Agreed - As the bible says, A bad tree cannot bear good fruit, and Jesus is the fruit of her womb...
Martin Luther Quote on the Immaculate Conception of Mary
7,677 Views |
82 Replies |
Last: 10 mo ago by jkag89
Agreed - As the bible says, A bad tree cannot bear good fruit, and Jesus is the fruit of her womb...
honestly, this doesn't make sense. If that is the issue, a bad tree can't bear good fruit, the immaculate conception doesn't solve it, it only pushes the problem back a generation. If Mary can't bear Jesus if she has sin because she would be a bad tree, how does it make sense that her mom, also a bad tree, could bear a sinless child? If that required a miracle, what prevents God from doing the miracle for the conception of Jesus?Thaddeus73 said:
Agreed - As the bible says, A bad tree cannot bear good fruit, and Jesus is the fruit of her womb...
Glad to see you back! I pray all is well
- Mary calls God her savior. Why would a sinless person need a savior? (Luke 2:47)
- None righteous, not one (Romans 3:10). All have sinned (Romans 3:23).
- Jesus calls John the Baptist the greatest person born of woman to ever live (Matthew 11:11).
- The idea that Mary led a sinless life has never made sense to me theologically. If there was another person who lived a sinless life, why did Jesus have to do it? and wouldn't that diminish his doing it? Jesus was only able to be a substitute for our sins because he lived the life we should have lived. 2 Cor. 5:21 - For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.
Mary absolutely needed a savior and that's precisely what the declared dogma says.TXaggiesTX said:
- Mary calls God her savior. Why would a sinless person need a savior? (Luke 2:47)
- None righteous, not one (Romans 3:10). All have sinned (Romans 3:23).
- Jesus calls John the Baptist the greatest person born of woman to ever live (Matthew 11:11).
- The idea that Mary led a sinless life has never made sense to me theologically. If there was another person who lived a sinless life, why did Jesus have to do it? and wouldn't that diminish his doing it? Jesus was only able to be a substitute for our sins because he lived the life we should have lived. 2 Cor. 5:21 - For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.
.
She was proleptically saved.Quote:
"in the first instant of her conception, by a singular privilege and grace granted by God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Savior of the human race, was preserved exempt from all stain of original sin"
Saw this today on a Catholic news blog I read....
I will say that the Catholic reasoning on Mary's sinlessness makes sense and is entirely plausible way that God may have chosen to work things through, but this is of a piece with something in some Protestant thought that Rome doesn't address well.
God constructed the entirety of reality however He chose and in the case of miracles, He did so in ways that we can not comprehend, that's sort of the essence of a miracle, right? To say that God only could have accomplished it by prohibiting sin entering the equation at any specific point or person seems limiting God's options. Mary was full of Grace, an exemplar in how we should respond to God's call and should be revered. But however we view sin entering the equation or not doesn't change what God did, which is something we can not fully get our heads around anyway.
Or maybe I'm just not into it enough to get the gist of the debate or how much other stuff rides on the implications of a mechanistically conferred original sin.
Quote:
It confounds our Protestant brethren that we should have such devotion to Our Lady, though I am always perplexed at their skepticism of Marian theology.
To suggest that God would not shield the mother of His son from original sin, and wouldn't construct the whole of time and reality to accommodate an outpouring of the graces won by the Resurrection on to Mary before she or Christ were ever born seems, to me, to say you'd expect God to leave a job half done.
I will say that the Catholic reasoning on Mary's sinlessness makes sense and is entirely plausible way that God may have chosen to work things through, but this is of a piece with something in some Protestant thought that Rome doesn't address well.
God constructed the entirety of reality however He chose and in the case of miracles, He did so in ways that we can not comprehend, that's sort of the essence of a miracle, right? To say that God only could have accomplished it by prohibiting sin entering the equation at any specific point or person seems limiting God's options. Mary was full of Grace, an exemplar in how we should respond to God's call and should be revered. But however we view sin entering the equation or not doesn't change what God did, which is something we can not fully get our heads around anyway.
Or maybe I'm just not into it enough to get the gist of the debate or how much other stuff rides on the implications of a mechanistically conferred original sin.
Mary had a savior from before she was born and remained sinless. She was given grace to be saved from sin. This in no way means she didn't need a savior.TXaggiesTX said:
- Mary calls God her savior. Why would a sinless person need a savior? (Luke 2:47)
- None righteous, not one (Romans 3:10). All have sinned (Romans 3:23).
- Jesus calls John the Baptist the greatest person born of woman to ever live (Matthew 11:11).
- The idea that Mary led a sinless life has never made sense to me theologically. If there was another person who lived a sinless life, why did Jesus have to do it? and wouldn't that diminish his doing it? Jesus was only able to be a substitute for our sins because he lived the life we should have lived. 2 Cor. 5:21 - For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.
John the Baptist was declared the greatest of all the prophets. You have to read the verses before Matt 11:11 to understand the context in which Jesus was speaking. If you only take that verse, you can make all sorts of assumptions.
And Mary's sinlessness was because of God's grace not because of her own efforts. Good granted her that. Christ had to do it as man.
On December 8, the Church celebrates the Solemnity of the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary, a holy day of obligation. The object of the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception is how Mary, as a creature, experiences the redemption wrought by her Divine Son.
— Father V (@father_rmv) December 7, 2023
The… pic.twitter.com/Q83SmWpkBi
A couple key points on Luther.
First, and most importantly, contrary to Roman Catholic claims, Luther wasn't a Pope and nobody is required to believe anything he might have believed.
Second, the BOC makes no such requirement or demand on anybody who subscribes to those teachings.
Third, It's not terribly surprising, that Luther, who was a Roman Catholic until he was excommunicated held a high view of Mary. It's also not suprising that given the magnitude of errors of Rome that were being corrected, that it would take time to get around to this particular topic. I believe Lofton from Reason and Theology called the Marian believes "low on the hierarchy of truths."
Fourth, there is some convincing writings that as Luther grew older, his views on Mary did change. For example:
"Be they called holy, learned, fathers, councils, or any other name, even though they were Mary, Joseph and all the saints it does not follow that they could not have erred and made mistakes. For here you learn that the mother of Christ though she possessed great intelligence and enlightenment, showed great ignorance in that she did not know where to find Christ, and in consequence was censured by him because she did not know what she should have known. If she failed and through her ignorance was brought to such anxiety and sorrow that she thought she had lost Christ, is it a wonder that other saints should often have erred and stumbled, when they followed their own notions, without the guidance of Scripture, or put their own notions into Scripture [Sermons of Martin Luther 1:2, p.48]."
"Mother Mary, like us, was born in sin of sinful parents, but the Holy Spirit covered her, sanctified and purified her so that this child was born of flesh and blood, but not with sinful flesh and blood. The Holy Spirit permitted the Virgin Mary to remain a true, natural human being of flesh and blood, just as we. However, he warded off sin from her flesh and blood so that she became the mother of a pure child, not poisoned by sin as we are…For in that moment when she conceived, she was a holy mother filled with the Holy Spirit and her fruit is a holy pure fruit, at once God and truly man, in one person [Martin Luther, Sermons of Martin Luther, Vol. 3, ed. John Nicholas Lenker. ( Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1996), 291]."
Finally, in the end, it really isn't super important what Luther believe on this topic because our salvation does not depend on it. Had Luther or any other Reformer thought it did, it would have been explicitly proven from Scripture.
First, and most importantly, contrary to Roman Catholic claims, Luther wasn't a Pope and nobody is required to believe anything he might have believed.
Second, the BOC makes no such requirement or demand on anybody who subscribes to those teachings.
Third, It's not terribly surprising, that Luther, who was a Roman Catholic until he was excommunicated held a high view of Mary. It's also not suprising that given the magnitude of errors of Rome that were being corrected, that it would take time to get around to this particular topic. I believe Lofton from Reason and Theology called the Marian believes "low on the hierarchy of truths."
Fourth, there is some convincing writings that as Luther grew older, his views on Mary did change. For example:
"Be they called holy, learned, fathers, councils, or any other name, even though they were Mary, Joseph and all the saints it does not follow that they could not have erred and made mistakes. For here you learn that the mother of Christ though she possessed great intelligence and enlightenment, showed great ignorance in that she did not know where to find Christ, and in consequence was censured by him because she did not know what she should have known. If she failed and through her ignorance was brought to such anxiety and sorrow that she thought she had lost Christ, is it a wonder that other saints should often have erred and stumbled, when they followed their own notions, without the guidance of Scripture, or put their own notions into Scripture [Sermons of Martin Luther 1:2, p.48]."
"Mother Mary, like us, was born in sin of sinful parents, but the Holy Spirit covered her, sanctified and purified her so that this child was born of flesh and blood, but not with sinful flesh and blood. The Holy Spirit permitted the Virgin Mary to remain a true, natural human being of flesh and blood, just as we. However, he warded off sin from her flesh and blood so that she became the mother of a pure child, not poisoned by sin as we are…For in that moment when she conceived, she was a holy mother filled with the Holy Spirit and her fruit is a holy pure fruit, at once God and truly man, in one person [Martin Luther, Sermons of Martin Luther, Vol. 3, ed. John Nicholas Lenker. ( Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1996), 291]."
Finally, in the end, it really isn't super important what Luther believe on this topic because our salvation does not depend on it. Had Luther or any other Reformer thought it did, it would have been explicitly proven from Scripture.
Mary wasn't the first immaculately created virgin...Eve was. Whereas Eve threw hers away with disobedience, Mary kept hers by obedience. She is "The Woman" of Genesis 3:15 who's seed will crush the head of the serpent. Since women don't have seeds, but rather eggs, this has to be one special woman....The Immaculate Blessed Virgin Mary...
It's one of the few things that the Pope and Luther agreed on...
It's one of the few things that the Pope and Luther agreed on...
Ding Ding DingTXaggiesTX said:
The idea that Mary led a sinless life has never made sense to me theologically. If there was another person who lived a sinless life, why did Jesus have to do it? and wouldn't that diminish his doing it?
If Mary or someone else was perfect, they in theory could have also died for our sins? Is that the implication?
No..It means that Jesus got his sinless flesh and blood from Mary, also sinless. Mary is the new Eve, who was also created sinless, but threw her immaculateness away. Mary kept hers through obedience...
Mary is the new Eve? What? Where in scripture does it say that? Jesus was the second/new Adam, however, as outlined in 1 Corinthians 15.
10andBOUNCE said:Ding Ding DingTXaggiesTX said:
The idea that Mary led a sinless life has never made sense to me theologically. If there was another person who lived a sinless life, why did Jesus have to do it? and wouldn't that diminish his doing it?
If Mary or someone else was perfect, they in theory could have also died for our sins? Is that the implication?
When man sinned against God, he created an infinite gap. It is not a gap that a man, even a perfect one can make amends for because there is too great of a disparity between us and God
On the flip side, it is man's debt to pay, so man needed a way to bridge this gap. So the Savior needs to be True God and True Man.
If any perfect person could pay it off, then Nestorianism or Arianism could work theologically. But they were obviously condemned for good reasons.
Sorry, I don't get it.chimpanzee said:
To suggest that God would not shield the mother of His son from original sin, and wouldn't construct the whole of time and reality to accommodate an outpouring of the graces won by the Resurrection on to Mary before she or Christ were ever born seems, to me, to say you'd expect God to leave a job half done.
Why can't we say that God left the job half done by not having the outpouring of grace of her mother or her mother's mother? It just pushes the problem farther away.
The problem is easily solved. How is it possible for Jesus to be born of a woman who sinned? We proclaim how. "I believe in Jesus Christ his only Son our Lord, who was concieved by the Holy Spirit, born of the virgin Mary..." I don't need to logically explain how he could be born of Mary and still be God for he is conceived of the Holy Spirit, something even Mary, if sinless, can't claim.
Pro Sandy said:honestly, this doesn't make sense. If that is the issue, a bad tree can't bear good fruit, the immaculate conception doesn't solve it, it only pushes the problem back a generation. If Mary can't bear Jesus if she has sin because she would be a bad tree, how does it make sense that her mom, also a bad tree, could bear a sinless child? If that required a miracle, what prevents God from doing the miracle for the conception of Jesus?Thaddeus73 said:
Agreed - As the bible says, A bad tree cannot bear good fruit, and Jesus is the fruit of her womb...
One and done
The phrase "New Eve" or similar expressions occur in the early Church Fathers. Take, for example, Justin Martyr, who wrote within a couple of generations of the apostles. In his Dialogue with Trypho the Jew (ca. A.D. 150), Justin explains that Christ destroyed Satan's work in the same way evil originally entered the world. Evil entered through Eve while she was still a virgin; so too salvation entered through Mary while she was still a virgin. Each woman willingly participated in the act they performed. Neither was an unconscious instrument. Eve listened to the serpent and conceived death. Mary listened to the angel Gabriel and conceived life. Justin sees this clearly in Luke 1:38 when Mary says, "Let it be to me according to your word." Thus, for Justin, Christ's becoming a man involved his Mother's willing cooperation in undoing the tangled web of sin that Eve introduced.
We should always be concerned a claim is made and the citation is not to the widely available writing but to a polemic website.
Here's the actual writing:
"and that He became man by the Virgin, in order that the disobedience which proceeded from the serpent might receive its destruction in the same manner in which it derived its origin. For Eve, who was a virgin and undefiled, having conceived the word of the serpent, brought forth disobedience and death. But the Virgin Mary received faith and joy, when the angel Gabriel announced the good tidings to her that the Spirit of the Lord would come upon her, and the power of the Highest would overshadow her: wherefore also the Holy Thing begotten of her is the Son of God; and she replied, 'Be it unto me according to thy word.' " And by her has He been born, to whom we have proved so many Scriptures refer, and by whom God destroys both the serpent and those angels and men who are like him; but works deliverance from death to those who repent of their wickedness and believe upon Him."
Certainly some comparisons can be made, and it aligns with what Luke writes.
However, there's nothing in here that would lead us to any of the Roman Catholic claims that would come centuries later.
Here's the actual writing:
"and that He became man by the Virgin, in order that the disobedience which proceeded from the serpent might receive its destruction in the same manner in which it derived its origin. For Eve, who was a virgin and undefiled, having conceived the word of the serpent, brought forth disobedience and death. But the Virgin Mary received faith and joy, when the angel Gabriel announced the good tidings to her that the Spirit of the Lord would come upon her, and the power of the Highest would overshadow her: wherefore also the Holy Thing begotten of her is the Son of God; and she replied, 'Be it unto me according to thy word.' " And by her has He been born, to whom we have proved so many Scriptures refer, and by whom God destroys both the serpent and those angels and men who are like him; but works deliverance from death to those who repent of their wickedness and believe upon Him."
Certainly some comparisons can be made, and it aligns with what Luke writes.
However, there's nothing in here that would lead us to any of the Roman Catholic claims that would come centuries later.
How would we know Eve was a virgin in Genesis 3? After Eve is created in Genesis 2, it says "Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh." We have always assumed that a husband and wife being of one flesh includes sex. Why would we assume Adam and Eve don't have sex until after the fall?Thaddeus73 said:
. Evil entered through Eve while she was still a virgin; so too salvation entered through Mary while she was still a virgin.
They didn't even know they were naked until after they ate the forbidden fruit.Pro Sandy said:How would we know Eve was a virgin in Genesis 3? After Eve is created in Genesis 2, it says "Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh." We have always assumed that a husband and wife being of one flesh includes sex. Why would we assume Adam and Eve don't have sex until after the fall?Thaddeus73 said:
. Evil entered through Eve while she was still a virgin; so too salvation entered through Mary while she was still a virgin.
That seems to be a non-responsive response.Ferg said:They didn't even know they were naked until after they ate the forbidden fruit.Pro Sandy said:How would we know Eve was a virgin in Genesis 3? After Eve is created in Genesis 2, it says "Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh." We have always assumed that a husband and wife being of one flesh includes sex. Why would we assume Adam and Eve don't have sex until after the fall?Thaddeus73 said:
. Evil entered through Eve while she was still a virgin; so too salvation entered through Mary while she was still a virgin.
Well, other than the Holy Bible there is only one other Record(get it?) of what happened between Adam and Eve in the Garden. I found a recording of it for you.Jabin said:That seems to be a non-responsive response.Ferg said:They didn't even know they were naked until after they ate the forbidden fruit.Pro Sandy said:How would we know Eve was a virgin in Genesis 3? After Eve is created in Genesis 2, it says "Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh." We have always assumed that a husband and wife being of one flesh includes sex. Why would we assume Adam and Eve don't have sex until after the fall?Thaddeus73 said:
. Evil entered through Eve while she was still a virgin; so too salvation entered through Mary while she was still a virgin.
Jabin
Joined:
Mar 4, 2021
Posts:
4,194
How long do you want to ignore this user?
So when Luther agrees with you he's right and when he disagrees he's what? It's trivial.
I just visited the Reformation Museum and Rome, trust me, the issues in our world are not our understanding of the Virgin Mary.
The Pope just kicked a conservative cardinal out of his apartment and cut-off his Vatican pension.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/nov/28/pope-francis-raymond-burke-conservative-cardinal
The Protestant factions are too many too mention.
We have lost the main things of the scriptures, the Virgin Mary's condition is not specifically described in the scripture by your assertions or those that don't agree with them, because it is not a major issue.
I just visited the Reformation Museum and Rome, trust me, the issues in our world are not our understanding of the Virgin Mary.
The Pope just kicked a conservative cardinal out of his apartment and cut-off his Vatican pension.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/nov/28/pope-francis-raymond-burke-conservative-cardinal
The Protestant factions are too many too mention.
We have lost the main things of the scriptures, the Virgin Mary's condition is not specifically described in the scripture by your assertions or those that don't agree with them, because it is not a major issue.
Well, that is certainly not true...Mary's role, per Genesis 3:15, is to be at enmity with the devil, and her seed will crush the head of satan. We are her children, per Revelation 12;17, if we obey the commandments and and profess that Jesus is our savior. In the Catholic world, mothers are VERY important to salvation...Quote:
because it is not a major issue.
Is that dependent on
1. Eve being a virgin before the fall
2. Mary being born sinless of a sinful woman
3. and Mary being an evervirgin?
Because those are the differences we have. I find them great to argue about over a beer and our different views are why you won't find any statues of Mary in my house except for my nativity scene. But I don't think either one of our salvation or status as Christians is in jeopardy over it.
1. Eve being a virgin before the fall
2. Mary being born sinless of a sinful woman
3. and Mary being an evervirgin?
Because those are the differences we have. I find them great to argue about over a beer and our different views are why you won't find any statues of Mary in my house except for my nativity scene. But I don't think either one of our salvation or status as Christians is in jeopardy over it.
Except Mary helps us fight satan. That's her role in salvation history. The head of satan was crushed at Golgotha, the place of....the skull....
Since i consecrated myself to Jesus through Mary, my spiritual warfare against satan has improved exponentially....She, like all souls ever created, is very much alive, and her soul magnifies the Lord, per sacred scripture...
Since i consecrated myself to Jesus through Mary, my spiritual warfare against satan has improved exponentially....She, like all souls ever created, is very much alive, and her soul magnifies the Lord, per sacred scripture...
Pro Sandy said:
Is that dependent on
1. Eve being a virgin before the fall
2. Mary being born sinless of a sinful woman
3. and Mary being an evervirgin?
Because those are the differences we have. I find them great to argue about over a beer and our different views are why you won't find any statues of Mary in my house except for my nativity scene. But I don't think either one of our salvation or status as Christians is in jeopardy over it.
Your last sentence is the important part.
Rome made the subscription to a claim not found in Scripture doctrine.
Thaddeus has pointed to a church father who has not made claims remotely similar Rome's claims and a typological argument about a Bible verse that the historical church interpreted differently.
The debate is good a fine, and frankly, more protestants were probably be sympathetic to the claims if not for the demands that we must believe it. That's where Rome loses any effectiveness in their argument.
“I am the IMMACULATE CONCEPTION!”
— Quiapo Church (@quiapochurch) December 9, 2019
(Blessed Virgin Mary to Saint Bernadette Soubirous)
Mary Immaculate, Pray for us!
Tota Pulchra Es Maria!
St. Bernadette, Pray for us!#ImmaculateConception #MarianDevotion #MamaMary #BlessedVirginMary #Catholic #Katoliko #AveMaria #QuiapoChurch pic.twitter.com/U68BioCgsg
Thaddeus73 said:
No..It means that Jesus got his sinless flesh and blood from Mary, also sinless.
Where did Mary get her sinless flesh and blood? Where did that person get theirs? And that person…and so on? All the sudden there are lots of people who led sinless lives.
Pro Sandy said:Sorry, I don't get it.chimpanzee said:
To suggest that God would not shield the mother of His son from original sin, and wouldn't construct the whole of time and reality to accommodate an outpouring of the graces won by the Resurrection on to Mary before she or Christ were ever born seems, to me, to say you'd expect God to leave a job half done.
Why can't we say that God left the job half done by not having the outpouring of grace of her mother or her mother's mother? It just pushes the problem farther away.
The problem is easily solved. How is it possible for Jesus to be born of a woman who sinned? We proclaim how. "I believe in Jesus Christ his only Son our Lord, who was concieved by the Holy Spirit, born of the virgin Mary..." I don't need to logically explain how he could be born of Mary and still be God for he is conceived of the Holy Spirit, something even Mary, if sinless, can't claim.
That was in the article I linked to. I don't think I've heard any Protestant say that God left any job half done. My impression is that Protestant reasoning doesn't seem to limit God as much as Roman Catholic reasoning, presuming that there is only one way He could have emerged into our earthly existence sinless.
But there's way more to it than I understand, for sure.
Mary was sinless because of Gods grace. She was saved because God preserved her from sin. Jesus defeated sin of his own doing through faith. God could have had Jesus born of a woman who had the stain of original sin...He can do anything he wants. However, it is fitting that Jesus was born of a sinless woman.10andBOUNCE said:Thaddeus73 said:
No..It means that Jesus got his sinless flesh and blood from Mary, also sinless.
Where did Mary get her sinless flesh and blood? Where did that person get theirs? And that person…and so on? All the sudden there are lots of people who led sinless lives.
Not sure I agree with the concept of original sin, not in the Bible and one of the most complex topics in theology, but that is beside the point.BluHorseShu said:Mary was sinless because of Gods grace. She was saved because God preserved her from sin. Jesus defeated sin of his own doing through faith. God could have had Jesus born of a woman who had the stain of original sin...He can do anything he wants. However, it is fitting that Jesus was born of a sinless woman.10andBOUNCE said:Thaddeus73 said:
No..It means that Jesus got his sinless flesh and blood from Mary, also sinless.
Where did Mary get her sinless flesh and blood? Where did that person get theirs? And that person…and so on? All the sudden there are lots of people who led sinless lives.
You state that God could have used a sinful person to be the mother of his Son just as he used many other sinful people for his glory throughout the Bible - I agree with you. Therefore, since the Bible does not explicitly mention whether Mary was sinless or not but it does say "ALL have sinned and come short of the glory of God" we can reasonably infer that Mary sinned during her life and has the same salvation through Jesus that you and I have.
No you cannot, because "all" in the bible does not mean all, but most.
2 Corinthians 5:14-20
New International Version
14 For Christ's love compels us, because we are convinced that one died for all, and therefore all died.
Both Enoch and Elijah never died...
2 Corinthians 5:14-20
New International Version
14 For Christ's love compels us, because we are convinced that one died for all, and therefore all died.
Both Enoch and Elijah never died...
Thaddeus73 said:
No you cannot, because "all" in the bible does not mean all, but most.
2 Corinthians 5:14-20
New International Version
14 For Christ's love compels us, because we are convinced that one died for all, and therefore all died.
Both Enoch and Elijah never died...
Yeah. That works as well.
But St. Paul was still emphasizing that the Israel of God was for both the Jew and the Gentile converts in Corinth, Greece.
Featured Stories
See All
'Thank yOU?' A&M's outlook unaffected by disappointment at Auburn
by Olin Buchanan
27:51
6h ago
4.1k
12:07
5h ago
4.6k
Post Game Review: Auburn 43, No. 15 Texas A&M 41 (4OT)
by Kay Naegeli
1:54
20h ago
990
Chace Sims locked in on playoff run while getting ready for Aggieland
by Ryan Brauninger
Colonel Ingus
"We are not a team built to play from behind" - Elko
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
30