Results 101 - 120 of 2452
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: Reformer Joe Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
101 | Christian Primer Terms? | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 18314 | ||
Kalos: You wrote: "To repent ACTUALLY means *to change the way you think and act.* (It does NOT mean merely to feel badly about one's sins. Nor does it mean confession by itself. As a condition for salvation, repentance 'is a false addition to faith when understood as a *prerequisite,* requiring the cleansing of the life [first] in order to be saved' (Dr. Charles C. Ryrie, Ryrie Study Bible, Moody Press, 1978)." I found it interesting that you apporvingly quoted Ryrie's stance on what repentance is when you seem to stand with MacArthur and so many others who disagree with this view. The word "metanoia" (repentance) literally means "a change in thinking." I disagree that repentance itself is the change in actions; it is a change in attitude toward sin that will inevitably RESULT in a change of actions. I hold that repentance is a gift of God that accompanies saving faith. Ryrie and Zane Hodges and others actually hold to a very weak view of repentance which doesn't necessarily mean any change of life at all. Most historically have held that repentance is a component of all true conversion. In Eastern Europe and Russia and other places in the world, they will actually use the term "repent" to describe their conversion. Rather than saying, "I was saved at age 30," Christians in this part of the world will say "I repented at age 30." Ryrie and Hodges hold that people who are saved can go through their entire lives and not show the marks of true salvation. For Ryrie, the biblical idea of repentence is not only not a prerequisite; it isn't truly necessary at all! And, of course, that denies several Scriptures which emphatically state that repentance is a part of saving faith and that the Christian will exhibit a markedly different life than the unregenerate: Jeremiah 8:6 Ezekiel 18:30 Matthew 3:2-11; 11:21; 12:41 Mark 1:15 Luke 13:1-5; 15:1-10; 24:47 Acts 2:38; 3:19; 5:31 (who GRANTS repentance?); 11:18; 26:20 Romans 2:4-5 2 Corinthians 7:9-10; 12:21 2 Timothy 2:25 2 Peter 3:9 I have even heard people in the so-called "free-grace" vein go so far as to say that murderers can go on murdering, homosexuals can go on practicing homosexuality, thieves can go on stealing (and I would assume that cannibals could even go on eating), all without repentance and still be heaven bound because they have professed Jesus as their SAVIOR. What do Jesus and the apostles say? "So every good tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot produce bad fruit, nor can a bad tree produce good fruit." Matthew 7:17-18 "Either make the tree good and its fruit good, or make the tree bad and its fruit bad; for the tree is known by its fruit." Matthew 12:33 "Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God." --1 Corinthians 6:9-10 "Now the deeds of the flesh are evident, which are: immorality, impurity, sensuality, idolatry, sorcery, enmities, strife, jealousy, outbursts of anger, disputes, dissensions, factions, envying, drunkenness, carousing, and things like these, of which I forewarn you, just as I have forewarned you, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God." --Galatians 5:19-21 "Do not love the world nor the things in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him. For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh and the lust of the eyes and the boastful pride of life, is not from the Father, but is from the world. The world is passing away, and also its lusts; but the one who does the will of God lives forever." 1 John 2:15-17 "Little children, make sure no one deceives you; the one who practices righteousness is righteous, just as He is righteous; the one who practices sin is of the devil; for the devil has sinned from the beginning. The Son of God appeared for this purpose, to destroy the works of the devil. No one who is born of God practices sin, because His seed abides in him; and he cannot sin, because he is born of God. By this the children of God and the children of the devil are obvious: anyone who does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor the one who does not love his brother." --1 John 3:7-10 Sorry to belabor the point, but here inthe United States in particular is this evil notion that repentance and saving faith are mutually exclusive concepts. Repentance is not a work any more than intellectual belief in the facts of the Gospel is; hoever, repentance is inextricably linked to true, saving faith and will produce good fruit and the decrease of sin in the believer. --Joe! |
||||||
102 | Christian Primer Terms? | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 18328 | ||
Kalos: Thanks for your reply. While I do not have a direct quote from Ryrie handy, this view is expressed clearly in his book "So Great Salvation" which I do not own but have read in its entirety. Basically, Ryrie's view seemed to be not that there would be NO fruit, but it would be possible for the believer in Christ to bear fruit that would never be detected by him or others. The way he put it in the book was merely that "some how, some way, in some fashion, some fruit would be produced." I am sorry I cannot give you a more precise quote at this time, but I will look into it and get back to you. It isn't a view that he is apologetic or cryptic about, in any case. The problem I have with the view is that it seems that we will know true believers by their fruit. The fruit is there to demonstrate the fitness of the tree to all who are in its presence. I agree that we are justified by faith alone. Where Ryrie differs from me and many others is exactly WHAT the nature of saving faith is. I hold that repentence is not a work, but the "other side of the coin" --turning from embracing ourselves and the world and turning to embrace Christ. I also see no indication that repentance in a Biblical sense is merely "changing one's mind about who Christ is." How does Ryrie support that with Scripture? Repentence always seems to be FROM sins and selfishness, never a solely intellectual exercise. One other thing: I would be interested to understand how you reconcile all of those verses I cited with Ryrie's view? Thanks again. Going to a wedding now. More later! --Joe! |
||||||
103 | Christian Primer Terms? | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 18363 | ||
Kalos: I found the quote I was talking about in an online review of MacArthur's "Gospel According to Jesus" and Ryrie's "So Great Salvation," which itself was intended to be a rebuttal of MacArthur's work. The quote itself is found on page 45 of Ryrie's book. I would encourage you to read this review, as the problems I had with Ryrie's work are reflected quite well. After reading Ryrie's book, I was left wondering if he and I had ben reading the same book he was talking about. He takes MacArthur's statements out of context and tries to equate "Lordship Salvation" with legalistic works-righteousness, which it is not. In any case, here is the link to the review, which I hope many on this forum will take a glance at the following link, replacing the [TILDE] in the address with a tilde (the Spanish quiggly thing above the 'n" -- the forum won't let us include it in posts) http://www.rapidnet.com/[TILDE]jbeard/bdm/BookReviews/gospel.htm And again, the thing that bothers me the most about RYrie's view that a Christian does not necessarily ever exhibit a changed life are the statements found in 1 John, 1 Peter, Hebrews, James, etc., that place such emphasis on practical righteousness (not SINLESSNESS) as a mark of salvation. I grew up in churches that taught Ryrie's theology; it always seemed that pastors either avoid teaching extensively on these books or go to great links to say, "well, it seems that John was saying this, but what he REALLY meant was that." And that is no way to teach the Bible! --Joe! |
||||||
104 | What do you object to? | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 18550 | ||
Ummm...Steve? I think she was talking about the errors of Word-Faith teachers, not hyper-Calvinists... --Joe! |
||||||
105 | Dispensation of Time? | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 18759 | ||
The chart is definitely detailed, but good? What a mess! For a critique of this chart, feel free to visit http://www.pbministries.org/books/pink/Dispensationalism/dispensationalism.htm --Joe! |
||||||
106 | What about those who have never heard? | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 19782 | ||
pgs: You won't find the answer to your question in the Bible, because your question assumes things that aren't true. Let's look at a part of Romans 3, which gives us a crystal-clear perspective on man's condition: "as it is written, 'THERE IS NONE RIGHTEOUS, NOT EVEN ONE; THERE IS NONE WHO UNDERSTANDS, THERE IS NONE WHO SEEKS FOR GOD; ALL HAVE TURNED ASIDE, TOGETHER THEY HAVE BECOME USELESS; THERE IS NONE WHO DOES GOOD, THERE IS NOT EVEN ONE.'" --Romans 3:10-12 We can point out several things from these few verses, mostly OT quotes: 1. NO ONE is good (cf. Romans 3:23). 2. NO ONE who is not a Christian seeks God, no matter how much they seem to be trying to "pursue truth." They may perhaps be seeking salvation on their own terms, but no one is inclined on his/her own to humbly admit their own helplessness and receive the mercy and forgiveness that comes through the Cross of Christ. God isn't playing "hide-and-seek" with humanity: "For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse." --Romans 1:18-20 God has written the truth upon creation, and upon our hearts (Romans 1-2 reveal this very clearly). Those who have not "heard about Jesus" when they die are still rejecting the truth, so they are indeed without excuse and deserving of Hell. Thanks! --Joe! |
||||||
107 | Is there any practical difference? | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 20249 | ||
Tim: Actually, although Lionstrong seems to have pointed it out to you in his own cuddly way, Calvinists also believe that in most cases men will not receive Christ unless someone preaches Him to them. We simply say that God in His sovereignty WILL bring someone bearing the gospel to that individual. We hold that the Spirit of God works through the proclamation of His word (we call it a "means of grace"). I think that the difference in evangelism is in the presentation. For example, I am commanded by God to glorify Him and proclaim His truth to other human beings. Some of them are of the elect and some are not. While I certainly don't have a photocopy of the Book of Life, I also hold that everyone I share the message of Christianity with will continue in their stubborn unbelief unless God changes the disposition of his/her heart. Therefore, I strongly avoid the high-pressure, touchy-feely approaches to evangelism. Since it is the Holy Spirit who regenerates, any sugar-coating or soft-peddling the truth of God's holiness, man's depravity, and our utter helplessness before Him could lead to spurious conversions. That is, I do not want to be responsible for giving someone an emotional, warm feeling of being saved if the true possession of faith is not there. Of course, I can never be 100 percent sure, since it is not I who judges the heart, but woe is me if I give someone a false sense of assurance of salvation based on a misunderstanding of what true saving faith is. While I do not think that most Arminians present a false view of justification by faith alone, I do see a tendency to place a high value on packaging the presentation just right, to rely on technique a little too much. People can definitely be boorish when it comes to presenting the gospel, but the GOD LOVES YOU AND PLANS FOR YOU TO BE IN HEAVEN WITH HIM...(psst: sin)...JESUS DIED AND ROSE AGAIN BECAUSE HE LOVES YOU! approach just doesn't seem to be the most biblical way of going about it. I guess that in the Calvinist view, with such a extremely God-centered perspective of the ultimate end of salvation, our presentation of the Gospel is much less on "what God can do for you" than "Here is what God has done for His glory." It is kind of hard to put into specific terminology, but there certainly is a less human-centered approach to evangelism in the Calvinist vein. --Joe! |
||||||
108 | Is there any practical difference? | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 20250 | ||
Thes are indeed good questions. Let me take a couple in the brief time I have right this second. 1. My personal relationship to God? He is my adopted Father, and also my Lord. This is solely on the basis of His mercy toward me, and in no way based on any clever decision on my part to "accept Him." He changed my wicked disposition, despite the fact that I didn't deserve it in the slightest, and he is the one who preserves my reconciled state with Him. In other words, Christ is the Author and Perfecter of my faith. In addition, there is the core idea that I was chosen by God for a purpose beyond my own going to Heaven. 2. Accepted? I don't see much difference here between C and A here. We are both accepted solely on the basis of Christ's subsitutionary death and resurrection. More later... |
||||||
109 | Is there any practical difference? | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 20267 | ||
Okay...more. 3. Prayer life: less me-focused; more God-focused in praise and thanksgiving; acknowledging my place in the pecking order as part of the creation, to be yielded in submission to Him. You should see the blessing that our public confession has in our worship service (not individuals confessing individual sins, but corporately acknlowledging our unworthiness and continuing need for His grace). Supplication is always subordinated to God's sovereignty. 4. Bible study: this is probably the most significant way in which the two camps differ. Calvinists such as myself see the decretive will of God in all things (Romans 8:28) and all of the Biblical narrative as HIS story, how he will glorify HIMSELF throuygh redeeming the elect. In my pre-Calvinist days, I had to struggle with passages which clearly talk about predestination and election and us being caused to be born again. The Calvinist truly sees all things in the Bible working for the chief end of glorifying God above all. 5. Worship of God: Complete and total reverance and fear of the Lord are the centerpieces of Reformed worship. STRONG emphasis on God's absolute holiness and his grace in not just leaving us to perish in our sins. 6. Evangelism: Much less concern about technique, much more emphasis on content and speaking the truth proclamationally, whether the individual accepts it or not. No temptation to soften the truth or overlook parts the individual would rather not hear for the sake of "winning him." --Joe! |
||||||
110 | Who dose not belive in the TERM Trinity? | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 20727 | ||
Not me... --Joe! |
||||||
111 | Who dose not belive in the TERM Trinity? | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 20728 | ||
Yeah, please do that, Radioman. I am sure that this is the first person you have encountered who makes the erroneous claim that the Trinity began with the Council of Nicaea.. :) --Joe! P.S. -- Anti-Trinitarians deny the truth of what Scripture reveals |
||||||
112 | On Harry Potter? | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 21373 | ||
Of course, Narnia and Lord of the Rings were written by Christians with an overarching Christian worldview/theme. One thing that has disturbed me is not only the books, but "Little Sorcerer's Kits" marketed by the publishing company as well. One does have to discern where to draw the line, and I am pretty confident that Tim's kids, being supervised by a concerned Christian parent, will not fall into the occult. However, I also agree with Ed that the author of this series also has an agenda beyond just telling a good story. What we as Christians must make sure that we can do is counter this, just like any other false worldview, with the true gospel of Christ Jesus. Educate yourselves on the worldview of Harry Potter, grow in your understanding of God's holy Word, and be able to articulate the truth in the face of lies. It is a God-given opportunity to present the truth of Christianity whenever things of a supernatural/spiritual nature are brought up. --Joe! |
||||||
113 | On Harry Potter? | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 21387 | ||
Prayon: A "worldview" is a way of looking at the world, not necessarily the world's way of looking at things. There exists a biblical worldview, the only accurate one there is. Thanks for the info on Harry Potter. As I said, it is the Christian's duty to respond to the contrary claims of the supernatural/spiritual from a Biblically-informed point of view. "We are destroying speculations and every lofty thing raised up against the knowledge of God, and we are taking every thought captive to the obedience of Christ" --2 Corinthians 10:5 --Joe! |
||||||
114 | meaning of Life | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 21643 | ||
To glorify God and enjoy Him forever. --Joe! |
||||||
115 | Is it faith or is it mornal? | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 21862 | ||
Questions are wonderful, because they lead to answers. It also means that you are actually THINKING about your faith. :) Here are some answers: 1. Christians should look forward to the Second Coming, which is the culmination of history when sin and death are finally conquered once and for all, and we begin our eternity in glory. See 1 Corinthians 5 and Philippians 3:20-21 for an understanding of why His Second Coming is our home-going. 2. The answer to this question seems to be the same as the one for #1. 3. Not all Christians believe in a pre-tribulational Rapture in which people get "left behind." 4. No boredom in heaven: 1 Corinthians 2:9, 1 Peter 1:3-5 5. Not the sinful ones, which is part of the blessing itself. Read 1 Corinthians 15 for an indication of what our resurrected selves will be like. Romans 7 also gives a great picture of how we we shall be set free from our earthly bodies of sin and death. Notice Paul's excitement at the prospect. 6. Satan is going to be taken care of once and for all at the end of time (Revelation 20:10) --Joe! |
||||||
116 | Are new worship songs scripturally OK? | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 22212 | ||
Bud: My problem isn't the newness or oldness of the songs, but there are three aspects of "contemporary praise and worship" that I feel are biblically questionable at best: 1. The "man-centeredness" of many of the songs. Whereas most of the traditional hymns written before 1900 are focused on, singing praises of His attributes and adoring Him for who He is, modern songs tend to convey some version of "Do this for me, Jesus" or "Bless me more." Both are self-centered and reveal little theological truth. 2. Many of these songs are not just theologically shallow; they misrepresent God. In days past, the minister of the church exercised alot more discernment over what was sung. One of the most offensive songs I have heard in recent years is "Heavenly Father, I Appreciate You." Appreciate Him?!? The infinitely holy Lord of hosts? I appreciate my neighbor who loans me his lawn mower. I revere and stand in awe and praise the name of our infinitely majestic God. 3. The music is more than just a backdrop to the praises to God; the music in many ways is an incarnation of the message. In other words, is a song of adoration really that adoring if it is put to a heavy-metal, 150-mile-an-hour beat? No, I am not against guitars and drums, but I do hold that an inappropriate style of music that doesn't fit the spirit of the message serves to distract the worshipers from praising God with their whole hearts and minds. This is a huge issue that falls into the discernment category. Are we worshiping God in spirit and in truth? Are we honoring God and giving Him the glory that He deserves? Or are we seeking to entertain ourselves and get emotionally worked up and keep up with the secular entertainment industry? Important questions that congregations should work through. --Joe! |
||||||
117 | DOES GOD HEAR PRAYRS OF UNBELIEVING JEW | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 22232 | ||
"He who believes in Him is not judged; he who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God." --John 3:18 Does God hear their prayers? He hears everything. However, He hears the prayers of an utterly sinful, unforgiven group of people who have no right to stand before Him by any stretch of the imagination. How do you think a holy God is going to take such presumption? --Joe! |
||||||
118 | Are we to follow the old testament? | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 23770 | ||
Martha: We are not to forget about the Old Testament. Take a look at how many times the New Testament quotes the Old. Consider how many times our Lord Jesus Christ Himself referred to the Old Testament. We do not follow the rites and rituals of sacrifice and feasts and ceremonial clanliness, because Christ was the fulfillment of the Law for all who believe. However, the Old Testament is useful for Christians for many reasons: 1. The Old Testament reveals God's character as much as the New Testament does. Redemptive history begins with Genesis 3:15, and to ignore the OT is to ignore a great amount of the history of God's work to bring His elect back to Himself. 2. The moral commandments found in the Old Testament are still what should characterize the lives of those who are in Christ Jesus. It is the Holy Spirit who motivates us to love those commandments and who enables us to follow them. 3. "All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work." --2 Timothy 3:16-17 That includes the Old Testament. Happy thanksgiving! "Every good thing given and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights, with whom there is no variation or shifting shadow." --James 1:17 --Joe! |
||||||
119 | When did the catholic church go wrong? | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 25929 | ||
Ed: You bring up some very interesting points for discussion here. I have refrained from contributing to this thread thus far because I don't believe a simple answer can be given to "when and where Roman Catholicism went wrong." Furthermore, the Lord had preserved His invisible church largely within Roman Catholicism until the Protestant Reformation. By this, I do not mean that the Church of Rome was equivalent to the invisible church, but rather that God had brought people to repentance and faith alone in Christ's sacrifice in spite of the official doctrine that developed over time. And, of course, there exist in Catholic churches today those who fall into the biblically-defined category of what makes a person a Christian. Again, they must ignore lots of official church teaching to do so, but it is a reality that some of the regenerate inhabit the visible Church of Rome. Most of these people of days gone by died in obscurity, it is very clear that both the bad and the good have existed in the visible church since Pentecost. We have the sound teaching of the apostles, but we also have the heresies that cropped up almost immediately, prompting the writing of most of the New Testament epistles as defenses against these heresies. We have Origen, and early church father who taught a brand of universalism (i.e. that everyone will eventually be saved). We have Augustine, who was referred to as an authority countless times by both Rome and Luther (by Rome for his doctrine of the church and by Luther for his clearly rock-solid, biblical understanding of justification). During the Middle Ages and early Renaissance, we have all sorts of "proto-Reformers" such as the Waldenses, the Lollards, John Wickliffe, Jan Hus, and a whole host of others. A search on any of these groups and individuals will give you a very clear picture of how God preserved his truth in the midst of error. Luther saw the main errors of Rome to lie in the areas of authority and justification. The problems that he saw (and that we see) in the Church of Rome basically resulted from a gradual elevation of Chruch tradition and authority to the level of Scriptural authority. Of course, when the two contradicted, it was the Church tradition that won out. That is why we see that Luther's main points were "sola Scriptura" (Scripture alone as our authority rather than Scripture plus the Church's official pronouncements, especially when the two were not in harmony); "sola gratia" (grace alone, rather than grace plus our intrinsic merit); and "sola fide" (faith alone is the means by which we are justified, rather than by faith supplemented by our good works). The purest expression of the Lutheranism of Luther can be found in the Lutheran Church -- Missouri Synod (www.lcms.org). They hold to the old Lutheran confessions, and you can get a clear view of the theological distinctives of that branch of the Reformation. To the three "solas" above the Calvinists added "solus Christus" (Christ alone) and "soli Deo gloria" (to the glory of God alone). These five characteristics of classical Protestantism are known as the Doctrines of Grace. Note that Luther did not oppose either of these two points of doctrine, but rather the Calvinists expanded upon what Luther had brought to light. Coming back to the three answers given by non-church attenders, the last one touches on a misconception that exists regarding denominationalism. Yes, there are countless denominations within Protestantism, and a lot of them have formed over the most ridiculous differences in doctrine. However, I would consider any church where the Doctrines of Grace are a standard to be a Christian congregation. Yes, I differ with folks on issues of baptism, communion, when the milennium is, dispensationalism vs. covenantal theology, Calvinism vs. Arminianism, tribulations and raptures and you-name-it. I know that most of you have been subjected to large diatribes by me on some of these very issues. And while I hold those who disagree with me to be wrong (and you are, by the way!), nothing prevents me from considering those who nevertheless hold to the Doctrines of Grace to be my co-heirs in Christ. Therefore, I would argue that while there are physical divisions based on race, socioeconomic status, age, geography, cultural background, preference of worship style, and even points of doctrine, there really does exist a great deal of unity among those who can be truly called "evangelical." As far as the other two objections, the first is just plain wrong, and the second does carry some merit, since my wife and I have faced that exact same type of situation ourselves. Let that be an admonishment to us to welcome visitors to our church PERSONALLY, taking the time to build the unity that spiritually exists among all believers and make that a tangible reality. NEVER compromise on the central truths of the faith to build a false unity! --Joe! |
||||||
120 | When did the catholic church go wrong? | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 25930 | ||
I wonder how many of those churches with less than 75 members are rural churches. In Texas and Oklahoma (and I would assume Arkansas, too) I have seen good churches in the middle of nowhere with twelve people on the membership rolls. Also, I would like to see more data on these closing churches. Churches do not always close for bad reasons. Sometimes two small congregations will merge. Sometimes the community changes in such a way as to cause the membership to dwindle. Demographics changes can also lead to church membership decline as well. So can persecution (e.g Jerusalem A.D. 70) It is interesting to read the first few chapters of Revelation and know that those churches do not exist anymore. And yet the invisible church triumphant that the saints of God belong to does and has always existed since God first established it, and God will preserve it until the return of His Son. The manifestation of the church in the world is a fluid thing, non-static in its geography and intensity. I am glad your church is so worthy of the praise you give it Hank. I too am blessed to be in a congregation where the supremacy of the Triune God and Scripture can be found in every nook and cranny of that building, its teaching and worship. We certainly have our traditions, but we pay careful heed to the words of Christ to the Pharisees: "And He answered and said to them, "Why do you yourselves transgress the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition?" --Matthew 15:3 (see also Mark 7) --Joe! |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ] Next > Last [123] >> |