Introduction

The doctrine of biblical inerrancy, a cornerstone of Christian theological discourse, concerns the belief in the absolute truthfulness and reliability of the Scriptures as the Word of God. This concept is pivotal because it underpins the Bible’s role as the ultimate authority in matters of faith and practice across diverse Christian denominations. The integrity of scriptural texts, deemed inerrant by many, directly influences the strength and clarity of the Christian message and its application in the lives of believers. However, the interpretation of inerrancy varies significantly among theologians, leading to a vibrant and ongoing debate within the Christian community. This discourse is not merely academic; it profoundly affects faith, scholarship, and the daily life of Christians, challenging them to reconcile the ancient text with contemporary understanding and experience.
Within this intricate framework of theological reflection, the significance of scripture’s role becomes distinctly apparent in each tradition’s approach to faith and practice. The impact of inerrancy on these beliefs is profound, shaping the contours of doctrinal teaching and the lived experience of faith. Amidst the diversity of opinions, the central question remains: How should believers interpret the Bible’s authority and truthfulness in a way that honors its sacred origin while engaging with the complexities of its human authorship?
As the debate unfolds, it becomes increasingly relevant to understanding how Scripture informs and transforms Christian life in a modern context. This introduction seeks to illuminate the various perspectives on biblical inerrancy, exploring its implications for faith, scholarship, and the everyday lives of those who look to the Bible as their spiritual compass.

The concept of biblical inerrancy has been discussed and defined in various ways by theologians and scholars across different Christian traditions. Here’s a summary of different perspectives on inerrancy:

Inerrancy & Infallibility Defined

Biblical inerrancy is the belief that the Bible is without error or fault in all its teachings. Some understand this to mean that the original manuscripts of the Bible do not affirm anything contrary to fact. This belief is significant within parts of evangelicalism and is articulated in documents like the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy. However, the interpretation of inerrancy varies, with some seeing it as complete inerrancy across all matters and others as limited to fulfilling its primary purpose of revealing God and God’s message to humanity.¹

Inerrancy is defined as the belief that Scripture is entirely without error. Theologians universally accept that this principle primarily highlights Scripture’s dependability and its ultimate authority as God’s message, directing humanity toward salvation. Some scholars argue that the Bible’s accuracy extends beyond spiritual and moral teachings to include precise details about scientific and historical subjects.
Infallibility refers to the attribute of being unfailingly effective in achieving a specific goal. Within Protestant beliefs, this quality is predominantly linked to Scripture, emphasizing that the Bible unerringly successfully conveys God’s intentions and the path to salvation to humanity. Roman Catholic doctrine expands the notion of infallibility to encompass the church’s teachings, guided by the pope’s leadership, ensuring that the church’s doctrines, as expressed through the magisterium or established dogma, faithfully communicate divine truth.²

inerrancy
[ in-er-uhn-see, -ur- ]
noun

1. lack of error; infallibility.
2. the belief that the Bible is free from error in matters of science as well as those of faith.: Compare creationism (def. 3).³

These definitions and discussions reflect the complexity of the concept of inerrancy within Christian theology, highlighting the agreement on the Bible’s ultimate authority and trustworthiness and the diverse interpretations of what inerrancy means in practice.

Importance of Inerrancy

Defenders of inerrancy argue that it is crucial because it is tied to the character of God, who cannot lie or err, and thus, if the Bible is God’s Word, it must be without error. This doctrine is also historically supported by the Christian Church and foundational to other essential Christian doctrines. It is based on teachings by Christ and the apostles in the New Testament and is argued to be fundamental to a consistent and healthy Christianity.⁴

Precision vs. Truth

Some distinctions have been made between the precision and truth of biblical texts. Inerrancy doesn’t necessarily mean that the Bible is maximally precise in every statement but is accurate and sufficiently precise for its purposes. The Bible, written in ordinary language, employs various literary devices like metaphors, hyperbole, and parables to convey truth without necessarily being precise in the scientific or historical sense.⁵

