I’ve argued that inerrancy is not necessary to adhere to. One can still have a high view of the Bible and consider it authoritative and not be an inerrantist.
I’ll even go further. I believe it is a divisive and potentially damaging doctrine.
Even though it’s not a necessary belief, well respected people have been attacked and even labeled a heretic for not adhering to inerrancy.
Dr Mike Licona has been attacked just for suggesting something might not be literal and was led to leave his position in the SBC.
2010, Dr. Mike Licona, an evangelical professor, wrote a book titled The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach. In this book, he suggested that the account of the resurrected saints walking through the city might be “apocalyptic imagery� (Mat. 27:51-53). In other words, he suggested that the events did not actually happen, but that it was lore or legend. Subsequently, Licona resigned from his position with the Southern Baptists and at Southern Evangelical Seminary.
https://defendinginerrancy.com/why-is-i … important/
The theological bullying, the termination of a few professors in SBC seminaries (and intimidation of others) for expressing their opinion that the interpretation of Matthew’s raised saints I had proposed in my book was not incompatible with the doctrine of biblical inerrancy, the deliberate misrepresentation of my words, and the working behind the scenes of some leaders to marginalize me — all this revealed the underbelly of fundamentalism.
https://thebestschools.org/special/ehrm … interview/
Peter Enns was suspended from Westminster Theological Seminary for not taking a hardline position on inerrancy.
Enns claims that Scripture is inspired and inerrant, however the way he describes Scripture seems to counter that belief.
https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blog … ntroversy/
Charles Augustus Briggs at Union Theological Seminary was tried for heresy because of the issue of inerrancy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heresy_in … tes,_1893)
But even worse of all, the doctrine of inerrancy can lead to apostasy.
Bart Ehrman’s own evangelical faith was undermined, initially at least he claims, by his abandonment of the belief in inerrancy.
https://www.reasonablefaith.org/media/r … inerrancy/
If one has a strict adherence to Biblical inerrancy and it is a foundational belief, it is just a few steps away from leaving the faith. With just a cursory knowledge of the Bible, one realizes there are errors in the Bible. Even if one can explain most of them, if one is found that cannot be explained, then inerrancy goes out the window.
However, the problem is not the Bible, but the term inerrancy itself. It is a meaningless term. Fighting over a meaningless term is fruitless and unnecessary. Basing one’s Christian worldview on inerrancy is building on a faulty foundation.
So, the term inerrancy should be discarded.
https://debatingchristianity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=986074#p986074