gdp's Comments

Reign of Christ : Tip for Commenting @ RCM

Wed, 7 Oct 2009 21:43:51 +0000

Cool. Thanks Dave. Now that i have approved your first "ID" comment, hopefully the rest will go straight through. Otherwise, y'all will just need to have the pow wows from 6pm to around 11:30pm, Monday through Friday. lol.

Reign of Christ : Conversation with Don Preston

Wed, 7 Oct 2009 16:58:55 +0000

Ed, You can either download it from our podcast feed: http://thereignofchrist.com/category/podcast/feed or on our iTunes page. The link to iTunes is in the "About Author" section above AND the first blue icon, upper right.

Reign of Christ : An Evening of Eschatology

Wed, 7 Oct 2009 02:44:22 +0000

Doug Wilson (postmill, partial pret) says in the video that his biggest exegetical problem is harmonizing 1st and 2nd Thessalonians. hmmmm.... ( ;

Reign of Christ : Focusing on the Right Thing

Sun, 4 Oct 2009 16:33:14 +0000

I think Chuck is right: "He who does the exegetical work wins the day." That IS where the battle takes place. The most theologically productive two years in my life were in o2 and o3 when i locked myself in my room with a ton of reformed works (Chilton, Gentry, Rushdoony, Bahnsen, Frame, Vos, etc.) and consequently, became a preterist. I rarely got online because i had dial up. I would rather not even have the internet than have dial up. haha. My best "aha" moments all came from that; not from facebook or myspace. Notice too, that it seems like the people who are supposedly in the "battle"; the people who scream the loudest; actually produce the least amount of exegesis. Roderick is a prime example. Yackity, yack yack, all over the web - and we still don't know the details of what exactly he believes. THINKING people eventually see through it, as even some who frequent preteristblah are seeing. We have to trust God and his sovereignty. All these "petty fights" are typically a sign of distrust, of which i have been guilty of myself a ton of times. "What then is Apollos? What is Paul? Servants through whom you believed, as the Lord assigned to each. I planted, Apollos watered, but God gave the growth. So neither he who plants nor he who waters is anything, but only God who gives the growth."

Reign of Christ : Podcast with Don Preston

Sat, 3 Oct 2009 03:41:31 +0000

Sam, we already know why Obama could not score. The IOC is racist.

Reign of Christ : Focusing on the Right Thing

Fri, 2 Oct 2009 15:56:44 +0000

Oh, and i like the site you have your name linked to. Right on the money!

Reign of Christ : Focusing on the Right Thing

Fri, 2 Oct 2009 15:21:44 +0000

You have not only isolated yourself from us preterists, but have done so at preteristblah as well. Anyone see the comments from Talbot, J.R., Phil? Anyone also see when Rod tried to play off joining T.D. because these sites are really just not as serious as he is...but he wrote this right after getting PERMANENTLY banned from T.D.? lol. Rod, the only site where i am currently under a ban is HCR, which not only will be over soon; but the new head moderator personally called me to apologize and welcomes me back. He wants me to come back. The guy who banned me got complaints from a bunch of others and is no longer an admin. He also told me that he was sick of your tactics and would be watching you like a hawk...something the original moderator said to me as well when you followed me over and joined, but he went back on his word. Now he's toast. Permanent bans, sharp rebukes from the orthodox, continual emails and posting on sites that have asked you to stop....hmmm...looks to me like you're the pathetic one. I'll guess i'll have to run another type of filter to keep your sick obession off here. Bug off.

Reign of Christ : Focusing on the Right Thing

Fri, 2 Oct 2009 15:20:09 +0000

Roderick is finally right on something...i would not have approved of his post. But, somehow he snuck in and did this while i'm at work, where i can't monitor as well. Kinda glad he did though. Just goes to show everyone what a nutcase we have here. I say "snuck in" because Rod has attempted to post here three or four times and i not only deleted those but banned his ip, which changes every time. He clearly knows he is not welcomed here, yet.... Hmmm, i thought i remember DeeDee complaining about us sinful hyper-prets doing this on her site. Nothing new though. I asked Rod to stop emailing me over a year ago, and he still does. Limbaugh recently pointed out how one of the best strategies against his opponents is to just let them speak. So thank you, Rod.

Reign of Christ : Thanks.

Wed, 30 Sep 2009 17:26:34 +0000

Dave, you probably know more about all this stuff than i do. ( : Now that you mention it, i do see it for a split second (safari). Thanks for the reference. I probably would have spent an hour on google trying to figure out what you call it. haha. My joomla sites used suckerfish. I'll give that a try tonight. Thanks!

Reign of Christ : Thanks.

Wed, 30 Sep 2009 05:10:22 +0000

Dave, I found out how to link to categories instead of pages and also figured out how to add at least 10 posts per page, with short teasers; instead of just three or four with full posts. Hopefully this will help make it a little easier. Whatcha think so far? Thanks. ( :

Reign of Christ : Thanks.

Tue, 29 Sep 2009 17:21:00 +0000

Hey Dave! I greatly appreciate the feedback. Back when i was considering mambo (joomla's source) or wordpress 6 years ago, i think your comment about "blogging" was especially true then. However, WP has evolved a ton since then and i think the days of thinking that WP is just for blogging are over with. There was not any one big reason for the switch, but a ton of little reasons that, once added up, make my life easier. Top on the list was getting Sam more involved in adding content. Sam does all his writing in Word and prefers to stick to that method because he has been using it for years. And trying to copy and paste a Word doc into Joomla is never smooth. I would spend anywhere from 15-45 minutes on a single article trying to clean out all the Word code that got carried over from the copy and paste. This code would often destroy the template and throw everything out of wack. Some editors had Word plugins that would attempt to clean it for you, but they never worked 100%. Not so with WP. Straight cut and paste and you're done. The html is squeaky clean, as if Sam wrote it within WP. This saves me a ton of time and headache. Another thing i like about WP is a lot of functions are automated. Upgrading, for example, is a quick two click process. With Joomla, i had to download a file, then upload it. Easy to do, but took a little longer. Same with plugins as well. When you have a handful of plugins that need to be upgraded, you'll save a ton of time with WP. Plus, WP seems to get more attention from developers. I'm sure you can do the same things on Joomla that one can do on WP, but WP seems to make it a whole lot easier for us code dummies. You are absolutely correct about the navigation. Menu options do seem superior in Joomla, but i'm sure there are some plugins/hacks out there for WP. This template is set to pull from the "pages" versus making a menu out of the "categories", which is what the posts are attached to. That is my next fix on the schedule and hopefully i'll have that fixed by the end of today. It does get on my nerves. ( : Well, my lunch break is about over. Again, thanks for the compliment. Of course, i can't take any credit because i don't do the actual design. We just have the same great tastes, i guess. haha. Thanks again bro.

Reign of Christ : Biblical Apologetics

Mon, 28 Sep 2009 05:25:11 +0000

(10) Your paragraph on how i would respond to Hume is downright ridiculous. I would never respond to Hume in the way you have worded and therefore, you reveal once again that you clearly do not understand what we are saying. We are not declaring truth to be whatever we want it to be. Again, GOD's WORD IS TRUTH. Neither Sam nor i made that up. And it is true whether you, sam, or i accept it or not. As for Hume: All Hume affirmed is what anyone who actually understands induction should affirm. Hume, unlike so many others, merely called attention to the problem induction creates. And if that was all we had, then yes, it is a HUGE problem. But thankfully, we are not left in the dark. Why? Because TRUTH is not found inductively, but TRUTH was REVEALED from God. So while the problem of induction is still a "problem" when it comes to rationally justifying certain claims we make; BIBLICAL CLAIMS do not suffer that problem because these claims were not inductively reasoned...they were REVEALED. For example: Jesus is Lord. How do i know that? Because of induction? No. God told us that. Same goes for everything else claimed in scripture. I didn't induce these claims. (11) You claim that i believe that "only the initiate can see the truth of your premises and conclusions" and that this is "gnosticism". rofl. Are you kidding me? First off, one can "see the truth" and yet still not believe it or obey it. So it is incorrect to say that i believe people can't "see the truth". Many people understood quite well what Jesus was saying. They heard the truth and understood it. It wasn't hidden knowledge. The problem with them however, is that they didn't believe it. They didn't accept it. So to call that "gnosticism" reveals again that you clearly don't understand what i am saying. (12) You say, "So deduction only works if both party's accept the premisis. " [sic]. First off, deduction is either valid or invalid and whether it "works" or not (validity) that has NOTHING to do with whether a party accepts it or not. You keep trying to make logic subjective when it is not. Secondly, as i have already explained, a valid conclusion of a deductive argument is not necessarily "true". Logic is not going to tell us that. This has nothing to do with trying to get the other party to "accept the premise." NOTHING you do can determine that. Inductively or deductively. So i don't why you keep bringing that up. My argument has never been that deduction causes faith. It doesn't. Faith is a gift. People are born again, not of works, not of their own doing, but by the sovereign grace of God. That's what the BIBLE says. The "acceptance of premises", therefore, is not in my power. It is not my job. Even in a "free-will" theory, you would still have to admit that you can't CAUSE belief in people. But there is a distinction between causing belief and proclaiming truth. So for you to say that i must "say nothing" because "only God can change hearts" is again, just downright confused and absurd.

Reign of Christ : A Futurist Translation

Mon, 28 Sep 2009 02:13:35 +0000

The Eisegetically Severe Version - haha.

Reign of Christ : Biblical Apologetics

Mon, 28 Sep 2009 01:18:43 +0000

(13) You say, "Faith is never described as a proposition in scripture." Well what in the world is a proposition? I don't know how you are defining it and perhaps you could supply that definition, but i am defining proposition as the meaning of a declarative sentence. The very act of you telling me what faith is not is a proposition. You're not making any sense at all. (14) Your last bit here almost caused me to not approve your comment. However, on the other hand, i thought displaying it would be helpful in demonstrating how non-sensical people can get attacking Scripturalism. You say that we, clarkians, spend more time attacking other christians than we do reaching out to the lost. Uh, and what do you call all this that you have been doing here? Not only have you tortured what i actually said, but you have gone to quite the length in doing so! Furthermore, are you omniscient? How do you know what Clarkians do? Do you have their homes bugged? Are you "angry" at me? Sounds like it. So what does that make you? I believe clarkian presuppositionalism is the superior method because it is based on the Scripture. My plea to Christians is to get back to teaching and proclaiming this Word of God and stop wasting their time thinking that they can *manipulate* people into belief by arguing outside of the bible. None of this makes me angry. Because, see, i believe that even in all the *watered-down* apologetics i do hear...even all that is decreed of God and in his care. I can rest in that. God is in control. So again, i'm not angry. I may get frustrated with what i see as a waste of time, but i'm not "angry". The purpose here is to challenge Christians with doing things better; not to attack. The only "attacking" i see here is from YOU calling all clarkians "angry", "elitist", and not concerned with truth and reaching the lost. Look, if you REALLY do want to discuss the merits of these methods, then let's discuss. But let's not play games here.

Reign of Christ : Biblical Apologetics

Mon, 28 Sep 2009 01:18:06 +0000

Augustine, (1) I'll ask one last time: if 'Augustine' is not your real name, please sign your comments with your real name. I want to know who i am talking to. Your next comment will be deleted if this is not taken care of. (2) No one here ever said that deduction is a source of truth or the only source of truth. God's word is the source of truth. Logic is a tool used in formulating proper relationships between the propositions made in scripture and conclusions we infer from scripture. It doesn't give us truth. No one here has ever said that, so i have no idea who or what you are arguing against. (3) You say induction is pragmatic. Ok, so what? What does that have to do with the Bible? I asked this of you before and it doesn't appear that you have answered it. Ok, you having a computer is "pragmatic"...again, so what? What does having a working computer have to do with the bible and truth? (4) You say induction provides an "approximation" of truth. How do you know it does? In order to know that you are close to the truth, you have to know what truth is; else how would you know you are getting close to it? An "approximation" of truth isn't truth, and if that is all you got, then well, you're in deep trouble. (5) You say deduction can be made to say whatever the logician wants it to say. First of all, deduction is deduction, period. It is either valid or invalid; so in that sense, you can't make it say whatever you want it to say. Secondly, while it is true that one can construct an argument using whatever "manipulation of premises" the person wants; THAT has absolutely NOTHING to do with what i'm arguing for. God's word is TRUTH. We don't invent it. God's revelation is there and we either accept it or we don't. And in our understanding of what it all means, we utilize logic. So i'm not talking about using whatever premises we feel like using. I'm talking about starting from the bible. Again, i have no idea who or what you're arguing against because you are not even dealing with what i or Sam have actually said. (6) "Deduction is the process of reasoning by which the conclusion is inferred from the premises by logical necessity; on the other hand, induction is the process of reasoning by which the conclusion is not inferred from the premises by logical necessity. In deduction, the conclusion includes only information that is already contained in and necessarily implied by the premises; but in induction, the conclusion includes new information that is not already contained in and necessarily implied by the premises. "In other words, an inductive argument yields a conclusion that is supposedly but not necessarily implied by the premises. For this reason, induction is always a formal fallacy; that is, the conclusion is never certain, never rationally established. In fact, since the conclusion is not necessarily implied by the premises, there is no way to logically show that there is any necessary relationship at all between the conclusion and the premises." - quoted from Vincent Cheung Therefore, "Augustine", arguing that induction gives "approximation" is nonsense. If you can't demonstrate that your inductive conclusions have any necessary relationship, then you certainly can't argue that they are "closer to the truth". (7) How is the law of contradiction, for example, man-made? It is embedded in everything we do and say. It is how God thinks. Having a revelation from God presupposes logic, for it would be impossible to reveal anything meaningful without it. Jesus can not be both Jesus and non-Jesus at the same time. It would be totally insane to say otherwise. Every word you typed in your response utilizes logic - you can't escape it. Every word has a meaning. And in order for it to mean something, it must also NOT mean something. The law of contradiction is inherit in this conversation and unavoidable, whether you want to recognize it or not. So to say that logic is not found in scripture is absolutely absurd. Plus, scripture contains a TON of examples; 1 Co 15, Jesus in most of his responses to his enemies...the list is endless. (8) You still haven't provided a definition of "inductive reasoning". (9) Do you believe that the Bible is the Word of God? Do you believe it is "true"? If so, how do you know it is?