In the 1980s and ’90s, a controversy swirled within the evangelical world over the question of biblical inerrancy. A common claim during that time was that the doctrine of inerrancy was an innovation of late nineteenth-century Princeton theologians who were attempting to respond to higher biblical criticism. Before then, the claim continued, Christians did not believe the Bible to be without error, but only “infallible.” It was a distinction that made a big difference. The Bible is accurate in matters of faith and practice, but not without error in other areas, such as science or history.

Though the word “inerrancy” may have been new, the idea was not. How the Early Church fathers described Scripture sounds exactly like what the Princeton theologians meant by inerrancy. The same, in fact, can also be said about medieval, Reformation, and even modern theologians before the rise of theological liberalism.

The attack on the idea of biblical inerrancy 40 years ago is essentially the same as the attack on biblical authority that emerged during the Enlightenment. Once reason and science were elevated as the primary arbitrators of truth, it was necessary to reject things like the biblical claims about miracles. Aligning Scripture, particularly Genesis, with accepted science required assuming that the Bible was not reporting literal history or attempting to make scientific claims.

The attack on biblical inerrancy quickly became an attack on literal interpretations of Scripture. “Literalists” are often accused of deifying or worshipping the Bible instead of God. However, inerrancy cannot be reduced to mere biblical literalism. The doctrine of inerrancy claims that the text of the Bible, as written by the original authors, is without error in all that it affirms when properly interpreted. Every part of that is important, especially the idea of interpretation, which requires an understanding of the kinds of texts that make up the Bible. This leaves significant room for disagreement among inerrantists about how to read Genesis or Revelation.

To put it simply, the Bible is inerrant. Our interpretations are not. To know what God is communicating to us requires careful, serious study of the whole of Scripture.

Inerrancy also affirms that the Bible’s human authors wrote in their own words, in different genres, and that their personalities came through in their writings. And yet, they were inspired, or “carried along” as Peter described it, by the Holy Spirit and kept from error. Just as Jesus, the living Word, is both human and divine, and his humanity did not necessitate sin, so the written Word is both human and divine, and the human element did not necessitate error.

Today, biblical authority is challenged for the same basic reason of aligning biblical claims with the widely accepted values of our culture. Only today, the values to which Scripture must conform are largely moral, especially in areas of sexuality and identity. The plain and clear scriptural claims about homosexuality, chastity, marriage, and the value of life are dismissed as “worshiping the Bible” instead of God. Jesus loved everyone, we are told, and taught a Gospel of “radical inclusivity.”

Of course, we only know what Jesus taught from Scripture, and it’s all right there to study and meditate on. Jesus’ statements show He had a very high view of the Old Testament’s moral requirements. Wherever He corrects interpretations of the Law, except for the dietary laws, He makes them more stringent, not less. If we are to use Jesus as our guide, we have to rely on the biblical accounts of Jesus. This means the moral standards of the Law apply to even out motives and attitudes, not just actions. He doesn’t whisper about holiness, including sexual holiness. His words are plain. There’s no way the Jesus described in the Bible would support same sex “marriage,” or aborting babies, or harming children through castration or mutilation.

Rejecting the full authority of Scripture only grants authority to the whims of culture or human desire. As St. Augustine said, “If you believe what you like in the gospels, and reject what you don’t like, it is not the gospel you believe, but yourself.”

Source