Thursday, July 03, 2014

Why inerrancy matters

What's the practical value of inerrancy? One evangelical apologist who says he personally affirms inerrancy nonetheless demotes it to a "tertiary" doctrine. And what about those who openly deny inerrancy?

It's not hard to see the results. When people deny the inerrancy of Scripture, they no longer take it seriously. It ceases to be an authority–much less the final authority–in their lives. They cease to be guided–much less governed–by the word of God. Instead, they manipulate the Bible to endorse whatever they believe or disbelieve. They no longer live in submission to the lordship of God.

Of course, some people laud that consequence. They don't think Scripture should have that kind of authority in our lives. And that makes sense if you're an atheist. That makes sense if you don't think Christianity is a revealed religion. That makes sense if you don't think we are creatures of a sovereign God. 

But that doesn't make sense if you profess to be a Christian. 


  1. I wonder sometimes if there are degrees of liberalism, though. I say this because as far as I know, Bill Vallicella denies inerrancy, yet he still seems to hold to most aspects of classical theism. Granted, he could just be an exception.

    1. He's a complex case. A lapsed Catholic who still admires Scholastic theology, but also admires Buddhism.

    2. Another complication is that contemporary Catholics think they can ditch the inerrancy of Scripture because the Magisterium is their safety net.

    3. Indeed, Romanists will sometimes try to induce skepticism in Protestants in order to drive them into the arms of Mother Church. They do this by way of arguments often used by atheists, as seen both on this site and in interactions with David King.

  2. It's a fundamental inconsistency to deny inerrancy, or demote it, and yet appeal to Scripture in support of those things one wants it to support. It turns God's revealed Word into a sort of wax nose that one may twist and bend to suit.