"Once I had a very friendly conversation with a college professor who was strongly Arminian, I remarked that one difference between Calvinism and Arminianism was that the latter denied the possibility of assurance. 'Not so,' he replied, 'I'm right now completely assured of my salvation. If I should die this moment, I know I would go to heaven. Of course,' he continued, 'if I should live until tomorrow or next week, I do not know whether I shall be saved or not.' This raises the question of the value of assurance. Assurance of salvation does not mean that you will get to Heaven. Assurance that a good restaurant serves good food does not guarantee that it serves good food." - Gordon Clark
"This is an assurance that many popular evangelists do not have themselves and cannot promise to their hearers. Yes, they insist on assurance, but it is not the assurance that the Bible teaches. These evangelists, the ones I have in mind, are Arminians. They do not believe in the perseverance of the saints, or, as they call it, eternal security. They claim to be very sure that they are saved now; but they are not sure that they will be saved tomorrow or next week. If they die tonight, they will be in Heaven immediately. But if they should live a while longer, they might fall into sin, fall from grace, and then they would be eternally lost. But they are very sure just now... To be really saved, i.e., to get to Heaven, one must be born again over and over again. Their hope therefore is one that can easily disappoint. These preachers often talk quite a lot about the Holy Spirit; but they deny to the Spirit the power to give a man eternal life. By eternal I mean eternal; not a life that ends in the near future. Thus they do not have assurance; nor do they preach the Gospel, for the Gospel promises at least the possibility of assurance. It promises, not the mere possibility of eternal life; it promises eternal life." - Gordon Clark
Friday, December 27, 2013
Wednesday, December 18, 2013
Christian Rap
Without Holy Scripture we cannot discern rightly General Revelation. Apart from Special Revelation no one can discern rightly what is being spoken of in General Revelation (in fact some even have taken liberty to say this does not really exist). God exist and has shown Himself and continues to speak of Himself in nature, but unless God turns man and gives him light to see he will not turn to God and God’s wrath abides.
Scripture alone does not speak on every topic. It does not speak on the topic of arithmetic. If it did then I suppose anyone who failed the class would be all sinners in sin. Fortunately Scripture does not tell us how to sing or what musical instrument should be used. The argument could be stated another way. They did not have Drums (which many of our modern day worship services have), I am pretty sure they did not have a Piano or a Organ (I could be wrong here).
Every time a little child plays an instrument learning how to play the notes yet fails to hit the right notes are in Sin because of the fact that what they are playing is ugly.
I think the real issue here is that Scott just does not like Rap.
Scripture alone does not speak on every topic. It does not speak on the topic of arithmetic. If it did then I suppose anyone who failed the class would be all sinners in sin. Fortunately Scripture does not tell us how to sing or what musical instrument should be used. The argument could be stated another way. They did not have Drums (which many of our modern day worship services have), I am pretty sure they did not have a Piano or a Organ (I could be wrong here).
Every time a little child plays an instrument learning how to play the notes yet fails to hit the right notes are in Sin because of the fact that what they are playing is ugly.
I think the real issue here is that Scott just does not like Rap.
Thursday, December 12, 2013
Christian Rap and it's suppose sinfulness
I have been following a blog for quite some time now. Hopefully my responses are educated. But I think the debate is finally over (I think). The Link to the last question begins here:
http://religiousaffections.org/articles/articles-on-culture/discussion-about-christian-rap-with-shai-linne-example-of-sinful-music/
It is interesting to note that Scott gives some form of example of music that 'sounds' horrible. He post videos of Christian hardcore music and which he says that some of these songs have lyrics but he cannot understand them. My question is why does he not look up the lyrics if he wants to understand them and perhaps maybe he could learn how to sing the song (most who like that genre do). It is not different than to suggest I am listening to a scream-o in which the screamer is hard to understand (once I begin to understand the lyrics the song becomes a little more reasonable).
It is the usual case in which Scott does not truly understand Scripture. He says let your manner of life be worthy of the Gospel (quoting Phil 1:27). I wonder what he would say about acts in which he disagrees with? According to this verse Scripture alone (Gospel) is the basis for our holy living. And the rule and conduct for our lives should be based upon what God has said in Scripture alone. This is not what he wants to say - Scripture does not speak on all areas of life. He just shot himself in the foot.
