I would like to get some opinions on the following two quotes by James White. The first comes from his debate with Dave Hunt and the second comes from his website. Maybe I am wrong, but I detect a bit of inconsistency here. It seems to me that he is quite comfortable using virtually the same tactics he rebukes Dave Hunt for in Debating Calvinism.
Am I reading this wrong? I know that Mr. White often plays the misrepresentation card so I want to be cautious here. That is why I am asking what you think.
Here is Mr. White on Dave Hunt comparing Calvinism to Roman Catholicism via Augustine:
"Hunt’s entire presentation is an attempt to poison the well through poor argumentation. He is saying:
1. Augustine was Roman Catholic.
2. Calvin cited heavily from Augustine and respected him.
3. Therefore, Calvinism is suspect by association with Catholicism through Augustine."
[Debating Calvinism, pg. 244]
Below is a post from Alpha and Omega with a few observations of mine concerning White's comments:
The Arminian01/05/2004 - James White
"A fine young fellow that I've been seeing a lot of lately (has something to do with my lovely daughter, I do believe) showed me a periodical titled "The Arminian." I was first amazed that there are still folks left on planet earth that willingly, gladly, without a word of remonstrance, accept the name of themselves. "
Does Mr. White really feel this way? Does he think it incredible that there are people who would still call themselves Arminians today?
"But what was far more interesting was the fact that there was an article in it by Steve Witzki written against "eternal security." You can see the article Here. Right at the beginning you will find the author quoting James Akin, staff apologist for Catholic Answers, from the debate notes he posted on his website from our radio debate from many years ago. This is the same debate where Akin misidentified various elements of the Greek language, as we documented in a previous Dividing Line broadcast."
Notice how James White doesn’t say anything about the argument Steve Witzki was making regarding the total lack of historical precedence for the Calvinistic understanding of perseverance. He doesn’t deny that Calvin invented a doctrine that was unheard of prior to Calvin himself. Instead, he tries to undermine Akin’s credibility by pointing out that he made some mistakes with Greek grammar.
"What was so strange is that this Arminian writer seemingly has no problem borrowing from a Roman Catholic when he is arguing that church history stands opposed to a belief in the perfection of the work of Christ."
The reason Steve Witzki references James Akin is because Akin did considerable research looking into the origin of the doctrine. This research included calling numerous Calvinist Seminaries and speaking with Calvinist professors asking them if anyone taught this doctrine prior to Calvin. The answer was always “No”. This is the point that Mr. White should have addressed in this article, and not the issue of any blunders on Akin’s part concerning the Greek language. Oh, and BTW, the belief in perseverance from a synergistic perspective is in no way analogous to opposition to "a belief in the perfection of the work of Christ".
"Of course, would the author likewise follow Akin's historical arguments on such topics as the Mass, purgatory, or the Marian dogmas? We think not."
Oh good, so Mr. White gives Mr. Witzki a little credit.
"But for those who get all upset when I point out the confluence of Arminianism and Roman Catholicism (based upon the centrality of synergism to both systems), please take up your complaint with Mr. Witzki."
And what exactly was the point of all this? Wasn’t it to cast doubt on Arminianism by pointing out how it is similar to Catholicism? Does it matter that Arminianism and Catholicism have similar synergistic views of salvation? Does it matter that James White agrees with Roman Catholics on the doctrine of the Trinity? Maybe he will say that the belief in the Trinity predates the RCC, and he would be quite right about that. It is just as true that a belief in synergism predates the RCC as well, which was one of Witzki’s main points. What does not predate the RCC or John Calvin is the Calvinistic understanding of Perseverance, and this was Steve’s and Jimmy Atkin’s main point. So just what have we learned from Mr. White? Could someone please explain?
How about this:
1. James Atkin is a Roman Catholic.
2. Arminian Steve Witzki cited James Atkin.
3. Therefore, Arminianism is suspect by association with Catholicism through James Atkin.
Sound Familiar?
19 comments:
Here's my take (quickly written as I try to leave work early for the weekend).
I think you are misreading. Remember that you are referring to a blog entry (which is not meant to be exhaustive) that is 4 years old – so we may not have a sense of what was transpiring at the time. Here’s my thoughts.
The thrust of the blog entry seems to be this:
“What was so strange is that this Arminian writer seemingly has no problem borrowing from a Roman Catholic when he is arguing that church history stands opposed to a belief in the perfection of the work of Christ.”
I take it as a way of showing how a RC is appealed to for something so central to Christ and His work, which is not something that strengthens Witzki’s position. Remember, that the work of Christ is being viewed from a monergistic point of view - either Christ’s work was complete (i.e. perseverance for the elect) or it wasn’t. So from a monergistic view, a synergistic view does directly challenge the perfection of Christ’s work.
You wanted JW to interact more with the beginning of the doctrine of perseverance, which is not really the intent of the blog post, so it is unfair to wish for this. As for the talk about the bad Greek, it is to show that, perhaps, the source is not the best that could be found. Also, your rant at the end does you a disservice since similar belief in the Trinity is not analogous to the issue of perseverance. But I think I understand you point.
As for your 3 points at the end, if Steve Witzki was the founder of Witzkism, then perhaps it would be more analogous to the point made about Hunt’s bad argumentation.
Although I don’t see eye-to-eye with you on the synergistic v. monergistic stuff, I appreciate your thought and writing. I just don’t think you are reading this blog entry correctly. My $.02.
Thanks for the two cents. I will have to give your comments some more thought and say a little more later.
Of course, I disagree with both you and White in trying to polarize the issue into those who hold Christ's work to be perfect (monergists), and those who do not (synergist).
I understand that it is largely and issue of semantics, but such a claim is simply false in my opinion.
More on that later.
God Bless,
Ben
It's pretty common for Calvinists to use the guilt by association fallacy. Adam Murrell did it recently with J.C. when he said:
"If we are to engage in an intellectually honest discussion, then you must be sincere in acknowledging that you stand shoulder to shoulder with Rome and against the Protestors of the Reformation on this fundamental position, in that you are embracing a system of salvation that removes grace alone."
A Calvinist buddy of mine did it a couple years ago when we debated Total Depravity when he said:
"This same concept [Prevenient Grace] is found with “evangelical Arminianism” as well as Roman Catholicism, Mormonism, Jehovah’s witnesses and various other Christian sects and cults."
But as I pointed out to him:
"Even if there were agreement between Christian denominations and cult groups such as the Mormons or Jehovah’s Witnesses on a certain teaching, it does not follow that the teaching is false or should be avoided and/or rejected. This type of argument serves only to prejudice an audience."
So honestly, I do think that White is guilty of doing what he criticized Hunt for doing. But this is par for the course with White. He quite regularly criticizes others for things that he himself does.
OK, I thought about it.
MI,
You wrote:
I think you are misreading. Remember that you are referring to a blog entry (which is not meant to be exhaustive) that is 4 years old – so we may not have a sense of what was transpiring at the time. Here’s my thoughts.
I agree with you here, but I think the post gives us enough information; and if it does not then JM should have provided us with a link or something so that we could better understand his motives.
The thrust of the blog entry seems to be this:
“What was so strange is that this Arminian writer seemingly has no problem borrowing from a Roman Catholic when he is arguing that church history stands opposed to a belief in the perfection of the work of Christ.”
I take it as a way of showing how a RC is appealed to for something so central to Christ and His work, which is not something that strengthens Witzki’s position. Remember, that the work of Christ is being viewed from a monergistic point of view - either Christ’s work was complete (i.e. perseverance for the elect) or it wasn’t. So from a monergistic view, a synergistic view does directly challenge the perfection of Christ’s work.
This only makes things worse in my opinion. Like I said, that was not Witzki's point. The issue he was addressing was the lack of historical precedence for the Calvinistic teaching of inevitable perseverance prior to Calvin. That was Akin's point as well.
Akin even demonstrated that Augustine didn't hold to inevitable perseverance of all true believers. Augustine held that some regenerate believers were given a "gift" of perseverance while other regenerate believers were denied this gift. So Augustine, unlike Calvin, believed that truly regenerate believers could fail to persevere in faith till the end.
Witzki was not trying to say that the Arminian view of synergism was the same as the RC view. It plainly is not, and that is the false correlation that White seems to be trying to draw from an article that does not even address that issue.
Now, if Witzki were, however, trying to say that Arminian synergism is compatible with the RC understanding of it, then White would be justified in his comments. The fact that Witzki references an RC apologist's research in arguing against historical precedence for the Calvinistic view of perseverance in no way means that he agrees with the way that apologist understands synergism.
I have much more to say on the issue of claiming that the Calvinistic view of perseverance portrays Christ’s work as perfected while conditional perseverance renders Christ work less than perfect, but I will save that for my next post on “Provisional Atonement”.
You wanted JW to interact more with the beginning of the doctrine of perseverance, which is not really the intent of the blog post, so it is unfair to wish for this.
What is unfair is that “the beginning of the doctrine” was exactly the point of the Witzki article that White uses as a spring board to correlate Arminianism and RC synergism. If it wasn’t White’s point, then he picked the wrong article to make his point, which was exactly my point! :)
Also, your rant at the end does you a disservice since similar belief in the Trinity is not analogous to the issue of perseverance.
It is in the context of this post and White's unfair correlation. The issue is whether or not it is fair to criticize Arminianism because it stands with RC in rejecting monergism (even though the Arminian understanding of synergism is not exactly the same as the RC position). The point is that it would be wrong for me to criticize White’s position simply because he stands with the RC in affirming the Trinity.
As for your 3 points at the end, if Steve Witzki was the founder of Witzkism, then perhaps it would be more analogous to the point made about Hunt’s bad argumentation.
I agree it would be more analogous if Witzki was the founder of Witzkism, but that doesn’t change the fact that there is a valid analogy between the two syllogisms.
...just my 2 cents.
God Bless,
Ben
It's worth noting that Calvinism and Islam have Monergism in common, but you don't hear many Arminians say that Calvinists are on the road to Mecca.
Except maybe for this guy (Dr. Caner at Liberty) Link
It seems he's has had some run ins with Dr. White as well. Gotta give White credit, if nothing else he keeps himself busy. Caner/White spat
:)
I agree. White could just as well be accused of guilt by association concerning paedobaptism.
The more irritating problem is that most people who visit James White's rants are seeking rhetoric that merely sounds like he's refuting people.
Dear maritus imperfectus,
Ben makes a good point. By refocusing the argument from the lack of historical precedent for POTS to Catholic vs. Evangelical Synergism, you actually seem to be falling into the trap Ben’s post warns about: namely associating Arminian’s and Catholics on points tangential to the one’s Arminians agree with Catholics on.
God be with you,
Dan
Dear Ben,
I agree Hunt’s and White’s arguments are similar. They are both non-sequitur. The truth of an argument isn’t determined by the arguers’ affiliations, nor should agreement by two parties on one point be taken as agreement by the parties on all points.
God be with you,
Dan
BTW, I like the new look. What happened to the cool photo you had up top?
My problem with James White is twofold.
First, I think White is quite similar to many Calvinist in that he attacks what he doesn't know much about. White often wrestles with Dave Hunt who is not a true Arminian. As far as I know White has never wrestled with the works of either Arminius or Wesley in his attacks on Arminianism.
Second, White often tries to ignore an issue by doing an educated dance that often focuses on an academic arguement from the Greek text or some other theological work to bystep the question. He never really gives an answer but it sounds good.
One more thing that bothers me about White and Calvinist apologest in general is that they often try to put Arminianism and Roman Catholics together on most issues as if Calvinism is pure Christianity but Arminianism is man-centered Catholic teachings. This is simply untrue and not historically acurate.
Good post.
Excellent post. I wish I had more time to rant.
White's "The Potter's Freedom" was about all I could take of him on the subject of Calvinism. He is nothing short of bombastic, and he frustrates me greatly. If I'm going to read an honest critique of Arminianism, it's going to have to come from Calvinists such as R. C. Sproul, who retains a calm and godly spirit when discussing the issues.
BTW, just because someone has a Ph.D. does not make them an expert in Greek. Many men and women with Ph.D.'s disagree over Greek grammar and its implications (and White's "exegesis," if that's what you want to call it, of 1John 5.1 is absurd. It just goes to show you how far someone is willing to go to defend a presupposition).
Billy
As much as White bothers me, and as much as I disagree with his 'exegesis' on certain passages of Scripture, I don't think his Greek credentials are in question. He was a critical consultant on the NASB update so that speaks volumes for his knowledge of Biblical languages.
Oh, and White doesn't have a PhD, he has an unaccredited ThD from what is basically a diploma mill where he was able to use his popular level book The Forgotten Trinity as his dissertation. That would not pass muster at any accredited institution anywhere in the world.
Ben:
Thank you for the interaction with my thoughts. Just a point of clarification to what you wrote, “I have much more to say on the issue of claiming that the Calvinistic view of perseverance portrays Christ’s work as perfected while conditional perseverance renders Christ work less than perfect, but I will save that for my next post on “Provisional Atonement”.
Please note that I didn’t say the Arminian position didn’t hold a view of Christ’s work as being perfected. What I was trying to say is that the monergistic position holds that Christ’s work was complete in the sense that those saved will persevere; thus, when someone (e.g. White) looks at the synergistic position’s it would then challenge the completeness. I was merely trying to make the point that White’s monergistic position would necessitate that perseverance be something central to Christ’s work, and not an attack on whether the Arminian position views Christ’s work as complete. Not sure if my clarification makes anything more clear, but it was worth a shot – even on a Monday morning! :)
I enjoy the opportunity to interact with the thoughts on this blog. Even though I don’t agree with them 100% of the time, you have challenged me to think about things in a different light, and more importantly, examine scripture. The more I watch debates unfold between the Calvinist and Arminian positions, I realize that those commenting will most likely never admit error and change their mind – regardless of which side is truly correct. The point being that for all of the rhetoric online, in books, and through debates, it is rare (if ever) that someone will stop and say, “Wow, you know what, that is a great point. Perhaps I am wrong. You know what, I am wrong and need to change my way of thinking.”
So where does that leave me (please read that last word again – me. I am not saying this is anything but my random Monday thoughts)? Either Calvinism is correct or Arminianism is correct. The two systems of thought are mutually exclusive: monergism or synergism. Both sides appeal to the Bible for their position. Both sides vehemently refute the scriptures used by the other side. So what am I left to think?
If one system must be right, and both sides point out verses that seem to contradict the opposition’s stance, then those contradictory scriptures must be explained in light of the overarching framework of monergism or synergism (I suppose both could be wrong, but that doesn’t seem possible). Which is it? Does monergism provide an adequate basis to explain those seemingly contradictory scriptures (e.g. 2 Peter 3:9 or John 5:25, or pick your favorite and insert here), or does synergism provide an adequate basis to explain those seemingly contradictory scriptures (e.g. John 3:3 or Romans 9, or your favorite)?
I am sure that those reading this have their opinions (which will undoubtedly be shared – but please be gentle on your keyboards as you type!), so I will leave you with mine. Both sides believe God is sovereign, man is depraved, and Christ is the only way by which we can be saved. Both (as far as I know) believe that God has a chosen, fixed number of people he will save (C says elected by God due to no foreseen action, A says elected by God due to foreseen action). So, at the end of the day, we are trying to evangelize a set number of people who will be saved either monergistically or synergistically. After examining the Word, and choosing a theological system to call my own, where would I rather be if I am wrong?
If I choose C, but A is correct, then I have put too much emphasis on God alone (i.e. monergisim) and not enough on man’s part (i.e. synergism). If I choose A, but C is correct, then I have put too much emphasis on man’s part and not enough on God alone. I would rather err on the side of caution and give more credit to God, but that’s just me and the way I look at it. Probably an oversimplification, but that’s what I’ve got for Monday. Not trying to stir up a hornet’s nest, nor offend anyone - just wanted to put down some thoughts. Thanks for allowing me to let off a little steam. Also, thank you for the honest and civil dialogue. It truly is a blessing. May we all meet one day in the city lit by the glory of God!
Hello Maritus,
I really appreciate the tone of your comments. It seems to me that Christians should be able to discuss things in a civil and challenging way even when they disagree. I have friends who are literal geniuses and we sometimes have theological discussions and we hold different views. But it never gets acrimonious or nasty as we are all strongly committed Christians who hold the essential Christian beliefs in common though we disagree on some things. It is a delight to talk with these folks.
And yet sometimes when I get on the internet I encounter professing Christians who are smart but also nasty and have no qualms about being jerks in their interactions with others. Their behavior is sinful and seen by the Lord and I sometimes wonder if they are even Christians at all, because the mature Christian character just isn’t there.
You wrote: “Please note that I didn’t say the Arminian position didn’t hold a view of Christ’s work as being perfected. What I was trying to say is that the monergistic position holds that Christ’s work was complete in the sense that those saved will persevere; thus, when someone (e.g. White) looks at the synergistic position’s it would then challenge the completeness. I was merely trying to make the point that White’s monergistic position would necessitate that perseverance be something central to Christ’s work, and not an attack on whether the Arminian position views Christ’s work as complete. Not sure if my clarification makes anything more clear, but it was worth a shot – even on a Monday morning! :)”
I am not a calvinist but I do hold to believers persevering in their faith if they are genuine believers. But I would not use the language of “completeness” when speaking of the atonement (whether you are calvinist or non-calvinist you believe in a “complete” atonement). I would speak of an atonement that involves a provision for all, and the application of that provision only to those who respond in faith to the gospel message.
You said: “I enjoy the opportunity to interact with the thoughts on this blog. Even though I don’t agree with them 100% of the time, you have challenged me to think about things in a different light, and more importantly, examine scripture.”
Nice to hear this, as this is the way it should be: that bible believing Christians who love the Lord though they disagree on some things can disagree in a way that manifests Christian character not acting like worldly people when we disagree.
“The more I watch debates unfold between the Calvinist and Arminian positions, I realize that those commenting will most likely never admit error and change their mind – regardless of which side is truly correct.”
I have a friend named Henry who uses the analogy of political parties when it comes to the way some hold their theological convictions (i.e., they hold the party line, their party is always right and never wrong and yet the reality is that both parties have some problems and you sometimes wish for another or other parties! :-)).
You wrote:
“The point being that for all of the rhetoric online, in books, and through debates, it is rare (if ever) that someone will stop and say, “Wow, you know what, that is a great point. Perhaps I am wrong. You know what, I am wrong and need to change my way of thinking.””
Some of my friends are practicing Christian scientists (no, not Mary Baker Eddy, the cult, but believers who are scientists) and they sometimes chide me and say theological types ought to be more like scientists. With them they investigate things, do experiments that are accessible to others to replicate and carry out similar experiments, and the goal is not to protect some political party/theological party but to advance knowledge to know the truth about how things work. To know truth that is true universally and is accessible to all. If you want an awesome essay on this scientific mentality read Richard Feynman’s CARGO CULT SCIENCE commencement address. He talks about being honest in your investigation of truth. True science done properly does this, unfortunately, sometimes theology is not done to know the truth but to protect vested interests to defend a “fortress” of one’s own group and making. Sometimes acting like special interests groups with their own agendas.
You wrote:
“Either Calvinism is correct or Arminianism is correct. The two systems of thought are mutually exclusive: monergism or synergism. Both sides appeal to the Bible for their position. Both sides vehemently refute the scriptures used by the other side. So what am I left to think?”
Actually I would say as systems calvinism is wrong and Arminianism is more right. I would also say that rather than looking solely as systems being true or false it may be better to look at parts of a system and see it that part is true or false (e.g. both calvinists and Arminians hold to total depravity and both are right about that). On the other hand, they cannot both be right about election (either one is right and the other is wrong, or both are wrong and another alternative is true).
You wrote:
“If one system must be right, and both sides point out verses that seem to contradict the opposition’s stance, then those contradictory scriptures must be explained in light of the overarching framework of monergism or synergism (I suppose both could be wrong, but that doesn’t seem possible). Which is it? Does monergism provide an adequate basis to explain those seemingly contradictory scriptures (e.g. 2 Peter 3:9 or John 5:25, or pick your favorite and insert here), or does synergism provide an adequate basis to explain those seemingly contradictory scriptures (e.g. John 3:3 or Romans 9, or your favorite)?”
Again, I am not sure you ought to say that they are totally right or wrong as systems. It is like political parties again, I agree with the Democrats on some things and I also agree with the Republicans on some things; I also disagree with the Democrats on some things and disagree with the Republicans on others. I would say rather than aiming for a system that is flawless, look at parts of a system and see which are true and which are not. Personally I believe there are a lot more things wrong with the parts that make up the calvinist system than the parts that make up the Arminian system.
You wrote:
“I am sure that those reading this have their opinions (which will undoubtedly be shared – but please be gentle on your keyboards as you type!), so I will leave you with mine.”
Again, there is no reason for hostility and nasty behavior between genuine Christians even when we disagree.
You wrote:
“Both sides believe God is sovereign, man is depraved, and Christ is the only way by which we can be saved.”
Yes so we should unite about presenting Christ to a lost and dying world.
“Both (as far as I know) believe that God has a chosen, fixed number of people he will save (C says elected by God due to no foreseen action, A says elected by God due to foreseen action). So, at the end of the day, we are trying to evangelize a set number of people who will be saved either monergistically or synergistically.”
Again, we ought to evangelize the world, regardless of our views whether they be monergistic or synergistic.
You wrote:
“After examining the Word, and choosing a theological system to call my own, where would I rather be if I am wrong?
If I choose C, but A is correct, then I have put too much emphasis on God alone (i.e. monergism) and not enough on man’s part (i.e. synergism). If I choose A, but C is correct, then I have put too much emphasis on man’s part and not enough on God alone. I would rather err on the side of caution and give more credit to God, but that’s just me and the way I look at it. Probably an oversimplification, but that’s what I’ve got for Monday. Not trying to stir up a hornet’s nest, nor offend anyone - just wanted to put down some thoughts.”
Well I suggest that we see salvation as a relationship which by its nature is synergistic (how can a genuine and healthy relationship only depend on the actions of one party not both? Imagine a marriage where only one person does everything and the other does nothing). I also suggest that we can believe that God alone rescues people from sin, death, and hell, while simultaneously believing that we have free will, God is sovereign, God desires to save all though many choose to reject Him, etc. etc. In other words you can have a strong view of God’s sovereignty and hold to the key elements of synergism (it is not an either/or, but a both/and situation).
You wrote:
“Thanks for allowing me to let off a little steam. Also, thank you for the honest and civil dialogue. It truly is a blessing. May we all meet one day in the city lit by the glory of God!”
Again, I appreciate your tone here. If Christians love the Lord and love each other, then how can they not have honest and civil dialogue? It is when Christians act like Politicians trying to protect their turf that they sometimes get nasty. But it is totally unnecessary and surely does not please the Lord who said the world would know us by our love for one another.
Robert
Hey Maritus,
I have to echo Robert. Your spirit is much appreciated. I can learn from it. Having said that, if you "choose" C (as you put it) doesn't that make you an A? :)
Reminds me of a joke Dr. Norman Geisler tells:
A saint went to heaven, and noticed two lines at the gates. One said "Chosen by God", the other said "Free Will". Being a good Calvinist he got in the "Chosen by God" line.
When he got to the front of the line the angel in charge asked, "why are you in this line?"
The saint responded "I chose this line."
The angel said, "If you *chose* this line, you're in the wrong line, you need to get over in the free will line. "
So the saint went over to the free will line.
When he got to the front of the free will line the angel in charge asked "why are you in this line?"
The saint answered "Somebody made me come here!"
Not perfect doctrine or even real funny, but there you have it. ;)
MI,
You wrote:
If I choose C, but A is correct, then I have put too much emphasis on God alone (i.e. monergisim) and not enough on man’s part (i.e. synergism). If I choose A, but C is correct, then I have put too much emphasis on man’s part and not enough on God alone. I would rather err on the side of caution and give more credit to God, but that’s just me and the way I look at it. Probably an oversimplification, but that’s what I’ve got for Monday.
If only things were that simple. The Arminian is not overly concerned with man's part in salvation. The Arminian is concerned with the character and integrity of God as well as the nature of love. Man's free will in accepting salvation is only a symptom of those basic theological concerns.
For me personally I am more concerned with what the Bible says (not to say that you are not). I will reject any system that does not comport with Scripture. If the Bible teaches that salvation is conditional then I will accept that. Honestly, I would prefer to believe that true believers can never fall away. I don't know why any Christian wouldn't want to believe that. The only reason I reject monergism is because I am convinced that the Bible does not teach it.
Not trying to stir up a hornet’s nest, nor offend anyone - just wanted to put down some thoughts. Thanks for allowing me to let off a little steam. Also, thank you for the honest and civil dialogue. It truly is a blessing. May we all meet one day in the city lit by the glory of God!
I appreciate your comments as well. I hope that you will continue to check in and express yourself.
God Bless,
Ben
Dan,
I am glad you like the look. Are you referring to the picture of the clouds? I had actually thought I had deleted that immediately, but found out the next day that I had not. I liked the picture but wanted it to fit better in the header. I will try to find a better one when I get the chance.
God Bless,
Ben
Post a Comment