No Other Name
Puritan Board Senior
As modest as this is, my cheesy brain is less sharp than yours. I guarantee it. Hahaha
Resolution regarding covenants, Hebrews 9:15
- Thread starter Burke Devlin
- Start date
- Status
As modest as this is, my cheesy brain is less sharp than yours. I guarantee it. Hahaha
No Other Name
Puritan Board Senior
This is part of what I mean. It seems like I agree with this, but I don't agree with where you go with it.
But, before even hinting at disagreement, allow me to ask for clarification, what is the proleptic element? Grace by faith alone yes?
For instance, if Decault defines the covenant of grace as: " simply put, salvation by grace alone, by faith alone, through Christ alone. Basically, any man is either under the curse of the broken covenant of works in Adam or under the blessing of the covenant of grace in Christ."
Then predestination would not be proleptic. That is from eternity. Effectual calling would not be proleptic. That also would be from eternity. It would have to involve an event bound to time, yes?
PS - I just quoted Decault's definition he used in the article. I know full well that this is standard definition and it is not like Decault himself had an amazing "Eureka!" moment in using that definition hahahahaha
Great question and great starting point. I don't think you're as mentally dull as you'd have me believe, lol.
Faith is proleptic in the OT. That is, it reaches forward through the types and shadows and lays hold of what is represented in them, though the fullness was not yet present.
Jerusalem Blade
Puritan Board Doctor
Hello Burke – you stirred up quite a discussion here over this! I think the reason it is not a "slam dunk" / i.e., does not "unequivocally settle" the issue of "two administrations of the same covenant of grace" is that it – Heb 9:15 – does not include the Abrahamic justifying-by-faith aspect of the CoG but only the Mosaic multifaceted legal aspect.
And so we all are not on the same page, as it were, in this discussion, there being too many loose ends.
Burke Devlin
Puritan Board Freshman
The new covenant mediator’s death provides redemption for sins and possession of eternal inheritance for all those whom God calls, both old covenant and new.
How about Galatians 3:
… the Law, which came four hundred and thirty years later, does not invalidate a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to nullify the promise. 18 For if the inheritance is based on law, it is no longer based on a promise; but God has granted it to Abraham by means of a promise.
19 Why the Law then? It was added because of transgressions, having been ordained through angels by the agency of a mediator, until the seed would come to whom the promise had been made.
Also, I think there is a lack of recognition of the Spirit’s work under the Mosaic covenant in this discussion.
WCF 7.5
How about Galatians 3:
… the Law, which came four hundred and thirty years later, does not invalidate a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to nullify the promise. 18 For if the inheritance is based on law, it is no longer based on a promise; but God has granted it to Abraham by means of a promise.
19 Why the Law then? It was added because of transgressions, having been ordained through angels by the agency of a mediator, until the seed would come to whom the promise had been made.
Also, I think there is a lack of recognition of the Spirit’s work under the Mosaic covenant in this discussion.
WCF 7.5
- This covenant was differently administered in the time of the law, and in the time of the gospel: under the law, it was administered by promises, prophecies, sacrifices, circumcision, the paschal lamb, and other types and ordinances delivered to the people of the Jews, all foresignifying Christ to come; which were, for that time, sufficient and efficacious, through the operation of the Spirit, to instruct and build up the elect in faith in the promised Messiah, by whom they had full remission of sins, and eternal salvation; and is called the Old Testament.
John 8:56; Romans 4:11; 1 Corinthians 5:7; 1 Corinthians 10:1-4; 2 Corinthians 3:6-9; Galatians 3:7-9,14; Colossians 2:11,12; Hebrews 8-10; Hebrews 11:13.
No Other Name
Puritan Board Senior
I assure I am not being facetious. Compared to the seminary-level students, professors and long-term elders, I am nothing. And I say that with no "fishing line" attached to pull up any positive appeasements, I promise.
No worries, my comment was tongue in cheek. A compliment.
I think the disconnect here is felt when one of the Baptists asked about the proleptic element and couldn't account for the substance of the Covenants being the same because the NC is, ultimately, perfect in terms of those who participate in it. It sort of rules out substantive continuity because the OC is clearly seen as containing those who looked forward in faith but also visibly administered sacrifices, feasts, etc to those who never drew near in faith.
