THE IMPORTANCE OF THE TRINITY AND THE ERROR OF MODALISM

When is the last time you heard a message on the importance of the Trinity? The Trinity is one of the cornerstone doctrines of the Christian faith. The teaching of the Trinity is one God in three eternal coexistent persons: The Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. The Bible teaches God as one God (Deuteronomy 6:4), but then speaks of three Persons—the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit (Matthew 28:19). While the Bible clearly teaches that there are not three Gods, but one true God, the Scripture also teaches that there are a plurality of persons in the Godhead. How to harmonize these two truths is inconceivable to the finite human mind.

One sees clearly the Trinity in Jesus’ baptism: Matthew 3:16-17,  As soon as Jesus [the Son] was baptized, he went up out of the water. At that moment heaven was opened, and he saw the Spirit of God [Holy Spirit] descending like a dove and alighting on him. And a voice from heaven [the Father] said, “This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased.”

As one reads the Epistles of Paul it is clear he was Trinitarian. It becomes evident by reading the epistles of Paul that the Trinity is indeed the unity of three persons in one, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Three times we find Paul using the term Godhead (Acts 17:29, Romans 1:20, Colossians 2:9), a term of reference to God’s trinue nature. While the truth of the Trinity can be discovered throughout Paul’s writings, when one reads his masterful and majestic letter to the Romans one clearly sees the nature of the relationship between God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit. In the first four verse of chapter one of this magnificent epistle, Paul refers to all three. This is one of the mysteries that makes God such a Holy Triune Being, as throughout Romans the work of the all three are interwoven in the redemption story. Neither God the Father, God the Son or God the Holy Spirit can be taken out of the salvation equation.

First John 5:7-8 is more than clear in regard to the Trinity: For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. Never a more concise verse can be found regarding God’s trinue nature. (See endnote)

In Trinitarianism, God is one being who reveals Himself in three eternally co-existing persons. The doctrine of the Trinity is important because it describes the very essence of God which is beyond our limited intellect. When one attempts to understand that which appears unfathomable to one’s limited knowledge, one may conclude such harmonization is untenable. But Scripture is plain: God exists in three co-eternal, co-equal Persons. The fact that the Trinity is difficult for our minds to comprehend is evidence of its truth, for if we could fully understand it, it would lend credence against our Triune God’s transcendence and His “wholly otherness” (Isaiah 55:8-9).

One of the first heretical views that arose in the early church dealt with an attack on the Trinity. It was called Sabellianism. While the seeds of the heretical teaching began to be sowed soon after the close of the canon, the third-century Roman teacher Sabellius is credited with propagating the view. Before defining Sabellianism, which is better known as Modalism, second and third-century church leaders like Tertullian (160–220), Origen (184–254), Dionysius (3rd century), and others clearly denounced it. In the fourth-century the Councils of Nicaea (325) and Constantinople (381), denounced Modalism as falling outside the boundaries of biblical orthodoxy.

What is Sabellianism or Modalism? Sabellius taught that those who embrace the Trinity are teaching three gods. Modalism contends that God is a single person who throughout history has manifested Himself in three forms or modes (thus, Modalism). Stephen Nichols writes: “[Modalism is a] heretical view that denies the individual persons of the Trinity. It views biblical terminology of God the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit as merely modes of existence or manifestations of the one God… [Sabellius] held that there is one God who can be designated by three different names— ‘Father,’ ‘Son,’ and ‘Holy Spirit’—at different times, but these three are not distinct persons. Instead they are different modes of the one God. Thus, God can be called ‘Father’ as the Creator of the world and Lawgiver; he can be called ‘Son’ as God incarnate in Jesus Christ; and he can be called ‘Holy Spirit’ as God in the church age” (Nichols, For Us and For Our Salvation: The Doctrine of Christ in the Early Church, IL: Crossway, 2007, 153, 235-236).

