Results 321 - 340 of 581
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: New Creature Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
321 | Hebrews 6:4 | Heb 6:4 | New Creature | 90320 | ||
Dear Tim You asked me to check out this reply and let you know what I think I think it is an excellent reply regarding Heb. 6:4-6, and is interesting to look at the tense used. There is however one short comment in this post, that I either am misunderstanding, or intrpreting wrongly. That statement is: "I don't see anything is the passage that indicates that such a person can never be saved again or can never repent." I don't personally believe that Scripture supports any teaching that a person can be lost, then saved, then lost, and then saved again. I believe Scripture supports the idea that an individual can only be saved once. I believe that the fall those in Heb 6 experience is final and complete. Here is the wording of Heb. 6:4-6 from a different translation For how can those who abandon their faith be brought back to repent again? They were once in God's light; they tasted heaven's gift and received their share of the Holy Spirit; they knew from experience that God's word is good, and they had felt the powers of the coming age. And then they abandoned their faith! It is impossible to bring them back to repent again, because they are again crucifying the Son of God and exposing him to public shame. (Heb. 6:4-6 TEV) I was in agreement with everything else in the post. In His service New creature |
||||||
322 | What are your views of once saved always | Bible general Archive 1 | New Creature | 90315 | ||
JIBBS If I happen to disagree with Spurgeon, it is only because I believe what the Bible says about any topic. If I were to believe Spurgeon or any other man, then, Yes, I would then be said to be wearing theological glasses But as it is, God's word is clear on the topic. At least to me. I don't need Spurgeon or any other mortal man's opinion of Scripture. God's word states For in the case of those who have once been enlightened and have tasted of the heavenly gift and have been made partakers of the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come, and then have fallen away, it is impossible to renew them again to repentance, since they again crucify to themselves the Son of God and put Him to open shame. (Heb. 6:4-6 NASB) God doesn't stutter In His service New Creature |
||||||
323 | What are your views of once saved always | Bible general Archive 1 | New Creature | 90277 | ||
Dear John you stated; "even sins are pre-ordained" If you believe that then, that would mean God is the author of sin, which He isn't John, What I notice in your writings, is persistance, in defending anything or anyone who disagrees with Calvinism. And thats fine if thats what you want to believe. Many of us however fail to see the Bibical support for much of Calvinism. My choice is to remain distant from any theological system such as Calvinism that attempts to say that "all" and "whosoever" doesn't really mean "all" and "whosoever". God doesn't stutter So lets just agree to disagree. In His service New creature |
||||||
324 | What are your views of once saved always | Bible general Archive 1 | New Creature | 90217 | ||
Potter and Clay Part 3 5. To the doctrine of this lecture it is further objected, that if one is a reprobate it is of no use for him to try to be saved. If God knows what he will be in character, and designs his destruction, it is impossible that it should be otherwise than as God knows and designs, and therefore one may as well give up in despair first as last. (1.) To such an objector I would say, you do not know that you are a reprobate, and therefore you need not despair. (2.) If God designs to cast you off, though you cannot know this, it is only because He foresees that you will not repent and believe the gospel; or in other words, for your voluntary wickedness. He foreknows that you will be wicked simply because you will be, and not because His foreknowledge makes you so. Neither His foreknowledge respecting your character, nor His design to cast you off, in consequence of your character, has any agency in making you wicked. You are therefore perfectly free to obey and be saved, and the fact that you will not, is no reason why you should not. (3.) You might just as reasonably make the same objection to every thing that takes place in the universe. Everything that did, or will, or can occur, is as infallibly known to God, as the fact of your wickedness and destruction is. He also has a fixed and eternal design about everything that ever did or will occur. He knows how long you will live, where you will live, and when and where you will die. His purposes respecting these and all other events are fixed, eternal, and unchangeable. Why, then, do you not live without food and say, I cannot make one hair black or white; I cannot die before my time, nor can I prolong my days beyond the appointed time, do what I will; therefore, I will take no care of my health? No this would be unreasonable. Why not also apply this objection to everything, and settle down in despair of ever doing or being anything, but what an irresistible