Even the modern, local Church is not necessarily participating in the NC because it contains only the elect. Baptism doesn't mark anyone out as belonging to the NC but most probably identifies those who are in the NC.
I know it makes sense to Baptist minds, but I find it an odd progression that the nature of the NC is somewhere between historical and present but more or less undefined in terms of anyone knowing who is a member of it in time and space. This is even why baptism itself is preconceived because it can't point to something a person does not yet possess, but there's no real way to know if I, as a baptized person, can look to it.
Even the Church itself has to be considered as not essentially within the NC because it contains true and false professors.
In sum, the text makes sense to those who see a continuity in the idea that the One Mediator condescend with actual, historical administrations and sacraments of the Covenant of Grace. The sacraments even serve as signs of what God hs done and will do and don't throw it back on us to determine if they are substantively part of God's Covenant dealings.
But, for a Baptist, it just says that the elect have always been in the CoG, and everything else must fit in the Procrustean bed.
Even the modern, local Church is not necessarily participating in the NC because it contains only the elect. Baptism doesn't mark anyone out as belonging to the NC but most probably identifies those who are in the NC.
I know it makes sense to Baptist minds, but I find it an odd progression that the nature of the NC is somewhere between historical and present but more or less undefined in terms of anyone knowing who is a member of it in time and space. This is even why baptism itself is preconceived because it can't point to something a person does not yet possess, but there's no real way to know if I, as a baptized person, can look to it.
Even the Church itself has to be considered as not essentially within the NC because it contains true and false professors.
In sum, the text makes sense to those who see a continuity in the idea that the One Mediator condescend with actual, historical administrations and sacraments of the Covenant of Grace. The sacraments even serve as signs of what God hs done and will do and don't throw it back on us to determine if they are substantively part of God's Covenant dealings.
But, for a Baptist, it just says that the elect have always been in the CoG, and everything else must fit in the Procrustean bed.
SeanPatrickCornell
Puritan Board Junior
Not my view. The Bible's view. The Old Covenant never saved anyone. Ever. The Old Covenant was not a salvific covenant. The New Covenant is the covenant that has saved everyone who was ever saved. This is not a uniquely Baptist view of things, take Augustine for example. Hardly a Baptist. Brother Brandon Adams (@brandonadams ) has a good article about it on his blog.
Augustine on the New Covenant
As I have been working out my understanding of covenant theology, I have argued that Abraham, and all saints prior to Christ were members of the New Covenant. Those who disagree argue that the New …
contrast2.wordpress.com
Jerusalem Blade
Puritan Board Doctor
Hello Sean, you say, "The Old Covenant never saved anyone. Ever. The Old Covenant was not a salvific covenant." What I don't understand is why you separate "the Old Covenant" from the God of the Old Covenant. He surely saves all His elect therein – even during the time of the Old Covenant.
Would you define "old covenant" here to include promises like Genesis 17:7 KJV, Genesis 22:18 KJV, Deuteronomy 18:18, Psalm 132:11, Isaiah 45:25 and so on, or is that somehow part of a covenant that didn't exist yet?Not my view. The Bible's view. The Old Covenant never saved anyone. Ever. The Old Covenant was not a salvific covenant. The New Covenant is the covenant that has saved everyone who was ever saved. This is not a uniquely Baptist view of things, take Augustine for example. Hardly a Baptist. Brother Brandon Adams (@brandonadams ) has a good article about it on his blog.
Augustine on the New Covenant
As I have been working out my understanding of covenant theology, I have argued that Abraham, and all saints prior to Christ were members of the New Covenant. Those who disagree argue that the New …
Also, let me ask,
If the Covenant of Grace did not exist for the Old Testament Church, on the basis of which covenant did they have faith, and on the basis of which covenant was Abraham admitted to his own bossom rather than being put "on hold" in some sort of purgatory-like intermediate waiting place?
(also pardon my addition of "KJV" in the references, it's just that the ESV which is the default version translates the Hebrew word meaning "seed" as "offspring" which I find to be a less acurrate translation)
Last edited:
If I understand correctly, Sean is not separating God from Himself. He is saying that only the New Covenant is salvific and its saving benefits were applied retroactively to OT saints.
Is that an, admittedly simplistic, accurate assessment Sean?
