Standing Firm on Truth: Why Biblical Inerrancy Matters in a World of Moral Chaos

Well, good morning again. Let me just begin by thanking all of you for being here this morning. Your presence here is not only appreciated, but it really speaks volumes about your concern for the challenges that we face as Christians in today's world.

I want to thank all of you who took part in just making this thing happen, helped organize this event, from setting up snacks, all the logistics and all those things.

Snacks are important, you know?

Snacks and water. But your willingness to serve has been just greatly appreciated. And I want to extend a word of thanks to Dr. White for agreeing to participate in this. Your voice, brother, is appreciated and deeply valued.

We're thankful that you were willing to participate in this and speak about these matters. Now, before we start, let me begin with something that took place about a year ago. I had the opportunity to meet and speak with Dr. Carl Truman at a conference.

And when I went up to him, I asked him, what do you think is the most important issue facing the church today? And he didn't even hesitate. He said ethics. And so that has just stayed with me. And I've been thinking about that.

And that's why we're here this morning to discuss these things. Because with all that is happening in the culture today, especially right here in the state of Colorado, we see just how urgent that answer is, right?

I mean, we're watching not only society at large, but also some denominations and even churches, churches that claim to hold to the authority of Scripture, just begin to compromise. I think of, obviously, the PCUSA and some of the, like the United Methodist Church, some of those churches have just gone that way in quite some time.

But some churches that have claimed to be sound and some Christians who claim to believe in the authority of Scripture and the inerrancy of Scripture, they're just abandoning these timeless truths and softening their stance in ways that just betray Scripture.

And so that's the question before us, the question before us this morning. If the Bible truly is God's Word, if it is inerrant, if it is sufficient, if it is authoritative, how then shall we live? And how should we think?

How should we respond? And how should we bear witness in this critical moment? And I hope that that's what we get out of this session. That's what I hope to address this session. But before we do that, let's begin with a word of prayer.

Father, thank you so much for your goodness. We come before you this morning with grateful hearts, just thankful for the opportunity to gather and to learn and to stand for truth in a world that desperately needs truth.

Father, we ask that this conference would be used by you not only to equip minds, but also for the stirring of our hearts. May everything that we say this morning bring you glory. We ask that your spirit would guide us into all truth.

And we pray especially for the children, the families that are really affected by this brokenness, the brokenness of our culture and the confusion of this age. Give us hearts of compassion and not merely to contend for truth, but to reflect the love and the wisdom of Christ.

As we do that.

Help us to remember that behind every policy, there are people made in your image, people who need your grace, people who need salvation. Father, I ask you now that as I'm about to speak that I need your help.

May my words be clear, faithful. May I be guided by your word. Keep me from error, grant me boldness, tempered by humility. And let this time be fruitful, not for personal recognition, but that your church would be strengthened through your truth.

Father, I ask that you would equip your people to live with conviction and with kindness in the difficult days ahead. And Father, again, we just entrust this day to you, that you'd be glorified in it.

We pray in the name of Jesus Christ, our Lord, our Savior.

Amen.

So if you can imagine a courtroom where laws just kind of shift by the hour, the judge really has no standard for truth, right? Justice becomes elusive. They're not only elusive, but impossible, right?

And so if we lack a fixed and reliable standard from God, then ethics, biblical ethics, Christian ethics, they dissolve into a matter of personal opinion, right? Or cultural trends. But the Christian faith demands much more, right?

We're called to be holy as God is holy. And we're called to walk in that truth. We see that in 1 Peter 1 .16 and 3 John 4. But that walk requires a foundation. And that foundation is the Word of God, right?

And if it is to guide us, if the Word is to guide us, it must not only be inspired, it must be inerrant. And if it contains error, then it ceases to be trustworthy. Right, it's no longer a trustworthy guide.

If it is not wholly true, then it cannot be wholly authoritative. And so again, my hope is that this message really demonstrates that biblical inerrancy is not a secondary trivial issue, right? It is essential.

It is essential, not only for sound doctrine, but it is essential for faithful living. For the very character of God, the nature of truth, the condition of mankind, and the moral imperatives of scripture, they converge to demand this one thing, that the Bible be entirely true, trustworthy, and free from error.

Because if the foundation is compromised, the structure cannot stand. And so to truly grasp, understand this, and why it's so urgent today, we have to first understand what biblical ethics truly are, and why they demand a foundation that is both unchanging and divinely grounded.

And so biblical ethics are rooted in an unchanging, objective, moral order that flows from the very nature of God. And so the foundation is the inerrant word of God. It's logically necessary if God is truth.

And theologically necessary if, or for the Christian life, and for Christian witness. David Jones explains in his introduction to biblical ethics, that biblical ethics has five distinctives. Number one, God-centeredness, right?

Biblical ethics begin with God, right? Right and wrong are not social constructs, right? They're not culturally constructed. They're not personally defined, right? They're rooted in the nature and the character of a holy and sovereign God.

Number two, revealed morality. So biblical morality is revealed, it's not invented. It is disclosed to us by God in the scriptures. It is not subject to the whims of taste or preference. Number three, authoritative instruction.

So the commands of scripture aren't suggestions. Right, they're imperatives and they're grounded in divine authority. And there's a teleological focus, number four. Biblical ethics are goal-directed.

They aim toward the glory of God. Number five, there's a transformational purpose, right? The goal of biblical ethics is not just behavior modification. It's spiritual transformation through conformity to Christ.

Now I think of those, the God-centered foundation is paramount. It is chief. Because it asserts that moral truth is objective. It is universal. It is anchored in the character of God. And not in the shifting opinions of man.

And so that's why scripture must be inerrant. Because if God is unchanging, his word must also be unchanging. And if his word is to guide us ethically, it must be free from error. And so that brings us to the question, what exactly do we mean when we speak of biblical inerrancy?

Well, the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy was crafted by the International Council on Biblical Inerrancy. It provides the clearest and most comprehensive definitions of the doctrine.

It says,.

I brought this book with me just to show you. It's explaining biblical inerrancy. It's from the International Council on Biblical Inerrancies by R .C. Sproul and Norman Geisler. But if you want to take a look at it at some point, that'd be great.

That's why I brought it. But this statement, the Chicago Statement was not produced in a vacuum. Right, in 1978, this was a while ago, right? Over 300 evangelical leaders got together. J .I. Packer, Francis Schaeffer, Norman Geisler, R .C. Sproul, John MacArthur, and Josh MacDowell, many others.

They all gathered in Chicago to respond to the growing theological liberalism of the day and the skepticism about the Bible's authority. Again, this isn't new. I mean, this was 1978. They met to affirm that Scripture is fully inspired and fully trustworthy and fully authoritative.

There are certain key affirmations of this statement. Inerrancy, it's huge, right? The Bible is without error in all that it affirms, right, including the historical and scientific details. It speaks of inerrancy, that it's divine, or inspiration, that it's divinely inspired, that God superintended the human authors, ensuring that what they wrote was without error.

And, of course, authority. Because Scripture comes from God, it carries divine authority in all matters. And also, the consequences of denial. So denying inerrancy undermines the authority of Scripture.

And it leads to doctrinal erosion in both individual believers and in the church. And so this statement has 19 articles of affirmation and denial, and they each carefully address these challenges as contradictions and the use of literary devices, the nature of language, all of that.

And its influence does continue today, for the most part. It's clear, it's thorough. It provides a really robust defense of the truthfulness of Scripture. That said, there are some modern-day theologians who consider themselves to be doctrinally sound and orthodox, who seek to revisit this document.

They want to revise portions of it. I don't think it's necessary, but I'm just a pastor at some local church, so my opinion doesn't really matter. But inerrancy is not only a doctrine for scholars. It is for all Christians.

It is that important, especially if we seek to live in truth. So, having briefly defined what inerrancy is, let's see what we mean by biblical ethics. Again, back to David Jones in his book. He defines biblical ethics as the study and application of moral principles found in the Bible, which are grounded in the character of God and revealed through his word.

Biblical ethics is theologically based, universally applicable, and ultimately transformative, aiming to conform believers into the image of Christ. It's a great definition. That definition emphasizes a few things, that biblical ethics is not simply about behavior,.

But about being, right?

It's rooted in God's character, right? It's revealed in his word, and it is lived through the power of the Holy Spirit. And for those moral teachings to be authoritative, the scriptures from which they come must be inerrant.

And this brings us to a really sobering point. Like, what happens when this foundation is rejected? Like, what are the cultural, spiritual, and personal consequences of denying the inerrancy of scripture?

And so, we can turn to what's happening right before our eyes here in Colorado. The rejection of biblical inerrancy is not just an abstract theological misstep, right? It is a fundamental fracture in the foundation of truth itself.

So when the church, or people, no longer believe that God's word is wholly true, completely trustworthy, we shouldn't be surprised when society begins to unravel. Truth becomes subjective, and then ethics are fluid.

And moral authority is no longer grounded in something transcendent, something objective. But then, they're shaped by feelings and preferences. And that's what we're watching right now. One of the clearest examples, and alarming examples, is that House Bill 2513 .12.

Right, it's framed as a civil rights issue, right, the protection of a certain group. So that also redefines parental care and moral conviction as potential abuse, right? Disputes over child custody. The bill really empowers people to treat a parent's refusal to affirm a child's claimed gender identity as grounds for legal penalty.

Regardless of the child's age, here are some of the bill's most, I think, troubling implications, right? Disagreeing with a child's self-identification can be treated as a form of abuse. Declining to use preferred pronouns or refusing to pursue medical transition is cause for losing custody.

So if your child wants to mutilate himself, you've gotta let him. And so parents who urge caution or delay or who appeal to biblical convictions are placed under suspicion and presumed guilty of harm.

And this is not the result of compassion run amok. This is a logical outworking of a worldview that's been let loose from God's revelation. It's what happens when expressive individualism is the new orthodoxy.

And Carl Truman, and I brought these books, too. You may be familiar with them. This is The Rise and Triumph of the Modern Self. It's a little bit bigger than The Strange New World. This Strange New World is kind of an abridgment of this, so it's a little easier to read.

I don't think this one's too bad either, but they're great books. They have a lot of information in them. I couldn't put them down. But in these books, he explains how culture, our culture, has redefined identity and authority.

The shift he calls, again, expressive individualism. And he says that we now locate our identity not in God's created design, not in biology, not in moral obligation, but in our feelings. So being true to yourself has replaced being true to your creator.

So authenticity to one's internal sense of self has become the highest moral good. You can see this today. It's celebrated everywhere. And in that framework, denying someone's subjective identity, even a child's, can potentially be considered an act of psychological violence.

And Truman writes, the modern self assumes the authority of the inner feelings and sees authenticity as defined by the ability to give social expression to those inner feelings. But this expressive individualism doesn't just redefine identity.

It erodes the very categories of truth and goodness. Because if the self is sovereign, then no external authority, not even God, can contradict it. And if Scripture is no longer believed to be inerrant, fully true in all that it affirms, then it cannot confront or correct this new religion of self.

It just becomes one voice among many others. It's not the voice of God. And Francis Schaeffer, he anticipated this with, accuracy was so scary. And this was decades ago. I mean, he died in 1984. But he warned that the abandonment of the Bible's authority would lead to what he called a post-truth society.

So it's a culture where people no longer believe in objective truth, only in personal perspectives. He said, if there is no absolute by which to judge society, then society becomes absolute. And that's precisely what we're witnessing.

And in Colorado, and beyond Colorado, this expressive individualism is just enshrined. Not just in cultural norms, but in the civil law. It's no longer just the church's duty to be countercultural. And this, I mean, really, parental rights are at stake.

Actual basic freedoms are at stake. Your thoughts are at stake. And in this, the name of affirmation. We're witnessing the legal redefinition of love as coercion and care of parents as abuse. And that's happening because the foundation has crumbled.

And so this bill is, don't get me wrong, it is misguided policy. But it's not just that, it's a warning. Because it shows us what happens when human emotion replaces reality and divine revelation as the ultimate source of truth.

When scripture is no longer seen as inerrant, the moral authority of the scripture is negotiable. Our biblical convictions become bigotry. Parental wisdom becomes abuse. And the church's witness becomes hate, hate speech.

And so this bill effectively weaponizes the law against those who hold to God's word. And they punish anyone who appeals to scripture and the teaching of scripture that male and female, he created them.

And disagreement turns into harm. And it turns biblical fidelity into civil liability. The Colorado Baptist Convention said this, the provisions, these provisions are nothing short of an attack on human dignity, people of faith, and anyone who questions the ever-changing cultural definitions of sexuality.

Should this bill become law, and it has, it threatens the conscience rights of individuals, the relationship between parents and children, basic free speech rights for all, and will inevitably lead to conflict between church and state.

So make no mistake, this is not simply a political or a legal issue, it's a theological issue. It's a theological crisis, it's about authority. It's about whether we believe what God has truly spoken, or whether his word still governs, and whether his word still governs our lives.

Right, because if scripture's not wholly true, then it cannot be wholly trusted. And if it cannot be trusted, then we're left with nothing but the tyranny of the self or the tyranny of the state. And that's the fruit of rejecting inerrancy.

When God's truth is dismissed, truth becomes a matter of power. And what begins in theological compromise ends in cultural captivity. And what begins in the church as a doctrinal drift will soon become a social disaster.

But it doesn't have to end there. Look, the chaos that's currently happening at this current moment is not proof that God has failed. But that we have forgotten who he is. We have to return to the foundation.

We have to remember that God is not only truthful, he is truth himself. God's very being is the eternal reference point by which all reality, including morality, is measured. Right, he doesn't possess truth as just one of his attributes among the other attributes.

No, he is the very standard of truth, the very standard of goodness, the very standard of righteousness. John 14 .6 and Matthew 5 .48. I mean, his character is immutable. He's unchanging, he is perfect.

And so that all that proceeds from him, his decrees, his actions, his revelation must reflect the same perfection. And this has profound implications for the nature of scripture. Again, if God is wholly true and cannot lie, then his word, when rightly understood, must also be wholly true.

As one apologist put it, God cannot err. The Bible is the word of God, therefore the Bible cannot err. So any accusation that scripture contains error implicitly challenges either God's truthfulness or his power to preserve his word.

And both of those are theologically catastrophic. This metaphysical grounding of biblical inerrancy is not based on pragmatism, it's not based on church tradition or even academic consensus. It is based on the very nature of God.

If truth is grounded in God, then error in his word would mean that God either erred in speaking or has failed in preserving. And either of those undermines his perfection. So the inerrancy of scripture is not a secondary issue.

It is essential to uphold it. Again, Francis Schaeffer, he warned of the consequences of this, rejecting this truth. He said, if we do not accept the Bible as being without error, we stand in judgment of the word rather than being judged by it.

So we would be standing over the word as judges over the word, instead of being under the word. And so when we sever truth from the God who is truth, if we open the door to relativism and to subjectivism and eventually ethical chaos, and I think we can look at the culture right now and say that the door has not only been opened, but it's been ripped off the hinges.

And as Karl Truman said in his Strange New World, the modern self assumes the authority of inner feelings and sees authenticity as defined by the ability to give social expression to those inner feelings.

So this expressive individualism doesn't simply reject God's authority, it redefines it. This moral revolution hasn't happened because people have forgotten how to reason, although certainly that is the case.

I mean, people have forgotten how to reason. People don't know how to reason. But it's happened because they rejected the transcendent source of truth, which is God himself. And these are the consequences of divorcing morality from theology, right?

The creator is ignored, and then the creature is deified, Romans 1. And so, again, inerrancy is not dry academic doctrine. It is a safeguard for moral clarity and the very foundation of ethical certainty.

Now, human beings are made in the image of God. And while being in the image of God and retain a moral sense through reason and conscience, I mean, Romans 2, that conscience is deeply impaired by sin, right?

It can be misinformed, it can be dulled, it can be seared. And unaided human reason is insufficient to provide a consistent and universal and authoritative moral framework. We're left with ambiguity, especially when we need certainty.

And that's where divine revelation enters, right? That's where it comes in. Only in the word of God do we find clear, authoritative, and coherent picture of right and wrong that is grounded in the character of a holy and loving and just God.

And Norman Geisler said, the Bible does not merely contain the word of God, it is the word of God. And it speaks with the authority of its author. But that authority depends on the integrity of the text.

Because again, if scripture is not fully true, then its ethical commands are not binding. They're not trustworthy. You can't obey a word you do not believe. You cannot submit to a standard you suspect to be flawed.

And Carl Truman, he argues that the modern culture has turned this on its head. Right, in a world that's governed by inward feelings rather than transcendent truth, traditional morality, I can't even believe I'm using that, traditional morality is not just outdated, it's viewed as oppressive.

The content of morality has changed, he writes. What was once condemned is now celebrated. What was once celebrated is now condemned. Those who refuse to celebrate are now condemned. You think of Isaiah 50, or Isaiah 5, excuse me, Isaiah 5, verse 20, woe to those who call evil good and good evil.

And so this is not just moral confusion, it's a moral reversal. And it highlights the absolute necessity of special revelation. Natural revelation is sufficient to condemn. Romans 1 .20, but not to save, not to sanctify.

Right, only scripture, which is breathed out by God, is sufficient to teach and reprove and correct and train us in righteousness. It's the lamp for our feet in this dark and disoriented world. Again, to quote Schaeffer, when there are no absolutes by which to judge society, the society becomes absolute.

So when scripture is no longer inerrant, it is no longer authoritative. And when God's word no longer defines morality, the culture will. But the church does not follow the culture's lead. We're not called to echo this moral confusion.

We're called to embody a holy clarity that is rooted in God's word. And we must do that with both conviction and with compassion. There are people, lost people, they need the gospel. Jesus interacted with those living in sin, not with affirming approval, but with redeeming grace.

He spoke hard truths, but He spoke them with love. He embodied a compassion that did not compromise, and we must do that too. Listen, compassion is not compromise. Truth is not cruelty. And biblical love never affirms what God condemns.

It seeks what God commands, repentance, restoration, reconciliation, through Christ. And the inerrancy of scripture is not just a defense of a doctrine, it is the declaration that God has spoken, and that His word, His logos, is still the way, the truth, and life.

And so scripture doesn't simply contain truth, it is truth, right? It is the word of God. God is truth. His word is truth. Jesus, in His high priestly prayer, He prayed to the Father. He said, your word is truth, John 17, 17.

The Apostle Paul, he affirmed that all scripture is breathed out by God, 2 Timothy 3 .16. And the psalmist proclaimed that it is righteous altogether, Psalm 19, verse nine. So in other words, the Bible claims not only to communicate truth, but to do so infallibly without distortion, without contradiction, and without error.

And here lies a critical point. These benefits, right, the moral guidance and spiritual authority, ethical clarity, they're only valid if the Bible is completely trustworthy. Even if a portion of scripture is in error, then the foundation of the ethical demands crumble.

And again, if the Bible's the word of God and God cannot err, then the Bible cannot err. And that's not just some philosophical slide of hand there. It's necessary, it's a necessary conclusion that's grounded in the character of God.

And the moral authority of scripture depends on inerrancy. To put it this way, fallible scripture cannot yield infallible moral truth. And so this view of ethics, the biblical view of ethics is not a matter of the changing culture.

It's not based on personal feelings. It's based on the divine command rooted in the unchanging character of God. And again, Truman, he observes how this rise of this expressive individualism has led to a reversal in the culture.

And what was once considered sin is now celebrated as virtue. What was once noble is now suspect. And so this is really the expected result. Of a culture that has just abandoned objective external authority, especially biblical authority.

And Francis Schaeffer, he warned that when truth is no longer grounded in the God who is there, then ethics becomes unmoored. And morality devolves into preference. But if there is no absolute moral law, he wrote, then there is no real right and wrong.

We're merely left with conflicting opinions. So inerrancy is the only safeguard against ethical chaos. So in a culture that's defined by moral subjectivism and expressive selfhood, the inerrancy of scripture is, it is a theological necessity.

And it is a moral lifeline. But this isn't, this is just not just theoretical, not just theological. I think in every age, including ours, I think history bears witness to the ethical consequences of rejecting biblical inerrancy and the ethical transformation that flows from it.

And we've seen throughout church history the unwavering commitment to the authority and inerrancy of the scripture and how that has been the bedrock from which vibrant and transformative ethics have flowed.

And from the early reformers to modern evangelical leaders, this conviction has shaped not just individual holiness, but whole societies. I think of Martin Luther and John Calvin, right, they were pillars of the Reformation.

And they fought zealously to restore the Bible to its rightful place, right, as the sole infallible authority for faith and practice. Luther, right, that just shall live by faith, that was rooted in his trust in the scripture's faithfulness and truthfulness.

And Calvin, he insisted that the Bible was the eye of the soul, that it revealed God's law with clarity and precision. And both of these men rejected the idea that human traditions or that the church tradition and church authorities could revise and override the teaching of scripture.

And so their conviction about this biblical inerrancy and authority gave birth to ethical frameworks that rejected this arbitrary power and emphasized personal responsibility before God. And Francis Schaeffer and the moral crisis of modernity in the 20th century, I mean, he confronted this rising tide of moral relativism and skepticism, right, he described the cultural collapse into meaninglessness when the Bible's authority is denied.

He said, you cannot have a philosophy of which will allow you to say both that the Bible is God's word and that it contains error. So for him, for Schaeffer, biblical inerrancy was the foundation for all truth claims, including ethics.

