Thursday, July 12, 2012

The Debater's Potter - Part 7 - A Brief View of Chosen But Free

I've been writing a series of (long) articles reacting to, and interacting with the text of Dr. James R. White's The Potter's Freedom(TPF). TPF is White's attempt at a defense of his view of the Reformation, and an attempt at rebutting Dr. Norman Geisler's Chosen But Free(CBF). I've lost count of how many times I've read White say "... but if you only read CBF you would never understand what  Reformed Christians believe" and ".... the confusion created by Geisler in CBF..." I am currently reading Chapter 5 and I'm sure I've read these and other similar statements more than 50 times already. Additionally White continually puts blasphemous statements in quotes as though he is responding to something that Geisler wrote in his book. The problem I'm having with taking White at his word is that as I remember reading CBF White's concerns simply don't hold up to what I remember reading.

As I was reading Chapter 5 of TPF this morning I found White complaining:
"Given the confusion introduced by Dr. Geisler's use of the phrase "Unconditional Election" to actually refer to an unconditional decision to offer salvation that is conditioned, with reference to the actual accomplishment of the salvation of any individual, upon the free choices of men, it is necessary to establish the historic meaning of the phrase before we can respond to CBF's unique viewpoint."
I was sitting out on my deck with my Kindle enjoying the Sun and the warm air in the quiet of the morning before people start bustling about. I was enjoying myself and then I read this and immediately thought - "Wait a minute here. Geisler was absolutely clear about what the Reformed position was, and wasn't creating confusion he was offering correction. He made the clear distinction." I decided to check out what Geisler ACTUALLY wrote in his book. Here is how Geisler described the Reformed view of  "Unconditional Election" you decide if this creates confusion.

Under the title of "Avoiding Extreme Calvinism's View of Unconditional Election" Geisler writes:
"The second premis of extreme Calvinism is unconditional election, by which is meant that there are absolutely no conditions for God's electing some to salvation. There are no conditions, either for God's giving of salvation or for our receiving it." 
What, exactly, would White actually have with Geisler's depiction of the Reformed view of Unconditional Election? White quotes from the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith at length and then emphasizes 6 points from what he quoted. I'll paraphrase them: 1. A positive decree of God. 2. Specific actions and specific people. 3. Decree made independent of time, not before but outside (Strange to see a Reformed actually apply this concept) 4. Ordains specific people to Heaven and leaves others to justice. 5. Utterly unconditional. 6. Not conditioned on anything, it is without conditions.

What exactly is his argument with Geisler's depiction of his doctrine? Oh nothing... but that wouldn't help him "rebut" Geisler would it?

Alright we've been seeing how White depicts Geisler as everything from a Roman Catholic to an Open Theist and how apparently Geisler thinks that Man is the one who controls History and that God is Man's servant and Man "runs the show" himself...... and so on and so on... Let's take a brief look at Chosen But Free.

Unlike TPF we don't find two chapters worth of writing and praises before the book even starts. Instead of the haughty and combative tone found in TPF, Geisler's book starts with a dedication and an acknowledgement. Geisler dedicates the book to his students, and acknowledges his wife Barbara. He notes that his book was improved by the insights and suggestions of Professors Robert Culber, Fred Howe, and Thomas Howe, along with Bob and Gretchen Passantino.

Immediately the book starts with Chapter 1, which carries a title White may have missed.

Who Is in Charge? 
"When anyone who is thoroughly acquainted with the Bible thinks about God, one of the first things that comes into the mind ought to be God's sovereignty. God's sovereignty is deeply rooted in His attributes. Several of them are crucial to His ability to reign over all things." 
Does that sound like the man, or even the position, White has been attacking in TPF?

Unlike TPF, Geisler's CBF supports a view of God's sovereignty with many Scriptures and not with a theology of what must be so because of the view of God's sovereignty. Here is how Geisler builds his view of the sovereignty of God. Geisler affirms what each of these passages say, but space fails me to include his comments. I will quote his definition of the sovereignty of God which he builds from these passages after they are listed.

