Logical Implications of the Synergistic View of God’s Knowledge: Part II

By Pastor Dustin S. Segers

In our first series, we noted that positing the classical Arminian view of exhaustive, yet passive simple foreknowledge logically destroys what the Arminian desires to preserve the most, man’s libertarian free will. We then noted how the open theist rightly concludes that commitment to said teaching from an Arminian doctrinal platform leads to finite godism. In other words, the open theist believes that if the classical Arminian wants to posit that God infallibly knows all future choices and actions, then it follows that those choices and actions are not free (in a libertarian sense), that genuine freedom related to human behavior is destroyed, the authentic providential control of the universe is undermined, that real relationship and intimacy with God is only apparent and illusory, and that in spite of all efforts to preserve libertarian free will, a fatalistically determined view of the Creator/Creation relationship must be adopted.

In part two of this series, we will discuss the effects of a denial of Classical Theism’s Eternal Decree of God as proclaimed in the Bible and summarized in the historic, Protestant Confessions of Faith and how such a denial is successfully accomplished only by systematically denying the truth and clarity provided by the monergistic understanding of divine foreknowledge as taught within the realm of historic Reformed and Baptist confessional theology.

Denial of Classical Theism’s Eternal Decree of God

Since the open theist rejects some of the most important tenets associated with classical Arminian theology (i.e: simple passive foreknowledge) on logical grounds, this will also logically lead to a rejection of classical theism in both its Arminian and Calvinistic forms. [1] Therefore, it will be helpful to look at some basic definitions of theism, and then discuss at what point exactly it is that the open theist makes a contention over and against the classical theist. The non-Calvinist Theissen defines general Christian theism as, “The belief in one personal God, both immanent and transcendent, who exists in three personal distinctions, known respectively as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.”[2] 4-point Arminian Norman Geisler defines theism in an even more basic sense, “Theism is the worldview that an infinite, personal God created the universe and miraculously intervenes in it from time to time.”[3] Neither the Arminian nor the open theist would have problems with the aforementioned basic definitions, [4] but the open theist, from the platform of rightfully critiquing the simple passive foreknowledge view of the Arminian, will argue specifically against the teachings within classical theism that have to do with the eternal decree of God, especially when that doctrine is presented from a historical Calvinistic perspective.

A Classical Definition of God’s Eternal Decree

Classical theism teaches that God’s decree covers and affects everything and that He does not change His decree. [5] This is the view of all Calvinists and most Arminians. Regarding God’s eternal decree, the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith states,

God hath decreed in himself, from all eternity, by the most wise and holy counsel of his own will, freely and unchangeably, all things, whatsoever comes to pass; yet so as thereby is God neither the author of sin nor hath fellowship with any therein; nor is violence offered to the will of the creature nor yet is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established; in which appears his wisdom in disposing all things, and power and faithfulness in accomplishing his decree.

Although God knoweth whatsoever may or can come to pass, upon all supposed conditions, yet hath he not decreed anything, because he foresaw it as future, or as that which would come to pass upon such conditions. [6]

The above quoted sections of the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith are statements that some Arminians and all open theists love to hate. Notice in the two paragraphs above that God is presented as the chief, supreme being who is in control of both major and minor events (i.e: “whatsoever comes to pass”). God is represented as the eternal and sovereign King who decrees from all eternity what, when, and how He desires things to come to pass. From these two short paragraphs, God is presented as providentially controlling the events of the entire universe by his own sovereign decree (Eph. 1:11).

Biblical Examples of God’s Eternal Decree

Some brief biblical examples of God’s eternal decree include the fact that Moses’ life changed the entire course of history. It is important here to ponder on the fact that all of the major historical events recorded in the Scriptures, stood or fell on the integrity and stability of an “ark of bulrushes” with a Hebrew baby in it floating on the Nile River that was spotted and caught at just the right time by Pharoah’s daughter. [7] Think of all the things that could have happened to the infant Moses in the “ark of bulrushes” as it floated on the Nile River. The wind could have turned the ark over and drowned the infant or it could have gotten caught in some of the reeds that line the Nile River and never reached Pharoah’s daughter at the time of their bathing, thus causing the infant Moses to starve to death. There are a myriad of possibilities that could have lead to a complete change in the history of the world as it is experienced today.

