The thesis of this paper is to offer consideration that the premodern understanding of inerrancy against that of the modernist understanding of inerrancy and its corollaries of inspiration, infallibility, and preservation is a better position, theologically, and philosophically. There is a need to revisit and reconsider modernist understanding of inerrancy. Modernism has left in its wake a crisis of faith. The foundation of this crisis has been caused by using Enlightenment human rationalism to criticize and deconstruct the Bible. The “canary in the mine” of the issues created by modernism is inerrancy. How a person treats the doctrine of inerrancy demonstrates the individual’s actual belief about the Lord and the Bible. The premodern view holds to inerrancy with three corollaries, inspiration, infallibility, and preservation. Contrasted with the modernist view of inerrancy is seen with two corollaries, inspiration and infallibility.
The outline of this paper consists of five sections. First, is to survey the perennial issues concerning the attack against inerrancy and preservation of Scripture. Second, is to evaluate presuppositions and terms. Third, evaluate historical understanding of inerrancy. Fourth, is to evaluate the Enlightenment understanding of inerrancy. Last, consider some contemporary issues with inerrancy in the Evangelical world.
The conclusion will first argue using presuppositional logic that modernist understanding of inerrancy is a deficient worldview. Second, the conclusion will argue that premodern understanding of inerrancy is superior. Lastly, the conclusion encourages that the position best honoring the Bible as the Word of God is the premodern understanding.