Infant Baptism and Original Sin
Cliff Richard said, "Baptism seemed such an intergal part of New Testament Christianity and I couldn't imagine a droplet of water dribbled on my head when I was a baby could be a proper substitute for that adult symbol of submission and obedience."
Karl Barth stated, "The doctrine of infant baptism is forced to try to think through the relation between baptism and faith. But when it does, no matter how many twists and turns, it inevitably finishes up in hopeless blind alleys."
What is original sin? The belief that infants inherit sin and its curse through their parents, and their parents, all the way back to Adam and Eve. Original sin means that a child is spiritually vulnerable in the event of an early death. Whether or not an unbaptized infant would end up in hell has been debated over the years by those who practice it. Many point to Psalms 51:5 especially the KJV which says, "Behold, I was shapened in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me."
Augustine's approval of infant baptism in the 4th century led the way to wholesale acceptance of the practice. Augustine believe that infant baptism canceled the guilt of original sin, but did not eliminate man's sinful nature. He taught that unbaptized children were spiritually lost. Beause a child could not have the penitent faith of the New Testament converts, the Roman Catholic Church finally dismissed altogether any need for subjective, personal faith by infants, choosing instead to regard baptism as a holy sacrament, effective simply because it is done. This position is described by most as baptismal regeneration. It canceled assumed original sin and initiated the infant into the church. Thus justified infant baptism came to be virtually unquestioned practice of the Roman Catholic Church by the middle of the 7th century.
Calvinists have been divided on the troublesome issue of how infants can be said to have faith. Some believe that faith miraculously indwells in the child by the Holy Spirit at the moments of the child baptism. Others believe in baptismal regeneration.
Consider what Jesus says in John 9. Remember Jesus asked, "Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents that he was born blind? Jesus, replied, "Neither this man nor his parents sinned." So what is Jesus's view of original sin? Doesn't he just answer it plan and simple in verse 3? Jesus refutes the notion of original sin.
There is no Biblical example of infant baptism or even baptisms of extremely young children.
Why? Because infants and children are innocent, and pure. Jesus said, "For the kingdom of God belongs to such as these."
As a minister I have been asked by young children to have me baptism them and I have refused. Young children need to wait. The reason you see so many Christians questioning their baptism as because they did it at an extremely young age and didn't understand the commitment they were making. No where in scripture do you see rebaptism except those who where baptized by John to receive the Holy Spirit.
What do you think? Why do so many denominations teach original sin? Do you believe in original sin, why or why not? Have you seen it taught in your church? Do we in the church of Christ even struggle with the idea of original sin? Does the doctrine of original sin effect how we view and treat denominations? How has the doctrine of original sin effect Christianity and the Church worldwide?As ministers and church leaders should we make someone who was baptized as an infant be re-baptized in or to place membership at our churches, why or why not? Were you baptized as an infant? If so, have you been re-baptized, why or why not? As an adult how has Do you think infant baptism is wrong? Why or why not? Do you think it is wrong for a young child to be baptized and why or why not? As a minister would you turn away an extremely young child if they wanted to be baptized, why or why not?
What do you think?
Share your thoughts.
posted by preacherman @ 12:38:00 AM
33 Comments:
Hi Preacherman,
I am not aware of any churches of Christ that believe in original sin.
I must admit there is a difficulty in knowing when a child is "ready" to be baptized. We don't have any examples of children waiting to be baptized until they are ready. But if we accept that faith and repentance are essential prerequisites, then we have to see those before determining a child to be ready. But that still leaves a grey area, because there are varying degrees of faith. Is immature faith still faith? Is incomplete repentance still repentance?
Note that Simon the sorcerer was not rebaptized even though, shortly after his baptism, it was determined that his heart was not right before God. He was merely commanded to repent and pray. So his imperfect faith / repentance / understanding of God did not invalidate his baptism.
Anyway I digress... Good post.
Alan,
Thank you for adding to discussion you ask some really important questions that we need to consider. I believe immiture faith is still faith and incomplete repentance is still repentance. It is not like one day we become and Christian and the next day we have given up all the things we did the day before. I believe it is a process of growth. Great questions.
Thank you for your comments.
Infant baptism as practiced by the Catholic church could be regarded as the equivalent or extension of the covenant of circumcision, although the CCC does not explicitly mention that. The CCC does refer to instances in Scripture of whole households being baptized, which includes young persons (CCC 1252). It also interprets Jesus's command to let the children come to him (Mark 10:14) to mean not to deny the grace bestowed in baptism to even a child.
As for original sin, I do not think the context of Jesus's remark speaks to the inherit sinfulness of man (original sin) but rather to the disconnection between misfortune and original sin. The man was not born blind because of any sin, neither his parents' nor his own (original sin). He was born blind so that at that very moment, God be could glorified through the person of Jesus Christ.
The Roman Catholic Church does teach that original sin is a reality. CCC paragraphs 396-409 discuss its origins and Scriptural supports. It mentions Paul's letter to the Romans: "In conclusion, just as through one transgression condemnation came upon all, so through one righteous act acquittal and life came to all." (Romans 5:18, cf. Romans 5:12,19)
I was baptized as an infant, and no, I would not seek rebaptism. My parents and godparents professed their faith in Jesus Christ and pledged to help me grow in my faith. The faith required of a baptized person is not a matured faith, but one that will certainly grow after baptism.
(If I have mis-spoken in paraphrasing the CCC, I apologize and defer to it in this matter.)
"The faith required of a baptized person is not a mature faith, but one that will surely grow after baptism."
This is a very challenging statement. I agree with its message, as long as I take it out of its context and read it independently.
In its context, it is very confusing. It does say that faith is required of a baptized person, but it suggests that that faith can be vicarious.
IMO, the question under examination should be whether baptismal regeneration is true: whether being moistened in one fashion or another transfers one from sinfulness to righteousness, independent of one's willingness to become righteous, or one's ability to choose.
I believe that the concept of baptismal regeneration is false, because it suggests that God will hold humans eternally accountable for the sins of another. In Exodus 34:5-7 God Himself says that His very nature is to "show mercy to thousands of generations" and to punish "to the third and fourth generations."
Furthermore, the concept of original sin (which requires the addition of baptismal regeneration to solve a particularly tangled issue) shatters on the rock of Jesus Christ. The Immaculate Conception is an ingenious logical construct, but were Mary's parents ALSO immaculately conceived? What about their parents? Et cetera, et cetera, ad infinetum?
I agree that Luke records whole households being baptized. However, it requires more information than we possess to ASSUME that those passages mean that infants are in spiritual peril.
in HIS love,
Nick
P.S. - I was immersed into the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints at age 12. After escaping that group, I was immersed into Christ at age 20.
Preacherman,
Thanks for keeping us thinking. You wrote, "Consider what Jesus says in John 9. Remember Jesus asked, "Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents that he was born blind? Jesus, replied, "Neither this man nor his parents sinned." So what is Jesus's view of original sin? Doesn't he just answer it plan and simple in verse 3? Jesus refutes the notion of original sin."
Before I make any comments I want to make clear that I do not believe in original sin. However, I don't think this is the verse to refute it. Jesus says neither he nor his parents sinned. On face value that cannot be right because surely his parents have sinned at some point in time. That is not what Jesus said - he said that his disability was not the result of the sin of either party. It is like saying, "Riding a bike didn't cause him to break his arm." But that doesn't mean he has never ridden a bike! There are plenty of other verses to make the point thought!
To address the questions of falantedios...
It does say that faith is required of a baptized person, but it suggests that that faith can be vicarious.
The CCC puts it this way: "Since the earliest times, Baptism has been administered to children, for it is a grace and a gift of God that does not presuppose any human merit; children are baptized in the faith of the Church. Entry into Christian life gives access to true freedom." (§1282) It also says: "By its very nature infant Baptism requires a post-baptismal catechumenate. Not only is there a need for instruction after Baptism, but also for the necessary flowering of baptismal grace in personal growth. The catechism has its proper place here." (§1231) That is in contrast with, for example, adult baptism, which is preceded by a period of catechumenate. Besides, the children of a Christian family are, by association, "holy" (1 Cor 7:14).
[Is] baptismal regeneration is true? [Does] being moistened in one fashion or another transfers one from sinfulness to righteousness?
What would you say is the purpose and effect of baptism in water? (See Mark 1:4, Mark 16:16, Acts 2:38-39, Acts 22:16, Romans 6:4, 1 Cor 12:13, Galatians 3:27, Colossians 2:12, 1 Peter 3:21.)
I believe that the concept of baptismal regeneration is false, because it suggests that God will hold humans eternally accountable for the sins of another.
Original sin is a state, rather than an act. The Catholic Church admits that "the transmission of original sin is a mystery that we cannot fully understand" (§404), but that this is a transcendental human condition, not a punishment from God. "Although it is proper to each individual, original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam's descendants. It is a deprivation of original holiness and justice, but human nature has not been totally corrupted: it is wounded in the natural powers proper to it, subject to ignorance, suffering and the dominion of death, and inclined to sin - an inclination to evil that is called concupiscence. Baptism, by imparting the life of Christ's grace, erases original sin and turns a man back towards God, but the consequences for nature, weakened and inclined to evil, persist in man and summon him to spiritual battle." (§405)
I don't believe in original sin. I believe at some point in time a child (or even person for that matter) is faced with a decision to make... Accept what Christ did for them/Not Accept what Christ did for them.
That's what I believe.
Good post, preacher.
Preacherman,
To your original question, when our son asked to be baptized I had a hard time with it. He started asking when he was 7 and I told him no. I did it in a nice way but it was still no. Eventually I realized I was being shaped by my upbringing more than anything else.
I came to realize I was sending him the wrong message about God and faith. If he has faith that Jesus Christ is the son of God than why should I stop him from being baptized? I decided I not only couldn’t but I shouldn’t.
If baptism is an act of faith, I trust God totally, why would my knowledge matter and if my knowledge didn’t matter and it was an act of trust why would I think I needed to do it again and again? I can trust someone more and I can trust them with more, but it is still trust. Our son will discover that he needs to trust God more but it will still be trust.
If I think a person has to know the right things than how will they not come to a point where they can’t remember what the really new or thought? How will they not come to a place no matter what age where they know they need to trust God more?
Hi Japhy
You asked:
> What would you say
> is the purpose and
> effect of baptism in
> water?
I would simply suggest that the purpose and effect of baptism are not the real issue with baptismal regeneration. Rather, the question is how, or in what manner, does baptism save? Or maybe, under what conditions does baptism save? I think 1 Peter 3:21 provides insight into the answer. It is not the physical water but the appeal / pledge / answer of a good conscience toward God. It sounds like there is some kind of communication going on between the baptized soul and its creator in baptism. So the will of the person being baptized is part of the process.
David,
I find it interesting that Matthew tell us to go and make disciples baptizing them in the name of the Father and of The Son and of the Holy Spirit and then it is teaching them to obey.... How much does one need to know? Jesus is the son of God and can save them from their sins. I do think their has to be some understanding about sin and the consequences of sin. Understanding that only with Jesus can one be saved. Great post preacherman.
"Do you think it is wrong for a young child to be baptized and why or why not?"
I don't believe in original sin, and don't believe that infants need to/should be baptized. But at what point is it okay to baptize a child; when does a child reach the "age of accountability"?
I think it's different with everyone, but there are a couple of things that I think are important:
First, for a baptism to be the kind of baptism that we see practiced by the apostles in the N.T., there has to be some understanding from the person who is considering baptism of what baptism means and what it means to be a Christian.
That being said, I don't think there has to be that much understanding. If we had to fully understand all that baptism accomplishes or everything that being a Christian entails before we did it, none of us would ever be able to "know enough" to become a Christian.
Good thoughts and questions.
After reading N.T. Wright for the last 5 years, I am convinced that my CoC upbringing did not prepare me to understand baptism very well. And that is a stark statement for a guy in my shoes to make.
John baptizes in the Jordan as a proph-o-drama, a way of saying the children are coming home from exile to the promised land. Jesus comes to John and is baptized. He is living a proph-o-drama that says he is true Israel, coming home to the promised land.
No one ever showed me this stuff in the CoC, or anywhere else before. I think it has great implications for the Heaven/New Earth post from a few days ago as well. When I am baptized, I am joining Jesus in coming home to the promised land. You can unpack that for the rest of you life....
I suspect that my "understanding" did not play a significant role in my baptism, thus the whole "age of acountability" thing is mute, in my judgment. Also, if the church in Corinth is baptizing for the dead, it does not play much role.
I figure we in the CoC, have more to learn than to teach on baptism. We certainly have not had it all figured out the way we have so often claimed.
Many blessings...
Look at what Peter said.
Acts: 2:38: Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.
His very first word was repent; would you not have to be at a place of accountability in order to know you have sinned in order to repent?
What advise did Philip give on the subject?
Acts: 8:36: And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?
37: And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.
38: And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him.
Wouldn’t you need to be of such a mature nature to understand what is being ask of you?
Preacherman,
This has been a facinating read for me. Your post and then especially the comments. The subject matter is touchy isn't it?
May I add to the confusion? I ask, how many of you ever had to teach little ones to lie, be selfish, disobedient to parents, and to take things that do not belong to them? The answer is none. The fact is lying, stealing, selfishness, etc comes "naturally". Kids are little sinners. Now before you become alarmed consider this fact. Lying is wrong if done by a one year old or a 99 year old. You give proof it is wrong by teaching them to tell the truth.
God does not hold them responsible for those sins until such time as they are knowingly, willingly, sinning.
"Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned— 13 (For until the law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law. 14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those who had not sinned according to the likeness of the transgression of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come." (Romans 5:12-14)
Just as in the case of verse 13, sin is not imputed to children who are to young to know right from wrong.
What set Jesus apart from all other humans was his virgin birth. He had no human father and thus no propensity to sin. Had he had a human father he could not have become our substitutionary sacrifice because he would not have been pure even though he did not sin.
Those masses who were saved in the first weeks and months after Pentecost did not have a copy of the New Testament. They only knew that if they would believe that Jesus had died for their sins and had been raised from the dead they could be saved and have eternal life. In baptism they reenacted the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus.
How much does a child have to know to be saved? Not any more than those who listened to Peter preach at Pentecost, not much.
My 84 year old mother placed her trust in Jesus when she was 8 years old and the Presbyterian preacher made her wait until she was 12 to be immersed. Yes, I said immersed.
I am glad Jesus can "see faith" and "knows the heart". He has every right to say, "let the little children come to me and forbid them not".
Grace and Peace,
Royce Ogle
royce ogle: How many of you ever had to teach little ones to lie, be selfish, disobedient to parents, and to take things that do not belong to them? The answer is none. The fact is lying, stealing, selfishness, etc comes "naturally".
Indeed. I don't know a child who, when another child takes a toy from him, hands him another toy as well (Matthew 5:39-40). From what I've read of the Quran, it teaches that humans are born in a state called fitrah which, apart from outside influences, brings humans to the Muslim faith, the understanding of God as depicted in Islam. Now, if that "natural" state is one of lying, whining, cheating, and anger, then I gladly choose Christianity.
When Paul wrote in Romans that the evidence of God is all around us in nature, I think that is closer to what fitrah should mean. The evidence for God the Creator abounds... the Trinity, now that's a trickier concept, which is why God revealed Himself to us as He has over the centuries.
From Abraham all the way to Jesus and the preaching of Jesus by the Apostles, God has always given humans a choice (contra Calvin) -- a choice to be obedient and offer up Isaac; a choice to be obedient and enter into the Mosaic covenant; and a choice to follow Jesus, to confess and be baptized in the name of Jesus, to enter this new covenant described by the writter of Hebrews as the "new and living way" (Heb. 10.20, NRSV). If a child is born a sinner and is therefore condemned to the wrath of God before his birth, then the child never has a choice to one day reject (become a sinner) God and his salvation. If this is the case then why do others have the choice which is spoken of throughout scripture.
As you can tell, I do not agree with Augustine's doctrine of original sin nor do I agree with the further elaboration and expansion of this doctrine (and its necessary demands) by the reat reformer John Calvin.
Though I disagreed with the doctrine of original sin long before I had children, I should inform you of my bias. I have two children, neither of which have been baptized. Kenny, our oldest son, passed away when he was three days old. According to Augustine, Kenny will reap the wrath of God for the sins of Adam.
While I (as will all of humanity) have inherrited a "sarx" (Greek NT) / "flesh" (NRSV) / "sinful nature" (TNIV) from Adam, the warth I would have faced had I not been baptized into Christ would be for the guilt of my own sin which I committed in my own life. According to Augustine though, without baptism humanity will experience the wrath of God because of Adam's sin -- even if we never live long enough to freely reject God on our own.
Brother Royce, I would like add some confusion to your confusion...:)
Are you saying that our sinful nature is passed from the mother's side, and not the father? :)
Seriously, if it is passed from generation to generation, Mary would have had it. Which is why the Catholic church goes back a generation to discuss Mary's conception.
You make a great point in that a sinful nature is obvious. I agree but still question where it comes from and how we get it?
What would happen if we learned they were baptizing infants BEFORE we had the doctrine of original INHERITED guilt.
I think all Christian believe in "original sin" what we really disagree on is what that phrase means.
Historically many believe today that Augustine derived his doctrine of inherited GUILT from the common practice of baptizing the infants of believers. If this is true then original sin is a growth from infant baptism rather than infant baptism being a response to original sin.
Shalom,
Bobby Valentine
BTW, not a week goes by here in the land of beer and cheese that I do not get at LEAST 2 phone calls requesting that I baptize a baby. As of yet I have not had any interested in coming to Sunday School ...
Shalom,
Bobby Valentine
Wow, what a great discussion we've got going on.
I appreciate everyone adding their thoughts to this topic.
I think interesting to see that a young child as mentioned is naturally selfish, isn't afraid to lie, or fight with siblings, disobey parents. I do believe their should be an age of accounablity. What is that age is a good question. I don't know. I guess it varies with differnet children.
I just know that from being a youth minister for 8 years and working with young people. Over and over again I heard I think I need to be re-baptized when is asked why, the response was because I did it when I was too young.
Do young children know the commitment that Christ calls us to as discples?
Repentance is important to look at as well. Does the child understand repentance. What are they repenting of and from?
Do they understand sin and the consequences? If not then are they really ready?
Should we re-baptized those who have been baptized and didn't understand? or should we teach them about discipleship and living the committed life? Why do you think.
Having a five year old son I have these questions all the time.
Again, love for you to continue this discussion even though I posted a new post. If you are a first time commentor.
I want to thank you for stopping by and adding to the discussion.
I appreciate everyone's comments and hope that the topics and questions offered on this blog helps your faith as I know it does mine from reading your comments. Thanks
"What set Jesus apart from all other humans was his virgin birth. He had no human father and thus no propensity to sin. Had he had a human father he could not have become our substitutionary sacrifice because he would not have been pure even though he did not sin."
Umm.... says who?
Even if this were a coherent argument, which it isn't because it falsely suggests that the physical union of a man and woman is somehow impure CONTRA Genesis 2:23-25, the fact remains that Jesus had a maternal grandfather... a maternal greatgrandfather... etc. etc. all the way back to Adam. Jesus is genetically connected to the first sinner, and no amount of immaculate conception or virgin birth can change that.
On another question: Has the purpose of baptism in the church changed a bit, even if no one says it? Has baptism become somewhat of a rite of passage out of childhood for 'cradle Christians'?
I THINK children should be baptized as soon as they exhibit the desire to go unto Jesus. I THINK that rebaptism should be discouraged, because baptism is NOT about us. Baptism is about GOD. Like Bobby says on Stoned-Campbell Disciple, baptism is about the Great Story that God is telling about HIMSELF. Yes, we will fail after we're baptized, but that doesn't mean we must reinitiate the covenant. The Israelites at the Red Sea understood so little. Baptism is about joining the community of God, and trusting God to keep what has been entrusted to Him. I think.
in HIS love,
Nick
Brian, I am saying the exact opposite. By one man "Adam" sin entered into the world and so death by sin, and that sin came upon all mankind, Except Jesus! In Adam all die and Chirst all are made alive. According to David he was a sinner in his mothers womb. Little ones are not held accountable until as I said before until they sin on purpose knowing better, but they are sinners. Anyone who tells a lie just sinned, age excluded.
I am curious what some of my friendly critics believe the importance of the immaculate conception is? The virgin birth of Christ did not happen so we could have a good Christmas story. The lamb of God who would take away the sins of the world had to be "pure" in every since of the word.
It is through a good understanding of the virgin birth of Jesus that we really start to learn about the righteousness and holiness of God. And, we clearly see why we must have Him to avoid hell.
Grace and Peace
Royce Ogle
Baptism is a gift from God, and it is Christ who baptizes, not humans, though we are His poor instruments. We have no share in God's family prior to baptism. We are disjointed from His nature. That does not mean God cannot save us, but that is nothing we can conjecture about, for we know only one way. Through baptism, we are born into God's family, which means grace is infused into our souls. I repeat, baptism is a "birth" into the covenant family of God by which our nature is conformed to the divine nature. And just as you need not decide to be born into the natural order, neither is it necessary to decide on birth into the spirtual order. Therefore, infants ought to be baptized as soon as possible so that they can recieve the gift of grace from our blessed lord. This gift cost our blessed Lord His life, and ought not to be witheld from the infant.
Romans 5 :12-14
I want not acquiesce in on it. I regard as warm-hearted post. Particularly the title-deed attracted me to review the sound story.
Nice dispatch and this mail helped me alot in my college assignement. Thank you as your information.
when Jesus said '.... for of such is the Kingdom of Heaven' my understanding is that He was not referring to them being innocent and pure, but that they are trusting and reliant - meaning that we should be submissive in the same way, trusting and reliant on Him
gucci outlet, louboutin outlet, longchamp handbags, tory burch outlet, longchamp outlet, true religion jeans, louis vuitton outlet, air max, oakley sunglasses, louis vuitton outlet, louis vuitton, jordan shoes, burberry outlet, tiffany and co, louis vuitton handbags, michael kors outlet, kate spade handbags, ray ban sunglasses, air max, oakley sunglasses, michael kors outlet, louboutin, tiffany and co, oakley sunglasses cheap, kate spade outlet, michael kors outlet, prada outlet, burberry outlet, michael kors outlet, nike shoes, coach factory outlet, nike free, louboutin, polo ralph lauren outlet, louis vuitton outlet stores, chanel handbags, christian louboutin shoes, prada handbags, michael kors outlet, polo ralph lauren outlet, coach purses, michael kors outlet, coach outlet store online, true religion jeans, ray ban sunglasses, longchamp handbags, coach outlet
insanity workout, north face jackets, giuseppe zanotti, chi flat iron, ugg boots, p90x, birkin bag, longchamp, ferragamo shoes, rolex watches, herve leger, hollister, canada goose, babyliss pro, ugg australia, canada goose, canada goose jackets, reebok outlet, ghd, soccer shoes, ugg, nfl jerseys, nike roshe run, north face outlet, valentino shoes, mont blanc, celine handbags, nike huarache, new balance shoes, canada goose outlet, ugg boots, canada goose, mcm handbags, beats by dre, bottega veneta, wedding dresses, soccer jerseys, marc jacobs, canada goose uk, mac cosmetics, ugg pas cher, vans shoes, jimmy choo outlet, instyler, uggs outlet, asics running shoes, lululemon outlet, abercrombie and fitch
lancel, canada goose, timberland boots, pandora charms, thomas sabo, moncler outlet, hollister, canada goose, moncler, hollister clothing store, converse, ray ban, louis vuitton, rolex watches, iphone 6 cases, oakley, juicy couture outlet, vans, karen millen, pandora jewelry, ugg, moncler, air max, supra shoes, swarovski crystal, swarovski, pandora charms, moncler, moncler, converse shoes, gucci, ugg, louboutin, montre homme, air max, hollister, coach outlet store online, links of london, baseball bats, juicy couture outlet, ralph lauren, parajumpers, moncler, toms shoes, wedding dresses, moncler
2015-10-5 leilei
Coach Diaper Bag Outlet
louis vuitton outlet stores
abercrombie store
hollister clothing
nike air max 90
Jordan 4 Shoes For Sale
Authentic Air Jordan 13 shoes for sale
coach factory outlet
ugg boots sale
Air Jordan 6 Champagne Bottle
Michael Kors Handbags Clearance Outlet
Cheap Ray Ban Wayfarer
Jordan 3 Retro 2015
timberland outlet
Coach Outlet Online Discount Sale
michael kors outlet
canada goose jackets
michael kors outlet
michael kors outlet online
Michael Kors Outlet Online Deals Huge
20151030 junda
Louis Vuitton Handbags Discount Off
ugg outlet store
louis vuitton outlet
Jordan 8 Bugs Bunny
Louis Vuitton Handbags Factory Store
Louboutin Red Bottoms Shoes Outlet
canada goose jackets
Authentic Louis Vuitton Handbags Cheap Online
coach factory outlet
Real Louis Vuitton Bags
coach outlet
Coach Outlet Store Online Shop
Christian Louis Vuitton Red Bottoms
cheap uggs
Michael Kors Outlet Sale Clearance
michael kors uk
coach factory outlet online
ugg boots
Michael Kors Outlet Handbags Factory Price
Authentic Louis Vuitton Belts Outlet Store
canada goose jackets
canada goose outlet
michael kors outlet online
cheap toms shoes
Mont Blanc Legend And Mountain Pen Discount
michael kors bags
coach outlet store online
ugg boots
canada goose outlet online
Abercrombie T-Shirts
شركة تنظيف بالاحساء
شركة تنظيف شقق بالاحساء
شركة تنظيف فلل بالاحساء
شركة تنظيف منازل بالاحساء
شركة تنظيف موكيت وسجاد بالاحساء
شركة تنظيف مجالس بالاحساء
شركة تنظيف كنب بالاحساء
شركة تنظيف ستائر بالاحساء
شركة تنظيف خزانات بالاحساء
Post a Comment
<< Home