My View on Biblical Inerrancy

“Inerrancy” is Unnecessary

When we use words like authoritative and divinely inspired to describe Scripture, these words carry clear meaning and purpose for our church. They’re easy to define, but leave some ambiguity in their application— and that’s fine with me.

• Authoritative: the Bible is a (or, the) important source of authority in the church on all matters. There’s some question about whether the Bible outranks individual revelation or church tradition, but the Bible is indisputably authoritative.
• Divinely inspired: the Bible was inspired and/or authored by God. How this occurs is up to interpretation, but God played a large part in its creation.

In other words, the Bible is divine in some way, and we should be using it in the Church to make decisions on orthodoxy and orthopraxy. This is a great starting point for all Christians, and these two aspects of the Bible are indisputable (see 2 Timothy 3:16). To reject either of these aspects of the Bible would in my opinion make you something other than “Christian”.

Then, we have “inerrancy”. This word, unqualified, is more vague than “authoritative” or “divinely inspired”, and it’s unclear to the layman Christian what it means and how it should be applied. Most evangelicals who use the term inerrant don’t meaningfully qualify it, so it ends up meaning something generic like “without error.” Well, what’s an error? It depends who you ask!

In my opinion, calling the Bible authoritative and divinely inspired is enough to adequately capture what the Bible is and does. I mean, of course there are additional true characteristics you can use, like that the Bible is beautiful, or powerful, or wise, but these additional terms don’t function to instruct Christians how to view the Bible. One could use the word true or (truthful) to describe the Bible, but what does that meaningfully add to divinely inspired? If it came from God, it has some element of truth; how the Bible is true is debated among Christians. Calling the Bible “true” doesn’t really mean anything, unless you spend a lot of time clarifying what the Bible is true about, and how.

I see “inerrant” in a similar vein to “true”— it doesn’t meaningfully add to our understanding of the Bible beyond what is communicated by authoritative and divinely inspired. Additionally, Scripture does not attest to its own inerrancy; this doctrine has been derived from the meanings of various passages. It’s a secondary doctrine. “Inerrant” is not one of the first words I would use to describe the Bible, but I ultimately concede that yes, the Bible is inerrant (by some definitions). I simply believe it’s a terrible term to describe the Bible, and I’ll explain why.

A Correct Understanding of Inerrancy

As I stated above, I do believe the Bible is inerrant. But that statement alone is too vague to really make any statement about Scripture, so I’ll instead opt for a more clear definition, then break it down:

When correctly interpreted, some original manuscripts are true in all they affirm.

• When correctly interpreted: Since the dawn of Christianity, no two Christians have professed an identical interpretation of Scripture. Though I attempt to interpret correctly, I believe we are all potentially (and likely) errant in some of our interpretations.
• some manuscripts: At this point in my life, I don’t have the scholarly knowledge to determine which books of the Bible should be canon. I would concede that every book from the modern Protestant Bible is at least useful for teaching, but not necessarily divinely inspired. The modern Protestant Bible may also not be an exhaustive list of every divinely inspired book. I simply lack the knowledge (or divine revelation) to make such a claim. It gives me pause to blindly affirm the Protestant Bible, when other modern Bibles mismatch its contents, and when Martin Luther disagreed with some of its canonical choices, and when several early church Fathers treated extra books as authoritative.
• original manuscripts: I’ll only stake inerrancy on the original manuscripts of Scripture, which we unfortunately no longer have. I believe it’s possible, even likely, that scribes made mistakes or additions when copying the original manuscripts. Even the most conservative inerrantists concede that our current Bible is not a 100% match of the original manuscripts.
• are true in all they affirm: This is purposefully vague. For example, it’s unclear to me whether Genesis “affirms” that all of humanity genealogically descended from 2 humans named Adam and Eve, or whether it’s simply a metaphor (I tend towards the latter). What the Bible “affirms” is a matter of interpretation.

When we apply the appropriate qualifiers to inerrancy, we’re left with a generic statement that essentially says that the Bible is true. As I argued above, the term “true” doesn’t meaningfully add to our understanding of Scripture beyond authoritative and divinely inspired, but if you wish to use true or inerrant, I won’t disagree (as long as you define it reasonably).

There are many definitions of inerrancy— that was just one. In fact, the prevailing definition is significantly different (and way more wordy).

CSBI

The Chicago Statement of Biblical Inerrancy (CSBI) is by far the most common definition of biblical inerrancy, and adds a whole host of qualifications to the term. For example, to adhere to the CSBI, you must:

• Believe in a historical flood.
• Believe a literalistic understanding of the creation story (to some degree).
• Deny the Bible contains a single “discrepancy”.
• Believe “the doctrine of inerrancy has been integral to the Church’s faith throughout its history”, and not new.
• Deny any attempt to dehistoricize any stories.
• Interpret biblical claims of authorship as literalistic (i.e., believe Paul actually wrote all his letters).

These are just some of the qualifications I picked out, but there are several more.

In some ways, I agree with the CSBI. Certain parts are very well written. For example, I think it defines inerrancy in a clear and concise way in the exposition:

Scripture is inerrant, not in the sense of being absolutely precise by modern standards, but in the sense of making good its claims and achieving that measure of focused truth at which its authors aimed.

That’s great! This definition of inerrancy releases Scripture from a modern obsession with accuracy, and allows it to exist as it is— a very old collection of books, written in a genre most of us are unfamiliar with.

Article XII. … We further deny that scientific hypotheses about earth history may properly be used to overturn the teaching of Scripture on creation and the flood.

Oh… okay. So, we shouldn’t interpret Scripture according to our precise modern standards… except when we should (“the flood is definitely not an allegory!”). The CSBI wants to have its cake, and eat it, too.

Literalistic Connotation

When a layman Christian hears the phrase “the Bible is inerrant,” how does that come across? For me, and I think for many others, the term “inerrancy” carries a connotation of literalistic, history-textbook-ism. For example, if I were to describe a modern biography of Elvis as “inerrant”, and I found out the author was wrong about the color of the house Elvis was born in, I would call that an “error” and thus not “inerrant”. In our modern society, we are pretty careful with specific details like that, especially if someone uses the word “inerrant”! When Christians use a term like “inerrancy” to describe the Bible, it leads to a similar interpretation.

The CSBI does not require a literalistic interpretation, but it strongly encourages it. By making explicit points about inerrancy applying to creation and the flood, the CSBI suggests we must interpret these events as literal historical events.

Why Not Literalistic?

As I’ve stated, modern fundamentalist inerrantists typically define inerrancy as a strict literalistic interpretation: they believe that the Bible is inerrant and should be read like a history textbook. This appears to be a reasonable way to interpret the Bible— perhaps the ancient audiences of the Bible didn’t want a history textbook out of the Bible, but in 2025, we certainly do! In fact, defenders of literalistic interpretation are willing to go to extreme lengths to protect their fragile view of inerrancy. When you see the Bible this way, you create a lot of problems.

I’ve written a whole post about textual problems for biblical inerrancy, but here’s just a few from that post, plus some extra to consider:

• The Bible contains contradictions in its historical accounts.
• Later Gospel authors (e.g. Luke) appear to edit earlier Gospels (e.g. Mark) by improving grammar, word choice, and overall historical narrative.
• Jesus almost definitely spoke in Aramaic, so the Gospels are translating his teachings, and probably paraphrasing, too.
• Based on a strictly literalistic reading of Genesis, the universe is only ~6000 years old. But, we have scientific evidence to the contrary (e.g. we can see light from stars several billion light-years away).
• The fossil record and other archaeological evidence does not support a global flood as described in Genesis.
• There is little to no archaeological evidence supporting a historical exodus from Egypt that looked anything like the story we read in the Bible.

The Church Fathers Weren’t Like Modern Inerrantists

I published an article discussing eight specific early church fathers, and their takes on inerrancy (among other things). As to whether “inerrancy” is a historical church position, scholars are in disagreement; my own research has shown me that to answer that question, you need to be more specific. Yes, “inerrancy” is a historical church position if by “inerrant” you mean something like “truthful”. No, the early church fathers (besides Augustine and perhaps John Chrysostom) would probably not sign the CSBI, nor would they agree to a strictly literalistic definition of inerrancy.

