Skip to content

A Summary from Calvin of the Law and Our Relationship to It

13 March, 2009

brannansmall1I recently happened across this brief but powerful — and helpful — summary of the law of God and its threefold ‘use’ (i.e. function or role), from the very first edition of Calvin’s Institutes (1536). I especially want to highlight Calvin’s summary of the role of the law in Christian faith and life, quoted below; but first I’ll give a quick summary of how Calvin describes the three uses of the law:

  • The first use of the law is to cause us to flee to Christ and his righteousness alone, because it points out to us our own unrighteousness, in the clear light of God’s holiness and our own inability to do the good things the law commands.
  • The second use of the law is to restrain wickedness and promote justice and righteousness in human affairs, a ‘public’ righteousness that is a result of God’s common grace.
  • The third use of the law is as a teacher for believers in whom the Spirit dwells, giving us more and more understanding of the character of our God, and thus providing direction and motivation in doing by God’s grace what is ‘right and pleasing in the Lord’s sight’.

Now here’s Calvin’s summary of the Christian’s relationship to God’s law, which again is what I want especially to highlight:

To sum up, the law is an exhortation to believers. This is not something to bind their consciences with a curse, but to shake off their sluggishness, by repeatedly urging them, and to pinch them awake to their imperfection. Therefore, many persons, wishing to express this liberation from the curse of the law, have said that for believers the law has been abrogated. Not that the law no longer enjoins believers to do what is right, but only that it is not for them what it formerly was: it may no longer condemn and destroy their consciences by confounding and frightening them with the message of death.

Just as, on the contrary, good works detract from justification, not that no good works are done, or works are denied to be good which are good, but lest we put our confidence in them, lest we boast of them, lest we credit our salvation to them. For this is our assurance: that Christ the Son of God is ours and has been given to us so that in him we also may be sons of God, and heirs of his heavenly Kingdom [Is 9:6; 1 Thess 4:14-18]. By God’s kindness, not our skill, have we been called into the hope of eternal life. We have been called, moreover, not to uncleanness and iniquity, but to be clean and spotless in God’s sight, in love [Eph 1:4].

From Institutes (1536), I.33. For a fuller treatment of each of these themes see the 1559 (standard) edition, at 2.7.6-14.

  1. 14 March, 2009 8:22 pm

    Hi Creedorchaos!

    Thanks for this important post. In regards to the uses of the Law, I first thought of 1 Timothy 1:8-11: “But we know that the Law is good, if one uses it lawfully, realizing the fact that law is not made for a righteous person, but for those who are lawless and rebellious, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers and immoral men and homosexuals and kidnappers and liars and perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound teaching, according to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, with which I have been entrusted.”

    I want to make two points.

    First, we need to be careful and follow Scripture’s lead as to how the Law applies to the righteous person. Scripture simply states here in the above 1 Timothy 1:8-11 passage that the Law is “not made for a righteous person”. Romans 7:4 states that we were “made to die to the Law”. Romans 7:6 states that “we have been released from the Law”. Galatians 2:19 states that “we have been released from the Law”. Galatians 3:10 states: “For as many as are of the works of the Law are under a curse …”. Galatians 3:25 states: “But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor.” (In other words, we are no longer under the Law). Galatians 4:21 pleads with us: “Tell me, you who want to be under law, do you not listen to the law? (It goes in length to tell us that we are not in slavery, but we are free. We are children of promise.) Galatians 5:4 warns us: “You have been severed from Christ, you who are seeking to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace. In summary, Scripture is so strong and clear of the dangers to Christians of being under the Law that, without such a reminder of these dangers, I see more harm than help in presenting a summary third use of the Law.

    Second, although the Law is made for the lawless and rebellious as stated above in 1 Timothy 1:8-11, and we can deduce the second use of the Law “to restrain wickedness and promote justice and righteousness in human affairs”, there is no ‘public’ righteousness and there is no common grace.

    Regarding confirmation of such restraint, the Belgic Confession, article 13, states: “in whom we do entirely trust; being persuaded, that he so restrains the devil and all our enemies, that without his will and permission they cannot hurt us.”. Likewise, article 36 mentions this restraint: “willing that the world should be governed by certain laws and policies; to the end that the dissoluteness of men might be restrained.”

    However, this restraint is an example of God’s providence, not common grace, such as is shown by His use of magistrates (or police power) in Romans 13. There is no “public righteousness” or God-instilled civil goodness in the hearts of the wicked. There is no grace or favor by God toward the non-elect wicked.

    In conclusion, any restraint toward the non-elect wicked is part of a particular grace only for the elect. “What if God, although willing to demonstrate His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction? And He did so to make known the riches of His glory upon vessels of mercy, which He prepared beforehand for glory, even us, whom He also called, not from among Jews only, but also from among Gentiles.” Romans 9:22-24.

    Thanks again for your thought-provoking post.

    Respectfully submitted,
    Bill Hornbeck

  2. creedorchaos permalink*
    16 March, 2009 4:07 am


    On the 3rd use of the law: First of all, it’s clear in 1 Tim 1 that Paul is speaking of the special promulgation of the Law (capital L) and law-giving in general (lowercase l) in the context of *sin*. So we need to be very careful in saying exactly how the law is and isn’t *made for sinners*. In and of itself, as Paul says, God’s ‘law’ is holy, righteous and good, because it is simply the expression of his unchangeable character and will. Law in this sense isn’t made for sinners; it’s actually the sole and pure standard of righteousness, promulgated not for sinners but for humanity in all our glorious righteousness from the beginning. The key, then, is Paul’s phrase “if one uses it lawfully”: here he shifts gears from talking about law/the Law’s inherent goodness, to its condemnation of us because of our inherent sinfulness.

    So, second, when we talk about our relationship to the law as Christians, we say 3rd use precisely to distinguish our relationship to the law in Christ from our relationship to the law in Adam. I *fully* agree with you that it’s a constant danger for us to try to place ourselves and one another back under the law — to be saved in Christ but to return to thinking and acting like we’re in Adam when it comes to living the Christian life. But again, that’s not the law’s fault; it’s our fault for misunderstanding our relationship to the law. I think Calvin does a great job of expressing this when he says that law clearly expresses for us the character of God and his perfect will, exposing our own shortcomings and always pointing us to Christ’s perfect law-keeping on our behalf. At the same time, the law guides and directs us in the straight paths that Christ has already blazed before us and *for us*, so that by the Spirit we may walk in fruitfulness, not looking to our walking as law-keeping but as the fruit of the work of God for us and in us, the results of a perfect righteousness we fully possess through Christ. Our righteousness before God is forever an imputed one, but that doesn’t mean that we don’t walk in the paths of that righteousness as he leads us for his name’s sake. Both of these realities must constantly inform a Christian’s relationship to the law — my point is that Christians *have* a relationship to the law.

    On common grace: I don’t agree with you, but part of what makes this more than an exegetical/theological disagreement (which we could then deal with as such) is that there is, as is so often the case, a lot of terminological ambiguity at work here. In general, I think it’s a peculiar idiosyncrasy of the Protestant Reformed churches to pit ‘providence’ against ‘common grace’. For most of Reformed history God’s providence has been distinguished into general and special. General means the Triune God’s sustenance and government of and concurrence in all creation, from the Father, through the Son and by the Spirit. Special means that in all this God is also working *redemptively*, i.e. particularly working out his purposes toward new creation in the consummation of all things on behalf of his people in Christ by the Spirit. Both are for the purpose of the glory of the Father together with the Son and the Spirit, and (my point) *both involve the Triune God in all his attributes*.

    Again, there are exegetical and theological arguments here; I’ll focus on a theological argument: God is all he is in all he does. The way you’re presenting things, it seems God’s work in ‘general providence’ has nothing to do with his goodness and love *as God*, specifically as creator and sustainer. Let’s focus on God’s goodness. God is good and displays his goodness in all he does, even toward the unrighteous — *even* when they spurn him in rebellion, and in full accord with his goodness and love he just as fully upholds his holiness and righteousness in his condemnation of the unrighteous. God upholds and displays all his attributes in the redemption of his people as well, so that in all things “the riches of his glory may be made known”, as you point out from Rom 9. God is all he is in all he does.

    But here in is where something new comes in, isn’t it? Because Paul says that a truly wonderful and unexpected multiformity of God’s character is made known precisely in *redemption from wrath and condemnation*. So God is all he is in all he does, but that doesn’t mean everything he does and his reasons for doing so are always the same. God’s essential goodness is displayed not only in his spurning and condemning of evil, but also in his extending of grace and mercy in the redemption of an ‘innumerable multitude’ of those whom precisely his own goodness (together with his other attributes) motivates him to condemn as sinners. As you well know, he does this by *himself* taking up their sin and wrath and condemning it in Christ, the righteous for the unrighteous. In this God displays something of the depths of his goodness and love as God that would not have been known to anyone but Father, Son and Spirit otherwise — understandably, this is “something into which angels long to look”.

    Here’s what I’m getting at: we have to be very clear what we mean by grace, mercy, favor. If we’re speaking of redemptive mercy, and grace as demerited favor leading to righteousness and life in Christ, then yes this only applies to those chosen in Christ before the foundation of the world. But this isn’t what “common grace” means anyway, as I mentioned. And we can’t speak of grace and favor so abstractly that we pit all the non-redemptive works of the Triune God against his essential goodness, love, benevolence, and so on, so that we end up saying that God is not all he is in all he does. God is wholly God and acts as such, whether in his sight one is condemned in Adam or justified by faith in Christ.

    This is dense, but I hope it’s clear enough to be helpful. There are many other issues at play in this discussion, but I just wanted to highlight this very important one.

  3. 17 March, 2009 10:57 am

    Hi Brannon!

    Thanks for your comment. I hope we can at least narrow the misunderstandings and disagreements.

    First, I will follow address the issue of common grace first. Based on your explanation that “For most of Reformed history God’s providence has been distinguished into general and special” and the differences, it seems as if the Protestant Reformed Churches are following that distinction. What I and they simply call “providence” fits within that “general providence” category. No one argues that the “special providence” a/k/a particular redemption or limited atonement is only for the elect and that it is not common grace. The only issue is whether or not, in regards to this non-salvation “general providence”, God shows grace toward the non-elect.

    Certainly, no one argues against the fact that God provides common and good gifts of sunshine and rain to all, the elect and non-elect. The only issue is whether God does make these and other non-salvation general provisions (which is indeed common to the elect and non-elect) with grace or favor toward the non-elect.

    Psalm 73 shows how the wicked non-elect may appear to receive such common grace:

    “Until I came into the sanctuary of God;
    Then I perceived their end.
    Surely You set them in slippery places;
    You cast them down to destruction.
    How they are destroyed in a moment!
    They are utterly swept away by sudden terrors!
    Like a dream when one awakes,
    O Lord, when aroused, You will despise their form.” Psalm 73:17-20.

    The Psalmist comes to this conclusion that God has no grace nor favor toward them, the wicked non-elect. They are cast down to destruction.

    On the other hand, there are also those elect who don’t appear to receive such non-salvation good gifts. “They were stoned, they were sawn in two, they were tempted, they were put to death with the sword; they went about in sheepskins, in goatskins, being destitute, afflicted, ill-treated” Hebrews 11:37. And yet, they did receive God’s grace or favor.

    Regarding the inherent love of God, yes, “God is all he is in all he does.” But, that does not mean that God loves everyone. Love must have an object. When Scripture speaks of “God is love”, it refers to His love toward someone. Foremost, it speaks of the love each person of the Trinity has toward each other. Secondarily, it speaks as to the love God has for the elect. “Just as it is written, “JACOB I LOVED, BUT ESAU I HATED.” Romans 9:13.

    Regarding the inherent goodness of God, it is true as you write: “God’s essential goodness is displayed not only in his spurning and condemning of evil, but also in his extending of grace and mercy in the redemption of an ‘innumerable multitude’ of those whom precisely his own goodness (together with his other attributes) motivates him to condemn as sinners. As you well know, he does this by *himself* taking up their sin and wrath and condemning it in Christ, the righteous for the unrighteous.” But, either way, it is not common grace. It is not common grace to punish the wicked, although it may be good and just. It is not common grace to save just the elect.

    Second, in regards to our relationship to the Law, Paul does state, as you state, “God’s ‘law’ is holy, righteous and good”. Romans 7:12. But, in the very preceding verses in the very same chapter, Paul points out that the problem is sin. In other words, even though “God’s ‘law’ is holy, righteous and good”, the Law “proved to result in death for me; for sin, taking an opportunity through the commandment, deceived me and through it killed me.” Romans 7:10-11.

    The solution is not more Law or “a relationship to the Law”. The solution is that we are released from the Law. We are to consider ourselves dead to the Law. We are not under the Law. See Scripture references in my first comment.

    I do agree with you, as you state: “by the Spirit we may walk in fruitfulness, not looking to our walking as law-keeping but as the fruit of the work of God for us and in us, the results of a perfect righteousness we fully possess through Christ. Our righteousness before God is forever an imputed one, but that doesn’t mean that we don’t walk in the paths of that righteousness as he leads us for his name’s sake.” But, this is not a relationship with the Law. Being released from the Law is not a relationship to the Law. Being dead to the Law is also not a relationship to the Law. Being no longer under the tutor of the Law is not a relationship to the Law. Our relationship is to Christ, and we walk by the Spirit.

    In conclusion, a “dense” argument does not necessarily mean that it is incorrect, or for that matter, correct. However, it does not add clarity nor persuade. I hope you can use what I wrote and add your further thoughts to clarify and persuade, or at least so that we may narrow the misunderstandings and disagreements. Thank you.

    Yours truly,


  4. creedorchaos permalink*
    19 March, 2009 2:32 pm


    Sorry it’s taken me a while to respond (new baby and all!). There are definitely some things I should clarify in light of your response so that my aims are clear.

    On common grace: I don’t really think it’s a good idea in a comment thread to get into the whole complex of themes that are at play in the debates over common grace (supra- vs. infralapsarianism, free offer of the gospel, and so on) — plus, I’m not sure where you stand on all this.

    Thus I’ve just addressed the terminology of “common grace”, and the main thing I wanted to get across with the various things I said is that “grace” has to be employed very carefully, and understood as to how its being employed in various contexts. That was the point of trying to get at how grace *speaking most strictly* is an aspect of God’s goodness that is shown in spite of desserts to the contrary, in spite of deserved condemnation for covenant rebellion. In other words, “grace” most properly means something like “free, demerited, redemptive favor”.

    Which brings us to “common grace”, or again what has most often been called “general providence”. It seems pretty clear that most of your beef with “common grace” is that God isn’t actually showing “grace” — free, demerited, and especially *redemptive favor* — toward those who continue to spurn him while they abuse the good gifts he freely and continually showers upon them, and who therefore prove their condemnation before God as just and right. In the most proper sense of “grace”, you’re right; but “common grace” isn’t using “grace” in this sense, but in the sense of “general providence”. It’s speaking of “grace” as describing the fact that God does in fact continue to be the good and beneficit Creator and Sustainer that he is, even toward those who, if unrepentant, will be condemned in part for rejecting this abundant kindness and provision and sustenance.

    There’s a similar issue with the frequent use of the terminology of grace with respect to creation and the covenant with Adam. Many older Reformed authors spoke of creation as “gracious” simply as a synonym for “freely undertaken” by God, or as the Westminster Confession says, out of God’s “free condescension”. Sometimes the word “grace” is used in the very broad sense to mean simply that “God didn’t have to do it.” I don’t think that’s *only* what common grace refers to, however, since common grace speaks of God’s attitude towards *sinful* humanity, as Creator and Sustainer but not Redeemer. So in this context you might say that “grace” is used in the sense of free and demerited, but not redemptive, favor.

    If this less proper use of the word “grace” for God’s nonredemptive actions is all you have a problem with, then you’re not the only one. I know lots of people who’d prefer that we only use the word “grace” in the narrow sense, to avoid confusion and conflation of categories. But that’s different from rejecting “common grace” *as such*. I prefer the terminology of general providence, but I understand and affirm what the doctrine of common grace is getting at, no matter what it’s called — which is the reason I went into the discussion of the attributes of God.

    In sum: is your concern with the terminology of grace used in a nonredemptive sense? Or is your concern with rejecting the complex of themes that have historically been associated with common grace (Kalamazoo synod, etc.)? And perhaps most importantly, have you rejected the latter, without realizing your presuppositions about the former? Like I said, I’m not sure where you stand (except that you’re leaning toward the PRs), but these are the sort of basic moves that need to be made out in the open for us to know why we stand where we stand.

    On the 3rd use of the law: I have to be honest, this still seems to me like a (mostly) terminological issue. When I say Christians “have a relationship with the law”, it’s not right to then argue against my usage by freighting the phrase with meaning other than what I give it: because I also explicitly say that we’re not in Adam, that Christ is our vicarious law-keeper and all our righteousness, and that we walk by the Spirit through faith, as you’ve said you agree with.

    In other words, if you agree with my exposition of the Christian life (at least in the broad strokes we’re painting here), then just tell me that you don’t think I should talk about ‘having a relationship with the law’, and why you think the language is unhelpful. But don’t fill out my language with other meaning, in order to refute my language.

    Now, as far as “having a relationship to the law” goes, the reason I do think it’s fundamentally legitimate to speak this way, goes far deeper than questions of legalism or neo-nomianism, etc.: it’s simply that we’re *creatures*. We’re *new creation* in Christ, absolutely, but we’re still creatures, and creatures can no more get out of relationship to law than fish can live out of water. More precisely, we can’t know our God rightly apart from law, which is still the expression of his character and will.

    The fundamental newness of the gospel isn’t that we have nothing more to do with law, but that the law by which we would live *if* righteous, that now condemns our unrighteousness, is also that through which Christ was condemned for us, who are now righteous in his faithfulness. Now the law that reveals to me God’s character and will no longer condemns me, but shows me the character and will of my heavenly Father, the will that Jesus obeyed and fulfilled perfectly for us, the perfect law of liberty. It’s an absolutely different relationship, but it’s still a relationship. Justice and mercy kiss each other.

    Again, perhaps this point of contention is mostly terminological — I *do* think being released from the law and dead to the law and so on is rightly characterized as the Christian’s “relationship with the law”. I’m no longer *in* Adam, but I still *am* Adam (i.e. a human being), and in this life I’m in and of myself still just as Adamic (in the sinful sense). This doesn’t mean I don’t have a relationship to the law anymore, it means that my relationship to the law is that Christ the Second Adam and Last Adam has fulfilled all on my behalf, ushering me into the victorious consummation of his legal-covenantal accomplishment as I walk by the Spirit through whom I live.

    Again, hope this is helpful,

  5. 20 March, 2009 2:56 pm

    Hi Brannon!

    Thank you very much. Your reply was very helpful. I think that you did narrow our differences. I think we can do more. You pose a few questions, and I do think that I should try to answer your questions and try to narrow our differences even further.

    Regarding common grace:

    I wanted to emphasize that God has no love, grace, nor favor toward the wicked either for redemption (which they clearly do not receive – there is no issue there) nor for nonredemption gifts (general providence). It seems to me that you wanted to be more abstract and emphasize God’s goodness as Creator and Sustainer without discussing God’s purpose of what God created or sustained toward the wicked, non-elect. However, God does not allow anything to be received by anyone without accomplishing His specific purpose toward the recipient. See Isaiah 46: 9-11.

    I wanted to emphasize that nonredemptive, general providence such as sunshine and rain (that are common and are received by everyone) are not given to the wicked with love, grace, or favor to them. Indeed, they are often used as tools by God to set them in slippery places. Psalm 73:18.

    God is not good to the wicked, non-elect. Rather, God is only good to the elect. “Surely God is good to Israel, To those who are pure in heart!” Psalm 73:1. As I studied this issue of grace for the last two years or so, and as I read through Scripture, I just did not see Scripture talking about God being good to the wicked, non-elect. Rather, I saw that God used even what would appear by themselves to be general providence good gifts as tools to accomplish His purposes of wrath and destruction toward the wicked, non-elect. “A senseless man has no knowledge, Nor does a stupid man understand this: That when the wicked sprouted up like grass And all who did iniquity flourished, It was only that they might be destroyed forevermore. But You, O LORD, are on high forever.” Psalm 92:6-8.

    As a side note, in contrast to the wicked, non-elect, God disciplines those whom He loves. Hebrews 12:7-11.

