Are their claims correct? Is inerrancy unimportant today? Should the church focus her energy on other things? It is the contention of this article that the inerrancy debates are as relevant as ever and the church must remain vigilant to guard the faith that was once-for-all handed down to the saints and preserved in the pages of Scripture. The reality is that the historic battles over the doctrine of inerrancy never ended, and the implications of denying its truthfulness are catastrophic to any semblance of the Christian faith.

 

 Inerrancy Is Still Under Fire

One can be tempted to think of the battles over inerrancy as historical debates: theologians of the past duked it out with theological liberals, and it is now a settled issue. Many books have been written, like B.B. Warfield’s The Inspiration and Authority of the Bible,[5] and statements were formed, like The Chicago Statement on Inerrancy, [6]  which have drawn the lines and one either embraces inerrancy or they do not. Sadly, it is not as simple as that.

While the present-day fundamentalist movement does stand on the shoulders of great stalwarts of the faith who have fought these battles, the reality is that the war is far from over. When Dr. Peter Enns was dismissed from Westminster Theological Seminary (PA) in 2008 because of the unorthodox views of inspiration and inerrancy expressed in his book Inspiration and Incarnation (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2005; he released a second edition in 2015), the topic of inerrancy was thrust into the spotlight in a dramatic way leading many to reconsider their commitments to this vital doctrine.

Among them was the late Dr. Michael  Heiser, who wrote a series of blog articles wrestling with the concepts and he eventually sought  to find a “middle ground and then steer through it” between the traditional view on inerrancy and an outright rejection of it, leading to a “soft” inerrancy that affirms the truthfulness of the  overall message of the Bible even if some particular facts are not true. [7]

N.T. Wright, Peter Enns, Michael Heiser. These are significant names in the realm of evangelical scholarship, and the subsequent waves have not stopped. While one might be tempted to think that conservative churches and church members are insulated from the academy, the reality is that many of these scholars are training pastors, have written very accessible works, are highly respected, and have created content targeting the average believer—not just the academy. The net result is that as their influence has spread, so have their beliefs about matters like inerrancy.

Ligonier and Lifeway Research’s survey shows this growing influence. Every two years their “The State of Theology” survey polls the nation. They ask questions about God, salvation, ethics, and the Bible and trace the developments over time. In 2022, over 25% of self-professing evangelicals either agree or strongly agree with the statement “The Bible, like all sacred writings, contains helpful accounts of ancient myths but is not literally true.”[8]

These surveys reveal that the “evangelical” understanding of Scripture is lamentably inadequate and the influence of inerrancy deniers has grown. If one assumes that conservative churches are not influenced by these trends, he runs the risk of failing to arm his people for the battle at hand. This is not to be an alarmist. Fear of those who propagate anti-inerrancy arguments is unnecessary since truth never needs to be afraid of investigation. Nevertheless, it would be foolish to ignore them and pretend like they do not exist. The battle for inerrancy is far from over, and pastors, parents, and teachers would do well to be well-versed in its defense.

 

 Faithfully Teaching the Bible Means Teaching Inerrancy

The question of whether someone will affirm inerrancy is really a question of whether that person will commit to faithfully teaching what Scripture says.[9] Many texts assert the claim that God’s Word is true down to every jot and tittle; to faithfully teach the Scriptures, inerrancy must be embraced and taught. Consider these texts (all quoted from the ESV):

“The words of the LORD are pure words, like silver refined in a furnace on the ground, purified seven times.” (Ps 12:6). Such silver has no imperfections.

“The law of the LORD is perfect . . . sure . . . right . . . pure . . . true” (Ps 19:7-9).

“Every word of God proves true” (Pr 30:5). This is a definitive statement. God does not miss. He does not make mistakes. When He speaks, the words are true. Every last one of them.

Jesus said, “Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away” and “until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished” (Mt 24:35; 5:18). These words of Christ are usually (and correctly) understood to speak of the enduring significance and eternal nature of the Word of God, but they also communicate its truthfulness. Not a single iota or even a dot will pass away. It is all true and will be shown to be so, down to the last pen stroke. Consequently, if one is going to faithfully teach the Bible, he or she must necessarily teach inerrancy. Scripture itself demands it.

Conversely, a denial of inerrancy makes faithfully teaching the text impossible. If some aspects of the Bible are in error, this forces the question: Which parts? How can one be sure? Will one faithfully teach what they believe to be in error? That last question is one of ethics. No teacher with any ethical standard would faithfully teach as true that which they believed to be in error, so the net result of denying inerrancy is necessarily a departure from the text and its truth claims. Textually, logically, and ethically, any commitment to faithfully teaching the Scriptures demands a commitment to the doctrine of inerrancy.

 

 Surrendering Inerrancy Surrenders Inspiration and Authority

It is of great confusion that some who deny inerrancy would still seek to maintain the doctrines of inspiration and authority.[10] How can an errant text be rightly said to be inspired or authoritative? It is fallacious to believe it to be so. A document that certainly contains errors is also certainly uninspired.  Assuming the traditional theological understanding of inspiration (that Scripture is breathed out by God and is thus His very Word (2Ti 3:16)), saying that it also contains errors is an affront to God’s character (a point expanded upon below). The doctrine of the inspiration of Scripture by a good and truthful God necessarily demands inerrancy, and therefore a denial of inerrancy necessarily demands a denial of inspiration.

Furthermore, to deny inerrancy is also to deny the authority of the Bible.  Why would anyone be obligated to submit to a fallible document of merely human origin? It is logically incongruous to argue that the Bible has authority on the one hand but also affirm that it contains errors on the other. One cannot, or rather should not, be held accountable to a document that is in error.

The present author is convinced that for many individuals, this is the whole point of denying inerrancy. It is common to engage with individuals who have “deconstructed” their faith and hear that a denial of inerrancy was one of the first steps toward a wholesale rejection of biblical truth. If the Bible is fallible, then it has no authority when it speaks to matters they find troublesome. Rejecting inerrancy, therefore, gives them freedom in their mind to pursue whatever sinful lifestyle they choose without feeling guilty that they are violating God’s Word.

This is not to say that everyone’s denial of inerrancy is motivated by such obviously sinful intentions. Yet it must be admitted that once steps are taken toward such a denial there is no reason not to keep moving. The framers of the Chicago Statement were keenly aware of what was at stake as they wrote,

The result of taking this step is that the Bible . . . loses its authority, and what has authority instead is a Bible reduced in content according to the demands of one’s critical reasonings and in principle reducible still further once one has started. This means at bottom independent reason now has authority, as opposed to Scriptural teaching. If this is not seen and if for the time being basic evangelical doctrines are still held, persons denying the full truth of Scripture . . . have moved away from the evangelical principle of knowledge to an unstable subjectivism, and will find it hard not to move further.[11]

While some seek to affirm infallibility, inspiration, and the authority of the Bible while denying inerrancy, their denial undermines their otherwise orthodox affirmations. This position is logically untenable and will eventually collapse in on itself. To surrender inerrancy necessarily surrenders inspiration and authority as well.

 

 A Denial of Inerrancy is a Denial of God’s Nature and Character

As noted above, if someone desires to affirm the doctrines of inspiration and authority of the Bible and yet denies its inerrancy, that is less of a statement about the nature of the text and more about the nature and character of the God who inspired it.

A denial of inerrancy is either a statement about a lack in God’s power (He was not able to keep the human authors from making mistakes as they wrote), God’s knowledge or competency (He Himself erred as He inspired the text), or God’s goodness (He is not truthful or honest). In any case, this is perilous ground.

Scripture is most fundamentally God’s self-revelation to mankind, and in His Word, He declares that He is absolute perfection (Ps 18:30; Mt 5:48) and truth (Nu 23:19; 1Sa 15:29; Jn 14:6; Tit 1:2; Heb 6:18). If inerrancy is false, then all those Scripture texts (and more) are false and God is not to be trusted, followed, or worshiped. Indeed, one could say that He is not even God! This logically leads to a wholesale rejection of all of Scripture; why care about any of it if its Author is not to be trusted?

It is unmistakably clear one’s view of Scripture is not just about Scripture, but it reveals an entire worldview. In an essay found in The Foundation of Biblical Authority, J.I. Packer wrote,

. . . when you encounter a present-day view of Holy Scripture, you encounter more than a view of Scripture. What you meet is a total view of God and the world, that is, a total theology, which is both an ontology, declaring what there is, and an epistemology, stating how we know what there is. This is necessarily so, for a theology is a seamless robe, a circle within which everything links up with everything else through its common grounding in God. Every view of Scripture, in particular, proves on analysis to be bound up with an overall view of God and man.[12]

As Packer observes, one’s view of Scripture does not and cannot exist in a vacuum. One’s understanding of God, mankind, and the entire world around them is bound up in how they understand the Bible. To deny or affirm inerrancy reflects upon the nature of God because it must necessarily do so. It is His book. What one believes about it, they believe about God. If one cares about the nature of God, they will care about how they understand His revelation and how that is communicated to others.

 

 Conclusion

From the very beginning, the enemy’s primary tactic has been the same: “Did God actually say . . .” (Ge 3:1)? If he can get humanity to doubt or reject God’s Word, the rest unravels from there.

So, is it worth worrying about inerrancy today? That all depends. Is it worth it to pursue a faithful proclamation of God’s truth? Is it worth it to care about the nature of the Scriptures as inspired and authoritative? Is it worth it to care about God’s nature and character? If the answer is yes to any of those questions, there is no other option than to  care about inerrancy. The enemy has not stopped his ploys, and as long as he roams about to steal, kill, and destroy, God’s people must be on guard against attacks on the truthfulness and trustworthiness of the entirety of God’s Word.

“We affirm that what Scripture says, God says. May He be glorified. Amen and Amen.”[13]

 

---

ENDNOTES

[1] Michael Bird, Seven Things I Wish Every Christian Knew about the Bible (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2021).

[2] N. T. Wright, Surprised by Scripture (New York: HarperOne, 2014).

[3] “N.T. Wright on the Bible and Why He Won’t Call Himself an Inerrantist,” https://religionnews.com/2014/06/02/n-t-wright-bible-isnt-inerrantist. Accessed 2/23/23.

[4] Michael Bird, “Saving Inerrancy from the Americans?” https://michaelfbird.substack.com/p/saving-inerrancy-from-the-americans. Accessed 2/23/23.

[5] B.B. Warfield, The Inspiration and Authority of the Bible (Phillipsburg: P&R, 1980).

[6] Https://library.dts.edu/Pages/TL/Special/ICBI_1.pdf. Accessed 2/23/23. The Chicago Statement’s definition of inerrancy has been assumed for this article.

[7] Dr. Heiser helpfully collated all those articles in one place (there are many!) which can be accessed here: https://drmsh.com/naked-bibles-inspiration-discussion/.

[8] Https://thestateoftheology.com/data-explorer/2022. Accessed 2/23/23.

[9] “Faithfully teaching” here means that what is taught is an accurate reflection of what the text says and means according to the intent of the author.

[10] See the aforementioned works by Bird and Wright for examples of some who attempt to do this.

[11] The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy, 10-11.

[12] J.I. Packer, “Encountering Present-Day Views of Scripture,” in The Foundation of Biblical Authority, ed. James Montgomery Boice (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1978), 61.

[13] Chicago Statement, 11.