So, according to Modalism God first manifested Himself in the mode or role of the Father in the Old Testament. In the incarnation the mode God manifest Himself was the Son. After the Jesus’ ascension, the mode God manifest Himself was the Holy Spirit. These modes are never simultaneous…the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit never all exist at the same time. Thus, God the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are all the same person, just playing different roles or in different modes or forms. Once God manifests Himself in a new mode, the old mode no longer exists; or in other words, when God existed as Jesus, God the Father was no longer existing. Modalism denies the distinctiveness of the three persons in the Trinity, God is one person and has merely manifested Himself in the three modes at various times. Modalism undermines the Scriptural teaching that God never changes (Mal 3:6: Jas 1:17) as it portrays a God who changes his modes. Without doubt Modalism denies the Trinity.

Modalism has been universally understood throughout Christendom as heretical. The Athanasian Creed (500 A.D.) attributed to Athanasius, the fourth century bishop of Alexandria, who was an ardent defender of the doctrines of the Trinity and the divinity of Christ, in clear and unmistakable language defines the doctrines of the Trinity and the nature of Christ:

     Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the [universal] faith. Which faith except everyone do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly.      And the [universal] faith is this: That we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity, neither confounding the persons, nor dividing the substance.
     For there is one Person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Spirit. But the godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, is all one, the glory equal, the majesty co-eternal.
     Such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such is the Holy Spirit.     The Father uncreated, the Son uncreated, and the Holy Spirit uncreated. The Father incomprehensible, the Son incomprehensible, and the Holy Spirit incomprehensible.
     The Father eternal, the Son eternal, and the Holy Spirit eternal. And yet they are not three eternals, but one Eternal.
     As also there are not three incomprehensibles, nor three uncreated, but one Uncreated, and one Incomprehensible. So likewise, the Father is Almighty, the Son Almighty, and the Holy Spirit Almighty. And yet they are not three almighties, but one Almighty.
     So, the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God. And yet they are not three gods, but one God.
     So likewise, the Father is Lord, the Son Lord, and the Holy Spirit Lord. And yet not three lords, but one Lord.
     For as we are compelled by the Christian verity to acknowledge each Person by Himself to be both God and Lord, so we are also forbidden by the catholic religion to say that there are three gods or three lords.
     The Father is made of none, neither created, nor begotten. The Son is of the Father alone, not made, nor created, but begotten. The Holy Spirit is of the Father, neither made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding.
     So, there is one Father, not three fathers; one Son, not three sons; one Holy Spirit, not three holy spirits.
     And in the Trinity, none is before or after another; none is greater or less than another, but all three Persons are co-eternal together and co-equal. So that in all things, as is aforesaid, the Unity in Trinity and the Trinity in Unity is to be worshipped.

Truly the Athanasian Creed is masterfully written in its defense and explanation of the Trinity. While today there are some groups within Pentecostalism, such as United Pentecostal or Oneness Pentecostalism, United Apostolic Churches and a few leaders within the Prosperity Gospel movement that adhere to Modalism, to hold to the heretical view presents serious problems. A person’s view of Christ cannot be divorced from one’s view of the Trinity. Modalism is considered heresy because it necessarily means that Christ did not actually become incarnate, but God only assumed the mode of Son. Modalism undermines the mediatorial work of Christ, as the Scripture teaches that Jesus is the mediator between God and man (1 Tim 2:5). The Scripture is clear that the Father sent the Son and the Son sent the Holy Spirit, all three are co-eternal yet One (John 10:3). In unity the Triune God brought about the unfolding of the plan of redemption in unity. One who denies the Trinity and embraces Modalism ignores the clear teaching of the Bible.

The truth of the Trinity is seen from the first verse in the Bible until the last chapter of the Bible. In Genesis 1:1 we read, “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” The word God in Hebrew is Elohim, which is used some 2,600 times in the Old Testament. Elohim is a masculine plural noun for “gods.” In Hebrew, the ending im indicates a masculine plural. In the very first verse in the Bible we see the Trinity. The Creator (Elohim) is one God in three eternal co-existent persons working in unity to create. All three persons of the Godhead were eternally at work simultaneously, in unity as One.

It has already been pointed out we see the witness of the Trinity at Jesus’ baptism. As well, Trinitarianism is clearly found in the writings of Paul and John. And in the last book of the Bible we see the Trinity — Revelation 22: God (v. 1, 3, 9); Jesus (1, 3, 12-13); Spirit (v. 17). From the first verse in the Bible until the last verses of the Bible the work of the Triune God is interwoven throughout the Sacred Text. Before creation our Triune God inhabited eternity and when earth and time merge into the eternal kingdom our Triune God will continue to inhabit eternity; the glory equal, the majesty co-eternal, yet One.

