About

This blog is for discussion on any theological topic.. The blogger is convinced that the system of theology started by Calvin and developed by his followers is the most faithful and consistent understanding of the teaching of the Bible and that the most lucid summary of that is embodied in the Westminster Confession of Faith of 1646. Further, the blogger would like to acknowledge his indebtedness to the philosophy of Gordon Haddon Clark, known as scripturalism or as he stated it, ¨The Bible alone is the word of God¨. From Clark I learned that the world´s wisdom is foolishness. Though the Bible already said so, Clark demonstrated it by showing that pagan thought reduces to absurdity, and that the word of God alone is truth!

18 Responses to About

  1. Sean Gerety says:

    Welcome to Blogdome. It’s good to have another Scripturalists on the boards.

  2. mqeqeshi says:

    Thank you Sean!
    Already, I am beginning to feel the heat. Some one did not like my calling van Til´s paradox a quixotic hermeneutic! Secondly I have not read all of Clark´s Works. There is still a couple of titles I need to go through. I will have to be on top of things! God help me!

    Denson

  3. lawyertheologian says:

    Denson, I don’t believe Clark ever made the exact quote you presented as I have mentioned a long time ago on the Scripturalism website. And I hope you didn’t intend to say that Clark demonstrated that the Word of God alone is truth. For if that is his axiom, it cannot be demonstrated.

    Sean, do I not count as a Scripturalist having a blog here at wordpress?

    • mqeqeshi says:

      Hi Pat,
      It is not a quote. Clark convincingly demonstrates that the world´s wisdom reduces to absurdity. Further he did undertake a positive construction, based on The Axiom, a demonstration of the application of The Axiom(un proven) that to me convincingly shows that the word of God(The Axiom) is truth. This is NOT a proof of the Axiom since an Axiom cannot be proved!

      Denson

  4. lawyertheologian says:

    Denson,

    You had the statement in quotations that you attributed to Clark. Thus, you were saying that Clark made the statement.

    Demonstrating the application of an axiom doesn’t make sense. You can only show how to properly apply the axiom to specifics. But, of course, that doesn’t show convincingly that the axiom is true. So I don’t know why you believe that the Word of God is truth. The Word of God is truth if indeed it is the Word of God, since God cannot lie, and His Word is ipso facto true since truth is defined as what God thinks.

    • mqeqeshi says:

      About the quote, it was never my intention to imply that I was quoting Clark verbatim but only that Clark´s theorem is The Bible is the word of God.
      We are together in what you say about why we believe the word of God. Applying it to our lives is NOT what makes it true and I was NOT implying that at all. But apply it we must, and as we do so will find that it is indeed the truth. ¨Thy word is a lamp unto my feet and a light unto my path!¨

      Denson

  5. lawyertheologian says:

    Denson,
    I still don’t understand why you would say that as we apply the Word we find that it is indeed the truth. That sure sounds like an empirical and/or a verification of the truth of God’s Word. God’s Word I believe is truth not based on nor verified in my experience. That implies that I can use some other criteria to determine that something is true, other than God convincing me what is His mind.

    • mqeqeshi says:

      Hi Pat,
      Just to clear up on what I believe about the word of God.
      The Word of God cannot be proved to be true. The Word of God is already true or rather we start with the truth of the word of God. This belief or conviction is the inward work of the Holy Spirit. But theorems, or derivative truths are what we ¨prove¨. To prove means to demonstrate that a certain proposition is consistent with some axioms. Theorems are not new truths as such. They are already there in the axioms, though not explicitly stated. If we were to find inconsistencies , or contradictory theorems, then doubts would arise about the status of the axioms themselves. We can never find inconsistencies in the word of God because it is truth and truth can never have inconsistencies or contradictions. This guides us in understanding its message. We must not find contradictions in the word of God, and if we do, then we know we have misstepped in our logic somewhere. The fault is ours and in us, not in the word.Clark demonstrated that(proved) human will is consistent with God´s sovereignty as taught in the word of God. So there is a sense in which one can legitimately talk about ¨proof¨ in connection with the Word of God. One can hug the Bible and dance around it or have rituals around it, and proclaim loudly that it is the truth, but if we have no understanding of its message, no rational apprehension of its content, what good is that? Belief is assent to an understood proposition!

