Skip to content

Romans 5:15-18

October 16, 2007

15But the free gift is not like the trespass. For if many died through one man’s trespass, much more have the grace of God and the free gift by the grace of that one man Jesus Christ abounded for many. 16And the free gift is not like the result of that one man’s sin. For the judgment following one trespass brought condemnation, but the free gift following many trespasses brought justification. 17For if, because of one man’s trespass, death reigned through that one man, much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man Jesus Christ. (ESV)

When Adam fell in the garden, all humanity fell with him. In fact, we are just like our father Adam – sinners who are deservedly separated from God…. dead in our trespasses. But then the Second Adam – the Greater Adam – came along. He accomplished what the first Adam couldn’t. Through Him we are no longer dead in our trespasses… we are reconciled to God. This is truly glorious news because God is gracious, but even more glorious because our “aliveness” is greater than our “deadness” ever was. Only one sin brought death, but despite innumeral sins, God gives life.

The other night I was listening to Grace to You and John MacArthur was preaching through this text. I believe it was part of a sermon series on election, so he was celebrating how wonderfully gracious God is in His election and how we can live that much more fully in the knowledge that God not only gave us life, but life more abundant. As I listened to the sermon, though, I began thinking how this text doesn’t square with MacArthur’s baptist beliefs.

Death entered the world through one man – Adam – and all who are in Adam are dead. As the Bible teaches, we are born dead in our trespasses. We are alienated from God because of our sin nature and we need to be cleansed if we are to have access to God. The verses above say that while the trespass is bad, the free gift of God – Christ’s righteousness – is that much greater…. unless you’re a child, of course. Or mentally handicapped. Or senile. The point is, baptist doctrine states that the only “proof” of salvation is a mature profession of faith. This is why they only baptize after public professions of faith. This runs counter, though, to what this passage teaches us.

It doesn’t make sense – theoretically or biblically – that all would be sons and daughters of the first Adam, but only some could be sons and daughters of the second Adam. And a baptistic view of this passage certainly doesn’t make the free gift of salvation sound that much greater.  I mean, if infants are included in the first “many” of verse 15, why would they not be included in the second? And since salvation is of God alone, does He only choose to give it to those who can make a mature response? Of course not, because the church is not made up of some people, but of all people!

20 Comments leave one →
  1. October 16, 2007 10:53 pm

    Gee whiz beavis,

    a) You’ve just supported universalism.

    b) You’ve just made missions pretty unnecessary.


  2. October 17, 2007 6:31 pm

    Uhh, heh, heh…. you just said “whiz” heh, heh

    Certainly you don’t get that I support universalism from my post, do you? For the record, I don’t. I use the word “all” and “many” the same way you do… to include people from all nations – regardless of race, intelligence, sex, age, etc… The only difference, of course, is that I include people who can’t necessarily make a mature profession of faith, because, well, that’s not a biblical requirement for regeneration.
    Here’s what I said: “It doesn’t make sense – theoretically or biblically – that all would be sons and daughters of the first Adam, but only some could be sons and daughters of the second Adam.” Notice I said that “all would” and then “some could.” My point is this: The gospel goes out to everyone – not just some. Baptists include everyone in the fall, but only allow for “some” to be potentially saved. Clearly not everyone will be saved, but everyone is offered the free gift of salvation.
    I’m not quite sure how I’m making missions pretty unnecessary, though, unless your piggy-backing that statement off of you’re universalism charge 🙂

  3. October 18, 2007 5:39 pm

    How does one become a son or daughter of the Second Adam?

  4. October 19, 2007 8:46 pm

    Through baptism.

  5. October 20, 2007 6:52 am

    What about faith?

  6. October 20, 2007 7:49 am

    Si, Senor. Faith is necessary. Of course, the Bible links faith and baptism, so when I say baptism, I believe faith is included in this act as well. But baptism is the external act by which one is identified as a son or daughter of the Second Adam.

  7. October 20, 2007 11:29 am

    Without baptism then one is not a believer?

  8. October 20, 2007 2:15 pm

    How can a baptized baby who cannot express faith be a believer?