fate makes you? The fact is, that the true doctrine, whether of election or reprobation, affords not the least countenance to such a conclusion. The foreknowledge and designs of God respecting our conduct or our destiny, do not in the least degree interfere with our free agency. We, in every case, act just as freely as if God neither knew nor designed anything about our conduct. Suppose the farmer should make the same objection to sowing his seed, and to doing anything to secure a crop; what would be thought of him? And yet he might with as much reason, since he can plead the foreknowledge and designs of God, as an excuse for doing nothing to secure his salvation. God as really knows now whether you will sow and whether you will have a crop, and has from eternity known this, as perfectly as He ever will. He has either designed that you shall, or that you shall not, have a crop this year, from all eternity; and it will infallibly come to pass just as He has foreseen and designed. Yet you are really just as free to raise a crop, or to neglect to do so, as if He neither knew nor designed anything about it. The man who will stumble either at the doctrine of election or reprobation, as defined and maintained in these lectures, should, to be consistent, stumble at everything that takes place, and never try to accomplish anything whatever; because the designs and the foreknowledge of God extend equally to everything; and unless He has expressly revealed how it will be, we are left in the dark, in respect to any event, and are left to use means to accomplish what we desire, or to prevent what we dread, as if God knew and designed nothing about it. 6. But it is objected, that this is a discouraging doctrine, and liable to be a stumbling-block, and therefore should not be inculcated. I answer: (1.) It is taught in the Bible, and plainly follows also from the attributes of God, as revealed in the reason. The scriptures that teach it are not less likely to be a snare and a stumbling-block, than are the definition and explanation of the doctrine. (2.) The proper statement, explanation, and defense of the doctrines of election and reprobation, are important to a proper understanding of the nature and attributes of God. (3.) The scriptures that teach these doctrines are often subjects of cavil, and sometimes of real difficulty. Religious teachers should, therefore, state these doctrines and explain them, so as to aid the inquirer after truth, and stop the mouths of gainsayers. (4.) Again, these doctrines have often been so misstated and perverted as to make them amount to an iron system of fatalism. Many souls have heard or read these perversions, and greatly need to be enlightened upon the subject. It is therefore all the more important, that these truths should find a place in religious instruction. Let them be understood, properly stated, explained, and defended, and they can no more be a stumbling-block, than the fact of God's omniscience can be so. NC |
||||||
325 | What are your views of once saved always | Bible general Archive 1 | New Creature | 90216 | ||
Potter and Clay Part 2 (2.) It is not said nor implied in the passage under consideration, that the character of the vessels of wrath was created, or that God had any such agency in procuring their character, as He has in forming the character of the vessels of mercy. Of the vessels of wrath it is only said they are "fitted to destruction," that is, that their characters are adapted for hell; while of the vessels of mercy it is said "which He had before prepared unto glory." The vessels of wrath are fitted, or had fitted themselves to destruction, under the light and influence that should have made them holy. The vessels of mercy God had, by the special grace and influence of the Holy Spirit, engaging and directing their voluntary agency, before prepared for glory. (3.) But the lump spoken of in the text contemplates, not the original creation of men, nor the forming or creating in them of a wicked character. But it manifestly contemplates them as already existing as the potter's clay exists; and not only as existing, but also as being sinners. God may reasonably proceed to form out of this lump vessels of wrath or of mercy, as seems wise and good unto Him. He may appoint one portion to honor and another to dishonor, as is seen by Him to be demanded by the highest good. (4.) The passage under consideration cannot, in any event, be pressed into the service of those who would insist, that the destruction of the reprobate is chosen for its own sake, and therefore implies malevolence in God. Hear what it says: "What if God, willing to show His wrath, and make His power known, endured with much long-suffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction; and that He might make known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy, which He had before prepared unto glory?" Here it appears, that He designed to show and make known His attributes. This cannot have been an ultimate, but must have been a proximate, end. The ultimate end must have been the highest glory of Himself, and the highest good of the universe, as a whole. If God willed thus to make known His holiness and His mercy, for the purpose of securing the highest good of the universe, who has a right to say, What doest Thou? or Why doest Thou thus? 3. Another objection is, if God knew that they would be reprobate or lost, why did He create them? If He knew that such would be the result, and yet created them, it follows that He created them to destroy them. I reply: This objection has been already answered, but for the sake of perspicuity I choose here to answer it again. From the admitted fact, that God knew when He created them just what their destiny would be, it does not follow that their destruction was the end for which He created them. He created them, not for their sin and destruction as an ultimate end, but for another and a good end, nevertheless His foreknowledge of their sin and ultimate ruin. 4. It is further objected, that if God designed to make known His attributes, in the salvation of the vessels of mercy, and in the destruction of the vessels of wrath, He must have designed their characters as well as their end, inasmuch as their characters are indispensable conditions of this result. I reply, that it is true, that the characters of both the vessels of wrath and of mercy must have been in some sense purposed or designed by God. But it does not follow that He designed them both in the same sense. The character of the righteous He designed to beget, or induce by His own agency; the character of the wicked He designed to suffer him to form for himself. He doubtless designed to suffer the one rather than to interfere, in such manner and form as would prevent sin, seeing as He did, that, hateful as it was in itself, it could be overruled for good. The other He designed to produce, or rather induce, both on account of the pleasure He has in holiness, and also for the sake of its bearings on the subject of it, and upon the universe. New Creature |
||||||
326 | What are your views of once saved always | Bible general Archive 1 | New Creature | 90214 | ||
John Concerning the potter and the clay. The following commentary from GodRules.NET for the most part, reflects my thoughts on this subject. I will have to post this in more that one reply due to it's length. Systematic Theology 44d Objections 1. To the idea that God rejected the reprobate for their foreseen wickedness, it is replied that "The Lord hath made all things for Himself; yea, even the wicked for the day of evil" (Prov. 16:4), teaches another doctrine; that this passage teaches, that God made the reprobates for the day of evil, or for the purpose of destroying them. To this I reply, that if He did create them to destroy them, or with a design when He created them to destroy them, it does not follow that their destruction was an ultimate end, or a thing in which He delighted for its own sake. It must be true, as has been said, that He designed from eternity to destroy them, in view, and in consequence, of their foreseen wickedness; and of course, He designed their destruction when be created them. In one sense then, it was true, that He created them for the day of evil, that is, in the sense that He knew how they would behave, and designed as a consequence to destroy them when, and before, He created them. But this is not the same as His creating them for the sake of their destruction as an ultimate end. He had another and a higher ultimate end, which end was a benevolent one. He says "I have created all things for Myself, even the wicked for the day of evil" (Prov. 16:4), that is, He had some great and good end to accomplish by them, and by their destruction. He foresaw that He could use them for some good purpose, nevertheless their foreseen wickedness; and even that He could overrule their sin and destruction to manifest His justice, and thus show forth His glory, and thereby strengthen His government. He must have foreseen that the good that might thus, from His overruling providence, result to Himself and to the universe, would more than compensate for the evil of their rebellion and destruction; and therefore, and upon this condition, He created them, knowing that He should destroy and intending to destroy them. That destruction was not the ultimate end of their creation, must follow from such scriptures as the following: "Say unto them, As I live, saith the Lord God, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked; but that the wicked turn from his way and live: turn ye, turn ye, from your evil ways; for why will ye die, O house of Israel?" (Ezek. 33:11). "Have I any pleasure at all that the wicked should die; saith the Lord God; and not that he should return from his ways and live?" (Ezek. 18:23). "The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some men count slackness, but is long-suffering to us ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance" (2 Peter 3:9). "He that loveth not, knoweth not God, for God is love. And we have known and believed the love that God hath to us. God is love; and he that dwelleth in love dwelleth in God, and God in him" (1 John 4:8, 16). "But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honor; that He by the grace of God should taste death for every man" (Heb. 2:9). 2. Another objection to the doctrine of this lecture is founded on: "Nay, but O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus? Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honor, and another unto dishonor? What if God, willing to shew His wrath, and make His power known, endured with much long-suffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction; and that He might make known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy, which He had before prepared unto glory" (Romans 9:20-23). From this passage it has been inferred, that God creates the character and disposes of the destinies of both saints and sinners with as absolute and as irresistible a sovereignty as that exercised by the potter over his clay; that He creates the elect for salvation, and the reprobate for damnation, and forms the character of both so as to fit them for their respective destinies, with an absolutely irresistible and efficient sovereignty; that His ultimate end was in both cases His own glory, and that the value of the end justifies the use of the means, that is, of such means. To this I reply: (1.) That it is absurd and nonsensical, as we have abundantly seen, to talk of creating moral character, either good or bad, by an irresistible efficient sovereignty. This is naturally impossible, as it implies a contradiction. Moral character must be the result of proper, voluntary action, and the moral character of the vessels of wrath or of mercy neither is, nor can be, formed by any irresistible influence whatever. New Creature |
||||||
327 | What are your views of once saved always | Bible general Archive 1 | New Creature | 90207 | ||
Dear Hank It's not that I don't believe and agree with you that Spurgeon definitely was a man who believed in Calvinism's teaching of Eternal Security. He did. I never intended or specifically stated otherwise about Spurgeon. All I merely did was use part of that message from him, where I believe I could agree with Spurgeon. I probably should have specifically stated that to eliminate any confusion. In the instances where I quoted Mr. Spurgeon, I personally believe he was right on track Scripturally. I found no use to quote him further since I believe he later in the very same message, as well as many other messages contradicts his ownself with statements he previously makes. It is my honest opinion that Spurgeon never remained Bibically consistant in his sermons, but appears to me to have made many contradictions in his messages. Thats why I said he appears to me to be a man who spoke with a forked tongue. Spurgeon even seems to me, to disagree with many of his Calvinistic brothers who say we don't have a will. Here is an example "Spurgeon stated: In his sermon #442 God's Will and Man's Will www.spurgeon.org/sermons/0442.htm "there is a class of strong-minded hard-headed men who magnify sovereignty at the expense of responsibility." "the will of man has its proper position in the work of salvation, and is not to be ignored." "When a man receives the grace of Christ, he does not receive it against his will." "We are not saved against our will; nor again, mark you, is the will taken away; for God does not come and convert the intelligent free-agent into a machine." "When he turns the slave into a child, it is not by plucking out of him the will which he possesses." "men are not saved against their wills." So my freind Hank, I believe that I can find things that Spurgeon stated that I believe are Bibical, while at the same time disagreeing with him, when I personally believe he departs from Scripture. In His service New Creature |
||||||
328 | Does Heb 6 support "always saved"? | Bible general Archive 1 | New Creature | 90182 | ||
Dear Tim Great job on such a short notice to deliver a message. Good thing you chose the shortest verse in the Bible? :) May God bless you as you continue to serve Him. In His service New Creature |
||||||
329 | What are your views of once saved always | Bible general Archive 1 | New Creature | 90181 | ||
Mike I have read the entire sermon you mentioned by Spurgeon quite a few times in the past. I personally believe I have been fair in my treatment of his sermon, especially seeing how Spurgeon himself contradicts prior statements, and sort of speaks with a forked tongue. I quote Spurgeon when I believe he maintains a Scriptural opinion. In those instances I feel it is right to quote from him or any other preacher, when their opinions and thoughts reflect a orthodox Bibical stance. In those instances where I sense Spurgeon and other men depart from the proper context and meaning of the inspired text, then I depart from those men and their teachings. Then you stated; "If I thought as the Arminian thinks, that I might fall away, and then return again, I should pretty often fall away, for sinful flesh and blood would think it very nice to fall away" I don't believe that is a comment that accurately reflects the Arminian view. This Arminian believes Heb. 6:4-6 where it says; "it is impossible to renew them again to repentance. Concerning the person that "falls" the text says "it is impossible to renew them again" I cannot agree with the Calvinist view of "once saved, always saved" I personally find that teaching as well as other views that reflect the Reformed position to be inaccurate. So as I see it, Calvinism is not compatable with Scripture. Finally I will end this reply by agreeing with you that Bunyans "Pilgrims Progress" is an excellent book which every Christian should read. In His service New Creature |