While there will always be an unexplainable mystery surrounding the Trinity, to deny it finds one straying from the clear teaching of Scripture. It has been said that in one’s attempt to understand clearly everything about God’s personhood it is possible to lose one’s mind, but to deny the clear teaching regarding His personhood one is in danger of losing one’s soul! This writer is most thankful that our God is bigger that our feeble minds can explain or comprehend. In the Old Testament one of the names given to God was El Shaddai, translated “God Almighty” or “Almighty God,” meaning the All-Powerful One. And that He is! As the first verse of the song “Holy, Holy, Holy” reads, let us sing:

Holy, holy, holy! Lord God Almighty!
Early in the morning our song shall rise to Thee;
Holy, holly, holy, merciful and mighty!
God in three persons, blessed Trinity!

Blessings,
Dr. Dan

Endnote: While I John 5:7-8, known as the Johannine Comma, gives clear support for the Trinity, it must be noted there are notable scholars who argue the verse is not genuine to the original text having been inserted by well-meaning copyists to support the teaching of the Trinity. It is not this writer’s purpose to address the issue here, but suffice it to say there are equally notable scholars (e.g., Johann Bengel, John Fell, Edmund Calamy, Matthew Poole, John Gill, Charles Foster, John Wesley, John Calvin, Edward Hills) who argue convincingly for its authenticity. This writer has no hesitation of referencing the verse, believing it to be part of the Inspired, Sacred Text. But even without I John 5:7-8, the Bible clearly teaches the truth of our Trinue God. (It is the contention of this writer that if divine providence has not ensured the Scripture has been kept pure in all areas, how can one be assured another inauthentic passage hasn’t “slipped” into the Bible!) If one was to exclude I John 5:7-8, in I John chapter 4 John repeatedly makes reference to God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit; God in three persons yet One.

8 thoughts on “THE IMPORTANCE OF THE TRINITY AND THE ERROR OF MODALISM

  1. I would like to challenge your argument. Are you willing to hear me out? I ask because I don’t wan’t to lay out my rebuttal only to see it deleted. Thanks, in advance.

  2. Dr. Merritt, thank you for giving me an opportunity to challenge some of the things you have written in this column. I’d first like to address the intelligibility of the Doctrine of the Trinity (DT), and in another post challenge some of the statements you make about modalism.

    You acknowledge that the DT “is inconceivable to the human mind,” and that it is “difficult for our minds to comprehend.” As I intend to show, not only is it inconceivable, it is logically contradictory and therefore cannot be true under any rational standard.

    You state that the one God of the Bible is the Trinity and that the “substance” [of God] is indivisible. There are three persons in the godhead: one person of the Father who is fully God, one person of the Son who is fully God, and one person of the Holy Spirit who is fully God. The persons of the godhead are not created, confounded (mixed or confused) and are all incomprehensible. There is one Almighty and one Lord. The Father is not made, created or begotten. The Son is not made nor created but begotten. The Holy Spirit is not made, created or begotten, but proceeding. Every person is co-equal and co-eternal. All of this strongly implies that the Father is not the Son nor the Spirit; the Son is not the Father nor the Spirit; and the Spirit is not the Father nor the Son.

    The previous paragraph is of course a summation of your trinitarian statements. If I have misstated or misunderstood anything, I’ll gladly adjust my analysis accordingly.

    Given your affirmation that the godhead is indivisible and given your further affirmation that each of the three persons is fully God, the Trinity cannot be a composite unity. Every component in a composite is but a fraction of the whole and if applied to the Trinity would render each person fractionally God. It would commit a person to affirm the logical contradiction that each person is fully God and fractionally God in the same respect.

    If each person is fully God and each person is distinct or different in some way from the other persons, one is at least hard-pressed to show why that isn’t tritheism. Your statement refers to the “substance” of the Trinity which of course implies that this “substance” or essence is what makes each person God. If it’s not the essence of each person that makes him God, then what is it that makes him God? Given the history of trinitarian thought, I think I am safe in concluding that the “God-making” quality is the divine essence. Indeed, we find essence-existence throughout creation in genus-species composites. The underlying essence of a thing defines it in a particular category, and instantiations of that essence distinguish one thing from another. But therein is the problem. Three instantiations of the apple essence yield three apples. Three instantiations of the tree essence yield three trees. And three instantiations of the God essence yield three Gods. Asserting one divine essence and three persons is tritheism by definition. The gods of the Pantheon had a common underlying immortal human essence, but the Romans were certainly not monotheists. Hence, this also commits a person to affirm the logical contradiction that there is only one God, and there isn’t only one God.

    Moreover, if the divine essence is indivisible (and it cannot be if one is to avoid composition), how are the persons distinguished? According to the DT, they are not distinguished nominally or logically, for that would affirm modalism. To trinitarians, the difference between the persons is real not notional. But if it is the divine essence the makes them common, it cannot be the divine essence that makes them different, for that would commit one to the contradiction that what makes them common is what makes them different. And if the difference isn’t in the divine essence, then it would have to be outside the divine essence. Since whatever is not the divine essence is a creature, that would make each person a creature. And since you deny that each person is created, we’re faced with another contradiction: each person is not a creature, and each person is a creature.

    In addition, the distinction must be significant enough for one person and one person only to be begotten, whereas another person, and that other person only, is proceeding. One person and one person only must also be able to be incarnate without necessitating the incarnation of the other two. Again, how are the persons distinguished? As we have seen, the individuation of essence multiplies Gods with each instantiation. It also commits one to affirming that each person’s unique existence is the principle of differentiation. Thus, each person’s existence is distinguished from its underlying essence (else there could be no difference between the persons). As trinitarians like Aquinas have noted, if in God there is a distinction between essence and existence, then the essence is perfected by existence and is thus dependent on something other than what it is. This can hardly be a “god-making” quality. Moreover, a being composed of essence and existence stands in potency to its parts and thus calls for an explanation of itself beyond itself, for nothing can compose itself on pain of contradiction.

    Appeals to “mystery” or “inconceivable” will not work. Biblical mysteries are not logical inversions. If you can appeal to the word “mystery” to side-step logical inversions, modalists and Arians may do so as well. It becomes the de facto out for every ism in the face of logical difficulties. If logical contradictions are true, then the proposition God does not exist is equivalent to God exists. This undermines everything the Bible teaches.

    At bottom, the DT stands disqualified as a template for biblical interpretation. Its definitions stand in direct opposition to one another and cannot be true on its own terms. In contrast, Modalism and Arianism, even if proven unscriptural, are not inherently contradictory.

  3. Please delete the previous post because I didn’t close an italics command. Here’s the corrected version:

    Dr. Merritt, thank you for giving me an opportunity to challenge some of the things you have written in this column. I’d first like to address the intelligibility of the Doctrine of the Trinity (DT), and in another post challenge some of the statements you make about modalism.

    You acknowledge that the DT “is inconceivable to the human mind,” and that it is “difficult for our minds to comprehend.” As I intend to show, not only is it inconceivable, it is logically contradictory and therefore cannot be true under any rational standard.

    You state that the one God of the Bible is the Trinity and that the “substance” [of God] is indivisible. There are three persons in the godhead: one person of the Father who is fully God, one person of the Son who is fully God, and one person of the Holy Spirit who is fully God. The persons of the godhead are not created, confounded (mixed or confused) and are all incomprehensible. There is one Almighty and one Lord. The Father is not made, created or begotten. The Son is not made nor created but begotten. The Holy Spirit is not made, created or begotten, but proceeding. Every person is co-equal and co-eternal. All of this strongly implies that the Father is not the Son nor the Spirit; the Son is not the Father nor the Spirit; and the Spirit is not the Father nor the Son.

    The previous paragraph is of course a summation of your trinitarian statements. If I have misstated or misunderstood anything, I’ll gladly adjust my analysis accordingly.

    Given your affirmation that the godhead is indivisible and given your further affirmation that each of the three persons is fully God, the Trinity cannot be a composite unity. Every component in a composite is but a fraction of the whole and if applied to the Trinity would render each person fractionally God. It would commit a person to affirm the logical contradiction that each person is fully God and fractionally God in the same respect.

    If each person is fully God and each person is distinct or different in some way from the other persons, one is at least hard-pressed to show why that isn’t tritheism. Your statement refers to the “substance” of the Trinity which of course implies that this “substance” or essence is what makes each person God. If it’s not the essence of each person that makes him God, then what is it that makes him God? Given the history of trinitarian thought, I think I am safe in concluding that the “God-making” quality is the divine essence. Indeed, we find essence-existence throughout creation in genus-species composites. The underlying essence of a thing defines it in a particular category, and instantiations of that essence distinguish one thing from another. But therein is the problem. Three instantiations of the apple essence yield three apples. Three instantiations of the tree essence yield three trees. And three instantiations of the God essence yield three Gods. Asserting one divine essence and three persons is tritheism by definition. The gods of the Pantheon had a common underlying immortal human essence, but the Romans were certainly not monotheists. Hence, this also commits a person to affirm the logical contradiction that there is only one God, and there isn’t only one God.

    Moreover, if the divine essence is indivisible (and it cannot be if one is to avoid composition), how are the persons distinguished? According to the DT, they are not distinguished nominally or logically, for that would affirm modalism. To trinitarians, the difference between the persons is real not notional. But if it is the divine essence the makes them common, it cannot be the divine essence that makes them different, for that would commit one to the contradiction that what makes them common is what makes them different. And if the difference isn’t in the divine essence, then it would have to be outside the divine essence. Since whatever is not the divine essence is a creature, that would make each person a creature. And since you deny that each person is created, we’re faced with another contradiction: each person is not a creature, and each person is a creature.

    In addition, the distinction must be significant enough for one person and one person only to be begotten, whereas another person, and that other person only, is proceeding. One person and one person only must also be able to be incarnate without necessitating the incarnation of the other two. Again, how are the persons distinguished? As we have seen, the individuation of essence multiplies Gods with each instantiation. It also commits one to affirming that each person’s unique existence is the principle of differentiation. Thus, each person’s existence is distinguished from its underlying essence (else there could be no difference between the persons). As trinitarians like Aquinas have noted, if in God there is a distinction between essence and existence, then the essence is perfected by existence and is thus dependent on something other than what it is. This can hardly be a “god-making” quality. Moreover, a being composed of essence and existence stands in potency to its parts and thus calls for an explanation of itself beyond itself, for nothing can compose itself on pain of contradiction.

    Appeals to “mystery” or “inconceivable” will not work. Biblical mysteries are not logical inversions. If you can appeal to the word “mystery” to side-step logical inversions, modalists and Arians may do so as well. It becomes the de facto out for every ism in the face of logical difficulties. If logical contradictions are true, then the proposition God does not exist is equivalent to God exists. This undermines everything the Bible teaches.

    At bottom, the DT stands disqualified as a template for biblical interpretation. Its definitions stand in direct opposition to one another and cannot be true on its own terms. In contrast, Modalism and Arianism, even if proven unscriptural, are not inherently contradictory.

  4. Next, I’d like to address some of the comments you make about Modalism. I’ve been a Oneness Pentecostal preacher for nearly 40 years, so I think I’m in a decent position to speak with some authority on the subject.

    You write:

    So, according to Modalism God first manifested Himself in the mode or role of the Father in the Old Testament. In the incarnation the mode God manifest Himself was the Son. After the Jesus’ ascension, the mode God manifest Himself was the Holy Spirit. These modes are never simultaneous…the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit never all exist at the same time.

    I think you’re conflating Modalism or Monarchianism with Sabellianism. According to Sabellius’ critics, he taught sequential modalism (first Father, then Son, then Holy Spirit). We should always proceed with caution when trying to assess a view through the eyes that that view’s enemies. Since God’s modes were clearly operational during the ministry of Jesus, I hardly think Sabellius would deny something so obvious. It seems likely he taught sequential modalism as an overall theme and not a strict procession.

    Even granting the charge against Sabellius arguendo, modern modalists are not strict sequentialists. God is the Father because He is the creator. He is in the Son as to His earthly manifestation. And He is the Holy Spirit as to His regenerative work in our hearts. We see these modes in operation throughout the church age, so I really think that raising sequentialism beyond a historical footnote is an unnecessary diversion.

    Thus, God the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are all the same person, just playing different roles or in different modes or forms. Once God manifests Himself in a new mode, the old mode no longer exists; or in other words, when God existed as Jesus, God the Father was no longer existing.

    The allegation that we believe a “mode no longer exists” once a new mode is manifest is patently false. I’ve NEVER heard or read that in nearly 40 years of ministering. It is irresponsible for you to try to tie an ancient allegation against Sabellius to modern oneness believers, even if that’s what Sabellius believed. You show yourself to be woefully uninformed about what we believe, and if you take it upon yourself to critique a belief system, you are under a moral obligation to accurately state its views.

    Modalism undermines the Scriptural teaching that God never changes (Mal 3:6: Jas 1:17) as it portrays a God who changes his modes.

    God is love, He is justice, He is merciful, and He is angry. He shows love to mankind, yet He is angry with the wicked every day. He shows mercy to the repentant and renders punishment to the wicked. In manifesting these characteristics, His essence never changes. He isn’t love one day and gets rid of His love and puts on anger the next day. Similarly, as the creator and sustainer of the universe, He is the Father. That never changes. As our redeemer, He became incarnate in Christ, but never failed to continue as Father (God is omnipresent, you know). If manifesting yourself in various ways constitutes essence-changing, then you too affirm a changing God who goes from kindness to anger to healing to punishment.

    You are again attempting to malign modern oneness believers by associating them with an ancient allegation. You are doing this deliberately or ignorantly. The principle of charitable interpretation causes me to accept the latter. But even so, it is still a false charge.

    Modalism is considered heresy because it necessarily means that Christ did not actually become incarnate, but God only assumed the mode of Son.

    What?? Nothing you’ve written has come remotely close to showing “necessarily” that God did not become incarnate. We teach that the Word, which was God, was made flesh. We often quote from 1 Tim. 3:16 that God was manifest in the flesh, meaning that He was incarnate. We stress, with trinitarians I might add, that the “flesh” isn’t God. God is the invisible spirit whereas the fleshly body of Christ is the visible expression of the invisible God. We have never taught that there wasn’t an actual incarnation. Not only is your critique uninformed, it is positively bizarre.

    Modalism undermines the mediatorial work of Christ, as the Scripture teaches that Jesus is the mediator between God and man (1 Tim 2:5).

    Your comment here shows what frequently occurs when trinitarians allow their zeal to outrun their carefulness. Jesus is the “mediator” between God and man? So, Jesus isn’t God? If God is the Trinity, your citation places Jesus outside the Trinity. It doesn’t say that He is the mediator between the Father and man; it says He is the mediator between GOD and man. Well, do you believe that Jesus is God or don’t you? Since I know that you believe He is God, what is your point? 1 Tim. 2:5 clearly teaches dual roles in Jesus. He is both the human mediator, and He is the God to whom mankind is reconciled. If you don’t affirm that, then did He cease being God when He became incarnate? If so, please remind us what your point was about God never changing.

    In any event, the DT is NOT taught in the Holy Scriptures for the Bible doesn’t teach logical contradictions. As stated above, the DT stands disqualified on its own terms from being a template for biblical interpretation.

    • Thank you for your well thought out response. I read it twice. I do appreciate your clarification on the Oneness Pentecostal position. There are times when believers in Christ must agree to disagree. Further Trinitarian arguments by me are not going to persuade you otherwise in regard to your position, and Oneness arguments are not going to persuade me otherwise either. We will simply meet at the foot of the cross of Christ who died for our sins. I totally agree with your statement that Christ “is the human mediator, and He is the God to whom mankind is reconciled.” It is there we are united by what Christ did on behalf of sinful man. Again, thank you for your response. Blessings to you

      • Thank you again, Dr. Merritt, for allowing me the opportunity to reply and to clarify. You are a gentleman, and I appreciate the interaction.

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 )

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