  9. October 20, 2007 7:08 pm

    If by believer you mean a Christian, then, no, one cannot be a believer without baptism. I prefer to distinguish between the two terms, though, because “believer” is a subjective term, whereas “Christian” is objective. We could ask Drew about this, though, as he is the resident semantic genius 🙂

    A baptized baby can be a believer/Christian because God regenerates them… gives them faith… just as He does anyone else. I would challenge your assertion, though, that babies cannot express faith (Ps 22:9-10; Ps 71:5-6; Ps 139:14-15; Ps 8:1-2 – and it’s prophetic fulfillment in Matthew 21:12-17; Ps 127:3-5; Ps 128; Matt 18:1-14; Matt 19:13-15; Matt 11:25; Lk 1:41). The Bible seems to say otherwise. The problem is that most protestants have a hard time recognizing any kind of faith other than a mature response… which, of course, Jesus had something to say against.

  10. October 21, 2007 2:51 pm


    You’ll have to show me where the Bible makes a distinction between a believer and a Christian. I just don’t see it anywhere. Also, how are you defining faith? I don’t see how an infant is capable of expressing saving faith? None of the Psalm texts say anything about infants trusting or believing or having faith except for Psalm 22. The texts from the Gospels don’t show that infants can have faith because they have nothing to do with infants!

    I am not arguing that babies aren’t saved. In fact I think that the Scriptures point towards mercy for those incapapble of faith because of physical and not spiritual reasons (John 9:39-41). The biggest concern I have with your position is that it so closely links baptism with salvation. It sounds like you’re saying the external rite of baptism precedes regeneration/faith. If that’s not what you’re saying then help me ’cause I’m missing it somewhere.

    On another note, in your original post you asked, “It doesn’t make sense – theoretically or biblically – that all would be sons and daughters of the first Adam, but only some could be sons and daughters of the second Adam. And a baptistic view of this passage certainly doesn’t make the free gift of salvation sound that much greater. I mean, if infants are included in the first ‘many’ of verse 15, why would they not be included in the second?”

    Your question assumes a one-to-one correspondence between the first and second Adam which is not there. I think that’s Paul’s point though – they are similar yet they are vastly different also.

    Looking forward to your response bro.


  11. October 21, 2007 8:09 pm


    Don’t worry about the believer/Christian issue. I’m not saying its a biblical distinction. My point is that I prefer the distinction because believer can be subjective – even the demons believe – while Christian is a title, an identity. Like I said, it’s probably more a question of semantics. I have no problem using the term “Believer,” I just think its generic.

    Anyways, I guess Heberews 11:1 is a pretty good definition of faith – although there is certainly a lot more that could be said of it. At it’s simplist, the Bible describes faith as Relational Trust – specifically “in Christ.” I kind of agree with you, I don’t see how an infant is capable of expressing infant faith, but then again, I don’t necessarily have to. I just have to believe God’s promises, rather than make up tidy doctines that fit into my systematic theology (Don’t take that as a personal hostile jab, but this is how I see the majority of contemporary protestant doctrine). The good thing is that faith is of God, and He is pleased to give it to whomever He pleases, and He tells us that it pleases Him to give it to our children and our children’s children. Of course, if you read the Psalm 22 passage again, He does possibly give us a glimpse of what this infant faith may look like.

    As far as your assertion that only one of the verses I gave speak of infant faith (which would still be enough in my opinion), I’m perplexed how you can say that. It seems pretty clear to me. Of course, you’re definition of faith may be different than mine, but every single passage refers to some sort of relational aspect of being in covenant with God. And you’re going to have to show me how the N.T. passages do not refer to infants (at the very least). I’m not a Greek scholar, but the word used for child in these passages is the same word for infant, and the context is a child being brought to Jesus, rather than a child coming to Jesus. Of course, the point is certainly not about an age of accountability, which is what usually happens when one reads a certain age into the passage.

    As far as the John 9 passage that you referenced, that sounds like a pretty unorthodox position you’re espousing. There are certainly better ways to read that passage that don’t promote salvation apart from faith.

    In regards to the baptism/salvation link, yes, I believe baptism and salvation are so very closely linked, and, no, I do not believe that baptism precedes regeneration, although it may at least be simultaneous. The point is that we are to look to our baptism as the point of our regeneration – whether it occurred at that moment or long before it (which I feel is probably the case for many baptist’ children).

    Finally, to say that the comparison between the First Adam and the Second Adam is vastly “different” is very dispensational… and very wrong in my opinion. I’m not sure that’s what you’re saying though. I do agree, though, that it’s vastly “greater.” And you’re right, that IS the point… which doesn’t make since in the baptist scheme – it’s the opposite. Is it really greater when all have died in Adam, but only some can potentially be given life in the new and greater Adam? Does it really show God’s magnificent grace that He only accepts those who can maturely respond to Him, rather than create a new kingdom, a new creation, of all peoples?

    I’m glad you’re interacting with me on this, bro.
    Much luf,

  12. October 21, 2007 9:25 pm


    I have a paper to finish tonight but I wanted to ask a few questions that I think will help.

    1. How can an infant be assured of things hoped for or be convinced of things not seen? I agree that faith is a relational sort or trust but that has to include some kind of knowledge.

    2. How are we justified? It’s not by anything but faith. I would argue that it is our baptism into Christ which is simultaneous with faith. Our baptism by water comes after these realities in order to portray these realities.

    3. How new is the new covenant? I wouldn’t affirm dispensationalism but they are right to see a disjunction between the old and new covenants.

    4. Both baptists and non-baptists have to wrestle with the potentiality of salvation. It’s no less of a problem for non-baptists. How great is salvation in a non-baptist scheme if whether one goes to heaven or not depends on whether they’ve been baptized or not? What about folks who are never baptized? The issue of the greatness Paul talks about is just as difficult for non-baptists.

    Don’t let the bed bugs bite…


  13. October 22, 2007 7:08 pm


    1. Why does it have to include some sort of knowledge? I think the problem is that baptists (and other protestants as well) take a few examples of N.T. mature conversion and make that the standard. Part of the greatness of the new covenant and the new Adam is that this does happen – even frequently – but that is not the only way and I would argue that it is not even the biblical norm. Is assurance always a subjective term? Could it not be that assurance/conviction/hope be completely based on the objective promise of God. Am I assured of salvation because I had a “conversion experience” at 7, or am I assured of salvation because I’m in Christ and it’s His promise – even on days that I don’t feel so godly. BTW, knowledge can be a great thing. As I mature in Christ, I’m always discovering new promises in the Bible that bolster my walk, but joining faith and the knowledge of said faith is always a slippery slope – just look at the majority of today’s evangelism strategies.

    2. I agree with the first part of your statement, although I might say “through faith” rather than “by faith” … Drew?
    I do disagree with the last part of your statement though. I don’t see anything in the Bible that says our baptism is merely a portrayal of the realities of spiritual baptism. There is never a disconnect between spirit and water baptism. In fact, I believe we are to look at them as the same thing. I would even argue that water baptism is the tool of spirit baptism – or regeneration, just as the preaching of the word is the tool used for conviction and softening hearts. To quote Peter Leithart: “Baptism is not a symbol of someone becoming a disciple of Christ. Because Jesus designated it as such, it IS his becoming a disciple.”

    3. New doesn’t mean different – at least in this context. It means greater. Christ didn’t come to abolish the law, He came to fulfill it. Everything in the old covenant is symbolic of Christ in the new covenant – including Adam. Jesus did what Adam didn’t do – He protected His bride from the serpent and, in fact, crushed the serpent in the garden. Where the first Adam separated humanity from God’s presence, Jesus reconciled.

    4. Well, it is true that both baptists and many non-baptists wrestle with the potentiality of salvation, but that’s because most non-baptists (PCAers, UM’s, Non-denomers, etc.) are really just baptists at heart… so they struggle with the same issue. I do not struggle with this issue, though. God teaches me in His Word that the only way to be saved is to be united to Christ – which is through baptism. I am to look to my baptism as the objective assurance that I AM in Christ. I am to cling to my baptism through faith and trust His promise through obedience. If I do this, then I never have to wonder about potentialities. This is GREAT! I don’t place my hope in subjective experiences or feelings. And I don’t place my hope even in God’s secret decrees of election and predestination. So, as far as those who are never baptized? It doesn’t really matter. These are the secret things of God. All I can do is what He tells me to do in His Word and encourage others to do the same.

    Peace out, my brotha!

  14. October 23, 2007 3:47 pm

    Hey bro…

    I’m finishing my semester this week and it’s a frantic finish. I’ll probably have to email you later this week.



  15. October 23, 2007 8:26 pm

    I am enjoying reading this debate, as it is an issue that is real within my family, unfortunately. My question will reveal where I lie on this issue, but that’s okay.

    My question, and I agree with Kyle – if the command in the Bible is to “repent and be baptized,” (which my four years of studying under Glenn LaRue have led me to know that in the Bible the word for “baptize” is “dip”) then how is an infant’s baptism indicative of faith? An infant is a passive member of his/her baptism experience. My brother and sister-in-law had my niece baptized and then later my nephew (while hiding it from my side of the family, so take that into consideration when weighing my response), but to me, it almost seems to be cheating a child, because they don’t ultimately get to experience that “repent and be baptized” moment that we, who were not baptized as infants/young children, experience. And while I agree that the moment of true understanding and repentance can (and hopefully will) come later in life, and that in the Presbyterian church that moment is typically recognized at Confirmation – I just don’t see the Biblical basis for it, and I don’t see where it is reflected in this passage. You say above that you look to your Baptism as confirmation that you are one with Christ – and I think that is right and great. But where can someone who, for all intents and purposes, were subjected to Baptism rather than choosing to be united in Christ – where can they go? My niece and nephew cannot look back on their baptisms with confidence and say that they were being united with Christ – because they were being subjected to their parents’ will.

    (For the record, I do have a friend who grew up Presbyterian, considers herself nondenominational, and happens to attend a Southern Baptist church [much to her chagrin]. She firmly believes that her confirmation was a real confirmation of her oneness with Christ, and does not feel that her baptism was “invalid.” My argument to her, and to you, is that if there is no repentance, there is no point for baptism.)

    I do understand your point – but I don’t think that MOST Baptists would disagree with you – that salvation is offered to all just as the sin is suffered by all. That is why missions is so crucial – and I know you know this, but – because in order for the free gift to be available to all, all must know about it (Romans 10:15).

    Sorry I have rambled for so long – and please know that I say all of this with the best of intentions and with the kindest of hearts. I really do just seek to understand your (and other peoples’) position on this issue.

    My best to you and Denise and little Lucy – any updates on her impending arrival?

  16. October 24, 2007 1:06 pm

    Thanks for the response Kim. I just remembered that I was supposed to e-mail you back a loooooong time ago about this issue…. SORRY! I’m really bad about returning e-mail.

    Let me begin by addressing what I believe are some misguided preconceptions in your post. I’m not sure if this is the best way to respond to your questions, but it’s the best way for me to organize my response. Also, know that I don’t mean this personally (that you’re a misguided person or something), but you share a lot of the same preconceptions that other baptists hold.

    First, you said “repent and be baptized.” What does it mean to repent? Basically it means to turn from your sin and obey. There’s a number of things I want to say about this. First – I mentioned this in one of my previous responses to Kyle – I think one big problem is that we read mature requirements as necessary in all cases. I think this is wrong. Yes, you and I need to repent from our sin and turn to God… because we have sinned against Him. This was a command given to new disciples in the New Testament. Just because it was given to the Centurian, though, doesn’t mean the same response is required of his infant. And just because repentance looks a certain way in our life – or in the majority of people’s lives – it doesn’t mean that it looks the same in others. On the one hand, I believe I can make a biblical case that an infant is not required to repent before baptism. There is a difference between having a sin nature and committing sin. Everyone has a sin nature, and therefore must be cleansed in order to be reconciled to God. Infants, though, are not required to repent for sins that they have not committed. They must be cleansed, though. Repentance is a mature response on our part. Baptism is an ordinance performed by God, not us. Big difference. I’ll get into that in a bit 🙂
    Anyways, if repentance is a requirement for every Christian, regardless of age or situation (retardation, senility, etc.), then I can make a biblical case that all who are regenerated in Christ DO repent. Remember, repentance is turning to God, and since God, by His grace, is the giver of faith (and as a good Calvinist, I do believe in “irresistable grace” :)), all who are given faith, by nature, turn to God. In other words, they’ve gone from A to B. Even an infant who is separated from God – if you believe the Bible speaks of infant faith – is reconciled to God at that point.
    Wow, this could take a while. Well, one more thing about repentance. Unfortunately, most of us have been taught to equate repentance with regeneration. This is wrong. In the Bible, repentance is required daily. Repentance and conversion really are similar concepts, but when we hear conversion, we think of our “moment of salvation.” I don’t think this is biblical, though. We need to be “converted” daily – we need to confess our sins and be made right with God. And really, we could get into a discussion here about how we were made right when we were saved, but this is not the issue. Regardless of our standing in Christ (which I’ll talk about later), we are still commanded – even as Christians – to confess our sins before God – i.e. repent.
    So, with that said, I do believe that a baptized infant is required to repent as soon as they are able to realize their sins… even before then. After all, as soon as a child can be taught, it is a parents duty to train up a child in the way he should go – which includes repentance. We’ve taught our girls to “repent” (Get on their knees and ask God for forgiveness, ask each other for forgiveness, etc. )long before they really knew what they were repenting for. In fact, I think this is the best way to teach them what sin and forgiveness is. Of course, children who are not baptized, are being taught two different things. On the one hand, they are not considered Christians, but on the other, they are told to act like one. And believe me, children can see the disconnection there. With my girls, though, I simply tell them to “Be who they are.” They are new creatures in Christ, and new creatures in Christ do not push their sister. You need to repent and ask for forgiveness.”
    Well, I need to get back to work. I’ll definately respond to the rest of your post. It’s probably better that its broken up anyways.

    Take care.

  17. October 24, 2007 4:42 pm

    Hey. I’m back… for just a bit. I’ve got men’s ensemble practice in a short while.

    So, to continue….

    Now that I’ve discussed the first part of “repent and be baptized,” let me address the second part. The typical baptist defense of immersion is that the greek word for baptize is predominately used in reference to immersion or dipping. Another popular defense is that immersion pictures what happens to us in salvation. I think both defenses are flawed. First, it may very well be – although it is questionable – that the predominant use of baptize in the Bible is immersion. It really doesn’t matter. Baptize means more than immerse, it also is used for sprinkling, dipping, and pouring. This doesn’t really matter either. What matters is that it means to clean/wash with water. When the word baptize is used in connection with salvation – it never refers to the physical act of immersing (or dipping, or pouring, etc.), it refers to regeneration. What is regeneration? It’s being made clean. The sin is washed away and your a new creation. That’s why I find the typical view that immersion pictures our death and burial in Christ to be wrong. We’re not raised to new life in Christ – we’re made clean.
    Personaly, I’m not so sure it matters what the mode is. I think pouring is the prefered method for two reasons. One, it pictures the old covenant cleansing that our new covenant cleansing is supposed to point back to, and Two, it’s just more practical. And while this isn’t a biblical support, I’ve always wondered if before humanity had the convenience of indoor plumbing and heating, if immersion really was that popular. I’m sure when it was 10 degrees outside and all they had was a river, more than a few “baptists” were a little lenient on their mode :)… of course, they may have just waited until it warmed up, which would explain the odd and unbiblical practice of waiting for long periods of time between conversion and baptism.

    Anyways, I love your teacher and I think he is probably one of the best teachers I ever listened to. But I think he’s wrong on this issue. And since I’ve come from where he’s at now, I know exactly why he believes what he does and I know how hard it can be to see things differently. And I also know how hard it is to read the Bible outside of one’s doctrinal preconceptions. And I hope everyone who reads my blog will attempt to study the scriptures to see my perspective, rather than just blow off what I’m saying because it’s different.

    Well, that’s it for now. I must go sing. memememe

  18. October 24, 2007 9:12 pm

    Hi. I’m back.

    You said, “An infant is a passive member of his/her baptism experience.” So I guess you’re inferring that mature recipients are not passive? As I’ve aluded to earlier, baptists believe that baptism is a subjective experience. It is something the Christian does in obedience to Christ’s command, in order to profess their new faith. The problem is, I see no scriptural warrant for this position. The Bible never speaks of baptism as a subjective experience… it’s always objective. Baptism is not something we do, it’s something God does. We don’t profess our faith through baptism, God makes us a new person in baptism. Baptism is not our testimony, it’s our entrance into a covenant relationship with Christ. In fact, the Bible teaches us to look to our baptism as our “conversion experience.” Baptism is the point where one goes from being a non-Christian to a Christian. So, if anything, an infant is in a better position than anyone for baptism, because they will never know a time when they were not a Christian. If anyone is getting cheated, it’s the children who are told to wait until they can make a mature response before they can “be a Christian.”
    Some would argue that infant baptism would cause a child to struggle with doubt or assurance, but I think it’s the exact opposite. Why would you raise your child to be a good person, during their most trusting years – the years when the Bible teaches parents to train them as little Christians – only to deny them covenant membership/church membership/Christian status? Then when they’ve been denied identity as a Christian – even though they’ve grown up in a Christian home, attended church every week, participated in the life of the church, etc. – and grown to doubt their place in the church – we then tell them to make a decision for Christ… when they’re at the age where they begin doubting everything. Is it any wonder our youth make no impact on the culture?
    Being a Christian is not some personal experience that “saves our souls.” Being a Christian is being part of a new creation – the church – that participates in the redemption of the world. Baptism is the identity of this new creation – the church – and the church is made up of all ages, races, sex, etc.

    Well, this probably wasn’t the clearest post. I’m not much for TV shows, but this new show Life has really peaked my interest, so I’ve had a hard time reigning in my thoughts. I’m sure I’ve given you enough to think about, though, in these three post. And to think I’m only half way through responding to your post! 🙂 Let me know if this is helpful or not. I normally wouldn’t respond in this much detail, but I feel I owe you a good response since I didn’t e-mail you back.

    Oh, Lucy is due any day now… the official due date is tomorrow. Denise is READY!!!! Which means I am too. See ya.

  19. October 25, 2007 5:50 pm

    When I said that an infant is a passive participant in his/her baptism, I meant it more as it was not their choice to be baptized at that point – it was the choice of their parents.

    I am just taking it all in…

    While I don’t agree with everything that you are saying, I do understand where you are coming from. My only concern or confusion is this – I don’t have much experience with Protestant infant baptism, mainly because mostly my exposure came from Catholic baptism of infants, and then with proceeding to watch friend after friend live a life that was decidedly not Christian. Anyway. There seems to be a pretty strong distinction between the Catholic sacrament of baptism and your beliefs on baptism – is that accurate?

    And a kind “hurry up!” to little Lucy!

  20. October 27, 2007 9:53 pm


    I guess you could call my brand of infant baptism “Truly Reformed” or “Truly Calvinistic.” You’re right to be distrustful of the Roman Catholic view of infant baptism – at least in the popular way its practiced – and this is one of the issues Calvin and Luther sought to reform. Reading Calvin has been very eye-opening to me in my journey. Just don’t confuse my view of infant baptism with the typical protestant view of infant baptism. While I am a member of a Presbyterian denomination, I do not have a whole lot in common with PCA or PCUSA or other “reformed” denominations. In fact, I’ll go ahead and answer one of your statements from your first post, since it relates to this.

    You said, “And while I agree that the moment of true understanding and repentance can (and hopefully will) come later in life, and that in the Presbyterian church that moment is typically recognized at Confirmation – I just don’t see the Biblical basis for it, and I don’t see where it is reflected in this passage.”

    Confirmation is an invention of man – wholly unbiblical – and, in my opinion, bordering on heresy. Confirmation is basically the paedobaptist version of the Baptist’s mature profession of faith. While I have serious problems with the Baptist view – at least their consistent. Presbyterians, on the other hand, baptize their infants – thereby making them members of the body of Christ – then excommunicate them by treating them as non-Christians. Basically, they believe that infant baptism is a promise – a possibility – but they still need to have that “conversion experience” or mature response before they can officially become Christians. For a long time I thought this was the only paedobaptist view – that’s why I remained a Baptist. Only after I studied Calvin and Luther more in depth did I realize how corrupted the paedobaptist doctrine had become. Unfortunately, the PCA version of paedobaptism is what most Baptists only know, and they therefore have a pretty good argument against the practice.

    Oh, and yes, the Catholic doctrine of paedobaptism is just as wacky as the PCA – but in different respects… although their a little more consistent in their beliefs and practices.

    Finally, we’re now three days past the due date and still no Lucy. She’s asking for a serious spanking.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: