As we all know, the previous title for "Most Pyro Comments, Ever," was held by yr. obdt. svt., DJP. The meta on Resurrection not essential? ran to 264 comments, leaving me the Comment
King since April. My position seemed secure. I had at long last justified my existence.Until now.
Not unlike a giant casually swatting a mosquito, Phil easily passed me with his Why the lordship "debate" died thread. If he had not finally capped it at 400 (410) comments, it would have been like the song that doesn't end. (I'll say this for the gutless-gracers: they have no concept of when an argument is over.)
Not one to take defeat lightly, I'm already fomenting titles that might regain my crown.
So I ponder, and I recollect: "Hm, talking about the Gospel vs. gutless grace stirred up a lot of comments... a mild remark about Wright did it before... and it always works some folks up when we talk about Da Gifts.... What if I did some creative combining? Hmm...."
And so I'm wondering if one of these just might do the trick:
- Calvin was a pre-Tribber: here's the proof!
- Why there will be no NIV's in heaven
- Who's nuttier: KJV Only advocates, Leaky Canoneers, Gutless-Gracers, or Wrabid Wrightophiles?
- John Piper: nice enough guy, but stone-cold-dead-wrong about [insert anything; won't really matter what]
- Bill Clinton, C. J. Mahaney, D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones, N. T. Wright, John MacArthur, Carrot Top, and Jonathan Edwards
- How a tongue about N. T. Wright convinced me of Lordship Salvation
- Little Marcy and Marc Heinrich: the untold story
- Mark Driscoll's new blue-letter Bible: a review
- Every Christian song written after 1923 is dumb
- Public schooling as an alternative to going to Heaven
- 'Less it's the Bible, God ain't talkin' to you, Lambchop!
115 comments:
To get the title back (for all time), you're going to have to find some way to put negative comments about John Piper and N.T. Wright in a cessationist post against antinominianism.
Dan,
#8 gets my vote. You will definately get the POMO's out for that one as well as stir up the Seattle crowd.
What a great list! Any one of these will be worthy, but as a John Piper fan I'd love to know what the various issues are surrounding him. There's my vote.
But one burning question remains:
Chuck Norris; Jean-Claude Van Damme; Steven Segal; Dan Phillips--
Who wins?
Drew -- In case it's not picked up on, tongue firmly placed in cheek.
(Your fear was mine also in posting this. I prayed, "Oh, God, please, let at least the first commenters 'get' it....")
you need to add joyce meyer to #6. then you've got a winner!
Dan has become a slave to stats.
My work is done here. And it didn;t even take a year ...
Frank, you have changed me in ways that sociologists and psychologists will be debating for decades to come.
I think #1 and #4 show the most promise.
'How John Piper's leaky-canonism leads to lawless hyper-calvinism' is my suggestion.
Except for the fact that it's not true.
#6 and #10 are absolutely amazing! I want to see articles written with those titles! Let's make a deal. If you promise to write articles with those titles, I'll get my whole church involved in posting comments. You'll crush Phil.
Headline to stop the presses:
Bono, Dobson and Clinton - 3 of a kind
I'll bet that topic could bet 100 comments with no post under it.
great list - I'm looking forward to it. But what is funny about "pomo's"?
Pomo |ˈpōmō| noun ( pl. same or -mos) 1 a member of an American Indian people of northern California. 2 any of the languages of this people.
Frank -- I'll bet that topic could bet 100 comments with no post under it.
Depends on how fast I could delete it.
I say it should be something against home schooling. I'm not sure any crowd mobilizes faster then them. The public school one was good though too.
If you post about Driscoll, half the comments will come from Steve Camp alone. If you post about Marc and Marcy, you will get one very witty comment from Marc.
You didn't even mention posting about the latest shenanigans from Rick Warren. His issues should get you plenty of comments.
And...leave Santa Claus alone. That belongs to Centuri0n.
rick, I think "pomo" is short for post-modern
Hm.
"Why Santa won't be visiting Rick Warren"
Number 10. Definitely.
How about "Dueling Johns--Why MacArthur and Piper Don't Like Each Other."
or...
"James White and Ergun Caner--Secret Buddies"
You'll have to throw something in there about Rob Bell and Driscoll and then stir in something about drinking or private prayer languages--the Baptists'll jump all over that one.
"Bell, Driscoll, and that guy who thinks he's Jesus--Their secret ties to Dallas Seminary and the video re-inactment of my revelation from God I found in my stocking that proves it." Or, "Why Purpose Driven Private Prayer Closet Drinking isn't a sin."
Something like that.
Hey, only 379 more comments to go on this one and you've got it made!
Josh
"...the word of God is not bound."--2 Timothy 2:9
Dan, Dan, Dan. Crowns are for casting.
*puts hands together piously and hums something sanctimonious*
Oh, and everyone knows that Christian songs started to veer downhill after 1921, so you are just chasing the popular crowd with that one.
Oh, and Rick Warren ate my hamster.
If you really want to ratchet up the comment count, you should do a Frank. I don't mean post one the most barn-stormingly good things you've ever written and lump Clinton, Dobson and Bono together in it, I mean comment-spam your own thread.
easy peasy.
like this.
Don't say I never do anything for you, young man.
Joyce Meyer is fantastic!!
God laid it on my heart that you should post about people who say things such as God laid it on my heart...
God told me to do that...
God spoke to my heart...
I have peace about leaving comment spam...
I think you should revise the Driscoll one a tad. Something like "TeamPyro Endorses Lenny Bruce-Style Sermons" or "The Seven Words You Can't Say in the Pulpit."
Perhaps you can even get George Carlin to don clerical garb and write a guest post on the subject.
#10
I went ahead and posted something about Rick Warren myself.
Hehe...funny comment about Santa DJP.
If you post a picture and variations of said picture for a few days, you will be guaranteed lots of comments and speculations about your disappearance. Remember when Phil did that?
How about a followup to the sfpulpit post on xmas trees:
"demon infested pagan idols, and why you shouldn't have them in your home..."
Or maybe you should just name and claim the comment crown again, by the mighty megaton power of faith. :-)
How about... Joyce Meyer supports Rick Warren's P.E.A.C.E Plan by supplying her private jet for Rick to fly about pretending he IS Santa Claus bestowing gifts to the world.
#8 seems the best, since it's the closest to accurate, It's pretty obvious that Public Schools are training grounds that Satan has setup.
Anthing about the NIV being "bad", will in the title!!!
i would go with piper, the congregation of beth. baptist alone would surpass 400 comments.
perhaps...
"Favorite book Friday: Robert Tilton's Systematic Theology"
or
"My breakfast with T.D. Jakes"
Here you go Dan,
"Pastors with Reformed Beliefs Who Preach Like Arminians (But Don't Sweat it Because They Bought That Sermon Online Anyway) and The Congregations Who Hired Them to Tickle Their Ears In The First Place."
Josh
"...the word of God is not bound."--2 Timothy 2:9
I think you are on totally the wrong track. What you need to do is post a list of incendiary topics and let the fires begin.
As to your opening in this post:
"Of all the cheek!"
Remember the good old days, when only Phil posted (Pyromaniac), and he told us he was going out of town, and we kept commenting on his blog for about a week about important things like smeradactyls?
Aaahhh! We can always have the memories.
C.T. Lilies said:
"Pastors with Reformed Beliefs Who Preach Like Arminians (But Don't Sweat it Because They Bought That Sermon Online Anyway) and The Congregations Who Hired Them to Tickle Their Ears In The First Place."
I love it! But since I'm commenting on Lilies' post it doesn't count toward yours, Dan.
...the good old days, when only Phil posted (Pyromaniac)...
Ouch.
Not that I don't thoroughly enjoy everyone elses' posts...
I was just referring to the fact that everyone likes old stuff now.
I especially liked the smeradactyls in the comments thread, and I just haven't seen that kind of originality from the commenters so far.
Sorry its off topic and everything, but out of personal interest: After you have dismissed perfectionism and the nolordship stuff, Could you guys post a treatment of your own understanding of the relationship between Justification anb Sanctification? It wont get as many comments as "Write is a Loney" but hey, I'm interested anyway.
Hey, maybe we could get a thread going about why Dan is a better poster than Phil and start a whole 1 Corinthians 1-3 thing on the internet!
#5 had my laughing silly
me* =)
Hmmm, it's a tie between #10 and #11 for me!
Both home schoolers and Charismatics are known to speak up when given and opportunity--the comments will simply roll in!!
I forgot to mention that Dan is a great guy, and whether you agree with him or not you have to like him.
He's pure gold.
Great list Dan! For me number 5 is the winner.
Surely, Dan, all you gotta do is post hard and strong on your dispy-ism? What could possibly generate as much heat as a combi of hermeneutics, end-times, and sanctifying Israeli state politics? Why, you'd even have all the non-Americans throwing in occasional, 'I don't get it; it must be an American thing' comments every so often to stoke the fires ;-D And I'm sure you could get Marcy in there quite easily to generate Marc's appearance and witty comment (accompanied by spoof picture on Purgatorio thereby generating more traffic for your post).
Oh, and 1 had me cackling, & 4 had me laughing slightly at myself, but How a tongue about N.T.Wright convinced me of Lordship salvation still has me chuckling even now.
Oh, and I think it's really quite sad that people keep feeling the need to write 'tongue-in-cheek'... I mean, it just sucks the fun out of the laughter :)
you could try answering the last post I wrote in our cessationist debate....but me thinks you are frit!
Yes, Adrian, isn't it just dreadful when people take a long time to write something we think they should write?
However, I've never been "frit" in all my life.
(Uh... Libbie? "Frit"?)
DJP,
Thought since you were practically begging, I'd give you a comment.
Phil Perkins. PS Hey, Echindod, stay on subject or I'll quit callin' ya.
DJP,
[Give me a minute to stop laughing]
#3 and #4, I think, are the only ones where people will take you seriously. But speaking from personal experience, say anything negative about Piper and its an automatic deletion from numerous 'blogrolls'.
it's toss up between 4 and 6...
How bout how homeschooling leads to radical charismatic tendencies?
Oh, and anything even remotely defending us pre mil dispies should pretty much put you out of the park I would think.
;-)
Hmmm... I had a feeling someone was going on about homeschoolers, so I figured I better come see what the hoo-haa was all about.
And for the record, I have fond memories of the schmeradactyls. The daily, rotating grapics were hilarious.
:o)
Philips you punk!
Dan:
You wrote, "I'll say this for the gutless-gracers..."
Not sure that was meant to be tongue-in-cheek. It does not appear to be.
I am not in the Free Grace (Hodges) camp, but that remark is inappropriate and definitely immature.
LM
www.indefenseofthegospel.blogspot.com
I think you mispelled humorless as gutless Dan.
Dan/All:
If the debate over the interpreation of the gospel known as Lordship Salvation died: Why did Nathan Busenitz, John MacArthur and Phil Johnson reopen/reenter the debate?
I am asking this in all sincerity.
1) Why did Nathan initiate a new series on Lordship Salvation, write several articles on Lordship then spend five, plus two additional days, to review and debate my book?
2) Why did Dr. MacArthur post several articles at Pulpit Magazine to restate and shore up the Lordship position?
3) If the debate died long ago why did Phil’s thread generate 400+ posts in such a short span of time?
4) Why, at this time, did John MacArthur, Nathan and Phil invest the time and energy they did to address an issue that Phil claims is a dead one?
I am interested in any answers out there?
LM
didn't take long, under 100 comments for someone to take issue.
Lou, take a joke, that was the whole point of the post and the comments.
Shameless plug for your blog as well, but while we are being shameless...come and look at my blog...come on please, just click my name...
Funny titles Dan, had me laughing.
Seth:
Well designed site.
LM
Here's one that almost holds the crown on my blog (I think it's in 3rd place).
"All Christians are Calvinists or Arminians, one or the other. There is no in between position, and you can't be neither one".
I believe that has a chance of propelling you past Phil for the lead!
I forgot to mention that Dan is a great guy, and whether you agree with him or not you have to like him.
Have to?
Suggestions Dan:
"I'm not frit to say Joyce Meyer is wonderful".
(I have peace about that one and I dreamed about it too).
"How I was delivered of a spirit of smeradactyl at a Rheinhard Bonkke crusade and then helped catch people slain in the Spirit and was signed up for Benny Hinn's newsletter and we are having coffee after the next Toronto Blessing meeting at Frank Turk's house".
everyone knows that Christian songs started to veer downhill after 1921
Nonsense. Queen Victoria was the one who oversaw the removal of that particular avenue of musical delight. As well she should have.
"Psalms only and only in the original language"
"Just because we rented a movie and had pizza and I was wearing LOR t-shirt does not mean I am relevant".
These are the ones laid on my heart.
"Politics is of the devil - come out and be separate"
"You're not homeschooling if you are renting - the unequally yoked"
DJP: I like all of your suggestions, but they just aren't gonna be in the 250+ category. You gotta think big.
Now, something like a free t-shirt contest or weighing in on the colour of a mystery liquid--those are the keys to the kingdom--so to speak. (You'd think do-it-yourself blogspotting would be big, with all the people out there dying for links from Pyro, but so far it ain't been so.)
But unless you're ready to tackle "why [insert high-profile do-gooder here] isn't going to heaven," or invite the Caners over for a debate, I'm thinking that the topic you're looking for is still the coming thing.
Frank: I still think you're wrong about lumping those three guys together. That said, here's an article from Cal Thomas that bolsters your position that the church needs to quit relying on the government to do its work.
Dan
My tongue was firmly in my cheek during my last comment - It would of course be some cheek for me to complain about how long you are taking when I took like an AEON to do the last one!
Anyway, wouldnt it be sad if THIS post was the one that broke all previous comment records! Having said that, I am not sure that loads of comments is necessarily a good thing. Personally I like to try and write in such a way as to MINIMISE comments - I guess I do quite a good job!
Blessings....
Number 3 - slightly changed to
Who's nuttier: KJV Only advocates, Leaky Canoneers, Gutless-Gracers, Wrabid Wrightophiles or No Lordshippers.
Dan - To reclaim the comment crown from Phil you will need to leave comments in your own post answering peoples questions.
(Out of the 410 posts in "Why the Lordship debate died - about 100 of the comments were made by Phil).
How bout a post on Leaky Canon's?
What the heck are they?
I am serious. Someone define it for me?
Marc -- Philips you punk!
Ah, that's what I wanted to hear. Even with the misspelling.
How about this:
Paul the apostle was a mysogynist.
Misogynist.
That was for you, Dan. I know how much you like spamming.
And I had to defend the stereotype that hs moms are good spellers.
#5 will do the trick. Carrot top alone would get your crown back.
Or,
#3 Couldest be thy post which trow not thou hithereth crown to thee.
Steve -- But if you followed this blog back in the era of the comic-book covers and the frozen meat chub incident,I think you'd understand.
I should do a post on Chiquita. Idea #12.
djp,
Paul's suggestion above of, "How John Piper's leaky-canonism leads to lawless hyper-calvinism." Is the funniest one I've seen so far. If you wrote that post and could somehow work in something about alcohol, you'd be a hero in some Southern Baptist circles. Heck, they'd probably invite you to speak at First Baptist Church Woodstock in Georgia.
I also want to make known that i appreciate doug's reference to smeradactyls. Every time i bring those up, everyone (including Marc Heinrich) pretends that they don't know what I'm talking about.
Of course, what would REALLY be funny is if this comment chain itself passed Mr Johnson's record.
It would. And it would be emblematic of our age, if talking about doing something outperformed actually doing something. But the thing is, Phil's did it in, what, a couple of days? This one'll be (deservedly) down the chain pretty soon.
I could just start a series of posts saying, "Kim?" Then when she comments "What?", I could reply "Nothing" -- and then start over.
But that would dip just below my patheticity tolerance level.
djp
djp
What?
uh oh. You showed Chiquita with the OTHER skirt, you know, the one that generated so many comments.
Are you following the goings-on at Debate Blog? If so, what are your thoughts?
Dear Steve:
I appreciate and understand what you are trying to convey. Please continue…
In addition to Dr. MacArthur’s (some old, some new) articles on LS at Pulpit Magazine and Nathan’s extensive look at the issue and 7 days review of my book, Phil did an 8 part series on Lordship.
This was my way of showing that, even for these men, the Lordship debate must not be altogether dead. That is why I asked if it is dead, why all the effort to define, defend, discuss and debate the issue.
You wrote, “Remember Antonio and his constant off-topic attempts to steer a comments thread toward his no-lordship views? He and others have been hijacking these comments threads, and inappropriately so.”
Yes, I believe I saw some of that, and it was wrong. I believe you will agree that I did not do that sort of thing. I posted on LS in the tread that Phil dedicated to that discussion. I think I had one other post in one of his eight LS articles.
Incidentally, in mid-October I was contacted and invited by Nathan to visit Pulpit Magazine and participate in the LS discussion he was about to begin with an initial series of five articles. I waited nearly two weeks before submitting my first post. That initial discussion lead to the five (then 7) part series he did on my book. Until Nathan sought me out and contacted me I never heard of Pulpit Magazine.
You wrote, “And what happened? Same old same old--selective quoting of Scriptures as well as writers and texts of the past…”
Again I did note that Antonio does cite Hodges extensively and those arguments are dated. By the way, he pasted a long Hodges quote in one of my threads.
Now, you may call this a “shameful plug,” but my book does not come to the LS debate from the “same old” FG platforms. I select, quote and address the Scriptures used by Lordship advocates to defend their position, such as Luke 9:23-24; Rom. 10:9 and Acts 16:31. This is why I chose the subtitle: Biblical Answers to Lordship Salvation.
Nathan acknowledged that my book is very close to a lordship position, but I must reiterate that when it comes to the reception of eternal life there is a wide gap.
Ask yourself: If my book was the “same old” rehash of out dated arguments, why the extensive articles from John MacArthur, Nathan and Phil? Why the review and discussion of my book?
LM
BlueCollar:
What is the site address for Debate Blog? Never heard of it.
LM
The Debate Blog...http://q-and-a-blog.blogspot.com/
IMHO, Frank just won, big-time!
Lou wrote a book? I hadn't realized!
Tom:
Can I count on your featuring my book under the "Book of the Month" link at your web site?
By the way, nice web site.
LM
Uhhh...Sorry, Lou, but it's not on our shortlist. :)
Thanks for the compliment on the website, though. The design is all the doing of Jim at oldtruth.com.
Only 98 comments? Come on Pyros! I thought we could do better than this!
I just wanted Dan to at least get to 100.
LOL, thanks, Doug.
"A female is worth twenty shekels - and that's all!"
"I'm not frit to hug the Pope"
(Don't worry about what frit means - it's alright, you'll be fine)
"I might become a Mormon"
(a doctrinal adjustment on your part but the comments will be off the scale. And then you can follow up with a part two position reversal that no-one takes any notice of.)
Anyway, wouldnt it be sad if THIS post was the one that broke all previous comment records!
Tosh.
Personally I like to try and write in such a way as to MINIMISE comments
We can't all be the same.
"Commenting in the spirit and the gift of interpretation"
I like to do my bit.
Clearly the answer is to make THIS POSTthe one.
What about saying Billy Graham, John Anott, Steve Long, Rick Warren and Benny Hinn all have something useful to say to the church today
That would get the comments in!
"Say what you like about me but don't criticize my pastor Chiquita"
"Short Skirt Evangelism: Can Chiquita Really Save the World With Exposed Ankles?"
Josh
"...the word of God is not bound."
--2 Timothy 2:9
Any anti-John Piper comment would probably get things going...but being a "Purgatorio" fan (especially Divine Vinyl), I've gotta love the Marc/Marcy one! :)
#9 to be sure is true...
Yes, something as ill-informed, self-defeating and foolish as that likely would generate a lot of comments. Good idea.
The Calvinist embraces a rationalistic fatalism rather than biblical faith in his approach to theology. This is how he arrives at the conclusions found in Calvinism.
Rationalistic fatalism is understandable in light of dictionary usage. According to Franklin's Dictionary & Thesaurus, “rationalistic” is literally: “reliance on reason as the basis for the establishment of religious truth,” and “fatalism” is the “belief that fate determines events.” Of course “fate” is a cause beyond human control to determine.
Looking at the statement in this light demonstrates that those referred to rely on reason rather than revelation as the basis for their theological moorings.
The “circle logic” of five-point Calvinism is just that for the whole system crumbles when a single link in the chain is broken. One must approach the system with reason rather than faith.
This of course leads to the fatalism just mentioned, which holds that God has predetermined the destiny of human souls and that all the witnessing, praying, and missionary effort in the world will not change the outcome.
LM
You seem like a real fun guy, Lou.
I think I've figured out how to make 500 posts.
Someone — anyone — just has to keep saying something to Lou.
Lou, you ought to write a book, or something.
"Book Review: The Rationalistic Fatalism of Internet Trolls"
This one will not opnly get you over 500 comments but will make it the most visited post on the internet:
"Open Thread: Do you have a BOOK and a BLOG?"
catez -- you are so naughty!
Aw shucks.
(shouts across living room "My name got mentioned at Pyros!)
Got you over 120.
My two favourites:
Even So's "God laid it on my heart"
and
C.T. Lillies on Chiquita's exposed ankles.
LOL. They cracked me up.
Sigh. I took a couple out as I wasn't happy with them. Meant to be lighthearted but could have been better. Tongue in cheek etc and so forth.
BREAKING NEWS
CateZ: Going soft.
Film at eleven.
LOL.
Post a Comment