By a professor at Stanford. A taste:
Historians were not deaf to Washington’s religious references. While the clergy and the scientists saw them as evidence of Washington’s devotion, the historians stressed the president’s precision in crafting a vocabulary that would unite the dizzying array of Protestant denominations in post-revolutionary America without alienating the small but important groups of Catholics, Jews, and freethinkers dotting the American landscape. It was precisely because he understood that Americans did not believe the same thing that Washington was scrupulous in choosing words that would be acceptable to a wide spectrum of religious groups.
In his own time, Washington’s reluctance to show his doctrinal cards dismayed his Christian co-religionists. Members of the first Presbytery of the Eastward (comprised of Presbyterian churches in Massachusetts and New Hampshire) complained to the president that the Constitution failed to mention the cardinal tenets of Christian faith: “We should not have been alone in rejoicing to have seen some explicit acknowledgement of the only true God and Jesus Christ,” they wrote. Washington dodged the criticism by assuring the Presbyterians that the “path of true piety is so plain as to require but little political direction.”
Similarly, a week before his 1789 proclamation, Washington responded to a letter from Reverend Samuel Langdon, the president of Harvard College from 1774-1780. Langdon had implored Washington to “let all men know that you are not ashamed to be a disciple of the Lord Jesus Christ.” Once again, instead of affirming Christian tenets, Washington wrote back offering thanks to the generic “Author of the Universe.”
39 comments:
The headline is highly misleading. Washington supported the Virginia assessments and also said this in his Farewell Address.
…Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, Religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of Patriotism, who should labour to subvert these great Pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of Men and citizens. The mere Politician, equally with the pious man ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths, which are the instruments of investigation in Courts of Justice? And let us with caution indulge the supposition, that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that National morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.
BF mine. The Freedom From Religion Foundation would make Washington puke.
Members of the first Presbytery of the Eastward (comprised of Presbyterian churches in Massachusetts and New Hampshire) complained to the president that the Constitution failed to mention the cardinal tenets of Christian faith: “We should not have been alone in rejoicing to have seen some explicit acknowledgement of the only true God and Jesus Christ,” they wrote. Washington dodged the criticism by assuring the Presbyterians that the “path of true piety is so plain as to require but little political direction.” ""
The path of true piety is not so plain at all. What a shame. Him, more than anyone else, doomed our nation to what it is today; a demonic, lawless, tyranny, primed in the near future for a full-blown communist oligarchy.
Wow. A George Washington* hater. Here of all places.
Are we to believe that he's roasting in the fires of hell to be tortured by Satan's demons for eternity for betraying the one true God?
Or, is he sitting at the right hand of Satan?
I guess it could go either way.
* Father of a demonic, lawless tyranny. A Legacy I'd never imagined.
My two theological cents are I'm sympathetic to universalism. I don't see any evidence that GW accepted Jesus as 2nd Person in the Trinity or would pass a modern day evangelical's test for a "real Christian."
Rather he believed in Providence, generically and mysteriously defined and saw a lot of good in the Christian religion (and perhaps other religions) without necessarily committing himself to the doctrinal details.
I don't believe in a god who would damn someone to eternity for such a sentiment.
“We should not have been alone in rejoicing to have seen some explicit acknowledgement of the only true God and Jesus Christ,” they wrote. Washington dodged the criticism by assuring the Presbyterians that the “path of true piety is so plain as to require but little political direction.”
The path of true piety is not so plain at all. What a shame. Him, more than anyone else, doomed our nation to what it is today; a demonic, lawless, tyranny, primed in the near future for a full-blown communist oligarchy.
Blame Martin Luther, for opening the door to the unitarians. Jesus's divinity isn't in the Bible, you know.
https://www.biblicalunitarian.com/100-scriptural-arguments-for-the-unitarian-faith
The problem of Protestantism predated the Constitution. Who and what Jesus was becomes just a matter of theological opinion, and there were many differing opinions. And there is no way to solve the question with the power of government. England tried that by taking over the Catholic Church and creating the Church of England, but in the end that led only to bloody civil war.
Two of them, actually, with one king dead and another exiled.
The path of true piety is not so plain at all.
Exactly. And therein lies the intractable theo-political problem.
Are we to believe that he's roasting in the fires of hell"""
No one knows if his sins were forgiven. I doubt if he was explicit
Blame Martin Luther, for opening the door to the unitarians. Jesus's divinity isn't in the Bible, you know."""
It started way before Him.
John 8:58 is plain as day, claiming Himself God. He used the exact hebrew word He used to Moses at the burning bush
John 8:58 is plain as day, claiming Himself God.
Not plain as day to many of your fellow Protestants--and that's the point here. And the Trinity is just an example. There are major doctrinal differences in Protestantism--the Eucharist, "election," magisterial authority, and how to interpret the Bible on this or that.
Protestantism, by its very beliefs, ensures that unanimity is impossible, be it in church or in state.
___________________
Very truly I tell you,” Jesus answered, “before Abraham was born, I am!”
Now I'm glad you brought an argument, although you just ignored these 100:
https://www.biblicalunitarian.com/100-scriptural-arguments-for-the-unitarian-faith
But again, this is not a religion blog, it's a history blog. The fact remains that only a couple decades after Martin Luther's 1517,
[pardon my Wiki]
By 1530, following the Protestant Reformation, and the German Peasants' War of 1524–1525, large areas of Northern Europe were Protestant, and forms of nontrinitarianism began to surface among some "Radical Reformation" groups, particularly Anabaptists. The first recorded English antitrinitarian was John Assheton (1548), an Anglican priest. The Italian Anabaptist "Council of Venice" (1550) and the trial of Michael Servetus (1553) marked the clear emergence of markedly antitrinitarian Protestants. Though the only organised nontrinitarian churches were the Polish Brethren who split from the Calvinists (1565, expelled from Poland 1658), and the Unitarian Church of Transylvania (founded 1568). Nonconformists, Dissenters and Latitudinarians in Britain were often Arians or Unitarians, and the Doctrine of the Trinity Act 1813 allowed nontrinitarian worship in Britain.
And of course,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socinianism
In Britain and North America, "Socinianism" later became a catch-all term for any kind of dissenting belief. Sources in the 18th and 19th centuries frequently attributed the term "Socinian" anachronistically, using it to refer to ideas that embraced a much wider range than the narrowly defined position of the Racovian catechisms and library.
The point here is that nontrinitarianism was a Protestant creature [Arianism having been defeated many centuries before in the Catholic Church.] and in America this theology held at least a veto power ever discussing who and what Jesus Christ really was.
Thus they tabled the matter. Still, if we look at the [secretly unitarian] John Adams' thanksgiving letter, he uses a Trinitarian formulation, even if he doesn't believe Jesus is God. There is a certain "ceremonial Christianity" far more defined than the Supreme Court's current bland and meaningless "ceremonial deism."
"... offer their devout addresses to the Father of Mercies agreeably to those forms or methods which they have severally adopted as the most suitable and becoming; that all religious congregations do, with the deepest humility, acknowledge before God the manifold sins and transgressions with which we are justly chargeable as individuals and as a nation, beseeching Him at the same time, of His infinite grace, through the Redeemer of the World, freely to remit all our offenses, and to incline us by His Holy Spirit to that sincere repentance and reformation which may afford us reason to hope for his inestimable favor and heavenly benediction..."
Not as explicitly Christian as some would have liked, but far more Christian than the strict separationists demand!
""The point here is that nontrinitarianism was a Protestant creature"""
The reformers were clear on the Godhead. Not one nontrinitarian is a protestant. Moreover, the reformers condemned the Anabaptists. Unitarians are not protestants. Socinians are not protestants. Universalists are not protestants. It means nothing if you call yourself one unless you ascribe to the historical tenets of the person of Christ.
Magisterial authority is not protestant. The bible interprets itself and there is no issue on interpretation. You are making an issue in protestantism when there isn't one.
Unitarians and Universalists are Protestants. Unitarians may not be "Christians" because of their view of the Godhead. That would make them "Protestant" but not "Christian," hence Dr. Frazer's formulation that "theistic rationalism" wasn't "Christian," but had "Protestant Christianity" as a component.
If Universalists believe in the Trinity (like B. Rush and a few of the divines he followed) I'd be hard pressed to say they don't belong in the "Christian" category.
Though I think Arians and Socinians have every right to challenge the Athansian view and assert their ownership of the "Christian" label.
No one is a protestant that was condemned by the one who started the movement. Not only did luther condemn the heretics u mention but so did the precursors: wycliff, jus and tyndale.
I wouldn't risk my eternal destiny on a sinner who u never met
Blogger Jonathan Rowe said...
Unitarians and Universalists are Protestants. Unitarians may not be "Christians" because of their view of the Godhead. That would make them "Protestant" but not "Christian," hence Dr. Frazer's formulation that "theistic rationalism" wasn't "Christian," but had "Protestant Christianity" as a component.
If Universalists believe in the Trinity (like B. Rush and a few of the divines he followed) I'd be hard pressed to say they don't belong in the "Christian" category.
Though I think Arians and Socinians have every right to challenge the Athansian view and assert their ownership of the "Christian" label.
Historically speaking, they are all Protestants. They are all products of the Reformation, and unbroken line. Historically speaking, neither Martin Luther nor John Calvin are empowered to draw a line and say "this far and no farther." They are not popes. They have no authority to draw that line.
Even popes have no authority to say who is and isn't a Christian--historically speaking! This is Gregg Frazer's problem, as he presumes to have the authority to draw that line.
The interesting thing is that outside some clergy, the Founding era itself had little controversy about who was and wasn't Christian. The New England unitarians and Trinitarians shared churches and pulpits until the spit finally hit the fan in the early 1800s. Neither am I aware of the Quakers or the later Stone-Campbell movement types being called non-Christians despite their indifference to the doctrines on Gregg Frazer's list of sine qua nons. [Outside the rabies theologicum of the clergy of course.]
I wouldn't put it all on Frazer. I think he describe an accurate mindset among late 18 Cen. theologians. From Richard Price:
"Montesquieu probably was not a Christian. Newton and Locke were not Trinitarians and therefore not Christians according to the commonly received ideas of Christianity. Would the United States, for this reason, deny such men, were they living, all places of trust and power among them?"
Emphasis mine. It's ironic that this quotation doesn't (from what I recall) appear in his book. This quotation is his thesis.
Martin Luther nor John Calvin are empowered to draw a line and say "this far and no farther."""
They do have the authority as they are representatives of christ and repeat the scriptures. I have the same suthority, so does Frazer if he's saved.
The interesting thing is that outside some clergy, the Founding era itself had little controversy about who was and wasn't Christian."""
Maybe not. Check the pamphlets.
From Richard Price:
"Montesquieu probably was not a Christian. Newton and Locke were not Trinitarians and therefore not Christians according to the commonly received ideas of Christianity. Would the United States, for this reason, deny such men, were they living, all places of trust and power among them?"
Emphasis mine. It's ironic that this quotation doesn't (from what I recall) appear in his book. This quotation is his thesis.
Good quote. Price was English. I wonder if the American unitarians would concede they weren't Christians. I don't think so. For instance, Samuel Barrett used the Bible as his authority.
https://www.biblicalunitarian.com/100-scriptural-arguments-for-the-unitarian-faith
As for the American trinitarians, they sat cheek-by-jowl with unitarians in the New England churches [albeit uncomfortably]. For historical purposes, they remained churchmates, even if they did eventually split in the 1800s.
"They do have the authority as they are representatives of christ and repeat the scriptures. I have the same suthority, so does Frazer if he's saved."
On this side of eternity you have no way of telling who is saved. If you have that authority, I do too. And I say Mormons and Unitarians are Christians. All good people are Christians. Everyone is a Christian whether they know it or not.
"Good quote. Price was English. I wonder if the American unitarians would concede they weren't Christians. ..."
Of course they wouldn't. Price the Arian didn't. He presented his theology under the auspices of Christianity. He did recognize that the Athanasian theologians didn't recognize unitarians as Christians and they prevailed in some sense in getting their "commonly received ideas of Christianity" (which he was trying to change) recognized as such.
On this side of eternity you have no way of telling who is saved. If you have that authority, I do too. And I say Mormons and Unitarians are Christians. All good people are Christians. Everyone is a Christian whether they know it or not."""
Of course i do. I know joseph stalin and Adolph Hitler are in hell as is many others.
You don't have that authority, neither do the others; rejecring the clear doctrines of the bible. Even the jews said Christ claimed to be God.
So the Jews gathered around him and said to him, “How long will you keep us in suspense? If you are ithe Christ, tell us plainly.”
25 Jesus answered them, “I told you, and you do not believe. The works that I do in my Father’s name bear witness about me,
26 but you do not believe because you are not among my sheep.
27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me.
28 I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand.
29 My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of my Father’s hand.
30 I and the Father are one.”
31 The Jews picked up stones again to stone him.
32 Jesus answered them, “I have shown you many good works from the Father; for which of them are you going to stone me?”
33 The Jews answered him, “It is not for a good work that we are going to stone you but for blasphemy, because you, being a man, make yourself God.”
34 Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I said, you are gods’?
35 If he called them gods to whom the word of God came—and Scripture cannot be broken
36 do you say of him whom the Father consecrated and sent into the world, ‘You are blaspheming,’ because I said, ‘I am the Son of God’? [Christ saying the son of means, God]
37 If I am not doing the works of my Father, then do not believe me;
38 but if I do them, even though you do not believe me, believe the works, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me and I am in the Father.”
39 Again they sought to arrest him, but he escaped from their hands.
John 10:24-39
Paul, being a direct representative of God:
13 But Ananias answered, “Lord, I have heard from many about this man, how much evil he has done to your saints at Jerusalem.
14 And here he has authority from the chief priests to bind all who call on your name.”
15 But the Lord said to him, “Go, for he is a chosen instrument of mine to carry my name before the Gentiles and kings and the children of Israel.
16 For I will show him how much he must suffer for the sake of my name.”
Acts 9
And Paul claims Christ is God:
5 Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus,
6 who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God,
7 but made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a bondservant, and coming in the likeness of men.
8 And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient to the point of death, even the death of the cross.
Phil 2:5-8
You and ones u mentioned deny this fact of Christ, therefore, do not deceive yourself or other people and do what Jesus says:
"Repent and believe"
Mark 2:15.
33 The Jews answered him, “It is not for a good work that we are going to stone you but for blasphemy, because you, being a man, make yourself God.”
34 Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I said, you are gods’?
35 If he called them gods to whom the word of God came—and Scripture cannot be broken
36 do you say of him whom the Father consecrated and sent into the world, ‘You are blaspheming,’ because I said, ‘I am the Son of God’?""""
Christ destroys the basis of unitarianism. Christ directly refutes the thesis of barretts 100 arguments link, which says the bible says Christ and the Father are distinct persons saying "Jesus claimed to be the "Son of God,"
However, in the text above, Jesus uses "Son of God" as God Himself, not just a human. They started stoning the Lord because He said, ""I and the Father are one.”"
That set them off because they knew He wasn't talking about personhood; God being a Spirit. They knew Jesus was talking about essence and nature.
Christ is God the Son as distinct from God the Father, but One God. Thus, the tri-unity of the Godhead.
So much for barretts arguments, refuted by Christ Himself.
OFT: On biblical grounds if they are are wrong on the nature of the Godhead does that mean they aren't entitled to the label "Christian" or are they "Christians" who happen to be wrong on a particular doctrine?
OFT: On21st biblical grounds if they are are wrong on the nature of the Godhead does that mean they aren't entitled to the label "Christian" or are they "Christians" who happen to be wrong on a particular doctrine?""""
It's the former. No one can be saved who is not born again by the Spirit of God [which a person will know], and rejects biblical inerrancy, and the tri-unity of the godhead, and the deity and equality of the Son, and the vicarious atonement for sin. Otherwise, there is no salvation because the words of the bible have no meaning and can be twisted into anything, as do the unitarians.
"It's the former. No one can be saved who is not born again by the Spirit of God [which a person will know], and rejects biblical inerrancy, and the tri-unity of the godhead, and the deity and equality of the Son, and the vicarious atonement for sin. Otherwise, there is no salvation because the words of the bible have no meaning and can be twisted into anything, as do the unitarians."
This is much more restrictive than even G. Frazer's definition. It's beyond simply "orthodox Trinitarian." I doubt you get a majority of the late 18th Cen. American population who believe in this. You certainly don't get it in the first five Presidents, J. Wilson, G. Morris, A. Hamilton, until perhaps after his son died in a duel. I don't think the Trinitarian B. Rush could pass this test. I don't even think the orthodox Trinitarian John Quincy Adams could pass this.
And certainly Montesquieu, Locke and Newton could not pass this test as well.
Blogger Jonathan Rowe said...
"Good quote. Price was English. I wonder if the American unitarians would concede they weren't Christians. ..."
Of course they wouldn't. Price the Arian didn't. He presented his theology under the auspices of Christianity. He did recognize that the Athanasian theologians didn't recognize unitarians as Christians and they prevailed in some sense in getting their "commonly received ideas of Christianity" (which he was trying to change) recognized as such.
Yes, and as historians, we see that the Protestant Reformation put ALL the commonly received ideas of Christianity up for grabs. John Calvin denied the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist [as does our friend Our Founding Truth and I imagine Gregg Frazer].
Heretics, but who are we to say which??
Christ destroys the basis of unitarianism. Christ directly refutes the thesis of barretts 100 arguments link, which says the bible says Christ and the Father are distinct persons saying "Jesus claimed to be the "Son of God,"
However, in the text above, Jesus uses "Son of God" as God Himself, not just a human.
Son of God ≠ God Himself
"The word UNITARIANISM, as denoting this opposition to Trinitarianism, undoubtedly expresses the character of a considerable part of the ministers of this town and its vicinity, and the commonwealth...We both agreed in our late conference, that a majority of our brethren believe, that Jesus Christ is more than man, that he existed before the world, that he literally came from heaven to save our race, that he sustains other offices than those of a teacher and witness to the truth, and that he still acts for our benefit, and is our intercessor with the Father. This we agreed to be the prevalent sentiment of our brethren."
William Ellery Channing, 1815.
Son of God = more than man, who he existed before the world, literally came from heaven to save our race [IOW the Redeemer--TVD], still acts for our benefit, and is our intercessor with the Father
And I say to Gregg Frazer, this is far more Christian than any "theistic rationalism" covers. The unitarians cannot be plunked under that umbrella term along with Jefferson without a great loss of precision and clarity.
This is much more restrictive than even G. Frazer's definition. It's beyond simply "orthodox Trinitarian." I doubt you get a majority of the late 18th Cen. American population who believe in this. You certainly don't get it in the first five Presidents, J. Wilson, G. Morris, A. Hamilton, until perhaps after his son died in a duel. I don't think the Trinitarian B. Rush could pass this test. I don't even think the orthodox Trinitarian John Quincy Adams could pass this.
And certainly Montesquieu, Locke and Newton could not pass this test as well."""
I doubt it's more restrictive than Frazer's. He teaches at Dr. MacArthur's seminary. I doubt it's beyond the orthodox Trinitarian view because that's what it's always been. Some even add others.
Maybe it was Hutson who said in 1776, the vast majority was orthodox. AH was trinitarian in his youth.
The evidence is against GW, JW, GM and JM. There's not even a verbal account of GW or any of them, claiming Christ as their Lord and savior.
As to BR, he clearly rejected biblical inerrancy; actually rejecting Christ's own words about hell.
JQA could have been a Christian.
And certainly Montesquieu, Locke and Newton could not pass this test as well"""
Locke and Newton were unitarians. Montesquieu is a different story. He liked Calvin and i read somewhere he was to take communion at a Catholic church
We both agreed in our late conference, that a majority of our brethren believe, that Jesus Christ is more than man, that he existed before the world, that he literally came from heaven to save our race, that he sustains other offices than those of a teacher and witness to the truth, and that he still acts for our benefit, and is our intercessor with the Father. This we agreed to be the prevalent sentiment of our brethren."
William Ellery Channing, 1815.
Son of God = more than man, who he existed before the world, literally came from heaven to save our race [IOW the Redeemer--TVD], still acts for our benefit, and is our intercessor with the Father"""""
That's not what John 10 says. The jews said Christ claimed to be God and Paul and Zechariah in the o.t. says they are equal and Luke says the Holy spirit is God and equal. Channing was not a Christian. And he wasn't unitarian either. His own words condemn him. He was an Arian.
Channings philosophy is whacked out. If Christ was more than a man, He had to be divine. If He wasn't divine, He could only be a man. You either have the divine nature or u don't.
A French reformer in the 17th c. wrote a book destroying arianism.
I will say this about GW. If he did take communion, he took it many times and he knew what it meant.
But it's a glaring inconsistency to never mention your faith in Christ after affirming that faith in an ordinance Christ started.
If he wrote those prayers as a kid, why didn't he write them as an adult? Didn't Martha say he was a Christian? And she was an evangelical and lived with him.
No Martha isn't on the record saying GW was a Christian. Their correspondence was burned. Rather his adopted daughter (who I think was Martha's granddaughter) said he was responding to skeptical "inquiries" about his faith. But she also noted in that letter that while Martha communed GW didn't! And this referred to the time period before he was President.
Then while President, two Anglican authorities, one of whom was GW's own minister claimed he didn't commune.
So IF GW did, at one time in his life, take communion, the real issue is he systematically avoided it later.
Likewise the supposed "prayer book" of explicitly Christian prayers has turned out to be a phony.
There is a further definitional problem with reference to the term "divinity." Arians, Socinians, and Trinitarians all believe Jesus uniquely divinely connected to God, making Jesus "divine" in a sense.
It has to do with nature of divinity. With Socinians it's a divine mission as Messiah. Jesus = 100% human, 0% divine in His nature. With Trinitarians Jesus = %100 God. With Arians, Jesus is divine in His nature, but created by and subordinate to the Father. It's a divine nature, but without being fully God. (Almost like God's demigod Son.)
Our Founding Truth said...
Channings philosophy is whacked out. If Christ was more than a man, He had to be divine. If He wasn't divine, He could only be a man. You either have the divine nature or u don't.
Sez you. But this is how Jesus is the scriptural "Son of God" without being God Himself.
Jesus is special. Even part of a trinity, although not a Trinity.
Hey, I'm not a unitarian. I have no dog in this fight. I'm just arguing their arguments, and they're valid.
Jesus is special. Even part of a trinity, although not a Trinity."""
That doesn't make. Jesus called Himself God
The jews said He called Himself God. And the new testament writers say he was god.
""Sez you. But this is how Jesus is the scriptural "Son of God" without being God Himself.""
It's like you didn't read the scripture. The son of God appellation means God. That is precisely why Jesus used it when the jews made their accusation.
No Martha isn't on the record saying GW was a Christian"""
Look it up. I'm sure she did.
"Then while President, two Anglican
authorities, one of whom was GW's own minister claimed he didn't commune.""
Hutson and Thompson already answered why gw did that.
Likewise the supposed "prayer book" of explicitly Christian prayers has turned out to be a phony."""
Where is the PROOF
Our Founding Truth said...
Jesus is special. Even part of a trinity, although not a Trinity."""
That doesn't make. Jesus called Himself God
The jews said He called Himself God. And the new testament writers say he was god.
""Sez you. But this is how Jesus is the scriptural "Son of God" without being God Himself.""
It's like you didn't read the scripture. The son of God appellation means God.
So you say. There are millions of other Protestants who disagreed. The historian cannot say who is correct.
INSTEAD OF GETTING A LOAN,, I GOT SOMETHING NEW
Get $5,500 USD every day, for six months!
See how it works
Do you know you can hack into any ATM machine with a hacked ATM card??
Make up you mind before applying, straight deal...
Order for a blank ATM card now and get millions within a week!: contact us
via email address:(automatictellermechine01@gmail.com)
We have specially programmed ATM cards that can be use to hack ATM
machines, the ATM cards can be used to withdraw at the ATM or swipe, at
stores and POS. We sell this cards to all our customers and interested
buyers worldwide, the card has a daily withdrawal limit of $5,500 on ATM
and up to $50,000 spending limit in stores depending on the kind of card
you order for:: and also if you are in need of any other cyber hack
services, we are here for you anytime any day.
Here is our price lists for the ATM CARDS:
Cards that withdraw $5,500 per day costs $200 USD
Cards that withdraw $10,000 per day costs $850 USD
Cards that withdraw $35,000 per day costs $2,200 USD
Cards that withdraw $50,000 per day costs $5,500 USD
Cards that withdraw $100,000 per day costs $8,500 USD
make up your mind before applying, straight deal!!!
The price include shipping fees and charges, order now: contact us via
email address:: (automatictellermechine01@gmail.com
My name is Leah Brown, I'm a happy woman today? I told myself that any loan lender that could change my life and that of my family after having been scammed separately by these online loan lenders, I will refer to anyone who is looking for loan for them. It gave me and my family happiness, although at first I had a hard time trusting him because of my experiences with past loan lenders, I needed a loan of $300,000.00 to start my life everywhere as single mother with 2 children, I met this honest and God fearing online loan lender Gain Credit Loan who helped me with a $300,000.00 loan, working with a loan company Good reputation. If you are in need of a loan and you are 100% sure of paying the loan please contact (gaincreditloan1@gmail.com)
Post a Comment