And he warned that without a firm grounding in the inerrant word of God, society would inevitably fracture into conflicting opinions and into moral chaos. And Schaeffer's ministry was marked by this, compassionate urgency to call the people back to scripture.

And so many other apologists throughout 20th century, even to today, they emphasize this inseparability of biblical inerrancy and moral authority. I mean, I can think of, I think it was 2015 when the case went before the Supreme Court.

They warned of a slippery slope and people thought they were ridiculous. But here we are. But they've argued that the Bible's divine inspiration and that inerrancy provide this adequate foundation for objective morality.

Without inerrancy, Christian ethics become human opinion. And it's no better than any other worldview. It's just preference. It's just your opinion. It's kind of like, I like vanilla ice cream. Do you like chocolate ice cream?

It's just an opinion. And so the apologists that have gone before us, their defense of scripture as inerrant, as infallible, have laid the groundwork for Christians to engage culture with confidence, knowing that our moral convictions, they don't rest on the shifting sands of man's opinion.

They rest on the eternal truth of God's work. And so their work have underscored that apologetics is not merely about defending doctrine. It is that. But it is about defending the very basis for moral order.

And more recently, Carl Truman, and he speaks of this cultural shift. I mean, he's chronicled the consequences of departing from biblical authority in this work. And he highlights, again, the rise of this expressive individualism, right?

The idea that moral truth is subjective, that it's grounded on personal feelings and not on external reality. He says the shift is not merely cultural, but spiritual. When you reject the authority of God's word, he says, you must find your own foundation.

And he warns that the result is a moral fragmentation and the loss of shared ethical standards. So he challenges Christians to hold fast, to hold fast to the truth, hold fast to the inerrancy of Scripture as the only antidote to the confusion, to the despair that is happening, this moral relativism, right?

He calls the church to be a faithful witness to God's unchanging truth. And in today's landscape, laws like 1312 here, they threaten to redefine parental rights, moral categories, and the church's witness to the authority of Scripture becomes even more crucial.

The leaders and pastors of the evangelical church here in Colorado have come up with this fight, 1312, and they've spoken against these legislations. I mean, they've cited biblical basis for human dignity and parental responsibility that's rooted in the design of God.

And their voices, they highlight, they exemplify just how inerrancy is not just an abstract doctrine, but it's a practical foundation for ethical engagement in society. So when Scripture is held as inerrant, Christians have a clear and unchanging moral compass that guides our response to the shifting tides of culture.

So having seen this moral chaos, and how it results when Scripture is denied and the ethical transformation that happens when that's embraced, I wanna look at a personal application, right? What does inerrancy mean for the believer's life?

Again, Christian ethics is not ultimately about conforming to a set of rules, abstract rules, or it's about being conformed to the image of Christ. All right, Romans 8, 29. And that transformation requires a sure, unwavering divine standard, and the inerrancy of Scripture guarantees that standard.

The Word of God doesn't come to us as advice to be evaluated, but as authority to be obeyed. It does not give us moral suggestions. It gives us divine commands. The Bible's not true because it works. It works because it's true.

To walk in righteousness, to walk in love, to do justice and to glorify God, we must begin with this foundational conviction, right, that the Bible is wholly trustworthy. Partial trust in Scripture is no trust at all.

Once we start to treat any part of it as historically limited or culturally conditioned or even morally outdated, we place ourselves above the text as the judge of the text, rather than placing ourself under the text as disciples.

Schaeffer, again, either this book is absolute in its authority or we are adrift in relativism. There is no third option. So this is why biblical inerrancy is not just an academic exercise. It's not just an academic concern.

It's an urgent call to return to the sure foundation of truth that is found in God's Word, the ethical demands of the Christian life are high, but they are high because they're rooted in the holiness of God.

But how can sinful, confused and finite people ever know what such holiness requires? Answer, the only sure foundation, the only sure word from God, a word that is not only inspired but inerrant. The Bible is that word.

It's not just true in parts or when it speaks on religious issues. It is wholly true. It is breathed out by God. It is righteous altogether. It is eternally enduring. And this is why we build our ethics and our ministries and our lives upon it.

So to deny inerrancy is to solve the very branch we're sitting on. And to affirm it is to build our lives upon the rock, the foundation that will never shift, will never rot and will never fail. Psalm 119 verse 160 says, the sum of your word is truth and every one of your righteous rules endures forever.

Thank you.