Westminster Confession of Faith on Baptism

My ignorance of the Westminster Confession of Faith may be without bounds. I know it is Calvinist in its premises and adopted by the Church of Scotland and used by Presbyterian churches worldwide. My notes in between each point and between the footnotes below probably display my ignorance better than anything I can say in this preface. Nonetheless, I am using the Westminster Confession’s teaching on baptism to spark my thinking and to help me raise questions in my pursuit of understanding baptism in the life of faith. What I find, and what I hope everyone will find who examines such famous and weighty documents as the Westminster Confession of Faith, is that it does not stand alone as an unassailable statement. It is, in fact, a document created by men and believed by men, and not without a raft of assumptions holding it up. Are those assumptions true? Maybe, but I do not want to assume they are.

Chapter XXVIII
Of Baptism

I. Baptism is a sacrament of the New Testament, ordained by Jesus Christ,[1] not only for the solemn admission of the party baptized into the visible Church;[2] but also to be unto him a sign and seal of the covenant of grace,[3] of his ingrafting into Christ,[4] of regeneration,[5] of remission of sins,[6] and of his giving up unto God, through Jesus Christ, to walk in the newness of life.[7] Which sacrament is, by Christ’s own appointment, to be continued in His Church until the end of the world.[8]

My notes: Each point here makes sense to me, is what I was taught growing up, and yet most now are in question in my mind. Is baptism truly a sacrament? (I have many questions on the very idea of sacraments—another thing I need to study.) Is baptism required for “admission . . . into the visible church?” Does baptism ingraft us into Christ, provide regeneration, remission of sins, etc.? If baptism is strictly or primarily the spiritual activity of the Holy Spirit then I would say “yes.” If baptism is the traditional act of water immersion, then I am not so sure, except maybe the admission into the visible church (which is certainly not the same as being saved). If we take baptism as being a sign of the ingrafting,  regeneration, remission, etc., then I would say that’s true enough. If it is only a sign, then such a weighty statement on baptism is prone to cause misunderstanding and may lead Christians to think baptism is more than it is and something that it is not.

Also, it seems to me that many of the footnotes are not proof of the statements they refer to, or are, at least, linked to. This, I think, is a big deal. From point #1 above and the footnotes below it is clear that this confession of faith is less of an argument and more a statement, and a statement expressing a particular church tradition. It is not the only possible understanding of scripture (or even of tradition), though, like any creed, it tends to assume that status. I have strong reservations about creeds, and I tend to be non-creedal in my approach to faith. The fear of heresy tends to produce individuals with atrophied brains and shriveled souls. Thanks be to God for His love that overcomes our fears.

II. The outward element to be used in this sacrament is water, wherewith the party is to be baptized, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, by a minister of the Gospel, lawfully called thereunto.[9]

My notes: I find it interesting that in footnote [2] it says: “For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body….” By implication, then, Christian baptism is spiritual, or done by the Spirit rather than a water baptism, unless by spirit Paul means idea, which I doubt. I am sure there are plenty of arguments to show water baptism and Spirit baptism are linked or even the same, but that water is used may have more to do with Church traditions born out of popular cultural traditions than from biblical commands. Also, what does it mean that a minister of the gospel is “lawfully called thereunto?” Does that mean a priest? And how is one lawfully called? What is that process, what does that mean? In Catholic doctrine it is expected that a priest would perform the baptism, but there is provision for baptism being administered by anyone, even a non-believer, as long as the process is properly followed. I don’t see such a provision called out here.

III. Dipping of the person into the water is not necessary; but Baptism is rightly administered by pouring, or sprinkling water upon the person.[10]

My notes: Again, I do not see such a rule—that immersion, pouring, and sprinkling are all considered fine—called out in scripture, even in the footnotes (which seem more a mashup of verses than an argument). Thus, this is a determination by the Church as far as I can tell. For a Fundamentalist (of which I was nearly one) such a position is untenable, but I no longer have any issue with it. Sprinkle away! Still, I find it interesting that “rightly administered” cannot mean “as clearly described by the apostles” or some such thing, for we do not have any clear rules set forth on the actions or process of baptism in the Bible. Thus, this must refer to the church traditions which have been handed down. Fine enough, but which ones? Are we not back then to the Catholic (or Orthodox) church? “To be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant,” said Cardinal Newman. Is that where we have come?

