Biblical Doctrine – the Three Words that define us

The Arguments About Words Describing the Bible

Christians have always wrestled with Scripture. With 45,000+ denominations worldwide, it’s no surprise that interpretations differ. If Christians disagree on almost everything else, it makes sense that they also approach the Bible differently.

At the center of this conversation are three key terms—and the various combinations of those terms shape distinct theological positions. The three words are:

Inspired

What nearly all Christian traditions affirm

  • Scripture is from God, through human authors, empowered by the Holy Spirit.
  • The Bible is a Spirit-guided, historically shaped human response to encounters with God.
  • Jews and early Christians affirmed this in various ways long before the doctrine was formally described.

This is the one doctrine held almost universally across Christian history.

Infallible

What the Reformers emphasized

  • Scripture is trustworthy and unfailing in accomplishing the purposes for which God gave it.
  • It never fails to reveal saving truth, or to guide the church in faith and life.
  • At the same time, infallibility does not require:
    • scientific precision
    • modern historical method
    • literalism in every passage

Historical development

Before the 1500s, Scripture’s trustworthiness was largely assumed, not formally defined.

During the Reformation, Luther and Calvin articulated that Scripture—not the Church hierarchy—is the final, unfailing authority in matters of salvation and Christian living.

Calvin insisted that infallibility must be stated clearly because:

  • Scripture could otherwise be considered divine but subordinate to Church authority.
  • Scripture might be seen as divine but not decisive in faith and doctrine.
  • The church needed a stable, external authority beyond human power.

Thus, infallibility became the Reformers’ way of protecting the Bible’s role as the final, reliable witness to God’s revelation.

Inerrant

A modern doctrinal development shaped by Enlightenment pressures

Inerrancy claims that:

  • The Bible is without error in all that it affirms.
  • God’s inspiration ensured accuracy in doctrine, ethics, and (for many adherents) history and science.
  • Scripture is the final authority for faith and life.

Historical development

This doctrine emerged not in the early church or the Reformation but in response to modern intellectual pressures, including:

  • Enlightenment rationalism
  • Scientific discoveries (geology, evolution)
  • Historical-critical scholarship questioning traditional authorship

In the 1800s, theologians at Princeton Seminary (especially Charles Hodge, A.A. Hodge, and B.B. Warfield) developed a rigorous defense of biblical authority using the categories of:

  • Enlightenment logic
  • Scottish common-sense philosophy
  • Scientific precision

They argued that the Bible must be factually trustworthy in everything it affirms, not only spiritual matters.

In this view, theology becomes “scientific,” with Scripture functioning as the data for systematic analysis.

Fundamentalist–Modernist Controversy (1910–1930s)

During this battle within American Protestantism, inerrancy hardened into a boundary marker:

  • Those who affirmed inerrancy were considered “orthodox” or “true Christians.”
  • Those who rejected it were labeled “modernist,” “liberal,” or even “not Christian.”

The Chicago Statement (1978)

Finally, the doctrine was codified in the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy, crafted mainly by:

  • Reformed
  • Baptist
  • Conservative evangelical leaders

Key figures who signed or shaped it:

  • J.I. Packer (Anglican/evangelical theologian)
  • R.C. Sproul (Reformed Presbyterian, helped draft text)
  • James Montgomery Boice (Reformed; chairman of ICBI)
  • Norman Geisler (Evangelical theologian; major philosophical defender)
  • John Gerstner (Presbyterian/Reformed theologian)
  • Francis Schaeffer (Evangelical/Reformed apologist)
  • Carl F.H. Henry (Baptist, founder of Christianity Today)
  • Kenneth Kantzer (Evangelical Free Church)
  • Harold Lindsell (Baptist; author of The Battle for the Bible)

It defined the Bible as completely without error in the original manuscripts and functioned as:

  • a unifying affirmational standard for evangelicals
  • a defensive posture against critical scholarship
  • a clear doctrinal identity marker

How These Doctrines Function Today

“Inspired” remains widely accepted.

“Infallible” is held by many traditions (Catholic, Orthodox, Anglican, mainline Protestant, many evangelicals) in the sense that Scripture will not fail in its God-given purpose.

“Inerrant” is embraced primarily in conservative evangelical and fundamentalist communities, often functioning as a doctrinal boundary.

A hard truth

The doctrine of inerrancy has often been used less to deepen devotion and more to draw lines—deciding who is:

  • “in” (a real Christian)
  • “out” (not fully trustworthy or orthodox)

This does not mean all proponents intended division; many believed they were protecting the faith. But historically, the effect has frequently been polarization, not unity.

Refined Conclusion

These terms—especially inerrancy—have become fault lines that divide Christians rather than invite them deeper into the life of Christ.

Neither Jesus nor the apostles demanded philosophical precision about Scripture as a test of discipleship.

The earliest Christians centered on the person of Jesus, not doctrinal systems about the nature of the Bible.

At its best, Scripture functions as:

  • sacred wisdom
  • divine-human testimony
  • a guide into communion with God
  • the narrative of God’s saving work

At its worst:

When doctrinal terms become weapons or identity badges, they stop serving that purpose.