Quote:
Originally Posted by Evangelical
It was not until about 100 years after Luther and Calvin that other Reformers introduced the idea of biblical inerrancy in the text itself rather than Luther and Calvin's view that inerrancy came about because of the inspiration of the Spirit, and they allowed for the possibility of human errors. That is, even if there is an error in the bible the Holy Spirit will provide the correct inspiration and we do not need to pretend that the bible is perfect. Luther even believed that an apostle's words may be uninspired and non-apostolic and an unbelievers words may be inspired and apostolic - it was evaluated against whether or not it made Christ known or not, based upon the words of Paul (1 Cor 2:2).
|
That is very surprising to me that Calvin believed as you say.
Do you have supporting evidence?
I believe in Biblical inerrancy. The Orthodox Jews do also and always have, and so did Jesus as proved by the below among others:
John 10:34 ... and the Scripture cannot be broken.
When Luther got old he was mentally ill due to ear infections.
That is when he made his horrible anti-Semitic rants.
I don't know when in his life he made the terrible mistake of saying that the book of James was uninspired. He said the same about Hebrews, Jude and Revelation, because these books contradict his overemphasized teaching on salvation by faith alone without works.
He also did not believe Esther, Jeremiah, Jonah and Song of Songs.
Luther had been a great man of God.
This shows me that no minister of the age is inerrant and needs the checks and balances of others.
But the Bible is inerrant.
When you say the Bible is not inerrant, I understand you to mean that there are mistakes in the Bible as originally written. Is that what you mean?