Indeed, even Calvin came to that conclusion, but that doesn't make it so. I think we need to differentiate between what the scripture says and what it implies. If it implies something then we need to make sure that when we make an assertion based on the implication that we don't state it as a fact but as an opinion. I think we can state as a fact that David was an adulterer and a murderer and that his justification was by faith.
There are several sins of Abraham that are quite clear in the scripture. The most obvious was his lack of faith in God's promise that Sarah would bear him a son who would be the father of many nations. The world itself is still suffering from the effects of that sin, but Abraham was justified by his faith in being willing to sacrifice Issac and believing that if he did, that God would raise him from the dead. His disobedience is the sin of Abraham that we should focus on and not some vague reference to idolatry that may or may not have happened.
JMHO :-)
That's a critical issue, imho. And another like it is basing an inference on a prior inference. (Secondary inference?) And then making another inference (tertiary inference.)
The probability of accuracy gets less with each added inference....not that it isn't true, but that it's suspect.
There are several sins of Abraham that are quite clear in the scripture. The most obvious was his lack of faith in God's promise that Sarah would bear him a son who would be the father of many nations.And yet isn't it interesting that God said Abraham didn't stagger at the promise of God,but grew strong in faith glorifying God, in Romans 4-