Biblical Inerrancy, Inductive or Deductive Basis: A Response To William Craig

Biblical Inerrancy, Inductive or Deductive Basis: A Response To William Craig

Copyright © 2014 Dr. Norman L. Geisler. All rights reserved.

In a recent web post (http://www.reasonablefaith.org/what-price-biblical-errancy), William Lane Craig defends a view of limited inerrancy in contrast to the historic view of unlimited inerrancy. Unlimited inerrancy contends that the Bible is inerrant not only on all matters it addresses, not only on redemptive matters but also on historical and scientific matters as well. By contrast limited inerrancy claims that the Bible is only without error when speaking on matters of salvation. There are several related questions to this view that need to be examined. First of all, limited inerrantists contend that unlimited inerrancy is based on a deductive logic, whereas their view is inductively based.

Does Inerrancy Have an Inductive or Deductive Basis?

Craig claims that biblical inerrancy “as he learned it” and as “most of its adherents today would defend it, is not arrived at inductively, but deductively.”  However, as we have shown elsewhere (Geisler, Systematic Theology in One Volume, chap. 12), this is a false disjunction. While a deductive move is involved to form the conclusion, the biblical basis for inerrancy is a perfect (complete) induction which yields two premises: 1) The Bible teaches that God cannot err, and 2) The Bible is the Word of God. From this inductive basis it follows logically that the Bible claims to be the errorless Word of God. Since the Bible is a limited set of data, one can make a complete induction of all its contents. So, biblical inerrancy, as usually held, has an inductive basis, even though a deduction from the two inductive premises is involved. Further refinement in view of the biblical data also has an inductive basis in the text and is not imposed upon it from some deductive theological or philosophical basis, but comes from Scripture or from general revelation of God (e.g., Psa. 19:1-6; Rom. 1:19-20; 2:12-15). For example, while the Bible speaks of the “four corners of the earth” (Rev. 7:1), we know by observation from general revelation that the world is round. This trumps any literalistic interpretation of the figure of speech about “four corners” of the earth used to support the Square Earth Society.

What the Bible says must be understood in the light of what the Bible shows.  So, a more nuanced doctrine of inerrancy involves a refinement wherein inerrancy is understood in view of the phenomena of Scripture and the facts (not theories) of nature. For example, if the Bible shows that it uses round numbers, then the use of a round number will not be considered an error. For example, Luke asserts that Jesus was “about thirty years of age” (LK. 3:23) when he began his ministry. Likewise, when the Bible (in 2 Chrn. 4:2) affirms that the circumference of the laver by the temple was three times the diameter, this too can be taken as approximate and not more precisely as 3.14159… etc. Also, when the Bible speaks in observational language of “sun rise” or “sun set” (Josh 1:4), as even meteorologists do today, this is not to be taken as unscientific. Nor should the sun “standing still” (Josh 10:13) be taken as unscientific but merely as the language of appearance in a prescientific age. Just how God did it is not known, but the same is true of other miracles.

This is why the International Council on Biblical Inerrancy (ICBI) was careful to define inerrancy in the light of the biblical phenomena, saying, “We further deny that inerrancy is negated by biblical phenomena such as a lack of modern technical precision, irregularities of grammar or spelling, observational descriptions of nature, the reporting of falsehoods, the use of hyperbole and round numbers, the topical arrangement of material, variant selections of material in parallel accounts, or the use of free citations” (Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy, Article XIII).

However, none of this negates the fact that the biblical doctrine of inerrancy is based on a perfect (complete) inductive study of the whole Bible which yields two premises from which the full inerrancy of the Bible necessarily follows.

Are Only Intentions of the Author Inerrant but not all His Affirmations?

The Craig article also speaks of the truth of inerrancy in terms of “the intention” of the author. This would seem to imply an intentionalist’s view of truth, as opposed to a correspondence view of truth.¹  He wrote, “We may need indeed to revise our understanding of what constitutes an error.” Then he gives two illustrations: The first one is about the reference to the mustard seed, he says, “Jesus is not teaching botany.”² Rather, Jesus “intends” to teach only about the kingdom of God. And inerrancy should be judged in terms of what the author intends to teach, not in terms of what he actually said. So, contrary to the correspondence view of truth, which affirms that a mistake (an affirmation that does not correspond with reality) is an error, the intentionalists view of truth asserts that only wrong intentions are errors, not wrong affirmations.

The ICBI framers clearly repudiated the intentionalists view of truth (in which only wrong intentions are errors) in favour of the correspondence view of truth (which can’t be denied without affirming it). For the claim that truth is not that which corresponds to the facts also claims to be a truth that corresponds to the facts. Contrary to a non-inerrantists misinterpretation of ICBI Article XIII that denies the Bible should be evaluated according to standards of truth and error that are alien to its usage or purpose” (Article XIII), the official ICBI commentary on this article declares clearly: “’By biblical standards of truth and error’ is meant…the correspondence view of truth.” Further, the ICBI statement on inerrancy and hermeneutics (Article VI) declares: “We further affirm that a statement is true if it represents matters as they actually are, but an error is an error if it misrepresents the facts.” It adds, “We further deny that error should be defined as that which wilfully deceives” (ibid.). This article addresses any subtle attempt to redefine error as that which “misleads” (through deceptive intent) and not that which “misrepresents” the facts (regardless of intent). Otherwise, anyone can easily say the Bible never misleads but it may have mistakes, fiction, legend, or error in it. The reason for this is obvious, namely, if only deliberate deceptions are errors, then every factually mistaken statement ever made with good intentions would be true. The next alarming statement is about genre which leads to our next point.

Are Only Essential Matters Inerrant but not Peripheral Ones?

Craig speaks of things affirmed in a biblical text (like the mustard seed is the smallest seed) as “incidental to the lesson” and, thus, the author can be in error or mistaken in peripheral matters without affecting the inerrancy of the text. He adds, “What matters is that the central idea is conveyed,…but the surrounding details are fluid and incidental to the story.” But this opens Pandora’s hermeneutical box. For instance, in most cases the numerous references to angels in the Bible are incidental to the main message of the passage. So, by this logic we would have to conclude that almost nothing the Bible affirms about angels is without error (mistakes). Likewise, other doctrines of the Bible, even fundamental ones like the Trinity, that are not an essential part of what the author intended to teach, could also be in error. For there are few, if any passages whose direct purpose (intention) is to teach the doctrine of the Trinity. So, by this intentionalistic logic of distinguishing between what is incidental and what is essential in biblical affirmations, the inerrant canonical text is seriously shrunk to a size determined by the interpreter.

What is more, according to the intentionalists view, only essentials are inerrant. But much of the time there is really no objective way in the biblical text of determining what is and what is not inerrant. For there is often no objective way to differentiate the peripheral from the essential. This leads to another problem—the appeal to extra biblical sources to determine what the Bible really intends to affirm and what it does not.

Craig uses the illustration of a joke to make his point. He wrote: “observe how the central idea and especially the punch line are the same…”when the joke is retold. But “The variation [is] in secondary details.”  In like manner, he argues that what is important in the Bible is the essential point, not the details.

The problem with this illustration is that the Gospels are no joke! They claim to be serious and accurate history. Luke, for example, claims (Lk. 1:1-4) to have “followed all things closely” and to be giving an “orderly account” that we may have “certainty concerning the things you have been taught” which was from “eyewitnesses.” Historians have found that what Luke records in Acts (Part Two of his history of Luke-Acts—Acts 1:1; Lk. 1:1) is minutely accurate in numerous details (see Colin Hemer, The Book of Acts in the Setting of Hellenic History, Eisenbrauns, 1990). And since Matthew, Mark, and even John affirm the same basic truths (where they overlap with Luke), then this speaks in general of the historical accuracy of all the Gospels. Indeed, John claims to be based on eyewitness testimony (Jn. 19:35; 21:24). And even some noted New Testament scholars are now speaking of the eyewitness basis of the Gospels (see Richard Bauckham, Jesus and Eyewitnesses, 2006).

Does Extra-Biblical Genre Determine Meaning?

Along with a number of other Neo-evangelicals on inerrancy, Craig appeals to extra-biblical genre to determine the meaning of biblical text. With his colleague, Mike Licona, who appealed to Greco-Roman genre, Craig claims that “questions of genre will have a significant bearing on our answer to that question.” But Licona’s conclusions reveal just how dangerous it is to use extra-biblical genre as hermeneutically determinative of the meaning and truth of a biblical text. He wrote, “Greco-Roman biography…often include legend. Because bios was a flexible genre, it is often difficult to determine where history ends and legend begins” (Licona, The Resurrection of Jesus, 34). Indeed, Licona affirmed that there is legend or poetry in the Gospels (ibid., 306, 548, 552, 553). He even holds there is a contradiction in the Gospels (in a debate with Bart Ehrman at Southern Evangelical Seminary, Spring, 2009), but he denies that this affects the doctrine of inerrancy. He said, “I think that John probably altered the day [Christ was crucified] in order for a theological—to make a theological point there. But that doesn’t mean that Jesus wasn’t crucified.” However, a divinely inspired error is a contradiction in terms since God cannot err (Heb. 6:18).  And an inerrant error is a logical impossibility! With regard to the genre view, the biblical text could still be reliable, but certainly not inerrant, thus placing the Bible on a level with every other book that partially contains the truth and is partially errant.

Comparing the Gospels with Greco-Roman Genre

Further, the comparison of the Gospels with Greco-Roman biography is a false analogy. Of course, there are some similarities, but there are significant differences which breaks the alleged analogy.

First of all, the Gospels are accurate history based on eyewitness testimony that is completely true with a clear distinction between truth and fiction. They inform us about our eternal salvation through the incarnation, crucifixion, and physical resurrection of God-Incarnate. But Greco-Roman biography admittedly lacks these characteristics, containing legend, error, and often admittedly the inability to distinguish between legend and history.

Second, Licona contends that on this grounds that Greco-Roman genre allows for contradictions like this, and that the Gospels are written in Greco-Roman genre. However, this premise should be rejected, as most biblical scholars have through the ages until recent times.

Third, even if there are some similarities in form between the New Testament and Greco-Roman genre, the New Testament has a greater concern for historical truth (see Lk. 1:1-4) because Christianity is a historical religion that stresses the real spatio-temporal physical appearance of the God-man in the flesh (Jn. 1:14 cf. 1 Jn. 4:2; 2 Jn. 7).

Fourth, the Bible warns us to “avoid…contradiction” (1 Tim. 6:20 ESV), not to attempt to explain them away on the grounds of extra-biblical genre. Literally, Paul forbids holding “anti-theses.” For both cannot be true.

Fifth, the law of non-contradictions controls all thought and writing, taking precedence over any genre determinations. It is a literally undeniable principle of thought.

Sixth, extra-biblical genre should not be used to determine the meaning of a biblical text for this gives them more authority than the inspired text. Of course, as already noted, extra-biblical facts (not theories, legends, or literary genre), such as those found in general revelation, can and should be used to help interpret the Bible.

Seventh, using extra-biblical genre determinations is rejected by the ICBI understanding of inerrancy which was adopted by the ETS, the largest group of evangelical scholars in the world (see citations above).

The truth is that once one rejects the full correspondence view of truth and accepts the validity of Greco-Roman genre (as Licona and Craig do) or Hebrew Midrash genre (as Robert Gundry did in his commentary on Matthew, 1982), then the biblical text itself is not the final authority for faith and practice. Rather, the final authority rests outside the biblical text in some fallible Greek or Hebrew genre. This is a dangerous, if not disastrous, move for an evangelical, for it forsakes the Bible as the final authority and opens the door for extra-biblical literary sources to determine the meaning and truth of Christian doctrine.

Is Inerrancy an Essential Biblical Doctrine?

Craig also claims that inerrancy is not an essential evangelical doctrine. Rather, he holds that Jesus’ affirmation of inerrancy is a weak premise. He wrote, “At the center of our web of beliefs ought to be some core belief like the belief that God exists, with the deity and resurrection of Christ somewhere near the center. The doctrine of inspiration of Scripture will be somewhere further out and inerrancy even farther toward the periphery, as a corollary of inspiration.” Thus, if inerrancy is denied, then it would not seriously affect any core Christian belief.

On the contrary, epistemologically, inerrancy is at the very foundation of every other Christian doctrine, since if the Bible is not the divinely authoritative basis for our beliefs, then we have no divine authority for any Christian doctrine. For all Christian doctrines are derived from the Bible. Of course, if the Bible is not inspired, there may be degrees of probability for believing these doctrines but there would be no divine authority for embracing them. So, in this sense inspiration-inerrancy is the divinely authoritative basis for whatever other Christian doctrines we believe.

Furthermore, as we showed elsewhere (Christian Apologetics, Revised, 293), the logical order of beliefs should have truth as its basis, for unless truth is knowable we cannot know it is true that God exists. So, the logical order is as follows: 1) Truth is knowable; 2) The opposite of truth is false; 3) God exists; 4) Miracles are possible; 5) Miracles can confirm a message/messenger; 6) the New Testament is historically reliable; 7) Jesus was confirmed by miracles to be God; 8) Therefore, Jesus is God; 9) Whatever Jesus as God teaches is true; 10) Jesus taught the Bible is the inspired-inerrant Word of God; 11) Therefore, the Bible is the inspired-inerrant Word of God; 12) Whatever is opposed to the teaching of the Bible is false. That is, essential Christianity is true, and whatever is opposed to its teachings is false.

Using the above logical steps, premises 3) and 6) are crucial. For if it is true that God exists, then miracles are possible. And if the New Testament is historically reliable and teaches that Jesus is God, then it follows that Jesus’ teaching that the Bible is the inspired-inerrant Word of God is true.  But, contrary to critics, denying inerrancy would not thereby disprove God, miracles, and the deity of Christ. The issue would be: Did Jesus teach the Bible was the inspired-inerrant Word of God? (Point 11). If he did, then inerrancy is true. If he did not, then the question of inerrancy would be up for grabs, but the essential redemptive truths of Christianity (e.g., God, miracles, Christ’s deity) would not thereby be in question. So, contrary to Craig’s view, Christianity does not crumble if the traditional view of inerrancy is denied.

Nonetheless, inspiration and its concomitant doctrine of Inerrancy are not subsidiary or peripheral matters. They are logically connected to the divine nature. For if the Bible is God’s Word, then a divinely inspired error is a contradiction in terms. So, if the Bible is God’s Word, and if God cannot error, then by necessity the Bible cannot error. Logic demands it. This is precisely what the ETS statement on inerrancy declares: “The Bible alone and the Bible in its entirety is the Word of God written, and therefore inerrant in the autographs” (notice the word “therefore”). Likewise, if the Bible is infallibly true, then there are no errors in it.  For an infallibly true fallible statement is a contradiction. Thus, infallibility and inerrancy are logically and necessarily connected to divine inspiration.

Does the Case for Christianity Collapse if an Error is Found in the Bible?

Closely associated with the previous point is Craig’s answer to the question: Does the case for Christianity collapse if an error is found in the Bible?  Allegedly, this is what happened to the former evangelical, now agnostic, Bart Ehrman. But Craig’s alternative to this objection gives away too much of the farm. First of all, it suggests that one may retreat from full inerrancy to limited inerrancy by claiming the Bible does not teach inerrantly about history and science (where these alleged errors occur). Rather, it is affirming only the redemptive core of truth, not the truth about peripheral areas. Second, on this view, if necessary, one can give up inerrancy without giving up Christianity because inerrancy is not an essential or core doctrine of the faith. It is only peripheral. Let’s address both of these issues. The truth is, however, that many important Christian doctrines relating to salvation are inseparably connected with historical or scientific truths (e.g., creation, the virgin birth, and the death and resurrection of Christ).

Thus one cannot deny, for example, the historicity of Christ’s death and resurrection without denying the salvation doctrines to which they are connected.

The Move to Limited Inerrancy

Claiming that inerrancy is not an essential doctrine, but is only a peripheral teaching, is not a helpful move for evangelicalism for several reasons. First, this is contrary to the historic view of the Christian Church which holds to inerrancy [see John Hannah, Inerrancy and the Church].

Second, it gives up the historic doctrine of total inerrancy for limited inerrancy. Thus, it moves from the Evangelical view on inerrancy to the Neo-evangelical view (see above).

Third, this is contrary to the ICBI statement on inerrancy which was also adopted by ETS, the largest scholarly group of inerrantists in the world. Of course, one can reject the meaning the framers gave these statements and reconstruct their own meaning, but this is contrary to sound hermeneutics which seeks the author’s meaning of a text and makes the Bible into a nose of putty that can be moulded by the reader in any direction he desires.

Fourth, this forsakes the objective meaning of the biblical text for purely subjective and personal wishes. But one cannot deny the objectivity of the text without the use of objective statements about it (see Thomas Howe, Objectivity in Hermeneutics, 1998).

Fifth, what is more, the move to the purely redemptive model of limited inerrancy places much of the Bible in an unfalsifiable category. For if only redemptive or spiritual truths are inerrant, then there are no scientific and historical matters which can be falsified. Here one is reminded of the response of the liberal theologian, Paul Tillich, when asked why he did not believe in the physical resurrection of Christ. He is alleged to have replied, “Because I do not want any of my New Testament scholar friends calling me and saying, ‘Guess what Paulus, we have found the body of Jesus!’” Of course, if one does not believe anything that is falsifiable, then his beliefs cannot be falsified. But neither can it be verified.

This unfalsifiable retreat to limited inerrancy is unsatisfactory for many reasons. First of all, the apostle Paul said, “If Christ be not raised, your faith is futile, and you are still in your sins” (1 Cor. 15:17). In other words, if the resurrection is disproven, Christianity would crumble. This is a bold claim that opens the door to falsification.  Even those who reject full inerrancy but believe in the bodily resurrection of Jesus have to admit that the resurrection is open to falsification, and if it is falsified, then essential Christianity collapses. Further, did not Jesus connect the two when he said to Nicodemus, “If I have told you of earthly things and you do not believe, how can you believe if I tell you of heavenly things” (Jn. 3:12).

What Would It Take to Disprove Inerrancy?

It would take a demonstrable error in an original text of Scripture or in a perfect copy of it. By error is meant something that is logically contradictory or else that does not correspond to the facts of the matter. But this is not as easy as it may seem for several reasons. First, one must demonstrate that we have an autographic text of the Bible (i.e., either an original manuscript or perfect copy of one).  Currently, we do not have a verified original manuscript or even a perfect copy of one. However, it is possible that one may be found. So, if one were found with a demonstrable error in it, then inerrancy would be falsified.  However, as long as it is possible that the original text did not have an error, it would not be necessary to give up inerrancy.

Furthermore, the error would have to be more than an alleged or apparent one; it would have to be an actual error. This means there are no possible explanations for the alleged error. This is not easy to do. What is more, the two premises from which we derive inerrancy are so firmly based that finding a real error is unlikely. For we would have to demonstrate that the Bible is not the Word of God and that God can err. This is why the dictum of St. Augustine stands firm: “If we are perplexed by any apparent contradiction in Scripture, it is not allowable to say, The author of this book is mistaken; but either [1] the manuscript is faulty, or [2] the translation is wrong, or [3] you have not understood” (Augustine, Reply to Faustus, 11.5).

Having examined over the last 50 years nearly 1000 of these alleged errors in the Bible (see The Big Book of Bible Difficulties, Baker), I can testify that I have not found any real errors, only difficulties with solutions varying from possible to probable. This includes all of the alleged errors taken as real error by contemporary critics of total inerrancy, even those that led some to deny inerrancy and become agnostic. There are possible, even plausible, answer to all of these difficulties and, therefore, no real compelling reason to give up inerrancy.

Licona’s Real Error

A case in point is the alleged “contradiction” offered by Mike Licona on the day of Jesus’ crucifixion, comparing Mark 14:12 (which seems to indicate it was on Friday) and John 19:14 (which appears to point to Thursday).

However, upon closer examination, we discover that: “Preparation” (used to support the Thursday view in Jn. 19:14) is a word used for “Friday,” the day of preparation for a Sabbath or feast and not for Thursday. Thus, there is no contradiction with Mark. For the Bible says clearly that “Since it was the day of preparation, and so the bodies would not remain on the cross on the Sabbath, the Jews asked Pilate…” (Jn. 19:31 cf. Mk. 15:42).  Many noted New Testament scholars support this same conclusion.  For example, A.T. Robertson declared, “That is, Friday of Passover week, the preparation day before Sabbath of Passover week (or feast)” (Word Pictures, vol. 5, p. 299).  Further, D.A. Carson adds: “(‘Preparation’) regularly refers to Friday–i.e. the Preparation of the Sabbath is Friday” (The Gospel According to John, 603). This being the case, there is no error in the biblical text; the error is in the misinterpretation of the text.

Is the Evangelical View One of Unlimited or Limited Inerrancy?

While Craig claims to believe in inerrancy, he has a diminished view of it and one that is contrary to the standard historical view propounded by ICBI and adopted by a vast majority of the 3000 member Evangelical Theological Society (2006) as the guide for understanding the meaning of inerrancy. In fact, he seems to have moved from a belief in unlimited inerrancy to limited inerrancy. This is a substantial move from the historic Evangelical view to the contemporary Neo-evangelical view. These two views can be contrasted as follows:

Finally, a comment is called for about my former mentor, Dean, and colleague for some twenty years, Dr. Kenneth Kantzer.  His name is used by Craig in association with a form of the Neo-evangelical view of limited inerrancy. But make no mistake, Kantzer was and remained a committed follower of the Warfield-Hodge view (see B.B. Warfield, The Inspiration and Authority of the Bible) of total inerrancy which is clearly opposed to the Craig-Licona view of limited inerrancy. He affirmed that “Attempts to limit the truthfulness of inspired Scripture to “faith and practice,” viewed as less than the whole of Scripture, or worse, to assert that it errs in such matters as history, or nature, depart not only from the Bible’s representation of its own veracity, but also from the central tradition of the Christian churches” (Kenneth Kantzer and Carl Henry, eds. Evangelical Affirmations, Zondervan: Academie Books, 1990, p. 33). In fact, it was because of Kantzer’s view on inerrancy and his prompting that I got involved in the exposure of Robert Gundry’s view on inerrancy which led to his resignation from membership in the Evangelical Theological Society (in 1983) by an almost three-quarter majority vote of the Society.

As for Licona’s similar view of extra-biblical genre, which Craig believes is compatible with inerrancy, the three living framers of the ICBI statements (R.C. Sproul, J.I. Packer and myself) affirm that the Neo-evangelical view of limited inerrancy is incompatible with the ICBI stance on unlimited inerrancy.

J.I. Packer wrote: “As a framer of the ICBI statement on biblical inerrancy who studied Greco-Roman literature at advanced level, I judge Mike Licona’s view that, because the Gospels are semi-biographical, details of their narratives may be regarded as legendary and factually erroneous, to be both academically and theologically unsound” (Letter to “Dr. Norm Geisler,” May 8, 2014, emphasis added).

R.C. Sproul wrote: “As the former and only president of ICBI during its tenure and as the original framer of the Affirmations and Denials of the Chicago Statement on Inerrancy, I can say categorically that Mr. Licona’s views are not even remotely compatible with the unified Statement of ICBI” (Letter to “Mr. William Roach,” May 22, 2012, emphasis added).

The ICBI statements on inerrancy made it clear that they held to an unlimited view which claims the Bible is inerrant on whatever it affirms, including matters of history and science. Consider the following: “Holy Scripture, being God’s own Word… is of infallible divine authority in all matters upon which it touches” (ICBI, A Short Statement, 2). Article I reads: “We affirm that inspiration… guaranteed true and trustworthy utterances on all matters of which the biblical authors were moved to speak and write.” This includes matters of history and science for the ICBI framers who declared: “We affirm that Genesis 1-11 is factual, as is the rest of the book. We deny that the teachings of Genesis 1-11 are mythical, and scientific hypotheses about earth’s history of the origin of humanity may be invoked to overthrow what Scripture teaches about creation” (Hermeneutics Statement on Biblical Inerrancy, Article XXII). Further, “We deny that biblical infallibility and inerrancy are limited to spiritual, religious or redemptive themes, exclusive of assertions in the fields of history and science” (Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy, Article XII, emphasis added in all these citations).

As for the use of extra-biblical genre, ICBI was equally clear: “We affirm that the text of Scripture is to be interpreted by grammatico-historical exegesis, taking account of its [the Bible’s] literary forms [not extra-biblical forms] and devices, and that Scripture is to interpret Scripture” (Inerrancy Statement Article XVIII). Extra-biblical genre and forms are not to be used to interpret Scripture. For “We deny the legitimacy of any treatment of the text or quest for sources lying behind it that leads to relativizing, dehistoricizing, or discounting its teaching, or rejecting its claim to authorship” (ibid., emphasis added).

So, clearly, ICBI affirmed unlimited inerrancy in contrast to the Licona-Craig view of limited inerrancy. And since unlimited inerrancy was the historic position of the Christian Church (see John Hannah, Inerrancy and the Church, 1984, and John Woodbridge, Biblical Authority: A Critique of the Roger/McKim Proposal, 1982), it follows that the Craig-Licona version of limited inerrancy is not in accord with the historic position of the Christian Church. Further, since the ICBI view was adopted by the Evangelical Theological Society (ETS) as a guide for understanding the meaning of inerrancy (2006), then the largest society of inerrantists in the world also affirms unlimited inerrancy. Likewise, since the Evangelical Philosophical Society was begun as a sub section of the Evangelical Theological Society and adopted its same inerrancy statement, this would include its constituency as well. To this list could be added the nearly 300 scholars and leaders who signed the famous ICBI Chicago Statement.  What is more, in 1989 over 600 participants of the “Evangelical Affirmations” conference held at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School” declared: “We affirm the complete truthfulness and the full and final authority of the Old and New Testament Scriptures as the Word of God written…. Attempts to limit the truthfulness of inspired Scripture to “faith and practice,” viewed as less than the whole of Scripture, or worse, to assert that it errs in such matters as history, or nature, depart not only from the Bible’s representation of its own veracity, but also from the central tradition of the Christian churches” (Kenneth Kantzer and Carl Henry, eds. Evangelical Affirmations, Zondervan: Academie Books, 1990, p. 33). Likewise it would include the 2300 hundreds participants of the Lausanne Conference in Switzerland 1974 who signed the unlimited inerrancy statement on Scripture, saying, “ We affirm the divine inspiration, truthfulness and authority of both Old and New Testament Scriptures in their entirety as the only written Word of God, without error in all that it affirms, and the only infallible rule of faith and practice” (emphasis added).

Further, unlimited inerrancy is embraced by www.defendinginerrancy.com which now is approaching 10,000 signatures including some of the top Evangelicals in the world such as Billy Graham, Franklin Graham, John Ankerberg, Al Mohler, Paige Patterson, Erwin Lutzer, John Warwick Montgomery, and Robert Lightner.  All of them affirmed the unlimited inerrancy statement which reads: “ I affirm that the Bible alone, and in its entirety, is the infallible written Word of God in the original text and is, therefore, inerrant in all that it affirms or denies on whatever topic it addresses” (emphasis added). Thus evangelicalism is the rightful owner of unlimited inerrancy, and those professed evangelicals who modify it or limit it to redemptive matters are, at best, the rightful owners of the term Neo-evangelical.

¹ Limited inerrantists sometimes claim to hold a correspondence view of truth, but they modify it when it comes to biblical truth, transforming it into an intentional view when it comes to the inerrancy of the Bible.

² In accordance with a correspondence view, inerrantists can point out that Jesus’ statement is botanically correct since his affirmations is not about all seeds in the world but in context only about the smallest seed which a first century farmer “took and sowed in his field” in the Holy Land (Mt. 13:31).