[The Errors of Inerrancy: A ten-part series on why Biblical Inerrancy censors the Scriptures and divides Evangelicals.]
10. Inerrancy only exists to divide the Church
Biblical Inerrancy is a divisive system of affirmations and denials, and its proponents led us to believe that all true Christians affirm it, and only false Christians deny it. Proponents describe Biblical Inerrancy as a line in the sand, that separates true Christians from false teachers, and if any true Christian were to deny it, then they are on the road to perdition. Biblical Inerrancy is a second order doctrine (adiaphora), but proponents elevate it to be a religious test for orthodoxy (shibboleth). Public and private disputes over theological and biblical ideas are good and necessary, because of the truth! Biblical Inerrancy ceases to be a dispute, and becomes divisive when it accuses its opponents of denying the Christian faith! (After all, the "accuser of the brethren" isn't a Christian calling.) The tenth Error of Inerrancy is that it divides evangelicals.
Divisive Inerrancy Quotes
In this blog post, I will provide a sample of divisive comments from proponents of Biblical Inerrancy. I've chosen a sample from printed theology books, because they tend to be more carefully stated, but a quick search on twitter or the blogosphere will return much more divisive statements. In other words, I've tried to choose the most credible printed statements, rather than quotes from the dregs. I picked these four quotations from authors who have spoken at recent inerrancy summits.
"a commitment to a high view of Scripture is of paramount importance. . . .those who deny its veracity do so at their peril. . . . No church, institution, or movement can rightly claim to honor God if it does not simultaneously honor his Word. . . . To deny the veracity of the Bible's claims is to call God a liar. To reject the inerrancy of Scripture is to offend the Spirit of truth who inspired it." 
R. Albert Mohler:
"What Peter Enns proposes is the death of evangelicalism by changing its DNA in order to excise inerrancy." 
"I look at the same intellectual context and see inerrancy, in contrast, as ever more necessary to both evangelical faith and practice. I am quite certain that without inerrancy evangelicalism will cease to be evangelical in any real sense. For, at the end of the day, inerrancy is the single issue that truly distinguishes evangelicalism from liberal Protestantism." 
"Defending the doctrine of inerrancy may seem like a fool's errand to some and a divisive shibboleth to others, but, in truth, the doctrine is at the heart of our faith. To deny, disregard, edit, alter, reject, or rule out anything in God's word is to commit the sin of unbelief. "Let God be true though every one were a liar" must be our rallying cry (Rom 3:4)." 
"It was this same desire to stand against the persistent questioning of the Bible’s integrity that brought together more than 250 evangelical leaders in Chicago, Illinois, in October 1978. That summit meeting, convened by the International Council on Biblical Inerrancy, sought to draw a line in the sand, affirming the historic Protestant position on the Scriptures. The result was the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy." 
The divisive nature of Biblical Inerrancy is also exhibited by the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy (CSBI), which originated at an inerrancy summit in the 1970's during the "Battle for the Bible". CSBI is the first and only wide spread statement adopted by evangelicals on Biblical Inerrancy, and each article in it is composed with "WE AFFIRM" and "WE DENY" statements, demonstrating that each article is divisive in nature—it is affirming by denying--and is much different than the "WE BELIEVE" of the ancient Church creeds. The Chicago Statement was signed by hundreds of evangelicals, to give the document binding authoritative force (that stinks of collusion) to empower and propel the divisive program of Biblical Inerrancy that has been dividing evangelicalism ever since.
Lastly, I believe that the people I've quoted are Christians, as well as the signers of the Chicago Statement. I don't doubt the salvation of any professing Christian who is a proponent of Biblical Inerrancy either, and believe they have many good and truth things to say that I may learn from them. However, Biblical Inerrancy is a divisive error, and I dispute all the Errors of Inerrancy. I am a Christian, and I have a high view of Scripture, and I think that Biblical Inerrancy censors the Bible. So I am constantly alarmed when I hear the divisive statements proponents of Biblical Inerrancy say about people who do not affirm Biblical Inerrancy. I am also saddened to know that same charity given to them, will not be reciprocated by them. I pray that this divisive Error of Inerrancy will one day disappear, and the divisiveness will end.
[^1] MacArthur, John. "Why a Book on Biblical Inerrancy Is Necessary." Introduction. The Inerrant Word: Biblical, Historical, Theological, and Pastoral Perspectives. Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2016. N. pag. Print.
[^2] Mohler, R. Albert. "Response to Peter Enns." Five Views on Biblical Inerrancy. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2013. 123. Print.
[^3] Ibid. 118.
[^4] DeYoung, Kevin. Taking God at His Word. Nottingham: Inter-Varsity, 2014. 39. Print.
[^5] Sproul, R. C. Preface. Can I Trust the Bible? Lake Mary, FL: Reformation Trust, 2009. Xi. Print.
The Errors of Inerrancy: A ten-part series on why Biblical Inerrancy censors the Scriptures and divides Evangelicals:
#1 The Church has never possessed an inerrant Bible
#2 Inerrant Original Autographs are a Tautology of Biblical Inerrancy
#3 Inerrancy Censors the Bible’s Capacity for Error
#4 Inerrancy denies that the Bible contains scientific errors
#5 Inerrancy reduced the Biblical Authors into Ventriloquist Dummies
#6 Inerrancy obscures Jesus with the Bible
#7 Biblical Inerrancy’s Myth-Making Machine, Unveiled
#8 The Protestant Reformers Would Not Affirm Biblical Inerrancy (Martin Luther, John Calvin, et al.)
#9: Inerrancy turns the Bible into a Paper Pope.
#10: Biblical Inerrancy Divides Evangelicals
Related: Al Mohler, Biblical Inerrancy, Chicago Statement, Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy, John MacArthur, Kevin DeYoung, R.C. Sproul, The Errors of Inerrancy