IV. Not only those that do actually profess faith in and obedience unto Christ,[11] but also the infants of one, or both, believing parents, are to be baptized.[12]

My notes: I agree that infant baptism is a great way for parents and their church community to make a public dedication to the infant and to say they will raise him/her in light of the truth of scripture, etc. Does baptism, however, confer anything on the child spiritually? Does it bring anything down from Heaven upon the child? Is grace imparted? Other than a public dedication, why do it? Some churches do not do infant baptism but still do dedications. Is that not enough? Most of the footnotes do not specifically call out baptism, and not one clearly calls out baptism of children. I know it is not uncommon for many to believe that infant baptism confers some amount of divine grace on the child and therefore parents often feel obligated to have their children baptized, and worry if they don’t. This is an important issue that I am still sorting out.

V. Although it is a great sin to contemn or neglect this ordinance,[13] yet grace and salvation are not so inseparably annexed unto it, as that no person can be regenerated, or saved, without it:[14] or, that all that are baptized are undoubtedly regenerated.[15]

My notes: I find this statement crazy-making. As I understand it: One can be save without baptism, one can be regenerated without baptism, and one can be baptized and be neither saved or regenerated, BUT it is a great sin to contemn or neglect baptism. What about the pearl of great price? Was that not enough? What makes it a great sin unless, for a given individual, the rejection of baptism is because God has been rejected as well? Is baptism a touchstone of faith? Is it that one does not need to be baptized to be saved, but rejecting baptism calls into question the validity of one’s claims to believe? Religion has a tendency to place heavy weights on people, weights that we carry around as burdens and yet, in light of eternity, are nothing. Is this one of those?

VI. The efficacy of Baptism is not tied to that moment of time wherein it is administered;[16] yet, notwithstanding, by the right use of this ordinance, the grace promised is not only offered, but really exhibited, and conferred, by the Holy Ghost, to such (whether of age or infants) as that grace belongs unto, according to the counsel of God’s own will, in His appointed time.[17]

My notes: This point raises a lot of questions: How does baptism have efficacy, what is the agency of or in it? Is it the act of baptism that produces its efficacy? Is there only one way, one “right use” of baptism? What grace is promised? Salvation, sanctification, what? How is it really exhibited? Tongues of fire, righteousness, what? Is the council of God’s own will different than just God’s will? This point, and my questions, get at the very nature and doctrines of sacramental theology—something I am still sorting out.

VII. The sacrament of Baptism is but once to be administered unto any person.[18]

My notes: This makes sense to me, however, if this is water baptism, I don’t see any “one time only” rules set out in scripture.

Footnotes:
[1] MAT 28:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.

My notes: What does baptism mean here? Does it mean with water or with the Spirit? Does this command make it a sacrament? See my previous post on baptism and the “great commission.”

[2] 1CO 12:13 For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.

My notes: Here we have baptism “by one Spirit.” Does the Spirit use water to accomplish this baptism? Or does water baptism need to accompany this spiritual baptism? I would tend to say this has to do with the work of God on our hearts, calling us to repentance, and not to water baptism. So then how is this a seal? I am also confused by the wording: “drink into one Spirit.” What does that mean?

[3] ROM 4:11 And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised: that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also. COL 2:11 In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ: 12 Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.

