"I only read the Bible..."

Status
Not open for further replies.
UKPuritan40

UKPuritan40

Puritan Board Freshman
I recently heard someone saying to another person who was sharing their enthusiasm over the Valley of Vision (a book of Puritan prayers) that they pretty much only read the word of God. The gist was not that they are hard and fast only going to read the bible, but seemed strongly convicted that reading anything else when one has the whole bible to read, is a poor choice, bad use of time etc. The way this discussion played out I felt that an illogical false dichotomy of sorts was being put out in the form of "Well is anything better than God's word?" (Of course a resounding NO would be given) so therefor, don't read other stuff.

I know that God gives us preachers and teachers and in the case of the Puritan writings we are dealing almost exclusively with such individuals, who though not of our era, are still blessing and profiting our souls to this day.

How would you, fellow PB-ers, address such an attitude? If you have scriptures to validate your "other than Bible reading" please share those too. I'm not planning to discuss this thinking with the Bible only person but I do wonder if others have encountered this and how they've responded. I've never met anyone in reformed circles who thinks it is a waste of time and possibly even sinful, to read beyond scripture.

Thanks in advance,
Susan
 
Generally, when someone speaks in that manner it is because they are seeking to promote aberrant doctrine. Christ has given teachers to the church catholic; to ignore them is to despise his gifts. The one who says "I only read the Bible" while neglecting the means that God has given so that we may better understand his Word is obviously unteachable and full of pride. If the simple reading of the scriptures were all that was needed, moreover, what do we do with the account of the Ethiopian Eunuch, who could not understand Isaiah 53 without someone to teach him.
 
Reformed Covenanter said:
Generally, when someone speaks in that manner it is because they are seeking to promote aberrant doctrine. Christ has given teachers to the church catholic; to ignore them is to despise his gifts. The one who says "I only read the Bible" while neglecting the means that God has given so that we may better understand his Word is obviously unteachable and full of pride. If the simple reading of the scriptures were all that was needed, moreover, what do we do with the account of the Ethiopian Eunuch, who could not understand Isaiah 53 without someone to teach him.
Click to expand...
Oh that is a most excellent reply. Thank you Daniel.
 
Calvin on 2 Tim. 4:13:

"Yet (to own the truth) I give the preference to the former interpretation; more especially because Paul immediately afterwards mentions books and parchments. It is evident from this, that the Apostle had not given over reading, though he was already preparing for death. Where are those who think that they have made so great progress that they do not need any more exercise? Which of them will dare to compare himself with Paul? Still more does this expression refute the madness of those men who -- despising books, and condemning all reading -- boast of nothing but their own enthousiasmous divine inspirations. But let us know that this passage gives to all believers a recommendation of constant reading, that they may profit by it."
 
In my experience, this is an error of a certain brand of shallow, fundamentalist Christianity, probably of a type more prevalent in North America. (I grew up in such an atmosphere; Pentecostals tend to not do a lot of deep theogical reading.) It's tied to the popular rejection of creeds, confessions and catechisms in the same circles. "No creed but Christ," they will proclaim. Or, if they do not proclaim it, they live, as I did, in total ignorance of even the Apostle's Creed. Thus such notions are tied to a lot of other subsequent error, even heresy.

I encountered one American fellow once who expressed such a view after I recommended reading some commentary or other. It's as though these people think that a theologian's teaching on the Bible risks supplanting the Bible itself as an authority. I replied to him that if he will hear a pastor preach every Sunday, why would he be unwilling to read what a pastor had written? That seemed to make him reconsider his opinion.
 
UKPuritan40 said:
I recently heard someone saying to another person who was sharing their enthusiasm over the Valley of Vision (a book of Puritan prayers) that they pretty much only read the word of God. The gist was not that they are hard and fast only going to read the bible, but seemed strongly convicted that reading anything else when one has the whole bible to read, is a poor choice, bad use of time etc. The way this discussion played out I felt that an illogical false dichotomy of sorts was being put out in the form of "Well is anything better than God's word?" (Of course a resounding NO would be given) so therefor, don't read other stuff.

I know that God gives us preachers and teachers and in the case of the Puritan writings we are dealing almost exclusively with such individuals, who though not of our era, are still blessing and profiting our souls to this day.

How would you, fellow PB-ers, address such an attitude? If you have scriptures to validate your "other than Bible reading" please share those too. I'm not planning to discuss this thinking with the Bible only person but I do wonder if others have encountered this and how they've responded. I've never met anyone in reformed circles who thinks it is a waste of time and possibly even sinful, to read beyond scripture.

Thanks in advance,
Susan
Click to expand...
I read other writers because they understand the Bible better than I do.
 
TylerRay said:
I read other writers because they understand the Bible better than I do.
Click to expand...
+1. I have a good friend of 30 years or more, who tells me he wishes he could have faith as I do, but he says he cannot. I've encouraged him, invited him to church, given him literature, but he insists that he is intelligent enough to interpret the Bible for himself, and doesn't need someone else to do it for him. I've argued against this ignorant attitude a couple of times, but to no avail. I pray that God will enlighten the eyes of his understanding. That is all I can do.
 
You might hear me give a variant of this from another perspective. I get irritated by folks who buy piles of Christian books (especially the how-tos) but don't practice examining the scripture to apply to life. Clearly Valley of Vision doesn't fall into this category, but could be mistaken for one if you don't know the Puritans.
 
I think the OP raises an issue that is part of what RS Clark was talking about with his "Quest for Illegitimate Religious Certainty." A person can be oh-so-pious and better-than-thou if he only reads the Bible. Some excellent responses have already been given. I will add a few other things that I think are important here. First of all, I ask them whether they read a translation of the Bible, or whether they read the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. If they respond that they read the English translation, then I respond by saying that they are reading the product of scholars who have read deeply in the exegetical literature in order to understand what the Bible is saying. Translation never occurs in an exegetical-minus atmosphere, to coin a somewhat awkward phrase. It is hypocritical to say that they will not interact with mere human writings when they are dependent on the scholarship of those who do. And if they decide to learn Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek, then they will be relying on other human teachers to teach them that!

Obviously, a denial of the Holy Spirit's gifts of teaching to the church is also in play here, which falls foul of Scripture itself, ironically. Ephesians 4:11-14 kind of puts paid to that attitude by saying, in effect, that the whole purpose of God's giving the teachers to the church is so that believers will not be swayed by every wind of doctrine that comes down the pike. The believer who will only read Scripture is actually in violation of Scripture, and in denial of what Scripture itself teaches! If a person will not pay attention to what the teachers of the church say, then he will be MORE vulnerable, not less, to heretical teaching. Going along with this is the further problem that claiming to be dependent on no human resources at all means that they will be viciously dependent on a very few sources indeed, sources that they will not even acknowledge. One absolutely cannot develop discernment in this way.

2 Tim 4:13, as noted above, says something very similar. Another passage of Scripture well worth considering is Paul's speech on Mars Hill in Acts 17 where he even quotes a pagan author! So apparently, this person who only reads the Bible is both smarter and more spiritually attuned to God than the apostle Paul was. The hubris here is breathtaking!
 
UKPuritan40 said:
I recently heard someone saying to another person who was sharing their enthusiasm over the Valley of Vision (a book of Puritan prayers) that they pretty much only read the word of God. The gist was not that they are hard and fast only going to read the bible, but seemed strongly convicted that reading anything else when one has the whole bible to read, is a poor choice, bad use of time etc. The way this discussion played out I felt that an illogical false dichotomy of sorts was being put out in the form of "Well is anything better than God's word?" (Of course a resounding NO would be given) so therefor, don't read other stuff.

I know that God gives us preachers and teachers and in the case of the Puritan writings we are dealing almost exclusively with such individuals, who though not of our era, are still blessing and profiting our souls to this day.

How would you, fellow PB-ers, address such an attitude? If you have scriptures to validate your "other than Bible reading" please share those too. I'm not planning to discuss this thinking with the Bible only person but I do wonder if others have encountered this and how they've responded. I've never met anyone in reformed circles who thinks it is a waste of time and possibly even sinful, to read beyond scripture.

Thanks in advance,
Susan
Click to expand...
God has given to us gifted theologians and teachers and expositors of His scriptures, so it would be wise indeed to consult good commentaries and other bible study tools as the means to better understand and apply the truths of scriptures now.
 
