Have you ever wondered whether the Bible can really be trusted? It's a question that deserves serious consideration. I'd like to walk you through a philosophical argument for biblical inerrancy—the view that Scripture is without error in what it affirms—that maintains logical rigor while acknowledging the Bible's historical context. I developed this argument with helpful feedback from friends on Facebook and followers on X.

A Breakdown of the Logical Argument

Foundation: God's Perfect Nature

Premise 1: Divine Omniscience and Veracity
God possesses perfect knowledge (omniscience) and perfect truthfulness (veracity). As a perfect being, God neither errs in His understanding nor communicates falsehoods.

Why accept this? This isn't just religious sentiment—it reflects the classical understanding of God as a maximally perfect being. Divine omniscience means God knows all true propositions, while divine veracity follows from moral perfection—a perfect being wouldn't intend to deceive. This aligns with traditional theological thinking from Augustine to Aquinas.

Premise 2: Truth in Divine Communication
If God communicates to reveal truth, His communication will be free from error in what He intends to affirm or teach.

This follows directly from Premise 1. If God knows everything perfectly and is perfectly truthful, then when He chooses to reveal truth, what He intends to communicate must be error-free. Otherwise, we'd have a contradiction between God's nature and God's actions.

Premise 3: Scripture as Purposeful Divine Communication
Scripture constitutes God's inspired communication, intended to convey theological, moral, and soteriological (salvation-related) truths, along with historical facts necessary to these purposes—not to provide exhaustive scientific or historical information beyond these purposes.

This premise recognizes Scripture's divine origin while specifying its scope. The Bible has specific communicative purposes related to salvation history and moral guidance, not functioning as a comprehensive encyclopedia of all knowledge. This acknowledges both the divine source and the specific intent behind Scripture.

Premise 4: Divine Sovereignty and Preservation
God, being omnipotent, is capable of preserving the integrity of His intended communication despite the involvement of human authors.

This follows from divine omnipotence—God possesses the power to accomplish all logically possible ends. If God intends to communicate truth through human agents, He can ensure these agents don't distort His intended message, even while writing from their particular historical and cultural contexts.

The Logical Derivation

5. Scripture as Divine Communication
Scripture constitutes God's communication intended to reveal truth.

This statement follows directly from Premise 3, extracting the core claim about Scripture's status as divine communication.

6. Inerrancy of Divine Teaching in Scripture
Scripture is free from error in what God intends to teach or affirm through it.

This follows by modus ponens from statements 2 and 5:

• If God communicates to reveal truth, His communication will be free from error in what He intends to affirm (2).
• Scripture constitutes God's communication intended to reveal truth (5).
• Therefore, Scripture is free from error in what God intends to affirm (6).

7. Preservation of Divine Teaching
What God intends to teach through Scripture is preserved despite human authorship.

This follows from Premise 4. Given divine omnipotence and the intention to communicate through human authors, God can ensure that His intended teaching remains intact despite the human element in the composition process.

8. Conclusion: Qualified Inerrancy
Therefore, Scripture is inerrant in the theological, moral, soteriological, and necessary historical truths God intends to affirm, but not necessarily in incidental scientific or historical details beyond these purposes.

This conclusion brings together statements 3, 6, and 7:

• Scripture is free from error in what God intends to affirm (6).
• What God intends to teach is preserved despite human authorship (7).
• God intends to teach theological, moral, and salvation-related truths, along with necessary historical facts—not to provide exhaustive scientific or historical information (3).
• Therefore, Scripture is inerrant in the theological, moral, soteriological, and necessary historical truths God intends to affirm, but not necessarily in incidental details beyond these purposes (8).

The Complete Argument

Here's the full argument 

1. God is all-knowing and perfectly truthful. [Premise]
2. If God communicates to reveal truth, His communication is free from error in what He intends to teach. [From 1, by definition of perfect truthfulness]
3. Scripture is God's inspired communication to reveal truth, intended by God to teach theological, moral, and historical truths, not modern scientific truths or exhaustive historical details. [Premise]
4. God is all-powerful and intends to preserve what He teaches through Scripture's human authors. [Premise]
5. Scripture is God's communication to reveal truth. [From 3, by definition of inspiration]
6. Scripture is free from error in what God intends to teach. [From 2, 5, by Modus Ponens]
7. What God teaches through Scripture is preserved despite human involvement. [From 4, by Modus Ponens]
8. Therefore, Scripture is inerrant in the theological, moral, and historical truths God intends to teach, not in modern scientific truths or exhaustive historical details. [From 3, 6, 7, by Conjunction and scope limitation]

What This Means for Bible Readers

When we understand biblical inerrancy this way, we gain several valuable insights:

1. The Bible is completely trustworthy in matters essential to its purpose—teaching us about God, salvation, and how we should live.

2. Human authorship doesn't compromise divine truth. God works through human writers—with all their personality, literary style, and cultural background—while ensuring His message remains intact.

3. We can distinguish between the Bible's primary teaching and incidental features related to its historical context. When Joshua describes the sun standing still, the theological point about God's power remains true even if the description uses ancient phenomenological language.

4. We can read Scripture with intellectual honesty, recognizing various literary genres and accommodations to human understanding without compromising its authority.

5. We avoid unnecessary conflicts with established knowledge in other fields by recognizing the Bible's purpose isn't to provide modern scientific explanations.

Addressing Common Questions

You might be wondering:

"Isn't this circular reasoning? You're assuming what you're trying to prove."

Not at all. The argument begins with God's attributes, not Scripture's reliability. It establishes a logical connection between these attributes and the nature of divine communication. The argument proceeds deductively, not circularly.

"How can we tell what God intends to affirm versus what's incidental?"

This requires careful interpretation considering literary genre, historical context, and the Bible's overall theological framework. When Psalm 93:1 speaks of the world as "established, firm and secure," it's making a theological point about God's sovereignty, not a scientific claim about planetary motion.

"Doesn't this ignore how historically conditioned the Bible is?"

On the contrary, it acknowledges that reality. Premise 3 recognizes that God's revelation occurs within history, utilizing human language and cultural forms. Divine inspiration doesn't override human authorship. It works through it while preserving the integrity of the intended message.

Finding a Balanced Perspective

This approach to biblical inerrancy navigates between two problematic extremes: an uncritical literalism that ignores the Bible's human and historical dimensions, and a skepticism that undermines its divine authority.

The conclusion—that Scripture is inerrant in what God intends to teach—provides a solid foundation for trusting the Bible while allowing for thoughtful engagement with its text. It maintains rigorous logical consistency while acknowledging the complexity of divine revelation through human authors.

Responding to Key Objections About Biblical Inerrancy

On Divine Inspiration and Human Authorship

Objection: I don't think we should necessarily expect inerrant text, especially if it's primarily written by human authors ... couldn't it equally be argued that scripture might not be inerrant based on the human authors' imperfection? A perfectly good God wouldn't override their freedom. He also wouldn't override freedom and erase the trial and error needed for soul-building.

Response: This objection raises an important question about the tension between divine inspiration and human authorship. My argument doesn't claim God "overrides" human freedom. Instead, I propose a more nuanced relationship where God works through human freedom rather than against it.

Divine inspiration isn't best understood as divine dictation or control, but as a superintending influence that preserves the intended teaching while respecting the human author's personality, vocabulary, and style. Think of it like a master violinist playing through an instrument. The music is truly the violinist's, even while the unique qualities of the instrument shape the sound.

God could ensure truthfulness in what He intends to teach without violating human freedom through several means:

• Selecting authors whose character, knowledge, and perspective already align with His purposes
• Providentially arranging their life experiences and education to prepare them
• Illuminating their understanding without forcing their writing

The objection presents a false dichotomy between "God overriding freedom" and "errors in Scripture." There's a middle ground where God's sovereignty works through human freedom without compromising either. The doctrine of concurrence—where both divine and human agency operate simultaneously without contradiction—resolves this tension.

As for "soul-making," I'd suggest that God's truth coming through Scripture doesn't eliminate human growth. After all, we still must interpret, apply, and live out these truths in our contexts. The presence of divine truth in Scripture provides a foundation for soul-making rather than hindering it.

On "What It Intends to Affirm"

Objection: You can drive an interpretive truck through the hole of 'what it intends to affirm' means. So I'm not sure how the argument really helps much.

Response: This concern about the phrase "what it intends to affirm" is valid. It does introduce interpretive flexibility. However, this isn't a weakness but a necessary recognition of how communication works.

The scope limitation isn't a convenient escape hatch but a recognition of the Bible's purpose and genre. All communication, especially complex texts spanning different genres, must be interpreted according to intent. When Shakespeare writes "all the world's a stage," we don't accuse him of geographical error—we recognize his metaphorical intent.

While determining intent requires careful interpretation, we have disciplined methods for this process:

1. Literary context: What surrounds the passage helps determine its purpose
2. Historical-cultural context: Understanding the author's world illuminates intent
3. Genre recognition: Poetry, narrative, and law have different conventions
4. Canonical context: Scripture interprets Scripture
5. Central themes: The Bible's major themes help clarify ambiguous passages

Far from making inerrancy meaningless, the qualification about "what God intends to teach" grounds inerrancy in the Bible's actual purpose rather than imposing modern expectations on ancient texts. This approach allows us to take the Bible seriously on its own terms.

The alternative would be claiming either that everything in Scripture is absolutely literal (which creates unnecessary contradictions) or that any apparent difficulty nullifies its trustworthiness (which is an unrealistic standard for any ancient text).

On Perfect Transmission to Human Authors

Objection: Perfect transmission of a message to a human author, as opposed to an automaton, in no way guarantees perfect decoding and transcription of that message.

Response: This objection highlights an important point in the communication process. Even a perfect message can be misunderstood or mistranscribed by its recipient. However, the argument for inerrancy doesn't rest on human reliability alone but on God's ability and commitment to preserve His intended teaching.

Premise 4 in my argument directly addresses this: "God is all-powerful and intends to preserve what He teaches through Scripture's human authors." The emphasis here is on God's agency in the preservation process, not merely on human capability.

If God is truly omnipotent and intends for His message to be accurately conveyed, we can reasonably conclude He would ensure that outcome through the entire process—not just transmission but also comprehension and transcription. This doesn't require turning humans into "automatons," but it does recognize divine guidance throughout the communication chain.

To use an analogy: If I'm a master teacher working with students to produce a textbook, and I have both the ability and commitment to ensure accuracy, I might allow students to write in their own words while carefully guiding them away from errors in the core content. Their personality and style remain, but the essential teaching is preserved. God's capability far exceeds any human teacher's, making this preservation even more plausible.

The Bible itself testifies to this process: "For prophecy never had its origin in the human will, but prophets, though human, spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit" (2 Peter 1:21). This "carrying along" suggests divine guidance without human automation.

On Scientific Precision and Scripture's Purpose

Objection: How do you define "scientific precision" in this context? What doesn't count as "scientific precision"?

Response: When I distinguish between Scripture's intended teachings and "scientific precision," I'm acknowledging that the Bible wasn't written primarily to provide technical scientific information using modern terminology and conceptual frameworks.

By "scientific precision," I mean:

• Detailed explanations of natural phenomena using technical terminology
• Mathematical formulations of physical laws
• Descriptions that align with modern scientific categories and classifications
• Measurements using modern units and standards
• Comprehensive explanations of natural processes from a scientific perspective

The Bible often uses phenomenological language (describing things as they appear) rather than technical language. This isn't "error." It's effective communication for its purpose and audience. When Scripture says the sun "rises" or "sets," it's using the same language we still use today, even knowing the earth rotates around the sun.

Examples of what wouldn't count as scientific precision in Scripture:

• Genesis's account of creation focuses on theological truths (who created and why) rather than scientific mechanism (precisely how and over what timeline)
• References to the "four corners of the earth" (Isaiah 11:12) use figurative language to denote the whole world
• Descriptions of "the firmament" reflect ancient cosmological understanding while teaching theological truth about God's creative activity

This distinction doesn't diminish Scripture's authority but recognizes its primary purpose. When we read that Jesus healed someone with a "seizure disorder" (Matthew 17:15), the text doesn't use modern neurological terminology, but the essential truth—Jesus healed the person—remains intact.

The Bible teaches with perfect accuracy what it intends to teach, but its intent wasn't to anticipate modern scientific categories or terminology. This approach respects both the Bible's divine inspiration and its human context.

On Divine Inspiration and Other Religious Texts

Objection: What makes the Bible unique if inspiration is so human-flavored? Other religious texts claim divine origin too. Why trust this one's errors are "incidental" but not theirs?

Response: This is a profound question that gets to the heart of comparative religious epistemology. While my argument establishes the internal coherence of biblical inerrancy if the premises are accepted, it doesn't by itself demonstrate why we should consider the Bible uniquely inspired among religious texts. That would require additional arguments beyond the scope of my original case.

However, I can offer some thoughtful considerations:

First, the claim of biblical inerrancy doesn't rest merely on the Bible's self-attestation. Christians point to multiple converging lines of evidence for its divine inspiration:

1. Historical reliability: Archaeological and historical research has repeatedly confirmed biblical accounts, lending credibility to its historical claims.

2. Prophetic fulfillment: Specific predictions, especially regarding the Messiah, made centuries before their fulfillment.

3. Internal coherence: Despite being written across 1,500+ years by 40+ authors from diverse backgrounds, the Bible displays remarkable thematic unity.

4. Transformative impact: The Bible's teaching has demonstrated unique power to transform individuals and societies throughout history.

5. The resurrection: Christians argue that Jesus' resurrection, if historical, validates His claims and teachings, including His view of Scripture as divinely authoritative.

While other religious texts may claim divine origin, Christians argue that the Bible's evidence for divine inspiration is uniquely compelling. This doesn't necessarily invalidate all other religious insights, but it does suggest unique divine authority.

Regarding errors being "incidental" in the Bible but not in other texts, the distinction isn't arbitrary. The question becomes: Does the coherent theological worldview presented in a text align with what we can know about reality through other means (historical investigation, philosophical reasoning, human experience)? Christians argue that biblical teaching, when properly understood, demonstrates this alignment in ways other texts don't.

This doesn't mean dismissing other religious texts without consideration. Respectful comparative study is valuable. But it does suggest reasonable grounds for considering the Bible uniquely authoritative while engaging thoughtfully with other traditions.

On Viewing Revelation in a Different Light

Objection: If God's goal is communion, why use a book at all—especially one so human it risks confusion? Couldn't a less wordy, more direct revelation (visions, nature) do the job without the baggage of ancient texts?

Response: This objection asks a profound question: why would God choose written texts as His primary revelatory medium rather than more direct means? Several considerations help address this concern:

1. Communal accessibility: A written text provides democratic access to revelation across time and space. Unlike private visions or intuitions that remain individual, texts can be shared, studied, and discussed communally. This fosters both individual and communal relationship with God.

2. Historical anchoring: By grounding revelation in specific historical contexts through texts, God connects divine truth to human history rather than presenting it as abstract principles. This incarnational approach (truth embodied in particular times and places) reflects how God works—through history, not apart from it.

3. Interpretive engagement: The need to interpret texts actually serves divine purposes by fostering deeper engagement with God's truth. When we wrestle with Scripture, we're not merely passive recipients but active participants in understanding. This intellectual and spiritual engagement deepens our relationship with God.

4. Protection from subjectivity: While direct personal revelation might seem preferable, it creates greater vulnerability to self-deception, cultural biases, and psychological projection. A stable text provides a corrective standard against which to evaluate claimed personal revelations.

5. Human mediation: God's choice to speak through human authors with their distinct personalities and contexts demonstrates His valuing of human participation in the revelatory process. God dignifies humanity by speaking through us, not just to us.

Rather than seeing the Bible's human quality as a liability, we can view it as a feature that reflects God's respect for human agency and His desire to engage us in the interpretive process. The Bible's "messy humanity" isn't a flaw but a reflection of God's willingness to enter our messy world while preserving the truths essential for relationship with Him.

This view doesn't deny other forms of revelation (nature, conscience, direct spiritual experience), but it recognizes the special value of textual revelation that engages our minds, respects our freedom, and fosters both personal and communal relationships with God.

Ambiguity Regarding the Source of Scriptural Intent

Objection: What's the origin of Scripture’s intended teaching? It's unclear whether this intent derives from divine purpose, the objectives of human authors, or another factor. The involvement of human writers introduces potential ambiguity, as their perspectives might overshadow or distort the intended message.

Response: I maintain that the intent is unequivocally God’s, as articulated in Step 3, which identifies Scripture as "God’s inspired communication" aimed at conveying theological, moral, and historical truths. This premise positions God as the primary authority and source, not the human authors. Step 1 establishes God’s omniscience and perfect veracity, ensuring His intentions are without flaw, while Step 4 underscores His omnipotence and commitment to preserving His message through human agency. Thus, the divine intent governs what Scripture teaches.

The human authors, while integral to the process, do not independently dictate its content. Their contributions in linguistic style, cultural context, and rhetorical choices (Step 7’s ‘despite human involvement’) serve as vehicles for God’s communication. For instance, in Romans 3, Paul’s spelling out of 'grace' reflects his context, yet the argument holds that God ensures the theological truth of salvation remains His intended teaching. Neither the text itself, which lacks agency, nor subsequent interpretations, which are derivative, can supplant God’s original intent. Step 8 reinforces this: inerrancy applies solely to the truths God purposes, excluding extraneous human musings.

Perceived Dilution of Inerrancy’s Scope

Follow Up Objection: This conception of inerrancy is relatively weak. Its restricted focus on God’s intended truths allows for the inclusion of errors or unconventional teachings within Scripture. Such a narrow scope might allow for passages that misrepresent divine attributes, provided they align with an alternative divine purpose, thus undermining the traditional robustness associated with inerrancy.

Response: This objection highlights a tension between scope and strength. Step 3 identifies Scripture’s purpose as teaching "theological, moral, and historical truths" These are substantive positive claims concerning God’s nature, ethical directives, and pivotal events. This focus eliminates the idea that God’s intent includes highlighting human misrepresentation as a teaching objective. Step 1’s depiction of God as perfectly truthful doesn't allow for the inspiration of falsehoods for illustrative purposes, as such an act would got against His nature. And, Step 4’s affirmation of divine omnipotence ensures that God’s intended truths are preserved, untainted by human fallibility.

So, this view doesn't dilute inerrancy. The specificity enhances its plausibility. Unlike broader formulations susceptible to empirical or historical disproof, this argument confines inerrancy to places where God’s purpose is manifest, such as the unity of God or the resurrection, maintaining integrity without overextension. The exclusion of tangential matters (e.g., scientific or exhaustive historical details) shores up its coherence, ensuring reliability in the truths God communicates.

Questionable Transition from Divine Perfection to Scriptural Inerrancy

Objection: Deriving the inerrancy of Scripture from God’s perfection involves an unjustified inference, resting on an unarticulated assumption: that the Bible is reliably inspired by God. There are textual inconsistencies, such as 2 Samuel 24:1-2 attributing David’s census to divine prompting, contrasted with 1 Chronicles 21:1-2 assigning it to Satan, that are evidence of flawed transmission or inspiration, undermining claims of error-free content. Further, the notion of "what God intends to teach" lacks sufficient precision. This potentially allows for subjective interpretations that make the argument a retrospective rationalization rather than a coherent logical construct.

Response:  My claim of Scripture as "God’s inspired communication" (Step 3) is not an arbitrary assumption but a premise informed by theological tradition (2 Timothy 3:16). And it's substantiated by Steps 1 and 4. God’s omniscience and perfect truthfulness (Step 1) establish the integrity of His communicative intent, while His omnipotence (Step 4) ensures its faithful preservation. This provides a link between divine perfection and scriptural reliability.

Apparent discrepancies, such as the divergent accounts of David’s census, do not undermine this. Step 8 confines inerrancy to "theological, moral, and historical truths God intends to teach." This excludes incidental narrative variations. The intended truth, such as divine sovereignty or moral accountability, remains intact. Differences can be attributed to human expression (Step 7’s "despite human involvement"), which are overshadowed by God’s overarching purpose.

The charge of vagueness in defining God’s intent is hedged against by Step 3’s specific domains: theological, moral, and historical truths. These categories, which are manifest in recurring scriptural emphases like monotheism, ethical imperatives, or redemptive history, are grounded in the text’s consistent witness, which is upheld by God’s nature and power (Steps 1 and 4). So, the argument sustains logical coherence, offering a focused and defensible conception of inerrancy.

How My View Compares to Other Views

My argument for biblical inerrancy offers a middle path between several prominent positions. Here's how it relates to other views:

Strict Inerrancy (Chicago Statement)

Their View: Every detail in Scripture—historical, scientific, geographical—is without error in the original manuscripts. The Bible speaks with factual precision on all topics it addresses.

My Approach: While I affirm Scripture's complete trustworthiness, I recognize its purpose isn't to provide modern scientific or exhaustive historical information. My position allows phenomenological language (like "sunrise") and acknowledges genre differences without labeling these as "errors."

Limited Inerrancy

Their View: The Bible is inerrant only in matters of faith and practice, but may contain errors in historical, geographical, or scientific statements.

My Approach: I take a more robust view than limited inerrancy, arguing that historical affirmations intended by God to ground theological truths are also error-free. The limitation isn't on what areas might contain errors, but on recognizing what Scripture actually intends to affirm.

Biblical Infallibility

Their View: Scripture unfailingly accomplishes its purpose of bringing people to salvation and guiding faith, but may contain historical or factual errors that don't affect this purpose.

My Approach: My view is closer to infallibility in recognizing Scripture's purpose-driven nature, but offers a stronger claim—that Scripture is not just effective for its purpose but actually error-free in what it intends to teach, including key historical claims.

Neo-orthodox View

Their View: Scripture contains God's Word but is not God's Word in itself. It becomes God's Word in the moment of personal encounter, but the text itself may contain errors.

My Approach: I maintain Scripture is God's Word, not just a witness to it, with God ensuring the preservation of His intended teaching through human authors despite their limitations.

Dictation Theory

Their View: God dictated the Bible word-for-word, with human authors serving merely as scribes.

My Approach: I explicitly reject this view, emphasizing that God worked through human personalities, cultures, and literary styles while ensuring His intended teaching remained intact. The human element is real and valued, not bypassed.

My position could be called "purposeful inerrancy"—recognizing that Scripture is completely error-free in fulfilling its divine purpose, while acknowledging it never claimed to be a modern scientific or comprehensive historical textbook. This approach honors both divine inspiration and human authorship, taking the Bible seriously on its own terms.