      Denson

  6. lawyertheologian says:

    Denson, I still think you’re confused and you’d be better off posting responses on my blog site.

    We don’t demonstrate/prove what the meaning of biblical statements are or even what the Bible teaches. What we demonstrate/prove is that a particular proposition is true if indeed it is the meaning of a biblical statement. Thus, assuming we understand the meaning of the statememt, “David was king of Israel,” we can show/demonstrate/prove that it is true because it is derived from our axiom: the Bible is the Word of God.

    BTW, why doesn’t your blog have automatical email notification for new posts?

    • mqeqeshi says:

      Pat,
      You´ve lost me again! I don´t see where I said what you are disapproving of! Demonstrating/proving, means showing that a certain proposition is consistent with axiom(s). Paul proved to the Jews that Christ was the Messiah from the Scriptures, the book of Acts says. Elsewhere, the Bible says Paul reasoned with them from the scriptures! I do not think this means Paul simply repeated words from the Bible to them.
      Belief is assent to an understood proposition.

      Denson

  7. lawyertheologian says:

    Denson,
    Maybe I’m just lost in your language. But what does it mean that “a certain proposition is consistent with axiom(s)?” How is the fact that the Bible says that Christ was the Messiah consistent with the axiom, the Bible is the Word of God?

    Paul demonstated that the Scriptures teach that Christ is the Messiah. This had nothing to do with the axiom. If the Jews denied that the Bible was the Word of God, Paul would have nothing further to say. Again, Paul simply showed that his understanding of who Christ was indeed the correct interpretation of the Scriptures. It had nothing to do with demonstration in the philosophical sense.

    • mqeqeshi says:

      Hi Pat,

      Maybe I’m just lost in your language. But what does it mean that “a certain proposition is consistent with axiom(s)?”

      example: The sum of the acute angles of a right triangle is 90 degrees. This proposition is not stated in Euclid´s axioms. It is not ¨self evident¨ — whatever that may mean(In fact I don´t believe there is any such thing as a self-evidently true proposition!) It must be shown/demonstrated/proved by referencing the axioms. Here is how you prove/show/demonstrate this proposition.
      (1)A triangle has three internal angles(Definition). Let the internal angles of a triangle be A, B and C.
      (2)Further, if this be a right triangle, then one of the angles is 90. Let A=90.
      (3)From an already proved theorem, ¨The sum of the angles of a triangle is 180 degrees¨, then, A+B+C=180. Hence, 90+B+C=180 for our right triangle.
      (4)If we subtract 90 from both sides of the expression, equality still holds. Hence 90+B+C-90=180-90, or B+C=90.
      Quod erat demonstrandum.
      If there was no way of checking whether the proposition is ¨consistent with the axioms¨ of geometry, then one could assign any arbitrary number to the sum of the acute angles of a right triangle out of sheer preference! But the axioms restrict the number to exactly 90!

      How is the fact that the Bible says that Christ was the Messiah consistent with the axiom, the Bible is the Word of God?

      Christ is the Messiah must be accepted as truth because it can be demonstrated from the Axiom. It can be shown to be a deliverance of Scripture. Scripture is the Axiom. As Clark pointed out to Mavrodes, The Bible is the Word of God refers to all the contents of the Bible.

      Paul demonstated that the Scriptures teach that Christ is the Messiah.

      Yes!

      This had nothing to do with the axiom.

      Yes it has. It is found in the axiom.
      Clark to Mavrodes´ criticism that ¨nothing can be deduced from the axiom, The Bible is the Word of God¨

      Part I we read that the Axiom “can be written on the back of a calling card.” A bit later the author says, “The Axiom contains no information whatever as to the specific content of the Bible.” And because of this Mavrodes concludes that no useful information can be deduced from it. Doubtless it is in this connection that he twice complains that “Not a single example is given anywhere of the deduction of any theorem.”
      Of course, in What Do Presbyterians Believe?, I have indicated (without using standard-form categorical syllogisms) the deduction of various doctrines from Scriptural statements. What Mavrodes seems to mean, however, is that I have not deduced the several verses from the Axiom.
      This criticism, so it seems to me, proceeds on the assumption that the “Bible” is just a word – a sound in the air, to use a nominalistic phrase. Apparently Mavrodes thinks that I would be better off technically if I made every verse a separate axiom. To me this seems like more machinery, which can be obviated by referring to them all under one name, the Bible.