All Pastors expound to the congregants. It is never, 'me and my bible'. They have the gift of teaching. We need teachers. Consider solo scriptura vs sola scriptura. Private interpretation is frowned upon by the Apostle. I like Lane's statement.
 
greenbaggins said:
I think the OP raises an issue that is part of what RS Clark was talking about with his "Quest for Illegitimate Religious Certainty." A person can be oh-so-pious and better-than-thou if he only reads the Bible. Some excellent responses have already been given. I will add a few other things that I think are important here. First of all, I ask them whether they read a translation of the Bible, or whether they read the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. If they respond that they read the English translation, then I respond by saying that they are reading the product of scholars who have read deeply in the exegetical literature in order to understand what the Bible is saying. Translation never occurs in an exegetical-minus atmosphere, to coin a somewhat awkward phrase. It is hypocritical to say that they will not interact with mere human writings when they are dependent on the scholarship of those who do. And if they decide to learn Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek, then they will be relying on other human teachers to teach them that!

Obviously, a denial of the Holy Spirit's gifts of teaching to the church is also in play here, which falls foul of Scripture itself, ironically. Ephesians 4:11-14 kind of puts paid to that attitude by saying, in effect, that the whole purpose of God's giving the teachers to the church is so that believers will not be swayed by every wind of doctrine that comes down the pike. The believer who will only read Scripture is actually in violation of Scripture, and in denial of what Scripture itself teaches! If a person will not pay attention to what the teachers of the church say, then he will be MORE vulnerable, not less, to heretical teaching. Going along with this is the further problem that claiming to be dependent on no human resources at all means that they will be viciously dependent on a very few sources indeed, sources that they will not even acknowledge. One absolutely cannot develop discernment in this way.

2 Tim 4:13, as noted above, says something very similar. Another passage of Scripture well worth considering is Paul's speech on Mars Hill in Acts 17 where he even quotes a pagan author! So apparently, this person who only reads the Bible is both smarter and more spiritually attuned to God than the apostle Paul was. The hubris here is breathtaking!
Click to expand...
Very good point on the knowing and the using of the original languages of the scriptures, for if one cannot do that for themselves, must be forced to rely upon other trusted experts and authors of the scriptures.
 
greenbaggins said:
I think the OP raises an issue that is part of what RS Clark was talking about with his "Quest for Illegitimate Religious Certainty." A person can be oh-so-pious and better-than-thou if he only reads the Bible. Some excellent responses have already been given. I will add a few other things that I think are important here. First of all, I ask them whether they read a translation of the Bible, or whether they read the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. If they respond that they read the English translation, then I respond by saying that they are reading the product of scholars who have read deeply in the exegetical literature in order to understand what the Bible is saying. Translation never occurs in an exegetical-minus atmosphere, to coin a somewhat awkward phrase. It is hypocritical to say that they will not interact with mere human writings when they are dependent on the scholarship of those who do. And if they decide to learn Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek, then they will be relying on other human teachers to teach them that!

Obviously, a denial of the Holy Spirit's gifts of teaching to the church is also in play here, which falls foul of Scripture itself, ironically. Ephesians 4:11-14 kind of puts paid to that attitude by saying, in effect, that the whole purpose of God's giving the teachers to the church is so that believers will not be swayed by every wind of doctrine that comes down the pike. The believer who will only read Scripture is actually in violation of Scripture, and in denial of what Scripture itself teaches! If a person will not pay attention to what the teachers of the church say, then he will be MORE vulnerable, not less, to heretical teaching. Going along with this is the further problem that claiming to be dependent on no human resources at all means that they will be viciously dependent on a very few sources indeed, sources that they will not even acknowledge. One absolutely cannot develop discernment in this way.

2 Tim 4:13, as noted above, says something very similar. Another passage of Scripture well worth considering is Paul's speech on Mars Hill in Acts 17 where he even quotes a pagan author! So apparently, this person who only reads the Bible is both smarter and more spiritually attuned to God than the apostle Paul was. The hubris here is breathtaking!
Click to expand...

This post was so good that I posted a link to it on Facebook.
 
Here is something straight from the Bible (Nehemiah 8).

The context is: the people have returned from captivity and are finally getting acquainted again with God's word.

2 And Ezra the priest brought the law before the congregation both of men and women, and all that could hear with understanding, upon the first day of the seventh month.

