I Was Wrong

Mike McK · Mar 6, 2005

Originally posted by Logan:
First, I'm glad Catholic School helped make an impact on your life. Second, the Church does not now, nor, has it ever taught that tradition or Tradition is more important than Scripture.

Baptismal regeneration is clearly taught in Scripture and has been the constant teaching of the Christian Church since the first century. You won't find any teachings different until after the 16th century.
Click to expand...

My purpose here was to be an apology to those I'd spoken badly about in the past, not necessarily to get into matters of doctrine, although I'd be happy to do that with you in another thread.

I will say this, though: at the very least, you would have to admit that the Catholic church hasn't exactly been a staunch advocate of sola scriptura.

Just this afternoon, I was involved in a thread where I was told the following:

The Catholic Church basically believes that it is folly for lay people to attempt to understand Jesus' teachings by only reading the Bible. Jesus did not write a Bible, He left a church. The Catholic Church.

From their point of view the Word of God is a living Word, that can only be properly understood and interpreted through the church hierarchy.

As for baptism, the thread is now off the board and under review. If it's put back up, I'll link to it so you can see exactly what was said.

QUOTE]All I ask is to judge their teachings (and I mean what they really teach) in light of Scripture. [/QUOTE]

I have, more than ever, and I have to be honest, it doesn't look good.

Mike McK · Mar 6, 2005

Originally posted by Ps104_33:
But Mike, all these things took place on this board. Remember good ole Carson Weber, Tryingto understand, CatholicConvert and all the rest who gave us Baptists fits? They all basically said the same things. I have always found that arguing with Roman Catholics is like trying to hit a moving target. They talk out of both sides of their mouth and use alot of doublespeak. Nothing ever seems to mean what you think you read. It all seems to be designed to mean whatever they want it to mean at the time or age, or the present geopolitical situation. Like I always said here on this board and I hate to keep on beating the same old dead horse, but grace, sanctifacation, baptism, justification and all those other theological words mean entirely different things to Romanism than to a Bible Believer.
Click to expand...

Sure I remember, but if you remember, after awhile, I avoided those threads like the plague and pretty much confined myself to arguing with Aaron over in the music forums, precisely because they were uncomfortable.

Mike McK · Mar 6, 2005

Originally posted by dianetavegia:
A young man by the name of Pope Cleghorn went forward after our second service today and renounced the RCC, accepting Christ as his Savior. Pastor Rick had been witnessing and talking with him and he'd been attending our church for about a year. I had his son, Trey, in S/S last year. Pope is the president of a local bank and his wife wept as he proclaimed his need for Jesus. He'll be baptized next Sunday with a good sized group. We had a total of 5 accept Christ this morning in the two services.
Click to expand...

That's outstanding, not only for Pope, but for those other folks as well.

Logan · Mar 6, 2005

Originally posted by Mike McK:
My purpose here was to be an apology to those I'd spoken badly about in the past, not necessarily to get into matters of doctrine, although I'd be happy to do that with you in another thread.
Click to expand...

Fair enough...

I will say this, though: at the very least, you would have to admit that the Catholic church hasn't exactly been a staunch advocate of sola scriptura.
Click to expand...

I agree with you 100%! The doctrine of sola scriptura is not biblical by the simple fact that it cannot be found in the bible. It is in itself, self refuting. But I understand this is not what this thread is about....so maybe another time.

Matt Black · Mar 7, 2005

Ah, the old canard of "extra ecclesiam nulla salus". That is explained more fully in art 14 of Lumen Gentium : "the Church, now sojourning on earth as an exile, is necessary for salvation. Christ, present to us in His Body, which is the Church, is the one Mediator and the unique way of salvation. In explicit terms He Himself affirmed the necessity of faith and baptism(124) and thereby affirmed also the necessity of the Church, for through baptism as through a door men enter the Church. Whosoever, therefore, knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ, would refuse to enter or to remain in it, could not be saved."

However, most people stop there and fail to read on to art 15; I would suggest you do that. Any Catholic who says as a blanket statement, "there is no salvation outside of the Catholic Church" or "there is no salvation without (Catholic) baptism" is not following Catholic teaching as laid out here, and that fact needs to be pointed out gently but firmly to them. So, I think Mike McK has no need of concern here as the posters who were telling him that were out of line

Yours in Christ

Matt

Mike McK · Mar 7, 2005

I went to the Catholic forums on this other board and asked flat out: can I be saved outside of the Catholic church? So far, it's not looking good.

Go here:

http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=14134645&posted=1#post14134645

(I post there as "12volt_man")

Mike McK · Mar 7, 2005

...no doubt the things in the thread will be old hat to most of you, but I thought it was only fair to give them an opportunity to explain themselves.

Matt Black · Mar 7, 2005

What's your problem with what's being written there, Mike? The Catholic view, reading LG, is that if you KNOW the Catholic Church is necessary for salvation and refuse to enter it, then you cannot be saved. Two explanations have been put forward pretty consistently by the Catholics I know and seem to be being put forward by the guys on your thread:-

1. If you are a Protestant Christian, you therefore believe the Catholic Church is in error and therefore you do not KNOW that the CC is necessary for salvation. Therefore you can be saved outwith the CC

2. The definition of Catholic Church is wide enough to embrace all Christians as the Body of Christ; if you are outside the CC as thus defined you are therefore not a Christian and ergo you are not saved.

I think you and I are OK on both counts...

Yours in Christ

Matt

Mike McK · Mar 7, 2005

I was going to cut and paste some of the responses when I got home from work but, unfortunately, I had no way of knowing that the thread would be closed.

I was told flat out by more than one person, no, you cannot be saved outside of the Catholic church.

I was told by another that if you are baptised, you are "imperfectly tied" to the Catholic church, thus, saved in spite of yourself.

The problem is how can you say that a baptism that is performed by a church you consider apostate, in this case, the SBC, is valid?

If I had gone into that thread not knowing any better, I would have come away thinking that my only choice was to join the Catholic church (or, as one Catholic poster put it, "become united to the Pope") or burn in Hell.

Mike McK · Mar 7, 2005

Originally posted by Mike McK:
I was going to cut and paste some of the responses when I got home from work but, unfortunately, I had no way of knowing that the thread would be closed.

I was told flat out by more than one person, no, you cannot be saved outside of the Catholic church.

I was told by another that if you are baptised, you are "imperfectly tied" to the Catholic church, thus, saved in spite of yourself.

The problem is how can you say that a baptism that is performed by a church you consider apostate, in this case, the SBC, is valid?

If I had gone into that thread not knowing any better, I would have come away thinking that my only choice was to join the Catholic church (or, as one Catholic poster put it, "become united to the Pope") or burn in Hell.
Click to expand...

...OK. Found it. It's not gone, it's just in limbo - no pun intended.

No, because the Church is the Body of Christ. The Holy Spirit protects and guides the Church...you are looking at the Catholic Church and Christ as two separate things when they are not...It is true that outside the [Catholic] Church there is no salvation...They will not be saved if they are not ignorant of the necessity to be united with the Pope. - DefenseorFedei

This one is just downright disturbing. The Catholic church is Christ?

So, faith in Christ is not enough to save. - atomagenesis

If you reject the Church, you reject Christ. - Letalis

So basically, as a baptist, I'm screwed.

Matt Black · Mar 8, 2005

Mike, all I can say is that the above do not reflect Catholic doctrine, and I would urge you to read Lumen Gentium, which does reflect Catholic teaching - there's a link in my last post - and you will see that their views do not accord with that. Here's a link to another Catholic site where I asked the same question; the responses there, apart from Aluigi's, who then gets reprimanded slightly, are pretty eirenic on the issue. I could have given you a link to another website which is far more ecumenical, but the page has been lost; essentially, though, I asked exactly the same question and was told by two prominent Catholics, one a Thomist theologian and the other a canon lawyer (so he if anyone was likely to be strict with me!) that I definitely was saved (in so far as one Christian can know another one is).

Yours in Christ

Matt

[ March 08, 2005, 04:35 AM: Message edited by: Matt Black ]

Ps104_33 · Mar 8, 2005

Matt,
In your profile you are listed as a Baptist. I have only one question. WHY??? Wouldnt you feel more ar peace with yourself and God as a Roman Catholic?

BobRyan · Mar 8, 2005

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Now, I'm talking to more and more Catholics on this other board who are telling me that there's no salvation available outside of the Catholic church, that baptism is required, that tradition is more important than scripture, etc, and I just wonder why I never took these things seriously."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

First of all they are very good grounds to tell you that this is the official teaching of the RCC.

Abridged version, by Dave Armstrong, of "The Church Necessary for Salvation," chapter 10, pp.169-186 of The Spirit of Catholicism, by Karl Adam (Garden City, NY: Doubleday Image, 1924, translated by Dom Justin McCann).

This book (in the editor's opinion, anyway) is one of the very best expositions of Catholicism ever written: very eloquent, biblical, imaginative, appealing, and orthodox.

In it is found the following excellent treatment of the complex and multi-faceted question of how non-Catholic Christians are regarded by the Catholic Church historically.

[p.169]

"And if he will not hear the Church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican" (Matthew 18:17).

The Catholic Church as the Body of Christ, as the realization in the world of the Kingdom of God, is the Church of Humanity...the exclusive institution wherein all men shall attain salvation.....

The Church would belie her own deepest essence and her most outstanding quality, namely her inexhaustible fullness and that which guarantees and supports this fullness, her vocation to be the Body of Christ, if she were ever to recognize some collateral and antagonistic Christian church as her sister and as possessing equal rights with herself. She can recognize the historical importance of such churches, She can even designate them as Christian communions, yes, even as Christian churches, but never as the Church of Christ. One [p.170] God, one Christ, one Baptism, one Church. There can never be a second Christ, and in the same way there cannot be a second Body of Christ...

The Catholic Church can and will appraise generously, and will countenance, all the communities of non-Catholic Christendom...But she cannot recognize other Christian communions as churches of like order and rights with herself. To do so would be infidelity to her own nature, and would be the worst disloyalty to herself. In her own eyes the Catholic Church is nothing at all if she be not the Church, the Body of Christ, the Kingdom of God. This exclusiveness is rooted in the exclusiveness of Christ, in His claim to be the bringer of the new life, to be the way, the truth and the life........

There is "no other name under heaven given to men, whereby they must be saved" (Acts 4:12). But we can grasp Christ only through His Church. It is true that He might, had He so willed, have imparted Himself and His grace to all men directly, in personal experience. But the question is not what might have been, but what Christ in fact willed to do. And in fact He willed to give Himself to men through men, that is by the way of a community life and not by the way of isolation and
Individualism [p.171]....

It was not His will to sanctify a countless multitude of solitary souls, but a corporate kingdom of saints, a Kingdom of God....

From the very beginning, as St. Matthew testifies (Matthew 18:17) the necessity for salvation of belonging to the one fellowship was established on the basis of an express saying of our Lord's:… St. Cyprian [d.258] afterwards expressed this conviction of primitive Christianity..: "To have the one God for your father, you must have the Church for your mother" (Ep. 74,7). "No man can be saved except in the Church" (Ep. 4,4). "Outside the Church there is no salvation" (Ep. 73,21).

Thus was formulated that sentence which puts the Church's claim to be the only source of salvation in the most concise form: "Outside the Church no salvation" [p.172] (Extra ecclesiam nulla salus). the Fourth Lateran Council (A.D. 1215) adopted this formula verbatim...

[p.174] ......But, we may ask, does that mean that all heretics and non-Catholics are destined to hell?...

To begin with, it is certain that the declaration that there is no salvation outside the Church is not aimed at individual non-Catholics, at any persons as persons, but at non-Catholic churches and communions, in so far as they are non-Catholic communions. Its purpose is to formulate positively the truth that there is but one Body of Christ and therefore but one Church which possesses and imparts the grace of Christ in its fullness...So that the spiritual unfruitfulness which is predicated in the doctrine is not to be affirmed of the individual non-Catholic, but primarily of non-Catholic communions as such.........

[p.176]...The Jansenists in the seventeenth century...advocated the...principle that "outside the Church there is no grace" (extra ecclesiam nulla conceditur gratia).

[p.179]......The Church rightly maintains and continually reiterates, in decisive and uncompromising fashion, her claim to be the sole true Body of Christ;

[p.180] From the purely theological standpoint,..the only possible conclusion regarding all heretics and schismatics, Jews and pagans, is that judgment of condemnation which the Council of Florence [1438-1445] pronounced upon them.…

[p.181]...It is thus, from this purely theological standpoint, that we are to understand the sharp anathemas pronounced by the Church against all heretics and schismatics...In these pronouncements the Church is not deciding the good or bad faith of the individual heretic. Still less is she sitting in judgment on his ultimate fate. The immediate purport of her condemnation is that these heretics represent and proclaim ideas antagonistic to the Church. When ideas are in conflict, when truth is fighting against error, and revelation against human ingenuity, then there can be no compromise and no indulgence....Dogmatic intolerance is therefore a moral duty, a duty to the infinite truth and to truthfulness.

But so soon as it is a question, not of the conflict between idea and idea, but of living men, of our judgment on this or that non-Catholic, then the theologian becomes a psychologist, the dogmatist a pastor of souls. He draws attention to the fact that the living man is very rarely the embodiment of an idea, that the conceptual world and mentality of the individual are so multifarious and complicated, that he cannot be reduced to a single formula. In other words the heretic, the Jew and the pagan seldom exist [p.182] in a pure state........Therefore the Church expressly distinguishes between "formal" and "material" heretics. A "formal" heretic rejects the Church and its teaching absolutely and with full deliberation; a "material" heretic rejects the Church from lack of knowledge, being influenced by false prejudice or by an anti-Catholic upbringing. St. Augustine [354-430] forbids us to blame a man for being a heretic because he was born of heretical parents, provided that he does not with obstinate self-assurance shut out all better knowledge, but seeks the truth simply and loyally (Ep. 43,1,1). Whenever the Church has such honest enquirers before her, she remembers that our Lord condemned Pharisaism but not the individual Pharisee, that He held deep and loving intercourse with Nicodemus, and allowed Himself to be invited by Simon......

It is true that heretics were tried and burnt in the Middle Ages.

Click to expand...

I say take it seriously. (which apparently you are doing - in that you see it to be genuine error.)

In Christ,

Bob

BobRyan · Mar 8, 2005

Mike Said --
As for baptism, the thread is now off the board and under review. If it's put back up, I'll link to it so you can see exactly what was said.
Click to expand...

Well lets go to some modern day RC sources - well known, well accepted and well published.

Thomas Bokenkotter's "A Concise History of the Catholic Church" pg 49

"at first the Christian presbyter or elder avoided any resemblance to the pagan or Jewish priests and in fact even deliberately refused to be called a priest.
He saw his primary function (instead) to be the ministry of the word...but the image of the Christian presbyter gradually took on a sacral character.

This sacralization of the clergy was brought about by various developments...the Old Testament priesthood was seen as a model for the NT priesthood (gradually). The more elaborate liturgy of the post-Constantine era, with it's features borrowed from paganism, enhanced the image of the minister as a sacred personage. The ministry of the word diminished in importance when infant baptism became the rule, for infants could not be preached to...

Before Constantine the whole church was considered the realm of the sacred as opposed to the profane world outside; after Constantine and the breakdown of the separation between church and the world, the polarity between sacred and profane was transformed into one between sacred clergy and profane laity"
Click to expand...

So here a pro-Catholic Catholic Historian gives us a frank view of the "origin of Baptism" from the RCC's POV.

In Christ,

Bob

BobRyan · Mar 8, 2005

Notice the evolution of doctrine and the evolving state where eventually "infant baptism" as a magic rites/sacrament supplants the role of "Bible teacher" for the priest. They have "powers" to perform sacraments - instead of just limiting themselves to being "Bible teachers".

With that evolutionary change "borrowed from paganism" came a lot of other "consequences".

In Christ,

Bob

BobRyan · Mar 8, 2005

From Catholic Digest (Parenthesis mine in the quotes below) from the June 1999 article.
Please see www.catholicdigest.org for the full article that hints to the changes that have evolved over time.

"Tacking on a little here and dropping a bit there has never altered the essence of the sacrament itself, but by the middle ages, the rite had evolved into something very different from that used by the early Christians".

Pg 44 "go into the world and proclaim the gospel...whoever believes and is baptized will be saved. The new testament does not tell us how the apostles baptized, but, church historians say, most likely a candidate stood in a river or public bath and water was poured over his or her head. The person was asked : do you believe in the father? Do you believe in the son? Do you believe in the spirit? With each "yes" the candidate was immersed.

Justin Martyr (100-165) offered a bare-bones description:"

"the candidate prays and fasts "-
"the church community prays and fasts with him"
"the candidate enters the water"
"the minister asks him the three Trinitarian questions"
"the candidate now is introduced into the assembly"

pg 45"half a century later the writer Tertullian gave a few more details. He talked about an anointing, a signing of the cross and an outstretched hand over the candidate. For those first centuries after Christ, the steps required to become baptized were not taken lightly. Often, they led to martyrdom"

"a candidate needed a sponsor, a member of the Christian community who could vouch for him or her. It was the sponsor who went to the bishop and testified that this was a good person. Then for years the sponsor worked, prayed, and fasted with the protégé until the baptism"

<>

"at that time, the catechumenate (coming from the greek word for instruction) had two parts. The first, a period of spiritual preparation, lasted about three years. The second began at the start of lent and included the routine of prayers, fasting, scrutinies and exorcisms. (daily exorcisms didn't mean the candidate was possessed by the devil. Rather, he or she was in the grip of sin. The exorcisms were designed to help the individual break free)."

"Next the candidate was brought before the bishop and the presbyters (elders), while the sponsor was questioned. If the sponsor could state the candidate had no serious vices - then the bishop wrote the candidates name in the baptismal registry. More than a mere formality, this meant the candidate could be arrested or even killed if the "book of life" fell into the wrong hands"

"it was only gradually that the candidate was permitted to hear the creed or the our father. (and he or she was expected to memorize them and recite them for the bishop and the congreation)."

<>

"after the new Christians emerged from the water and were dried off, they were clothed in linen robes, which they would wear until the following sunday. Each new member of the community would then be handed a lighted candle and given the kiss of peace"

<>
"often it was seen as the final trump card, to be played on one's deathbed, thus assuring a heavenly reward"

"it's important to keep in mind that the doctrine of baptism developed (evolved) over time. It was not easy, for instance, determining what to do with those who seriously sinned after baptism" pg 47

"coupled with that was the role of infant baptism. (rcc) scholars assume that when the 'whole households' were baptized, it included children, even very young ones"

"but again it was the development of the doctrine, such as st. Augustine's description of original sin in the fifth century that eventually made infant baptism predominant. At that point
(read change),
baptism was no longer seen as the beginning of moral life, but (it became viewed) a guarantee of accpetance into heaven after death.

"in the early (dark ages) middle ages when entire tribes in northern Europe were being converted, the whole clan was
baptized if the chief chose to be...by the end of the eighth century, what before had taken weeks (of preparation and process by
non infants) had been greatly abridged. Children received three exorcisms on the sundays before easter, and on holy
saturday;..youngsters were immersed three times."

"the rite was further abridged when the tradition of child or infant receiving communion at baptism fell into disfavor.

"and because baptism was now viewed as essential for acceptance into heaven, the church offered a shorter "emergency"
rite for infants in danger of death. By the beginning of the 11th century, some bishops and councils pointed out that infants
were always in danger of sudden death and began to encourage parents not to wait until holy Saturday ceremony"

<>
Click to expand...

BobRyan · Mar 8, 2005

"but again it was the development (evolution) of the doctrine, such as st. Augustine's description of original sin in the fifth century that eventually made infant baptism predominant.

At that point (of evolutionary doctrinal change), baptism was no longer seen as the beginning of moral life, but (it became viewed as) a guarantee of accpetance into heaven after death.
Click to expand...

Don't miss that.

Don't be mislead by modern well-wishers trying to "put a nice face on that".

The historic facts are there AND are published by RC sources THEMSELVES in the late 20th century.

In Christ,

Bob

Matt Black · Mar 9, 2005

Originally posted by Ps104_33:
Matt,
In your profile you are listed as a Baptist. I have only one question. WHY??? Wouldnt you feel more ar peace with yourself and God as a Roman Catholic?
Click to expand...

That's very much a work in progress for me at the moment. I currently attend a Baptist Church and feel at home there, by and large; but I have been put off a lot of Baptist doctrine eg: sola Scriptura by some of the contents of this board and the behaviour of some posters towards each other

Yours in Christ

Matt

BobRyan · Mar 9, 2005

Matt -

When it comes to tradition are you arguing that "some tradition might be ok" or are you arguing against the idea (in practical application) of really testing it against the Word of God to see if it is in violation of scripture (the way every RC on this board has "actually done" when it came down to a discussion. And the way scripture is bashed anytime you put this subject on an RC message board).

If your problem is the second one then do you struggle with this...

6 And He said to them, ""Rightly did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written: " THIS PEOPLE HONORS ME WITH THEIR LIPS, BUT THEIR HEART IS FAR AWAY FROM ME.
7 " BUT IN VAIN DO THEY WORSHIP ME, TEACHING AS DOCTRINES THE PRECEPTS OF MEN.'
8 ""Neglecting the commandment of God, you hold to the tradition of men.''
9 He was also saying to them, ""You are experts at setting aside the commandment of God in order to keep your tradition.
10 ""For Moses said, " HONOR YOUR FATHER AND YOUR MOTHER'; and, " HE WHO SPEAKS EVIL OF FATHER OR MOTHER, IS TO BE PUT TO DEATH';
11 but you say, "If a man says to his father or his mother, whatever I have that would help you is Corban (that is to say, given to God),'
12 you no longer permit him to do anything for his father or his mother;
13 thus invalidating the word of God by your tradition which you have handed down; and you do many things such as that.''
Click to expand...

The ONE TRUE CHURCH of Christ's day (started by God at Sinai with a papal high-priest successor chosen explicitly by a system God gave - not one that was "made up" in recent millenia) - got twisted around with ITS tradition conflicted with scripture - and denying it the whole time.

The RCC argument for tradition and against the Word of God (so they can have things like praying to the dead, purgatory, Mary all-powerful like Christ - sinless like Christ - redeemer with Christ - altars to Mary...) is two part.

1. The first part denies the priesthood of all believers and says that you are too stupid to hear from the Holy Spirit - so the 1John 2, Johh 16 promise of the TEACHING Holy Spirit is "not for you". (Which would include the Heb 8 New Covenant "teaching" Holy Spirit denied to all non-Catholics since the New Covenant is "restricted" to the Catholic Mass).

2. The second part argues that "tradition alone" is sufficient to establish doctrine - (Purgatory, praying to the dead, infallible Pope, Sinless Mary, etc) and because of part-1 you can not "challenge" or test that tradition since you are incapable of rightly applying the Word of God without the church (the origin of the tradition) telling you that its own tradition is wrong.

"Seeing" their error in this case - just does not get any easier.

If this part is confusing - what about the really hard questions?

In Christ,

Bob

Matt Black · Mar 9, 2005

Bob, you asked for my view on Tradition.

Given that, as has been amply demonstrated by several ludicrous threads on this Board,particularly in the Theology Forum and most notably and recently the absurd 4x20-pagers on Millenialism, "sola Scriptura+individual interpretation=theological nonsense and anarchy", I conclude that some form of absolute teaching authority is absolutely necessary to properly interpret Scripture. That is what I see the role of Tradition (now whether that be a wide catholic Tradition or a narrow Roman Catholic Tradition is another matter)to be: to authoritatively and definitively interpret Scripture. Therefore, your question about Tradition conflicting with Scripture is for me oxymoronic; since Tradition explains and expands upon Scripture, by definition it does not conflict. It of course can and does frequently conflict with individuals' interpretation of Scripture through sola Scripture, but that is of course to be expected...

Yours in Christ

Matt

I Was Wrong

Mike McK New Member

Mike McK New Member

Mike McK New Member

Logan New Member

Matt Black Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

Mike McK New Member

Mike McK New Member

Matt Black Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

Mike McK New Member

Mike McK New Member

Matt Black Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

Ps104_33 New Member

BobRyan Well-Known Member

BobRyan Well-Known Member

BobRyan Well-Known Member

BobRyan Well-Known Member

BobRyan Well-Known Member

Matt Black Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

BobRyan Well-Known Member

Matt Black Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

Useful Searches

I Was Wrong

Mike McK New Member

Mike McK New Member

Mike McK New Member

Logan New Member

Matt Black Well-Known Member Site Supporter

Mike McK New Member

Mike McK New Member

Matt Black Well-Known Member Site Supporter

Mike McK New Member

Mike McK New Member

Matt Black Well-Known Member Site Supporter

Ps104_33 New Member

BobRyan Well-Known Member

BobRyan Well-Known Member

BobRyan Well-Known Member

BobRyan Well-Known Member

BobRyan Well-Known Member

Matt Black Well-Known Member Site Supporter

BobRyan Well-Known Member

Matt Black Well-Known Member Site Supporter

Matt Black Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

Matt Black Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

Matt Black Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

Matt Black Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

Matt Black Well-Known Member
Site Supporter