God is before all things

Col 1:17  Ps 90:2  Rev 1:8; 1:17; 21:6 Jn 17:5; cf Matt 13:35; 25:34 Jn 17:24 Rev 13:8; 17:8 2Tim 1:9 Heb 1:2 1Tim 6:16 Rom 2:7 1Cor 15:53 2Tim 1:10

God created all things
Gen 1:1 Jn 1:3 Col 1:16

God upholds all things 
Heb 1:3  Col 1:17 Rev 4:11 1Cor 8:6; cf Rom 11:36 Heb 2:10

God is above all things
Eph 4:6 Ps 8:1 Ps 57:5 Ps 97:9;cf Ps 108:5

God knows all things
Ps 147:5 Isa 46:10 Ps 139:4-6 Heb 4:13 Rom 11:33 1Peter 1:2 Eph 1:4, Daniel 2, 7 Isa 45:1

God can do all things 
Gen 18:14 Luke 1:37 Jer 32:27 John 6 John 11, Gen 1:3, 6, 9, 11 2Cor 4:6 Heb 1:3 Titus 1:2 heb 6:18 1Sam 15:29 Deut 6:4 Isa 45:18 Gen 17:1 Ex 6:3 Num 24:4 Job 5:17

God accomplishes all things 
Isa 14:24, 27 Isa 46:9-11 Eph 1:11Acts 4:28; cf 2:23

In the first few pages Geisler has already properly exegesiated (that is understood and applied what the passage says to his theology instead of applying his theology to the passages which would be to eisegesiate them) more scripture than White has even included let alone exegesiated in more than 4 chapters of his book.

"A God who is before all things, beyond all things, creates all things, upholds all things, knows all things, and can do all things is also in control of all things. This complete control of all things is called the Sovereignty of God. As the Westminister Confession of Faith puts it, "God, from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatever comes to pass" (chapter 3). Nothing catches God by surprise. All things come to pass as He ordained them from all eternity." 
Does this sound like the man, or even the position, Dr. White attacks in TPF? But wait! Geisler continues to build his argument for the sovereignty of God.

God rules over all things
Isa 6 Ps 48:2  Ps 29:10 Ps 10:16 Ps 24:8 1Chron 29:11-12

God is in control of all things
Job 42:2 Ps 115:3 Ps 135:6 Dan 4:35

Earthly kings are under God's control (italics are his)
Prov 21:1 Rev 19:16

Human events are under God's control
Dan 2, 7 Dan 4:17, Isa 55:11 cf 46:9-11

The good angels are under God's control 
Col 1:15-16 1Kings 22 Job 1:6; 2:1 Neh 9:6 Rev 4:8

The evil angels are under God's control
Eph 1:21 Phil 2:10 cf Isa 45:22-23 1Kings 22:19-22

Even Satan is under God's control
Job 1:6; 2:1 Rev 20:2 Rev 12:9 Jude 6 Mat 8:29 Rev 12:12 1Pet 5:8 Heb 2:14 1Jn 3:8 Rev 20:10

Even human decisions are under God's control
Eph 1:11 Rom 8:29-30 Eph 1:4 Acts 2:23 Acts 13:48 Jn 1:13 Rom 9:16 Rom 9:19 1Pet 2:8 Rom 9:22 Rom 9:23 Rom 3:11 1Jn 4:19 Jn 6:44

Because of White's constant fallacious attacks on Geisler I'm going to quote CBF in this section.
"Perhaps the most difficult thing to understand is that God is in sovereign control of everything we choose, even our salvation." 
I do not think that Geisler uses Romans chapter 9 properly in this way, but I do agree with Geisler's philosophical argument because it matches what other passages say. I believe Geisler reads his theology into Romans 9, as many many people do.

So it seems that Geisler thinks God is perfectly sovereign over everything, and that the answer to the question "Who is in charge?" is clearly GOD IS IN CHARGE. Geisler recognizes that God is in charge and does not even want Man to "run the show" himself. White then, as much as he complains about people misrepresenting Calvinism, abuses Geisler and CBF to the extreme.

What is Chosen But Free about then? Here's how Geisler ends his first chapter.

"If God is sovereign, how can we be free? Does not divine sovereignty make a sham of human responsibility? Is not a sovereign God as Giant Puppet Master, pulling the strings of human "puppets" at His will? If God is in complete control of everything, including human choice, then how can we be truly free? Are not sovereignty and significant free will mutually exclusive? These questions are the subject of the rest of this book. And we being in the next chapter with what the Bible says about free choice." 
Doesn't this sound like a completely different work than the one White attacks in TPF? It sure does to me. Let's quickly look at some things from CBF's 2nd Chapter which White, in his rebuttal of Chosen But Free has ignored, at least up his 5th Chapter.

Why Blame Me?

Great question! If God decrees everything, then what on Earth could be MY fault? This isn't the pot shaking it's fist at the Potter for making him a particular way, it is the pot recognizing that the Potter made it that way and ascribing responsibility where the authority and ability apparently lays.

Geisler starts with:
"I have never forgotten a placard I saw in a Presbyterian church foyer over forty years ago: "We believe in predestination, but drive carefully because you may hit a Presbyterian!" On the other side of the coin from divine sovereignty (see chapter 1) is human responsibility. "
That's an interesting quote. Geisler goes through several questions and explores several theories about human responsibility in his second chapter.

"If God is control of everything, then why should we be blamed for anything?" 
This is the question posed, and the question that Geisler properly answers in CBF. 

"Some believers have been known to excuse their sin, claiming "The Devil made me do it!" But the problem here is even greater, because logically one cannot stop at this point. For if God is in sovereign control of all things, then instead it would apear that ultimately "God made me do it."
Indeed, one response to the problem of divine sovereignty and human responsibility is that of extreme Calvinism. 
This response claims that free choice simply is doing what we desire, but that no one ever desires to do anything unless gives him the desire to do so.  If all of this were so then it would follow that God would be responsible for all human actions. 
If it were true, then the Bible should say that God gave Judas the desire to betray Christ. But it does not. Rather it says "the devil had already prompted Judas Iscariot, son of Simon, to betray Jesus"(John 13:2).  
Nor does it help to claim that God gives only good desires but not evil ones and that all other choices result from our evil natures. For neither Lucifer nor Adam had an evil nature to begin with, and yet they sinned. Further why doesn't God give a good desire to all?"
"For the strong (extreme) Calvinists the ultimate question is: Who made the devil do it? Or, more precisely, who caused Lucifer to sin?" 
Geisler goes on to talk about how Lucifer had no evil nature to begin with. He then talks about how it is contradictory to say that God made Lucifer sin because God would be against God. It is also not possible for God to sin Heb 6:18, cannot even tolerate sin Hab 1:13 and God does not tempt others to sin. James 1:13 
"If it did not come from God, then it must have come from himself. But in that case, his original evil act was self-caused, that is, caused by himself--which is exactly the view of human free will the strong Calvinist rejects." 
White completely ignores this in his work.


I had to read this point more than once before I got it. Geisler says the biblical answer is that God did not make the Devil. God made a good angel who became the Devil by his own free choice to sin.

God made only good creatures

Geisler notes that everything God created, God also called "good" Gen 1:4, 10, 12, 18, 21, 25. And finally looking back at everything He created He said it was "very good" or rather "good good" Gen 1:31. Solomon stated "This only have I found: God made mankind upright but they have sought many schemes" Eccl 7:29. Geisler's point? Not that mankind is "good" as it is now, but that God makes good creatures who then may fall. IE the devil, mankind, the devils angels...

God gave free choice to good creatures

Geisler uses Gen 2:16 to discuss the freedom of man as he was created. He does offer a mostly philosophical argument however. He affirms:
"In short, free choice is an undeniable good, since it affirms its own good even when attempting to deny it." 
Free choice is the origin of evil
"However, the power of moral free choice entails the ability either to choose the good God designed for us or to reject it. The latter is called evil. It is good to be fre, but freedom makes evil possible. Free will is good in itself, but entailed in that good is the ability to choose the opposite of good, which then makes evil possible.  
If God made free creatures, and if it is good to be free, then the origin of evil is in the misuse of freedom." ....  
"The fact of freedom is good, even though some acts of freedom are evil. God is the cause of the former, and we are the cause of the latter." 
"Staunch Calvinist Jonathan Edwards "solved" the problem of predestination and free will by claiming that (1) free will is doing what we desire; (2) but God gives us the desire to do good. What about the desire to do evil? That comes from our fallen nature, which desires only evil. Apart from God giving us the desire to do good, we naturally desire to do evil. 
However, the faithful followers of Edwards admit this does not solve the issue of wehre Lucifer and Adam got the desire for their first sin. R. C. Sproul calls this an "excruciating problem," adding: "One thing is absolutely unthinkable, that God could be the author or doer of sin." Yet this problem is "excruciating" only because Sproul believes the law of noncontradiction, and it appears to be a contradiction to hold as he does, all of these premises:  
1. God cannot give anyone the desire to sin;
2. Originally, neither Lucifer nor Adam had a sinful nature;
3. The will does not move unless given a desire by God or by its own nature 
And here is the unmistakable conclusion: both Lucifer and Adam sinned because God gave them the desire to sin. But Sproul is not willing to give up on premises 1 or 2 under any circumstances. Therefore, premise 3 must be false, since it is contradictory to the other premises he believesr are absolutely true. For it is certain that Lucifer neither had an evil nature, nor did God give him the desire to sin." 
As confidently haughty as TPF is written, this significant and important problem with the Calvinist doctrine is seemingly ignored. Yet it claims to be a rebuttal of CBF. Strange huh?

"And as "excruciating" as it is, they must either blame God for the origin of evil, or else they must give up their view of free will as doing what one desires according to one's nature or God's giving of those desires." 
I can't say it better than Geisler says it. I wonder why White, if his doctrine is "profoundly biblical" as he says the writings of his Reformed peers are he has to skip answering this severe problem with Reformed theology.


"If neither the devil nor God made me do it, then who did? The biblical answer is that I did. That is, the "I" or "self" is the cause of evil. How? By means of the good power of free choice that God gave me."
What I find most interesting is that Geisler's theology puts the blame soundly where it belongs, with the moral agents who commit sin. Not with the Only Just King of the Universe like Reformed theology simply must.

Geisler then discusses a SILLY causality argument that Calvinists sometimes (I believe fairly rarely) bring up that people cannot be the cause of their actions because something cannot cause itself. It's just a very poor logical argument that confuses the agent with the caused event. I won't even bother to quote it. I think Geisler was dipping into White's playbook on this argument.

"But why do I do what I do? Don't my background, training, and environment affect what I do? Yes, they do, but they don't force me to do it. They affect my actions, but they do not effect (ie cause) them. They influence but do not control my actions. That I still have the power to make free moral choices is true for several reasons."
I'll just give each point without the supporting text.
1. There is a difference between inherited physical characteristics (like brown eyes), over which I have no control, and inherited spiritual tendencies (like lust), over which I ought to have control.    
2. There is a difference between moral and nonmoral (amoral) choices. Our preferences for color are nonmoral and largely determined. But a choice to be racist based on the color of one's or another's skin is not nonmoral, nor is it an act we could not avoid performing.  
3. Those who point out that all actions have a reason and that reason determines what we do often fail to properly distinguish a purpose from a cause. The purpose is why I act. The cause is what produces the act. 


Geisler notes that "Extreme Calvinists" follow Jonathan Edwards assertion that a moral agent will necessarily follow it's own nature. A good nature cannot will to do evil, and an evil nature cannot will to do good. He then explains Augustine's "Later" view, that is the view that he developed later in life, Adam was able to sin or not to sin but after the Fall he was only able to sin. When in heaven man will only able to not sin.

He then explains Augustine's earlier view that we are born with a propensity to sin, but not a necessity to sin.  Such a view "makes sin unavoidable, rather than inevitable..... Even though we are depraved and by nature bent toward sin, nonetheless, each sin is freely chosen." 

Geisler then explains "several serious problems with this position."
First of all, it is self-contradictory, for it holds two logically opposite premises: (1) What is good by nature cannot will evil (since will follows nature); (2) Yet Lucifer and Adam, who were good by nature, willed evil.  
Second, it logically removes all responsibility for evil actions by evil (unregenerated) creatures since they have no real choice in the evil they do. They can't help but do what comes naturally.  
Third, it confuses desire and decision. That evil men naturally desire to sin does not mean they must decide to sin. Both Scripture and experience inform us that there is a difference...... Rom 7:15 
Fourth, this view is a form of determinism. It believes that our moral actions are determined (caused) by another, rather than self-determined (caused) by ourselves. 
Fifth, if what is evile can't will good, and if what is good can't will evil, then why do Christians who have been given good natures still choose to sin? 
The bottom line is, they believe that irresistible forces were exerted upon free creatures in order to get them to do what God wanted them to do. With the exception of the later Augustine (see Appendix 3) there was no major church father up to the Reformation who held this view (see appendix 1). 
Isn't it interesting that instead of discussing the points that Geisler brings up, White chooses to claim that  Geisler has misrepresented Unconditional Election (which I have demonstrated he did not) and then call that a rebuttal of Geisler's book? 

"The unpleasant truth is that even though I have an inherited sin nature (Eph 2:3), I have no one to blame but myself (ie my Self) for my personal moral actions. This is clear for many reasons." 

Again I'll list his reasons without much supporting text. This is just to demonstrate that Geisler is making arguments that White doesn't even acknowledge, let alone rebut.

Responsibility and the ability to respond

"However, sound reason demands that there is no responsibility where there is no ability to respond. It is not rational to hold someone responsible when they could not have responded. And God is not irrational. His omniscience means God is the most rational Being in the universe. Therefore, reason also demands that all moral creatures are morally free; that is, they have the ability to respond one way or another."
Ought implies can

"That is, what we ought to do implies that we can do it. Otherwise, we have to assume that the Moral Lawgiver is prescribing the irrational, commanding that we do what is literally impossible for us to do. Good reason appears to insist that if God demands it, then we can do it. Moral obligation implies moral freedom." 
After this important point Geisler offers two important comments.
First of all, when we say "ought implies can" we do not mean that whatever we ought to do we can do by our own strength. This would be contrary to the clear teaching of Christ that "without Me you can do nothing. John 15:5 
Second, further evidence that we can do what we ought to do, by God's grace is found in a familiar passage: "No temptation has seized you except what is common to man. And God is faithful; He will not let you be tempted beyond what you can bear. But when you are tempted, He will also provide a way out so that you can stand up under it." (1Cor 10:13)"
Reward and punishment 
"Why eulogize Mother Teresa and vilify Hitler, if they could not help doing what they did? Why blame Adolf Eichmann and praise Martin Luther King, if they had not free choice in the matter? Yet they did, and we do. The Bible says plainly that God "will give to each person according to what he has done" (Rom 2:6)"
An undeniable fact

Here Geisler notes that Determinists believe that everything is determined, yet they want non-Determinists to change their mind... the contradiction is apparently lost on them. 

"From beginning to eend the Bible affirms, both implicitly and explicitly, that human beings have free choice. This is true both prior to and after the Fall of Adam, although free will is definitely affected by sin and severely limited in what it can do."
Free will before the Fall
"The power of free choice is part of mankind being created in the image of God (Gen 1:27). Adam and Eve were commanded (1) to multiply their kind Gen 1:28 and (2) to refrain from eating the forbidden fruit (Gen 2:16-17). Both of these responsibilities imply teh ability to respond." 
"The New Testament references to Adam's act make it plain that he made a free choice for which he was responsible. Romans 5 calls it "sin" (v 16), an "offense" (v 15) and "disobedience" (v 19). 1Tim 2 refers to Adam's act as a "transgression" (v 14). All these descriptions imply that it was a morally free and culpable act."
Free will after the Fall

"Even after Adam sinned and became spiritually "dead" (Gen 2:17; cf Eph 2:1) and a sinner "by nature" (Eph 2:3), he was not so completely depraved that he could neither hear the voice of God nor make a free response (see chapter 4). For "the LORD God called to the man, 'Where are you?' He answered, 'I heard you in the garden, and I was afraid because I was naked; so I hid'" (Gen 3:9-10). God's image in Adam was effaced by the Fall but not erased. It was marred but not destroyed."
Fallen descendants of Adam have free will
"Peter speaks of being ignorant "willingly" (2Pet 3:5)."  
"With respect to initiating or attaining their own salvation, both Luther and Calvin were right in asserting that fallen humans are not free with regard to "things above," that is, achieving their own salvation. However, contrary to strong Calvinism, in regard to the freedom of accepting God's gift of salvation the Bible is clear: Fallen beings are free. Thus, the free choice of fallen human beings is both "horizontal" (social) with respect to things in this world and "vertical" (spiritual).
Geisler goes on to discuss many more passages including: 1Cor 7:37-39, 2Cor 8:3, Philem 14, Acts 16:31; 17:30, 1Pet 5:2, 2Cor 9:7, Rom 6:23, Matt 23:37, John 1:12, 2Pet 3:9, Josh 24:15, 2Sam 24:12, John 8:24, John 6:69, John 9:36-38, John 10:25, John 3:18.
"Plainly, then, belief is our responsibility and is rooted in our ability to respond. This view has overwhelming support by virtually all the great church fathers up to the sixteenth century (see appendix 1)" 

Can everyone believe?

