An essay I submitted for HT-3200 Theology 1 at Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary.
“Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a worker who has no need to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth” (2 Tim 2:15).[1]
Introduction
The doctrine of inerrancy, a topic of profound importance to interpreting the Bible, is not a simple concept. It has led me to a deeper understanding of its complexities. In my research, I discovered a whole other side of the debate that I did not know existed. It’s not just a matter of tension between evangelicals and critics about the inerrancy of the Bible but also tension within the evangelical camp on how to define inerrancy. I will compare ideas of defining inerrancy, discuss some common criticisms, and explain why inerrancy is essential. “Biblical inerrancy is a singular and vital doctrine, and the imperative for expository preaching.” [2] This doctrine is not just a theological concept but a cornerstone of our understanding of the Bible, making our exploration all the more significant.
What is Inerrancy?
If one looks up the definition of inerrancy in the dictionary, one will find a pretty simple definition— “the fact of containing no faults or mistakes.”[3] However, here is where the confusion begins because of the dissection of words in definitions. Infallibility is often suggested as a synonym for inerrancy, but this is not entirely accurate. The same source defines infallibility as “never being wrong, failing, or making a mistake.” This distinction is crucial and often overlooked or ignored. Notice that the definition of inerrant uses the words “containing no.” A more straightforward way of defining inerrant is to say something that is inerrant has no errors. On the other hand, the definition of infallible uses the words “never being,” which means it cannot have errors. Notice the definitions are close but are not exact. To illustrate this, consider a computer program that is inerrant. It is free from bugs or errors. On the other hand, an infallible computer program cannot produce errors, even if it is designed to do so. I realize I am splitting hairs here to make a point, but this is what many evangelicals and critics are doing when comparing conflicting ideas of the definition of inerrancy while applying or not applying inerrancy to the Bible.
Before we proceed, it’s crucial to discuss the doctrine of inspiration and its inherent connection with inerrancy. The original manuscripts of God’s Word were written by human authors whom the Holy Spirit inspired. This divine inspiration forms the basis of the doctrine of inspiration, which naturally pairs with the doctrine of inerrancy. We derive this understanding from the Apostle Paul in 2 Timothy 3:16, “All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness.” This connection between inspiration and inerrancy is a key aspect of our discussion.
Like inerrancy, the doctrine of inspiration has tension surrounding it and different theories. The inspiration theory used for this essay is verbal plenary inspiration because it makes the most biblical sense to me. In this view, the Holy Spirit oversaw what the human authors wrote down to exact words and phrases to match God’s precise words while allowing them to write in their own style and personality.[4] This theory is often contrasted with other theories, such as dynamic inspiration, which emphasizes the role of the Holy Spirit in guiding the authors’ thoughts and ideas, and mechanical inspiration, which suggests that the authors were essentially ‘dictated’ to by the Holy Spirit.[5] You may disagree with me, and that’s a valid perspective, but this gives you an understanding of my starting point for this discussion. Determining a “starting point” for this topic is important. Otherwise, it could end up being a circular argument that goes nowhere. I say this because a panel discussion about inerrancy with four prominent biblical scholars debated, longer than necessary, where a “starting point” begins.[6]
Now that it is established that Scripture is God’s Word inspired by the Holy Spirit, one could naturally think this would end the debate. However, it does not. Remember from above that inerrancy and infallibility involve error. Since Scripture is God inspired and inerrant, it ‘does not’ contain errors. Also, the God-inspired Word is infallible because it ‘cannot’ have errors. This is another place where a definition gets debated and examined.
What does error mean? What does it mean to have an error? How does an error occur? Many who debate this topic today tie error to how fact and truth are presented in the Bible or the lack thereof or conflicting accounts. “[F]or general purposes those who use [inerrancy] today see it as a claim that closely ties the Bible’s truth to its historical and scientific factuality.”[7] The debate on Scripture inerrancy is not trivial. It stems from how fact, truth, or both fit into the doctrine. Some argue that factuality necessitates precision, which demands that the Bible be exact in every detail. However, the Bible does not require precision to be inerrant. Matthew Barrett cautions against imposing a modern standard of precision when reading or interpreting the Bible, highlighting the significance of this debate.[8]
Is precision required to tell the truth or give a fact? Does approximation provide enough detail to know the truth or a fact? Charles Ryrie suggests that the tension surrounding inerrancy might be erased if inerrancy was defined positively.[9] Instead of saying Scripture inerrancy means it is without error, to say Scripture tells the truth. The truth can be told without precise information. People tell the truth every day by giving approximational information. For example, the information would be considered truthful if you told someone it was noon when it was actually 12:04 PM. Or, I would be truthful when I told you that the population of my town is twenty-five hundred people when it is, in fact, 2,512. Thus, precision is not required to be truthful or factual, for that matter. Is it true and a fact when the news reports your favorite sports team won a game without providing the score? Yes, it is true, and yes, it is a fact. So, truth and fact can be given without precise detail. This illustrates how the concept of inerrancy can be understood in a broader context beyond the strict definitions often used in debates.
Considering all this, we can agree on a more comprehensive definition of inerrancy. The definition I propose comes from the International Council of Biblical Inerrancy (ICBI), a group of evangelical men who formed in the late 1970s to affirm the inerrancy of Scripture. The ICBI held a conference in Chicago in October 1978, where they developed a unified definition of inerrancy and affirmed the authority and infallibility of Scripture. They produced The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy (CSBI), a key testament to the inerrancy of God’s Word in most evangelical circles today. The statement, with its preface, short statement, and nineteen articles of affirmation and denial, covers a wide range of the doctrine. However, I will quote one sentence encapsulating the essence of inerrancy in this essay. Inerrancy recognizes that “the total truth and trustworthiness of Holy Scripture is essential to a full grasp and adequate confession of [Scripture’s] authority.” [10] This statement carries significant weight in our discussion.
Inerrancy is not the Problem
The issue of inerrancy has been a topic of debate for many years, and it often depends on how one values Scripture and one’s view of God. After reading several critical essays and articles by critics and biblical scholars, it becomes apparent that those criticizing inerrancy tend to share commonalities in their views of Scripture and God. Many who criticize inerrancy seem to hold a low view of Scripture and God, and the doctrine of inspiration is often absent in their arguments. Rather, they regard the Bible as just another “textbook” or show utter disrespect towards anything Godly. When one starts with such presuppositions about God and His Word, it is not surprising that one would criticize the doctrine of inerrancy. J. Merrick and Stephen M. Garret’s book, Defending Inerrancy, compiled five different essays and their responses. They concluded that “discussions of inerrancy are very much determined by a person’s theological sensibilities and particular location within evangelicalism.”[11]
Peter Enns, a biblical scholar invited to submit an essay for Merrick’s and Garret’s book, argues that inerrancy is a severe problem and should be scrapped altogether. He believes that man must explain away tension spots in Scripture and sees these spots as inaccuracies that inerrancy gets in the way of resolving. Enns suggests that modern historical evidence or science should be used as the authority over these biblical passages.
While I will not nitpick Enns’s points, I will cover some of his general statements that he seems to think validate his opinion. One of his claims is that the CSBI is at fault because it implies “that God as God would necessarily produce an inerrant Bible,” and evangelicals are scrutinizing this idea. [12] This claim does not make sense to me at face value. Why is it wrong to believe or even suggest that God is truthful? A claim like this indicates to me that he does not believe the Holy Spirit inspires God’s Word. It also seems to have the audacity to say we are wrong for even thinking that the Bible is without error.
Secondly, why would this premise be scrutinized, especially by evangelicals? Just one page before this claim, Enns complained that inerrancy was “encoded into the evangelical DNA.”[13] Both of these claims cannot be true simultaneously, and they serve as a distraction. In the next section, I will expand on why the doctrine of inerrancy is crucial for evangelism, which will shed light on why this line of thought is odd.
Enns continues to argue that inerrancy inaccurately raises God’s abilities to overcome human error as if God needs our help.[14] He believes that we can trust what the Bible says about salvation without needing the rest of the Bible to be truthful, that inerrancy hampers man from showing how great man’s abilities are through modern archaeology and science, and much more. I contend that these claims are way more harmful and showcase why the doctrine of inerrancy is essential. We can see and experience God’s authority, supremacy, grace, and salvation by believing that the Bible is without error.
Without trusting the Bible is trustworthy, our biblical and systematic theology would be affected. We would have no reason to believe anything in Scripture, and God’s authority would be in question. Sources outside the Bible would be used to validate God’s Word, and evangelism would be stifled. How could we call someone to Christ if we did not believe the Bible was truthful? The preaching in our local churches would also be in question without inerrancy.
Would you listen to a sermon given by a pastor who thought the Bible had errors? Would you believe his message? Let us look at this concern from the pulpit. Pastors are taught to preach by exegesis, which is to interpret and explain what a biblical passage means critically. This can only be accomplished if the pastor completely believes that God’s Word is inerrant and infallible. Why is this important? Hypothetically, a pastor who did not believe that God’s Word was without error would more than likely submit his own views into Scripture, which is called eisegesis.[15] He would not consider the Bible’s authority. He may even think the Bible has no authority. Other outside sources could then begin to influence his sermons and teachings in the church. Therefore, our theology and biblical doctrines can quickly spiral out of control or cease to exist if we do not hold fast to the doctrine of inerrancy.
Inerrancy as a Doctrine
Many critics of the doctrine of inerrancy claim it is a relatively new concept. However, that assertion could not be farther from the truth, for many early church fathers held a total inerrancy view. Limited inerrancy is a relatively new concept (from the late 1800s to the present) for some wrestling to reconcile their internal beliefs between the truthfulness of Scripture and modernism.[16] Most early church fathers subscribed to the doctrines of total inerrancy and inspiration. Some are Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Augustine of Hippo, Thomas Aquinas, Martin Luther, John Calvin, and others. However, we should not affirm the doctrine of inerrancy because of historicity alone; we should also affirm it because the Holy Spirit inspires Scripture and is God’s Word.
Barrett succinctly tells us, “Scripture is flawless because its divine author is perfect.”[17] As the previous section highlighted, our conviction in God determines our faith in Scripture. So, we need inerrancy to be real; inerrancy does not need us because it is real—it is who God is! God is the Supreme that is perfect in every way imaginable. Therefore, if God is perfect and the Bible is God-breathed to man, then the Bible must be, without error, inerrant because if it has errors, it would mean that God is deficient. Some critics say this type of logic is flawed because it is circular. I humbly suggest this proves the point because it is logical.
One last point Enns made when claiming inerrancy was ‘the problem’ was that it “prevents us from coming to terms with ourselves.”[18] The universally accepted meaning of ‘come to terms with’ is to accept or deal with whatever troubles us. Inerrancy provides the exact opposite. Coming to God’s Word with our troubles, knowing it is truthful, should be celebrated. “Let us then with confidence draw near to the throne of grace, that we may receive mercy and find grace to help in time of need” (Heb 4:16). This verse teaches us that mercy and grace are possible when we have troubles, and we should confidently come to God. Where is the problem? Jesus tells us, in Matthew chapter 11, to come to Him with our troubles for rest. Again, where is the problem? Inerrancy only gets in the way when a critic is prideful and believes he is the only one who can reconcile his woes.
Understanding that the Bible is inerrant can give us a profound sense of security and trust in our faith. Knowing that the words we read are without error and are a direct communication from God, we can have confidence in what we read and study God’s Word. It is a comforting thought that we are guided by a perfect and infallible source, giving us the confidence to interpret and apply its teachings in our lives. This confidence will affect how we encounter our personal life, family, church family, and the world. Our comfort and confidence rests on God’s authority, which is displayed throughout the Bible. The first words of the first book, Genesis, describe God’s authority because He is the Creator of “the heavens and the earth (1:1). Then God made man in His image and delegated authority to man to mediate over what was the created on earth (1:26-30). Therefore, God had to have authority to delegate authority. Plus, He is the uncreated, and there is none before Him or after Him. So, God is the ultimate authority.
Because God is the Creator and the ultimate authority, He is also omniscient and immutable. This provides us with more confidence that God’s Word is inerrant. God is truthful because He is all-knowing and unchanging. We can believe this because Scripture has many fulfilled prophecies and several examples of God keeping His promises. The Bible is God’s written Word, given to us so that we can understand Him. As the Spirit inspired certain men to write God’s Word, we are inspired by the Spirit to interpret God’s Word (1 Cor 2:12).
As individuals, we can find great confidence in delving into the study of the Bible, knowing that its teachings are flawless and truthful. By immersing ourselves in the wisdom and guidance provided within its pages, we can experience significant spiritual growth and become more devout Christians and disciples. This newfound understanding and knowledge will enable us to navigate the complexities of the world with greater ease and confidence and to spread the word of God to those we encounter effectively. Additionally, our enhanced spiritual development will allow us to better serve as disciples to our fellow Christian brothers and sisters and the wider church community.
Conclusion
The essay covered three major areas related to inerrancy. It helped define inerrancy and its meaning and set a starting point for a discussion. I began by defining inerrancy and offering additional terms, such as infallible, to clarify the definition further. Scripture was used to highlight what it says about itself as proof that is higher than man’s. The research for this article affirmed that the main underlying factor is not what inerrancy means but how a person views God and God’s Word. Many critics inside and outside of evangelism seem to believe sources outside of the Bible have more authority than the Bible. It has been shown how some of the critics’ arguments are fallacies based on man’s sinful thoughts.
Lastly, inerrancy was discussed, as well as how it affects Christians. We understand that God’s Word is flawless because God inspired it through His chosen human authors. The selected, inspired authors wrote the words that God gave them but maintained their personal styles and language. This knowledge provides us with security as we study the Bible to be better disciples and evangelists.
[1] Unless otherwise specified, all Bible references in this paper are to The Holy Bible, English Standard Version (ESV) (Crossway Bibles, 2016).
[2] Dennis M. Swanson, “Inerrancy and the Local Church: What Does the Debate Mean to the People in the Pews?” The Master’s Seminary Journal 26, no. 1 (Spring 2015), Joshua database.
[3] “Inerrancy,” Cambridge Dictionary (2024). https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/inerrancy.
[4] Matthew Barrett, God’s Word Alone: The Authority of Scripture (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2016), 225.
[5] Barrett, 225.
[6] D. A. Carson, John Frame, and Ben Witherington III, “Plenary Discussion on Biblical Inerrancy,” moderated by Thomas S. Schreiner (plenary discussion, Evangelical Theological Society Annual Meeting, Baltimore, MD, November 21, 2013), Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 57, no. 1 (2014), Joshua database.
[7] John Perry, “Dissolving the Inerrancy Debate: How Modern Philosophy Shaped the Evangelical View of Scripture,” Journal for Chrisitan Theological Research 6 (2001), Joshua database.
[8] Barrett, 268.
[9] Charles C. Ryrie, Basic Theology: A Popular Systematic Guide to Understanding Biblical Truth (Chicago, IL: Moody Publishers, 1999), 93.
[10] International Council of Biblical Inerrancy, “The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy,” lecture download for M-HT 3200 Theology 1, Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, April 2024.
[11] J. Merrick and Stephen M. Garrett, “Introduction: On Debating Inerrancy,” in Five Views on Biblical Inerrancy, eds. J. Merrick, Stephen M. Garrett, and Stanley N. Gundry (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2013), 23.
[12] Peter Enns, “Inerrancy, However Defined, Does not Describe What the Bible Does,” in Five Views on Biblical Inerrancy, ed. J. Merrick, Stephen M. Garrett, and Stanly N. Gundry (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2013), 85.
[13] Ibid., 91.
[14] Ibid., 84.
[15] Vern S. Poythress, Reading the Word of God in the Presence of God: A Handbook for Biblical Interpretation (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2016), 37.
[16] Norman L. Geisler and William C. Roach, Defending Inerrancy: Affirming the Accuracy of Scripture for a New Generation (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2011), 17.
[17] Barrett, 270.
[18] Enns, 91.
biblical-insight.com 