He assumes (wronglfully) that this music he speaks of is ugly. He simply does not understand the music.
Shai Linne I think has done a wonderful job in pressing the issue. He says, According to the rest of verse 27, a manner of life worthy of the gospel is seen as believers are “standing firm in one spirit, with one mind striving side by side for the faith of the gospel”
Wonderful, and how is it that we stand in unity? Ephesians 4. Content, Content, Content.
Finally Scott addresses with his final reply. He speaks of his daughter who was assumingly acting bad. Perhaps maybe she was, maybe she was not. Lets give this to Scott. She is his daughter of course. But, again there are perhaps many things in which would be pride according to Scott that Scripture condones. For instance as calling out false doctrine. Not allowing those who hold to false doctrine to stand in or infiltrate the assembly. Yet in our day the Christian wants to unify with those who have false doctrine. This is Van Tillian presupposition. Well we cannot know whether this is so or not. I know I know you speak the truth, but your actions do not show it. Therefore, you are acting in pride. He assumes things.
Now there are some who want to say that one is speaking in pride when he or she addresses false doctrine. They assume that the communication of it is done in pride and sinfulness. The question is where or show me how this is sinful or prideful. If you press them on this question they cannot answer it. I am expecting certain men to tell me where in my comments I have been in pride. I am afraid they will not be able to show me where this is the case. Scripture already says what pride is and Scott is using extra-biblical reasoning to say that pride is more than what Scripture says it is.
Regardless, the interesting feature is that he cannot cite chapter and verse on the issue with his daughter. We are not talking about whether a man who actually does a sin knows it or not. That is possible. It is part of the fall that men do not know or see their sin as they ought. Perhaps some of the things that could be said is this that the intentions of people matter. This is true. We read books and the first thing we should ask is what does the author intend to say. Essentially this issue goes back to the first post on this issue. Although intentions are very important. Sometimes how we say things do matter in one sense. But again this is not to say that we should always say things in a nice way. Sometimes there are instances in which it is better to yell or to say something in a particular way than another time - this is Ecclesiastes.
Scott does continue on with the 'discussion' and most of what he says spurs on a question of whether he truly understands Shai's point.
Here is the link to the last discussion I think:
http://religiousaffections.org/articles/articles-on-culture/discussion-about-christian-rap-with-shai-linne-example-of-sinful-music-rebuttal/
http://religiousaffections.org/articles/articles-on-culture/discussion-about-christian-rap-with-shai-linne-example-of-sinful-music/
It is interesting to note that Scott gives some form of example of music that 'sounds' horrible. He post videos of Christian hardcore music and which he says that some of these songs have lyrics but he cannot understand them. My question is why does he not look up the lyrics if he wants to understand them and perhaps maybe he could learn how to sing the song (most who like that genre do). It is not different than to suggest I am listening to a scream-o in which the screamer is hard to understand (once I begin to understand the lyrics the song becomes a little more reasonable).
It is the usual case in which Scott does not truly understand Scripture. He says let your manner of life be worthy of the Gospel (quoting Phil 1:27). I wonder what he would say about acts in which he disagrees with? According to this verse Scripture alone (Gospel) is the basis for our holy living. And the rule and conduct for our lives should be based upon what God has said in Scripture alone. This is not what he wants to say - Scripture does not speak on all areas of life. He just shot himself in the foot.
He assumes (wronglfully) that this music he speaks of is ugly. He simply does not understand the music.
Shai Linne I think has done a wonderful job in pressing the issue. He says, According to the rest of verse 27, a manner of life worthy of the gospel is seen as believers are “standing firm in one spirit, with one mind striving side by side for the faith of the gospel”
Wonderful, and how is it that we stand in unity? Ephesians 4. Content, Content, Content.
Finally Scott addresses with his final reply. He speaks of his daughter who was assumingly acting bad. Perhaps maybe she was, maybe she was not. Lets give this to Scott. She is his daughter of course. But, again there are perhaps many things in which would be pride according to Scott that Scripture condones. For instance as calling out false doctrine. Not allowing those who hold to false doctrine to stand in or infiltrate the assembly. Yet in our day the Christian wants to unify with those who have false doctrine. This is Van Tillian presupposition. Well we cannot know whether this is so or not. I know I know you speak the truth, but your actions do not show it. Therefore, you are acting in pride. He assumes things.