      Further you wrote:

      If the Jews denied that the Bible was the Word of God, Paul would have nothing further to say.

      Do you mean to say, ¨The Jews denied that the Bible was the Word of God¨? If so, this would not seem to be accurate. Jesus said to them, ¨You search the scriptures, because you think that in them you have eternal life;it is these that testify about Me¨ It is hard to imagine why the Jews would think in the scriptures they have eternal life unless somehow the scriptures had their source from God who alone could grant eternal life.

      Again, Paul simply showed that his understanding of who Christ was indeed the correct interpretation of the Scriptures.

      How did he do that?

      It had nothing to do with demonstration in the philosophical sense.

      All demonstration is ¨in the philosophical sense¨. It involves showing that some proposition is derived from the axioms! If the Scriptures are the Axiom, and Paul demonstrated/showed that he derived his beliefs about the Messiah from the Axiom, then Paul was demonstrating in the Philosophical sense! I

      Denson

  8. lawyertheologian says:

    Denson, you still seem to be confused as to what is demonstrated. What is demonstrated is that the particular propositions are true if they are contained in the axiom. In other words, if the axiom is the Bible is the Word of God, then every statement that is in the Bible is the Word of God. It is that simple. We do not demonstrate what any statememt in the Bible means.

    Thus, with respect to geometry, any theorems or propositions accepted as true must be based on an axiom. Your example did not make clear what axiom the proposition was based on. So it cannot be claimed to
    be shown to be true.

    Similarly, that the Scriptures teach that Jesus is the Messiah is not based on the axiom: the Bible is the Word of God. It is based on careful reading and studying the Scriptures. That it is true, if indeed that is what the Scriptures teach, is based on the axiom.

    Thus, Clark’s response to Mavrodes is that he deduced various doctrines based on Scripture statements (correctly interpreted). And thus, those doctrines are true because the Scripture statements are true, because the Scripture (the Bible) is the Word of God. Again, Clark did not demonstrate what the Bible teaches based on the axiom. Rather, only that what the Bible teaches is true because it is the Word of God. Mavrodes was correct that we don’t deduce the particular statements of Scriptures from the axiom. We have to read them. Then we have to properly understand them.

    On one level, no unbeliever accepts that the Bible is the Word of God. Otherwise, they would accept all that is written within. But on another level, the Jews accepted the divine source of Scripture. My point was that being convinced that Jesus is the Christ is based ultimately on believing that the Bible is the Word of God. For clearly that Jesus is the Christ is what the Scriptures teach.

    Paul showed that his understanding of the Scripture’s teaching concerning Christ was correct by appealing to Scripture verses/texts and proper exegesis of those texts. It is the same for all good teaching of Scripture. We convince another by understanding words and language in their context and their logical implications. Again, we do not demonstrate what the Bible teaches. We demonstrate that what it teaches is true because the Bible is the Word of God.

    You cannot demonstrate that a proposition is derived from an axiom. In fact, no axiom implies any particular proposition. What an axiom implies is that certain propositions are TRUE. It is not so much about content as it is about truth.

    Paul did not derive his beliefs about the Messiah from the axiom. He derived his beliefs from his reading of Scripture and from Jesus directly communicating certain propositions to him. That he believed them to be TRUE, was based on the axiom. So also, I derive my belief that Adam lived 930 years on reading the book of Genesis. But I derive my conviction that that belief is true based on my conviction that the Bible is the Word of God.

    • mqeqeshi says:

      “Denson, you still seem to be confused as to what is demonstrated. What is demonstrated is that the particular propositions are true if they are contained in the axiom.”
      We do not demonstrate the truth of the propositions. Rather we demonstrate that particular propositions are in the axiom. The axiom is the bible! You still do not understand Clark’s reply to Mavrodes. If the axiom is true then of course the propositions are true!

      “In other words, if the axiom is the Bible is the Word of God, then every statement that is in the Bible is the Word of God. It is that simple.”
      But this is what Clark explained to Mavrodes and this was my purpose of quoting it to you!

      ” We do not demonstrate what any statememt in the Bible means.” Can you quote where I said this?

      “Thus, with respect to geometry, any theorems or propositions accepted as true must be based on an axiom.”
      Is this not what I have been saying over and over?

      “Your example did not make clear what axiom the proposition was based on.” I said the axioms are “the axioms of geometry” … also called Euclide’s axioms.
      “So it cannot be claimed to be shown to be true.” Well, go over it again, this time with Euclide’s axioms of geometry.

      “Similarly, that the Scriptures teach that Jesus is the Messiah is not based on the axiom: the Bible is the Word of God.”
      The scriptures are the axiom, and this was Clark’s point to Mavrodes.

      “Thus, Clark’s response to Mavrodes is that he deduced various doctrines based on Scripture statements (correctly interpreted). And thus, those doctrines are true because the Scripture statements are true, because the Scripture (the Bible) is the Word of God. Again, Clark did not demonstrate what the Bible teaches based on the axiom. Rather, only that what the Bible teaches is true because it is the Word of God. Mavrodes was correct that we don’t deduce the particular statements of Scriptures from the axiom. We have to read them. Then we have to properly understand them.”

      Read them, deduce them, show that, etc etc
      I use these interchangeably!

      “My point was that being convinced that Jesus is the Christ is based ultimately on believing that the Bible is the Word of God.” The Jews believed that the Bible was devinely inspired and yet they did not believe that Jesus was the Christ! Believing that Jesus is the Christ, Jesus said to Peter, “Flesh and blood hath NOT revealed this to you .. but my Father …”

      “Again, we do not demonstrate what the Bible teaches. We demonstrate that what it teaches is true because the Bible is the Word of God. ”

      NO! All we do is show what the Bible teaches. The truth or veracity of the scriptures is what we start with, we do not demonstrate it!

      “You cannot demonstrate that a proposition is derived from an axiom.”
      Really? Are theorems not derived from axioms?

      “In fact, no axiom implies any particular proposition.”
      Are theorems not implied by axioms?

      ” What an axiom implies is that certain propositions are TRUE.”
      FALSE! A false axiom can not imply a true proposition!

      “It is not so much about content as it is about truth. ”
      Again plain false! Truth is the property of propositions, you cannot have “truth” without “content”. So, it is very much about content!

      “Paul did not derive his beliefs about the Messiah from the axiom.”
      The axiom is the Bible, Paul derived his beliefs from the Bible, therefore Paul derived his beliefs from the axiom!

      ” He derived his beliefs from his reading of Scripture and from Jesus directly communicating certain propositions to him. That he believed them to be TRUE, was based on the axiom.”

      It was by the inner work of the Holy Spirit that Paul believed the axiom!

      “So also, I derive my belief that Adam lived 930 years on reading the book of Genesis. But I derive my conviction that that belief is true based on my conviction that the Bible is the Word of God.”

      Our beliefs may be based on an incorrect understanding of the BIBLE and would thus be false even if one believes that the Bible is the Word of God!

      Denson

  9. Pat says:

    Denson,

    I fear we are going to go round and round and I’m not sure why. It seems to me that maybe you misunderstand Scripturalism at its very root. Possibly because you have a mechanical or an overly technical way of viewing it.

    Let me try again:

    We do indeed demonstrate the truth of propositions. That is the whole point of the axiomatic method. You start with an axiom, and thus you can demonstrate
    that a proposition is true if/since the axiom is deemed true. BTW. the axiom is not the Bible. The axiom is a proposition. It is this statement properly understood: “The Bible (alone) is the Word of God.” The Bible is not a proposition at all. The Bible is all the writings we accept as the Word of God. What the axiom is claiming is that all propositions contained in the Bible are true because they are the God’s Word, i.e., God’s mind. And though it might seem obvious to say that if the axiom is true, then of course, the statememts/propositions which the axiom refer to are true, that is all that Scripturalism is all about. It is simply knowing that “David was king of Israel” because “the Bible is the Word of God.’ Yet you say “No! all we do is
    show what the Bible teaches.” But showing or demonstating what the Bible teaches has nothing to do with epistemology and Scripturalism. Epistemology and Scripturalism is about showing/demonstrating that something is true. It works like this: This is true because that is true. Scripturalism is not about demonstrating what the Bible teaches. It is about demonstrating that what it teaches is true.

    There is no such thing as a false axiom. An axiom is true by definition. It is the person’s starting place. Now you can deny the truth of someone’s axiom. But you cannot show its falsity. All you can do is claim that it is inconsistent with your axiom which, of course, you hold to be true.

