At the foundation of Christian doctrine lies the integrity and authority of the Old and New Testaments. Though it is typically claimed that specific beliefs about the Bible are not necessary for salvation, they do provide the logical foundation for necessary beliefs such as Jesus’ death being the necessary and sufficient sacrifice for human sin. Due to its foundational role, the Christian view of the Bible is not a subject to be taken lightly.

Historically, Christians have affirmed the utter truth of the scripture, claiming its divine authorship renders it trustworthy and authoritative. With the advent of textual criticism, however, many Christians have sought to uphold the authority of the Bible, while at the same time admitting it contains certain kinds of errors. This paper will first explore a suitable definition for inerrancy, the historical position of the church universal, followed by a biblical and theological defense for the Bible’s claim to be inerrant. Potential objections will then be considered, and the paper will conclude with consideration for why the Bible’s claim to inerrancy is important. The ultimate argument presented in this paper is directed to Christians who affirm the Bible’s truthfulness in matters of faith and practice, but deny its inerrancy in other categories.

Defining the Doctrine of Inerrancy

            Some authors needlessly complicate the defining of inerrancy. Some, such as Clark Pinnock, suggest “inerrancy begs clear definition.”[1] However, it is only those who deny the full inerrancy of the Bible who seem to be confused. The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy, for example, clearly defines inerrancy as “being free from all falsehood, fraud or deceit.” Millard Erickson sheds more light on this: “The Bible, when correctly interpreted in light of the level to which culture and the means of communication had developed at the time it was written, and in view of the purposes for which it was given, is fully truthful in all that it affirms.”[2]

           There is nothing unclear or confusing about the definition of inerrancy unless it is limited in its application and thus used in a non-traditional[3] manner. Limitations commonly suggested deal with matters of history, science, and geography. A statement on Fuller Theological Seminary’s website put it this way: “Where the focus switches to an undue emphasis on matters like chronological details, precise sequence of events, and numerical allusions, we would consider the term misleading and inappropriate.”[4] Christians in this camp usually consider their position to be “limited inerrancy” or simply “infallibility” (meaning they affirm Scripture’s infallibility but not its full inerrancy). Thus, by looking at what is denied by those in the limited inerrancy camp, a clearer picture emerges of traditional or full inerrancy. Limited inerrancy claims that even if scripture affirms certain types of historical details, those affirmations are not necessarily true, and in some cases “clearly” false, even though they were divinely authored. Alternatively, full inerrancy means that if scripture affirms something, that affirmation is true and trustworthy due to its divine source.