In the meantime: how about a question.

November 4, 2006

 While you all wait patiently for my next post,  I thought I would give you something to chew on. 

 Mathew 12: 31, 32

      “31And so I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. 32Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but anyone who speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come.”

     It is pretty widely accepted and Biblical that sin cannot enter Heaven.  God cannot tolerate sin.  That truth leads to the conclusion that all of the sins of anyone who enters Heaven are forgiven.  It is also widely accepted and Biblical that none of the sins of the sinner will be forgiven.  A sinner is unable to do good, seek God, or understand the path of righteousness as expressed in Romans 3.  

Now, let’s examine the Reformed view in light of this passage.  If a chosen one cannot commit this sin, and if none of the sins of the sinner will be forgiven, then why did Jesus mention it?  By the Calvinistic approach, all of the sinners’ sins condemn him, not just the unforgiveable sin.  In the same token, none of the sins of the chosen one will condemn him, leading us to the conclusion that the chosen one is incapable of committing the unforgiveable sin.  So, who was Jesus warning with this statement?  The sinner or the saved?



  1. Good question. Wouldn’t Jesus be addressing everyone, since we are all sinners before embracing salvation? Was Jesus speaking to all of humanity without consideration for each one’s position in relation to eternity? Would the fact that Jesus had not died yet impact who He was addressing here?

    I must muse and ponder more…

    Great thought provoker.

  2. It is interesting to take note that Jesus said a lot of thinks to a lot of people, some of which clearly are not going to be in heaven, such as Judas. Jesus was speaking to anyone who would listen, but as he also told us “My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me” (John 10:27). Those who are a part of Christ’s flock therefore, will hear his words and act upon them, just as the wise man who built his house (Mt. 7:24-27). Thus the man who blasphemies the Holy Spirit has not listen to Christ words and has shown himself to not be one of Christ’s sheep.


  3. Justin,
    So, the question I would pose to you is the same as I wrote in the post: if none of the sins of the sinner will be forgiven, then what makes this sin different from any others that the condemned might commit? An unforgiveable sin is pretty pointless if only applied to someone who won’t be forgiven any of their sins. I can just imagine a sinner’s response to Jesus when he told him this – “OOO! I better not commit that one! I’ll just stick to the ones that could be forgiven if only I were chosen. Ha! Ha!” The sarcasm is not intended as a jibe, just a way to emphasise my point. A sinner could care less if his sin can be forgiven. I don’t want to put words in God’s mouth, but I think he could really care less what sin the sinner committed either. The sinner’s heart is turned from God and is a lost soul according to Calvinism. God doesn’t say that he hates sin but hates the unforgiveable sin even more. Had he said this, then you might be able to say that the sinner will be at the bottom level of Dante’s hell. But it doesn’t. God hates all sin and no sin can enter heaven so applying an unforgiveable sin to a sinner is pointless.

  4. What are you defining as the “unforgiveable” sin? There’s been volumes written on that, just curious as to how you are using the term.

  5. From my understanding, there are a few references to a sin that cannot be forgiven. The passage I used as my base for this is Mathew 12:31,32. This is where Jesus talks about blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. Other books of the gospel write about this same reference. This is one other reference that I know of but could not seem to find for some reason that doesn’t directly say what that sin is. For the sake of this discussion, I figured debating one thing was enough without having to debate what the nature of that sin is as well.

  6. I don’t think you can debate this issue without having some working definiton of what it means to blaspheme the Holy Spirit.

    If I define the “unforgiveable” sin as rejecting the Holy Spirit’s call on my life for salvation, then I remain an unrepentant sinner and will not spend eternity in heaven. That has been one interpretation of the “unforgiveable” sin. If I define the “unforgiveable” sin as one that could only have occured when Jesus was living and operating on the earth, would the answer to your question change?

    “The Pharisees were about to attribute inncorrectly to Satan the power of the Holy Spirit exercised through Jesus and thus to commit the blasphemy against the Spirit…” (Wolvoord and Zuck Bible Knowledge Commentary on Mt. 12, pg. 47)

    “It is also widely accepted and Biblical that none of the sins of the sinner will be forgiven.”

