat wide net and draw it in discerningly. So I have no problem quoting Grudem, Keller, Lombard, Aquinas, the Catholic Catechism, Piper, Frame, TGC, where they get something right. Others, including many of my friends, are of the mindset that if the author is tainted you throw out his entire work. I guess I do that too past a certain point, as there are some writers I wouldn't quote on principle. And Grudem doesn't get as much airtime as Bavinck, Berkhof, or Calvin, to be sure.



Absolutely. I didn't mean never quote him. Much of the book is quite good.


----------



## Irenaeus (Aug 26, 2021)

BayouHuguenot said:


> Absolutely. I didn't mean never quote him. Much of the book is quite good.


Agreed. I haven't read the whole book - but large chunks of it. And I enjoyed most of what I read. The section on prophesy though is just addle-brained.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Pilgrim (Aug 29, 2021)

SolaScriptura said:


> I know that after nearly 20 years of no orthodox theologian saying anything (a fact I absolutely refuse to let slip by), Aimee Byrd cited a bunch of egalitarians and liberals to defend her feminist friendly position and in a rush to defend their friend a couple podcasters waged a war against Grudem and co., and I know that in the aftermath it’s become the en Vogue thing to be against “ESS”… all that aside… aside from the pronouncement of individuals, out of curiosity: Has an actual court of any church judged the position of D James Kennedy, Grudem, et al, to be a heresy? That’s the question I want answered.



I guess it depends on your definition of “orthodox,” but I think there had been opposition to the views of Grudem and Ware for just about as long as they’ve been in print. Millard Erickson comes to mind. There is a Southern Baptist pastor in my area who has been studying it since the 90s. The controversy was renewed and received a lot more publicity with the blogging of Byrd and Miller to be sure. 

And as others noted, what court is going to convict Southern Baptists? Elevation Church (Stephen Furtick) is still in “friendly cooperation.” Enough said. 

Whether or not ESS (or whatever today’s acronym for it is) is a heresy from a technical standpoint may be debatable. That doesn’t mean that it isn’t seriously false doctrine. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist (Aug 29, 2021)

As Chris noted, Millard Erickson was mightily raised up of God to smite the subordinationists long before Byrd entered the scene.








Who’s Tampering with the Trinity?


In responding to the subordinationist debate on the Trinity, Erickson gives us much more than a snapshot of the current battle. He gives us a model on how to do systematic (or missional, if you are…




tentsofshem.wordpress.com






To be sure, Kevin Giles is an egalitarian, but he correctly notes that egalitarians never changed the Trinity in order to justify their view of male-female relationships. They believed they could make their case without altering Nicea.








Rise and Fall of the Complementarian Doctrine of the Trinity


Giles, Kevin. The Rise and Fall of the Complementarian Doctrine of the Trinity. Eugene, OR: Cascade Books, 2017. This is a great snapshot of the Trinitarian debate of 2016. Kevin Giles gives …




tentsofshem.wordpress.com

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## Taylor (Aug 29, 2021)

BayouHuguenot said:


> ...egalitarians never changed the Trinity...


This is what I don't understand about this whole issue. Was the sole impetus for ESS really gender roles? If so, this is exceedingly troublesome. Why must we go to such great lengths to establish what Scripture already clearly teaches? If all we want to do is set boundaries against women holding office, all we need is 1 Tim. 2:12-14.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## RamistThomist (Aug 29, 2021)

Taylor said:


> This is what I don't understand about this whole issue. Was the sole impetus for ESS really gender roles? If so, this is exceedingly troublesome. Why must we go to such great lengths to establish what Scripture already clearly teaches? If all we want to do is set boundaries against women holding office, all we need is 1 Tim. 2:12-14.



They will say it isn't the sole impetus, but the evidence says otherwise, starting with George Knight in 1977. I'm all for setting boundaries against women ruling in the church. Scriptures seems pretty clear on that point. I think everyone got caught up in the desire to make the Trinity the model for all of life. That's probably what did it.

Reactions: Like 3 | Informative 1


----------



## Eyedoc84 (Aug 29, 2021)

ESS explicity denies ontological subordination, does it not? It seems unfair to just label Grudem et al as Arian heretics when they explicitly affirm homoousia. You could argue that logically you end up with two wills and tend toward Arianism, but you can’t just say Nicea already dealt with this. It seems they didn’t, at least not in the way Grudem frames the issue. Grudem affirms Nicea. The confusion to me seems to come with the terms eternal paired with functional, and the debate seems blurred by various (mis)understandings of where the concept of ontology ends and economy begins.


----------



## Irenaeus (Aug 29, 2021)

@Eyedoc84, it's semi-Arianism stemming from misguided biblicism and a bad habit of seeing God through human eyes - i.e., not grasping that our knowledge of God is analogical.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist (Aug 29, 2021)

Eyedoc84 said:


> ESS explicity denies ontological subordination, does it not? It seems unfair to just label Grudem et al as Arian heretics when they explicitly affirm homoousia. You could argue that logically you end up with two wills and tend toward Arianism, but you can’t just say Nicea already dealt with this. It seems they didn’t, at least not in the way Grudem frames the issue. Grudem affirms Nicea. The confusion to me seems to come with the terms eternal paired with functional, and the debate seems blurred by various (mis)understandings of where the concept of ontology ends and economy begins.



Two wills is tritheism, which is polytheism. They have this problem because they don't understand how eternal generation works. Matthew Barrett wrote the finest modern book on the Trinity and he does a good job on this problem.








Simply Trinity (Barrett)


Barrett, Matthew. Simply Trinity It’s hard to imagine a near-perfect book. This is one. I wanted to highlight every single word. I cannot imagine a better book on the Trinity. I am going to s…




tentsofshem.wordpress.com

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Eyedoc84 (Aug 29, 2021)

BayouHuguenot said:


> Two wills is tritheism, which is polytheism.


Of course. But doesn’t Grudem et al affirm one will? Just because you think his view logically leads to Arianism, and you can certainly argue for that, that’s not the same as him _being_ Arian. I think ESS unnecessarily introduces ideas and language that produce more confusion than clarity, which can certainly lead one down heretical paths.


----------



## RamistThomist (Aug 29, 2021)

Eyedoc84 said:


> Of course. But doesn’t Grudem et al affirm one will? Just because you think his view logically leads to Arianism, and you can certainly argue for that, that’s not the same as him _being_ Arian. I think ESS unnecessarily introduces ideas and language that produce more confusion than clarity, which can certainly lead one down heretical paths.



I think he does affirm one will. He updated his ST to include eternal generation, but he refuses to let that correct his theology. I don't think Grudem is an Arian. I don't think he is consistent, either. 








How Then Shall We Theologize? - Credo Magazine


A revised edition of Wayne Grudem’s, Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine, has recently been released by Zondervan. First published in 1994, this book has sold over 750,000 copies and has been translated into many languages. Its influence within the Evangelical world can...




credomag.com

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Ethan (Aug 30, 2021)

BayouHuguenot said:


> Matthew Barrett wrote the finest modern book on the Trinity and he does a good job on this problem.



I found a new youtube channel this week that has a lot of interesting content. Anyway he has an episode with Dr. Barrett and starting at 39:51 he discusses eternal generation and EFS.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist (Aug 30, 2021)

Ethan said:


> I found a new youtube channel this week that has a lot of interesting content. Anyway he has an episode with Dr. Barrett and starting at 39:51 he discusses eternal generation and EFS.



Yeah, that's very good. You can't lose sight of the characteristics of the persons: paternity, filiation, and spiration. That's how you distinguish the persons and that is what Ware has specifically rejected.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Irenaeus (Aug 30, 2021)

BayouHuguenot said:


> Yeah, that's very good. You can't lose sight of the characteristics of the persons: paternity, filiation, and spiration. That's how you distinguish the persons and that is what Ware has specifically rejected.


@BayouHuguenot, enlighten me here - but do I recall correctly that Ware has gone much farther and doubled down much more insistently on this error than Grudem?


----------



## RamistThomist (Aug 30, 2021)

Irenaeus said:


> @BayouHuguenot, enlighten me here - but do I recall correctly that Ware has gone much farther and doubled down much more insistently on this error than Grudem?



That sounds correct, but I haven't seen any statements from Ware in the last few years. Grudem was willing to be corrected on eternal generation, at least on the surface. There was a pretty big debate at the Henry Center at Trinity where Ware debated some other guy on ESS and in that debate Ware rejected the classical view that we identify the persons by their modes of origination.


----------



## Taylor (Aug 30, 2021)

BayouHuguenot said:


> There was a pretty big debate at the Henry Center at Trinity where Ware debated some other guy on ESS…


Unless I am mistaken, one of the “other guys” was Tom McCall. I wish I could have been there for that. He was one of my favorite professors, even if he is an Arminian.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## RamistThomist (Aug 30, 2021)

Taylor said:


> Unless I am mistaken, one of the “other guys” was Tom McCall. I wish I could have been there for that. He was one of my favorite professors, even if he is an Arminian.



Yeah, his book on Analytic Theology is a masterpiece.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## LaurenC (Nov 30, 2021)

SolaScriptura said:


> I know that after nearly 20 years of no orthodox theologian saying anything (a fact I absolutely refuse to let slip by), Aimee Byrd cited a bunch of egalitarians and liberals to defend her feminist friendly position and in a rush to defend their friend a couple podcasters waged a war against Grudem and co., and I know that in the aftermath it’s become the en Vogue thing to be against “ESS”… all that aside… aside from the pronouncement of individuals, out of curiosity: Has an actual court of any church judged the position of D James Kennedy, Grudem, et al, to be a heresy? That’s the question I want answered.


I think that URC NA had written an official refusal of federal vision it's about a 7 page document on their denomination website, and and I think they may have done one for ESS.

Sent from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk

Reactions: Like 1


----------