Jerusalem Blade
Puritan Board Doctor
"Applied retroactively"? Meaning the saving benefits of the new covenant were not able to be applied to Old Testament saints until the Lord actually shed His blood, rose from the dead, and ascended into heaven? That – from the past – He had to look into the future and send the blessings back into the past? That's like weird!
When were the blessings of election bestowed upon the elect of the Old Testament? When were the blessings of the LORD's eternal decree to save any particular OT soul made effectual for that soul? The names of the elect were written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from before the creation of the world (Rev 13:8KJV). Were not the benefits of that election actually bestowed upon their effectually being called by grace through faith, based upon the reality of the redemptive work of the Lamb – a reality extant in God's mind – in eternity?
Psalm 65:4KJV, "Blessed is the man whom thou choosest, and causest to approach unto thee, that he may dwell in thy courts".
Let's not bring "time-travel" into the picture. And let's not separate God from His covenant, be it the Old or the New administration of His overarching Covenant of Grace. When Sean says, "The Old Covenant never saved anyone. Ever. The Old Covenant was not a salvific covenant", that is attempting to separate God Himself from His saving work and power. The Old Covenant is not a "system" separate or independent of God.
Sean, would you say that Abraham was not justified by faith in the God that was present to him? God did not have to time-travel into the future to bring the blessings of the crucified Lamb – the future and the past and the present are all one reality to Him in one intuitive knowing. That is His omniscience.
One God, one Covenant, one people of God.
When were the blessings of election bestowed upon the elect of the Old Testament? When were the blessings of the LORD's eternal decree to save any particular OT soul made effectual for that soul? The names of the elect were written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from before the creation of the world (Rev 13:8KJV). Were not the benefits of that election actually bestowed upon their effectually being called by grace through faith, based upon the reality of the redemptive work of the Lamb – a reality extant in God's mind – in eternity?
Psalm 65:4KJV, "Blessed is the man whom thou choosest, and causest to approach unto thee, that he may dwell in thy courts".
Let's not bring "time-travel" into the picture. And let's not separate God from His covenant, be it the Old or the New administration of His overarching Covenant of Grace. When Sean says, "The Old Covenant never saved anyone. Ever. The Old Covenant was not a salvific covenant", that is attempting to separate God Himself from His saving work and power. The Old Covenant is not a "system" separate or independent of God.
Sean, would you say that Abraham was not justified by faith in the God that was present to him? God did not have to time-travel into the future to bring the blessings of the crucified Lamb – the future and the past and the present are all one reality to Him in one intuitive knowing. That is His omniscience.
One God, one Covenant, one people of God.
Before furthering my response above, is there anything you would like me to flesh out further concerning proleptic? I think I answered in part, but may have missed an element in my response.
Northern Crofter
Puritan Board Junior
Agreed - let's not ever even think of God as existing in time. The One Who has no beginning or end created our reality of time ("In the beginning...").
Does this confessional statement (from WCF 3.5): "God, before the foundation of the world was laid, according to his eternal and immutable purpose, and the secret counsel and good pleasure of his will, hath chosen in Christ, unto everlasting glory, out of his mere free grace and love, without any foresight of faith or good works, or perseverance in either of them, or any other thing in the creature, as conditions, or causes moving him thereunto; and all to the praise of his glorious grace" include foresight of Christ's "good works"? If so, doesn't this rule out His work being applied retroactively?
Also, "Man, by his fall, having made himself incapable of life by that covenant, the Lord was pleased to make a second, commonly called the covenant of grace; wherein He freely offers unto sinners life and salvation by Jesus Christ; requiring of them faith in Him, that they may be saved..." (WCF 7.3). In other words, the WCF is teaching that, from the time of Adam, the covenant of grace required faith in Christ for salvation, as Christ is the only Mediator between God and man.
Furthermore, as WCF 8.6 states, echoing Genesis 3: "Although the work of redemption was not actually wrought by Christ till after His incarnation, yet the virtue, efficacy, and benefits thereof were communicated unto the elect, in all ages successively from the beginning of the world, in and by those promises, types, and sacrifices, wherein He was revealed, and signified to be the seed of the woman which should bruise the serpent's head; and the Lamb slain from the beginning of the world; being yesterday and today the same, and forever."
No Other Name
Puritan Board Senior
I will quote your previous reply:
I am with you so far, I think.
To be sure, let me apply this in a real case. Moses was saved by grace alone by faith alone through Christ alone.
His faith had him eagerly obedient in the offering of burnt offerings/peace offerings/grain offerings/sin offerings et al. He observed the Sabbath and turned away from graven images.
He loves the Law of YHWH and wants to obey it - even as he understands that he cannot, yet he can still claim with the Psalmist " Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered. Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin"
Yet, Moses too struggled with his inward sin that made him do the things that he (his regenerated self) did not want to do.
His faith is proleptic in that this active saving faith is a present-day reality (I mean Moses' perspective of present-day) anticipating the future: in terms he can barely comprehend but yet *believes* - even if he doesn't understand fully the coming ultimate and perfect Law-fulfiller, Ultimate Priest, Infallible Prophet and Eternal King of the people of God.
Last edited:
I think we're on the same page so far. I don't take issue with anything you've said here. You mentioned your not sure about where I go with this. Could you explain that to me?
No Other Name
Puritan Board Senior
Only in that - as a 1689 Reformed - I seem to agree with many - if not all - your foundational starting points. Yet I don't seem to share your conclusions re: the nature of progression from covenant of works to covenant of grace. And the discussion here has been too muddled generally for me to see where the disconnect is between our positions. (example: your comments insisting emphatically that there is only one covenant of grace I agree with - and I suspect most Reformed Baptists do. It is the covenant of the blood of Christ which is the New Covenant.)
Let me try your quote here:
This seems to me be a poor analogy.
Using 1689 7.3 language, I can respond with "This is an unfair comparison. It (the covenant of grace which is the covenant of redemption in Christ alone and can be achieved by faith alone through God's eternal predestination and calling) was revealed first of all to Adam in the promise of salvation through the seed of the woman. After that, it was revealed step by step until the full revelation of it was completed in the New Testament."
No need for other comments deriding us for employing "time-travel" or implying 1689 puts God as "existing in time" (!), rather that God uses time as a tool to reveal his covenant in steps towards us image-bearers of his glorious workmanship.
So Hebrews 9:15 would say "so that those who are called might receive the promise of the eternal inheritance, because a death has taken place for redemption from the transgressions committed under the first covenant."
So we have two covenants: the Old Covenant and the New Covenant. The covenant of works and the covenant of grace. By the Old (works) I am condemned. By the New (Christ) I have his imputed righteousness to stand before the throne of God himself by his word and his blood covering.
So how is not the Old a lesser covenant than the New?
Unless I am misunderstanding your meaning here, then the analogy is poor.
It is not the case of addition [2+2+2] being substantively the same as multiplication [2x3].
Rather, it would be the promised covenant of a later fulfillment like a betrothal or engagement (grace in the Old) to a full marriage with full redemption due to the seal finally established: the shed blood of Christ as completed as it ever will be.
This is certainly different enough (and seems to fit with your definition of faith as proleptic with the types and shadows) yet it is not subject to the criticism of being *substantively* different since we all agree the substance of the covenant of grace is Christ. And Christ alone. And the reality of that truth is from eternity.
Am I in error to your view?
Last edited:
Northern Crofter
Puritan Board Junior
Im not sure if this will help but I'll try:
You start with Old/New = works/grace (yes) but then switch to Old/New = works/Christ (no). Saving grace is present as soon as there is the need for it in the Garden - the old/new covenants end/start in the 1st 3 chapters of Genesis.
No Other Name
Puritan Board Senior
Thanks!
Yeah, I can see my writing may have switched terms unintentionally but your corrections to my statement seems acceptable except I would add to your bolded in Christ to read: in the blood of Christ as a "a death [that] has taken place for redemption from the transgressions committed under the first covenant."
And you said: "the old/new covenants end/start in the 1st 3 chapters of Genesis". I am uncertain what that means?
The old covenant is not ended. A believer is born under it condemned. And while the believer is predestinated and called from eternity, he is - in fact and in deed - depraved and reprobate until such time as God deems it is time for his regeneration. (Again God works in/with time as one of his tools but that is not the same as claiming God exists in time).
But maybe I am completing missing what you meant.
Northern Crofter
Puritan Board Junior
The offer of "do this and you will live" (summary of Genesis 3.3) in the covenant of works is ended. When it ended, the promise of "I will send Someone to do this and you will live" (summary of Genesis 3.15) began (see also John 14:19).
The old covenant (of works) is ended but not the consequence (which is as you put it "....born under it condemned... - in fact and in deed - depraved and reprobate") of our first parents breaking it. The new covenant (of grace) then begins: "In that he saith a new, he hath abrogated the old" (Hebrews 8.13). Or, as Paul states elsewhere, "as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive" (1 Corinthians 15:22).
The moment Adam ate, he died. But, completely from God's grace, that very same moment the new covenant began (beginning with the shedding of blood to cover their sin as seen in the provision of animal skins for them to wear - and literally cover their shame). Adam and Eve were saved from death (both spiritual and physical) as long as they obeyed the covenant of works, an option that is not available to them or their offspring once they broke that covenant - we can no longer be saved from death by our own works but only by the perfect (and gracious) work of Christ.
It would be worth studying and considering the differences between Chapters 7 of the 1689 LBCF (3 paragraphs) and the WCF (6 paragraphs). Only in the latter do you find these statements:
- "The first covenant made with man was a covenant of works, wherein life was promised to Adam, and in him to his posterity, upon condition of perfect and personal obedience." (7.2)
- "Man by his fall having made himself incapable of life by that covenant, the Lord was pleased to make a second, commonly called the covenant of grace: wherein he freely offered unto sinners life and salvation by Jesus Christ, requiring of them faith in him that they may be saved, and promising to give unto all those that are ordained unto life his Holy Spirit, to make them willing and able to believe." (7.3)
SeanPatrickCornell
Puritan Board Junior
Correct!
Yes.
I wouldn't put it that way at all.
Don't you also believe that the benefits of the Covenant of Grace were "retroactively applied" to the Old Testament saints? If you don't, then I'd like to hear on what basis the OT saints were saved if it were not on the basis of the shed blood of Christ, which has not yet been shed.
If you do believe that OT saints were saved based on the shed blood of Christ (which I assume you do), and if you agree that people were saved on the basis of something that hadn't happened yet, then you must (like me) believe that the basis of salvation was applied retroactively.
Last edited:
Ah. We're having a terminogy issue. When I say Old Covenant, I do not mean Covenant of Works. I mean Mosaic Covenant.
The confusion here is over the word "retroactively". I believe people are taking that as a "OT saints were not saved UNTIL Christ accomplished His redemptive work and then it was applied to them" thing. Do you mean it this way?
Ploutos
Puritan Board Graduate
Sidebar, but, is this really true? I guess I have thought that the Covenant of Works is still in effect, but at the fall we lost all hope of fulfilling it on our own. Christ fulfills it for us, but it did not end. We just take refuge in his fulfillment of it.
Go ahead, set me straight where I have erred...
The Covenant of Works as a means to eternal rest in the presence of God is no longer possible for us. When Adam fell, the promise of life upon its fulfillment ceased to be an option for us because we fell in him. We’re born already having broken it in him.
Yet, nonetheless, it still says to us “do this and live”. Because we cannot, it is only a means to our condemnation. It is not that the “do this and live” ceased, it is that our ability to “do this and live” ceased. It is in this sense that the Covenant of Works has ended. As a means to eternal life.
ETA: I should say “as a means of eternal life FOR US.” Christ accomplished the “do this and live” and so fulfilled the CoW on our behalf.
Last edited:
Burke Devlin
Puritan Board Freshman
For Christ, the covenant of grace was the covenant of works. He earned our salvation, both by fulfilling the Law for us (His active obedience), and by suffering God wrath on our behalf for our breaking it (His passive obedience). Jesus Christ literally earned our salvation for us. When God imputes Christ’s righteousness to us, it is the imputation of His unblemished, righteous life.
WCF 11.3 Christ, by His obedience and death, did fully discharge the debt of all those that are thus justified, and did make a proper, real, and full satisfaction to His Father’s justice in their behalf. Yet, inasmuch as He was given by the Father for them, and His obedience and satisfaction accepted in their stead, and both, freely, not for anything in them, their justification is only of free grace; that both the exact justice and rich grace of God might be glorified in the justification of sinners.
11.6 The justification of believers under the Old Testament was, in all these respects, one and the same with the justification of believers under the New Testament.
