Abstract

The inerrancy debate in evangelicalism is highly contentious, and the growing political power of evangelicals makes understanding their hermeneutics a crucial issue. Inerrantists approach the Bible deductively, firmly upholding Scripture’s veracity. By contrast, their critics approach the Bible inductively, arguing that hermeneutics should adapt based on modern findings in history, archaeology, textual studies, and science. The operative lenses on both sides—deductivism and inductivism—create an imposing presuppositional divide between inerrantists and their critics. Both sides fail to represent their opponents’ views, constructing strawmen of their positions. In many cases, critics present solid arguments against inerrancy. But their arguments are only solid from an inductivist perspective, making it difficult for inerrantists to hear critiques. Moreover, there are many forms of inerrancy, some of which are easier to dialogue with than others. In my thesis, I present three case studies of the inerrancy debate, involving critics from philosophy, sociology, and biblical studies. I demonstrate the presuppositional divide in the inerrancy debate through these cases. Critics should argue from within deductivist presuppositional frameworks by being both non-confrontational and familiar with primary sources.