What’s your position on inerrancy?

To be fair, I could write 500 posts here answering “what’s your position on…,” but here’s why inerrancy is near and dear to my heart: because we need to be able to defend the validity of the Bible as a set of historical documents as part of the broader argument. It’s where we learn about Jesus, and if we get Jesus wrong, we’ve got a problem (called making up your own Jesus and gospel, Galatians 1:6).

When doing my MA in Apologetics, we spent a year on just the topic of the Bible, textual criticism, inspiration/inerrancy/infallibility/authority/perspicuity, etc. I’m blessed that Talbot School of Theology (Biola University) takes this seriously.

To shorten this post, just know that I align, without reservation, the entirety of the Chicago Statement on Inerrancy in all it’s affirmations and denials. I appreciate in particular that the broader text includes argumentation for the contextual setting and hermeneutical approach.