But really, even if modern inerrancy was a historical position— even if you could go back in time and get all the early church fathers to sign the CSBI— what merit does that really give? The early church fathers were wrong on countless other issues. Augustine, for instance, believed the Septuagint was divinely inspired, and I doubt many CSBI inerrantists would praise him for that. Appealing to the authority of the early church fathers in support of modern inerrancy is not only inaccurate, but just a weak argument altogether.

I simply don’t agree that the majority of early church fathers believed in modern, literalistic inerrancy. In my research process, I discovered several instances of modern scholars quoting these fathers out of context and cutting their sentences short to try to prove a point about their views. I’ve read the original writings in context (as much as I, not being a scholar, am able to) and I don’t find the evidence compelling.

My Take

My take on biblical inerrancy can be aptly summarized by these two quotes from Kevin J. Vanhoozer, from Five Views on Biblical Inerrancy:

I regularly refuse to say whether I hold to inerrancy until my interlocutor defines the term (or allows me to do so).

— Kevin J. Vanhoozer

…inerrancy tells you that what is said is true, but it cannot tell you what is said.

— Kevin Vanhoozer

The term “inerrancy” is a poor descriptor of what the Bible is. It carries modern connotations of accuracy and historical-textbook-ism that the original authors likely did not intend. While it’s true that “inerrancy” can be qualified (“only the correct Biblical canon”, “only the original manuscripts”, “only what the Bible affirms”, etc.) to approach something truthful, the term loses all practical meaning when applied this way. To state biblical inerrancy in its fully qualified form is to reduce its meaning to divine inspiration and authoritative. So why say it at all?

When strained harmonizations failed to satisfy, their faith weakened, and the vitality of their Christian life evaporated. …It turns out that a traditional view of inerrancy has been a dangerous doctrine for some readers of the Bible.

— Michael Licona, Jesus, Contradicted

Not only is the doctrine of inerrancy practically useless, but it actively harms the Christian community. Countless “statements of faith” require Christians to agree the Bible is “inerrant”, without ever defining what that means. What happens when biblical scholars, even those who claim to believe in “inerrancy”, begin to interpret some Scripture allegorically? Well, just ask scholars Robert Gundry or Michael Licona.

The Evangelical Boot

Famously, the theologian Norman Geisler, coauthor of I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist, who helped create the CSBI and defendinginerrancy.com, kicked out Robert Gundry from the Evangelical Theological Society (ETS) in 1983 for Gundry’s unpopular interpretation of a passage in Matthew.

Dr. Robert Gundry had published a book that used genre criticism (centering around Jewish Midrash) to dehistoricize a historical passage in Matthew’s Gospel. On 10/20/1983, the ETS Ad Hoc Committee on critical scholarship recommended unanimously for the adoption of the ICBI Statements on Inerrancy (CSBI, 1978) and Hermeneutics (CSBH, 1982) and judged that Gundry’s view were inconsistent with these statements. The members of the ETS voted and 70% asked Gundry to leave the ETS and 30% voted for him to remain.

— defendinginerrancy.com, Does the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy need a “facelift?”

I’ll let Christianity Today tell the next story:

Thirty years later, New Testament scholar Michael Licona found himself embroiled in a similar controversy. Licona had questioned the literal historicity of Matthew’s reference to saints rising from the grave after Jesus’ resurrection (Matt. 27:52–53). Here, too, Geisler led a campaign against the perceived threat to biblical inerrancy. As a result, Licona voluntarily resigned from Southern Evangelical Seminary and left his position at the North American Mission Board. (Today, he teaches at Houston Christian University.)

Noah M. Peterson, The Bible Contains Discrepancies. That Doesn’t Make It Untrustworthy.

These stories are only two examples of inerrancy being used as a weapon. I agree with Peter Enn’s characterization of inerrancy:

Thus inerrancy is primarily a weapon of religious politics to define who is in and who is out.

— Peter Enns

The way inerrancy is wielded as a weapon is dangerous for the next generation of Christians, who are increasingly interpreting Scripture in allegorical ways and dehistoricizing passages which were traditionally interpreted literalistically. When told “that’s not allowed”, how are young Christians to reconcile scientific evidence (e.g., of evolution) against the strict guidelines of CSBI inerrancy?

I’m reminded of this exchange during a debate over inerrancy between biblical scholar Michael Licona, who adopts a flexible inerrancy, and Richard Howe, a more literalistic inerrantist:

Licona: [What about] when Jesus comes out of the water at his baptism, okay, and God’s voice from heaven says “You are my beloved son, in you I am well pleased,” that’s Mark and Luke, but in Matthew it says “This is my beloved son, in him I am well pleased.”

Howe: Well, why couldn’t he have said both?

Licona: laughs alright, you want to say both?

Howe: I’m asking you, why couldn’t he have said both?

Licona: Oh, he could have, the question is, did he?

Howe: Ok, so there’s your solution! If he could have said both, then…

Licona: Well there you go with your hermeneutical waterboarding until they tell you what you want to hear. That is so ad-hoc (Howe: “That’s fair”), Richard, that’s the kind of answer, right there— all respect to you, brother, I love you man— but that’s the kind of answer that a lot of Christians hear, and they think, “If that’s what I’ve got to believe in order to embrace inerrancy, I’m out of here,” and then they start on that journey away from faith— think of Bart Ehrman.

It’s time to stop using the term “inerrancy”, or otherwise open the definition up for nuanced interpretations of Scripture beyond the traditional view. Like the generations of theologians before us, we should stick to the indisputable characteristics of the Bible: authoritative and divinely inspired, and recognize inerrancy as submissive to these two. Doing so will open the doors to diverse (and possibly correct) interpretations of Scripture, without compromising the integrity of the Bible.

C.S. Lewis

In my position, I sit comfortably in agreement with a number of Christian theologians and biblical scholars, including Michael Licona, Peter Enns, Kevin Vanhoozer, Michael Bird, and C.S. Lewis. I conclude with a couple of quotes from C.S. Lewis, the beloved author, who stated that our modern quest for historical truth in the Bible “was, in my opinion, not even envisaged by the ancients.”

In what sense does the Bible “present” the Jonah story “as historical”? Of course it doesn’t say, “This is fiction,” but then neither does our Lord say that the Unjust Judge, Good Samaritan, or Prodigal Son are fiction (I would put Esther in the same category as Jonah for the same reason). How does a denial, a doubt, of their historicity lead logically to a similar denial of New Testament miracles? Supposing (as I think is the case), that sound critical reading revealed different kinds of narrative in the Bible, surely it would be illogical to suppose that these different kinds should all be read in the same way?

— C.S. Lewis, A Letter from C. S. Lewis to Corbin Carnell, dated April 4, 1953

In another letter, after listing 6 “facts” of Scripture, Lewis says the following:

It seems to me that 2 and 4 rule out the view that every statement in Scripture must be historical truth. And 1, 3, 5, and 6 rule out the view that inspiration is a single thing in the sense that, if present at all, it is always present in the same mode and the same degree. Therefore, I think, rule out the view that any one passage taken in isolation can be assumed to be inerrant in exactly the same sense as any other: e.g., that the numbers of O.T. armies (which in view of the size of the country, if true, involve continuous miracle) are statistically correct because the story of the Resurrection is historically correct. That the over-all operation of Scripture is to convey God’s Word to the reader (he also needs his inspiration) who reads it in the right spirit, I fully believe. That it also gives true answers to all the questions (often religiously irrelevant) which he might ask, I don’t. The very kind of truth we are often demanding was, in my opinion, not even envisaged by the ancients.

— C.S. Lewis, From a letter to Clyde S. Kilby, May 7, 1959

The C.S. Lewis Institute maintains an article on the inerrancy of Scripture, written by Kevin Vanhoozer, which largely suggests the same.