My notes: Here we have “the seal.” It is not baptism, rather it is righteousness, it is the circumcision of the the heart, made without hands. Therefore the seal is not something imparted or administered through the agency of a priest or fellow believer. It must be a seal that comes from God directly, for we know that no amount of water, blessed or otherwise, can ever reach a person’s heart/will. In fact, the Romans passage calls into question the validity of any outward, physical mark or action. Here we have the distinction made between circumcision and non-circumcision. When Paul says, “though they be not circumcised; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also,” could one also assume, in another context, “though they be not baptized; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also?” Certainly we have a situation where righteousness is imputed and no mention of baptism. Regarding Colossians, is there also a baptism made without hands? In terms of circumcision and baptism, what is more important, physical circumcision or spiritual circumcision? Physical baptism or spiritual baptism? If spiritual then what emphasis should we place on the physical? Should we disregarded the physical, outward sign as superfluous? Are we to be that strict, that iconoclastic? Or does God give us, and ordain, religion as an outward set of practices that, though not the core essence of faith, are still part of our humanity? If God was so concerned that his people would mistake the outward for the inward then why did He take so much care to give them minute details of religious practice? Is a man rightly related to his faith, understanding fully the nature of salvation and God’s grace, also called, then, in some way, to be religious? If we disdain religion and its outward practices, including baptism, are we rejecting God or, at least, our God-like imageness?

[4] GAL 3:27 For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. ROM 6:5 For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection.

My notes: Again, what does it mean to be baptized “into” Christ? Is this metaphysical, mystical, spiritual, metaphorical, what? Is this baptism water baptism? Does scripture teach that water baptism is necessary? Paul argues that we will be planted (or united) together in the likeness Christ’s death (in a death like his); is that uniting a product strictly or even actually of the physical one-time act of baptism? The previous verses Paul says: “Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life.” (Roman 6:3-4, ESV) It would seem that Paul does have in mind baptism here as the one-time act, but is that a baptism by water or by the Spirit? Let’s assume it is water baptism; I would hazard a guess that Paul does not see water baptism as magical in this regard (and officially, neither do most of the Christian traditions), rather Paul is saying something like, “Remember that day you were baptized, remember that public statement you made before everyone that you are now a follower of Christ? Well then, if you take that seriously then be committed to not letting sin reign in your life… etc.” In this sense can we not say, then, that the continued commitments of our hearts and the kind of lives we live as a consequence of those commitments is the greater “sign and seal” of the covenant of God’s grace, more so than any act of water baptism could ever be?

[5] TIT 3:5 Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost.

My notes: See my previous post on the question of “washing of regeneration.” My conclusion is that this washing is not so clearly water baptism, or any kind of baptism administered by human hands. Though I still have questions. Let’s look closer at the Titus passage: “But when the goodness and loving kindness of God our Savior appeared, he saved us, not because of works done by us in righteousness, but according to his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit, whom he poured out on us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior, so that being justified by his grace we might become heirs according to the hope of eternal life.” (Titus 3:4-7) When Paul says it’s not by works done by us in righteousness, this could mean (or include) not by water baptism. When he says it’s by God’s mercy that we are washed by the Holy Spirit, that indicates it is a God initiated spiritual baptism. Paul goes on to use the picture of pouring, that is it is God pouring His Spirit out on us, which implies, again, a spiritual baptism not a water baptism.

[6] MAR 1:4 John did baptize in the wilderness, and preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins.

My notes: I think we must keep in mind that the baptism of John and the baptism of the Spirit are potentially two entirely different baptisms, rooted though they are in the gospel (one announces and the other seals). The question I am still trying to answer is whether Jesus saw John’s baptism as a picture or example of future Christian baptism, or whether John’s baptism was the old, Jewish custom that will be supplanted by the new spiritual baptism of the the Holy Spirit. Even John points to Jesus’ baptism by saying that he (John) baptizes with water but one is coming who will baptize with the Holy Spirit and fire. (Matthew 3:11)

[7] ROM 6:3 Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? 4 Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.

My notes: One argument for water baptism that makes a lot of sense to me is that to go under the water is visually and symbolically like going into death. Coming up out of the water, again, is like resurrection. However, see my notes on Footnote #4.

[8] MAT 28:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.

My notes: here again we have a “great commission” statement. See my previous post on this. In short, this verse (and all the great commission passages) does not necessarily imply water baptism. Also, this verse does not say, and only thinly implies, if at all, that baptism is to be continued in perpetuity.

[9] MAT 3:11 I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire. JOH 1:33 And I knew him not: but he that sent me to baptize with water, the same said unto me, Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and remaining on him, the same is he which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost. MAT 28:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: 20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

My notes: This footnote is to be proof for two things: the requirement to baptize with water and to baptize in the name of  Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. First, both Matthew 3:11 and John 1:33 could (and more properly?) be understood as an argument against water baptism for Christians. See my post on this. Second, are we to understand Christ’s command to baptize in the name of . . . as a formula? That is, are they to specifically baptize with water and, while doing so, say “I now baptize you in the name of . . .?” Personally I love the formula. When I witness a baptism I literally get chills. So I don’t have any issue with the formula per se, but are we to understand the formula as having been commanded by Christ is the sense that we have tended traditionally to understand it?

[10] HEB 9:10 Which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation. 19 For when Moses had spoken every precept to all the people according to the law, he took the blood of calves and of goats, with water, and scarlet wool, and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book, and all the people, 20 Saying, This is the blood of the testament which God hath enjoined unto you. 21 Moreover he sprinkled with blood both the tabernacle, and all the vessels of the ministry. 22 And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission. ACT 2:41 Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls. 16:33 And he took them the same hour of the night, and washed their stripes; and was baptized, he and all his, straightway. MAR 7:4 And when they come from the market, except they wash, they eat not. And many other things there be, which they have received to hold, as the washing of cups, and pots, brasen vessels, and of tables.

My notes: I am over my head entirely with the book of Hebrews, but with all these passages, I find no proof for the point above. How do these passages undergird an argument that baptism can be full immersion or pouring or sprinkling? I don’t see it.

[11] MAR 16:15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. 16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned. ACT 8:37 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.

My notes: Verse 37 of Acts chapter 8 is likely not in the original text, but was added somewhere after in order to make the story fit with established church doctrine. I do not have an issue per se with the ideas in the verse, but I would not quote it to support dogma. Interestingly, this passage shows a rather solitary baptism, a baptism not as part of a local church community and, presumably, without other witnesses. Therefore, the baptism of the eunuch does not seem to be for the purpose of admission into the visible church, and yet it appears to be considered adequate, certainly from Philip’s perspective. I am still sorting this one out.

[12] GEN 17:7 And I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee. 9 And God said unto Abraham, Thou shalt keep my covenant therefore, thou, and thy seed after thee in their generations. GAL 3:9 So then they which be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham. 14 That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith. COL 2:11 In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ: 12 Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead. ACT 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. 39 For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call. ROM 4:11 And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised: that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also: 12 And the father of circumcision to them who are not of the circumcision only, but who also walk in the steps of that faith of our father Abraham, which he had being yet uncircumcised. 1CO 7:14 For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy. MAT 28:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. MAR 10:13 And they brought young children to him, that he should touch them: and his disciples rebuked those that brought them. 14 But when Jesus saw it, he was much displeased, and said unto them, Suffer the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God. 15 Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, he shall not enter therein. 16 And he took them up in his arms, put his hands upon them, and blessed them. LUK 18:15 And they brought unto him also infants, that he would touch them: but when his disciples saw it, they rebuked them.

My notes: There are just too many verses and ideas here to tackle in these notes. See my previous posts [post 1, post 2, post 3] that will cover some of these verses and ideas.

[13] LUK 7:30 But the Pharisees and lawyers rejected the counsel of God against themselves, being not baptized of him. EXO 4:24 And it came to pass by the way in the inn, that the Lord met him, and sought to kill him. 25 Then Zipporah took a sharp stone, and cut off the foreskin of her son, and cast it at his feet, and said, Surely a bloody husband art thou to me. 26 So he let him go: then she said, A bloody husband thou art, because of the circumcision.

My notes: The Luke reference makes sense in light of the point above, but it does not specify water or spiritual baptism, which may makes some sense here. Certainly the Pharisees rejected God and his Messiah. Was their rejection of baptism a sign of that ultimate rejection? Is it the same issue for us today, either because we are in a different time, culture, and place, or because we are in a post-Christ’s death/resurrection world? The Exodus reference perplexes me.

[14] ROM 4:11 And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised: that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also. ACT 10:2 A devout man, and one that feared God with all his house, which gave much alms to the people, and prayed to God alway. 4 And when he looked on him, he was afraid, and said, What is it, Lord? And he said unto him, Thy prayers and thine alms are come up for a memorial before God. 22 And they said, Cornelius the centurion, a just man, and one that feareth God, and of good report among all the nation of the Jews, was warned from God by an holy angel to send for thee into his house, and to hear words of thee. 31 And said, Cornelius, thy prayer is heard, and thine alms are had in remembrance in the sight of God. 45 And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost. 47 Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?

My notes: Here we have one of the clearest references to water baptism being performed by an apostle. Was water baptism necessary, or merely a common cultural practice of the time? Could it be that Peter saw the necessity of water baptism in order that a visual sign is provided to “they of the circumcision” that God has given the good news to the Gentiles? Does this hold true for us today?

[15] ACT 8:13 Then Simon himself believed also: and when he was baptized, he continued with Philip, and wondered, beholding the miracles and signs which were done. 23 For I perceive that thou art in the gall of bitterness, and in the bond of iniquity.

My notes: From what I can tell, here we have an example of a man getting baptized and yet it not fundamentally changing him; he still must be confronted with a fuller understanding of the truth. Also, Acts 8:16 clearly says that baptism does not or, at least sometimes does not, lead to one being filled with the Holy Spirit. Interestingly, it is through the laying on of hands that they received the Holy Spirit. Is this spiritual baptism? Is this the baptism that the apostles are commanded to take to the world? Is this the kind of baptism that John the Baptist said the Christ would bring, whereas John only brought water baptism?

[16] JOH 3:5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. 8 The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.

My notes: See my previous post for my thoughts on being born of water and spirit.I am still working through this one.

[17] GAL 3:27 For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. TIT 3:5 Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost; EPH 5:25 Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it; 26 That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word. ACT 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. 41 Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls.

My notes: I am not convince the Ephesian passage means baptism in water, or baptism at all. It could be a metaphor or image of how the truth (word) replaces or cleanses (washing) the mind and/or heart of the repentant individual. Then again, it could be water baptism.

[18] TIT 3:5 Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost.

My notes: As far as I call tell, this verse offers no argument or evidence of support to point VII. In fact, could not the washing and the renewing be ongoing actions and not a one time only act?

Tentative conclusion: Me desire is not to challenge the Westminster Confession of Faith. Too many minds far greater than mine have tackled and supported this important document. However, I find in it so many questions that I cannot without many qualifications accept it as a clear and accurate picture of apostolic teaching. It may be, but my notes should make it clear that, as I said in the preface, the Westminster Confession rests on a raft of assumptions.

2 Comments

Filed under Baptism, Church History, Sacraments, Theology

2 responses to “Westminster Confession of Faith on Baptism

  1. I have eagerly read your posts concerning baptism, as I have been on somewhat of a theological journey myself. Raised Pentecostal, afterward non-denominational, for the past twenty-five years Reformed. Of late, I have found the Lutheran doctrine regarding baptism (regarding many things really) very compelling. It seems to lie along the trajectory established by the church fathers.

    I would be interested to know where you are on this issue now, after some years of study.

    God Bless,

    Andy

    • Andy, I know you posted your comment some time ago, and I have not been blogging for a while since I needed to take a break for a while. So sorry for the late response. Thanks for your question. I imagine your journey has been rather interesting and challenging at times, but very rewarding I imagine. Going from my Baptist/evangelical foundation to the Catholic church was a seven year (and probably much longer) journey for me. As for baptism, I find it ironic that I was a Baptist, and very anti-Catholic, and now hold to the Catholic view. I don’t know much about the Lutheran position on baptism, but I would guess it is quite similar to the Catholic, as they are on many topics. As for my belief, I’m no expert, nor a theologian, but I would point you to the Catechism of the Catholic Church on baptism for my answer: http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p2s2c1a1.htm

      In fact, the Catechism is remarkably rich and profoundly (surprisingly for this old Baptist) Christocentric throughout; a truly amazing work of teaching.

      God be with you. PAX

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s