||||||
330 | What are your views of once saved always | Bible general Archive 1 | New Creature | 90179 | ||
Dear Hank I have read the entire sermon you mentioned by Spurgeon quite a few times in the past. I personally believe I have been fair in my treatment of his sermon, especially seeing how Spurgeon himself contradicts prior statements, and sort of speaks with a forked tongue. I quote Spurgeon when I believe he maintains a Scriptural opinion. In those instances I feel it is right to quote from him or any other preacher, when their opinions and thoughts reflect a orthodox Bibical stance. In those instances where I sense Spurgeon and other men depart from the proper context and meaning of the inspired text, then I depart from those men and their teachings. In His service New Creature |
||||||
331 | What are your views of once saved always | Bible general Archive 1 | New Creature | 90164 | ||
JIBBS It truly is funny that I of all people would be quoting Spurgeon, especially since he was a Calvinist. However to assume that I misquoted him or took him out of context is not actually true. Due to the limited amount of space allowed to reply with I was not able to enter the whole sermon. I have however read that sermon carefully in it's entirety. And one thing I have learned about Spurgeon from reading much of his material and sermons is that he very often contradicted his own statements. In this case however I quoted Spurgeon when I agreed with him. It is no different if I quote MacArthur, Pink, David Jeremiah, etc. etc. I don't disagree with evrything these men had said. But at the same time I don't agree with everything they have said. I used quotes from these individuals when I believe they agree with the clear teaching of what the Bible clearly states. In His service New Creature |
||||||
332 | Does Heb 6 support "always saved"? | Bible general Archive 1 | New Creature | 90137 | ||
Tim I appreciate your help I have been reading many past articles you have posted in here concerning various topics. I am learning so much, and you always have a knack (or should I say, a teaching gift from God's Spirit) for not complicating the word of God, while at the same time providing depth and insight. I especially enjoy your comments on topics such as the atonement, various info you provided concerning Greek Grammar, and especially how you hold firm to the fact that "all" "world" "everyone" etc. mean exactly that, not something else. Oh by the way, I also downloaded and listened to your message; "Because He Wept" from your church web site. Excellent Thanks again New Creature |
||||||
333 | What are your views of once saved always | Bible general Archive 1 | New Creature | 90136 | ||
Mike the letter to the Hebrews, is written to Jewish Christian’s. They are converts from Judiaism to Christianity, and are warned about returning to Judiaism. In Hebrews, the writer refers to his readers as brethren. Heb. 3:1,12; 10:19; 13:22, because the writer acknowledages them as Christian brothers. Below I have added commentary on Heb. 6:4-6 from the man many have called the Prince of Preachers, Charles Spurgeon "Those mentioned (in Heb. 6:4-6) are true and real Christian's" "a child reading this passage, would say, that the persons intended by it must be Christians. If the Holy Spirit intended to describe Christians, I do not see that he could have used more explicit terms than there are here." "How can a man be said to be enlightened, and to taste of the heavenly gift, and to be made partaker of the Holy Ghost, without being a child of God?" "I think that I shall be able to show that none but true believers are here described." "First, they are spoken of as having been once enlightened, This refers to the enlightening influence of God's Spirit .... I cannot consider a man truly enlightened unless he is a child of God." "the next thing that God grants to us is a taste of the heavenly gift, by which we understand, the heavenly gift of salvation." "we cannot think that the Holy Spirit would describe an unregenerate man as having been enlightened, and as having tasted of the heavenly gift, No, my brethren, If I have tasted of the heavenly gift, I am one of his." "no man can be a partaker of the Holy Ghost, and yet be unregenerate." "further..... they have tasted the good word of God .... I say again, if these people be not believers-who are?" "They had received the powers of the world to come.... powers with which the Holy Ghost endows a Christian." "These, we say, whatever may be the meaning of the text, must have been, beyond a doubt, none other than true and real Christians" ---------------------------------------- Below is a commentary on John 15:6 from Adam Clarke "Our Lord in the plainest manner intimates that a person may as truly be united to Him as the branch is to the tree that produces it, and yet be afterwards cut off and cast into the fire, because he has not brought forth fruit to the glory of His God. No man can cut off a branch from a tree to which that branch was never united; it is absurd, and contrary to the letter and spirit of the metaphor, to talk of being "seemingly" in Christ - because this means nothing. If there was only a seeming union there could be only a seeming excision. So the matter is just where it began; nothing is done on either side, and nothing said to any purpose. He is cast forth. Observe that person who abides not in Christ in a believing, loving, obedient spirit, (1) is cut off from Jesus, having no longer any right or title to Him or to His salvation. (2) He is withered - deprived of all the influences of God's grace and Spirit. (3) He is gathered - becomes (through the judgment of God) again united with backsliders like himself and other workers of iniquity. And being abandoned to his own heart and Satan, he (4) is cast into the fire - separated from God's people, from God himself, and from the glory of His power. And (5) he is burned - is eternally tormented with the devil and his angels, and with all those who have lived and died in their iniquity. In His service New Creature |
||||||
334 | Does Heb 6 support "always saved"? | Bible general Archive 1 | New Creature | 90135 | ||
Emmaus While I personally disagree with your belief in baptismal regeneration, I respect your right to hold to that teaching. I know the Church of Christ teaches that. And I believe the Catholics and Mormons also believe that baptism is what saves. But with all due respect I will have to disagree with those who believe such teachings In His service New Creature |
||||||
335 | Does Heb 6 support "always saved"? | Bible general Archive 1 | New Creature | 90093 | ||
Hank I am in total agreement with all your statements in this last reply In His service New Creature |
||||||
336 | Does Heb 6 support "always saved"? | Bible general Archive 1 | New Creature | 90092 | ||
Tim I find that interesting. So from that can we assume that many from the early church believed in baptismal regeneration? If thats the case I will have to disagree with those who maintain that view In His service New Creature |
||||||
337 | Does Heb 6 support "always saved"? | Bible general Archive 1 | New Creature | 90090 | ||
Emmaus I guess I should have made myself plain at my first response to you. I do not believe in baptismal regeneration. I don't exactly know where you stand on that topic Thats why I said I disagree with those who say we are enlightened through baptism Yes Jesus Christ is the light of the world, He enlightens us, not baptism. Just wanted to clear that up In His service New Creature |
||||||
338 | Does Heb 6 support "always saved"? | Bible general Archive 1 | New Creature | 90077 | ||
Hank I don't doubt the resources Emmaus provided. The problem I have is when someone implys that it is possible to become spiritually enlightened through baptism. It's the same problem I have with others who believe in baptismal regeneration Thanks Hank New Creature |
||||||
339 | Does Heb 6 support "always saved"? | Bible general Archive 1 | New Creature | 90069 | ||
Emmaus Since when is extra-Bibical reference material suppose to be our final standard for truth, especially when it flys in the face of what is plainly taught in God's innerant word? once again concerning the word "enlightened" found in Heb. 6:4 Enlighten: 1 Strong's Number: 5461 Greek: photizo from phos, "light," (a), used intransitively, signifies "to give light, shine," Rev 22:5; (b), used transitively, "to enlighten, illumine," is rendered "enlighten" in Eph 1:18, metaphorically of spiritual "englightenment;" so Jhn 1:9, i.e., "lighting every man" (by reason of His coming); Eph 3:9, "to make (all men) see" (RV marg., "to bring to light"); Hbr 6:4, "were enlightened;" Hbr 10:32, RV, "enlightened," AV, "illuminated." See ILLUMINATED, LIGHT. Cp. photismos, "light," and photeinos, "full of light." Vine's Expository Dictionary Of New Testament Words baptism is not given as a definition for the meaning of "enlightened" In His service New Creature |
||||||
340 | What are your views of once saved always | Bible general Archive 1 | New Creature | 90058 | ||
Dear John As you rightly stated "Scripture never contradicts itself. Therefore, the fault lies with the interpreter and the pre-suppositional lens through which he examines God's inerrant Word." And since Scripture states For in the case of those who have once been enlightened and have tasted of the heavenly gift and have been made partakers of the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come, and then have fallen away, it is impossible to renew them again to repentance, since they again crucify to themselves the Son of God and put Him to open shame. (Heb. 6:4-6 NASB) and John 15:6 If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned. Therefore; "once saved, always saved" as is presented and taught by many in our day, necessarily must be a theological invention of certain men, no matter how loudly they may protest otherwise. In His service New Creature |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 ] Next > Last [30] >> |