    I think it might be helpful to include an adjective describing your sinner…we are all sinners – for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. In your statement that none of the sinner’s sins will be forgiven, I assumed you meant the “unrepentant” sinner’s sins. I am one horrific sinner and my sins have been forgiven. :} WiR

  7. Writer,
    Good points. I had never heard the theory that the unforgiveable sin could only have been committed while Jesus was on earth in body. I would have to say that I dissagree with that suggestion because it is a blasphemy against the Holy Spirit which works through all Christians and Jesus made no distiction suggesting that it was only through him as a human that the Spirit could be blasphemed. I would think that if those same pharisees had gone down that same road when the disciples were performing miracles after Jesus’ death, the result would have been the same.

    You are correct on my use of “sinner.” It would be a pretty bleak world if no one was forgiven any of their sins. Thanks for helping to clarify that.

  8. Your point is well taking in reguards to my previous post. However, I am a little disappointed by your continued misrepresentation of the “Calvinistic” position. If you are going to take shots at a theological, system you should at least represent it rightly.

    Your statement “By the Calvinistic approach, all of the sinners’ sins condemn him, not just the unforgiveable sin” could have been better stated: “By the Pauline approach, all of the sinners’s sins condemn him, “for the wages of sin is death” (Rom. 6:23) and “you were dead in your trespasses and sins…by nature children of wrath” (Eph. 2:1-3).”

    Your further comment that “In the same token, none of the sins of the chosen one will condemn him, leading us to the conclusion that the chosen one is incapable of committing the unforgiveable sin.” Also seems to present a misrepresentation of terms, calvinists clearly believe that “the wages of sin is death” thus all sins that a believer commits both before salvation and after are deserving of wrath, but for those who have been justified by faith God has satisfied the penalty that those sins deserved on the cross (Rom 3:21-26).

    Even the statement of “the chosen one is incapable,” shows evidence of a man-centered perspective of salvation. The issue has nothing to do with man capability, because the truth of the matter is every sinner is “capable” of committing the “unforgivable” sin. The end all question is will God allow them to, and clearly those whom he has chosen from before the foundation of the world, He will not allow to commit that sin.

    What is more your use of “chosen one” seems to be somewhat derogator? Except to be chosen by God is a biblical doctrine(Mt 22:14; Mk 13:20; Jn 13:18, 15:16,19; Rom 11:7; 1 Cor. 1:27,28; Eph 1:4; Col 3:12; 2 Thess 2:13; 2 Tim 2:10; Tit 1:1; 1 Pet 1:1, 2:9; Rev 17:14)

    And if God looked down the cooridor of time and decided who would believe (i.e. chose Him) and then predestined (chose) them for salvation, what do you do with John 15:16 “You did not choose Me but I chose you, and appointed you that you would go and bear fruit, and that your fruit would remain, so that whatever you ask of the Father in My name He may give to you.”

    Did God chose first (Calvinism) or did we chose first (Arminian)? Can this appointmend be refused (Arminian) or does will it result in bearing fruit (Calvinism)? Will the choosen one’s fruit remain (Calvinism) or can their fruit fail (Arminian)?

    God may not condemn a person for being identified as a Arminian or a Calvinist, but whether GOD is the author and perfector of their faith or THEY are the author and perfect of their faith will have eternal consequences.

  9. Justin,
    those are all good points and I will address them, but in all fairness, you did not address my question in the post. What is the point of an unforgiveable sin if God will not allow the chosen one to commit it and none of the sins of the condemned one will be forgiven?

    On the Pauline approach – I don’t understand. I am not versed enough to know what you took offense to here.

    You say “thus all sins that a believer commits both before salvation and after are deserving of wrath, but for those who have been justified by faith God has satisfied the penalty that those sins deserved on the cross”
    I wasn’t saying that you don’t believe that you can sin. I was refering specifically to the unforgiveable sin. What I meant by, all of the sins of the chosen will be forgiven, is simply that sin cannot enter heaven and so it is a given that all of a person’s sins will be forgiven before entering heaven. Yes, Jesus’ blood paid the debt, that doesn’t mean we don’t have to ask for forgiveness.

    Chosen one incapable of committing the sin – this was not intended to sound man-centered. If he is incapable, it is only because God has restrained him. I understand that view. It was an error in wording, not an indication of centeredness.

    If my use of “chosen one” seems derogatory, it is not intended. It is simply the easiest way for me to identify the Reformed view when I am specifically speaking about the Reformed view.

    I looked up all those verses that you referenced. I can’t comment on each and every one, but let me give you an illustration that somewhat shows how I view God’s chosen. A principal of a grade school stands before an assembly of students ranging from 1st to 6th grades. He needs to choose one class to have lunch with him. He realizes that third graders represent everything that he likes about children and so he chooses the third grade class to have lunch with him. He choose the qualities that would define who he would choose and any kid who exemplified those qualities was chosen. The next year, those who were in the second grade will be in the third grade and will be chosen because they demonstrate the qualities of the principal’s chosen grade.
    Obviously, this isn’t a perfect illustration, but it hopefully will give you a perspective on what I believe. Romans 8:29 – “For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the likeness of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers.” He predestined those whom he FOREKNEW to become Christ-like. Anyone who recieves the final gift of God will be conformed to the likeness of his son. He chose the qualities that a Christian would have if they are to receive the gift of God.
    Did God look down the corridor of time? I don’t usually put it that way since time doesn’t really apply to God, but 1 peter 1:2 says, “who have been chosen according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through the sanctifying work of the Spirit, for obedience to Jesus Christ and sprinkling by his blood:”

    What does that mean?

    I believe that the fruit of any true Christian will last. The fruit that comes from a tree doesn’t turn sour in a person’s stomach if the tree goes bad after they have eaten it’s fruit. If the Christian falls away, the people who came to the Lord through their ministry don’t lose their salvation as well. The fruit lasts. When you ask “Did God chose first (Calvinism) or did we chose first (Arminian)?” you are misrepresenting the Arminian view. WE COULD NOT CHOOSE IF GOD DID NOT ALLOW US TO HAVE THE CHOICE. It is not man-centered. God is the author and perfector. God is everything. I am at a loss to figure out how to get you to understand that I believe just as strongly as you do that we are utterly helpless, dead, lost, etc. without God. You keep misrepresenting my view by indicating that I think man has anything to do with our salvation. Yes, I believe we have a choice, but if God weren’t offering, I wouldn’t even have a choice. I could not choose salvation and go about creating my own eternal salvation. It is only because God is offering that salvation that I am able to choose it. Please realize this. God is just as sovereign by allowing us to choose to accept his gift as he would be if he chose whose hands to untie so that they could accept it. I hope I didn’t misrepresent you there.

    Again, the point of this post was to ask that question. Please let me know your thoughts on the question, not just your thoughts on how I wrote the question.

  10. You said “Yes, I believe we have a choice, but if God weren’t offering, I wouldn’t even have a choice. I could not choose salvation and go about creating my own eternal salvation. It is only because God is offering that salvation that I am able to choose it.”

    In light of that my question is very simple. Do you believe that man in their “depraved” state are willing or capable to choose God?

  11. I believe (this is where, I’m not sure if I follow what other Arminians believe or not) that the Holy Spirit moves in a person, thus, making Himself known, so that we can responsibly and in full knowledge, make a choice for or against God. If the choice we make only happens after regeneration and that regeneration is irresistible, then there really is no choice. If I understand the Reformed view correctly, God makes his call irresistable. This leaves absolutely no choice for us to make. The Bible talks about choosing whom we will serve and choosing to follow Christ and choosing life that we might live. These all seem to make it clear that if we don’t choose these things, we will be condemned. I know the Calvinist believes that he is still responsible for that choice, but it really seems odd to me that the Bible uses the word “choose” if there is no choice to be made on our part.

    Again, any thoughts on the actual post? I’m still waiting.

  12. The goal of your original post was to “examine the Reformed view in light of this passage.”

    1) You then assert that “By the Calvinistic approach, all of the sinners’ sins condemn him, not just the unforgiveable sin.”

    The antithesis of this position seems to be that the non-calvinistic approach implies that the only sin that condemns a person is the “unforgivable sin.” Thus it does not matter what other sins you commit because they are not deserving of condemnation.

    2) You then assert “none of the sins of the chosen one will condemn him.” This again is against the “calvinistic” understanding. All the elects sins are deserving of condemnation, however, Christ has born that condemnation on the cross.

