Covenant Apologetics Proposal

Dr. K. Scott Oliphint expounds a little bit on the thesis of his soon to be released book on apologetics.

I will probably agree with maybe 90% or more with the thrust of Dr. Oliphint’s forthcoming book. Jeff Downs posted the table of contents and all of the topics he covers look to be interesting. I will be happy to read a fresh study on biblical apologetics.

Where I depart from Dr. Oliphint’s approach, however, is with his insistence that presuppositional apologetics needs to be rebranded as covenantal apologetics.  From his previous published articles, Dr. Oliphint argues that the term “presuppositional” is too broad a description for what Reformed apologetics is all about.

In order to align apologetic methodology with the basics of Reformed Theology (insert here, “Covenant Theology”), Dr. Oliphint suggests that presuppositional apologetics be renamed “covenant” apologetics because all men in Adam are “covenant” breakers against God. He develops that idea from the 7th chapter of the Westminster Confession, specifically article 2, where the confession speaks of God making a “covenant of works” with men.  So when we engage men in the apologetic enterprise, we are engaging them as “covenant” breakers, because all men are either identified with the old man, Adam, in the covenant of works, or the new man, Jesus Christ, in the new covenant.

Dr. Oliphint’s name change is popular among a number of bloggers, but overall, I think it is unnecessary and problematic.

It is unnecessary because I believe the word “presuppositionalism” is an appropriate descriptor for the methodology. When we engage unbelievers, we are engaging the presuppositions of their worldview — the foundational building blocks of those “strongholds” they have built against the knowledge of God (2 Cor. 10:4-5).  And moreover, we stand our ground on the presuppositions that we are committed, Bible-believing Christians. We don’t begin by making a probable case for the existence of God; we begin by what we know is true according to God’s word: all men know God exists and are in rebellion against Him.

That brings me to the reason why the name change is problematic: It “presupposes” the exegetical validity of the “covenant of works.” I can certainly agree that the covenant of works is a logical piece to Covenant Theology proper, however, I see no exegetical proof from the pages of Scripture that it is a legitimate covenant.

Now I have had a good many folks disagree with me and claim there is, but I have read a number of Reformed works attempting to defend it, including Robertson’s classic study on the covenants, Herman Bavnick’s section from the second volume of his Reformed Dogmatics, Robert Reymond’s discussion in his Systematic Theology, and I heard a lecture given at GPTS on the subject and none of them were compelling.  In fact, I had a twitter challenger insist that Bavnick’s discussion is unassailable, but it was probably the least persuasive. Reymond’s study was the best attempt that I found, but even it left me shaking my head.

Now I will say that I certainly agree with Oliphint that there exists a Creator-creature distinctive.  That distinctive exists in the hearts of all men everywhere and it is key to engaging sinners with the Gospel and apologetics.  However, to call that distinctive a “covenant of works” and to insist all men are breakers of that covenant, is defending a theological component that is not exegetically derived from the text of Scripture. My desire is to hone my apologetic theology from the text, not defend a system.

I am looking forward to Dr. Oliphint’s book and I am certain it will be a worthy addition to all the apologetic literature out there addressing this topic. I want to develop my critique of a “covenant of works” in the future perhaps when I have opportunity to read through his book.

Advertisements

24 thoughts on “Covenant Apologetics Proposal

  1. Yep. Logic weak, shout louder. It strikes me as a bad move. It’s like, “People love Product A, but a lot of them really don’t want Product B. So… let’s bundle them!” Which will probably reduce the impact of A.

    Just listened to some talks by one of my favorite people on the planet, explaining why he loves CT; he reads a bunch of verses about covenants, and says in effect, “See, it’s all over Scripture!” Well, yes it is; if by “it” you mean the covenant concept, and covenantS in particular. But Covenant Theology, which is mostly about covenants not discerned in direct Scriptural statements? Not so much.

  2. Presuppositionalism, covenantal, I dunno. I like “presuppositional” better, I suppose.

    I personally just call it a Biblical worldview applied consistently to the defense of the faith. :-)

  3. Pingback: Covenant Apologetics Proposal | ChristianBookBarn.com

  4. “Now I will say that I certainly agree with Oliphint that there exists a Creator-creature distinctive. That distinctive exists in the hearts of all men everywhere and it is key to engaging sinners with the Gospel and apologetics. However, to call that distinctive a ‘covenant of works'”

    Fred, where have you ever read that the Creator-Creature distinction is the covenant of works? I have never read this, and (to my knowledge) this is not Oliphint’s position.

    Dan wrote:
    “But Covenant Theology, which is mostly about covenants not discerned in direct Scriptural statements? Not so much.”

    Really, Dan? Agree or disagree that there is an Adamic Covenant, you certainly can not argue against direct scriptural statements of the Noahic (Gen. 9:11), Abrahamic (Gen. 15:18), Mosaic (Ex. 19-24) and Davidic (Ps. 89:3-4). You’ve got to be pulling our leg, to say there are (not so much) direct scriptural statements.

  5. Jeff asks,
    Fred, where have you ever read that the Creator-Creature distinction is the covenant of works? I have never read this, and (to my knowledge) this is not Oliphint’s position.

    From that video. Starting about the 2:05 mark, when the moderator asks Dr. Oliphint what it was that made Van Til’s apologetic covenantal? He goes on to say that how Van Til spoke about a Creator-creation relationship and when you speak about relationships, you have to speak about covenants, and that every person on earth is covenantally related to God in some way either in Adam or in Christ. What covenant is he talking about if it is not a “covenant of works?” Covenant of Grace? Please correct me if I am misrepresenting his view here.

  6. The creator-creature distinction (in particular) is not the CoW, which is what you seemed to indicate in the original post, when you write “to call that distinctive a “covenant of works”.”

    The creator-creature distinction that Oliphint (and Van Til before him), is simply the idea that God is the creature and maker of all things; he is independent (a se), while man, is the very opposite, he is dependent on God (from the start, and to the finish) for everything. I’m sure there is no disagreement between us, here.

    God condescends (establishes a relationship with Adam), and he does so by way of covenant. The WCF 7:1 seems to indicate that the first covenant God established with man, is the CoW. It is debatable among covenant theologians, whether Adam, when created (even before the prohibition to not eat of the tree), was in covenant or not. But yes, we are either, in Adam, or in Christ – there are only two types of people (believer and unbeliever). Again, I’m sure we both agree here as well.

  7. Sorry, in the third paragraph, it should say “The WCF 7:2…” Also, want to make sure I’m clear (regarding the first paragraph), which, after reading, doesn’t seems that this is the case. I’m not so sure condescension = covenant; this seems to be the view of Dr. Oliphint’s (and certainly other CT). This is the view I hold, but I do so with an open hand. I could comment further on this aspect of CT, but I don’t believe it would helpful to this particular discussion.

  8. Pingback: Rebranding Apologetics

  9. Pingback: More June 2013 Presuppositional apologetics Link | The Domain for Truth

  10. The whole rebranding thing smacks of the stereotypical ivory-tower big-brained Reformed attitude that seems to always lie just below the surface in search of something new to argue about amongst the brethren.

    Apparently it’s not enough to have spawned presuppositional apologetics; they have to ensure anyone who doesn’t agree with their particular covenantal worldview — a completely unnecessary thing to know or elucidate merely in order to use a presup method of apologetics — will be discouraged from using it due to the new name, or must bow the knee to their particular theological constructs in order to utilize their apologetic methodology.

    No thanks. Smells too much like paying royalties. I’ll continue to call it presuppositional apologetics, and use it because it’s biblical not because it supposedly lines up with some extrabiblical covenantal concepts they’ve created as a framework for other theological doctrines/dogmas they wish to raise upon the foundation of the Bible.

  11. “The whole rebranding thing smacks of the stereotypical ivory-tower big-brained Reformed attitude that seems to always lie just below the surface in search of something new to argue about amongst the brethren.”

    Bobby, I’m sorry you got that impression, but that isn’t the case. The reason for the name change hardly had dispensationalism in mind. The reasons were to clarify Van Til’s foundation and methodology with a biblical theme. Oliphint has said many times that many miscontrue “presuppositionalism” within a post-modern context, and take it and use it to mean “well I have my presuppositions and you haves yours, so there’s that”. But that was never the crux of Van Til’s argument.

    “Apparently it’s not enough to have spawned presuppositional apologetics; they have to ensure anyone who doesn’t agree with their particular covenantal worldview ”

    Well, it is a matter of consistency, VT sought (over against classical and evidential apologetics) to argue as a unit, and covenant theology is pretty foundational to a reformed hermeneutic, as Fred has already stated in this post (WCF 7).

    “a completely unnecessary thing to know or elucidate merely in order to use a presup method of apologetics — will be discouraged from using it due to the new name, or must bow the knee to their particular theological constructs in order to utilize their apologetic methodology.”

    No one is asking you to bow the knee. However, it’s always good to examine the construction in which you are using to do apologetics, which is something everyone has to do. It is a matter of consistency.

    “No thanks. Smells too much like paying royalties. I’ll continue to call it presuppositional apologetics, and use it because it’s biblical not because it supposedly lines up with some extrabiblical covenantal concepts they’ve created as a framework for other theological doctrines/dogmas they wish to raise upon the foundation of the Bible.”

    I’m kind of surprised that it’s getting so much drawback, given that the label is the only thing different, all of the content is substantially the same. I’d encourage you to go to the sources, particularly Van Til, as he is considered the “father” of it. I don’t think that he’s arguing anything new, he just systematized it in light of a biblical framework, and addressed the apologetical points from there.

  12. @Resequitur:

    “The reason for the name change hardly had dispensationalism in mind.” Okay? I’m not a dispensationalist, unless it’s a requirement that everyone be labeled as such if they don’t accept the creation of covenants that don’t appear in the text of Scripture as covenants.

    “No one is asking you to bow the knee.” Yet it feels rather implicit in the name change, as it becomes part and parcel of the “official” name for the method and thus ties itself to it. Suddenly we’re using “covenantal apologetics” but we’re not interested in defending extrabiblical covenants nor do those theological constructs that Covenantalists label ‘covenants’ need to be agreed to as ‘covenants’ in order for their general idea to be valid. Which is why it feels entirely like an attempt to restrict the method’s use by anyone who doesn’t agree with calling certain concepts covenants. We’re implicitly being told that one must first assent to something that need not be conceded in order to defend the faith presuppositionally.

    “However, it’s always good to examine the construction in which you are using to do apologetics, which is something everyone has to do. It is a matter of consistency.”

    There’s no requirement to accept certain extraBiblical covenant concepts in order to use a presuppositional method of apologetics. One may aid the other, but one does not require the other, therefore it would seem to be an unnecessary correlation. That’s what gives rise to the feeling that renaming the methodology may be motivated by less noble desires, whether merely to try to promote a small sect of Christianity that needs some visibility and seeks greater relevance, or simply to press upon others an undue weight should they wish to utilize a biblical apologetic methodology.

    I’ve yet to see why there’s a clear need to change the name other than a personal preference that comes from one’s penchant for certain theological constructs. If it’s purely optional, which it is, there’s no motivation to change the name of the entire apologetic. Besides, it’s not covenantal, it’s biblical. Sye lays this out well in his How to Answer the Fool apologetics video. He doesn’t get into “see there’s this covenant between man and God, only it’s not really in the Bible, but it’s there”. He lines up the methodology with scripture regarding how to engage the unbeliever. It’s based on scripture, and not necessary to adhere to some extrabiblical covenants.

  13. “Okay? I’m not a dispensationalist,”

    Okay, that was just an example. The label was meant to recognize that the other terminology was a bit too general, it was addressing the postmodern or relativistic usage more than anything, and getting more specific to the biblical line of argumentation.

    “unless it’s a requirement that everyone be labeled as such if they don’t accept the creation of covenants that don’t appear in the text of Scripture as covenants.”

    I think you’re reading my writing as a bit too hostile to you, I was simply just pointing out that your assertion that it was “something new to argue about amongst the brethren” missed the mark.

    As far as your assertion that it “doesn’t appear in the text of scripture”, I’m not going to argue my viewpoint here. I was simply clarifying. But just as a friendly pointer, if you make an assertion such as that, you’re going to have to deal with the argumentation that it does.

    “”Yet it feels rather implicit in the name change,”

    Like I said, I’m sorry you feel that way.

    “as it becomes part and parcel of the “official” name for the method and thus ties itself to it”

    Well, as I’ve already stated, it was fundamental to Van Til’s argument, so I’m not sure why there is so much shock about it in the name change. The substance has been there all along.

    ” Suddenly we’re using “covenantal apologetics””

    No, it isn’t “all of a sudden”.

    ” but we’re not interested in defending extrabiblical covenants ”

    1) This is begging the question

    2) We’re interested in defending Christian Theism, of which God’s relation to man is on covenantal terms.

    3) If you don’t like it, then wave goodbye to the train, no one is forcing you to jump on it. If you want to stick with the label “presuppositionalism” by all means do. But if you read Van TIl, then you should know better than to think of it as a novelty.

    “nor do those theological constructs that Covenantalists label ‘covenants’ need to be agreed to as ‘covenants’ in order for their general idea to be valid”

    You’re free to argue as to why they shouldn’t be. Otherwise the assertion doesn’t really show that you’ve dealt with the material. Which is fine, unless you want to prove it to be false. Then you actually have to come up with arguments as to why that is the case. I’m just sort of baffled as to why you accepted explicit reformed apologetic methodology, only to turn around and say that it’s wrong. Usually when one takes a position (given that one is aware of his/her traditions or preconceptions) one would examine the primary sources. It seems like maybe you were simply exposed to surface level introductions (which are good! We need those!) but didn’t bother to follow the stream back to the fountain. I’d strongly encourage you to do that!

    “We’re implicitly being told that one must first assent to something that need not be conceded in order to defend the faith presuppositionally.”

    No, you’re being told to understand what and how something is being argued before you accept the methodology, only to turn around and object the very thing in which the methodology comes from. Van Til argued from the Christian worldview as a unit, and he used the covenantal themes of scripture in doing so. You keep saying “we don’t have to believe that”, but you’re not really saying why other than “I don’t see it there”. That doesn’t mean that it isn’t. It could just mean you’re not used to spotting it out. Which intro level material doesn’t really outline.

    “There’s no requirement to accept certain extraBiblical covenant concepts ”

    Correct. However, the assertion “the covenant of works/life isn’t biblical” is yet to be argued. In this case you’re begging the question.

    “One may aid the other, but one does not require the other,”

    In this case, you simply remain in “blessed inconsistency”. It’s what happens when you argue for something whilst ignoring the ramifications, or the preconditions of said thing. The argument is still good, but not for the reason you think is the case.

    ” therefore it would seem to be an unnecessary correlation. ”

    Sometimes things aren’t as they appear. Perhaps an argument would better communicate your point.

    “I’ve yet to see why there’s a clear need to change the name other than a personal preference that comes from one’s penchant for certain theological constructs.”

    I wonder if you’ve read anything I’ve written. The name conveys the substance of the argument. If you don’t believe it, then opt out and ditch it. No one is making you stick with it. We’re just saying you’ll remain inconsistent. Van Til developed this argumentation out of Reformed theology. So, why wait until now to take issue with it? Are you just finding it out?

    “whether merely to try to promote a small sect of Christianity that needs some visibility and seeks greater relevance, or simply to press upon others an undue weight should they wish to utilize a biblical apologetic methodology.”

    If you think it’s Covenant apologetics is a small sect, given that it was the methodology of Van Til, taking his cue from Reformed and Post-Reformed orthodoxy, then you really shouldn’t feel comfortable about using presuppositionalism.

    But let’s consider, for the sake of argument, that one is doing it for those reasons. One could ask you why you’re aligning with presuppositionalism anyway. If it was all one big scheme to get someone to accept a “Sect”, then why didn’t you abandon it? If someone took something out of a malicious scheme, only to use it for some other intent, wouldn’t it be just as malicious? Aren’t you defending your particular view? It would be just as simple to say that you hold to an “unbiblical” view that the covenant of works is wrong.

    “If it’s purely optional, which it is, there’s no motivation to change the name of the entire apologetic.”

    Yes, you have the option to remain consistent by either doing 1 of 2 things

    1) rejecting presuppositionalism as a whole, as it seeks to argue Christian theism, which entails covenant theology. (recommended)

    2) Take up arguing some other blockhouse method, which could look like a) reverting back to classical or evidentialism or b) developing something along your own theological lines. (not recommended)

    “besides, it’s not covenantal, it’s biblical. ”

    This reminds me of how Socinians would object to Trinitarians on the grounds that given that the word “Trinity” wasn’t in the bible, that therefore their doctrinal construction is unbiblical. They would argue they held to the “Biblical” view. That isn’t saying much is it? In that case you need to explain what the bible teaches, and use words (in the language you are speaking) to do it. This is a common fallacy, and I recommend those who reject the Adamic covenant quit using it, and improve their argumentation.

    “Sye lays this out well in his How to Answer the Fool apologetics video. ”

    Lays what out? Sye is a Vantillian as far as I know. If he argues that he doesn’t need to acknowledge the foundations in which he argues, then he’s being inconsistent.

    ” He doesn’t get into “see there’s this covenant between man and God”

    He lays it out by not getting into it? That’s a major argument from silence.

    Not to mention that the dvd is intro level material. In any case, I’m not sure why the lack of him saying legitimizes the lack of acknowledgement on your part.

    “only it’s not really in the Bible, but it’s there”.

    Where did you see that in my argument? Or anyone’s argument for that matter? That sounds more along the lines of what you think we are saying, rather than what we are actually saying. What we are saying is that the concept is of the covenant is there, as well as the elements. If you don’t believe it, that’s one thing. But it’s quite another to argue that it’s wrong without accurately representing what you’re arguing. Did Sye teach you that too?

    “He lines up the methodology with scripture regarding how to engage the unbeliever.”

    Good, that’s what Oliphint’s book will do as well, with more exegetical argumentation. But it’s easier to just say that it’s wrong without reading the material, I suppose.

    “It’s based on scripture, and not necessary to adhere to some extrabiblical covenants.”

    Do you think the more you repeat yourself, that the more correct you will be? I know what you believe at this point, now try backing up as to why you believe this to be the case. Deal with what you think is wrong.

  14. “But let’s consider, for the sake of argument, that one is doing it for those reasons. One could ask you why you’re aligning with presuppositionalism anyway. If it was all one big scheme to get someone to accept a “Sect”, then why didn’t you abandon it?”
    Not presuppositionalism but the name change to covenantal, is what I was saying comes across like a scheme.

    ““besides, it’s not covenantal, it’s biblical. ”
    This reminds me of how Socinians would object to Trinitarians on the grounds that given that the word “Trinity” wasn’t in the bible, that therefore their doctrinal construction is unbiblical. ”
    It may remind you of it, but it’s not the same.

    ““Sye lays this out well in his How to Answer the Fool apologetics video. ”
    -Lays what out?”
    Lays out what I said: A biblical case for using the presuppositional apologetic. He didn’t need to rely on any extrabiblical convenantal concepts, he laid out his case using actual scripture regarding how to answer the fool and why our presuppositions are such as they are (God being the necessary prerequisite for all ability to reason consistently, logic, wisdom, know anything for certain, etc.).

    “” He doesn’t get into “see there’s this covenant between man and God”
    -He lays it out by not getting into it?”
    Uhm, what? Oh, I guess you’re being coy. I said he lays out what presuppositional apologetics are and the basis for it, and it didn’t require him getting into covenantal theology to do so.

    ““He lines up the methodology with scripture regarding how to engage the unbeliever.”
    -Good, that’s what Oliphint’s book will do as well, with more exegetical argumentation. But it’s easier to just say that it’s wrong without reading the material, I suppose.”

    I’ve pre-ordered his book and look forward to reading it. I’m open to being wrong, however on the point i was making (that the presuppositional apologetic can be explained, taught and utilized without the need to prop it up with covenantal theology, particularly its penchant for calling things covenants that aren’t called that in scripture), I’ve yet to see how that’s the case.

  15. Just so we are clear. Dispensationalist believe in the covenants. I mean, covenants are in the Bible, right? SO in an indirect way, I would say I am a “covenant theologian.”

    The difference, as I am sure everyone here will agree upon is the fact that as one who understands God unfolding His purposes in various epochs or dispensations in which covenants are made specifically with His people is that I believe those covenants are articulated or expressed differently than what the typical Reformed CTer would express them.

    I would encourage my non-dispensational friends to avail themselves of Paul Henebury’s material where he addresses covanants within dispensational theology, http://www.telosministries.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Biblical-Covenants-and-Normative-Hermeneutics.pdf and of course his blog, http://drreluctant.wordpress.com/

  16. “Not presuppositionalism but the name change to covenantal, is what I was saying comes across like a scheme.”

    That’s because you haven’t read the primary sources, nor are you reading what I’ve written to correct your misconception. You just keep repeating the same line.

    “It may remind you of it, but it’s not the same.”

    Yep, it’s the same fallacy. Very surface level objection, no grounding.

    “Lays out what I said: A biblical case for using the presuppositional apologetic.”

    You do realize he’s Vantillian right? Given that’s the case he is using the same arguments, which involve the same theological foundations, whether explicit or not.

    “He didn’t need to rely on any extrabiblical convenantal concepts”

    You have a horrible habit of repeating an assertion sans the argument.

    “he laid out his case using actual scripture”

    as compared to what? Non-actual scripture?

    “regarding how to answer the fool and why our presuppositions are such as they are (God being the necessary prerequisite for all ability to reason consistently, logic, wisdom, know anything for certain, etc.)”

    Yep, that’s one part of it, but guess what, there is another part to it. that means laying the correct foundation. Arguing for Christian Theism directly, which entails arguing that man is under the wrath of God in relation to Adam as his federal head. This is all wrapped up in God’s covenant relation to Adam, whom we are in union with by birth. We must be spiritually “born-again” via the Spirit of Christ, which grants out faith, which is the vehicle by which we are united to Christ and given all of the heavenly blessings. If you’re not arguing both of these aspects, then you aren’t really arguing the substance of “presuppositionalism”, no matter how many times you repeat that you are.

    “Uhm, what? Oh, I guess you’re being coy.”

    No I’m not. You said he lays *this* out, where *this* is in relation to the fact that one “doesn’t have to get into covenant….”

    I was responding to exactly what you said.

    “I said he lays out what presuppositional apologetics are and the basis for it, and it didn’t require him getting into covenantal theology to do so.”

    If he doesn’t have the foundation as to which he is arguing, then he isn’t arguing anything.

    “I’ve pre-ordered his book and look forward to reading it. I’m open to being wrong, however on the point i was making (that the presuppositional apologetic can be explained, taught and utilized without the need to prop it up with covenantal theology, particularly its penchant for calling things covenants that aren’t called that in scripture), I’ve yet to see how that’s the case.”

    Well perhaps you need to do less arguing from ignorance, “I don’t see how”, and argue based on what you do know.

    “I don’t see this”, “I don’t know how” or “I’m not sure this is the case” is not an argument. Nor does it contribute to coherent discussions. It’s just an indication of ignorance. It would be better to cite the material in which you disagree, and then demonstrate that these conclusions are not the case using exegetical argumentation. Because this whole game of “playing dumb” isn’t going to get anywhere.

    I’m not trying to be mean spirited, however, I do want to offer some friendly criticisms as to why you think it is the case, because if you argue in that way, with anyone of any position (even unbelievers) then it’s not glorifying to God. What if I went to a Jehovah’s witness and said “I don’t see where you find this doctrine in the bible” and that’s all I said over and over. I would never demonstrate how his view is unbiblical, I would just be implying it isn’t by me not seeing it.

  17. Mr Henebury is very helpful, as are telosministries…..he just relocated to my area and attends a church nearby.

    As to Mr Oliphint comments one thing that struck me (and I have not read or reviewed the book) was this: he was attempting to make the understanding of pre-sup more palatable and even practical as his motive for the book….While he gave examples of dialog (with a Muslum for example) he also stated he didn’t know if they would actually work…I hope he was slightly joshing and had rather actually test driven these dialog’s to see if they worked where “the rubber meets the road” as my good friend J Vernon Magee would say!

    For the record I am much more comfortable with explicit covenants rather than implicit ones!!

  18. If we substitute “Covenant Breakers” with “Sinners” can Calvinistic Dispy use Van Tillian apologetics? I would say so. Over the years I’ve seen here and there online and in personal conversations that Van Til’s apologetics is not compatible with Dispensationalism, but I’m still not convinced. Or at least not in it’s essence; though I agree with my brothers from Choosing Hats that Van Til use language of Covenant Theology and believed in Covenant Theology. It seems to me that having a biblical doctrine of sin, man, God, revelation (General and Special), Salvation, Trinity and Jesus (along with their relationships) would lead to an apologetic that looks like what Van TIl is advocating.

  19. Pingback: Books I heard or Read in 2013 | hipandthigh

  20. Pingback: Articles on Apologetics and Evangelism | hipandthigh

Leave me a Comment

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