Doctrine of Inerrancy and Trustworthiness

The doctrine of inerrancy emphasizes the Bible’s total trustworthiness in all it records or teaches, covering theology, history, science, and other knowledge areas. It posits that when all the facts are known, the Bible, in its original autographs and correctly interpreted, will prove to be without error. This doctrine differentiates between those who submit to the authority of Scripture and those who rely on their own reasoning to judge the Scripture critically.⁶

Inerrancy and Interpretation

Inerrancy is upheld only in the original writings of the Bible’s authors, not in subsequent translations or manuscript copies. It extends to the finished writings, not the writers themselves, emphasizing that the biblical text is error-free when properly interpreted. This interpretation process involves understanding the biblical authors’ context, genre, and intent.⁷

Theologians’ Opinions on Inerrancy

Exploring the doctrine of biblical inerrancy unfolds a complex and rich landscape of theological inquiry that spans many centuries. This exploration showcases a variety of viewpoints from notable theologians, demonstrating the intricate nature of Scripture and the evolving approach to its interpretation within the Christian faith. This section presents a spectrum of scholarly opinions, each providing a distinct perspective on the concept and implications of inerrancy. Ranging from an unwavering commitment to classical inerrancy to more sophisticated views that incorporate historical and scientific insights, these opinions shed light on the diverse conversation about the veracity of the Bible. As we examine the contributions of these theologians, we encourage readers to reflect on how these perspectives might influence their personal beliefs, fostering a deeper connection with the dynamic and living Word at the core of Christian doctrine.
Additionally, this aims to cover the breadth of opinions held by theologians and scholars from various Christian traditions, including evangelical, Catholic, and mainline Protestant views. It will touch on the arguments made by some theologians that inerrancy is fundamental due to its association with God’s character and the historical stance of the Christian Church. In contrast, others highlight the importance of interpreting the Bible in light of its cultural and linguistic setting. The discussion will also bring to light key debates and controversies within the theological community, emphasizing how these exchanges shape the perception of Scripture’s authority and trustworthiness.

Classic Inerrancy or Absolute Inerrancy

Al Mohler

Al Mohler firmly upholds the doctrine of Classic Inerrancy or Absolute Inerrancy, aligning closely with the principles outlined in the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy. He articulates a compelling argument for the necessity of maintaining a steadfast belief in the inerrancy of Scripture. According to Mohler, the integrity and authority of the Bible, and by extension, the evangelical movement, are contingent upon an unwavering affirmation of Scripture’s inerrancy. He posits that without this foundational belief, the evangelical community risks diluting its faith, doctrines, and the clarity of its message. Mohler emphasizes that inerrancy is not just a theological stance but a critical component of the Christian life, preaching, and the church’s vitality. He warns against the dangers of applying human judgment to determine the divine authority of biblical texts, arguing that such an approach undermines the Bible’s perfection and truthfulness as God’s Word. For Mohler, the survival of evangelicalism in the face of modernity’s challenges hinges on a clear and complete assertion of biblical inerrancy, positioning it as essential for the church’s defining authority and the believer’s confidence in hearing God’s voice. His stance emphasizes a deep conviction that the Bible, in its entirety, is the infallible and inspired Word of God, a belief that he argues must be held without reservation or hesitation to preserve the evangelical identity and mission.⁸

Limited Inerrancy

William Lane Craig

William Lane Craig, a distinguished theologian, offers a complex perspective on the doctrine of Biblical inerrancy, which has caused some confusion among those examining his writings. While he appears to champion a strict interpretation of inerrancy, Craig makes a notable exception for historical and scientific facts. This stance has sparked discussions and, at times, confusion, as it suggests a selective approach to inerrancy, allowing individuals to discern which aspects of the Bible are without error and which may be subject to scrutiny. Critics argue that this viewpoint undermines the traditional understanding of inerrancy by introducing subjective criteria for determining the truthfulness of Biblical narratives. Despite the debate, Craig’s contributions to theological scholarship remain significant, engaging with complex questions about faith, history, and science.¹⁰

Quotes from a YouTube video reference in the footnote below:“The doctrine of inerrancy doesn’t mean that everything in the Bible is literally true. It doesn’t mean that everything the Bible says is true. What inerrancy, properly understood, means is that everything that the Bible teaches is true or that everything that the Bible affirms to be true is true.” (2:33–3:00)“Inerrancy is viewed as so important because if the Bible has mistakes in it, then how can it be inspired by God? … I take that the doctrine of inspiration means that the scripture as it was originally written was exactly what God wanted to be His word to us. That what those human authors wrote under the guidance of God’s Holy Spirit was His word to us and therefore is inspired in that sense.” (3:38–4:15)“If we think of our theological system of beliefs as like a spider’s web, at the core of the web, the center of the web, there will be things like belief in the existence of God, that will be absolutely central to the web of beliefs. A little further out from that would be the deity of Christ and his resurrection from the dead. A little bit further out from that would perhaps be the penal theory of the atonement, his substitutionary death for our sins. And even further out than that, somewhere near the periphery of the web, will be the belief in the inerrancy of Scripture. Now, what that means is that if one of these central beliefs, like belief in the existence of God or the resurrection of Jesus, goes, if that part of the web is plucked out, the whole web is going to collapse because you take something out of the center and the rest of the web can’t exist. But if you pull one of the strands out that is nearer the periphery, that will cause some reverberation in your web of beliefs, but it’s not going to destroy the whole thing.” (6:40–7:50)11

Inerrancy of Purpose

Thomas Jay Oord

Thomas Jay Oord offers a refreshing perspective on the concept of inerrancy through the lens of “Inerrancy of Purpose.” He acknowledges the presence of errors within the Bible yet emphasizes that these discrepancies do not detract from the Scripture’s overarching mission to guide individuals toward salvation. Oord introduces the notion of a collaborative, dynamic relationship between the divine and the human authors of the Bible, which he describes as a symbiosis rather than a dictation process. This approach accommodates human limitations and freedom within the process of inspiration, suggesting that God’s initial inspiration is met with human response. This principle extends to the interpretation of Scripture as well.
By advocating for “Salvific Inerrancy,” Oord suggests that the Bible’s primary objective is to serve as a vessel for conveying God’s salvific message rather than presenting an error-free historical or scientific account. The acknowledgment of human participation in the Bible’s creation and interpretation highlights the idea that perfection in every detail is not a prerequisite for the Scripture to fulfill its purpose. Instead, the Bible focuses on the ability to lead individuals toward a deeper understanding and relationship with God, highlighting the transformative power of divine love and wisdom. This perspective provides a framework for engaging with the Bible that embraces divine inspiration and human contribution, offering a meaningful approach to Scripture that emphasizes its spiritual and salvific significance.¹²

Donald Bloesch

Donald Bloesch offers a detailed interpretation of the Bible’s authority, clearly distinguishing between the terms “inerrancy” and “infallible.” Bloesch articulates a preference for the term “infallible,” highlighting the Bible’s unwavering truthfulness in matters of faith and practice rather than asserting its factual accuracy in every historical and scientific detail. He argues that scriptural inerrancy is a defensible position when understood as the alignment of Scripture with the Spirit’s guidance on God’s will and purpose. However, he rejects a rigid interpretation of inerrancy that demands the Bible’s absolute concordance with empirical data and events.
Bloesch’s perspective shifts the focus from the veracity of each biblical detail to the reliability of the Bible’s overarching message and its capacity to lead individuals into truth. He emphasizes that the Bible’s value lies in its ability to guide believers toward a deeper understanding of God’s truth, asserting that the Scripture’s central claims must be true for it to fulfill this role effectively. This approach aligns with a broader theological stance that prioritizes the Bible’s spiritual and salvific messages over its literal factual accuracy. It advocates for a view of the Scriptures as fundamentally reliable and dependable in communicating God’s will and purpose. Bloesch’s contributions to theological discussions on biblical authority provide a thoughtful middle ground, advocating for a respectful acknowledgment of the Bible’s divine inspiration while recognizing the complexities of its human authorship.¹⁴

Peter Enns

Peter Enns adopts a critical stance toward the doctrine of inerrancy, viewing it as overly restrictive and not fully accommodating the complexities of the biblical text. If one were to position him on the spectrum of views concerning biblical inerrancy, “Inerrancy of Purpose” might indeed be the most fitting category, albeit with some reservations. Enns emphasizes that the Bible’s value lies not in its factual accuracy on historical or scientific matters but in its ability to convey spiritual truths and guide individuals in their faith journey. He suggests that the Scripture’s primary role is to lead us into a deeper understanding of God and our relationship with the divine rather than serving as an inerrant record in every detail of history or science.
Enns’ perspective invites readers to engage with the Bible in a manner that prioritizes the pursuit of spiritual and moral truths over the literal accuracy of every passage. This approach encourages a dynamic interaction with Scripture, focusing on the transformative power of its overarching messages rather than rigid adherence to its inerrancy in every aspect. By advocating for a more detailed understanding of Scripture, Enns contributes to a broader conversation about the nature of biblical authority and how believers can faithfully interpret and apply its teachings in a contemporary context. His work challenges traditional notions of inerrancy, urging a reevaluation of what it means for the Bible to be truthful and reliable in guiding us toward a deeper, more meaningful engagement with faith.¹⁷

Michael Bird

Michael Bird’s stance on Biblical inerrancy, much like his view on theological discourse, reflects a thoughtful understanding that prioritizes the Bible’s infallibility over the concept of inerrancy. Bird’s hesitation to embrace the term “inerrancy” stems from his concern that it might impose undue restrictions on the interpretation and understanding of Scripture. Instead, he advocates for recognizing the Bible as infallible, emphasizing its unfailing truth in matters of faith and practice. This perspective aligns with the “Inerrancy of Purpose” category, as Bird appears to support the notion that the primary function of the Bible is to faithfully guide believers in their spiritual journey and moral decisions rather than to serve as an unerring historical or scientific textbook.
By distinguishing between infallibility and inerrancy, Bird invites a more flexible engagement with Scripture that accommodates the complexities of divine revelation through human authors. This approach allows for a faithful acknowledgment of the Bible’s authority and reliability in leading individuals toward a deeper understanding of God’s will without necessitating a rigid adherence to every detail as historically or scientifically accurate. Bird’s position highlights the importance of approaching Scripture with reverence and a critical mind, encouraging believers to seek the spiritual truths and divine wisdom it offers to live out their faith in a complex world.¹⁹

John Franke

John Franke offers a critical examination of the doctrine of inerrancy, particularly as it is understood through the lens of the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy (CSBI). He posits that the stringent adherence to modern historical and factual assumptions in biblical interpretation may inadvertently impede the Scripture’s reception and understanding. Franke argues that such an approach neglects the ancient world’s literary forms, like myth and saga, which are integral to the Bible’s narrative and message. His critique extends beyond the methodology to a broader reflection on how contemporary cultural and linguistic assumptions shape our engagement with the Bible. Franke challenges the faith community to reconsider the premises upon which doctrines and teachings are built, urging a more thoughtful approach that honors the Bible’s context and diversity. This perspective encourages a dynamic interaction with Scripture, one that acknowledges the complexity of its composition and the multifaceted nature of truth it conveys. By advocating for an understanding of inerrancy that embraces purpose over precision, Franke invites believers to explore a faith that is both informed by tradition and responsive to the insights of contemporary scholarship, fostering a deeper, more contextualized appreciation of Scripture’s enduring relevance.²³

Ken Schenck

Ken Schenck’s perspective on Biblical inerrancy, particularly within the Wesleyan tradition, embraces a comprehensive understanding that aligns with the concept of “Inerrancy of Purpose.” Schenck delineates a stance that appreciates the Bible’s role in conveying divine truth and guiding believers toward salvation while simultaneously recognizing the human elements inherent in its composition. This approach suggests that while the Scriptures may not be inerrant in every historical detail or scientific fact, they are infallible in revealing God’s will and leading humanity to a relationship with Him.
In his writings, Schenck articulates a vision of inerrancy that transcends a rigid adherence to factual accuracy, focusing instead on the Bible’s reliability in matters of faith and practice. By emphasizing the spiritual and salvific essence of Scripture, he advocates for a view that honors the Bible’s divine inspiration and its transformative impact on readers. Schenck’s approach encourages believers to engage with the Bible in a way that values both its divine origin and its human context, fostering an informed and vibrant faith.
This perspective invites a broader conversation about the nature of divine revelation and the role of Scripture in the Christian life. It offers a pathway for faithful engagement with the Bible that respects its historical and cultural dimensions while affirming its ultimate authority in spiritual matters. Schenck’s contributions to this dialogue provide valuable insights for those navigating the complex terrain of Biblical interpretation within the Wesleyan tradition and beyond.²⁶1. ²⁷

Roger Olson

Roger Olson articulates a clear stance on the concept of biblical authority, advocating for the term “infallibility” over “inerrancy” to describe the nature of Scripture. He raises critical concerns about the implications of anchoring the Bible’s authority to the inerrancy of original manuscripts, which are no longer accessible, thus questioning the authority of existing Bibles. Olson critiques the expectation of technical and scientific precision from biblical texts, noting that such expectations are misaligned with the literary genres and cultural contexts within which the Bible was written. He proposes that “infallibility” more accurately captures the essence of Scripture’s role: faithfully guiding people toward understanding God and facilitating transformative encounters with the divine. This term, he argues, highlights the Bible’s reliability in achieving its primary purpose without demanding anachronistic standards of accuracy. Furthermore, Olson critiques the divisive use of inerrancy within the Christian community, suggesting that it has been employed more as a means of exclusion than a basis for unity and shared faith. Through his perspective, Olson encourages a shift towards a more inclusive and purpose-driven understanding of Scripture’s authority, emphasizing its unwavering efficacy in conveying spiritual truths and fostering spiritual growth.

My Inerrancy Position

I align myself with the perspective of ‘Inerrancy of Purpose.’ While Roger Olson and Peter Enns may argue that Inerrancy isn’t the most essential doctrine, I resonate with Olson’s sentiment that ‘infallibility’ encapsulates the essence of the Scripture more aptly. Yes, there may be inconsistencies in the texts we possess today. We do not possess the original manuscripts, and though they might have been without error, their current absence means we must rely on what we have. The potential perfection of those original texts remains speculative, given their likely nonexistence. Olson’s observation is compelling: “After all, if the Bible’s authority depends on its inerrancy and only the nonexistent original manuscripts were inerrant, it would seem that no existing Bible is authoritative!”³³ This reinforces my belief that I’m not beholden to the idea that every word in the Bible must be without error. Instead, I firmly believe its core message remains unwaveringly inerrant or infallible. Olson appropriately captures this when he says, “Inerrancy inevitably tends to imply technical, detailed, scientific accuracy that is foreign to much of the literary genre of Scripture and to the cultures within which it was written.”³⁴
Even theologians find themselves at odds regarding the precise meaning of ‘Inerrancy.’ My frustration often revolves around the fluidity of words and their meanings. Definitions are not set in stone as they evolve, shaped by time and cultural shifts. It bothers me when a word’s definition shifts merely due to its prevalent use in a given culture. When we examine the Bible, it’s evident that many approach it with pre-existing notions. Many believe God dictated every word to the original authors, ensuring that each word in their selected version or interpretation of the Bible reflects His exact intention. What often escapes this line of thought is the inherent interpretive layer added during translation from Hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek. Words in one language don’t always have a direct equivalent in another. The timing of a translation can also introduce nuances or variations from the original text. And our subsequent reading adds yet another layer of interpretation, influenced by our experiences, cultural upbringing, education, and personal knowledge. In essence, our perspectives are deeply rooted in the culture we’re embedded in.
John Walton’s insights on the cultural lens of Scripture deeply resonate with me. He states, ‘If we are to interpret Scripture to receive the full impact of God’s authoritative message, and build the foundation for sound theology, we have to begin by leaving our cultural river behind, with all our modern issues and perspectives, to understand the cultural river of the ancient intermediaries.’³⁵ Building on Walton’s insights, it becomes clear that relying solely on our contemporary understanding is inadequate. It’s crucial to move beyond our modern perspectives and immerse ourselves in the mindset, linguistic norms, and historical contexts of the ancient intermediaries. Although it’s a challenging endeavor, setting aside our cultural and preconceived biases is crucial for genuinely discerning the text’s intent. It helps us better grasp the divine inspirations that these intermediaries translated into words for their audience. John Walton says, ‘The Bible was written FOR us, but not TO us.’ This perspective resonates deeply with me. We are exploring ancient documents written by individuals limited by the understanding of their era. It stands to reason that God, when inspiring these authors, would employ the resources they had readily available, such as their cultural context, language, and perspective, to bridge the profound gap between divine and human understanding.
When discussing inerrancy, the post-resurrection stories in the Gospels present an intriguing study. John 20:3–10 describes Peter and John hurriedly reaching the empty tomb and making special note of how Jesus’s burial clothes were laid out. On the other hand, Luke 24:12 depicts Peter alone at the tomb. Mark 16:5–7 omits the disciples at the tomb but introduces an angel who directs attention to Galilee. Matthew 28:1–10 offers a more dramatic retelling with an earthquake, a celestial presence, and Jesus appearing to Mary Magdalene and Mary, the mother of James and Joses. At first, these narratives might seem like there are discrepancies that lead to errors in the text due to their varying details. However, the overarching message across all accounts is the monumental truth of Jesus’s resurrection. Each Gospel writer, it seems, provides a unique perspective on the same transformative event. While the specifics in each account differ, the core message of Christ’s triumphant resurrection remains unwavering. This perspective indicates that the true essence of inerrancy might not rest in identical narratives but rather in the shared truth they convey.

Conclusion

Informed by the scholarly insights of John Walton, Thomas Jay Oord, Donald Bloesch, Peter Enns, Michael Bird, John Franke, Ken Schenck, and Roger Olson, my theological journey is both enlightening and transformative, deeply rooted in personal faith and the historical narratives of the ancient Near Eastern and Greco-Roman worlds. The exploration of biblical inerrancy has revealed a broad spectrum of interpretations among believers, often acting more as an obstacle than a cornerstone, blurring the Scriptures’ intended clarity and purpose. This insight has led me to prefer the term ‘Infallibility’ over ‘inerrancy’, suggesting that the Bible’s primary role is not to assert factual correctness in every detail but to unfailingly guide us toward divine truth and salvation. Theology, for me, is an expansive quest for understanding the Divine, bridging the ancient wisdom with contemporary insights, while navigating the intricate relationship between human interpretation and divine inspiration. As I continue to reflect on the foundations of my faith and the role of Scripture, I am committed to fostering a living and dynamic engagement with the Word. This journey is not just an intellectual endeavor but a holistic approach to grasping God’s vast and intricate nature, aiming for transformative insights that shape my daily expression of faith and encourage a deeper, more contextualized understanding of Scripture’s enduring relevance in our lives.