WCF 11.3 Christ, by His obedience and death, did fully discharge the debt of all those that are thus justified, and did make a proper, real, and full satisfaction to His Father’s justice in their behalf. Yet, inasmuch as He was given by the Father for them, and His obedience and satisfaction accepted in their stead, and both, freely, not for anything in them, their justification is only of free grace; that both the exact justice and rich grace of God might be glorified in the justification of sinners.
11.6 The justification of believers under the Old Testament was, in all these respects, one and the same with the justification of believers under the New Testament.
Isaiah 44
...
21 Remember these, O Jacob and Israel; for thou art my servant: I have formed thee; thou art my servant: O Israel, thou shalt not be forgotten of me.
22 I have blotted out, as a thick cloud, thy transgressions, and, as a cloud, thy sins: return unto me; for I have redeemed thee.
23 Sing, O ye heavens; for the Lord hath done it: shout, ye lower parts of the earth: break forth into singing, ye mountains, O forest, and every tree therein: for the Lord hath redeemed Jacob, and glorified himself in Israel.
24 Thus saith the Lord, thy redeemer, and he that formed thee from the womb, I am the Lord that maketh all things; that stretcheth forth the heavens alone; that spreadeth abroad the earth by myself;
25 That frustrateth the tokens of the liars, and maketh diviners mad; that turneth wise men backward, and maketh their knowledge foolish;
26 That confirmeth the word of his servant, and performeth the counsel of his messengers; that saith to Jerusalem, Thou shalt be inhabited; and to the cities of Judah, Ye shall be built, and I will raise up the decayed places thereof:
27 That saith to the deep, Be dry, and I will dry up thy rivers:
28 That saith of Cyrus, He is my shepherd, and shall perform all my pleasure: even saying to Jerusalem, Thou shalt be built; and to the temple, Thy foundation shall be laid.
This may or may not be conclusive but it defenitely gives us an idea
...
21 Remember these, O Jacob and Israel; for thou art my servant: I have formed thee; thou art my servant: O Israel, thou shalt not be forgotten of me.
22 I have blotted out, as a thick cloud, thy transgressions, and, as a cloud, thy sins: return unto me; for I have redeemed thee.
23 Sing, O ye heavens; for the Lord hath done it: shout, ye lower parts of the earth: break forth into singing, ye mountains, O forest, and every tree therein: for the Lord hath redeemed Jacob, and glorified himself in Israel.
24 Thus saith the Lord, thy redeemer, and he that formed thee from the womb, I am the Lord that maketh all things; that stretcheth forth the heavens alone; that spreadeth abroad the earth by myself;
25 That frustrateth the tokens of the liars, and maketh diviners mad; that turneth wise men backward, and maketh their knowledge foolish;
26 That confirmeth the word of his servant, and performeth the counsel of his messengers; that saith to Jerusalem, Thou shalt be inhabited; and to the cities of Judah, Ye shall be built, and I will raise up the decayed places thereof:
27 That saith to the deep, Be dry, and I will dry up thy rivers:
28 That saith of Cyrus, He is my shepherd, and shall perform all my pleasure: even saying to Jerusalem, Thou shalt be built; and to the temple, Thy foundation shall be laid.
This may or may not be conclusive but it defenitely gives us an idea
No Other Name
Puritan Board Senior
No doubt about this fact. And please understand: reaching agreement is not my goal at all. I consider myself 1689 federalist, but I still have some lingering questions, though I have many more questions about Westminster covenantalism BUT in contrast, I have outright objections against the NCT spreading around my area from Zaspel and Wells.
So - with full confession - my goal is mostly self-serving in terms of learning. Tis true.
Maybe we are having a terminology issue. I am not sure how.
I mean, I see now that the "CofW ending" refers to the means by which any one born human could achieve eternal life has ended, ok. Agreed. And so when I said the CofW condemns still today, you all agree with that. I think we are on the same page there now.
But does it even matter that you were referring to the Mosaic covenant vs. the CofW?
As I understand, in the days before the NT, each covenant has one (or more) element(s) of CofW: "do this and live" complimented with element(s) of types of Christ in which grace (by faith alone in Christ alone) saves those called as true Israel and OT saints.
Hahaha, I laughed.
To my warped brain, that came off as the most assertive posture of humility which I imagine never entered your mind for one second!
Last edited:
- Status
