Quote:
Originally Posted by VoiceInWilderness
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?
|
With Calvin, it's a matter of debate.
These two articles present it from both sides.
https://postbarthian.com/2014/05/26/...-bible-errors/
https://www.etsjets.org/files/JETS-P...5-442_JETS.pdf
I believe the original manuscripts are inerrant. I cannot say the same of the multitude of versions and translations, or our modern day understanding of the original manuscripts.
What was more interesting to me was how their view, especially Luther's, seemed to differ from modern Reformers. Tracing the origins and history of biblical inerrancy doctrine seems to lead me closer to American fundamentalism than the actual teachings of early Reformers.