Announcement

Collapse

Deeper Waters Forum Guidelines

Notice – The ministries featured in this section of TheologyWeb are guests of this site and in some cases not bargaining for the rough and tumble world of debate forums, though sometimes they are. Additionally, this area is frequented and highlighted for guests who also very often are not acclimated to debate fora. As such, the rules of conduct here will be more strict than in the general forum. This will be something within the discretion of the Moderators and the Ministry Representative, but we simply ask that you conduct yourselves in a manner considerate of the fact that these ministries are our invited guests. You can always feel free to start a related thread in general forum without such extra restrictions. Thank you.

Deeper Waters is founded on the belief that the Christian community has long been in the shallow end of Christianity while there are treasures of the deep waiting to be discovered. Too many in the shallow end are not prepared when they go out beyond those waters and are quickly devoured by sharks. We wish to aid Christians to equip them to navigate the deeper waters of the ocean of truth and come up with treasure in the end.

We also wish to give special aid to those often neglected, that is, the disabled community. This is especially so since our founders are both on the autism spectrum and have a special desire to reach those on that spectrum. While they are a special emphasis, we seek to help others with any disability realize that God can use them and that they are as the Psalmist says, fearfully and wonderfully made.

General TheologyWeb forum rules: here.
See more
See less

Book Plunge: Light From The Christian East

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Book Plunge: Light From The Christian East

    What can we learn from Orthodoxy?

    Link.

    ----

    What do I think of James Payton's book published by IVP? Let's plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

    This book is a Protestant look at the movement of Eastern Orthodoxy. Orthodox readers might be suspicious at first, but they shouldn't be. If anything, one could say not that Payton is too critical, but that he isn't critical enough. In my talking with him, I honestly just asked him "Why aren't you Orthodox?" I'm not, of course, but the book can seem so gushing at times I couldn't help but wonder why he isn't.

    The work is largely a work of wanting to be ecumenical, which it succeeds at. Payton takes us through many aspects of the way that worship is done in the church and how it differs from many Western perspectives. He answers questions about their worship style. The work is largely aimed toward Protestants.

    Questions center around what is the church, how do Orthodox people pray, and what's with all the icons? Many Protestants who go to an Orthodox service will walk away wondering what was going on. My wife goes in and sees something that she thinks is beautiful. I am sure she does, but I am one who doesn't really get the same pull at all.

    Along the way, the reader will get a lot of history. One might think that 1054, the year of the great schism is the most important year in differing between Orthodoxy and Catholicism. Not so. 1204 is far more important when the Western church refused to help the Orthodox Church during the Crusades. The reader will also learn a lot about the iconoclast controversy.

    An aspect that seems to come out repeatedly is that the West and the East are both asking different questions and getting different answers. We in the West do tend to take a much more academic approach to Christianity. The East seems to take a much more mystical approach where the idea of Orthodoxy is thought to be intuitive.

    I understand Payton wanted to write something ecumenical, but I did often wish he could have highlighted why he thinks the way he does. Why is he not Orthodox? He does say he has his own criticisms of the Orthodox Church. I would have liked to have seen them. There is nothing inherently wrong with a good critique after all and it can be a way that iron sharpens iron.

    I would have also liked to have seen more on aspects of Orthodoxy I do find troubling. I have a problem when it comes to the Mariology and the treatment of the saints, practices that I do not find any Biblical basis for. The idea of how those outside the church are seen can be problematic. I remember reading on an Orthodox web site put out by the Orthodox Church about Protestants being heretics. How serious is this? Are we placed outside of the Christian faith according to the Orthodox? I do find it troubling since I think we should all be able to name what the Gospel is and who all is believing it or not.

    I also wonder when we talk about Western and Eastern if it's so much the denomination as it is the culture. What could we see in an Eastern Protestant Church? Do Orthodox Churches in the West have many of the same problems that can be found in Western culture?

    Still, those wanting a good introduction will be benefited by this book and it's not just me saying this. I have even seen this book for sale at an Orthodox cathedral during a Greek festival event. If the Orthodox can think it's an accurate enough description of their faith, I think a Protestant can read it without problem.

    In Christ,
    Nick Peters

  • #2
    Originally posted by Apologiaphoenix View Post
    The idea of how those outside the church are seen can be problematic. I remember reading on an Orthodox web site put out by the Orthodox Church about Protestants being heretics. How serious is this? Are we placed outside of the Christian faith according to the Orthodox? I do find it troubling since I think we should all be able to name what the Gospel is and who all is believing it or not.
    Well, Protestants are anathematized due to their iconoclasm; you would also be anathematized due to your rejection of the Nicene Creed's statement regarding baptism. I think most Orthodox would see Protestants as heretical Christians, but only God knows who is saved and who is not.
    I also wonder when we talk about Western and Eastern if it's so much the denomination as it is the culture. What could we see in an Eastern Protestant Church?
    Those who rejected Orthodoxy (i.e., Paulicians, Bogomils) prior to the Reformation tended to reject teachings most Protestants do not.
    Do Orthodox Churches in the West have many of the same problems that can be found in Western culture?
    To a great extent, yes; everyone has the same sin nature to struggle against. On the other hand, Orthodox churches very rarely split over differences in belief (but do sometimes over praxis or politics).
    Last edited by One Bad Pig; 10-05-2018, 09:11 AM.
    Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom

    Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
    sigpic
    I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
      Well, Protestants are anathematized due to their iconoclasm; you would also be anathematized due to your rejection of the Nicene Creed's statement regarding baptism. I think most Orthodox would see Protestants as heretical Christians, but only God knows who is saved and who is not.
      This really strikes me as problematic. It's like saying I'm a Christian who believes the Gospel, but I disbelieve something that is essential to the Gospel, but it is not specified. To say someone who upholds the Trinity, the resurrection, the deity of Christ, and trusts them with salvation could just not be a Christian really strikes me as problematic.

      Those who rejected Orthodoxy (i.e., Paulicians, Bogomils) prior to the Reformation tended to reject teachings most Protestants do not.

      To a great extent, yes; everyone has the same sin nature to struggle against. On the other hand, Orthodox churches very rarely split over differences in belief (but do sometimes over praxis or politics).
      With both of these, I'm thinking more individualism vs. collectivism. Will we see in Eastern Protestant Churches much less emphasis on the individual than here in the West? Will we see in Western Orthodox Churches much more of an emphasis on the individual than in the East?

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Apologiaphoenix View Post
        This really strikes me as problematic. It's like saying I'm a Christian who believes the Gospel, but I disbelieve something that is essential to the Gospel, but it is not specified. To say someone who upholds the Trinity, the resurrection, the deity of Christ, and trusts them with salvation could just not be a Christian really strikes me as problematic.
        I really don't understand what you're trying to get at here. First, you wonder how you can be called a Christian while disbelieving something essential, and then complain about not being called a Christian. Please clarify.
        With both of these, I'm thinking more individualism vs. collectivism. Will we see in Eastern Protestant Churches much less emphasis on the individual than here in the West? Will we see in Western Orthodox Churches much more of an emphasis on the individual than in the East?
        That should be somewhat possbile to discern. Look up, e.g., a Ukrainian Baptist church (yes, they exist; I've met someone who was raised in a Ukrainian Baptist church before converting to Orthodoxy) and compare it to yours. Compare what mission parishes (which are mostly made up of converts from the West) say to patristic sources.
        Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom

        Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
        sigpic
        I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
          I really don't understand what you're trying to get at here. First, you wonder how you can be called a Christian while disbelieving something essential, and then complain about not being called a Christian. Please clarify.
          It's your claim I don't believe in something that is essential to the Gospel. What am I denying? If I am denying it, then on what grounds can you say I am a Christian? Do you really think the overwhelming majority of us Protestants are lost?

          That should be somewhat possbile to discern. Look up, e.g., a Ukrainian Baptist church (yes, they exist; I've met someone who was raised in a Ukrainian Baptist church before converting to Orthodoxy) and compare it to yours. Compare what mission parishes (which are mostly made up of converts from the West) say to patristic sources.
          Sure, although I would really prefer to just wait until I can see an Eastern church in person. Allie does want to go to Japan someday and maybe if I ever get to I will.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Apologiaphoenix View Post
            It's your claim I don't believe in something that is essential to the Gospel. What am I denying? If I am denying it, then on what grounds can you say I am a Christian?
            I know your questions were for One Bad Pig, but I'll weigh in a little. Among the doctrines would be the indispensable doctrine that Christ passed on authority to govern churches and to forgive sins to the apostles by the laying on of hands, and breathing on them. Which is how bishops have been consecrated ever since, and from which they derive their authority, and power to forgive sins.

            Likewise I don't think we can, which some protestants do, just treat baptism as mere symbolic gesture, when its litterally the only way we're given in the Bible for entering the Church. Arguments can be made about being baptised in spirit, or baptised in blood, but I'd consider it a deal breaker to consider it optional, or to deny its efficacy.

            This in fact, along with the pentecostal event, forms the heart of what it means for something to be a Church. If you were a member of that Church, its natural for you to be expected to submit to the authority bestowed on the men Jesus chose, and which authority they passed on to others.

            Do you really think the overwhelming majority of us Protestants are lost?
            Maybe?

            I have good hope. Though.

            But the only way to be saved that I know of lies in the Church. If you ask me what you have to do, I'd say "Become Catholic, confess your sins and participate in the Eucharist" However, God's mercy is not bound by the sacraments. I'm personally optimistic when it comes to protestants. I have a feeling God has a backdoor to Heaven for them. But its by no means obvious, especially for protestants who delay baptism till they're adults and die before they recieve it.

            Or baptise only in the name of the Father. Which I've also seen.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Leonhard View Post
              I know your questions were for One Bad Pig, but I'll weigh in a little. Among the doctrines would be the indispensable doctrine that Christ passed on authority to govern churches and to forgive sins to the apostles by the laying on of hands, and breathing on them. Which is how bishops have been consecrated ever since, and from which they derive their authority, and power to forgive sins.

              Likewise I don't think we can, which some protestants do, just treat baptism as mere symbolic gesture, when its litterally the only way we're given in the Bible for entering the Church. Arguments can be made about being baptised in spirit, or baptised in blood, but I'd consider it a deal breaker to consider it optional, or to deny its efficacy.

              This in fact, along with the pentecostal event, forms the heart of what it means for something to be a Church. If you were a member of that Church, its natural for you to be expected to submit to the authority bestowed on the men Jesus chose, and which authority they passed on to others.



              Maybe?

              I have good hope. Though.

              But the only way to be saved that I know of lies in the Church. If you ask me what you have to do, I'd say "Become Catholic, confess your sins and participate in the Eucharist" However, God's mercy is not bound by the sacraments. I'm personally optimistic when it comes to protestants. I have a feeling God has a backdoor to Heaven for them. But its by no means obvious, especially for protestants who delay baptism till they're adults and die before they recieve it.

              Or baptise only in the name of the Father. Which I've also seen.
              I prefer to stick with the answer given in Acts 16:31 in response to a direct query as to what one must to be saved. While I'm sure it's an abbreviated version of what was actually said, I think you're making the gospel more complicated than it actually is.
              "I am not angered that the Moral Majority boys campaign against abortion. I am angry when the same men who say, "Save OUR children" bellow "Build more and bigger bombers." That's right! Blast the children in other nations into eternity, or limbless misery as they lay crippled from "OUR" bombers! This does not jell." - Leonard Ravenhill

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by KingsGambit View Post
                I prefer to stick with the answer given in Acts 16:31 in response to a direct query as to what one must to be saved. While I'm sure it's an abbreviated version of what was actually said, I think you're making the gospel more complicated than it actually is.
                Source: Acts 16:31

                31 They replied, "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved—you and your household."

                © Copyright Original Source



                True, but then you should believe Him when he says.

                Source: John 3:5

                Jesus answered, “Very truly I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless they are born of water and the Spirit.

                © Copyright Original Source



                The water here is clearly baptism, and was considered to be baptism by Christians basically up until the protestants reformation.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Leonhard View Post
                  Source: Acts 16:31

                  31 They replied, "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved—you and your household."

                  © Copyright Original Source



                  True, but then you should believe Him when he says.

                  Source: John 3:5

                  Jesus answered, “Very truly I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless they are born of water and the Spirit.

                  © Copyright Original Source



                  The water here is clearly baptism, and was considered to be baptism by Christians basically up until the protestants reformation.
                  I'm actually not closed off to baptismal regeneration; there is a fair amount of evidence for the position, not the least of which is the historical dominance you allude to.
                  "I am not angered that the Moral Majority boys campaign against abortion. I am angry when the same men who say, "Save OUR children" bellow "Build more and bigger bombers." That's right! Blast the children in other nations into eternity, or limbless misery as they lay crippled from "OUR" bombers! This does not jell." - Leonard Ravenhill

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    A question I have for ApologiaPhoenix is how far you take 'secondary issues' to cover. Do you for instance consider the Trinity to be a secondary issue? And how do you measure what is a primary issue, even if, like baptism - which you consider a secondary issue - is something Jesus Himself has spoken about?

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Well this is where I find things get problematic. Both OBP and Leon point to their churches as the one that Jesus established, both do it on the basis of tradition, and I think in turn both of them if being consistent would see the other as outside the true church. It's one more reason I have a hard time with tradition being infallible. I don't see a non-circular reasoning for thinking such.

                      But Leon, I don't think Jesus spoke about baptism in John 3. I also don't think He spoke about the Lord's Supper in John 6. If you think He did, then make the case.

                      And as for secondary issues, these are issues that do not affect the truth of Christianity. If you're wrong about the age of the Earth, it doesn't really change the resurrection. If evolution is true, well no one believed it for a couple thousand years so I doubt that's a salvation issue. If The Trinity is not true, then we have a problem. Of course, this also depends of if a position is held in ignorance or not. Can we fault a small child who becomes a Christian for not really grasping the Trinity? Doubtful. All he normally understands is Jesus is the savior who saved him.

                      I just trust what I think came from the apostles. I don't see that for many traditions. I do see that for Scripture.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Apologiaphoenix View Post
                        Well this is where I find things get problematic. Both OBP and Leon point to their churches as the one that Jesus established, both do it on the basis of tradition, and I think in turn both of them if being consistent would see the other as outside the true church. It's one more reason I have a hard time with tradition being infallible. I don't see a non-circular reasoning for thinking such.
                        That sounds a bit like complaining to God that atheists won't know which religion to join when they figure out that He exists. I mean there's so many of them.

                        I guess I can't fault you for hesitating though. The lack of unity between East and West is a great scandal. But my points would still stand about the apostles being granted the power to forgive sins, and the sins they forgive are forgiven in Heaven; and to bind, which has always been understood to mean define doctrine and lead churches, and their decrees on Earth are decrees in Heaven.

                        How God will deal with Catholics, if it turns out the Eastern Orthodox branch is 'more right' I can't say. No more than you can answer for how you'd be treated by God if it turns out the Catholics are right. I mean according to various baptist apologists that I've read, I'm hellbound on an express train, and can only be saved if I in my 'heart of hearts' deny various doctrines of the Catholic Church, which I don't.

                        I just trust God's mercy and provision Nick. I don't think anyone who does that will do so in vain.

                        But Leon, I don't think Jesus spoke about baptism in John 3. I also don't think He spoke about the Lord's Supper in John 6.
                        To me its not treating baptism as a reality that needs a defense. Its those who want treat it as symbolic and perhaps even superfluous. Christ Himself certainly didn't treat it like that. Part of the great mission He gave is in fact "Baptise in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost"

                        I wouldn't base the entire doctrine of baptism, on a single verse. I took it there as an example. Protestants are more or less forced to interpret it spiritually if they are to be consistent with their theology. I'm not bound by anything like that, its pretty clear that its talking about actual change. For a protestant water has to be symbolic here, and not indicative of an actual baptismal renewal which is the point. I'm not going to proof-text it, but Christ has chained belief together with baptism.

                        Christ didn't say "He who believes will be saved" He said "He who believes and is baptised will be saved"

                        What's lacking in protestant theology, I think, is any notion of sacramentality. The water does nothing by itself. Its just water. But its through this ritual that a person is reborn as a member of the Church, signififying an actual mystical change in the person. The death, burial and resurrection of a person in the water. Which is why baptism is sometimes done with full immersion so this can be completely signified.

                        Its an objective external sign to accompany an invisible reality. I'm sure it could be done without the water. But the water is mentioned, Jesus says you can't be saved without this regeneration, and its tied explicitly and clearly to baptism.

                        And as for secondary issues, these are issues that do not affect the truth of Christianity. If you're wrong about the age of the Earth, it doesn't really change the resurrection. If evolution is true, well no one believed it for a couple thousand years so I doubt that's a salvation issue.
                        I think we would agree that these are secondary issues. These are things the Church hasn't made any doctrinaly binding statements on.

                        If The Trinity is not true, then we have a problem. Of course, this also depends of if a position is held in ignorance or not. Can we fault a small child who becomes a Christian for not really grasping the Trinity? Doubtful. All he normally understands is Jesus is the savior who saved him.
                        We'd be talking here of a sound person, in their right mind, adamantly denying the Trinity. Imagine a fellow believer in your parish. He only prays to the Father, and says that Jesus and the Father are the same thing. He denies the division of persons in God, explicitly. There is only one God, and that God only has one person, which is God.

                        Would you say his opinions of the Trinity are just secondary? I mean after all he "believes in Jesus", and "he reborn; living a new more upright life; repentant" (which is how reborn seems to be interpreted there) and prays along with the others in the Church? By an ultra-minimalistic definition of Christianity, where the definition of a Christian is "Believe Jesus is divine, raised from the dead, and make Him your Lord", this would be a Christian.

                        I just trust what I think came from the apostles. I don't see that for many traditions. I do see that for Scripture.
                        I think the Bible is sufficient for teaching many things, and if you took it seriously you'd get more or less the Church. If we had to start over it might look a lot more jewish than it does now, affected as it has been across millenia.

                        But the notion of Sola Scriptura seems even more circular to me than what you're accussing the Church of doing. If we have to pick epistemic spirals to move in I'd prefer wider ones, encompansing the Tradition laid down by the Church Fathers as interpreted by the Counsils.
                        Last edited by Leonhard; 10-08-2018, 12:09 PM.

                        Comment


                        • #13


                          I wish people would stop using protestant when they actually mean something like evangelical, or baptist. There are protestants who hold to baptismal regeneration and the real presence.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Chrawnus View Post


                            I wish people would stop using protestant when they actually mean something like evangelical, or baptist. There are protestants who hold to baptismal regeneration and the real presence.
                            True, I should have been more careful with that. Especially since I come from a Lutheran background that did hold to baptismal regeneration and real presence.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Leonhard View Post
                              That sounds a bit like complaining to God that atheists won't know which religion to join when they figure out that He exists. I mean there's so many of them.

                              I guess I can't fault you for hesitating though. The lack of unity between East and West is a great scandal. But my points would still stand about the apostles being granted the power to forgive sins, and the sins they forgive are forgiven in Heaven; and to bind, which has always been understood to mean define doctrine and lead churches, and their decrees on Earth are decrees in Heaven.

                              How God will deal with Catholics, if it turns out the Eastern Orthodox branch is 'more right' I can't say. No more than you can answer for how you'd be treated by God if it turns out the Catholics are right. I mean according to various baptist apologists that I've read, I'm hellbound on an express train, and can only be saved if I in my 'heart of hearts' deny various doctrines of the Catholic Church, which I don't.

                              I just trust God's mercy and provision Nick. I don't think anyone who does that will do so in vain.
                              The problem I have is that both claim that a tradition is infallible but there is no agreement on what that tradition is. There's no way to test these traditions either to see if they go back to the apostles or not. Scripture on the other hand, I do think goes back and can be shown to go back to them.



                              To me its not treating baptism as a reality that needs a defense. Its those who want treat it as symbolic and perhaps even superfluous. Christ Himself certainly didn't treat it like that. Part of the great mission He gave is in fact "Baptise in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost"

                              I wouldn't base the entire doctrine of baptism, on a single verse. I took it there as an example. Protestants are more or less forced to interpret it spiritually if they are to be consistent with their theology. I'm not bound by anything like that, its pretty clear that its talking about actual change. For a protestant water has to be symbolic here, and not indicative of an actual baptismal renewal which is the point. I'm not going to proof-text it, but Christ has chained belief together with baptism.

                              Christ didn't say "He who believes will be saved" He said "He who believes and is baptised will be saved"
                              Leon. You know that passage is in the long ending of Mark 16 and that's often considered spurious. I don't think that passage goes back to the historical Jesus.

                              What's lacking in protestant theology, I think, is any notion of sacramentality. The water does nothing by itself. Its just water. But its through this ritual that a person is reborn as a member of the Church, signififying an actual mystical change in the person. The death, burial and resurrection of a person in the water. Which is why baptism is sometimes done with full immersion so this can be completely signified.
                              I don't see either baptism or Communion as conferring holiness onto someone. We are to do them because that is what Jesus commanded. I recall being at a Protestant church recently with my wife and she was debating whether to take Communion or not. I told her that many people in the church in all branches don't have a doctrine of Communion. They just take it because that is what Jesus said to do and they do it to honor Him. I think He is pleased with that.

                              Its an objective external sign to accompany an invisible reality. I'm sure it could be done without the water. But the water is mentioned, Jesus says you can't be saved without this regeneration, and its tied explicitly and clearly to baptism.
                              Again, in a spurious passage.

                              I think we would agree that these are secondary issues. These are things the Church hasn't made any doctrinaly binding statements on.
                              But that's not what makes them secondary.

                              We'd be talking here of a sound person, in their right mind, adamantly denying the Trinity. Imagine a fellow believer in your parish. He only prays to the Father, and says that Jesus and the Father are the same thing. He denies the division of persons in God, explicitly. There is only one God, and that God only has one person, which is God.

                              Would you say his opinions of the Trinity are just secondary? I mean after all he "believes in Jesus", and "he reborn; living a new more upright life; repentant" (which is how reborn seems to be interpreted there) and prays along with the others in the Church? By an ultra-minimalistic definition of Christianity, where the definition of a Christian is "Believe Jesus is divine, raised from the dead, and make Him your Lord", this would be a Christian.
                              Sure. Some could be saved in ignorance. The question is, when you explain it to them, if they are resistant still, are they really part of the body of Christ? That's where I'd get more skeptical.

                              I think the Bible is sufficient for teaching many things, and if you took it seriously you'd get more or less the Church. If we had to start over it might look a lot more jewish than it does now, affected as it has been across millenia.

                              But the notion of Sola Scriptura seems even more circular to me than what you're accussing the Church of doing. If we have to pick epistemic spirals to move in I'd prefer wider ones, encompansing the Tradition laid down by the Church Fathers as interpreted by the Counsils.
                              What do you think Sola Scriptura means?

                              Comment

                              Related Threads

                              Collapse

                              Topics Statistics Last Post
                              Started by Apologiaphoenix, 03-15-2024, 10:19 PM
                              14 responses
                              75 views
                              1 like
                              Last Post rogue06
                              by rogue06
                               
                              Started by Apologiaphoenix, 03-13-2024, 10:13 PM
                              6 responses
                              62 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post Apologiaphoenix  
                              Started by Apologiaphoenix, 03-12-2024, 09:36 PM
                              1 response
                              23 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post rogue06
                              by rogue06
                               
                              Started by Apologiaphoenix, 03-11-2024, 10:19 PM
                              0 responses
                              22 views
                              2 likes
                              Last Post Apologiaphoenix  
                              Started by Apologiaphoenix, 03-08-2024, 11:59 AM
                              7 responses
                              63 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post whag
                              by whag
                               
                              Working...
                              X