What Does "Inerrant" Mean, and Is the Bible Inerrant?

“The Bible is filled with errors.”

Those who make such a claim will point to many places in Scripture. Some will cite historical errors, scientific errors, contradictions, and impossibilities as evidence that the Bible is filled with tons of errors.

But what does God’s Word claim for itself? Does it claim to be without error? Gregg Allison is likely correct when he says, “the church from the outset was united in its belief that the Word of God is true and contains no error.” But in the 1830’s a new word arose as an attempt to further define this doctrine. That term was “inerrancy.”

What does it mean when people claim that the Bible is inerrant? And is the Bible inerrant? Read on to find answers to this question.

What Does "Inerrant" Mean?

Put simply, inerrant means to be “free from error.” But this is also a somewhat loaded theological term. In the late ‘70s and early ‘80s, the doctrine of inerrancy was a hotbed of discussion, even going so far as to divide the Southern Baptist Convention. In the minds of many, to affirm “inerrancy” was to believe that the Bible is true. Others held that inerrancy was an unhelpful or unnecessary term.

In 1978 a group of conservatives published the Chicago Statement of Biblical Inerrancy. In the eyes of many, this has become the gold standard for whether or not one adheres to the doctrine of inerrancy. It’s a bit of a loaded question to ask whether or not one affirms inerrancy.

Do you mean, “do you affirm the Chicago Statement of Biblical Inerrancy” or do you believe that the Bible is “without error”? There are some who would heartily affirm that “the Word of God is true and contains no error” but would not sign the Chicago Statement of Biblical Inerrancy. So, it’s important from the outset to agree upon a meaning.

Wayne Grudem gives this as a definition:

“The inerrancy of Scripture means that the Scripture in the original manuscripts does not affirm anything that is contrary to fact.”

In his book, 40 Questions About Interpreting the Bible, Robert Plummer gives 8 qualifying statements to further help us understand what is meant by inerrancy:

1. Inerrancy applies only to the autographs.

2. Inerrancy respects the authorial intent of the passage and the literary conventions under which the author wrote.

3. Inerrancy allows for partial reporting, paraphrasing, and summarizing.

4. Inerrancy allows for phenomenological language.

5. Inerrancy allows the reporting of speech without the endorsement of the truthfulness of that speech.

6. Inerrancy does not mean that the Bible provides definitive or exhaustive information on every topic.

7. Inerrancy is not invalidated by colloquial or nonstandard grammar or spelling.

That helps to outline what is meant by inerrancy. Understanding these qualifications helps us to understand that many supposed contradictions and difficulties are not really against inerrancy.

Kevin Vanhoozer gives another good definition of inerrancy that might be helpful in moving the discussion forward. Vanhoozer defines inerrancy this way, “God’s authoritative Word is wholly true and trustworthy in everything it claims about what was, what is, and what will be.” This helps us to get at the crux of the issue. Is the Bible true? Is it authoritative? Is it trustworthy? That is what is at stake in this discussion.

Do We See This Word Anywhere in Scripture?

You will not find the word inerrancy anywhere in Scripture. It is a relatively newer term. The first known use of the term, with the present meaning, is found in 1837. It’s not shocking, then, that this word does not appear in the Bible. But the concept of a true, trustworthy, and authoritative Bible certainly does appear in Scripture.

First, in 2 Timothy 3:16 we read that “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting, and training in righteousness.” That is making the claim that if something is Scripture then it is “God-breathed”. This means that it is inspired/written by God.

Secondly, Numbers 23:19 tells us that “God is not a man, that he should lie…” Many Scriptures testify that God does not lie and that He always tells the truth. Therefore, we can conclude, then, that if the Bible is written by God, then every jot and tittle that is written by God is true.

Lastly, Jesus himself said that “the Scripture cannot be broken” in John 10:35. He treated the Scripture as an authority. We see in the temptation in the wilderness how Scripture was used by the Lord. He considered it to be the bread on which He lived. 

Therefore, we see that the Scriptures declare of themselves that they are true, trustworthy, and authoritative.

Is the Bible Inerrant?

This is where our definition of inerrancy matters. Does affirming inerrancy mean that you have to affirm all of the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy? Or does it mean that you simply affirm the Bible is authoritative, trustworthy, and true? This might seem like splitting hairs, but Michael Bird has shown the problem with what he calls the American inerrancy tradition (AIT).

“This is the problem with AIT and its advocates. They merge their interpretation with the text so that to disagree with their interpretation is to deny the inerrancy of the text. This alone is enough to turn many Christians off to the doctrine of inerrancy.” (Five Views, 69)

And yet Bird would not disagree with a definition similar to that of Vanhoozer’s on inerrancy. If you simply mean, “the Bible is without error” I believe that we must affirm that the original manuscripts were God-breathed, and as such everything which is contained therein is without error.

Of course, we no longer have the original manuscripts. So, in one sense we are arguing for a moot point. But just because we no longer have the original manuscripts does not mean that we have not accurately preserved the Word of God. Asking a few questions here can help us.

I use the English Standard Version of the Bible. Is that inerrant? No. Not technically. What if I switched to the King James Version of the Bible? Though, some might claim inerrancy for this particular translation, the position of inerrancy is that the original manuscripts are inerrant. No translation is without error.

That does not mean, however, that my ESV translation of the Bible is untrue, untrustworthy, or filled with errors. We can with much precision determine what was in the original manuscripts. Yes, there will be some meaning that is difficult to discern through translation. Yes, there might be a few places where we have textual variants that are difficult to make a definitive decision upon. But you can trust your Bible.

Yes, the original manuscripts are without error in that they proclaim everything in which the truth-telling God intended to proclaim. And yes, that which God spoke to the original authors has been preserved for us through many generations and across languages. You can trust the Bible you are reading.

Why Does It Matter That the Bible Is Inerrant?

I like to think about doctrine and orthodoxy like standing on an elevated mesa. There is much room on this mesa. But there are also steep drops if you go outside the parameters. Doctrine is the same way. There are some things which one cannot affirm and be considered a Christian in any meaningful sense.

As an example, you cannot deny the truthfulness of the resurrection and still be considered orthodox. Likewise, a denial of the humanity of the deity of Christ puts one off the cliff of orthodoxy. You’re no longer on the mesa if you are making such claims.

But consider something like the second coming of Christ. If you outright deny that Christ is living and that He will one day return, then you cannot rightly be said to believe in Christian doctrine. You are outside the bounds of the mesa. But on that mesa, there will be many different opinions about the specifics of the return of Christ. So long as you believe in the return of Christ, you’re on the mesa — and there is room for disagreement there.

I would use a similar illustration in discussing inerrancy. It is important that we affirm that the Bible is “God’s authoritative Word.” It’s also important that we affirm that it is “true and trustworthy in what it claims.” This, I would argue, is what it means to be on the mesa of historic and faithful belief on the nature of the Bible.

The same is true when we talk about inerrancy. These beliefs about the nature of the Bible are important to maintain for a few reasons. It’s important first and foremost because that is the claim that the Bible makes for itself. Secondly, it is important that we consider the Scriptures to be authoritative, true, and trustworthy, because this is what Jesus believed about the “unbroken Scripture” (see John 10).

It is also important because a belief in the truthfulness and trustworthiness of the Bible is essential for other Christian doctrines. If we deny that God’s Word is our authority, and that it tells the truth, then we could make Scripture as a wax nose. We could bend it to our individual whims. It’s also important because the church has historically believed this about the Scriptures. We ought to be connected with what the church everywhere and for all of history has affirmed.

Again, there might be some divergence in what we mean by some of these things upon that mesa. We might not even prefer a term like inerrancy. But at the end of the day, it is important for us to affirm the nature of God’s Word as authoritative, trustworthy, and true.

Sources

Allison, Gregg R., and Wayne A. Grudem. Historical Theology: An Introduction to Christian Doctrine : a Companion to Wayne Grudem's Systematic Theology. (Grand Rapids, Mich: Zondervan, 201), 99

Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology, 90

Robert Plummer, 40 Questions About Interpreting the Bible, 41-44

Five Views of Biblical Inerrancy, 203

Photo credit: Unsplash