"Contrary to the extreme Calvinist's view, faith is not a gift that God offeres only to some (see appendix  5). All are responsible to believe and "whoever" decides to believe can believe (cf John 3:16. Jesus says "Whosoever believeth in him shall have everlasting life." 
Geisler goes on to look at John 3:18, John 6:37 Rev 22:17 and then he looks at a specific argument from the Calvinists.
"If everyone can believe, why then did Jesus assert of some "For this reason they could not believe, because, as Isaiah says elsewhere: "He has blinded their eyes and deadened their hearts, so they can neither see with their eyes, nor understand with their hearts, nor turn--and I would heal them" John 12:39-40? 
The answer is found in the context: (1) Belief was obviously their responsiblity, since God held them responsible for not believing. Only two verses earlier we read, "Even after Jesus had done all these miraculous signs in their presence, they will would not believe in Him" John 12:37; (2) Jesus had been speaking to hardhearted Jews who had seen many indisputable miracles (including the resurrection of Lazarus (John 11)) and who had been called upon many times to believe before this point (cf John 8:26), which reveals that tehy were able to do so; and (3) It was their own stubborn unbelief that brought on their blindness. Jesus had said to them "I told you that you would die in your sins; if you don not believe that I am, you will indeed die in your sins'" (John 8:24). Thus it was chosen and avoidable blindness." 

This is of course somewhat different than the way White describes Geisler's argument in TPF.

Can anyone believe unaided by God's grace?

"While all truly free acts are self-determined and could have been otherwise, nonetheless, it is also true that no free human act can move toward God or do any spiritual good without the aid of His grace. This is evident from the following Scriptures." 

Again, I will simply list them as I truly am trying to control the length of this article.

1Chron 19:14, John 6:44, John 15:5, John 17:11, John 17:12, 1Cor 15:10, 2Cor 3:5, 2Cor 12:9, Phil 2:12-13, Phil 4:13
"W.G.T. Shedd, who as stated previously is a moderate Calvinist, wraps it up this way:  
"If the sinner voluntarily rejects the offered mercy of God, he is culpable for so doing, and is therefore amenable to the charge of culpability and responsible before the divine tribunal because of it... Man is responsible for sin because he is both the author and the actor of it; but he is not responsible for holiness, because he is only the actor and not the author... "The sinner is free in accepting or rejecting the invitations of the gospel." If he accepts them, he does so freely under the actuation of the Holy Spirit. If he rejects them, he does so freely without this actuation and solely by his own self-determination (Dogmatic Theology, 3.298-299)."
"The mystery of the relationship between divine sovereignty and human free will has challenged the greatest Christian thinkers down through the centuries. Unfortunately, the extreme Calvinists have sacrificed human responsibility in order to preserve divine sovereignty (see chapter 4). Likewise, as we shall see later, extreme Arminians have sacrificed God's sovereignty in order to hold on to man's free will (see chapter 5). We believe that both of these alternatives are wrong and lead to inordinately extreme actions (see chapter 6)." 
This concludes Geisler's second chapter of Chosen But Free. Given the level of detail to which I have reviewed these two chapters, and the first three chapters of The Potter's Freedom I ask the reader to consider which work is more exegetical. Is Chosen But Free the deep word study kind of exegetical that The Potter's Freedom attacks it for NOT being? No, not at all. However, the work is LARGLY exegetical in nature because it gathers it's theology FROM the Scriptures, and specifically many many passages. In contrast The Potter's Freedom centers on very few passages, extra-biblical assumptions, and arguments against anything but what Chosen But Free is about. It, at least thus far, imprints the author's theology onto the Scriptures instead of reading it out of them. So, it seems to me that AGAIN White's criticisms of Geisler seem to fit better being pointed at himself.

Perhaps this LONG article will help White's fans why I find his work so frustrating. Not because I am "offended at the freedom of God" but because White is handling the work he is supposedly rebutting SO VERY POORLY.

No comments: