Identifying Hyper-Calvinism

Aside from Jesus Himself -- David,Hosea,Jonah,Micah,Nahum,Titus,James and Peter would all be in trouble according to that wacko writer.

 

But you and I are ok. Your screen name has 6 letters and mine has 3.

Wait, isn't 6 a number for the antichrist? And 3 is the trinity. So I guess that makes me more godly than you! :laugh:


What nonsense!!!!

 

There are some Calvinists who verge on being KJVO.Maybe there're KJVP.But the really strong KJVO folks are almost violently anti-Calvinistic as well. It's like their two primary forms of ID.

 

My last name has six letters. So it means either I'm either just like the antichrist, or I'm just short of perfect. Isn't seven the perfect number?

 

Amy.G, the "." in your user name counts as a space. That gives you 5 too.

 

Perhaps you should continue to read the other 700 pages of the book, and everyone else as well, instead of mocking one paragraph in a book containing thousands.

 

I think the sample is indicative of the whole.

 

Have you read the book?

I'll accept your comment though, especially as it applies to the entire Westminster confession and synod of Dort documents in the appendix.

 

What do you mean?I don't follow you.

 

Well, seeing as you haven't actually read the book, I don't see why I should explain myself, but here goes;

jcjordan mocked the book based on an introductory chapter to the five points, where the author of the book allegedly makes the following comment

I say allegedly, because I have the very book in my hand right now, and it says no such thing. It says no such thing on the first page of chapter 5, nor anywhere in chapter 5. In fact, I think I even specified which edition of the book to read, since Dr Vance completely rewrote the book between the first and second edition to remove unneccesary and pointless wording. That paragraph may be present in the first edition.

I would wager that JcJordan has never read the book either, and simply did a search for a critique of the book. Since the original book was first published in 1991, and the second edition in 2001, JcJordan has no excuse to use that paragraph to mock the book, because it doesn't even exist in the book I was referring to (strangely, the first and second editions are almost entirely different books).

But about your comment - you said that it was indicative of the whole, and so I decided to include the Westminster confession, the London confession and the Canons of Dort in that "whole" since they are included in their entirety in the Appendix (yep, the entire text, one again, so as not to misrepresent any views).

So, would JcJordan either admit to not reading the book, or would he please post the edition he has read, and page numbers that the offending paragraph occurs on

EDIT: Nevermind, here is the review JCJORDAN read

http://www.amazon.com/review/R10TIL99LG5ULK

I love it when your theological studies lead you to amazon book reviews. Review dated 2001. Reviewer said he read the book 6 years prior, which would have been first edition, when it was only 450 pages (the current edition is 790). Reviewer admits to not reading the new edition.

I can just imagine JCJORDAN reading the review and thinking "yes! I can't wait to post this tidbit, this gold mine and this zinger of a comeback".

I can scan chapter 5 for anyone who wants to read what it actually says.