I say with Spurgeon, that Calvinism is merely a nickname for the gospel!

"To be clear what God Himself says to us and teaches us in the Bible is TRUTH and to the measure we are in agreement with His word we are right and where we aren't we're wrong."

And are you 100% in agreement in your deeds and beliefs with the Word?

Again, I do not agree with Stott, but I do not see why we cannot make allowances for sin in his life, the sin of misreading the text, on this point! I really hope we can all make allowances for sin in each other’s lives or else we are all going to be harshly treated by one another.

For instance, was Stott's view of Hell, any less God honouring and unbiblical, than Arminianism?

And if Stott, has been consigned to Hell by the SA community for his aberrant views of what we are saved from, then should all Arminian’s also be consigned there, for their aberrant views of salvation in tota??

In Stott's view (which I disagree with) people would be saved from the wrath of God displayed in their utter destruction. Again I ask is our salvation based on what we believe we are saved from?
Or on the grace of God, displayed in Christ's death for His elect? And faith in that death?

Is it Justification by faith, in Christ alone, by grace alone through faith alone, as taught in the Scriptures alone to the glory of God alone?

Just in-case anyone really cares (I suspect they don't!) here is why 'you' is not in modern versions of Eph 4:6, nothing to do with New age but MSS evidence.

'πᾶσιν'
The Textus Receptus, following a few minuscules and patristic witnesses (489 Chrysostom Theodoret al), adds ὑμῖν; other witnesses (D F G K L Ψ 181 326 917 920 itd, g vg syrp, h goth arm al) add ἡμῖν. Both readings are explanatory glosses, introduced in order to establish a personal reference of πᾶσιν to the Christians. The reading adopted for the text is strongly supported by P46 א A B C P 082 33 88 104 424c 436 442 460 462 1912* 1944 copsa, bo eth arab al.

Dean Burgon, declared that the Textus Receptus needs correction. He suggested 150 corrections in the Textus Receptus Gospel of Matthew alone.

"Matthew 10:8 it has Alexandrian reading νεκρους εγειρετε (raise the dead) omitted by the Byzantine text.

Acts 20:28 it has Alexandrian reading του Θεου (of the God) instead of Byzantine του κυριου και του Θεου (of the Lord and God)." Burgon, The Revised Revision, p. 108;

Erasmus was not a printer!!!!!!

Johann Froben was his printer, you should perhaps learn something rather than copying Burgon..

You err greatly, Eramus did not print anything, he was not a printer. He did however produce a critical GK text, that text being the basis for what in 1633 became know as the Textus Receptus. That is why there are readings in the TR that are not found in the mss that Erasmus used (or any GK mss for that), readings that came from Erasmus himself.

Again the Textus Receptus 1633, is a printed GK text, so it certainly could not have existed over 1000 yrs before printing was invented.

This false propaganda really does boarder on on bearing false witness!

You have committed a common error,(not surprising considering the false propaganda that is out there) the TR and the Majority text are not synonymous. Sometimes the Textus Receptus is confused with the Majority Text, a recent critical Greek NT based on the study of hundreds of the Byzantine manuscripts. They are not the same, as the Majority Text differs from the Textus Receptus at about 1,800 places, including some places where the Textus Receptus reading is not the majority reading.