    What axioms of Geometry or Euclid’s axioms? State them.

    Clark’s point to Mavrodes was not that the Scriptures are the axiom. Clark made the point that Mavrodes seemed to want Clark to make every proposition in Scripture to be the axiom. Clark said that is not necessary nor desirable nor possible, because none us can say for sure that we have ascertained every proposition that the Scriptures contain.

    Believing in the Scriptures as the Word of God and not believing in the gospel seems impossible. One has to believe ALL the Bible is the Word of God or none at all. Now, it’s possible one is confused of its content, including the gospel, but one can’t simply deny that what the Bible says concerning Christ and still claim to believe it as the Word of God. Peter heard the claim that Jesus was the Christ. It wasn’t a matter of the content of the gospel that the Father needed to reveal to him. He needed to reveal to Peter that it was true, that is, His Word on the matter.

    Truth is not THE property of propositions. For some proposition we deem to be false. But yes truth is with reference to propositions and propositions have content. But my point is that it is not so much about understanding what a statement means, it is knowing that the statement properly understood is true. Again, Mavrodes point is that the axiom does not give us any content of knowledge. He is correct in that one can believe the Bible is the Word of God without understanding much of any of its content. Clark’s point, and the point of Scripturalism, is that we have the contents of the Bible as what can be known. That is a lot. But of course we don’t all have instantaneous knowledge, that is, understanding of the Bible’s contents. We have to read and study and have others teach us.

    You say that it is by the Holy Spirit one believes the axiom, yet you claimed that the Jews of Jesus time believed the axiom, though they were not regenerated. That is not consistent.

    Yes, one can have an incorrect understanding of the Scriptures. But my only point is that we are convinced, we know that the Bible statements/propositions are true because we know that the Bible is the Word of God. Again, as JR once illustrated, one can believe that David was king of Israel. But one doesn’t know that David was king of Israel unless one claims that it is true that David was king of Israel because it is true that the Bible is the Word of God.

    • mqeqeshi says:

      I fear we are going to go round and round and I’m not sure why. It seems to me that maybe you misunderstand Scripturalism at its very root. Possibly because you have a mechanical or an overly technical way of viewing it.

      I fear the same, and I for one think it is you who want to insist on what I consider peculiar ways of expressing
      what we are basically agreed upon.
      For instance: Me : We only demonstrate what the Bible teaches. The truth of the Bible has already been assumed(from the axiom)
      YOU: We do indeed demonstrate the truth of propositions.
      My comment: If I say ¨David was the Prime Minister of Babylon¨, I cannot demonstrate
      this to be either a deliverance of scripture or a good and necessary consequence of scripture!
      But if I say, ¨David was King of Israel¨, I can demonstrate this from scripture. Its truth follows from the axiom!

      BTW. the axiom is not the Bible. The axiom is a proposition. It is this statement properly understood: “The Bible (alone) is the Word of God.” The Bible is not a proposition at all. The Bible is all the writings we accept as the Word of God. What the axiom is claiming is that all propositions contained in the Bible are true because they are the God’s Word, i.e., God’s mind. And though it might seem obvious to say that if the axiom is true, then of course, the statememts/propositions which the axiom refer to are true, that is all that Scripturalism is all about.

      The Bible refers to all the propositions contained in the 66 Books etc. To say the axiom is a certain statement ¨The Bible(alone) is the Word of God.¨ is technically true. But that proposition can be restated by simply saying ¨The Bible is the axiom!¨, which is a proposition by the way, contrary to what you say above. I agree with and understand your emphasis that the whole point of the axiom is that the Bible is truth, because it is the word of God! None of what I said means to contradict any of this! The Bible is the Word of God is also based on a prior premise, which is that God is Truth. If he is NOT, there is no point in believing the Bible. It would place us in the same par with any other axiom, sentiments which you express elsewhere in your post.

      But showing or demonstating what the Bible teaches has nothing to do with epistemology and Scripturalism. Epistemology and Scripturalism is about showing/demonstrating that something is true. It works like this: This is true because that is true. Scripturalism is not about demonstrating what the Bible teaches. It is about demonstrating that what it teaches is true.

