Do a significant number of Biblical scholars presently support inerrancy?

Question

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:

• What is verbal plenary inspiration and to what texts does it apply?

• Which hermeneutical approaches support a literal interpretation of the creation?

• From a Fundamentalist standpoint, what does the phrase "Inspired, infallible, inerrant Word of God" mean?

• What are the main differences between the Catholic and Protestant definitions of Biblical inerrancy? (although, contrary to the accepted answer, elsewhere online I have seen Catholics describe Catholic Inerrancy as being very different from Christian Protestant Fundamental Inerrancy)

Answer 1

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.

Answer 2

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.

Answer 3

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.