    3) Thus to your quesiton “So, who was Jesus warning with this statement? The sinner or the saved?” This presents a false dichotomy, because the saved are sinners. So the answer is quite simple Jesus was warning sinful men not to commit the “unforgivable sin.” We must then conclude that only the elect will not commit the unforgivable sin. Thus their obedience to this commandment would seem to be evidence of their election.

  13. In light of your last comment: “but it really seems odd to me that the Bible uses the word “choose” if there is no choice to be made on our part.”

    I was thinking about the account of the Exodus this morning. In Exodus 4:21-23 we read,

    “The LORD said to Moses, “When you go back to Egypt see that you perform before Pharaoh all the wonders which I have put in your power; but I will harden his heart so that he will not let the people go. Then you shall say to Pharaoh, ‘Thus says the LORD, “Israel is My son, My firstborn. So I said to you, ‘Let My son go that he may serve Me’; but you have refused to let him go Behold, I will kill your son, your firstborn.”‘”

    Then later in 5:1 we see Moses make a request: “And afterward Moses and Aaron came and said to Pharaoh, “Thus says the LORD, the God of Israel, ‘Let My people go that they may celebrate a feast to Me in the wilderness.'”

    Did Pharoah really have choice in whether or not he would let the Israelites go?

  14. Justin
    1) I did not mean that it was only held by Calvinists. That is what I believe as well. I believe that all sins are worthy of condemnation. I did not intend to imply that Calvinists were the only ones to believe that.

    2) Thank you for repeating what I said. None of the sins of the Chosen one will condemn him. I did not say they weren’t deserving of condemnation. If, as you say, “All the elects sins are deserving of condemnation, however, Christ has born that condemnation on the cross,” then you are essentially saying what I said, just using more words to say it.

    3)Interesting. So, what is the point of warning people whom Jesus knows will not listen? More importantly, why make it unforgiveable if there is no hope of forgiveness of any of their sins?

    Pharoah) Do you choose when you will die? Do you choose when you will lose your eyesight? This question really has no relevance. Choosing to let the Israelites go is not a choice of salvation. I can choose Christ and still not have a choice about becoming diabetic.

  15. Javaguy,

    In response to (3), I would ask why did God command Adam not eat of the fruit of knowledge of good and evil, if He knew that Adam would fall?

    3a) One possiblity would seem to be that God gave Adam the command believing that Adam would respond in obedience, but to God’s suprise Adam fell. Thankfully, however, it would seem that God had a plan B, because He had already established the plan of redemption before the foundation of the world (Eph 1:4, 1 Pe 1:20). Personally, I think the idea that God did not know that Adam was going to fall is ridiculous.

    3b) A second possibility, which I believe is more likely, is that God command Adam out of love for Him and a desire for Adam to know His will. This therefore demonstrates God to be good and gracious in giving men a wardning against disobedience, while showing at the same time that man is fully responsible for His own sin.

    Second, in response to your comments on Pharoah I would suggest you read Romans 9 where God shows is sovereignty in salvation through the use of 4 parallels.

    1) God’s choice of Isaac over Ishmael was dependent only upon the promise of God. (Rom 9:6-9)

    2) God’s choice of Jacob over Esau was dependent only upon the choice of God. (Rom. 9:10-13)

    3) God’s choice to harden Pharoah is evidence of His sovereignty in fulfilling His purposes. “So then He has mercy on whom He desires, and He hardens whom He desires” (Rom. 9:14-18)

    4) God’s choice to take from the same lump of clay (fallen humanity) and make from it some for the demonstration of His wrath and some for the demonstration of His mercy belongs to Him and to Him alone. (Rom. 9:19-23)

    If you think that the example of Pharoah has nothing to do with salvation, you are sorely mistaken. If you think that salvation “depends” upon your faith, I fear that you do not really understand the gospel. “it does not depend on the man who wills (that would include the willing of faith) or the man who runs (that would include those who do “Christian” things), BUT ON GOD WHO HAS MERCY” (Rom. 9:16), and 9:22-23 makes very clear that He has not shown mercy to everyone.

  16. Luke 7:47-50 “47Therefore, I tell you, her many sins have been forgiven—for she loved much. But he who has been forgiven little loves little.”
    48Then Jesus said to her, “Your sins are forgiven.”
    49The other guests began to say among themselves, “Who is this who even forgives sins?”
    50Jesus said to the woman, “Your faith has saved you; go in peace.””

    Which comes first, salvation, or faith?

    John 2:11 “This, the first of his miraculous signs, Jesus performed in Cana of Galilee. He thus revealed his glory, and his disciples put their faith in him.”

    THEY put their faith in him.

    John 12:10, 11 “10So the chief priests made plans to kill Lazarus as well, 11for on account of him many of the Jews were going over to Jesus and putting their faith in him.”

    On account of Lazarus they put their faith in Jesus.

    Romans 11:17-24 ” 17If some of the branches have been broken off, and you, though a wild olive shoot, have been grafted in among the others and now share in the nourishing sap from the olive root, 18do not boast over those branches. If you do, consider this: You do not support the root, but the root supports you. 19You will say then, “Branches were broken off so that I could be grafted in.” 20Granted. But they were broken off because of unbelief, and you stand by faith. Do not be arrogant, but be afraid. 21For if God did not spare the natural branches, he will not spare you either.

    22Consider therefore the kindness and sternness of God: sternness to those who fell, but kindness to you, provided that you continue in his kindness. Otherwise, you also will be cut off. 23And if they do not persist in unbelief, they will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again. 24After all, if you were cut out of an olive tree that is wild by nature, and contrary to nature were grafted into a cultivated olive tree, how much more readily will these, the natural branches, be grafted into their own olive tree!”

    It says that you stand by faith, indicating salvation, then goes on to say that it is providing that you continue in his kindness, otherwise, you will be broken off too. He says right here that someone who is currently in the faith could be broken off because they don’t continue in his kindness.

    Romans 14:15 “Do not by your eating destroy your brother for whom Christ died.”

    Limited atonement? If Christ died for him, how could he be destroyed? It doesn’t say “make him falter” or “go astray” it says “destroy.” That is full and final.

    Colossian 1:22,23 “22But now he has reconciled you by Christ’s physical body through death to present you holy in his sight, without blemish and free from accusation— 23if you continue in your faith, established and firm, not moved from the hope held out in the gospel.”

    He HAS RECONCILED you . . . IF you CONTINUE in your faith . . .

    1 Timothy 1:19 “you may fight the good fight, 19holding on to faith and a good conscience. Some have rejected these and so have shipwrecked their faith. 20Among them are Hymenaeus and Alexander, whom I have handed over to Satan to be taught not to blaspheme.”

    How could they shipwreck their faith if they never truly had faith? He says that they shipwrecked their faith, not God. If they weren’t elect, then they never would have had faith.

    1 Timothy 2:15 “15But women[a] will be saved[b] through childbearing—if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety.”

    Again, IF they CONTINUE in faith.

    1Timothy 4:1 “1The Spirit clearly says that in later times some will abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons. ”

    If we have no choice in faith and God only gives it to the elect, then how could they abandon it?

    2 Timothy 2:18 “and they destroy the faith of some.”

    You can’t destroy something that is not real.

    James 2:24 “You see that a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone.”

    1 Peter 5:8,9 “8Be self-controlled and alert. Your enemy the devil prowls around like a roaring lion looking for someone to devour. 9Resist him, standing firm in the faith, because you know that your brothers throughout the world are undergoing the same kind of sufferings.”

    The devil wouldn’t prowl around devouring those who are already his. What is the point of this warning to Christians if there is no danger of being devoured?

    I would continue, but I have run out of time. I will respond to the other parts of your response when I get a chance.

  17. javaguy,

    I appreaciate the length reponse with the scripture references, but lest I speak in haste, I will take some time to think through what you have said before commenting to much.

    However, I would pose a couple of quick questions that might help me to understand better your perspective:

    1) How would you define the terms “justification” or “being justified” and “sancification”?

    2) How would you explain the relationship between “justification” and “sanctification”?

    3) Who do you see as responsible for “justification”?

    4) Who do you see as responsible for “sanctification”?

  18. Justin,

    Sorry for the slow response. It is not out of disinterest or anything else, just being busy.

    1) Justification is what Jesus did for us on the cross. We are not worthy of God’s grace or blessing, but because we believe in Him, He counts us worthy of the call. In essence, we have stake in heaven because Jesus bought that plot for us on the cross.
    Sanctification is the process through which we become more like Christ through the work of the Holy Spirit. Romans 8 says that we are predestined to be conformed to the likeness of his Son. This is the end result of sanctification.