Now there are some who want to say that one is speaking in pride when he or she addresses false doctrine. They assume that the communication of it is done in pride and sinfulness. The question is where or show me how this is sinful or prideful. If you press them on this question they cannot answer it. I am expecting certain men to tell me where in my comments I have been in pride. I am afraid they will not be able to show me where this is the case. Scripture already says what pride is and Scott is using extra-biblical reasoning to say that pride is more than what Scripture says it is.
Regardless, the interesting feature is that he cannot cite chapter and verse on the issue with his daughter. We are not talking about whether a man who actually does a sin knows it or not. That is possible. It is part of the fall that men do not know or see their sin as they ought. Perhaps some of the things that could be said is this that the intentions of people matter. This is true. We read books and the first thing we should ask is what does the author intend to say. Essentially this issue goes back to the first post on this issue. Although intentions are very important. Sometimes how we say things do matter in one sense. But again this is not to say that we should always say things in a nice way. Sometimes there are instances in which it is better to yell or to say something in a particular way than another time - this is Ecclesiastes.
Scott does continue on with the 'discussion' and most of what he says spurs on a question of whether he truly understands Shai's point.
Here is the link to the last discussion I think:
http://religiousaffections.org/articles/articles-on-culture/discussion-about-christian-rap-with-shai-linne-example-of-sinful-music-rebuttal/
Tuesday, December 10, 2013
Christian Rap and Shai Linne
I think now the Debators are now arguing none essentials. Shai needs to press Scott on what he means by:
Indeed the real issue is not contextualizing the Gospel. But the real issue is whether or not the Gospel is being heard in this form of music. Music - apart from the lyrics - does communicate in one sense (though to be honest Humans are lead by such things). We would rather listen to good music without actually hearing the words. All men struggle with this. Scott believes that emotions play a role in the Christian Life. Whereas the truth of the Scripture is that Emotions play no role at all. Truth matters. That is why Scripture calls us to worship God alone. God says that it is by His Name alone that He saves people. The Christian Faith is intellectual. The real issue here in discerning whether or not a particular Genre is good or not is not the musical instruments used but whether the lyrics themselves speak of divine truth. In one sense we must redefine the issue or restate the issue. The issue is not whether or not I can listen to rap - but whether those lyrics those words in the rap are edifying and God glorifying.
As we stick to the issue now we can consider the rest of the problem going on. The question was asked:
Some of my points though will be with Shai Linne's comments to the Question. He says that music is used with the Lyrics. Depending on the type of song it is it seems determines the type of music played. This seems to be logical. Likewise with how we communicate truth's of scripture depends on what is being communicated. We obviously would not tell someone they are Totally depraved and apart from Life in Christ you have no hope and that the Law condemns with a smiling face. Likewise music is used to enforce what is being said (it leads the emotions). This is what he says:
Yet, I fail to see how this in itself proves Scott's contention that rap music is wrong. Perhaps maybe he is the one who is moved by the music, rather than by the WORDS of truth Spoken? Maybe he felt compelled to buy a gun after listening to rap music? Bach gave him a Handel on things. Obviously Context determine the Content. There is a Law and Gospel distinction. I would not speak the Law to someone who needs to hear the Gospel and likewise I would not want to speak the Gospel to someone who needed to hear the Law. My tone of voice has nothing to do with the truth being communicated ultimately (though it may help, or may be hurtful in some cases). So I want to always bring the case back to the Objective reality of things - Content, Content, Content.
With this I want to respond briefly to Scotts' address:
I am not certain Shai has to in this regard. Scott has moved away from Scripture. Scripture does not speak on the tone or music style of the giving of truth. We saw this when we went through various Scripture verses that Scott used. At this juncture this is philosophy. Of course do we believe that Scripture alone is our only Guide for faith and practices? Yes. We need no other guide or tool at all. It would be wrong for Shai to use the music to get people do something that was out of pure emotions. Scripture says that our worship should be Reasonable (Romans 12:1-2).
Perhaps the better word would be entices rather than communicate. Music certainly can entice us to do something. This is something we must stay away from. But Communication is used rather than entice because entice would be bad. lets say Certain forms of music are not fitting to entice God's truth . . . Because in reality music does not speak anything. This is why many may listen to country music and become entice with the Chivalry climate that is speaks on often. The issue goes straight back to the Bible. The Bible is the Word of God alone and nothing else. Music should not entice us to do anything unscriptural. A preacher or a minister may administer the Word of God fine. But how he does that whether he preaches or writes a book does not matter as long as the Word of God is preached (John 4:21-24; Romans 10:14-17). - This could be my rebuttle to what Scott said:
Here is a link to Shai's Comment to the Question asked: http://religiousaffections.org/articles/articles-on-culture/discussion-about-christian-rap-with-shai-linne-how-does-rap-flavor-its-truth-content/
Here is a link to Scott's rebuttle: http://religiousaffections.org/articles/articles-on-culture/discussion-about-christian-rap-with-shai-linne-how-does-rap-flavor-its-truth-content-rebuttal/
Third, you are making a very common category error in these discussions. I agree completely, of course, that whatever God creates is good. God created music. God created meat. These things are good. But God did not create rap. People did. For that matter, God did not create Gregorian chant, German chorales, Appalachian folk tunes, country western, jazz, or rock ‘n’ roll. People did. And because these are all human communication, they are moral. It is very dangerous to ascribe to God something that he did not make.
Brother, I’m not understanding the distinction you’re making. You said that God created music. But then you went on to say that people created particular genres of music. Every genre you mentioned has lyrics, which you rightly termed “human communication”. But my original question was about music apart from lyrics. Can you explain what you mean when you say “God created music.”? Thanks.
Indeed the real issue is not contextualizing the Gospel. But the real issue is whether or not the Gospel is being heard in this form of music. Music - apart from the lyrics - does communicate in one sense (though to be honest Humans are lead by such things). We would rather listen to good music without actually hearing the words. All men struggle with this. Scott believes that emotions play a role in the Christian Life. Whereas the truth of the Scripture is that Emotions play no role at all. Truth matters. That is why Scripture calls us to worship God alone. God says that it is by His Name alone that He saves people. The Christian Faith is intellectual. The real issue here in discerning whether or not a particular Genre is good or not is not the musical instruments used but whether the lyrics themselves speak of divine truth. In one sense we must redefine the issue or restate the issue. The issue is not whether or not I can listen to rap - but whether those lyrics those words in the rap are edifying and God glorifying.
As we stick to the issue now we can consider the rest of the problem going on. The question was asked:
Shai, I have heard you talk about the differences between east coast, southern, midwest, and west coast hip hop and the “flavors” they communicate. Would you say that each of these forms has strengths and weaknesses when attempting to communicate different aspects of biblical truth such as lament, exultation, rebuke, or instruction? If so, could you give examples of what each of these do well and what they do poorly? If not, could you explain why not?
Some of my points though will be with Shai Linne's comments to the Question. He says that music is used with the Lyrics. Depending on the type of song it is it seems determines the type of music played. This seems to be logical. Likewise with how we communicate truth's of scripture depends on what is being communicated. We obviously would not tell someone they are Totally depraved and apart from Life in Christ you have no hope and that the Law condemns with a smiling face. Likewise music is used to enforce what is being said (it leads the emotions). This is what he says:
This is an excellent question, Scott. It’s something that I think Christian Hip-hop artists need to wrestle with more than we do. My answer is yes. Like all genres, different regional forms of Hip-hop have strengths and weaknesses when it comes to expressing different kinds of truth. It’s something I’m conscious of and it guides how I choose the music I rap over. It’s the point I tried to make starting at the 5:50 point of this video...
Yet, I fail to see how this in itself proves Scott's contention that rap music is wrong. Perhaps maybe he is the one who is moved by the music, rather than by the WORDS of truth Spoken? Maybe he felt compelled to buy a gun after listening to rap music? Bach gave him a Handel on things. Obviously Context determine the Content. There is a Law and Gospel distinction. I would not speak the Law to someone who needs to hear the Gospel and likewise I would not want to speak the Gospel to someone who needed to hear the Law. My tone of voice has nothing to do with the truth being communicated ultimately (though it may help, or may be hurtful in some cases). So I want to always bring the case back to the Objective reality of things - Content, Content, Content.
With this I want to respond briefly to Scotts' address:
In the meantime, third, I would simply like to observe that you did not use any Scripture to prove that “southern Hip-hop is strong when it comes to encouraging excitement and rallying around something.”
I am not certain Shai has to in this regard. Scott has moved away from Scripture. Scripture does not speak on the tone or music style of the giving of truth. We saw this when we went through various Scripture verses that Scott used. At this juncture this is philosophy. Of course do we believe that Scripture alone is our only Guide for faith and practices? Yes. We need no other guide or tool at all. It would be wrong for Shai to use the music to get people do something that was out of pure emotions. Scripture says that our worship should be Reasonable (Romans 12:1-2).
But here is the point I would like to stress here: often we who argue that certain forms of music are not fitting to communicate God’s truth are cut off from any discussion because the Bible doesn’t explicitly say that music communicates, how music communicates, or that some kinds of music are inappropriate for holy matters.
Perhaps the better word would be entices rather than communicate. Music certainly can entice us to do something. This is something we must stay away from. But Communication is used rather than entice because entice would be bad. lets say Certain forms of music are not fitting to entice God's truth . . . Because in reality music does not speak anything. This is why many may listen to country music and become entice with the Chivalry climate that is speaks on often. The issue goes straight back to the Bible. The Bible is the Word of God alone and nothing else. Music should not entice us to do anything unscriptural. A preacher or a minister may administer the Word of God fine. But how he does that whether he preaches or writes a book does not matter as long as the Word of God is preached (John 4:21-24; Romans 10:14-17). - This could be my rebuttle to what Scott said:
I’m convinced that if we could get past the “But the Bible doesn’t say anything about music!” argument, we could really move this discussion along to actually discuss the merits and demerits of the genre of rap itself.
Here is a link to Shai's Comment to the Question asked: http://religiousaffections.org/articles/articles-on-culture/discussion-about-christian-rap-with-shai-linne-how-does-rap-flavor-its-truth-content/
Here is a link to Scott's rebuttle: http://religiousaffections.org/articles/articles-on-culture/discussion-about-christian-rap-with-shai-linne-how-does-rap-flavor-its-truth-content-rebuttal/
Friday, December 6, 2013
Christian Rap and Man's Sinfulness
Scott Aniol and Shai Linne, continue in their well debate against one another. Interesting remarks to be made is that the point Shai is making is that Music, apart from lyrics, can be sinful. Indeed it can be sinful. Just as the sowing of the evil one is sinful. It is not sinful in and of itself to simply create music. But, the intentions and the darkness of our hearts make it so. Scott is disagreeing (without Scriptural backing) albeit he may have some knowledge of Scripture. certainly his points are full of error though. I agree in one sense Shai's point on Romans 14 - we are not obligated to remain with the two distinctions between a thing and another thing. Shai is debating over whether Rap MUSIC is sinful or not. So you can actually place these distinctions in place of say the meat offered up to idols. Does Rap music actually cause one to commit idolatrous worship?
Scott replies back to Shai's point by saying again the Scripture is concerned with not only the WHAT we say but the HOW we say it, which is something that I disagree whole heartedly. Scripture does not speak on the HOW so much. Consider this as an example: Prayer. Someone who prays to the true God (What) is said to be praying in idolatrous tones because of How he prays, whereas Hindu who prays to whoever is said to be the most devote person in Prayer because of HOW he prayed. Again Scripture is more concerned with What we know and not in how we know it. Of course Scott furnishes for us some scriptural evidences of his view, granted - taken out of context. For one thing Ephesians 4:15 is not speaking to us about how we communicate something. Whether we preach or teach has nothing to do with how we communicate it. The in love furnishes the purpose for why we communicate these truths. In fact, it furnishes the why God has given us the Apostles, and teachers. The purpose of the Apostles and Teachers were to communicate truths of revelation for the purpose that the Church would grow into unity of the knowledge of the faith. Of course there are those of the flesh who do not know the truth and do not want to truth these people are talked about in 1 Corinthians.
1 Corinthains 2:1-5 - simply Paul's point is that God has appointed Paul as an apostle and elder and teacher so that what Paul preaches is not 'lofty speech' but the word of God alone. Nothing here speaks against knowledge but everything in Paul's letters speaks against carnal knowledge. Gnostic knowledge puff's up, but true knowledge which Paul is not talking against does not.
The last point I wish to make is that Scott seems to be making a very very common error with regards to God and secondary causations. For one God is said to have caused the fall in the sense that God simply moved into motion the world so that the world now is on a course in which it cannot stop. Now whatever happens to the world happens because it does it on its own and not because God actually Caused it to happen. Consider this clearly to be the Cosmological Argument. The great danger here is that although God is said to be the Creator of all things He is not the 'maker' of all things. Indeed man makes things out of the saw dust that God made. But man can make something out of the portion that God made sinful. Who is making the jump? Shai or Scott? I believe the prayer of Scott would be like God I thank you that you have given me your dirt so that I could make a beautiful bow and arrow. Not what you have done, but what my hand had wrought (pun intended).
http://religiousaffections.org/articles/articles-on-music/discussion-about-christian-rap-with-shai-linne-can-music-be-sinful-rebuttal/
Scott replies back to Shai's point by saying again the Scripture is concerned with not only the WHAT we say but the HOW we say it, which is something that I disagree whole heartedly. Scripture does not speak on the HOW so much. Consider this as an example: Prayer. Someone who prays to the true God (What) is said to be praying in idolatrous tones because of How he prays, whereas Hindu who prays to whoever is said to be the most devote person in Prayer because of HOW he prayed. Again Scripture is more concerned with What we know and not in how we know it. Of course Scott furnishes for us some scriptural evidences of his view, granted - taken out of context. For one thing Ephesians 4:15 is not speaking to us about how we communicate something. Whether we preach or teach has nothing to do with how we communicate it. The in love furnishes the purpose for why we communicate these truths. In fact, it furnishes the why God has given us the Apostles, and teachers. The purpose of the Apostles and Teachers were to communicate truths of revelation for the purpose that the Church would grow into unity of the knowledge of the faith. Of course there are those of the flesh who do not know the truth and do not want to truth these people are talked about in 1 Corinthians.
1 Corinthains 2:1-5 - simply Paul's point is that God has appointed Paul as an apostle and elder and teacher so that what Paul preaches is not 'lofty speech' but the word of God alone. Nothing here speaks against knowledge but everything in Paul's letters speaks against carnal knowledge. Gnostic knowledge puff's up, but true knowledge which Paul is not talking against does not.
The last point I wish to make is that Scott seems to be making a very very common error with regards to God and secondary causations. For one God is said to have caused the fall in the sense that God simply moved into motion the world so that the world now is on a course in which it cannot stop. Now whatever happens to the world happens because it does it on its own and not because God actually Caused it to happen. Consider this clearly to be the Cosmological Argument. The great danger here is that although God is said to be the Creator of all things He is not the 'maker' of all things. Indeed man makes things out of the saw dust that God made. But man can make something out of the portion that God made sinful. Who is making the jump? Shai or Scott? I believe the prayer of Scott would be like God I thank you that you have given me your dirt so that I could make a beautiful bow and arrow. Not what you have done, but what my hand had wrought (pun intended).
http://religiousaffections.org/articles/articles-on-music/discussion-about-christian-rap-with-shai-linne-can-music-be-sinful-rebuttal/
Wednesday, December 4, 2013
Tuesday, December 3, 2013
Scripture alone and its suffciency
"I believe that the Bible is our supreme authority and that it is sufficient to equip us for every good work (2 Timothy 3:16-17). This means that every single issue in the Christian life is addressed in Scripture by precept, principle, or example. Music is no exception."
A few remarks on this is indeed helpful. By saying that the Scripture is our supreme authority he does not mean that Scripture is alone our authority. Indeed in past conversations with him he says that we are sanctified by other means but rather the Bible is our supreme tool of how we are sanctified. There is a pyramid scheme the Bible is on top, but there are a list of other things that can sanctify. I have a problem with this view of Scriptural authority.
Of course the issue being dealt with here is that there are certain musical styles that Scripture does discredit. Whether this person knows it or not Scripture does not discredit the how to. To say that one must look into the how to as well as the what is to say that ultimately the what and the form is both equally important. For example prayer. Gordon H. Clark uses this example. Scripture is primarily concerned with the What of faith and not the form of faith.
However, the issue I am not dealing with here is necessarily over the issue of Christian rap (some of it is wrong for it does not have a lyrically truthful doctrine. I personally do not always listen to it because my taste in music is not directed towards rap music - though the lyrics are good and I find it more consistent with scripture than other music).
Here is the Article: http://religiousaffections.org/articles/articles-on-culture/some-answers-to-questions-about-my-views-on-reformed-rap/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)