2

Biblical inerrancy is such a hot topic of debate these days that there is at least one website directly devoted to defending it (DefendingInerrancy.com), and of course many multiple Christian Apologetics and Biblical Authority organizations (notably ones like CARM and Answers In Genesis).

Is there a resource showing a significant number of contemporary (e.g. focusing within the last 100-200 years to present day) Bible Scholars who support evangelical inerrancy of the Bible?

I would think infallibility comes naturally with inerrancy, but perhaps not for everyone. Any comments on this would be welcome, too. The same may go for Verbal Plenary Inspiration (see related Q&A list, below).

Here are a few notable scholars I found who (AFAIK) fit the bill (mostly resulting from brief online searches):

  • Dr. Terry Mortenson
  • Dr. Gleason Archer
  • Dr. Norman Geisler
  • Dr. John Gerstner

Here are a few possibly helpful/related StackExchange resources:

Community
  • 1
tniles
  • 131
  • 7
  • 1
    Welcome! This is a difficult question to answer, since no list can possibly be compiled and maintained that includes every inerrantist scholar, and because "inerrancy" is difficult to define, even within Protestantism. I'll give you what I think is the best possible answer, but it is still subject to these limitations. When you get a chance, I hope you'll take a minute to take the [tour] and learn how this site is different from others. – Nathaniel is protesting Jun 01 '16 at 01:07
  • Hi @Nathaniel, this is why I put "(nearly)" in there. But I imagine this could be a good place to either start or maintain a list, or at least pointers to helpful references. Yes, there are limitations. Other than that being semi-obvious, I tried to cull this a bit by identifying some scholars and some potentially related SE posts (esp. the Verbal Plenary one). I did not ask with regard to VP because I intentionally did not want to be that precise. I would place the burden of further specification or caveats on a good answer, intentionally leaving it a tad open-ended. – tniles Jun 01 '16 at 16:53
  • @Nathaniel FWIW, I'm not a stranger to the SE network. I did review the (quite frankly, boilerplate) tour, and read several of the linked posts from the "how this site is different". What is your main concern? Question not focused enough? Discussion generator? Please suggest edits if you have specifics. – tniles Jun 01 '16 at 16:54
  • 1
    I have not voted to close, but four others have, for being "too broad." As written, anyone could take the Chicago list, add a dozen names, post it on their blogs, and link that in an answer. If you like the sort of answer I provided, then a more suitable question would be something like "Are there any contemporary statements defending evangelical inerrancy that have been publically signed by more than X scholars?" Another approach might be to ask if such a list has been produced by any evangelical think tanks (similar to the ones you mention). – Nathaniel is protesting Jun 01 '16 at 17:07
  • Four others? With no helpful comments? Well, thanks @Nathaniel for both the comments and your answer. It's always a pity to see questions close, get down-voted, etc., without helpful commentary (I'm all for anonymity, but agree that constructive actions are more appropriate for a community-based site, especially early on in the history of an OP). The question has received two upvotes already, but I'm happy to attempt a sensible edit. – tniles Jun 01 '16 at 18:15
  • @Nathaniel please take a moment to catch up with my comments here and in your answer. Does it make sense that I didn't want it to be too broad, and that leaving it a little open-ended has some value? Based on your comments, maybe this should be the edited/updated question title: List of contemporary scholars supporting Biblical inerrancy? Intending evangelical inerrancy, otherwise please specify and explain. – tniles Jun 01 '16 at 18:28
  • Opened a meta question: http://meta.christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/5999/how-to-balance-open-ended-vs-closed-ended-nature-of-questions – tniles Jun 01 '16 at 18:44
  • Specifically addressing that question title suggestion, I don't think that would be an improvement. Restricting questions to a particular tradition is important here, because one answer with Catholic inerrantists and another with Evangelical inerrantists would lead to voting based on who voters agree with, not the quality of the answer. – Nathaniel is protesting Jun 01 '16 at 19:06
  • No comments are needed when the close vote message says exactly what the problem is. – curiousdannii Jun 01 '16 at 22:54
  • The Evengelical Theological Society is committed to inerrancy, but they don't have a public list of members, and only some scholars are members. – curiousdannii Jun 01 '16 at 22:59
  • @curiousdannii I can't view the close vote messages yet (low rep). – tniles Jun 02 '16 at 15:30
  • Well... I've tried editing this question to focus it more. Also, after re-reading it, I assert the intent/context has been fairly clear from the get-go given A) the resources I show at the top of the post, B) the examples of scholars in the middle of the post, and C) the related content towards the end of the post. I'm hoping those upvotes come back and the close votes go away. ;-) – tniles Jun 02 '16 at 15:35
  • @tniles09 Changing from asking about a list to asking about contemporary evidence for inerrancy makes this answerable :) – curiousdannii Jun 03 '16 at 00:18

3 Answers3

10

Even a "nearly" comprehensive list of inerrantist scholars from the past 100–200 years would be virtually impossible to compile and maintain. However, the best list that I am aware of that approaches your criteria would be the signatories of the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy. Over 200 evangelicals signed the document (PDF), and it includes figures such as:

  • Gleason L. Archer
  • Norman L. Geisler
  • R. C. Sproul
  • J. I. Packer
  • Francis Schaeffer

The first two of these are in your list, and the third is a prominent student of John Gerstner. The statement was developed in 1978, and includes nineteen articles that carefully define what is meant by "inerrancy." For example:

We affirm that the whole of Scripture and all its parts, down to the very words of the original, were given by divine inspiration. [Article VI]

We affirm that Scripture, having been given by divine inspiration, is infallible, so that, far from misleading us, it is true and reliable in all the matters it addresses. [Article XI]

Of course, there were many other Protestant scholars who could be considered "inerrantist" who may not have signed the document due to some quibble with the language or simply lack of participation. And it only includes those who were prominent and living during the 1970s. But the Chicago Statement contains perhaps the best-known list of late 20th century evangelical inerrantist scholars.

Community
  • 1
Nathaniel is protesting
  • 42,361
  • 11
  • 129
  • 311
  • Accepted. Although if there are other resources out there that come to mind, please do update! Not sure if anyone can best this, but I'll still review other answers as they come in. – tniles Jun 01 '16 at 18:17
  • FWIW, I think you did a fine job qualifying some of the open-endedness. For all I know, there's another similiar document/conference out there, but with different definitions which would likewise go hand in hand with the answer (e.g. qualifications). I did not want to exclude this possibility. – tniles Jun 01 '16 at 18:19
4

The Evangelical Theological Society is a large academic society committed to inerrancy. Its members must affirm the inerrancy of the Bible, and it refers to the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy (discussed in Nathaniel's answer) to define what that is. There are over 4000 members of the ETS.

Community
  • 1
curiousdannii
  • 20,140
  • 14
  • 58
  • 126
-1

I taught Bible at the college level. I am Catholic and support the traditional statement of Biblical Inerrancy but here is what most of these answers are missing That question is sidelined by a very common 'trick' called genre So here are some traditional areas where inerrancy was argued but is today handled a different way (which I don't approve of) The Magi and birth of Jesus -- Pope Benedict takes it as historical as do I but the common dodge is to say it is 'midrash' a Jewish genre of writing The unity of Isaiah -- they just say "yes, it is scripture and they don't deny anything they just say there were 3 authors so the discussion of predictive prophecy etc is just bypassed Book of Daniel -- again if you call the genre "vaticinium ex eventu" (prophecy after the fact) you don't have to go into inerrancy at all.

Seems to me that this aspect of modern Bible teaching has rendered inerrancy moot for some.

Hopppin Jane
  • 147
  • 1