On Tuesday, March 15, Dr. Bill Roach posted a YouTube video in response to my article, Updating the Chicago Statement on Inerrancy: A Proposal, published at The Gospel Coalition that same day. I am grateful to Dr. Roach for taking the time to both read my article and to create a video.

Out of the people I would want to engage on this issue, Roach is certainly on the list. He has done serious work in this area, co-authoring a book with the late Norman Geisler, Defending Inerrancy and contributing to a compendium of articles entitled, Vital Issues in the Inerrancy Debate. Apart from a critique about how they engaged Kevin Vanhoozer, I gave Geisler and Roach’s volume, Defending Inerrancy a positive review at TGC about ten years ago. It’s a good book and I recommend it. (Roach has also recently published a new book on Geisler’s approach to apologetics that you can check out here [I have not read it, but it sounds good].)

I am also grateful for Roach’s interaction with my article on the Chicago Statement of Biblical Inerrancy (CSBI) because his critiques help me sharpen my convictions and better articulate a theology that is faithful to Scripture and therefore of the highest spiritual benefit to the church (Ps 36:9; Prov 13:14).

In the following post, I will mention the areas where I think Roach offered valid criticism while also proposing potential improvements I could make. I will also address the places where I think he failed to read my article on its own terms and accurately represent my argument.

Roach’s Introductory Remarks and Concerns
Roach begins his video by providing some context to the discussion and some important reasons why he is concerned about proposals for updating to the CSBI.

As he was moving into doctoral work several years ago, he started to notice some evangelicals who claimed to be Chicago inerrantists but who, “for all intents and purposes, had moved beyond Chicago.” He mentions reading Kevin Vanhoozer’s book, The Drama of Doctrine, and books by Kenton Sparks, and Andrew McGowen. Concerned about the claims of their books, Roach asked Geisler what he thought about these recent developments among professing evangelicals. Geisler connected with J. I. Packer and R. C. Sproul to see what they had to say about the recent calls from some evangelicals to revamp the CSBI. Packer, Sproul, and Geisler concluded that they needed to speak out about these developments right away and guard the CSBI against revision. These conversations eventually sparked the Defending Inerrancy movement. 

Roach continues to explain the original formulation of the CSBI, its various parts (the exposition, the short statement, etc.), and the accompanying commentary, Explaining Inerrancy, written by R. C. Sproul. Roach points out that Sproul’s commentary was written precisely to preclude any misunderstanding of the CSBI’s statements or any attempt to reformulate it. The CSBI was followed by the Chicago Statement on Biblical Hermeneutics and the Chicago Statement on Biblical Application. The institution responsible for writing these statements and publishing accompanying books was the International Council on Biblical Inerrancy (ICBI), of which Geisler was a founding member. [NOTE: Geisler was also “chief editor, and a framer of the Chicago Statement on Biblical inerrancy (CSBI) and Chicago Statement of Biblical Hermeneutics (CSBH).” This quote is not from Roach, but found at Veritas International University’s website; see link above.]

It is at this point in the video that Roach issues his first concern. He says, “In one sense it is permissible to revise the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy. But what we should realize is that they should not label themselves as the ICBI, nor are they the ICBI, nor do they carry the authority of the ICBI.” He then states that prior to Geisler’s death, two high-level figures at TGC approached Geisler who wanted to “rebirth” the ICBI. Geisler (and Sproul) declined this request by saying that the ICBI was a “limited organization that was called to have a finite existence, a beginning and an end. They did not want to create a perpetual organization. They wanted to deal with the issue, write the books addressing these key issues and put an end to it.” Roach is clear that he is not against further scholarship and modification of the document as such. Those who propose such modifications, however, should not call themselves the ICBI nor should they call their document the Chicago statement.

I get what Roach is saying here. He wants to guard the integrity of the CSBI as a historical document and the ICBI as an organization that served a specific historical-theological purpose. And he’s right as far as I can tell: The ICBI’s original founders would likely be the only ones who have the authority to restore the ICBI. (There are a few original signers still alive today, but I’m not sure what authority they have to restart the ICBI.)

Roach appears to have some inside information on higher-level figures at TGC who wanted to resurrect the ICBI, and I don’t have any reason to doubt his claim. Therefore, I understand how he might think the TGC is making a formal move to re-establish the ICBI and re-write the CSBI. But, nowhere in any of my writing (my article at TGC included) do I suggest that we should rebirth the ICBI, nor can I find anywhere on TGC’s website such a claim.

Now, I think Roach could legitimately argue that my proposal to reformulate the CSBI is de facto a claim to restart the ICBI since the ICBI is the only organization that has the authority to re-write the CSBI. I get that. How else would we update the CSBI? Perhaps ultimately what could happen is a writing of a whole new document in the lineage of the CSBI. I only want to point out here that I never explicitly suggest that we should rebirth the CSBI specifically in my writings. But this is a minor point that need not detain us.

Issues related to reorganizing the ICBI notwithstanding, I think it would be helpful to explain why I chose to modify the CSBI instead of proposing a whole new document. One of Roach’s concerns is that the motivation behind the recrafting of the CSBI is to allow institutions and evangelicals to affirm a modified “Chicago Inerrancy” that doesn’t resemble the original CSBI in substance; a subtle way to widen the berth just enough to accommodate those who can say “I believe in inerrancy” (like Mike Licona, who Roach mentions in the video) but who don’t really hold to the original CSBI’s affirmations and denials.

We will come back to the issue of “motivation” in a moment. Here I want to say that I, without qualification, reject the attribution of such motivations. The aim to recraft the CSBI in order to allow a person to affirm a modified CSBI who couldn’t affirm the original CSBI never entered my mind during my research and writing in 2010-2014 or since. I actually share Roach’s concerns on this very point!

One of the reasons I sought to modify the CSBI was to keep folks from using such double-speak to gain entrance into evangelical institutions under the pretense of a redefined doctrine of inerrancy. That’s precisely why I tethered myself to the CSBI. I believe the document is excellent and comprehensive. I take pains in my dissertation to make this appreciation clear. With my modifications, I have sought to retain the original meaning of the CSBI affirmations and denials while offering additions that answered specifically some of the challenges that some professing evangelicals had made post-CBSI (i.e., 1978 and onward). In many cases, my modifications directly answer the misguided arguments of folks like Kenton Sparks, Peter Enns, Andrew McGowen, Stanley Grenz, John Brogan, the same people Roach would also take to task (and has taken to task in Defending Inerrancy, minus Brogan).

By rooting myself in the CSBI, I was making the explicit and implicit argument that the CSBI does not require abandonment, but only modification. And these modifications were not concessions to arguments that undermined the original document’s original meaning or intent. Some have argued (Roach included) that some of my proposals are unnecessary. That’s fine, and I am willing to have that discussion and hear these critiques. But that’s far different than suggesting that my modifications undercut the original intent of the document, which is precisely what Roach claims they do.  

This is where I wish Roach had delved more deeply into my actual arguments. The primary question shouldn’t be, “Did Brown modify the CSBI?” (that’s an easy debate point to score!) but, “Do Brown’s recommendations undermine the meaning of inerrancy intended by the CBSI’s framers, thus modifying the biblical doctrine of inerrancy?” By making “Did Brown modify the CSBI?” the primary question of concern, Roach obscures the real issues: Is Brown modifying or redefining the biblical doctrine of inerrancy by his proposals? Does he offer positive advances in our present-day articulation of inerrancy? Of course, I do not think that I am redefining inerrancy, and I do believe I am making positive advances in the discussion (why else would I publish these arguments?). But making any proposal to modify the CSBI a sure sign that someone denies the biblical doctrine of inerrancy halts the conversation before it can even begin and keeps us from really thinking hard about the issues.    

Roach states early in his video that the CSBI should be read in the “originalist” interpretation tradition (think the American Constitution), where interpreters of the CSBI labor to understand the original intent of the authors. I am in full accord with this methodology and sought to maintain this methodology through my entire research project. I rely heavily on Sproul’s commentary (Explaining Inerrancy) throughout my dissertation and subsequent academic presentations and articles for this reason. My request to Roach would be, “Please show me where I have undermined the original intent of the CSBI authors with my modifications and have redefined inerrancy.” That’s exactly what I did not want to do. I wanted to make positive advances in our doctrine of Scripture (what I mean by “doctrine of Scripture” will be discussed below under the heading “The Question of Doctrinal Development”) that were in full accord with the CSBI.

So, I ask in good faith to please point out where I did “go beyond” the CSBI in the sense of undermining the original intent of the document or redefining inerrancy so I can make corrections. Again, defining “going beyond Chicago” to mean “proposing modifications to the original CSBI” is not a productive way to engage my arguments.

The Question of Motivations
Now let’s go back to this issue of “motivations.” Roach claims that there is a lot of “motivation” behind my proposals for revising the CSBI. I’m not sure how he can know my motivations, but he mentions them first and in passing alongside the fact that my dissertation was on this topic. By mentioning my motivations in relation to my dissertation I think he means that I am publishing these proposals because I’ve done previous work in this area. That, of course, is true, and I don’t see anything wrong with using previous research for present-day publishing or for hoping that previous unpublished work might find its way into a wider readership, assuming that such work is worthy of a wider readership.

(Side note: Roach says in the video that my dissertation is “published.” It isn’t. It’s archived as a completed Ph.D. dissertation and available in its original format online, but I haven’t made it available as a published book precisely because I’ve wanted to keep refining a few things before I make it more widely accessible. When I was invited to present my research at ETS in Texas last year (2021) in the inerrancy section with Wayne Grudem and John Woodbridge [Woodbridge couldn’t attend in person], I presented some work on theological method that my dissertation was missing but that I thought was important for strengthening the CSBI. It is precisely this kind of refining and even interaction with those who disagree with me [like Roach] that I wanted to pursue before publishing my dissertation.)

But the motivation claim cuts both ways. Can’t I just as easily argue that Roach’s motivation for hammering away at my article is because he has a vested interest in protecting the CSBI? Now that he has published a book with Norman Geisler through a major publishing company that concludes the CSBI is in no need of revision (Defending Inerrancy, 344), he can’t, without disavowing the conclusion of that book, countenance any changes to the CSBI. Or, one could argue that his personal relationship with Geisler, a founding member of the ICBI and one of the framers of the CSBI, could keep him from agreeing that the CSBI could benefit from some updates.

I, for one, will not make such assumptions. I believe whole-heartedly that Roach is taking me to task because he believes my proposals to modify the CSBI undermine the Word of God and the doctrine of inerrancy and are therefore harmful to God’s people. I truly believe his motivations are God-honoring (on what basis could I believe otherwise?) Unless motivations are stated explicitly, we best not speculate about them. Such speculations are often red-herrings. In the case of my motivations, Roach is dead wrong and I would urge him to show me where I state such motivations explicitly or implicitly.  

Roach’s Concerns About the Gospel Coalition
For the next several minutes, Roach discusses what he perceives as a “leftward” drift at TGC. The major area of drift, according to Roach, is in the area of social justice. This has bearing on inerrancy because, according to Roach,

This woke movement has caused a whole new issue to be brought about. Namely, the Gospel Coalition is unable to affirm a view of inerrancy and language that calls for an objective nature of truth and an objective hermeneutic and a clear propositionalism and yet still affirm their woke, standpoint epistemology and perspectivalism.

He then groups me together with TGC and these claims by saying,

When you look at the revisions that this figure [Derek Brown] has brought about in his dissertation and some of the calls for the nature of truth and the nature of propositional language, what it’s going to do is it is to open the floodgates for existential hermeneutics, standpoint epistemology, and the woke social justice movement to all fly under the banner of the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy.

Now, my dissertation is not the primary point of discussion for Roach’s video or this post, but I am interested in these statements. Where in my dissertation do I undermine the priority of propositional language or the nature of truth in a way that departs from the original meaning of the CSBI? I would ask Dr. Roach to please point these out. I am happy to discuss these concerns and make changes where necessary.

However, it appears that Roach has so grouped me in with his perception of TGC that he can’t seem to read my article on its own merits. He attributes motivations to me that I completely reject. He flatly misreads one of my arguments, as we will see below. But his concerns over TGC only suggest that my strategy in publishing with TGC may have been misguided; his concerns do not, in and of themselves, demonstrate that I have departed from the CSBI. Roach seems close to committing the guilt by association fallacy here.

In the introduction to my article, Roach first challenges my claim that the CSBI’s influence has waned. He counters my claim by saying that more institutions affirm the CSBI than when it was first published. Of course it’s true to say that more institutions affirm the CSBI than when it was first published if even one institution affirmed it today since no institutions could affirm the CSBI prior to its writing. But I believe he means that there has been a steady increase of institutions that have, from 1978, adopted the CSBI. I am personally not sure of the actual statistics, but I would love to see them if they do indicate a true net increase. I do know that some evangelical writers are still using the original CSBI positively in their recent written works (e.g., Barrett, God’s Word Alone; Feinberg, Light in a Dark Place. Both of these works are excellent. You can read my review of Feinberg’s book here [the title of the article was not my choice!] and my brief article on Barrent’s book here.)

But I am surprised that Roach so strongly challenges this point. According to Roach’s assessment, isn’t TGC itself (an evangelical organization with a very wide reach), with its so-called leftward drift, an indication that the CSBI’s influence has waned? Isn’t the number of professing evangelicals who deny the CSBI or don’t want it used as a test of faith a sign its influence has waned? Roach even concedes these points. Jason Sexton notes some potential signs of the CSBI’s waning influence prior to its adoption into the ETS bylaws in 2006 in his article, “How Far Beyond Chicago” (see 26n2). Roach must mean that the CSBI has regained some ground since then and due to that development at ETS. But hey, if I’m wrong and the CSBI’s influence is growing and that more and more institutions are using the CSBI to ground their articulation of inerrancy, may God be praised. Like I’ve already said, I am pro-CSBI. I have the original CSBI, not my modifications, connected to my personal website, and I even structured my dissertation for the express purpose of enabling more, not less, engagement with the original CSBI: “More familiarity of the document, not less, is essential for continued progress in this important debate” (page 6).

Roach addresses my question of whether we’ve made any advance in the doctrine of Scripture in the last forty years that may necessitate revisions to the CSBI. I will address his concern below under the heading, “The Question of Doctrinal Development.” What surprises me here is that Roach never addresses the statement in the CSBI itself that opens the door for possible revisions: “We acknowledge the limitations of a document prepared in a brief, intensive conference and do not propose that this Statement be given creedal weight.” Applying some originalist hermeneutics: what did the framers intend with this statement? Did they mean we can update the CSBI or did they mean that we should create another statement in the future if necessary? I would genuinely like to know. And that sentence in the CSBI seems pretty important in this whole conversation! Why skip over it?

Along with this statement in the CSBI itself, I also reference Carl Henry’s statement that the CSBI was subject to future revision (God, Revelation, and Authority, 4:141). I haven’t read Roach’s book on Henry, so I don’t know if he gives any weight to Henry’s statement about the CSBI or not. Roach then seems to question the legitimacy of my references to G.K. Beale and Robert Yarbrough. Roach says, “He then looks at Robert Yarbrough and G. K. Beale who suggest, according to him, that we could update the Chicago Statement” (emphasis added). That Roach seems a little incredulous about my references to Yarbrough and Beale is surprising to me since I cite both of them in my dissertation, which he seems to have read. At any rate, here are their statements:

Beale: Beale provides the CSBI in the appendix of his book The Erosion of Inerrancy in Evangelicalism. He footnotes the CSBI and says, “Though I do have a very few minor adjustments that I would like to make in some of the language used [in the CSBI]” (267n1). He then goes on to discuss a few recommended changes in the Exposition.

Yarbrough: Referring to the CSBI and the CSBH: “Let us concede that they are a generation old and bear revisiting and rephrasing today.” (Themelios, 34:1, 23).

The Adequacy of Human Language
When Roach engages my first proposal in the article, he questions my claim that God made human language for the very purpose of divine revelation. He asks how we can know that God’s divine intention for creating human language was for this reason? Honestly, I am having trouble seeing how one could disagree with my statement that God made human language for the very purpose of divine revelation. The move from God as a speaking God to God designing language for the specific purpose of divine revelation to his human creatures seems to be a pretty straight theological line. Do any of us want to suggest that God’s use of human language to communicate to humans was an afterthought in the economy of salvation?

Nevertheless, I think Roach gets tripped up at this point because he uses a word in the video to describe my view that I never use in the article. He says (emphasis added),

Does God have to have the sole, one singular intent that language is used for divine revelation but we find it used it areas in non-divine revelation? He is claiming too much in this argument. One of the modes and one of the means that God gave us language for is for divine revelation, but not all of the means and not all of the modes that God has used in this solely for divine revelation. We find that it is used in normal human communication all the time.

This is a straw man, plain and simple, and a good example of uncharitable reading. Does Roach really think that I don’t believe God gave human language for the purpose of human-to-human communication? Actually, I never wrote that the “sole” purpose of God’s creation of human language was to communicate with his creatures. I wrote that God created human language for the “very purpose” of divine revelation. “Very” does not mean “sole” or “only.” It means “for the specific purpose,” but it does not exclude other purposes, like humans’ ability to communicate with one another. The emphasis is on intentionality, not exclusion, and the language I used communicates that.  

Roach goes on to claim that my statement “begs the question.” That’s fine. We can have this debate. But I don’t see how the move from affirming God as speaking God to God providing human language for the purpose of communicating divine revelation (among other uses) is an unwarranted one. Can’t we also argue from exhaustive divine foreknowledge that God’s creation of human language had his plan for God-to-human revelation already built in?

But let’s assume for a moment that he’s right: my statement begs the question. Have I thus redefined inerrancy? Have I maligned the original intent of the framers? Of course not. At most, I’ve offered modifications that Roach thinks are superfluous, but I’ve done so in the attempt to strengthen the CSBI against the very same things that Roach himself stands against: the idea that human language is an inadequate vehicle for divine revelation. A more charitable reading would have enabled Roach to see where we are in agreement at this point and not settle for knocking down a flimsy straw man.

Roach then goes on to address my statements about strengthening the idea that finitude does not equate to fallenness and render our language incapable of clearly delivering divine revelation.

When it’s talking about creatureliness it is talking about our finitude. Because there is a significant difference between finite and being fallen. There is nothing wrong with being finite. Having a finite approach to truth doesn’t mean that you have a fallen definition of truth you must have a wrong definition of truth. One can be finite and affirm true truth, but one can never be finite and fallen and affirm of true truth unless God overrides the fallness which God did in the modes and acts of inspiration.

I was a little confused in this section because I’m unclear who he is talking to. Is he speaking to his listeners and reminding them of these things, or is he making it appear that I don’t believe these things so that he can score another debate point? I hope he is simply trying to explain things to his audience because I agree with everything he said in the above paragraph. Indeed, that was the point I was trying to make even more explicit in my proposal: I recommended these modifications precisely to underscore the truth that finitude does not equate fallenness.

The Question of Doctrinal Development
The most egregious claim in the video, however, concerns my section on doctrinal development. In this section, Roach claims that I am arguing that inerrancy is a modernist invention. Here’s the quote he reads:

A question that naturally emerges as one considers the rigor with which the doctrine of inerrancy was defended and defined in the 17th, 18th, and 19th centuries, however, is why so much attention was given to the doctrine in the latter half of the second millennium. Such a recent uptick in scholarship devoted to the doctrine of Scripture generally and to inerrancy specifically does seem to give some weight to the claim that the idea of an error-free text—at least as it’s currently defined—is a modern invention

Immediately after reading this paragraph Roach says, “He doesn’t affirm the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy right there. Right here he is denying this article [XVI] of the Chicago Statment of Biblical Inerrancy. He claims, in many ways that it’s a modern invention. That’s why he calls for us to have his modification here.” What? I am simply stunned by this blatant misreading of my argument. Only if you take that quote out of its context is it even remotely possible to claim that I am arguing that inerrancy is a modernist invention. The following paragraphs make it clear that I am arguing the exact opposite position! In a previous paragraph, I state that it is the strategy of the non-inerrantists to appeal to church history and claim that inerrancy is a modern invention. But inerrancy is not a modernist invention, and that’s precisely my point. Here’s what I wrote only a few paragraphs later: “Inerrancy is not a doctrinal invention conceived by Christian apologists in order to retain intellectual credibility in the throes of modernism or to counter the arguments of higher criticism; it is an example of what happens when a historic doctrine confronts contemporary issues related directly to what the doctrine originally asserted” (emphasis added).

The claim made by some evangelicals is that all the recent scholarship on the doctrine of Scripture is a sign that inerrancy is only a modern concept, not an ancient (or biblical) one. In the above paragraph, I recognize that it’s possible to read the recent uptick in scholarship as such evidence, but only if you mistake legitimate doctrinal development for theological innovation (the claim of the non-inerrantists about the “novelty” of inerrancy).

That’s what some evangelical errantists are doing today. They are saying, “Look, the church did talk so strenuously and thoroughly about inerrancy until Warfield, et al. See! That’s an indication that inerrancy is a modern invention!” My argument in the TGC article is that such a claim is unfounded. Evangelical errantists are not recognizing that in church history more attention is given to a particular doctrine as theological debate necessitates it. Post-enlightenment developments (c. 1800) necessitated a strong and thorough defense of the doctrines of revelation, inspiration, and inerrancy. Such attention doesn’t mean that inerrancy is a modern concept. Warfield and others were just defending the biblical doctrine of inerrancy against the specific modern attacks. How did Roach miss all of this in my article?   

By “doctrinal development” I do not mean that biblical doctrine fundamentally changes over time (e.g., one definition of inerrancy in 200 AD develops into another one in 1900 AD). My article makes that clear. What I mean is that expressions of biblical doctrine develop in their fullness over time and as necessitated by theological controversy.

My example of this legitimate doctrinal development is the advance in Christology from Nicene to Chalcedon. In Nicene, you have, as an answer to Arianism, a clear articulation of the deity of the Son in his relation to the Father. But other heresies required the church to say more about the doctrine of Christ. So, building on the Nicene Creed and rejecting Arianism and Docetism, new and sharper language was used in the Chalcedonian Creed to fend off Apollinarianism, Nestorianism, and Monophysitism. This is an example of doctrinal development. The doctrine is deposited in the Scriptures, and it is clarified by the church as it meets opposition throughout the ages.

I agree with Roach: our doctrine of Scripture doesn’t change if by that you mean the biblical doctrine itself. But I am referring to the specific articulations of that biblical doctrine as it meets attacks and requires greater specificity. It used to be fine to say, in the early church era, that the Bible is God’s Word and fully authoritative and wholly without error and basically leave it at that. Why? Because the debates about Christology were the concern of the day and the authority and inerrancy of the Bible were doctrines that were largely assumed and not under sophisticated attack. You didn’t need multiple tomes and statements of faith defending and articulating the biblical doctrine of Scripture because these things weren’t the object of attack in the ways they are today. We need to say more today than the early church and even the Reformers did, as Roach understands (hence, the writing of the CSBI and Defending Inerrancy and so on).

Now, if Roach wants me to consider adding the word “expression” or perhaps using the phrase “theological development” instead of “doctrinal development,” I am happy to hear these critiques. But his claim about what I said is so clearly contrary to what I argue in the article that I believe he should offer a public recension of his statement.

Roach goes on to say that we don’t affirm the doctrine of inerrancy because historical figures teach it, but because the Bible does. I agree with him that inerrancy is a biblical doctrine that we hold to because Scripture teaches it, not primarily because this or that historical figure taught it. But I never claimed that we believe the doctrine of inerrancy because past theologians taught it. My point was to counter the claim that the recent increase in scholarship and academic output on inerrancy is an indication that inerrancy is a modern invention. It’s not a modern invention. It’s a biblical one. I even make the point that inerrancy isn’t ultimately grounded in historic argument: “While the argument for inerrancy does not finally rest upon historical precedent, it’s necessary for inerrantists to refute the kind of historiography described above and bind their argument to the teaching of the church” (emphasis added).

But again, by saying that our belief in inerrancy is tethered to Scripture and not primarily to church history, Roach makes it appear that I don’t believe such things. He seems to be building up straw men to knock them down and score points. If this is what he is doing (I hope it isn’t), such an approach certainly doesn’t help me, nor does it help to advance the conversation.  

Conclusion
Roach’s video has more of the feel of a hot take than a careful and thoughtful engagement with my article. This approach is discouraging because Roach clearly has much to offer in this area, even if we disagree on some points. He posted his video only a few hours after my article had been published. Had he given it a few more days of reflection, perhaps he would have been able to distinguish between his overall concerns about TGC and the arguments of my article. I believe this disambiguation would have helped him read my article with greater clarity, charity, and a willingness to more productively engage the actual issues I advance in my article.

Nevertheless, I am grateful for the legitimate critiques he made in his video, and I am happy to discuss these things for the sake of my own clarity and for the sake of the church. I certainly mean no ill-will toward Roach, and I pray the Lord continues to bless his work in the area of apologetics and defense of the Bible. Keep buying his books and watching his videos. But I do hope he will soon correct his misrepresentations of my article, particularly the section doctrinal development.      

Here’s an interesting tidbit. About eight years ago, soon after I completed my dissertation, I was asked to sit in on a podcast with a gentleman who had written a book strongly critiquing Geisler and Roach’s book Defending Inerrancy. He wanted to interview me about my dissertation because I had challenged Geisler and Roach’s argument that we shouldn’t update the CSBI. I declined the request for the interview because I judged that he and I were probably not aligned on important methodological points and the conversation would likely bear little fruit. Specifically, he argued in his book that inerrancy is the prerogative of New Testament scholars, not systematicians. Well, I’m a systamatician and I believe inerrancy is a theological issue. It also seemed that he would take issue with my young-earth creationism, my firm belief in the excellency of the CSBI, and my presuppositional approach to apologetics, so I had a hunch the conversation wouldn’t go well. So, there I was, eight years ago, turning down an interview with a gentleman who strongly criticized Geisler and Roach and with whom I wouldn’t align on important theological, epistemological, and methodological points. Today, I am facing criticism from Roach himself. O the joys of theological ministry :)