    I am not hesitant about using grace to describe God’s nonredemptive, general providence gifts to the elect. I am not only saving that word “grace” only for the gift of salvation. God shows grace to the elect in these nonsalvation gifts. “He who did not spare His own Son, but delivered Him over for us all, how will He not also with Him freely give us all things?” Romans 8:32.

    In summary, yes, based on Scripture and the Reformed Confessions, I reject “The Three Points of Common Grace” to which you refer as “historically been associated with common grace (Kalamazoo synod, etc.). Here is a link which states these three points of common grace and which supplies links to the PRC responses .

    Regarding our relationship to the Law:

    To answer your question, yes, I don’t think we should talk about ‘having a relationship with the law’. I don’t think such language is helpful. Scripture is too clear and strong about how we are dead to the Law, how we are released from the Law, and how we are no longer under the Law. Scripture doesn’t talk that way – about Christians ‘having a relationship with the law’. You are trying to force a continuing relationship with the law that Scripture tries to sever in so many strong descriptive ways.

    One of your reasons to talk about Christians ‘having a relationship with the law’ is based on your statement: “More precisely, we can’t know our God rightly apart from law.” Well, yes, we can know God rightly apart from the law. We can know God rightly apart from the law through our knowledge of Jesus. Jesus said: “If you had known Me, you would have known My Father also; from now on you know Him, and have seen Him.” John 14:7. In Jesus, the fullness of God dwelt in bodily form, and in Jesus, we have been made complete. “See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary principles of the world, rather than according to Christ. For in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form, and in Him you have been made complete, and He is the head over all rule and authority;” Colossians 2:8-10.

    “But now apart from the Law the righteousness of God has been manifested, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, even the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all those who believe; …” Romans 3:21-22.

    Thanks again! I really appreciate your patience with me and the time that you are spending on this issue, by not only just replying to me but by also adding your new post. God bless you and your family and your ministry!

    Yours truly,


  6. 20 March, 2009 8:00 pm

    Howdy Bill,
    Good to hear from you as always. Blessings to you and yours brother.

  7. creedorchaos permalink*
    21 March, 2009 12:52 am


    I’ve read several PR arguments against common grace, and for my money most of the issue comes down to the fact that I believe *all* God’s purposes toward humanity in either condemnation or redemption are in response to and in light of *sin*. I think your reading, while it’s clearly bringing out some emphases that classical Reformed teaching no doubt wishes to uphold as biblical, is emphasizing some aspects of the biblical witness *at the expense* of others.

    Again, I don’t think this is the place to get into it now, but one of the things that has struck me about the PR position is now much it has to stretch so many texts in order to fit a (supralapsarian) strict parallel between predestination and reprobation in God’s decree. I know you’ll agree with me that if a view we hold doesn’t account well for all aspects of the biblical testimony, then it’s not good enough — I would argue that the PR view falls into precisely this problem.

    On the law: you didn’t address my point about creatureliness — and did you see my latest from Calvin?

    It still seems in your argument you’re going back and forth between law and the Law, or creation and Sinai if you will — which are in many ways similar, but for our present discussion more careful distinction is required: the theocratic conditions of Sinai for blessing in the land for those who obey, came to a people who already had the unconditional promises of salvation to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob for those who believe.

    So I’m talking specifically about law as God’s character-revealing will, constitutive for creational human existence and purposes. Again, of course our “relationship” is not “with” the law, taken in an Adamic or neo-nomian sense; our relationship is with the Father through the Son in the Spirit. And we are not under law but grace, not in Adam but in Christ — but who is Christ? A big part of that answer is that he is the perfect man, who has accomplished all righteousness by fulfilling the law/will of God unto consummate glory, and called us to take up our crosses and follow him, not looking to our cross-bearing but to his (which makes our burden light).

    As with Adam’s, the Second Adam’s existence and work is shot through with ‘law’ — the crux is the question of what kind of relationship we have to *this* law, the will of God constitutive for creational-covenantal human being and purpose, who bestows eschatological life upon perfect obedience, and punishes rebellion with eschatological death. Once more, when you’re responding I’d ask that you ‘fill out’ my language with my own statements, rather than arguing against a form at least partially containing another content than mine.


  8. 9 April, 2009 6:23 pm

    Thanks B! I needed this.


  1. Calvin Sounding Like Von Amsdorff? « Heidelblog

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: