"The eunuch asked Philip, “Tell me, please, who* is the prophet talking about, himself or someone else?”
Then Philip began with that very passage of Scripture and told him the good news about Jesus. [ie 'It's someone else'!]
As they travelled along the road, they came to some water and the eunuch said, “Look, here is water. Why shouldn’t I be baptized?”
So here's the thing: how did Philip so present the 'good news about Jesus' that it led to the eunuch asking for baptism?
See if you can come up with a short presentation that would do the same.
* Shouldn't that be in English "about whom is the prophet talking"?
Please give a full name and location when posting. Comments without this information may be deleted. Recommend:
Not so much an imagined presentation by Philip, but a note on the next question:
ReplyDeleteIt seems that the eunuch's question (“Look, here is water. Why shouldn’t I be baptized?”) anticipates a potentially negative reply by Philip. While it could just be a way of emphasising his desire to be baptised, I wonder if this question relates to the fact that, coming from Jerusalem, the (presumably Gentile) eunuch would also have had the further restriction of worship and participation in the Temple because of his altered condition. So he could be genuinely asking whether he could be baptized, as if Philip would keep him on the outside rather than welcome him into the fellowship.
DeleteI want to give a big thanks to a great spell caster commonly known as DR TAKUTA for the great spiritual prayers he did in my life by bringing my ex-lover back to me after many months of breakup and loneliness. With this, I am convinced that you are sent to this word to rescue people from heartbreaks and also to help us get the solution to every relationship problem. for those of you out there who have one relationship problem or the other why not contact DR TAKUTA. that is the best place you can solve all your problems, including a lack of jobs and promotions, binding and marriage spells, divorce and attraction spells, anxiety and depression problems, good luck and lotto spells, fertility, and pregnancy spells, and also the business success and customer increase, winning court cases and many more. contact him at takutaspellalter@gmail.com or contact mobile contact +2348158676990
I presume the eunuch didn't ask for baptism without being prompted. I.e., presumably Philip had said something not unlike what Peter said when he presented the good news about Jesus: "Repent and be baptised, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins" (Acts 2:38). Note the similar response to Philip's preaching in 8:12. Maybe the more remarkable thing is not that he asked for baptism, but that such a thing was even possible in a "desert place" (8:26)?
ReplyDeleteBut then perhaps the question for us is why would we never call for people to respond to a gospel presentation by being baptised?
ReplyDeleteAnthony, quite so. Why was baptism integrated into their 'gospel'. I think the answers lie in (amongst other places) Romans 6.
ReplyDeleteCould Isaiah 52:15 also offer us some clues? "Sprinkle the nations"?
ReplyDeleteKip'
I agree that it is likely that the eunuch was told baptism is the proper response and may indeed have been prompted. He still framed his response with a potentially negative response in view, whereas others baptised in Acts did not do so.
ReplyDeleteIn any case, the point remains that he may have felt himself unworthy of baptism, while today in the CofE it is approached often quite casually. Getting back to John's original question, it would have provided an opportunity for Philip to answer the eunuch with the reassurance we all need from the Gospel -- we bring our need of Him, He grants life and forgiveness.
I re-post my comment on your earlier piece on baptism, and put my question slightly differently. How does infant baptism, or "christening" (as common practice in the C of E) meet the biblical criteria and pattern shown to us in the NT?
ReplyDeleteBaptism is indeed important as JR points out, but christening?
"The Church is the company of the baptized. But the baptized are baptized into Christ."
In the context of the practice of the C of E, baptism includes infant baptism, or christening. I assume therefore that your premise above does not apply to infants. Perhaps you need to clarify what baptism is a little more in the light of this largely inexplicable practice.
Even the great Bishop Ryle found this matter one of the "knots" he could not untie!
Graham,
ReplyDeleteThere are 2 issues there.
1. Baptising infants - good or bad idea
2. "Christening", offering the rite to non-church families, perpetuating their superstition.
Believers getting their kids baptised because they are born into the people of God, and need to mature (yes - some don't stick the course, some adults baptised don't either). Is rather different to baptising people's kids who have no intention of even starting on it. Baptism as a "way in" seems to me bizarre
Darren Moore
Chelmsford
Darren. Taking your second point first. The Christian church is not in the business of perpetuating superstition, least of all the supposed 'merit' in a rite of Christening !
ReplyDeleteThose who believe in this practice need to justify what the rite actually does for a child.
Baptising infants? I think you are confusing believer's baptism with the rite of christening, and the latter has no NT precedent or teaching. I'm sure you know that christian baptism in the NT is always directed towards adults capable of discernment, and predicated on a basis of repentance and faith in Jesus Christ - and that without exception if you go through the many accounts in the Acts of the Apostles.
As famously said of the error of christening - "grace does not run in the bloodstream". Of necessity an infant cannot exercise repentance and faith, and neither can it be exercised by proxy. (parents or 'godparents') Thus Jesus taught that spiritual life begins with a new birth (John 3:3)
Perhaps John could clarify why this medieval rite is continued in the C of E?
Graham
Graham - I suppose baptism of an infant "actually does" exactly what it does for the believing adult: marks them out as a member of the church and a recipient of the grace of God. Of course, sometimes it turns out that the mark was given in error. And sometimes the mark is withheld in error - a child may be marked out as belonging to the dominion of darkness by being denied the sign of baptism, but it may become clear in the course of time that the child was a genuine believer all along.
ReplyDeleteI don't see why an infant cannot exercise repentance and faith. Why not? Does one need to reach a certain level of intellectual maturity in order to receive the new birth?
Graham,
ReplyDeleteThere is more to this than just a few texts, but how children are viewed in the Bible. So, when we read about household baptisms, some are reading them as.. households, others as the consenting adults within.
In the OT, look especially at Genesis 17:9-14, about circumcision, personal faith is in no ways negated, yet Abraham promises on behalf of generations yet to be born. In 1 Cor 10, crossing the red sea is seen as a kind of baptism, were the babies left behind in Egypt? 1 Cor 7 - sanctified children.
Then there is the question of what baptism is. Is it "my response", or is it God's promise? This is why the Reformers kept the practice. They certainly had a good old think about it, for sure. Calvin and Bullinger wrote some good stuff on this.
& it's not just the C of E who kept it. Presbyterians, and many independents and congregationalists too. Indeed, it was the majority reformed position for some time, certainly going right back. The only time I can think of that didn't practice, consistently, infant baptism, was the time around Constantine, when they had odd ideas about regeneration, so you got baptised as late as possible, so the effects ddin't wear off before you died.
So, there is a HUGE difference between "Christening" & covenantal family baptisms.
Grace does not run in the bloodstream... oh yes it does! Unless Malachi 2:15 & other large chunks of the Bible get chopped out! But they in no way negate personal faith. We have to make our own response, but God uses means and ideally, if parents are Christians - they are the means.
When God gave Noah the rainbow as a covenant sign it is to remind God, not Noah, of his promise. So when people in unbelief take part in the sacrament, we're saying - God, don't forget to judge me.
PS to above.
ReplyDeleteI think whatever view we take, we need to be humble enough to say, "some of those baptists... they know what they're talking about" - & vice versa. But, then take ones view.
BUT, to be disparaging about infant baptism, as Calvin points out, is to disparage how God works. Because even if now we should not baptise children, there was a time when the covenant sign was put on children. And Romans 4 makes it pretty clear that grace/faith thing is no different in OT & NT.
Perhaps John could elucidate as to why this medieval practice continues in the C Of E?
ReplyDeleteHow, for example is it possible for evangelicals to get the biblical doctrine of believers baptism so wrong, as to confuse it with the anachronistic superstition of christening which it claims is baptism by another name.
In order to explain the very simple truth of what baptism is, it is first necessary to expose the error of its counterfeit, and justify its practice.
Graham
All of our 7 kids were christened.
ReplyDeleteIt was a fantastic comfort to them when they were young to know that they belonged to a family of believers.
I see it as a welcome by the Church of a new Christian. The baby is welcomed by the family of God and the other children and adults see this.
The reality often is of course that the babies with their mums (mostly) are often pressured to go to a separate room for the next few years. In case the baby disturbs the proper worship of the adults and later the kids are further separated from the worship of adults.
I want my kids in church. I want them to see me on my knees confessing my sins and asking for forgiveness.
I want them to see me praising God.
Always
Christening and adult baptism are both outward symbols of an inner faith. In the case of Christening it can only be a symbol of the faith of the parents and God parents who promise to raise the child in the knowledge of Jesus Christ. My preference is for Infant Dedication where there is no promise of salvation through the act but the emphasis is on prayer for the child and the parents.
ReplyDeletePhilip, as said above, knew the Old Testament and all that led to the coming of the Messiah and the resurrection of Christ. This is the Gospel (Good News) that Philip spoke of.
Mr Integrity. "Christening and adult baptism are both outward symbols of an inner faith". I totally disagree. There is not a hint of "christening" in the whole of the New Testament, and it should not be confused with the Christian act of believer's baptism.
ReplyDeleteThe whole swing of Scrpture declares unambiguously "believe and be baptised".
One cannot be divorced from the other, and for this reason Phillip the evangelist baptised the Ethiopian.
It is worth remembering that the Apostles and the church were only ever commissioned to baptise believers, but nobody else. Of necessity NT teaching about the nature of baptism (indicating a new spiritual birth and union with Christ) cannot be applied to infants.
When "baptism is applied to infants it ceases to be
A badge of discipleship (Charles Hodge)
An outward sign of faith (John Calvin)
A sign of regeneration (C of E Article 27).
A mark of being ingrafted into Christ by faith alone.
Therefore this superstitious practice should be exposed for what it is - merely the tradition of men which makes void the Word of God concerning Christian baptism
Graham - if you don't mind me repeating my question - I don't see why an infant cannot exercise repentance and faith. Why not? Does one need to reach a certain level of intellectual maturity in order to receive the new birth?
ReplyDeleteIs Graham Wood seriously suggesting that children should not be accepted as part of the church until they completely understand what they are doing? Perhaps not, but it certainly sounds that way. Even Baptists have a form of Christening liturgy, though they dare not call it by its name, and certainly not Baptism.
ReplyDeleteHowever, the Ethiopian eunuch did not go through a Baptism preparation course in advance, nor Confirmation classes or Alpha, or anything that suggests that he knew what he was doing. But... he had discovered truth, and he trusted it, and that was worth more than anything else he might have learned later in life.
With respect Anthony, the subject strap is Baptism and the Gospel, not the extent of infant perception. It must therefore be obvious that if an infant cannot even articulate or express thoughts then clearly they are not candidates for Christian baptism.
ReplyDeleteJesus did however invite little children to come to him - but that assumed a level of normal perception and understanding and a real relationship - nothing to do with intellectual maturity.
As a matter of interest my six year old daughter was clearly taught and understood the Gospel and became a real believer at that age - she was baptised shortly afterwards. A very different thing to "christening".
Perhaps you (or John?) could clarify what the rite of christening actually does for a child? Of necessity any answer must be far removed from the biblical truth of believers baptism.
A last question. Where is there a single example in the NT of an infant being baptised please?
Thanks
Graham
Graham - with respect, I was responding to your comment about the extent of infant perception when you said "Of necessity an infant cannot exercise repentance and faith". I take it you are changing your position now, and saying that while infants can in fact exercise repentance and faith, they can't articulate or express that repentance and faith?
ReplyDeleteMy understanding of baptism in the Church of England is that if the candidate is unable to articulate or express their faith with their own mouth (e.g., an infant, or someone who cannot speak), then the godparents or sponsors speak on behalf of that person. Apart from that, there is no difference between the baptism of an infant and the baptism of an adult. Specifically, there is but one rite: baptism. There is no separate rite of "christening".
Of course, with the baptism of an infant, there is some room for doubt, and it could well be the case that the infant, who is professing his/her faith through his/her godparents, is actually making a false profession of faith. But the same could be said of the eunuch. How could Philip be sure that this was a genuine profession? You might argue that the infant's profession of faith, as it isn't made through the infant's own mouth, is not sufficiently convincing. But the same could be said of the eunuch. Personally I would want to see him delay baptism for at least a short time, just to be a bit more certain that his profession is genuine. Wouldn't you? But maybe we're out of step with Scripture on that?
As to what the rite of baptism actually does for a child, I attempted to answer that above (16 Oct, 15:41).
Finally, as far as I can tell, there is no example of an infant either being baptised or being refused baptism in the NT. So there is no direct warrant either for baptising infants, or for refusing to baptise infants.
Anthony. No, I have not changed my position. I simply reiterate the biblical basis of christian baptism, which according to the New Testament is to be administered solely to believers. Is not The Lord's instruction clear enough?
ReplyDeleteSee for example Mark 16:16 "he that believes and is baptised shall be saved"
No, infants cannot express a faith by proxy, via godparents or anyone else, and there is no NT example of this anywhere.
Graham
Reply to richard brown. I certainly do suggest that Richard. I think you are confusing the issue for christian baptism is not about acceptance in the church (however defined) but about the outward symbol of a new relationship with God.
ReplyDeleteThe Ethiopian who believed and was baptised had no "church" background,
Graham
Richard Brown asked: "Is Graham Wood seriously suggesting that children should not be accepted as part of the church until they completely understand what they are doing?"
ReplyDeleteGraham answers in the affirmative - and in doing so he puts himself starkly at odds with none other than Charles Spurgeon who wrote: "The church of God is a house for us and a nest for our little ones."
Graham, you may be interested to know what occasioned Spurgeon to so completely give the game away. The above quotation comes from his "Treasury of David" commentary on Psalm 84:3. I'd ask you please to read the first three verses of that psalm and then carefully consider verse 3, particularly the phrase "where she may lay her young", which is what Spurgeon was looking at when he said that.
One further note on this crucial phrase. John Gill was probably the greatest ever English Baptist theologian. He wrote a Bible commentary which ran to 10 million words. Would you like to know his take on that particular Bible phrase?
" "
Dan
Anon. Thanks for your comments, and yes, I have Spurgeon's Treasury, and am familiar with the Baptist Gill. I would demur from crossing the paths of these worthies, but then tat is not needed for this discussion.
ReplyDeleteThere are many related issues around Christian baptism, but the point I challenge is to do with the medieval tradition of "christening". A different matter entirely.
Nobody asyet has been able to biblically justify this arcane practice, which itself mimics true Christian baptism
Graham
Just to reiterate the basis of Christian baptism, the Apostles were only authorised by Christ to baptise believers - none other. See Acts 16:15 also.
ReplyDeleteGraham
Graham - I'm going to bow out here, as I don't think the discussion is getting anywhere, but I'll leave with a quote from John Stott: "There is no baptism in the Church of England except the baptism of a professing believer, adult or infant." (Source)
ReplyDelete"There are many related issues around Christian baptism, but the point I challenge is to do with the medieval tradition of "christening". A different matter entirely."
ReplyDeleteIs it? How exactly? It seems to me and others on this thread that you're opposing any concept or practice of infant baptism whatsoever. Correct us if we're wrong.
In particular, why do you keep referring to it as medieval when you must know that it can be traced right back to the 2nd century?
Obviously I'm not expecting anyone to take Spurgeon or Gill as infallible. However the fact that the otherwise extremely verbose Gill had absolutely nothing to say on the very telling phrase in that psalm, is at least suggestive isn't it?
Besides, it was you who early in this thread claimed that Ryle couldn't untie the baptismal knot (which is simply your opinion, certainly not what he would have said). Whereas it seems pretty clear that Gill couldn't stand to defend excluding young children from church membership in the face of that psalm (and there are several other scriptures like it). So he basically said, "We cannot tell" (cf. Matt. 21:27, 1 Kings 18:21).
Dan
Anon. My comments interspersed:
ReplyDelete"Is it? How exactly? It seems to me and others on this thread that you're opposing any concept or practice of infant baptism whatsoever. Correct us if we're wrong.
GW. Yes, you are correct for all the reasons I have already given.
In particular, why do you keep referring to it as medieval when you must know that it can be traced right back to the 2nd century?
GW. According to church historians infant baptism was introduced towards the end of the 2nd century. But Tertullian was the first of the early Fathers to mention it at all, and he strenuously opposed the concept.
So yes, that dating does make it medieval, but not back quite far enough, for until that time it was unknown both to the NT and to primitive Christianity.
That close my contribution - so we must agree to differ.
Graham
Which historians? It's not you're mate Viola again is it?
DeleteTertullian (let's face it, not always the most sound) supported believers baptism. But the context of what he was saying was against delaying to the end of life, rather than anti-infant. Origen (also had some odd ideas) was baptised in 180AD, just 80 years after John's death.
No practice or doctrine springs up over night. So, as Francis Shaeffer asked his baptist friends - where was the controversy when Baptism of believers children were introduced?
Again, Calvin's comment on covenant signs (covenant generally), "Same in content, different in administration".
Also, even if you take a Baptist line - fine. But Genesis 17, Abraham makes promises on behalf on his unborn descendants. He puts the covenant sign on them. Now, some baptists might say, that the different in administration means you have to be believing (same as I'd say it includes girls). But you can see God works through communities and families. The covenants all have "heads" whom God works through (Adam, Noah, Abraham, Phineas, David & Jesus) - one does something on behalf of others.
So, Graham, in dissing Church history (& make sure you get a balanced history - Calvin, Puritians - saturated in early church stuff) - name sure you're not just being a 21st C individualist.
My only contribution to this, given that I will not be able to persuade Graham, is the following, which isn't mine. You gotta love Luther:
ReplyDelete"True, one should add faith to baptism. But we are not to base baptism on faith. There is quite a difference between having faith, on the one hand, and depending on one’s faith and making baptism depend on faith, on the other. Whoever allows himself to be baptized on the strength of his faith, is not only uncertain, but also an idolator who denies Christ. For he trusts in and builds on something of his own, namely, on a gift which he has from God, and not on God’s Word alone."
Luther's Works, Vol. 40:252.
Martin Luther, vol. 40, Luther's Works, Vol. 40: Church and Ministry II ( ed. Jaroslav Jan Pelikan et al.;Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1999), 252.
Graham, my comments after the carets.
ReplyDelete"Is it? How exactly? It seems to me and others on this thread that you're opposing any concept or practice of infant baptism whatsoever. Correct us if we're wrong.
GW. Yes, you are correct for all the reasons I have already given.
>> Reasons to which we may return to consider again. But if it's all one and the same, why bother making the distinction then immediately annihilating it?
In particular, why do you keep referring to it as medieval when you must know that it can be traced right back to the 2nd century?
GW. According to church historians infant baptism was introduced towards the end of the 2nd century.
>> Presumably depends on which historian. Objectively we can say that IB is first *noted* at that time; anything more we say about it is going to be an interpretation of sorts.
But Tertullian was the first of the early Fathers to mention it at all, and he strenuously opposed the concept.
>> Having re-read his quote I'm not sure about "strenuously". But the manner in which he refers to it indicates that it was already widely practised, therefore not suddenly introduced in his time. Moreover the grounds on which he advises delay seems to be some sort of baptismal regeneration, which modern Baptists would disallow. And isn't there another place where he actually allows IB?
So yes, that dating does make it medieval
>> Then you have an odd definition of the medieval period, which began at the earliest with the fall of Rome in 476. Tertullian wrote 300 years before this, and also well before the officialisation of Christianity from which a lot of declension arose.
, but not back quite far enough, for until that time it was unknown both to the NT and to primitive Christianity.
>> What evidence do you have for this? It's just an argument from silence. You could just as easily work it the other way. And if we must choose between two arguments from silence, it's preferable to think that the absence of any record of protest against removing the "infant church membership" of the Old Covenant strongly suggests that no such exclusion ever took place.
That close my contribution - so we must agree to differ.
>> I'm more than happy to differ from a position which, after an initial flourish of texts mainly confined to the Book of Acts, has nothing more to offer theologically and is powerless to resist the Biblical logic of classical Anglicanism and other historic Protestant confessions.
PS as you've twice addressed me as Anon, please note that I continue to respect John's request to give my name.
Dan
John,
ReplyDeleteThe question in your post is a brilliant one. From my background and experience, this pericopé has almost always engendered discussions about Biblical theology, and how Isaiah points to Christ and how Philip was a biblical theologian, (even though in my view the text I think is not explicitly clear that he made the link from Isaiah to Jesus, most likely but Luke says he 'began' with that very passage, so he could have ended with another passage of Scripture).
How sad that the post seems to have opened up the door to the old chestnut of the pros and cons of paedo-baptism.
For what it is worth John, perhaps the reason why we rarely think about the connection between the Ethiopian hearing about the Lord Jesus Christ and being baptised in the same encounter is due to the current practice amongst Anglicans of not baptising people the day they are converted. Instead we disciple them, do courses such as ' Just for Starters, or Christianity Explained' then baptise them. Perhaps we switch the order that Jesus gave us in Matt 28 (go, make disciples, baptise them, teach them to observe...; in practice we go, make disciples, them to observe...baptise?)
Thoughts?
Joshua: "Thoughts?" You complain about the "old chestnut of pros and cons of paedobaptism". John's original post strap is "Baptism and the GOSPEL", and that therefore raises profound questions as to what Christian Baptism is, as opposed to its counterfeit. One would expect such a frank and open exchange if our pursuit of the truth about the doctrine of Christian baptism clarifies.
ReplyDeleteFew would actually choose to engage in a negative discussion about infant baptism (the NT does not waste our time on this either), but it would have been more helpful if John's original post reflected a biblical argument about the significance of baptism and the Gospel which the Ethiopian had just embraced.
Without trivialising the subject, infant baptism may be compared to the illustration:
Going to church (and being 'christened')doesn't make you a Christian any more than standing in a garage makes you a car.
Multitudes of people who have been "christened in church" are deluded into thinking that somehow they are right with God through the rite.
That is why the discussion and the implications for the Gospel is so important to open up. The onus of proof lies with those who practice this to justify it from Scripture. I maintain therefore that this is not a distraction at all, but a necessary and overdue debate.
Graham
Graham,
ReplyDeleteI cannot disagree with you at 10;32. Did I not say that my preference was for a form of dedication of infants and by implication, adult baptism to follow as a believer? I can't accept infant baptism as a symbol of redemption but I don't knock it. I wonder whether you have ever considered how many other social institutions of Christian worship and behaviour that we follow today are also not proscribed in the New Testament. Infant baptism it seems to me was introduced through a fear that the child might die unregenerate in a time when infant mortality rates were high. God's grace we know extends beyond that but the church may have considered the text when Jesus said 'Suffer the little children to come unto me'..
So, Graham, knock infant baptism as much as you like considering the misleading text in the prayer book but let us not forget that Infant Baptism in the CofE is a major point of contact with parents and family of the child and a great opportunity for the cleric to reach out to them.. No, I don't believe in building upon a lie, but it is up to the cleric to make the position clear that the child should be brought up in the fear and admonition of the Lord and that the child must make their own declaration of faith.
Mr Integrity. I take your points and yes, there are those Evangelicals who seek to explain the "knot" that the good Bishiop Ryle left tied. These are of course well intentioned but I suggest a very tiny minority within the C of E, when they teach against baptismal regeneration and insist upon personal conversion.
ReplyDeleteHowever, the net result is a grossly unbiblical and misleading practice. Better by far, as Wm. Cunningham (Reformed commentator) suggests, which is that the only way to prevent such fearful mischief is to confine the sacraments - and this includes baptism, to those who profess faith.
Yes I also agree with you about many other features of institutional church life which are not found in the NT - hence the need to be "always reforming".
But I do not buy your argument about the rite being a " great opportunity ... "etc.
On the same pragmatic basis should the Apostle Paul have waived his objection to Peter's compromise on the Gospel with the argument that it was on the surface a relatively trivial matter about breaking table fellowship with his fellow believers who were Gentiles. (Galatians 2:11-16? I think not!
Graham
(Galatians 2:11-15
Graham,
ReplyDeleteRef to my Q above about history.
Also, to say that a medieval practice continued is misleading. That's like saying praying is pagan - pagans do it. Or the medival practice of using bread in communion.
It isn't only Anglicans in the Protestant world who practice infant baptism. And some explain it very well. Pratt, Strawbridge, Booth, Gatiss - recent attempts. Older attempts, Owen, Calvin etc.
Pragmatism - with you on that.
The Best Lol n Troll Network with the Name of Lols Gag... Troll Images, Prank Peoples, Funny Peoples, funny planet, funny facts, funny cartoons, funny movies pics, iphone funny, funny jokes, Prank Images, Fail Pictures, Epic Pictures, Lols and Gags, Lol Pictures, Funny Pictures, Lol is the Laugh out of Laugh where you can Fun Unlimited and Laughing Unlimited.
ReplyDeleteLolsGag.Com
Make Money Online is very easy now, In Internet system we have now best earning system without any work, Just Invest some Money into your Business and Make Perfect Life time Earnings with this Business.
ReplyDeleteJoin Now for Make Perfect Business and Earn Money online from home.
www.hotfxearnings.com
Make Money Online is very easy now, In Internet system we have now best earning system without any work, Just Invest some Money into your Business and Make Perfect Life time Earnings with this Business.
ReplyDeleteJoin Now for Make Perfect Business and Earn Money online from home.
www.hotfxearnings.com
Latest cars and vehicles, Latest Mazda Models, Racing Cars, International Sport Cars, Concept Cars, PS-Pod, Strange Vehicles, Nissan, Royce Corniche, Ford Concept Cars, Strange Vehicles, Mercedes and More Sport Cars and Vehicles with Pictures and Info
ReplyDeleteWorldLatestVehicles.blogspot.com
Really i appreciate the effort you made for share the knowledge.
ReplyDeleteOmg I Finally Got Helped !! I'm so excited right now, I just have to share my testimony on this Forum.. The feeling of being loved takes away so much burden from our shoulders. I had all this but I made a big mistake when I cheated on my wife with another woman and my wife left me for over 4 months after she found out.. I was lonely, sad and devastated. Luckily I was directed to a very powerful spell caster Dr Emu who helped me cast a spell of reconciliation on our Relationship and he brought back my wife and now she loves me far more than ever.. I'm so happy with life now. Thank you so much Dr Emu, kindly Contact Dr Emu Today and get any kind of help you want.. Via Email emutemple@gmail.com or Call/WhatsApp +2347012841542
ReplyDelete