It Is Soooo Worth It…

… when there are free books involved.

Drop what you are doing and post a comment.

I changed the rules… (see post below this one)  You must be the __________ commenter  with something to say in order to win one (Dan!) fabulous book.  There is a blank there because that number is a secret.

Let the games begin.

al sends


66 responses to “It Is Soooo Worth It…

  1. You want to draw commenters, then you abuse them when they come. Hmph! Well, anyway:

    A pastor asked me whether he “should” see the new Batman movie. I dithered a fair bit and never gave a direct answer. I hope I gave him enough to make his own determination. I told him it was complex and gripping, and that Heath ledger’s performance was excellent and haunting: intelligent, insane, unpredictable, amoral, dangerous.

    I said it depicted the dilemma of a society without Christ. No absolutes, no morals, and no true hero of indestructible moral and spiritual integrity.

    Though I’m sure that was far from the writers’ intent.

    How’s that?

  2. You want to draw commenters, then you abuse them when they come. Hmph!

    and yet here you are…

    Very substantive comment. It is in the hopper.

    Rob and I are working up a bit of dialogue over the Dark Knight. I would value your input when it goes up.

    al sends

  3. So now do I post that same substantive comment over and over, like when I used to call the radio stations trying to be the __th caller on the Hullabalooer’s show?

  4. I wouldn’t… Rob will ban you. He is a Baptist and therefore less tolerant of impropriety.

    I will count this one though…

    al sends

  5. Dan now has two posts up… He has a one in twenty chance to win. That’s 5% for any of you in Milton, FL. Think nickle if you are from Pace.

    To paraphrase Vizzini from the Princess Bride… Did I mention, THERE ARE BOOKS ON THE LINE!

    al sends

  6. I’d be willing to go ahead and let Dan be our winner…if he chose the Wright book…and promised to read it. (I know he would keep his promise.)

  7. I’ve always wondered what al is sending when he posts on blogs.

    As for me, I generally send a hearty “ARRRRR!!!!”

  8. Here it is eight hours into the great book giveaway and two people have posted comments. Even our regulars have been turned off by my pathetic attempts to drive up traffic… sigh.

    We are even more backwater than I thought.

    al sends

  9. Al – it’s just that your regulars are wise to your empty promises of things that you’ll give away for comments.

    I also *had* to comment just to dispel any ideas that I posted under the pseudonym of Jack (Sparrow), though I agree that a hearty “arrrgggh” now and then is most beneficial.

  10. sg’s avatar looks like it’s face is frozen in a permanent arrrrggggh. Thats what happens when you don’t listen to your mother when she says, “Stop that boy! Do you want your face to freeze that way?”

  11. It may also have something to do with the internet being broken for many of our regional readers, Aparetnly someone at AT&T spilled their Mountain Dew on their keyboard and the whole thing went PFFZZTGHT for about a day. All seems to be back to abnormal now, so the comments from locals should be flooding in. We may have to hire a service to handle the influx of comments. In fact, the rush to comment may itself shut down the entire WWW all over again.

    It could happen.

  12. Um. Is this thing on?

    As a victim of the AT&T/Mountain Dew fiasco, I am happy that you did not shut down the contest early. And now on to something substantive. (Who decides what’s substantive?)

    Sometimes… when it’s late at night and quiet… I still have flashbacks to 1983 when I was 11 and forced to watch rapture films in Junior Peppers. I would have nightmares back then that I was left behind – and I’d get out of bed, sobbing, and check to see if my baby sister was still in her crib. I knew if she was there, I was still good. To this day, the sight of a pot boiling over gives me the willies. Chuck and I are working on a song to memorialize this tormenting time of my life:

    (To the tune of “Summer Breeze” by Seals and Crofts)

    See the butter melting on the sidewalk
    Jesus came and you’ve been left behind…

    Well, that’s all we have so far, but clearly you can see the issues I have.

    So- rapture films along with the teaching that you can lose your salvation do not a good combination make. Anyone want to volunteer to deprogram me? 🙂

    So, maybe not substantive, but I’m going for the pity vote.

  13. (Who decides what’s substantive?)

    That is me… and there is a very scientific process that I go through to determine a comment’s substantiveness. It involves graphs, chicken bones and a full moon. I could explain, but something gets lost in the translation of the metaphysical to the physical. Blame Kierkegaard.

    al sends

  14. I want surprised by hope. Maybe then I’ll have to read it. In the meantime, I’ll speak about substantive things. Like cheese. I love a good, hearty, SUBSTANTIVE cheese. Okay but seriously, poor Kierkegaard gets a bad rap on things metaphysical AND physical. Maybe it’s because he would need four pages of small print to teach his son how to tie shoes, let alone tell everyone how hopelessly screwed up the world is.

  15. Glad you are here Kaleb… if you dont win you can borrow my Suprised by Hope if you like. I think Heather is reading it now, but you are next in line.

    al sends

  16. Dan,

    Believe it or not that counts as a substantive post around here…

    I am beginning to get a glimpse of our place in the blog-o-sphere.

    al sends

  17. LOL; I thought I was already at my limit. Just making noise.

    Well, let’s see, then. I could post seven posts, each about a distinct stewardship in the unfolding of God’s plan for the ages….

  18. What?! We can enter multiple times? THAT I can do. I can’t add much substance, but I can pass on a recipe or something. or something…

    W.O. Wilson – I LOVE my avatar. The only change I’d make, and I’d pay to have it done, is to change out the monocle for an eye patch!

  19. For those keeping score at home, sg’s last comment was, I believe, number 13. Keep ’em coming. Al picked a number higher than 13. It ain’t over. Really.

    (Al’s and mine don’t count, as we’re administrators. It’s in the rules.)

  20. Hey…perusing my stats tonight and found you guys are one of my top 30 referers, although I can’t imagine how. I don’t even know you. But I do know Jeff Meyers and Keving Heifner. Hopefully that doesn’t disqualify me by making me automatically incapable of substantiveness. (yes, it’s a word…)

    Basically, that means I don’t want Meyer’s book. They’re a dime a dozen around here. 😉

  21. Kevin Heifner and Jeff Meyers… two names I never thought I would here in the same sentence.

    Welcome Lori…

    You are in the running for a book. Come on back.

    al sends

  22. I’ll gladly trade avatars with you sg. Mine is all perky and girly looking. It’s more suitable for Katie Couric, because it looks so unsubstantive.

  23. Really?

    So, anyway, the reason I’m a Christian (in part) is grammatico-historical exegesis. My cult had an “interpretation” of John 14:6 that made it mean the opposite of what Jesus said. I had to come to ask myself, “If He’d meant what we say He meant, could He have said it more clearly?” The unavoidable answer was that He could hardly have said it more poorly, if that had been what He meant.

    Then I asked the same question of the plain-sense reading of His words. The answer was no, He could not have said it more emphatically, if He’d meant that He was in fact, Himself, the sole mediator between God and man.

    That same principle is why I’m a Calvinist. Verses like Ephesians 1:3 and John 6:44 just can’t be honestly read in a way that gives man a determinative role to which God responds, and around which He makes His plans.

    And that same principle is why I’m a dispensationalist. If Jeremiah 31:31-40 does not, in fact, mean the precise opposite of what replacement-theology (call that sow whatever you wish) says, then Romans 8:28-39 does not guarantee the security of the elect, and in fact nothing in the Bible should be taken seriously.

    How’s that for substance?

  24. Dan, I look forward to the day we finally meet. God willing it will be this side of glory.

    Your post is full of substance – as is a Twinkie. I was with you right up until the Dispensational center of that sponge cake snack.

    Let me leave you with this: It is the grammatico-historical exegesis principle that leads me to believe that Jesus really meant “this generation” in Matthew 24.

    Al sends

  25. Al, thanks for the welcome. I’ve actually visited before through your comments on Meyers’ blog, but somehow I always felt like I was barging in on the boys’ club…

    Kevin, all is well here with the family and church. School? Well, let’s just say our boys are transferring to Westminster…enough said? I hope all is well with you guys! Greetings to Misty and Joshua. The Lord be with you.

  26. Lori, we have several ladies who comment here, feel free joint them. We are also trying to get Rob in touch with his feminine side. That is not going so well.

    al sends

  27. Interesting, Al, if completely irrelevant to what I said. And what is the semantic range of genea? And on what planet would it yield a meaning that warrants making any Term A that we don’t like really mean Unrelated Meaning Z? And if it does, then how can we know the New Ager is wrong in saying “Christ” really means the principle of divine sonship within us all?

  28. Yay! Another girl! Nice to meet you Lori! Wanna trade recipes? jk.

    Heading out of here to check out Lori’s site.

    oh… and did someone say “twinkies?” yummmm. twinkies.

  29. Actually, I was thinking of houtos which gives ‘generation’ a very present meaning.

    I picked this Anthony Thiselton quote up from Leitharts Blog the other day :

    “we might define the semantic values of ‘green’ in several ways: as a colour, as meaning inexperienced, as meaning unripe, and so on. Similarly, we might define ‘house’ as a dwelling, lineage, and a business establishment. But as soon as we place ‘green’ and ‘house’ in syntagmatic relation to each other, we minimized the semantic values of each, so that ‘green’ can only be a colour, and ‘house’ only a dwelling.”

    Leithart disagrees with his conclusion, but admires the point and I think it is germane to this little sidebar. genea might mean something else in a different context, but in this one it means those living at a particular time.

    al sends

  30. or a place where plants are grown, or a house that is environmentally friendly, or the house where the Greens live, or an inexperienced house…

    (I agree, I’m just sayin’.)

    (Oh, and my wife is my feminine side.)

  31. My point Dan, was that if you do not follow your own hermeneutic woodenly (and you shouldn’t) then Jer 31 might be interpreted differently.

    My own thought is that the newness of the “New Covenant” has to do with quality, making it more direct by removing the mediation of the priesthood. In that, the grammar means what it means (and you have me hands down on Hebrew) But overall, the biblical theme of a covenant keeping God prevents me from embracing a dispensational take on this passage or others.

    al sends

  32. Hi Lori! I join sg in welcoming you into the girls’ club.

    Let’s braid each others’ hair! 🙂

    Checking out your site too…

    PS: Don’t believe anything you read here about free cookies. They LIE!

  33. Wow, I’m getting dizzy. My insistence that God will keep His covenant is lost on you… because you see a Biblical theme of a covenant-keeping God? Which clashes with my (dispensationalists’) insistence that God will, in fact, keep His covenants? Which you can’t accept, because God keeps His covenants?

    Oh well — it’s your blog!

  34. Do you insist that God will keep his covenant with Israel in the same way he did before the NC, complete with temple sacrifice? Or are you not in that camp?

    I thought I was dealing with what you actually wrote here. I thought I was pointing out that your premise, (if we are consistent historical-grammatical expositors we will come to a dispensational interpretation of scripture), was false. If we follow that hermeneutic on Matthew 24 we do not come to that conclusion at all. You must use some other hermeneutic to reach a conclusion that Jesus is talking about some distant age or that he is talking about a generation of people yet to be born.

    What that is I have no idea…

    al sends

  35. So what’s wrong with Rob’s feminine side, Al? (Thanks for mentioning me honey:-)
    Sheeeeesh, you make one wise crack about a man’s age and which friend is the older/younger…

  36. Start by answering my question about genea, if that’s the Big One to you.

    I think God doesn’t get (or try) to welsh on His promises. You tell me what Jeremiah 31:31-40 means. I say it means what it says. What do you say it means?

    If I say, “Al, I’m taking you to dinner tonight!”, and then when I show up, Phil’s in the car, too — I’ve kept my promise.

    Suppose two weeks later, you say, “Hey, where was my dinner?”, and I respond, “Oh, didn’t you see my invisible wink when I said ‘you’? I actually just meant Phil. Not you. Ever.”

    Then I’m a welsher, and not to be trusted.

  37. Dan, my friend, first of all demanding that I answer your question about genea is a bit ummm, demanding isn’t it? Second of all, I think I did answer it, at least in passing.

    When I brought up Matthew 24 I focused attention on a two word phrase “this generation,” in the transliterated Greek: houtos genea. When you first asked for the semantic renderings of the word genea I, only slightly tongue and cheek, stated that I was referring to the word “this” in the phrase. I later said that the context (referring to the word “this” in part) made the idea of a “distant age” or a “generation yet to be born” inconsistent with Jesus’ use of genea.

    Those are two uses of the word genea in the Bible. Thayers’ points out that genea can also mean “begotten ones” as in Matthew 1:17 “all generations from Abraham to David are…”

    The most common one is that of a group of people living at the same time and I think that is what Jesus meant here. The question is then, which generation? And the word “this” is most important here. When coupled with the noun ‘generation’ houtos means ‘this one right here,’ indicating that the present generation would not pass away.

    Man, I should get a free book just for that.

    (Dan should insert a joke about buying me a Greek primer here)

    I will address your dinner scenario later if I am able.

    al sends

  38. If my tallying is correct, Dan Phillips is our winner!!!!!

    This is the dispensation of WINNING!!!

    Sirens and bells!!!!


    Al, tell Mr. Phillips what he’s won!!!!

  39. Susan is bitter. I am going to talk to her pastor.

    Dan, I will contact you via email soon.

    al sends

    (the susan bitter thing is a joke. we love susan and she is a wonderful person and I know of not one drop of bitterness in her. And I am sorry I never got her a cookie.)

  40. Becky, thanks for the welcome.

    And Susan…”intentional smiley”…nice. You may not be bitter but you’re certainly sarcastic!

  41. Just to let everyone know… the magic number was 28.

    Thanks for playing everyone! Dan has picked his book and it is on its way.

    al sends

  42. I must know. What book did Dan choose?

    (Please oh please let be the Wright book…I suppose the Meyers book would push him right over the edge.)

  43. Dan,
    I’ve got that very book sitting on my desk right now (not a first edition). We’re walking through eschatology on Wednesday nights right now. Do you think Pentecost’s book is among the best representations of dispensational premillennialism? I’ve read through it and others…they don’t always seem to agree. Also, what are your thoughts on “classical” v. “progressive” dispensationalism?

    (This conversation may be best conducted in email…or another post…or something.)

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s