    2)I believe the two are bonded. Without sanctification, we could not truly be justified. This is where I feel our responsibility lies. The Holy spirit directs us on how to become more like Christ and we follow that guidance to become worthy of the calling. When we sin, we are not following the guidance of the Holy Spirit. It is then required that we confess our sins and ask for forgiveness. This confession is part of the process through which we become more Christ-like and thus justified.

    3)Christ on the cross.

    4)The Holy Spirit.

  19. Justin,
    The fact still remains that you have not answered the question of this post. You have gone around it, ignored it, taken tangents from it, but you have yet to answer it. I am not trying to be condemning or condescending, I just would sincerely like to hear what a Calvinist has to say about this.

    If all of the sins of the sinner will condemn him, (regardless of what view you hold) and if all of the sins of the saved will be forgiven (regardless of how or why) then what is the point of having an unforgiveable sin?

  20. Javaguy,

    I have asked you many questions not to dodge the subject, but because I felt that they have everything to do with the subject. In fact in reading your response to my last series of questions it becomes more evident to me that you seem to see justification based upon what we do and not solely on the work of Christ.

    “we follow that guidance to become worthy of the calling”…”the process through which we become more Christ-like and thus justified.” I am not suprised to see these kind of comments from you as I have seen that you clearly see faith as that action which we do in order to recieve justification.

    My issue is still with your interpretation that because God commands something or warns us of something, we must have the ability to act on such warnings. I am sure that you would see it as pointless for God to tell us to believe in Christ, if we did not have the ability to do so, but that is exactly what He has done.

    Why did Christ make this bold statement? I can only image it was to show the seriousness of insulting the spirit of God. “How much severer punishment do you think he will deserve who has trampled under foot the Son of God, and has regarded as unclean the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has insulted the Spirit of grace?” (Heb 10:29). If God should choice to give a greater warning to this people about a sin that cannot be forgiven, and they in their rebellion should commit it, they will only recieve the greater condemnation.

    I would strongly encourage you to be careful in reading “your” theological position into a text. This text does not as far as I can tell deal with any of the major points of contention between Arminans and Calvinists. It is really bad on either of our parts to attempt to read a stated theological position into the text. What is clear is that Christ said it, that this particular sin is unforgiveable, and we can conclude that sins all those who will be in heaven shall have all their sins forgiven, that none of those who will enter God’s kingdom shall ever commit this sin. So it is our responsiblity to take such a warning serious and to seek God to keep us from it.

  21. Justin,
    Thank you for your response. I honestly am not just looking for a fight. My response on your site came from a huge frustration. That frustration being that I have the hardest time getting Calvinists to just directly answer any questions I pose to them. Both here and on the Irish Calvinist site. I am deeply appreciative of everyone’s willingness to talk. I just find that anytime I pose a question or bring up a point of Calvinism in question, the conversation automatically goes to pointing out how I am wrong and how MY beliefs are wrong and my questions go unanswered. I understand that you may have differences of opinion and that they are, in fact, relevant. However, it is very easy to answer a question like, “who is Jesus warning.” without going into all that other stuff. It took probably over 2000 words to finally get to the point where you actually just answered the question. That is the frustration I am having in my discussions. If I were seriously seeking what the Bible says with an open mind and heart and had questions for people about their beliefs (which is where I was when all this started) and only got critisism about my beliefs and never got answers to the tough questions I asked about their beliefs, what do you think I am going to think? I understand why you think what you do about what I said about justification and faith. There is just something deeper there than us earning or deserving it. It isn’t as simple as you think it is. I don’t believe we can earn or deserve anything from God. I wish I had time to explain more right now, but it is Valentines’ day and my wife is waiting at home for me.

    Honestly, I do appreciate you discussion.

  22. kendra wilkinson nude Levitz was close to gethard any. Our tongues slowlyrubbed against each.

  23. kim possible blowjob

  24. upskirt videos

  25. The spaces vanessa hudgens stripping within his young child, and tears streamed downher.

  26. Yahoo. She screamed at hersons who had their mujeres desnudas peludas doms get in my tongue.

  27. negras chicas I was bare, ess. Htm changes none this morning. Ess. Although.

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

%d bloggers like this: