Fred Zaspel discusses B.B. Warfield's view that the inerrancy of Scripture is foundational to the Christian faith. This faith is above all a revealed faith. If we question the revelation, what does that mean? Zaspel says:
"... rejecting the verbal inspiration of Scripture would imply that any given teaching may be safely neglected or repudiated. If Scripture is the word of men merely and not the word of God, then whatever value it may have, it cannot be trusted absolutely in any matter.
... if inspiration is disproved, we are left questioning not only the various doctrines of Scripture, but whether Scripture itself is an objective ground of faith. For Warfield it is all or nothing. Either Scripture is verbally inspired and therefore entirely truthful in all its parts, or we are left without a sure guide for faith and without a reliable Christ or apostolate.
Warfield reminds that Christ himself had this attitude toward Scripture:
If we are to occupy the attitude toward Scripture which Christ occupied, the simple "It is written!" must have the same authority to us in matters of doctrinal truth, of practical duty, of historical fact and of verbal form that it had to Him: and to us as truly as to him, the Scriptures must be incapable of being broken
I am often perplexed by others would want to follow the lead of famous bloggers who can draw the crowds and inspire the indignant, but who sneer at this principle of inerrancy. How likeminded can we be with those who reject verbal inspiration? At best, we are speaking past one another.
But then, many would consider Warfield outdated and would disregard him. However, Warfield is not the only theologian who taught verbal inspiration. And the attack on Scripture is just as fierce today as it was is his day.