To the Calvinists here: what part of Non cal theology Bothers you the Most?

[DrJamesAch]

The working of the Holy spirit towards sinners that enables/allows them to hear and receive jesus thru faith!

As jesus said, the HS blows where he wills, and we will see the results of His work when the sinner hears and believes!

Can you show that in Genesis chapter 3. You can't just quote a doctrinal statement of another man and add something to the Bible that isn't there.

 

[preacher4truth]

You said faith is a gift from God. Granted, I'll give it to you, you did not use Eph 2:8. or 1 Cor 12. So then I'll give you the opportunity to show me where the Bible says faith is a gift. If you can't show in the Bible that faith is a gift from God, then not only did I not use a straw man argument, but you would be admitting that your statement was extra-Biblical.

Php. 1:29. There are more.

Perhaps I simply knew which verses Calvinists rely on to prove that faith is a gift. But feel free to show me where else in the Bible that faith is called a gift. I don't mind being corrected if I'm wrong.

See above and reference it. Romans 10:17 still stands. You are wrong, and have been corrected on many levels and your arguments my friend are simply not well thought out and they just don't prove anything you are attempting to prove.

And yet your argument that I was erecting a straw man debate was partly based on you never saying that salvation was against man's will, and then you follow that up with this "yes, salvation is against mans will". So who's really using straw man arguments! Kind of defeats the purpose of claiming I don't understand the issues when you admit to them later.

You erected two straw man arguments. I pointed them out and they are what I call them.

My argument is not even close to a straw man argument. I gave scriptural evidence. Man does not want to be saved, he is hostile toward God et al. I admitted to an issue since you brought it up -- the straw man was your false assumptions that I stated certain things by your assumption when in fact I never did -- yet you used them to argue against me. THAT is a straw man argument and you were beating on both of them.

Now this much I can agree with you on with the exception of what is erroneously called "faith regeneration". Faith is the means by which salvation is acquired, faith itself is not salvation, and I have already listed all the verses heretofore to show that. I agree that it is the Spirit that does the regeneration (Titus 3:5) but faith is required for that to take place.

God grants faith. Faith is evidence of being saved -- not the cause. The cause is God. I gave you Biblical evidence. But hey, you're trying hard -- you simply need to think deeper -- you're getting closer to the truth here.

This would refute your own position if you are claiming that faith is a gift from God, because here faith comes by HEARING the word of God and "how shall they hear without a preacher". So there are at least 2 elements that are present before God even gets involved: 1) the hearing and 2) the preacher.

Just exactly how does this weak argument refute what I've stated? Both sources given (Word/preacher) are each OUTSIDE of the man who hears -- and still faith COMES FROM hearing the Word of Christ, the same creative Word that creates all things. We've received all things from God cf. 1 Corinthians 4:7. Your point is moot and actually proves my point. That and Christ Himself is both the AUTHOR and PERFECTER of our faith -- thus it comes from Him. The evidence is clear yet you and others of your theology wish to boast and grab credit.

However, a person can not have faith if he does not know what he is supposed to have faith in. Oprah Winfrey talks about "faith" all the time. "Just have faith". Faith in what? The word of God is what tells the sinner the subject that their faith is to be in: Christ. It is also the means by which the sinner knows what Christ did to acquire redemption (death and resurrection). And it is the word of God as opposed to the Bhagavad Gita or the Quran.

Oprahs point is the same faith as WoF and of yours as well -- that it is an inherent power source which is a dissident theological position. The extreme of this error is seen in Kenneth Copleand, Benny Hinn, Joyce Meyers, Joel Osteen and many many more. Your point proves nothing. Her belief in what faith is remains erroneous and many people are deceived by this. Faith is not mental assent as you are making it out to be. It is not the same faith as one sitting in a chair believing it will hold them. Instead faith is supernatural and it is by Gods power we believe cf. Eph. 1:19.

In addition, your point that the Word of God shows to whom we are to have faith in comes from -- well -- the Word of God as you point out -- not from self. Again, Romans 10:17.

Romans 10:17 does not say that faith is a gift. It demonstrates the source of where of faith is found. If faith was a gift that is imposed, then there would be no need for the Bible, a sinner would have the ability to believe without it.

Correct. Romans 10:17 shows, as you say 'the source from where faith is found'. You're getting warmer -- faith is from God's Word.

Romans 10:17 shows where faith comes from. And no, a sinner cannot believe without the Word of God. Your argument is invalid and not well thought out friend -- in fact up above prior to this last statement you showed where the sinner has to hear the Word to believe and this I believe as well and my entire argument supports this. Yet now you're all over the place with the whole thing. Your logic isn't logical.

Nothing you've said to date supports your argument, but it does in fact support mine.

- Blessings

 

[salzer mtn]

I explained ROmans 10:17 in the above post to P4T. In Gal 3:23, Paul is referring to a specific faith that came in the NT, not faith in general. If faith did not come until the NT, then Habakkuk 2:4 is out of place, and so is Hebrews chapter 11 with the testimonies of an entire group of OT saints that lived by faith.

Gal 5:22, faith is a fruit of the Spirit, doesn't say gift.

Heb 12:2 shows that Jesus is the author of our faith not a force imposed on us. Faith in this verse is a description of a system of belief held by believers as a whole, not a reference to an individual initial faith. It is descriptive of the belief system from start to finish and the author of that book is Christ. "He which hath begun a good work in you shall perform it until the day of Christ" Phil 1:6. When a person puts their faith in Christ, He then begins the work in them and finishes it which is why a saved person can never be lost. But God does not impose faith on someone or make them believe, and none of these 4 verses prove otherwise.

You can take a horse to the water but you sure can't make him drink. A man can recieve nothing except it be given him from above, St. John 3: 27

 

[preacher4truth]

You can take a horse to the water but you sure can't make him drink. A man can recieve nothing except it be given him from above, St. John 3: 27

That's a great point salzer mtn.

 

[Yeshua1]

Can you show that in Genesis chapter 3. You can't just quote a doctrinal statement of another man and add something to the Bible that isn't there.

Jesus referenced the Holy Spirit as the One that brings forth the spiritual rebirth, grants sinners new hearts!

That is his point, that it happens due to the mysterious working of the HS, you cannot see how he does it, but can know that by sinner getting saved that He did it!

 

[DrJamesAch]

Part 1 p4t

[/QUOTE

]Php. 1:29. There are more.

Since you take the liberty to continue to make perjorative statements "your logic isn't logical" "you have been corrected on many levels" then allow me to feel free to do the same.

Phil 1:29 is a typical verse taken out of context by Calvinist that always add to the word of God something it does not say. First of all, this verse does not say faith is a gift. In typical Calvinistic fashion, doctrinal bias is added to the word of God.

The grammatical structure of this verse shows that faith and suffering are both synonymous as being the lot that Christians are given as a result of being saved. If faith was given to us to be saved, then so also is suffering used as an instrument of salvation which is absurd, but yet that's where your interpretation leads. Furthermore, if faith is given as a gift, then so also is suffering a gift.

I would explain this verse further but it is obvious that you wouldn't understand it. I'll gladly wait for all the other verses that you think prove your illogical and misinterpreted position (Phil 2:13, Acts 13, Acts 4:26 etc..)

See above and reference it. Romans 10:17 still stands. You are wrong, and have been corrected on many levels and your arguments my friend are simply not well thought out and they just don't prove anything you are attempting to prove.

Your response did nothing to prove that Rom 10:17 was a gift. For my arguments to not be "very well thought out" you sure are having a hard time finding a verse that says faith is a gift without adding your own bias to the verse.

You erected two straw man arguments. I pointed them out and they are what I call them.

My argument is not even close to a straw man argument. I gave scriptural evidence. Man does not want to be saved, he is hostile toward God et al. I admitted to an issue since you brought it up -- the straw man was your false assumptions that I stated certain things by your assumption when in fact I never did -- yet you used them to argue against me. THAT is a straw man argument and you were beating on both of them.

No, your argument claimed that you did not say that salvation was against the will. It was on that basis that you said I erected a straw man argument. But then you recapitulated and admitted that that is what you really believe which eliminated your original premise that I created a straw man argument because I was right about your position in the first place.

A straw man argument is not bringing up something that you KNOW the opponent already believes. A straw man argument is using petty issues that are non sequitur to the issue and making the larger arguments seem less important. You could have called it presumptuous, but not straw man. You clearly have no understanding of what a straw man argument is. You were being petty by claiming I assumed something you never said and then by admitting to it proved I was right, and I was right because I have studied the issue so much I already knew what your argument was going to be.

You didn't prove anything by quoting Romans 10:17, there is nothing in that verse that supports your statement that faith is a gift. It is only right in your mind because you say so, not because the text say so.

God grants faith. Faith is evidence of being saved -- not the cause. The cause is God. I gave you Biblical evidence. But hey, you're trying hard -- you simply need to think deeper -- you're getting closer to the truth here.

Faith is the evidence of things hoped for, and things not seen. Faith is not evidence of being saved, being saved is evidence that you had faith. You again have the cart before the horse. Furthermore, you did not determine whether your evidence was internal or external.

God does not cause you to have faith. That is the exact same thing as saying He forced faith on you. When Jesus asked "Do you have faith?" He asked because it was designed to provoke a willful response. If He had "caused" their faith, there would be no need to ask if they had faith.

What God causes is salvation. God can cause the circumstance that surround faith. But faith is not based on causality. Faith is responsive. A person evaluates the facts and evidence from the word of God and then decides to believe and trust in what has been heard, and the evidence that the person believes is by turning from self (repentance) and calling upon the name of the Lord to be saved. Mark 1:15, Acts 16:31.

You have got salvation and faith totally backwards.

 

[DrJamesAch]

Part 2 pft

Just exactly how does this weak argument refute what I've stated? Both sources given (Word/preacher) are each OUTSIDE of the man who hears -- and still faith COMES FROM hearing the Word of Christ, the same creative Word that creates all things. We've received all things from God cf. 1 Corinthians 4:7. Your point is moot and actually proves my point. That and Christ Himself is both the AUTHOR and PERFECTER of our faith -- thus it comes from Him. The evidence is clear yet you and others of your theology wish to boast and grab credit.

Do I really have to spell that out for you? Your original dogmatic assertion was that "faith comes from hearing the word of God not from us. It's a gift". If faith is a gift, then it is given. What your statement implies is that there is a mediator between the gift and the receiving, i.e. hearing and the preacher, because the order follows faith comes by hearing, but how shall they hear without a preacher, and how shall they preach except they be sent. (vs 18-20). Thus you say faith doesn't come from us, but yet an "us" is required to deliver the message ("how shall they hear without a preacher").

Thus your reliance on Romans 10:17 to prove faith is a gift, according to YOUR interpretation, presents a self defeating statement because in Romans 10:17, this passage DEPENDS ON the message being delivered by someone else, and if it depends on the message being delivered by someone else (another human) then faith is not a gift in Romans 10:17.

And having faith in Christ of ones own volition is not 'boasting'. That is complete garbage. No Non Calvinist that believes in free will believes they can save themselves. Having faith and trusting Christ willingly does not mean you are saving yourself and it never gives a person room to say "I did it". Saying "I believed and was saved" is not the same thing as saying "I believe and saved myself".

Yet it is Calvinist that are the boasters because they believe that faith is a work. If faith is a work, even if God gave you the faith against your will, then you would still be saved by works since faith is a work.

Oprahs point is the same faith as WoF and of yours as well -- that it is an inherent power source which is a dissident theological position. The extreme of this error is seen in Kenneth Copleand, Benny Hinn, Joyce Meyers, Joel Osteen and many many more. Your point proves nothing. Her belief in what faith is remains erroneous and many people are deceived by this. Faith is not mental assent as you are making it out to be. It is not the same faith as one sitting in a chair believing it will hold them. Instead faith is supernatural and it is by Gods power we believe cf. Eph. 1:19.

The difference in my faith and Oprah's is the my faith is in JESUS CHRIST not humanity or some abstract cosmic force. And since you choose to insult me by labeling my faith the same as Oprah's, let's not forget that your belief is derived from a murdering, baby baptizing, amillennialist. If Calvin couldn't get baptism right, and justified murdering those who disagreed with him, and threw out the book of Revelation, then how could he possible get salvation right? The Bible says clearly that no man who practices murder has eternal life abiding in him 1 John 3:15, and therefore since John Calvin consented to and promoted the murder of multitudes of people, there is no evidence that John Calvin was a saved man. Therefore your theology is based on an unsaved heretic.

And once again, quoting verses that do not say what you say:

"And what is the exceeding greatness of his power to us-ward who believe, according to the working of his mighty power" Eph 1:19

This does not say it is by God's power we believe unto salvation. First of all, you are mixing faith that God DOES give AFTER we have already been sealed. Secondly, this verse asks the rhetorical question about what God's power is. The emphasis is on the subject of God's power, not the one who believes. If you're going to misquote verses, at least get one that comes a little bit closer to what you are trying to prove. Preferably one that actually supports what you say, but at this point I'll settle for something close to it so I can give you the benefit of the doubt.

In addition, your point that the Word of God shows to whom we are to have faith in comes from -- well -- the Word of God as you point out -- not from self. Again, Romans 10:17.

Again, totally misconstruing the point. Faith comes BY HEARING THE WORD. Faith is the RESULT of what is heard from the word of God. Faith does not magically morph into your soul by osmosis. The word of God tells you the subject that your existing faith is supposed to be directed to: JESUS CHRIST, that does not mean that the word generated your faith, THAT is what Copeland believes.

When Peter took his eyes off of Jesus during the storm, did Peter sink because he lost faith? No. It was because his faith was taken off of Christ.

If John Calvin would have understood what faith was, he would have either attempted to explain his version of truth more fully, or just gave up and rejected Servetus instead of having him killed. It's no wonder you still don't get it. Fruit of the poisonous tree.

Correct. Romans 10:17 shows, as you say 'the source from where faith is found'. You're getting warmer -- faith is from God's Word.

Romans 10:17 shows where faith comes from. And no, a sinner cannot believe without the Word of God. Your argument is invalid and not well thought out friend -- in fact up above prior to this last statement you showed where the sinner has to hear the Word to believe and this I believe as well and my entire argument supports this. Yet now you're all over the place with the whole thing. Your logic isn't logical.

Just another example to prove that your presumption about Romans 10:17 is flawed. In Genesis 22 when God told Abraham to take his only son and bind him on the alter to be sacrificed, Abraham was never told that God would spare his son. Abraham had faith that God was going to spare Isaac anyway without ever having heard that God intended to do so, and that faith was counted to Abraham for righteousness. Rom 4:3. Genesis 22 nor anywhere else that Abraham is discussed ever says that God gave Abraham faith, and yet Abraham is a model of faith throughout the NT.

Now I can be just as pejorative and petty as you are in my responses

 

[DrJamesAch]

You can take a horse to the water but you sure can't make him drink. A man can recieve nothing except it be given him from above, St. John 3: 27

And I don't disagree with that. But it is a faulty premise if your assumption is that faith is something that has to be given. If faith is a response to the gospel by believing what it says about Christ, then what is received can only come from above and nowhere else, then John 3:27 applies. John 3:27 does not say that faith is received from above, but being born of the Spirit comes from above. If you read that to say faith, you are adding something to the context that it does not say.

But even your own analogy refutes Calvinism because it has already been conceded on here that Calvinism holds that faith is imparted against your will. But your analogy is that "you can't make [the horse] drink". But according to Calvinism you can. Not really the best analogy you could have used to support your argument.

But since you brought it up, I agree, you can't MAKE the horse drink anymore than God MAKES a person become saved.

 

[jonathanD]

it has already been conceded on here that Calvinism holds that faith is imparted against your will.

By whom? I certainly don't concede that! Without? Perhaps. Against? No sir.

 

[preacher4truth]

Since you take the liberty to continue to make perjorative statements "your logic isn't logical" "you have been corrected on many levels" then allow me to feel free to do the same.

I'm certain you meant 'pejorative' Dr. but to reiterate, and this is not a pejorative statement, your logic plainly isn't. Your hermeneutics are suspect and weak and filled with presuppositions and false assumptions. Don't take this wrong, but bro, most if not all KJVO have a very weak theology so it naturally goes with the territory.

Now, did I whine when you made the statement 'hermeneutically challenged' which was directed at me?

Not at all. As a matter of fact I chuckled. So pot, don't go talking to the kettle. OK? :thumbs:

Brother, none of your arguments hold water -- you're wasting your time and your interpretations are a feeble attempt to grasp the gift of faith and the totality of salvation of being solely from God and make salvation partly of you.

Directly and concisely the Word tells us where faith comes from and it is from the Word. The word from should be easy for you to grasp but you can't see the forest for the trees. You've been shown this over and over again. I am a little baffled that you simply cannot see the truth of Scripture here, Dr.

Keep studying, you got warm there for a minute then turned back into ice and off you went back to your fallacious theological trail.

- Peace

 

[DrJamesAch]

Jesus referenced the Holy Spirit as the One that brings forth the spiritual rebirth, grants sinners new hearts!

That is his point, that it happens due to the mysterious working of the HS, you cannot see how he does it, but can know that by sinner getting saved that He did it!

The Holy Spirit was not operating during the time of Genesis 3 as He is today:

"But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified" John 7:39

"And, behold, I send the promise of my Father upon you: but tarry ye in the city of Jerusalem, until ye be endued with power from on high." Luke 24:49

So again, how was Adam able to hear God and respond to him while he was dead in his sin.

Furthermore, Romans 1:17-20 makes it clear that the unsaved can perceive the truth of God though they are dead in their sin.

 

[DrJamesAch]

By whom? I certainly don't concede that! Without? Perhaps. Against? No sir.

OK so at least you believe that you can come to Christ of your own free will, is that correct?

 

[preacher4truth]

OK so at least you believe that you can come to Christ of your own free will, is that correct?

...and you don't even understand what jonathanD said right there. He said nothing of the sort.

raying:

 

[DrJamesAch]

I'm certain you meant 'pejorative' Dr. but to reiterate, and this is not a pejorative statement, your logic plainly isn't. Your hermeneutics are suspect and weak and filled with presuppositions and false assumptions. Don't take this wrong, but bro, most if not all KJVO have a very weak theology so it naturally goes with the territory.

Now, did I whine when you made the statement 'hermeneutically challenged' which was directed at me?

Not at all. As a matter of fact I chuckled. So pot, don't go talking to the kettle. OK? :thumbs:

Brother, none of your arguments hold water -- you're wasting your time and your interpretations are a feeble attempt to grasp the gift of faith and the totality of salvation of being solely from God and make salvation partly of you.

Directly and concisely the Word tells us where faith comes from and it is from the Word. The word from should be easy for you to grasp but you can't see the forest for the trees. You've been shown this over and over again. I am a little baffled that you simply cannot see the truth of Scripture here, Dr.

Keep studying, you got warm there for a minute then turned back into ice and off you went back to your fallacious theological trail.

- Peace

And I'm sure you meant to capitalize the "But" after the Dr., and I'm sure you meant to make a full sentence out of your first paragraph, unless you meant to say that my logic isn't pejorative. If that's what you meant, thanks for the compliment.

And funny that you claim "most if not all KJVO have weak theology" when the very person you got YOUR theology from used the same text, whether you base it off Calvin or the 1689 Baptist Confession, both used the TR. And all of the great Calvinist preachers you herald virtually all used the KJV. So you're kind of spitting on your ancestors graves and demeaning your own theology, but you probably didn't think that all the way through or that far ahead before you posted that.

Hermeneutically challenged was not directed at you, it was directed at Iconoclast after he continued making his pot-shots that I ignored for about 20 posts in a row.

Pretty short and simple rebuttal to none of the arguments I just raised in those 2 posts. Thanks for contributing.

 

[DrJamesAch]

...and you don't even understand what jonathanD said right there. He said nothing of the sort.

raying:

And apparently, you don't know the difference between a declarative statement, and an interrogatory statement. I am ASKING what he said for clarification, I'm sure he can defend himself if that's not what he meant or said.

But hey, please don't burn me at the stake for disagreeing with you!

 

[Rippon]

And funny that you claim "most if not all KJVO have weak theology" when the very person you got YOUR theology from

John Calvin systematized biblical doctrines in his Institutes. He fleshed more out in his commentaries,and brought out more applications in his sermons. But we didn't get it from John Calvin;the Holy Scripture is our source as it was his.

used the same text, whether you base it off Calvin or the 1689 Baptist Confession, both used the TR.

Actually no,regarding Calvin using the TR. But I will access my source material tomorrow to prove my point.

 

[preacher4truth]

And I'm sure you meant to capitalize the "But" after the Dr., and I'm sure you meant to make a full sentence out of your first paragraph, unless you meant to say that my logic isn't pejorative. If that's what you meant, thanks for the compliment.

Not at all, the sentence was one. But hey, at least you can now spell 'pejorative'.

And funny that you claim "most if not all KJVO have weak theology" when the very person you got YOUR theology from used the same text, whether you base it off Calvin or the 1689 Baptist Confession, both used the TR. And all of the great Calvinist preachers you herald virtually all used the KJV. So you're kind of spitting on your ancestors graves and demeaning your own theology, but you probably didn't think that all the way through or that far ahead before you posted that.

You have proven my point on that fact in this thread and in others you have taken part in. KJVO = a weak theology typically and consistently.

Then you erect straw man arguments yet again. You have to, you need something to beat on so you can win since you cannot refute truth or actual facts so you make up things then go and attack those things.

As far as Calvin, your 1st straw man argument? I haven't read him. :wavey:

Straw man 2 the 'BCF'. I haven't read the 1689 BCF. I don't base my theology on CoF's. Actually, I've not read any CoF's.

Straw man 3. 'Others were KJV'. That's not nearly the same as KJVO. I'm certain they'd dismantle your KJVOnlyisms readily and shame you for the nonsense you and others use to support that myth. They'd probably also (if living today) use an ESV or NIV. So, you're incorrect again, no one is spitting on anyone. Your false assumptions cause you to see things that aren't there -- they weren't KJVO. Their scholarship, intellect and understanding of truth would never allow such a dive into utter nonsense.

Hermeneutically challenged was not directed at you, it was directed at Iconoclast after he continued making his pot-shots that I ignored for about 20 posts in a row.

Nope. It was in a post quoting me and to me. I see you use this term often, eh? Icon has schooled you, and often. You really need to learn to listen as you are far off track in theological understanding, especially in the matter of Soteriology.

Pretty short and simple rebuttal to none of the arguments I just raised in those 2 posts. Thanks for contributing.

Have you studied the word 'from' yet (As per Romans 10:17)? If not you really need to. It's a rather simple word to understand. It shouldn't be this hard for you to grasp its meaning.

- Blessings

 

[jonathanD]

OK so at least you believe that you can come to Christ of your own free will, is that correct?

Not only can you, those who are saved always come by their own free will...however, I suspect you will disagree with how I define "free".

 

[kyredneck]

The Holy Spirit was not operating during the time of Genesis 3 as He is today:

"But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified" John 7:39

"And, behold, I send the promise of my Father upon you: but tarry ye in the city of Jerusalem, until ye be endued with power from on high." Luke 24:49

So again, how was Adam able to hear God and respond to him while he was dead in his sin.

Furthermore, Romans 1:17-20 makes it clear that the unsaved can perceive the truth of God though they are dead in their sin.

And the earth was waste and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep: and the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters Gen 1:2

The Spirit of God was there alright, and I'd have to say it's the same with Him as with Christ, 'the same yesterday, today, yea, and forever.'

God doesn't change.

 

[DrJamesAch]

Then you erect straw man arguments yet again. You have to, you need something to beat on so you can win since you cannot refute truth or actual facts so you make up things then go and attack those things.

You still have no clue what a straw-man argument is even after I tried to explain it to you.

As far as Calvin, your 1st straw man argument? I haven't read him. :wavey:

And yet you claim to know everything that Calvin did NOT teach while admitting you have never read him.

Straw man 2 the 'BCF'. I haven't read the 1689 BCF. I don't base my theology on CoF's. Actually, I've not read any CoF's.

All of your presuppositions have been based on Calvinist (John Calvin if you don't know what Calvinistic means) doctrines. Perhaps since you've never "read him" you haven't noticed the striking similarities.

Straw man 3. 'Others were KJV'. That's not nearly the same as KJVO. I'm certain they'd dismantle your KJVOnlyisms readily and shame you for the nonsense you and others use to support that myth.

And yet the Calvinists that were on the KJV translating committee came to the conclusion that there was no English Bible extant that was sufficient for the English speaking people for their time (thanks to Rome), and thus agreed to be on a committee for the translating work that resulted in the KJV.

I can give you a list of several that were KJVO considering that between 1611 (or even 1769 if you want to use the Blaney argument) the only rival to the KJV were Catholic Bibles. So even if they were KJVO merely because there was not another translation preferable over it, they were still KJVO. None of them continued to use the Geneva, Matthews, Tyndale, Bishops etc... after 1611.

But please feel free to tell me all about the printing errors, and the Blaney edition instead of the original 1611 straw man argument. That one is always a show stopper

They'd probably also (if living today) use an ESV or NIV. So, you're incorrect again, no one is spitting on anyone. Your false assumptions cause you to see things that aren't there -- they weren't KJVO. Their scholarship, intellect and understanding of truth would never allow such a dive into utter nonsense.

This really shows how well you don't know the history of the manuscripts. The very texts that underlie the ESV and NIV are the ones that they all rejected. Their "scholarship, intellect and understanding of truth" rejected the manuscripts as corrupt perversions tainted with Roman Catholic and Alexandrian bias that you claim that today they would be using. Not the smartest thing I've seen you write.

Nope. It was in a post quoting me and to me. I see you use this term often, eh? Icon has schooled you, and often. You really need to learn to listen as you are far off track in theological understanding, especially in the matter of Soteriology.

If that included you somehow, it was a typo because I've explained it several times that it was directed toward one person. But you probably deserved it and it was ordained for me to write that anyway, I had no choice.

And I will be content with rejecting the soteriology that was derived from an unsaved, murdering, baby sprinkling, amillennial heretic

Have you studied the word 'from' yet (As per Romans 10:17)? If not you really need to. It's a rather simple word to understand. It shouldn't be this hard for you to grasp its meaning.

" So then faith cometh by (ek) hearing, and hearing by (dia) the word of God."
Do you know what a preposition is? Do you know what "a preposition denoting the channel of an act" means? Did you find Waldo in that verse at the same time you found "gift" there? Because I didn't see either one, in English or Greek.

It's also a simple word to butcher too, which you have demonstrated a habitual proclivity for.

And you still failed to address how Abraham demonstrated faith without being told that Isaac would be spared, and showed no place in Genesis 22 where it says within 20 chapters of the verse that God gave faith to Abraham.

And you still can't grasp the argument against your contradictory statements that "God gave faith" "Faith come from the word of God". So which is it? Did God give faith directly to you, or did it come from the Bible first. Or do you know what the law of non contradiction is?