1 A Seismic Shift in the Inerrancy Debate Norman L. Geisler & Douglas E. Potter A seismic shift is occurring in the inerrancy debate. Unfortunately, few are alarmed about it. In fact, the masses are unaware of it. The shift is from the historically held, evangelical view to a neo–evangelical 1 view of limited inerrancy. The issue is whether inerrancy covers all matters on which the Bible speaks or whether is it limited to only redemptive matters. In succinct form, is the Bible inerrant only what it teaches, or is it also inerrant on whatever subject it touches? How do we determine which view is correct? In what follows, we first contrast the two views of limited and unlimited inerrancy. Second, we then see that limited inerrancy, the view that attempts to admit errancy to so–called unimportant areas of Scripture, is still active in today’s scholarship. Lastly, we respond to some central objections or questions used by limited inerrantists. Contrasting the Two Views The Historic View of Unlimited Inerrancy Many of the great teachers of the Christian Church spoke of the Scriptures as the Word of God and “without error” on whatever it affirmed. The Early Church Clement of Rome (A.D. 30–100) says, “Be contentious and zealous, brothers, but about things that relate to salvation. You have searched the Scriptures, which are true, which were given by the Holy Spirit; you know that nothing unrighteous or counterfeit is written in them.” 2 Justin Martyr (A.D. 100–165) wrote: “When you hear the utterances of the prophets spoken as it were personally, you must not suppose that they are spoken by the inspired men themselves but by the divine Word who moves them.” 3 For “We must not suppose that the language proceeds from the men who are inspired, but from the divine Word which moves them.” 4 “To him [Moses] did God communicate that divine prophetic gift . . . and then after him