I cannot think of any major doctrine within Christianity where there is such a tendency and desire to substantially and materially re-define the doctrine, rather than just denying it, as there is with the doctrine of biblical inerrancy.
Normally, if there is a doctrine that is defined by a belief you don't hold, you would just say that you don't accept that doctrine. No big deal. I deny doctrines all the time. Everyone does.
But I have noticed a trend, primarily among lay people who are nonetheless theologically learned, to want to fundamentally change what inerrancy means and embrace that version which is a fundamentally different doctrine.
First Things First
If you aren't familiar with the term "biblical inerrancy" (usually just called “inerrancy”), it is basically just the belief that each book of the Bible, when properly understood, in its original language as first written by its author, does not assert anything to be objectively true that is objectively false.