      Epistemology is the study of justification of belief and justification of belief is showing why a certain belief is true. This is obviously premised on the fact that people only believe what they think is true or we must only believe what is true or truth is that which aught to be believed. If it was not so, epistemology would be unnecessary. Each one of us would believe what ever we please and go our merry way. The trouble is giving reasons why some proposition should be thought to be true(should be believed). How do we determine any proposition is true? Theories of truth come in here; correspondence, coherence and pragmatic, proper function, warranted true belief etc etc! All these are attempts at justification of the truth of some propositions. All these face impossible difficulties. Clark proposed starting with ¨The Bible is the word of God¨. But this would seem to be premised on a prior proposition;and that is, God is Truth. If God is NOT truth, then the axiom of scripturalism is useless. There is no point in believing God if He is not the truth! So, to me the axiom is, ¨God is truth and the Bible is His word!¨ TO know the truth then requires one to know the contents of scripture.

      There is no such thing as a false axiom. An axiom is true by definition. It is the person’s starting place. Now you can deny the truth of someone’s axiom. But you cannot show its falsity. All you can do is claim that it is inconsistent with your axiom which, of course, you hold to be true.

      An axiom is a proposition. A proposition may be true or false. Of course people believe whatever they believe because they think it is true, though quite often mistaken. Not everything we believe is true, simply because we believe it, including axioms! If two axioms(propositions) contradict each other, we know that both of them cannot be true! Therefore, there must be such a thing as a false axiom! Further, if we can show that a set of axioms lead to contradictory theorems, then the axioms are certainly false propositions! And furthermore, if an axiom is selfcontradictory, it is certainly false!! Care for examples?

      Believing in the Scriptures as the Word of God and not believing in the gospel seems impossible. One has to believe ALL the Bible is the Word of God or none at all.

      It certainly seems inconsistent. Perhaps we should say none really believes the axiom unless they are saved, even if they claim to?

      Peter heard the claim that Jesus was the Christ. It wasn’t a matter of the content of the gospel that the Father needed to reveal to him. He needed to reveal to Peter that it was true, that is, His Word on the matter.

      I have already said believing the axiom is a conviction of the Holy Spirit.

      You say that it is by the Holy Spirit one believes the axiom, yet you claimed that the Jews of Jesus time believed the axiom, though they were not regenerated. That is not consistent.

      The Jews were certainly inconsistent, but that is hardly my fault. Jesus pointed this out to them! They claimed Abraham as their father and the torah as given to them by Moses as from God. They would stone you if you suggested otherwise!

      Truth is not THE property of propositions. For some proposition we deem to be false. But yes truth is with reference to propositions and propositions have content. But my point is that it is not so much about understanding what a statement means, it is knowing that the statement properly understood is true.

      To say truth is the property of propositions is not to claim that propositions cannot have any other property. or that all propositions are true. Some propositions are false. But, it is propositions and only propositions that are either true or false. IT is about understanding the meaning of a proposition. A meaningless statement is not even a proposition. It is only after we have understood the proposition that we can determine whether it is true or false according to whether it comports or not with the axiom by being found in the bible or by good and necessary consequences! Propositions are not worth anything other than that they are true or false!

      Yes, one can have an incorrect understanding of the Scriptures. But my only point is that we are convinced, we know that the Bible statements/propositions are true because we know that the Bible is the Word of God.

      I do not know where I gave you the impression that I do not think the Bible is truth. It is the whole point of believing the Bible. There is no point in believing anything unless it is true or to put it another away, people believe whatever they believe because they think it is true even if they may be mistaken. Or to put it another way; to believe is to think a proposition is true. But why should I think a proposition is true? Because it is the Word of God! How does that help? Because Go is truth. If God was not truth first, there would be no point in believing his word!

      Again, as JR once illustrated, one can believe that David was king of Israel. But one doesn’t know that David was king of Israel unless one claims that it is true that David was king of Israel because it is true that the Bible is the Word of God.

      If a statement is from the axiom, it is already true! That is why I keep saying to you that the Bible is the axiom! People who believe the word of God know the truth even if they do not hold your peculiar views!

      Denson

  10. Derek Ashton says:

    Wow . . . that is one strained out gnat. Seems like every time I get into a discussion with a Scripturalist, it ends up like that. Ironically, those of us who believe in paradoxes have an easier time understanding one another.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: