Share This Episode
Break Point John Stonestreet Logo

Is the Bible Inerrant? And Why Does it Matter?

Break Point / John Stonestreet
The Truth Network Radio
July 1, 2025 12:00 am

Is the Bible Inerrant? And Why Does it Matter?

Break Point / John Stonestreet

00:00 / 00:00
On-Demand Podcasts NEW!

This broadcaster has 299 podcast archives available on-demand.

Broadcaster's Links

Keep up-to-date with this broadcaster on social media and their website.


July 1, 2025 12:00 am

The doctrine of biblical inerrancy has been a long-standing topic of debate within the evangelical world, with some arguing that it's a mere innovation of late 19th-century theologians. However, the idea of inerrancy has been present throughout church history, with early church fathers, medieval theologians, and Reformation-era scholars all affirming its importance. Today, the attack on biblical authority is often driven by the desire to align scriptural claims with widely accepted cultural values, but this approach can lead to a rejection of the Bible's moral standards and a reliance on human whim instead of divine guidance.

YOU MIGHT ALSO LIKE:
Science, Scripture & Salvation Podcast Logo
Science, Scripture & Salvation
John Morris
Renewing Your Mind Podcast Logo
Renewing Your Mind
R.C. Sproul
Science, Scripture & Salvation Podcast Logo
Science, Scripture & Salvation
John Morris
Faith And Finance Podcast Logo
Faith And Finance
Rob West
Truth for Life Podcast Logo
Truth for Life
Alistair Begg
The Urban Alternative Podcast Logo
The Urban Alternative
Tony Evans, PhD

Welcome to Breakpoint, a daily look at an ever-changing culture through the lens of unchanging truth. For the Colson Center, I'm John Stone Street. In the 1980s and 90s, a controversy swirled within the evangelical world over the question of biblical inerrancy.

Now, it wasn't the first time the authority of the Bible was questioned, but a common claim during this time was that the doctrine of inerrancy was a mere innovation of late 19th century Princeton theologians. Theologians who were attempting to respond to higher biblical criticism. Before then, the claim continued, Christians did not really believe the Bible to be without error. only to be infallible. It's a distinction that makes a big difference.

The Bible, they said, is accurate in matters of faith and practice, but it's not without error in other areas like science or history. Though the word inerrancy may have been new at the time, the idea of inerrancy was not new to the church. In fact, 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 or Reformation or even modern theologians before the rise of theological liberalism. The attack on the Bible of biblical inerrancy forty years ago is essentially the same as the attack on biblical authority that emerged during the Enlightenment.

Once reason and science were elevated to be the primary arbiters of truth, it was necessary to reject things like the biblical claims to miracles. Aligning Scripture, particularly Genesis, with accepted science, required assuming that the Bible was not reporting on literal history or attempting to make scientific claims.

Now the attack on biblical inerrancy quickly became an attack on literal interpretations of Scripture.

So called literalists are often accused of bibliolatry or the worshiping of 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 wholly without error in all that it affirms, when properly interpreted.

Now every part of that definition is important. Especially the idea of interpretation, which requires an understanding of the kinds of texts that make up the Bible. That leaves significant room for disagreement, even among those who hold to inerrancy about how to read things like Genesis or Revelation. To put it simply, the Bible is inerrant, our interpretations are not. To know what God is communicating to us, then requires careful and serious study of the whole of Scripture while taking seriously what the church has taught throughout its history.

Inerrancy also affirms that the Bible's human authors wrote in their own words. Wrote in different genres, and that their personalities often came through in their writings. And yet still they were inspired or carried along, as Peter described it, by the Holy Spirit and therefore kept from error. Just as Jesus, the living Word, is both human and divine, and His humanity does not necessitate sin, So also the written word is both human and divine. And the human element of the Holy Scripture does not necessitate error.

Today, biblical authority is often 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 ones, especially in areas of sexuality and identity. The plain and clear scriptural claims about things like homosexuality, or chastity, or marriage, or the value of life are often dismissed as worshiping the Bible instead of worshiping God. Jesus loved everyone, we're told, and He taught a gospel of quote-unquote radical inclusivity. But of course, we only know what Jesus actually taught from Scripture.

And it's all right there for us to study and meditate.

So if we can't trust Scripture, we can't know that he taught these other things. Even more, Jesus' statements show that he had a very high view of the Old Testament's moral requirements. Wherever he corrects interpretations of the law, except for things like dietary laws, Jesus makes them more stringent, not less.

So if we're to use Jesus as our guide, we have to rely on the biblical accounts of Jesus. And that means the moral standards of the law apply to even our motives and our attitudes and not just our actions. He doesn't whisper about holiness, including sexual holiness. No, his words are plain. There's no way that 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 put it, If you believe what you like in the Gospels and reject what you don't like, it's not the gospel you believe, but yourself. For the Colson Center, I'm John Stone Street with Breakpoint. Today's Breakpoint was co-authored with Dr.

Glenn Sunshine. I want to give a special thank you to Kelly of Springport, Michigan, for being a Cornerstone Monthly partner of the Colson Center and helping to make this episode of Breakpoint possible. If you're a fan of Breakpoint, please leave us a review where you download your podcast. And for a version of this commentary that you can print out or share with others digitally, go to breakpoint.org. Hi, Breakpoint listeners.

You've probably heard us talk about the Colson Fellows Program on Breakpoint. I'm excited to let you know that the Colson Fellows team hosts one-hour live informational webinars that allow you to hear an overview of the program and get your questions answered. The webinars are hosted by our Vice President and Dean of the Colson Fellowship, Michael Craven. Here at Breakpoint, we work hard to help you consider current events through a Christian worldview. If you want to go deeper to discover how to develop the wisdom and skills needed to walk wisely in this cultural moment, then the Colson Fellows Program might be for you.

This nine-month program takes you on a deep dive into Christian worldview through readings, devotionals, monthly cohort meetings, and more. If you're interested, an informational webinar is a great next step to learn more. You can find a full list of webinar dates and register today at colsonfellows.org slash webinar. That's colsonfellows.org slash webinar. Mm-hmm.

Get The Truth Mobile App and Listen to your Favorite Station Anytime