3 And he read therein before the street that was before the water gate from the morning until midday, before the men and the women, and those that could understand; and the ears of all the people were attentive unto the book of the law.

....

7 Also Jeshua, and Bani, and Sherebiah, Jamin, Akkub, Shabbethai, Hodijah, Maaseiah, Kelita, Azariah, Jozabad, Hanan, Pelaiah, and the Levites, caused the people to understand the law: and the people stood in their place.

8 So they read in the book in the law of God distinctly, and gave the sense, and caused them to understand the reading.


---------------

So here we have a time when God's covenant people are given teachers to help them understand God's word.

To insist that one just read their Bible and not receive aid from others is essentially to deny these truths:

11 And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;

12 For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:
 
Clearly, I am a big supporter of Christian scholarship and writing. It has become my life's work. And Christian writing has been defended well on this thread.

That said... allow me to push a bit in the opposite direction. The OP mentioned a person who did not deny the legitimacy of extra-biblical writing outright, but had a strong preference for just reading the Bible itself. The possible bad reasons for such a stance have been pointed out. But sometimes people have good reasons.

We live in a day when there are many, many people not only reading about the Bible but also writing about the Bible without having actually read the Bible itself very thoroughly. I am regularly amazed by "Christian authors" who, it turns out, don't know the Bible beyond a sprinkling of their favorite verses. Even among armchair theologians who read great material like Puritan writings, many would benefit from regularly putting down those books and soaking more in Scripture itself. And for a person who has mostly been exposed to the hefty amount of bad theological books found in the average religion section of a bookstore, a commitment to just read the Bible could be a sign of maturity.

Also, many people have been hurt by churches where extra-biblical works were effectively held in higher esteem than the Bible and were used to belittle those who haven't read the preferred book-of-the-week or to shut down folks who have questions. Even very good Reformed congregations can be guilty of this. Frankly, I am always wary of Reformed people who have memorized the catechism but don't seem to have memorized much Scripture; they are the people who presume it is their job to pounce on others.

So, there can be good reasons why some believers are slow to warm up to the idea of reading theological books. In some cases, it's the church's fault; we need to repent either of the shallow junk we read or of a haughty attitude about the deep treasures we read.

Initially, I probably would not argue with a person who felt it was best to just read the Bible. I would ask him why and seek to understand. Some of his reasons are likely good ones. And some, as has already been pointed out, are likely bad.
 
Jack K said:
Clearly, I am a big supporter of Christian scholarship and writing. It has become my life's work. And Christian writing has been defended well on this thread.

That said... allow me to push a bit in the opposite direction. The OP mentioned a person who did not deny the legitimacy of extra-biblical writing outright, but had a strong preference for just reading the Bible itself. The possible bad reasons for such a stance have been pointed out. But sometimes people have good reasons.

We live in a day when there are many, many people not only reading about the Bible but also writing about the Bible without having actually read the Bible itself very thoroughly. I am regularly amazed by "Christian authors" who, it turns out, don't know the Bible beyond a sprinkling of their favorite verses. Even among armchair theologians who read great material like Puritan writings, many would benefit from regularly putting down those books and soaking more in Scripture itself. And for a person who has mostly been exposed to the hefty amount of bad theological books found in the average religion section of a bookstore, a commitment to just read the Bible could be a sign of maturity.

Also, many people have been hurt by churches where extra-biblical works were effectively held in higher esteem than the Bible and were used to belittle those who haven't read the preferred book-of-the-week or to shut down folks who have questions. Even very good Reformed congregations can be guilty of this. Frankly, I am always wary of Reformed people who have memorized the catechism but don't seem to have memorized much Scripture; they are the people who presume it is their job to pounce on others.

So, there can be good reasons why some believers are slow to warm up to the idea of reading theological books. In some cases, it's the church's fault; we need to repent either of the shallow junk we read or of a haughty attitude about the deep treasures we read.

Initially, I probably would not argue with a person who felt it was best to just read the Bible. I would ask him why and seek to understand. Some of his reasons are likely good ones. And some, as has already been pointed out, are likely bad.
Click to expand...
I can really identify with your posting here, as when first was coming around to Calvinism theology, was reading Hodge, Berkhof, Grudem, and was almost totally neglecting the scriptures themselves. What I discovered was that once back into the Bible, the scriptures now suddenly started to really make sense, and the Holy Spirit was showing to me that Calvinism in regards to salvation was pretty much everywhere in the Bible.
 
Jack K said:
Clearly, I am a big supporter of Christian scholarship and writing. It has become my life's work. And Christian writing has been defended well on this thread.

That said... allow me to push a bit in the opposite direction. The OP mentioned a person who did not deny the legitimacy of extra-biblical writing outright, but had a strong preference for just reading the Bible itself. The possible bad reasons for such a stance have been pointed out. But sometimes people have good reasons.

We live in a day when there are many, many people not only reading about the Bible but also writing about the Bible without having actually read the Bible itself very thoroughly. I am regularly amazed by "Christian authors" who, it turns out, don't know the Bible beyond a sprinkling of their favorite verses. Even among armchair theologians who read great material like Puritan writings, many would benefit from regularly putting down those books and soaking more in Scripture itself. And for a person who has mostly been exposed to the hefty amount of bad theological books found in the average religion section of a bookstore, a commitment to just read the Bible could be a sign of maturity.

Also, many people have been hurt by churches where extra-biblical works were effectively held in higher esteem than the Bible and were used to belittle those who haven't read the preferred book-of-the-week or to shut down folks who have questions. Even very good Reformed congregations can be guilty of this. Frankly, I am always wary of Reformed people who have memorized the catechism but don't seem to have memorized much Scripture; they are the people who presume it is their job to pounce on others.

So, there can be good reasons why some believers are slow to warm up to the idea of reading theological books. In some cases, it's the church's fault; we need to repent either of the shallow junk we read or of a haughty attitude about the deep treasures we read.

Initially, I probably would not argue with a person who felt it was best to just read the Bible. I would ask him why and seek to understand. Some of his reasons are likely good ones. And some, as has already been pointed out, are likely bad.
Click to expand...

The advantage for the one who regularly reads the Scriptures is his ability to evaluate what he reads. I find that if I read multiple books or commentaries on a matter I will get confused. If I study the key passages for myself, and do my own analysis first, I can form a judgment which is truly my own. Any subsequent reading becomes all the more profitable as a consequence.
 
I think a hunger and thirst for the Word of God in daily reading and evotion ought to provide an appreciation for others who share that hunger and thirst and write in a manner that enlightens and provides insight I might have missed.

I read through the scriptures every year. It's fundamental to being grounded in God's Word and being able to see where novel ideas depart from fundamental principles of the Word. I can often "sense" that something sounds dissonant with the Word of God than I can always precisely argue all the ways some idea or system departs from the same.

What I appreciate about good scholars is how they are able to put their finger on a Biblical truth. I love Pilgrim's Progreess and the Marrow of Modern Divinity and other works that just bleed Bibline. Just the other day I was provided a link to a Reformed Forum interview with Bill Dennison of Covenant College. I had been wrestling with all the garbage coming out of the progressive neo-Calvinism movement within the PCA and he was able to put his finger on all the issues in a way I had been searching long to describe.

Without such faithful men then we'd be left trying to sort out massive theological errors and movements by ourselves. We would need to be able to master language, history, philosophy, etc by ourselves where we can find faithful men, who speak Bibline, but also speak to the broader movements of our cultural time and the errors we are finding ourselves enmeshed within. Witness the rampant basic Trinitarian issues that are throughout the Christian community these days. We could all stand to be more curious rather than less.
 
Reformed Covenanter said:
Generally, when someone speaks in that manner it is because they are seeking to promote aberrant doctrine. Christ has given teachers to the church catholic; to ignore them is to despise his gifts... what do we do with the account of the Ethiopian Eunuch, who could not understand Isaiah 53 without someone to teach him.
Click to expand...
Excellent answer!
 
UKPuritan40 said:
How would you, fellow PB-ers, address such an attitude?

I assume this "I read the Bible Only" person attends Church? And since they listen to their minister expound the Word of God..... Why would they have a problem reading a Bible exposition! But they do have a problem...
Being a Reformed Baptist I encounter all types at differing Baptist Churches around my rural area. When I mention this fact in regards to reading a sermon, I get... Umm..... Umm...... But..... But I just.... Umm.... And they return to the haughty saying, "I just read the Bible." I know one such person who does not take a Bible to Church at all and in his infinite wisdom says.... "I don't need to carry a Bible, I already know all about it." People! How our LORD Jesus loves us I won't know this side of glory!
Click to expand...
 
Harley said:
The advantage for the one who regularly reads the Scriptures is his ability to evaluate what he reads. I find that if I read multiple books or commentaries on a matter I will get confused. If I study the key passages for myself, and do my own analysis first, I can form a judgment which is truly my own. Any subsequent reading becomes all the more profitable as a consequence.
Click to expand...
The big thing that reading scriptures on a daily basis as done for me is to provide a filter through which can strain all of the various authors and their theologies through, since none of them are perfect, so can learn to appreciate and hold unto the parts of their views that would be practical and biblical in my way of understanding.
 
@UKPuritan40

Susan:

My greetings to your dear husband (and my friend Glenn!).

Great answers here, but let me put it a bit stronger, as this position ("I read the Bible only") is relatively recent.

No one in the early or medieval church (before the development of the printing press in the West in the mid 15th c.) had the widespread availability of the Bible (copies for personal use). Such as was available was chiefly for clerical (regular or secular) use and not in the vernacular (Jerome's Vulgate was the AV). Most were illiterate and could not have read anything in their own languages, never mind the Latin of the Vulgate (and certainly not Greek or Hebrew). Many of the lower secular clergy were illiterate and not able to read the Bible in any language (having simply memorized the Latin of the Mass).

The churches on the whole were not redolent with great preaching, relying on the stained glass windows to "tell the Christian story" to the illiterate masses, much of the preaching coming from the mendicants among the regular clergy who went about preaching the gospel (as it was understood) in the vernacular, especially the Dominicans (the Order of Preachers). The Reformation involved in no small measure a real revival in the reading and preaching of Scriptures in the churches.

Even then, it did not mean everyone having their own Bible and believing that the personal study of it was paramount. No, the Reformation, in being a recovery of the Word and its preaching, understood what had always been understood by the Church at its best: the Bible was the Word of God, given in the Church and to the Church, to be understood in that context, that is, the Word was never to be an unexposited Word but a preached Word, given to and to be understood in the communion of the saints.

So the notion that the Bible is to be understood outside of the communion of the saints is utterly foreign to the history of the church. For years, people did not read it themselves at all. Rather they heard it read in church and then explicated. The Reformation involved a restoration of this, with the Puritan service coming to be about three hours morning and afternoon, with about half of it being dedicated to the reading and preaching of Scripture (contrary to popular belief sermons were not hours, but usually an hour or so; the other half of the service was singing and praying, the "long prayer" being often close to an hour).

It is true that coming out of the Reformation was a great emphasis on literacy and, ultimately, a commitment to make it possible for all to have their own Bibles. This latter has come to pass only since the 19th c. All this is to say that a position that nothing is more important or desirable than personal Bible study (I want to encourage it--let's be clear--and I commend to all a read-through at least yearly) is simply out of line with deeper as well as Reformational commitments.

Nothing is more important for a right understanding of the Word than its public reading and preaching (WLC 155--"especially the preaching"). All of our private (family) and secret (personal) use of it should occur within that context, and not undermine the public but serve in the support and extension of it.

It's a lesson taken from heretics and the worst of the Radical Reformers to emphasize one's own personal reading and study of the Word as the chief means of grace: it has never been such and it will never be such until Christ returns. The right private and secret use of the Word will enrich one's public experience even as the latter serves to shape the former. What we need again is a true recovery of the reading and preaching of the Word of God in churches throughout this land and throughout the world.

Peace,
Alan
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

J
Reading the Puritans
Replies
11
Views
993
Before
Before
B.L.
  • Locked
  • Poll
Time Spent Reading the Bible vs. Books About the Bible
Replies
3
Views
870
Von
Von
arapahoepark
  • Locked
Speed reading and the Puritans
Replies
29
Views
2K
Saxon
S
B
Reading the Bible in 2022
Replies
15
Views
1K
bookslover
B
B
Reading the Bible in 2021
2
Replies
38
Views
4K
Claudiu
C
Back
Top