What do we believe about the Bible? Inerrancy

“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished" (Matt 5:17-18).

Inerrancy is one of the most controversial teachings in the Christian church. It’s also one of the most misunderstood. Those two things are probably related.

Inerrancy is an idea that results from the doctrine of the inspiration of the scriptures. The idea is simply that when God speaks, he speaks correctly. But of course it can’t be that simple.

When scholars say the Bible is inerrant, they mean different things, but among conservative evangelicals, you’ll find broad agreement with Wayne Grudem’s definition from his Systematic Theology: “The inerrancy of Scripture means that the Scripture in the original manuscripts does not affirm anything that is contrary to fact.” That is probably the simplest statement. I prefer Millard Erickson’s slightly longer version from Introducing Christian Doctrine: “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 it affirms.” If that second statement seems like it’s loaded with weasel words, let me reassure you. All it’s saying is that we cannot accuse the authors for being untruthful when they could not have been trying to say the thing we’re trying to draw from the text.

Some caveats. First, inerrancy applies to the original manuscripts, none of which we have. So why do we care? While we do not have the originals, we do know what they said (within 99.8% certainty). Second, inerrancy does not mean that we should read poetry or other symbolic language in a woodenly literal manner. We have to try to understand what the author was trying to communicate, not just nitpick based on the words printed on the page.

Third, and most importantly, our faith does not depend on an inerrant text. This is probably the most controversial thing I’ll say in this project.

I believe in an inerrant text. But if someone were to convince me that there was an error in the Bible, it would not force me to abandon Christianity. As Andy Stanley put it in Irresistable, “The credibility of our faith is not contingent upon our text being infallible or inerrant. It rests securely on an event.” I am not a Christian because I believe the Bible is inerrant. I am a Christian because I believe that Jesus rose from the dead.

I think of inerrancy as a protective cap on Christian theology. God said what he meant, and he meant what he said, and we shouldn’t think we have the right to change things or pick and choose what to believe. Inspiration requires that. Inerrancy preserves that ... somewhat.

But if we were to determine that there was an error, or more than one, of fact in the Bible, what would that tell us? That our understanding of inspiration was wrong. That it was possible for God to give the apostles and the prophets the wisdom to communicate his message without his ensuring the accuracy of every little fact. If someone made a typo or had a “senior moment” and messed up a name or a number, would that invalidate everything the author said? Of course not. The death and resurrection of Christ are still true, and we should follow the teachings handed down by his followers.

What if we are wrong about inspiration? What if the writers were hopelessly optimistic about what was going on and the Holy Spirit was not at all involved in authoring the scriptures? What if all we have is the historically reliable memoirs of godly but flawed men writing out of their memories and the wisdom God gave them? According to Gary Habermas, the historian who is the reigning expert on the resurrection of Christ, then the resurrection still happened, and Christianity is still true.

What if these texts aren’t “historically reliable?” What if these are just a book of ancient literature on the level with Plato or Homer? According to Habermas, Christ was still raised. (We’ll return to this topic in more detail later.)

I think it is vitally important that we understand that we are not dependent on an inerrant text for a risen savior. If there are minor errors in the Bible, if the Exodus never happened, even if evolutionary theory is true and Genesis 1-3 are pure myth, Christ was still raised, and his teachings should still be followed.

But I believe that we do have the word of God, carefully delivered and preserved. And our response should be, to borrow from J.I. Packer, to “attend respectfully and thankfully receive all that God imparts to us.”


For more on the doctrine of inerrancy, see “The Dependability of God’s Word: Inerrancy” in Introducing Christian Doctrine by Millard J. Erickson.


Part of Christianity 101