If one’s belief in the Christian god is tied to a particular view of Scriptural inspiration, then one is bordering on idolatry. (emphasis mine)
But then I found this comment by noted textual critic Daniel B. Wallace, over at Parchment & Pen:
Here’s how I define a theological liberal: someone who does not believe in the bodily resurrection of the theanthropic person. Inerrancy is hardly the litmus test of orthodoxy, of whether one is an evangelical or liberal. A liberal is defined by his denial of the essentials of the Christian faith, that which one must believe to be saved. As much as I embrace inerrancy, I know that the Bible did not die on the cross for me. (emphasis mine)
The Doctrine of Inerrancy goes like this: “Scripture in the original manuscripts does not affirm anything that is contrary to fact” (Wayne Grudem’s Systematic Theology, p. 90).
In other words, “the question of truthfulness and falsehood in the language of Scripture” (Ibid., p. 91) is the focus of this doctrine: whatever Scripture affirms must be true though not exhaustive.
But I’m sure a Daniel B. Wallace doesn’t mean to minimize the truthfulness of Scripture.