If the infant Moses would not have made it to Pharoah’s daughter at the exact time that he did, there would have been no law given at Sinai, if there was no law there could have been no basis for the Old Testament prophets arguing against Israel’s idolatry, lawlessness, and sin, if there were no prophets there could not have been a coming Savior to whom the prophets pointed, and if there was no Savior, there could be no salvation from sin offered to all mankind. All of this caused by the supposed random floating of a Hebrew infant in a basket along the Nile River approximately 3,500 years ago!

New Testament examples of God sovereign control and providence over all events includes the sinful actions of people that God used to bring about the greater good that was found in the Cross of Jesus Christ. Acts 2:22-23 & 4:27-28 clearly depicts God predetermining to use the evil intentions and actions of the Gentiles, Pilate, Herod, the Jewish religious leaders, and the Israelites to fulfill His own eternal purpose and plan in crucifying His Son to atone for the sins of the elect. In events such as these, God is seen as controlling and using all the list of contingencies, including the smallest details of our lives, our pains, our sorrows, and our afflictions, and even our evil intentions for His own eternal purposes. As John Frame has correctly summarized, “. . . God can hardly be said to control these large historical developments unless he also controls a vast number of smaller events.”[8]

Open Theism’s Two Most Popular Proponents Denying God’s Eternal Decree and Exhaustive Foreknowledge through Critiquing the Arminian View of Simple Passive Foreknowledge

The following section will focus on the statements of two of open theism’s most popular proponents, Clark Pinnock and John Sanders, to demonstrate that open theists deny and sometimes even abhor classical theism because of its strong teaching regarding God’s eternal decree. Again, we will also make note of the fact that open theists have rightly found the philosophical “chink” in the armor of the Arminian synergistic view by demonstrating the inconsistency of having a God that decrees all things yet has mere simple passive foreknowledge of future free events. Because they pick up on the inconsistency of the Arminian view of God’s foreknowledge in relationship to God’s eternal and fixed decree, the open theist believes that the future is not determined and fixed in any meaningful way. Pinnock has written, ” It is unsound to think of exhaustive foreknowledge, implying that every detail of the future is already decided” [9] Thus, Pinnock would disagree with the Scripture and classical theism’s teaching that within the sinful actions of men, God has an ultimate purpose for the evil intentions of their hearts.

Pinnock also disagrees with classical theists in their teaching that God is in control of all things that come to pass, both good and evil. He states, “Though God can bring good out of evil, it does not make evil itself good and does not even ensure that God will succeed in every case to bring good out of it.” [10] Also, Pinnock contradicts classical theism by positing that God cannot be in complete control of the world. He states, “This means that God is not now in complete control of the world . . . . things happen which God has not willed . . . . God’s plans at this point in history are not always fulfilled” [11] and, “Not everything that happens in the world happens for some reason, . . . . things that should not have happened, things that God did not want to happen. They occur because God goes in for real relationships and real partnerships.” [12] Pinnock also destroys the classical theistic concept of an eternal decree of God by making the following statement while supporting another proponent of open theism, “As Boyd puts it: ‘Only if God is the God of what might be and not only the God of what will be can we trust him to steer us…'” [13]

John Sanders, another popular proponent of open theism believes that God has no eternal plans to rule and govern the world. In his book The God Who Risks, Sanders clearly states his views concerning the classical theistic understanding of God’s sovereignty and providence by stating, “God has sovereignly decided not to control everything that happens. Rather God is sensitive to us and has decided to be responsive to us. In some things, God has decided to be conditioned by us. Divine conditionality is the watershed issue between the risk and the no-risk views of providence . . . There is no eternal blueprint by which all things happen exactly as God desires.” [14]

Notice that Sanders ties in God’s not sovereignly controlling everything to His ability to develop genuine relationships with believers by allowing us to “condition” Him. It is important to point out here that Sanders considers “Divine conditionality” as the “watershed issue” to determine whether believers can have true relationships (“risk” model of God) versus what he would see as an illusory relationship with God (“no-risk” model of God). This is indeed important to reiterate that open theists believe that if God cannot be conditioned by the creature (i.e: He is immutable), then all supposed relationships and intimacy that a person can develop with God are merely illusory and not actual.

The Helpless God of Open Theism

It is evident at this point that the overreaction of the open theist against the Arminian doctrine of simple passive foreknowledge not only reveals the open theist heretic for what he is, but most importantly, these heretics have served up a fine plate of doctrinal pottage for the Arminan who wants to desperately hold on to Classical theism’s view of God’s eternal decree. As we’ve already seen, open theists consider the changeableness of God as a major factor in developing a relationship with Him and helping Him fulfill His general plan for history. Sanders states, “The portrait of God developed here is one according to which God sovereignly wills to have human persons become collaborators with him in achieving the divine project of mutual relations of love.” [15] Thus, Sanders argues for a “divine project” whereby God needs “collaborators” vs. an unchangeable eternal decree. Pinnock makes the same argument when he states, “According to the open view, God freely decided to be, in some respects, affected and conditioned by creatures…” [16] “The world is dependent on God but God has also, voluntarily, made himself dependent on it . . . . God is also affected by the world.” [17] Sanders also goes on to show his disdain for the traditional view of an eternal decree by stating,

Either God does take risks or does not take risks in providentially creating and governing the world. Either God is in some respect conditioned by the creatures he created or he is not conditioned them. If God is completely unconditioned by anything external to himself, then God does not take any risks. According to the no-risk understanding, no event ever happens without God’s specifically selecting it to happen. Nothing is too insignificant for God’s meticulous and exhaustive control. Each and every death, civil war, famine, wedding, peaceful settlement or birth happens because God specifically intends it to happen. Thus God never takes any risks and nothing ever turns out differently from the way God desires. The divine will is never thwarted in any respect.[18]

God does not have a specific divine purpose for each and every occurrence of evil. . . . When a two month old child contracts a painful, incurable bone cancer that means suffering and death, it is pointless evil. The Holocaust is pointless evil. The rape and dismemberment of a young girl is pointless evil. The accident that caused the death of my brother was a tragedy. God does not have a specific purpose in mind for these occurrences. [19]

In a magazine debate, Sanders scorns the classical theistic view by setting up an emotional argument against Calvinist Christopher A. Hall’s presentation of God’s eternal decree. He states the following,

Since you believe that nothing happens except what God specifically ordains to occur, you logically conclude that God wants each and every rape, act of incest, and other atrocities to occur. So God wants little girls abused? And you think our view diminishes God’s glory! John Wesley was correct to describe classical theism’s understanding of God’s love as a ‘love that makes the blood run cold.’ [20]

Sanders posits a God who is out of control and seeks the help of His creatures to help Him fulfill His “divine project” which can go wrong. To summarize Sanders’ view, the following quote would be appropriate, “God resourcefully tries out different paths in his efforts to bring his project toward a successful completion. God’s activity does not unfold according to some heavenly blueprint whereby all goes according to plan. God is involved in a historical project, not an eternal plan.” [21] Therefore, the two most popular open theist heretics within evangelicalism today, Clark Pinnock and John Sanders clearly and stridently set forth their arguments against the traditional synergistic, Arminian understanding of Classical Theism by exposing the logical contradiction between the Arminian view of an exhaustive decree juxtaposed over against their belief in God’s simple passive foreknowledge of future free events.

In conclusion, we see clearly that the false teaching of God’s simple passive foreknowledge in the camp of our Arminian brethren has given the open theist incentive for blaspheming God and his word with an objection aimed specifically at the Biblical concept of God’s eternal decree. May we all pause and recognize that this as an example of the doctrinal casualties that result when “strange fire” is offered before the Lord in the form of philosophical notions rather than the pure and pristine truths of the consistency of God’s eternal decree as depicted throughout the pages of Holy Writ.

[1] It is important to note that Calvinists do not hold to simple passive foreknowledge but the open theist’s rejection of any concept of foreknowledge will logically lead to a rejection of the Reformed view of foreknowledge.

[2] Henry C. Theissen, Lectures in Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1999), 21.

[3] Geisler, Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics, 722.

[4] Open theists may take measures to show that “transcendence” and “immmanence” in God supports their own theology. For a refutation, cf. Norman Geisler, The Battle For God (Grand Rapids, Mich.: 2001), 266.

[5] For an excellent overall study of the reasons for the increasing growth of openness theology and the subsequent denial of classical theism within evangelicalism, cf. Michael Horton, “God in Our Image. Why Some Evangelicals are Challenging the Traditional View of God,” Modern Reformation:, September/October 1999, Vol. 8 No. 5.

[6] 2nd London Baptist Confession of Faith (1689) Chapter 3; Sections 1-2. Quoted in Samuel Waldron, A Modern Exposition of the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith (Durham, England: Evangelical Press, 1999), 60-61.

[7] Basic illustration adapted from Systematic Theology BI 552 classroom notes held during May 2003 at Pensacola Theological Seminary. Notes were provided by Dr. Jerry Hullinger.

[8] John M. Frame, No Other God: A Response to Open Theism (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian & Reformed, 2001), 94.

[9] Pinnock, 8.

[10] Pinnock, 176 [bold author’s for emphasis].

[11] Pinnock, 36 [emphasis author’s].

[12] Pinnock, 47 [emphasis author’s].

[13] Pinnock, 103 [emphasis author’s].

[14] John Sanders, The God Who Risks: A Theology of Providence (Downers Grove, Ill.: Intervarsity, 1998), 280.

[15] Sanders, 12 [emphasis author’s].

[16] Pinnock, 5 [emphasis author’s].

[17] Pinnock, 31 [emphasis author’s].

[18] Sanders, 10.

[19] Sanders, 262 [emphasis author’s].

[20] Christopher A. Hall & John Sanders, “Openness Theology Debate: Part 2,” Christianity Today, 11 June 2001, 55.

[21] Sanders, 88 [emphasis author’s].

Advertisements
Explore posts in the same categories: Doctrinal Issues, Soteriology

11 Comments on “Logical Implications of the Synergistic View of God’s Knowledge: Part II”

  1. Gene Says:

    Norman Geisler defines theism in an even more basic sense, “Theism is the worldview that an infinite, personal God created the universe and miraculously intervenes in it from time to time.”

    Notice that this is implicitly deistic. In the interventionist model, God creates the universe and intervenes in it “from time to time.” In other words, He sits back and lets it run like the paradigmatic clockmaker and comes back to reset the time every so often make sure things are going according to plan.
    Geisler’s definition tells you a great deal about his view of God’s providence.

  2. Gordan Says:

    When I read Greg Boyd’s “God at War,” the one thing that struck me as good and valuable was this: He shows clearly that it’s only a very arbitrarily inconsistent Arminianism that can maintain a God who is somehow “in control.” It’s an Arminianism that chooses at points to grab onto some Calvinism in order to save itself.

    Boyd demonstrated that the only consistent, logical conclusion, if you start from a genuinely libertarian free will, is open theism. Popular Arminianism is embarrassingly inconsistent with itself.

  3. Timmy Says:

    I guess that explains why so many leading Arminian thinkers have become leading proponents of Open Theism. Take for instance Pinnock, Basinger brothers, and John Sanders.

  4. ScriptureSearcher Says:

    A helpless god (not GOD) wringing his hands, wishing there was more he could do to save sinners and change the world……

    that is the kind of diety so many want and have!

    Thanks for an excellent article! I heard you knew Gene Bridges.

  5. Bill Isley Says:

    Gene:

    That seems to be a very insightful comment. With your knowledge of church history, can you expand on it a little? Is Geisler’s definition Thomistic, or did it come from somewhere else? Thanks.

    Bill

  6. Gene Says:

    Geisler is probably getting his idea from Aquinas, as he is admittedly a Thomist. It’s rather hard to tell from that one quote, but I’ve read his Christian Apologetics and his proof for the existence of God. Altogether it’s a good read. His proof for the existence of God essentially begins with Aquinas’ argument for necessity and then his argument for causation. He enhances it with a discussion of the law of conserving cause, rather than tracing causes to the ultimate first cause. That is, he argues for moment by moment causation (which should logically lead to a doctrine of continuous creation if folllowed to its final end, and that is, itself a tad dubious in some respects, as there are certain flaws there too, namely the negation of second causes, but that’s another line of argument). Anyway, he arrives @ the Unmoved Mover that way then runs a version of the teleological argument to reason from the UnMoved Mover, to a real, personal Being (God). He doesn’t connect this, however, to a transcendental argument (like Frame), in recognizing that all of this requires a commitment to logic, rationality, etc., therefore obligation, therefore God (a more Van Tillian approach).

    Actually, it’s the wording in the quote that struck me as deistic. The last clause “from time to time,” after mentioning seems to take a page directly from deism. Indeed, as you rightly noted, that sounds like an Unmoved Mover who might be personal. Because of his idea of conserved causation, however, I think Geisler avoids the deistic conclusion, but, as I said, that commits him at least logically to a doctrine of continuous creation, unless he grounds conserved causation in secondary causes, which is traditionally in the realm of a Reformed, not an Arminian apologetic. On the other hand, Arminianism is a Reformed heresy, so this could just be the cause of another Arminian inconsistency, this time in the philosophical realm.On the other hand, it’s possible to interpret secondary causes to “natural laws” and then move from there to deism, in which God is in a box and has to punch a hole into this reality “from time to time” in order to intervene. God winds up the clock, and it runs on its own except when the watch is running fast or slow, and which point God must interfere to make repairs or reset the watch or rewind it.

    God isn’t pictured in Scripture in this manner. Rather God is the author, and we frequently find literary metaphors in Scripture. There are books He has not written (counterfactual realities), but this is the book He has written (the reality He has decreed). What’s more, He has written Himself into the book.

    Reformed theologians of the past often put what is meant by God establishing secondary causes yet being involved in human affairs intimately by distinguishing between His potentia absoluta and potentia ordinata. This is not a distinction that you see much today. Charles Hodge discusses it toward the end of Volume One of his Systematic Theology. I find the distinction useful. His P.O. is His ordinary providence, including natural providence, ordinary reason, the decreed nature and dispositions of men. His P.A. is His power to intervene in any of the following: Creation, miracles, the Incarnation, inspiration of Scripture, visions and dreams and all special revelation, the events of Jesus’ life and death, including the crucifixion and resurrection and ascension; regeneration (individual salvation itself in each of its 3 aspects); the events of the eschaton etc. This leads to a distinction between active and passive decrees. Active decrees attach His power to directly act to His decrees. For example, regeneration is an active decree. Creation is an active decree, etc. A passive decree is effectual in that by choosing not to act and allow a being, thing, event, etc. to play out according to its nature (whether that be moral or physical), God can effectuate a desired outcome. He may also govern the universe by any combination of active and passive decrees.

  7. 4ever4given Says:

    Forgive me for interrupting, I feel very inadequate amongst all of you. And this may sound completely ignorant. But in reading this, the whole time I kept thinking of double predestination. It has been just in the past year that I have really been dwelling on this and realizing it makes complete sense to me. In light of this discussion especially on active and passive decrees, what are your thoughts on double predestination? I have been told it leads to the hopelessness of Fatalism, for those on the opposing end, to embrace this doctrine.

    I love the story of Moses seen through the eyes of God’s eternal decree. Picturing all the possibilities, the tiniest detail that could have completely changed the outcome, but yet God worked it all out, predetermining to use both evil intentions and actions along with good that brought about the, at that time, incomprehensible, yet perfect unfolding of God’s intended purpose… what a beautiful picture for me of resting in God’s divine will, knowing that even though I cannot comprehend the outcome of something in my own life, God knows and is working out all of the details(not automatonically) for my good, for His glory.

  8. Bill Isley Says:

    Thanks, Gene.
    Bill

  9. Gene Says:

    That’s a good question about double predestination.

    We affirm that God predestined, e.g. decreed the fall. This is stronger from a supralapsarian position than an infra, in that the logical order of decrees is inverted between the two positions. However, in the end, they arrive at the same destination. The infra tends to stress God’s permission. The supra tends to stress God’s decree as if it provides a means. Supra has been modified recently by Robert Reymond. James White is a modified supra as well. I believe you can find information on the original supra and the modified supra positions @ Phil Johnson’s site (the Pyromaniacs Phil Johnson).

    God is an author. He has many books that He could have written. He wrote this one, the one in which we live now, ergo, there is one actual future, but there are many possible futures, but these exist in the mind of God. When God says, “If you do x, y will happen, but if you z, w will happen,” He is revealing nothing about His sovereign, hidden will (Deut.29:29), rather He is giving you options from which to choose. He knows what you will do, and He has decreed you to do it, but you do not know what that decree actually entails. You only know that God has given you a choice. One is from the book He has written. The other is from a book He has not written. You don’t know the difference. Your choice is real. This is the means for the end He has written, whatever that may be.

    This is the difference between fatalism and determinism. Non-Calvinists often accuse us of affirming fatalism. Wrong. We affirm determinism, but not fatalism. They are related, but they are by no means the same.

    Fatalism:

    Jane is sick. If Jane calls the doctor, she will die. If Jane does not call a doctor, she will still die. The reason for this is fate which cannot be resisted.

    Determinism:
    Jane is sick. Jane can call a doctor or not call a doctor. God has revealed that sick people are morally obligated to call a doctor in order to get well. Jane calls a doctor. She gets well.

    The key here is that end is determined but it is hidden from view. There is a moral will of God that is disclosed (you are morally obligated to call a doctor in order to get well). In determinism all the parties are willing. Men do not call the doctor because they do not want to call a doctor. They call a doctor because they want to call a doctor, etc.

    This is fatalism:
    • If it is fated for you to recover from your illness, then you will recover whether you call a doctor or not.
    • Likewise, if you are fated not to recover, you will not do so even if you call a doctor.
    • So, calling a doctor makes no difference.

    In Calvinism the first order good establishes the second order relation’s nature. The end is determined through the choices made by the second order relation, and the only way to know if the first order relation has determined an end is to make the action. You can’t go wrong, but that doesn’t abrogate your responsibility, because God has told you what you should and should not do. You make that choice on your own and with a motive. It is this motive that makes your actions blameworthy, sinful, etc. If men would sin because they loved God and wanted to glorify God, they would not be condemned as sinners, and that’s the problem for if they loved God, they would obey God and not sin. They don’t love God, they hate God, and their choices are made apart from knowing the sovereign will of God itself, so their motives are what condemns them, not simply their actions.

    God can withhold constraining grace or offer it. If He wants to secure salvation, he offers it and regenerates a man. He further underwrites it with the indwelling Holy Spirit. The rest, He leaves to go on their own way. I can change the ends, if I actually want to do so. The ends are fixed, but men do what they will do.

    Calvinism looks like this:
    • If it is determined for you to recover from your illness, then you will call for a doctor.
    • Likewise, if you are fated not to recover, you will not call a doctor.
    • So, calling a doctor makes a difference.

    I think the key to understanding Christians’ problem in “getting” this lies in the way Christians today are conditioned to “know God’s will.” They generally have this idea that God has a sovereign will and a moral will. No problem. However, through a dash of Keswickism and a pinch of Arminianism, they end up trying to line up signs and whatnot so as not to “miss ‘the dot'” of God’s individual will. So, they have a built in bias that makes them think you can miss His individual will…but this is part of His sovereign will. God gives us His moral will to order our lives. What we do with that, and the wisdom and motives we employ, will determine how we know God’s will. I’ve always found it rather ironic that the Arminian churches in particular employ the traditional model (which is really from Keswickism) while the Reformed churches tend to favor the broader “wisdom” model. I thought Arminians believed in free will. You’d think they’d adopt a theology of decision-making that lends itself to more freedom and less neurosis. In the end, conceptually and practically, the wisdom view allows people more freedom. It’s a lot less neurosis inducing to get to know the Word of God and order my life after His moral will than to try to peer into His secret counsels by trying to line up the signs. The other view has people spinning their wheels trying not to miss “the dot,” which, since they have libertarian freedom, they could miss.

  10. 4ever4given Says:

    Chalk it up to illumination from the Holy Spirit and the Lord using your words to help my feeble mind comprehend this better… I have to say, I actually understood what you just wrote. THank you for taking the time to write it… now comes the opportunity to re-articulate it if the opportunites arises to share this.

    😉


  11. […] Nevertheless, Part III of this series will present an overview of open theism’s suggested answers to the perceived problems of the classical Arminian view of God so as to demonstrate that the Arminian must either reject their traditional simple passive view of God’s foreknowledge only to adopt the Calvinistic view of God’s preordination of whatever comes to pass or they must logically opt for the heresy of open theism so as to remain internally consistent with their own theology. (Here you can find Part 1 and Part 2 of this series). […]


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: