Justification by Sola Fide (Faith Alone)

Since the Protestant Reformation of the 16th Century, sola fide (faith alone) has been the primary doctrine defining the difference between the message of Roman Catholicism and the evangelical gospel. According to Roman Catholic Theology, a person is justified by the grace that is infused or “poured into him” in the sacrament of baptism. At baptism one receives sacerdotal regeneration; that is, he is born again through the sacrament and is infused with Christ’s righteousness. Catholic theology agrees with the Scripture’s teaching of the need for Justification on the basis of faith. They believe this requirement is met in Baptism, which is considered the sacrament of faith; as such, faith is the beginning, root, and foundation for justification. In the baptized infant, grace is conferred to the individual making him or her inwardly just as a result of divine mercy. According to Rome, this justification can be lost by “grace-killing” deeds referred to as mortal sins. Sins such as neglecting the faith, murder, adultery, and habitually missing mass, result in a cutting off of the transgressor from the grace of Christ, even though their initial Baptism is supposed to have conferred genuine saving faith. The consequence of such sins can be reversed by the sacrament of penance (confession to a priest). In the end, Rome teaches that one can possess true regenerating faith, but that faith might not be a justifying faith, if the impenitent sinner has committed a mortal sin which is left unconfessed.

Also, according to Roman Catholic doctrine, justification occurs only as the baptized individual cooperates with the grace infused into him at baptism. So that in order for one to be declared just by God, one must in fact act justly, by acting upon their infused grace. Rome does teach that in the justified person, the infusion of grace and power always proceeds, accompanies, and follows good works, and that good works are not possible apart from such grace; however, even though they would consider a Catholic’s good works as having been wrought in God, it is nevertheless, these very good works that merit the individual to attain eternal life; so, faith-based works then become a determining requirement for the justification of a sinner. As such sola fide is demolished! Whereas, Romans 3:28 says quite clearly: Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith apart from the deeds of the law.

Sola Fide remains under attack to this very day. Even under the heading of Reformed theology, pastors and churches are defecting from the evangelical gospel and turning back in the direction of Rome through a theology that is referred to as either “Federal Vision,” “Auburn Avenue,” or “New Perspective on Paul.” This theology confuses the works of the Christian, which are the fruit of genuine saving faith, with the works, that this belief teaches, are required in order for one to be saved. They deny that Christ’s righteousness is imputed or credited to the account of those who believe in Him. This despite the clear teaching of 2 Cor 5:21: He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.

Nowhere does the Scripture teach infusion; it does however, often teach imputation (Rom 4:1-8, Gal 3:10-14). Grace is not merely a force that helps us to be saved, as infusion suggests, but it is the power of God which actually achieves salvation. Different from Rome, the evangelical gospel teaches that grace is not infused by imputed. These ideas are diametrically opposed to each other. Imputation means to be counted as righteous because of an external source – that an alien righteousness, namely that of Jesus Christ, who alone kept the law perfectly, is credit to us by faith. The righteousness that is required for salvation then is Christ’s righteousness, which we who are in Christ, are clothed in, and can rest upon. It cannot be added to or taken away from, for it is a perfect righteousness; the very righteousness that is required by the law for one to be saved, is met by Christ’s perfect obedient life and death. One cannot be saved by both: an internal righteousness infused at baptism and lived out in life, as Rome teaches, and an alien righteousness, imputed to the Christian in the New Covenant, as part of the new creation and new heart. These two ideologies are irreconcilable!

Recently R.C. Sproul succinctly and profoundly said, “If you don’t have imputation, you don’t have sola fide, and if you don’t have sola fide, you don’t have the gospel.” Rome does not teach imputation, and therefore does not teach the gospel, but teaches another gospel that is no gospel at all. Eternity lies in the balance in understanding this. Not that one is saved by the understanding of this doctrine – one is saved by faith alone in Christ alone; however if one fails to understand imputation, they will end up believing that there is something within them that merits eternal life, thus nullifying the need for Christ’s work on the cross.

Advertisements

13 thoughts on “Justification by Sola Fide (Faith Alone)

  1. I think you have a wrong view of imputation:

    In my study on this topic of imputed righteousness, the Greek term “logizomai” is the English term for “reckon/impute/credit/etc,” (all terms are basically equivalently used) and when I look up that term in a popular lexicon here is what it is defined as:

    —————-
    QUOTE: “This word deals with reality. If I “logizomai” or reckon that my bank book has $25 in it, it has $25 in it. Otherwise I am deceiving myself. This word refers to facts not suppositions.”
    http://tinyurl.com/r92dch
    —————-

    The lexicon states this term first and foremost refers to the actual status of something. So if Abraham’s faith is “logizomai as righteousness,” it must be an actually righteous act of faith, otherwise (as the Lexicon says) “I am deceiving myself.” This seems to rule out any notion of an alien righteousness, and instead points to a local/inherent righteousness.

    The Lexicon gives other examples where “logizomai” appears, here are some examples:
    ——————-
    Rom 3:28 Therefore we conclude [logizomai] that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.

    Rom 4:4 Now to the one who works, his wages are not counted [logizomai] as a gift but as his due.

    Rom 6:11 Likewise reckon [logizomai] ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord.

    Rom 8:18 For I reckon [logizomai] that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us.
    ——————-

    Notice in these examples that “logizomai” means to consider the actual truth of an object. In 3:28 Paul ‘reckons’ faith saves while the Law does not, this is a fact, the Law never saves. In 4:4 the worker’s wages are ‘reckoned’ as a debt because the boss is in debt to the worker, not giving a gift to him. In 6:11 the Christian is ‘reckoned’ dead to sin because he is in fact dead to sin. In 8:18 Paul ‘reckons’ the present sufferings as having no comparison to Heavenly glory, and that is true because nothing compares to Heavenly glory.

    To use logizomai in the “alien status” way would mean in: (1) 3:28 faith doesn’t really save apart from works, but we are going to go ahead and say it does; (2) 4:4 the boss gives payment to the worker as a gift rather than obligation/debt; (3) 6:11 that we are not really dead to sin but are going to say we are; (4) 8:18 the present sufferings are comparable to Heaven’s glory.
    This cannot be right.

    So when the text plainly says “faith is logizomai as righteousness,” I must read that as ‘faith is reckoned as a truly righteous act’, and that is precisely how Paul explains that phrase in 4:18-22. That despite the doubts that could be raised in Abraham’s heart, his faith grew strong and convinced and “that is why his faith was credited as righteousness” (v4:22). This is also confirmed by noting the only other time “credited as righteousness” appears in Scripture, Psalm 106:30-31, where Phinehas’ righteous action was reckoned as such. This is confirmed even more when one compares another similar passage, Hebrews 11:4, where by faith Abel was commended as righteous..

    • Nick, thank you for your comment.

      I agree that “logidzomai” means to consider the actual truth of a matter – that it is a fact. I believe that you are making a jump in logic by considering an “alien righteousness” to be unreal. The “logidzomai” of Christ’s righteousness to our account is real and genuine. It is truly and genuinely placed in our account. That which the law requires, a perfect righteousness, is placed upon the account of all who are in real and genuine union with Christ the Righteous. The key is in understanding that it is God who credits faith as righteousness – a perfect righteousness that the law requires is imputed to our account by faith. But it is not ours, it is Christ’s.

      If faith were counted as a “truly righteous act” as you state, then one would be justified by his own works. Romans 3:21-22 speaks of the righteousness of God apart from the law … even the righteousness of God, through faith in Jesus Christ, to all and on all who believe. This is stated most clearly in 2 Corinthians 5:21: For He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him. Christ IS our righteousness – all of our righteousness – He lived the perfect life becoming obedient even to death – IN OUR STEAD … ON OUR BEHALF. So we become – literally, truly, in fact – the righteousness of God. This fact – this “actual status,” which is literally on our account (logidzomai) – is manifested then in our works, which are the product of a real actual righteousness imputed to us.

      Your understanding of a local/inherent righteousness or, as Catholicism teaches, an infused righteousness, will never be enough to measure up to God’s standard of perfection. According to your understanding, how much faith … or better, how many righteous acts of faith must one do in order to be justified in the sight of God? Under your system, and the Catholic system, no man could ever measure up to God’s standard.

      But the good news is that one man did – the man Christ Jesus – the last Adam – who lived the perfect life. And all who believe on Him will not perish, but have eternal life!

      • Hi,

        I think I didn’t explain as well as I should have. I’m not saying “alien righteousness” is “unreal” but rather not the actual status. For example, I can accuse Bob of cheating on his wife, which would be imputing adultery to him. Now, if I’m wrong and Bob never committed that sin, then I’ve falsely imputed sin to him. This isn’t a matter of “unreal” but rather whether the object I’m looking at carries that status.

        When you say things like “placed” in our account I think is where the real problem is. The term logizomai doesn’t mean ‘place’ or ‘transfer’; I see that usage nowhere in Scripture. Rather, think of logizomai as a making a mental calculation of what you see before you at any given point in time (i.e. nothing’s moving).

        Another thing you said I think needs clarification, because as it stands it’s against the Scriptures. You said, “a perfect righteousness that the law requires.” The Law was abolished, it’s not the standard by which we’re saved, as Paul says in places like Gal 2:21, “if righteousness came by the Law, Christ died in vain!”

        You also said: “If faith were counted as a “truly righteous act” as you state, then one would be justified by his own works.” I don’t see how this follows, ‘faith’ isn’t ‘works’ by definition.

        You asked me: “how many righteous acts of faith must one do in order to be justified in the sight of God?”
        This is a sort of odd way of expressing the Catholic position. Under the Catholic system, one is either justified (and living as justified) or else not justified at all. One is justified formally on the basis of whether or not they’re currently being indwelt by the Holy Spirit (which can be lost through grave sin).

  2. I don’t think we’re saying that our righteousness gives us an “alien status.” The righteousness itself is what was alien. So your definition, Nick, of imputation can work, since God is truly reckoning us righteous. But to simply declare us righteous would be unjust if it were not so. It is not as if God is looking at a blank bank account and “imputing” 100 dollars, when there is no 100 dollars. He imputes it because He puts 100 dollars in it. In this way He is both “just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus” (Romans 3:26). Just as we inherited sin from Adam, we inherit righteousness from Christ (Romans 5:19). It truly is an imputed righteousness that comes from outside myself:

    “Indeed, I count everything as loss because of the surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord. For his sake I have suffered the loss of all things and count them as rubbish, in order that I may gain Christ and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which comes through faith in Christ, the righteousness from God that depends on faith.

    • Hi,

      This statement of yours has me very shocked: “It is not as if God is looking at a blank bank account and “imputing” 100 dollars, when there is no 100 dollars. He imputes it because He puts 100 dollars in it.”

      While I would fully agree with this, I thought the Protestant view was just the opposite: the unrighteous has an alien righteous counted as his, imputed to his account, though it really isn’t his. What you’re saying is the imputing and the transferring of righteousness are *two* separate events.

      • Perhaps I didn’t articulate that well enough. Sorry. What I mean is that, imputation requires both a declaration and a substance. God does not simply declare us righteous for the sake of it; rather, it is because of the righteousness of Christ (the substance). God looks at Christ’s record, and Christ’s record becomes our own. I believe this is what Paul is saying in that verse (which is Phil 3:9). The righteousness is not his own.

        And so it is with the bank account illustration. Yes, my account has nothing but sin in it. God declares that it’s righteous, but no arbitrarily – He does so on the basis of actually imputing 100 bucks into it. In any event, I have the 100 bucks now, but I can declare with Paul that it’s not my own.

  3. Nick, what you write about the law is true – it is not the standard by which we are saved – but it is the standard by which we are judged; so every man is guilty and helpless in that we are all law breakers. There is none righteous, none who seeks after God. But while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us – He substiuted Himself – the godly for the ungodly – the righteous for the unrighteous, so that we might be clothed in His righteousness.

    Nick, let me ask you to consider … do you believe that our sin was imputed to Christ? that, He who knew no sin, literally became sin? that, the chastisement for our peace was, literally upon him, just as if Christ were a sinner? Was the sin that was imputed to Christ on the cross, real sin?

    Is it not so, that in order for sin to be judged in Christ, He had to be literally counted a sinner – that is, our sin had to be imputed to Him, if not what does, “He became sin,” mean?

    Well then according to your understanding of imputation of righteousness, that it means something that is actually a righteous act, then it would follow that you also believe that the imputation of sin to Christ on the cross implies that Christ literally sinned?

  4. Joseph,

    I agree with you that the Law “is the standard by which we are judged,” but there is a key nuance to this. Those ‘under’ the Law, Jews, are not judged identically as those not ‘under the Law, Gentiles, are. The Gentiles are condemned in lieu of living outside the Old Covenant, where as the Jews are condemned for violating the Covenant.
    This is how I interpret Rom 3:19 (and others), which says “we know that whatever the law says it **speaks to those who are UNDER the law**, so that every mouth may be stopped, and the whole world may be held accountable to God.”

    This is further recognized by the fact a Jew could face the various legal punishments of the Torah for violating it, while the same did not apply to the Gentiles. On the flip side, only those under the Old Covenant were able to receive the blessings it promised (e.g. long life, wealth, land, etc).

    Finally, if everyone was “under” the Law, it would be nonsense for Paul to warn Gentiles from going under the Law (via circumcision).

    You asked me: “do you believe that our sin was imputed to Christ? that, He who knew no sin, literally became sin? that, the chastisement for our peace was, literally upon him, just as if Christ were a sinner? Was the sin that was imputed to Christ on the cross, real sin?”

    My Response: I deny our sin was imputed to Christ, but I believe Christ made atonement for our sin and was the only one capable of making atonement. The primary reason I deny sin was “imputed to Christ” is that the Bible doesn’t teach this – which presumably it would had this been a critical teaching. Paul was well aware of the term “impute” and used it about 30 times throughout his Epistles, but never did he nor anyone in the NT apply this term “impute” in regards to our sin to Christ.

    As for your claim that Christ “literally became sin,” that needs to be clarified. Sin isn’t a *thing*, so someone cannot “literally become” what has no ontological existence. I have an article which directly addresses these issues, so I will not flood this comment box with long quotes:
    http://catholicnick.blogspot.com/2009/01/penal-substitution-debate-negative.html

  5. Sola Fide, Can It Work?

    Many protestant sects teach that all that is needed for salvation of their souls is Faith Only…

    Sola Fide, saved by faith alone.

    All they need is to accept Jesus Christ as their Lord and savoir and no matter what they do after; they are assured they will go straight to heaven.

    Jesus Christ paid the price for all sins, past, present, and future. Jesus Christ took the test for us all and gave each of us a grade of 100%.

    Now doesn’t that sound good? Just think, you can do anything you want for the rest of your life and your irrevocable ticket to heaven was paid for with the blood of Christ almost 2000 years ago. What a gift! What a great blessing! What nonsense!!!

    Continue>>>

  6. For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own likings, and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander into myths. (2Timothy 4:3-4)

    SOLA FIDES… The Protestant Revolt had many causes including state politics. Also the worldly lifestyle of certain popes, bishops and priests of that time helped to fuel the fire.

    However, the doctrine,
    Justification by Faith Alone , was the spark.

    This heresy exaggerates the truth concerning salvation by faith in Jesus Christ.

    Even though some members of the Church at that time, such as Tetzel and Erasmus, may not have fully understood the doctrine of salvation, this does not excuse this heresy.

    It claims that Christians are saved by faith alone. As biblical support, St. Paul is usually cited: “For we hold that a man is justified by faith apart from works of law.” [Romans 3:28]

    Now this verse does not contain the word “alone.” Martin Luther actually added “alone” to this verse in his Bibles in order to promote this new doctrine.

    According to the RSV and NAB Bible translations, the phrase, “by faith alone”, only occurs once in the Bible, and that verse condemns this doctrine: “You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.” [James 2:24]

    The other error is interpreting the “works of law” in Romans 3:28 as all good works.

    From the context, it is obvious that St. Paul is referring to the Law of Moses, and the “works of law” are circumcision, eating kosher and other Jewish practices (Acts 15:1-21).

    St. Paul writes elsewhere in the Bible: “For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision is of any avail, but faith working through love.” [Galatians 5:6] St.

    Paul’s understanding of faith, as expressed in the Bible, includes more than a confident trust in God, but also obedience to God (Romans 1:5).

    Also according to Catholic understanding, good works are not what I do but what God does through me by grace (Ephesians 2:10; 1 Corinthians 15:10; Romans 2:7), so there is no reason to boast (Ephesians 2:9).

    Even though Martin Luther still understood salvation in terms of grace, some later Christians did not.

    With the loss of focus on grace, this heresy eventually led to a “faith-alone” version of Pelagianism.

    This is the reason that some (not all) Protestants reject some or all of the Sacraments, sometimes even Baptism (Mark 16:16; Acts 2:38; 22:16; Romans 6:3; 1 Peter 3:21).

  7. The Protestant Doctrine of Eternal Security.

    A Psychological Trap.

    The Protestant doctrine of eternal security is a psychological trap, and one that is all too easy to fall into. By providing a quick, simplistic answer as to how we are saved, and giving the person the comfort of assured eternal salvation, it discourages further inquiry into the fullness of the truth on this most important matter.

    This rather fast assurance of salvation helps to make Protestantism very popular. My personal feeling is that many people in the silent or quiet moments of their lives must know in their hearts that this fast, simplistic assurance of eternal salvation is too good to be true (Romans 2:14-16).

    The natural law, the law written on our hearts of flesh, is calling us to seek the fullness of the truth in the Church founded by Jesus Christ (Jeremiah 29:11-13) (Deuteronomy 6:4-6).

    Playing With Fire.

    Many people in following the 16th century reformers are deliberately choosing to reject Catholic Church authority and the channels of grace available to them in the seven (7) Sacraments.

    If they knowingly and wilfully did this, on such an important matter, they could find out (perhaps to late) that it will be more difficult for them to enter the Kingdom of Heaven.

    God will respect their free will and the decisions they made, along with the grace and truth that they have received, and will place them in the proper eternal location or condition.

    The more grace and truth that they have received the more that will be expected from them (Luke 7: 47; 12: 48). Perhaps they feel they can live life their way, using their freedom to choose the truth when they want to, or abuse their freedom by choosing to do evil (Contraception, abortion, etc.) when they find it convenient.

    You are only free to choose the good. Love God with all your heart, all your soul, and all your spirit, and then do what you will.

    Many people joining a “church” (faith communities) for convenience of life style, are “choosing not to know” the fullness of the truth in the Catholic Church.

    They hope that they can somehow claim ignorance (or say it was controversial) and therefore escape culpability on their individual day of judgment.

    Feigned ignorance will not allow anyone to escape culpability ( proverbs 24: 11-12 ). This is like playing with fire.

    They choose not to turn and come closer to the fullness of the truth, which is a person Jesus Christ and who also is one with His Spouse, the Church (Ephesians 5: 32).

  8. Is Half of The Story Sufficient For Salvation?

    How many sides are there to a story? If you say two, then you are wrong. If you had one side and I had one side that would make two sides. However, there is a third side, the side of truth.

    Rule # 1… One half of truth does not a truth make. Neither does one half of a story make the full story. No intelligent person can hear one side of a story and decide which side has the truth.

    Both sides have to be heard, then analysed, and then a decision has to be made as to which side (if either) has a valid story, and after that, the right side(s), or truth side, can be determined.

    This thinking holds true for discerning what Holy Scripture tells us.

    Throughout the Bible there are double standards, yet the fundamentalist thinking shows only one standard, or one side of the story, or only one half of the truth.

    Their thinking is in violation of rule # 1. With only one half of truth, you do not have truth. Anything less than the whole truth is error.

    In the following examples, side ‘A’ is the first side, side ‘B’ is the second, and side ‘C’ is the right, or truth side.

    Example # 1… Sola Scriptura…? Only the Bible. Fundamentalist thinking is that the Bible is sufficient and nothing else is needed for salvation.

    First of all, in order to believe in the ‘Bible Only’ philosophy, you have to show that Scripture says it. Is that not true? The doctrine of ‘Sola Scriptura’ is not to be found in Scripture.

    A. Tradition is condemned in many places in Scripture, such as Job 22:15, Matthew 15:6, Mark 7:3-13, Galatians 1:14, Colossians 2:8, 1Timothy 1:4, Titus 1:14, and 1Peter 1:18. Look at these verses and grasp their meaning.

    They all address ‘vain’ human traditions and are rightly condemned. This is one half of the truth.

    B. Tradition is supported in more places in Scripture than it is condemned. Study Isaiah 59:21, Luke 1:2, 2:19,51, Luke 10:16, 2Thessalonians 2:14-15 – “Stand firm and hold the traditions you have learned..”, 2Timothy 1:13,2:2, 1Peter 1:25, 1Jn 1:1,2:24, 2Jn 1:12, Revelation 12:17,19:10.

    These are different traditions than mentioned in ‘A’. These are the Traditions of GOD, or ‘Apostolic’ Tradition.’ Again, this is only half of the truth.

    C. The truth is, yes, we do condemn the vain tradition of men, as shown in ‘A’, and we must keep the Tradition of GOD, as shown in ‘B’.

    Thus we have half the truth in ‘A’, and the other half in ‘B’, and combined we have the full truth.

    The false doctrine of Sola Scriptura adds A and B together and puts the total in A, rejecting all of tradition. A+B=C.

    Continue>>

  9. Dear Bob,

    Is Half of The Story Sufficient For Salvation?

    How many sides are there to a story? If you say two, then you are wrong. If you had one side and I had one side that would make two sides. However, there is a third side, the side of truth.

    Rule # 1… One half of truth does not a truth make. Neither does one half of a story make the full story.

    No intelligent person can hear one side of a story and decide which side has the truth.

    Both sides have to be heard, then analysed, and then a decision has to be made as to which side (if either) has a valid story, and after that, the right side(s), or truth side, can be determined.

    This thinking holds true for discerning what Holy Scripture tells us.

    Throughout the Bible there are double standards, yet the fundamentalist thinking shows only one standard, or one side of the story, or only one half of the truth.

    Their thinking is in violation of rule # 1. With only one half of truth, you do not have truth. Anything less than the whole truth is error.

    In the following examples, side ‘A’ is the first side, side ‘B’ is the second, and side ‘C’ is the right, or truth side.

    Example # 2… Sola Fides… Saved by faith alone. The fundamentalist believes he is assured of salvation. All he has to do is to accept Jesus Christ as his personal Lord and savior and salvation is automatic and irrevocable no matter what he does for the rest of his life.

    Oh Yeah? What happened to the ten commandments?

    A. Many verses in Scripture attest to salvation by faith alone. Joel 2:32, “…that every one that shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.”

    Acts 2:21 says the same almost word for word, and likewise for Rom 10:13. “…I live in the faith of the Son of GOD…”, is from Gal 2:20. Again, these are beautiful words that should be heeded by all.

    B. However, elsewhere in Scripture there is quite a different side of the story. Start with Mt 7:21, “Not everyone who says to me, Lord, Lord, shall enter the kingdom of Heaven; but he who does the will of my Father in Heaven shall enter the kingdom of Heaven.”

    It is very clear that you have to do the will of the Father to gain salvation. I like 1Cor 10:12, “…let him who thinks he stands take heed lest he fall.”

    That one says you cannot be guaranteed of salvation. Then James 2:14-26 says over and over, “…Faith too without works is dead…Faith without works is useless…so Faith also without works is dead.” Again, words to be heeded by all.

    C. So what is the answer to this dilemma? Is this one of those Bible ‘conflicts’ you keep hearing about? No, not at all. The answer is very simple.

    There are two types of salvation, ‘objective salvation’, and ‘subjective salvation’.

    The verses in ‘A’ are examples of objective salvation. Jesus Christ did atone for all of our sins, past, present and future.

    He did His part and did it well, but He left the burden upon each one of us to complete the second side of the story by atoning for our own sins, by doing the will of the Father.

    We have to keep the commandments. We have to practice ‘subjective salvation’. There is no salvation by accepting only part of Scripture as shown in ‘A’, and by rejecting, or trying to explain away the verses in ‘B’.

    Yet this is what some non-Catholics are doing. Again, we have to combine ‘A’, and ‘B’, to have the full truth.

    A+B=C = TRUTH.

    http://michael-boystown.blogspot.com/

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