The Spectrum of Inerrancy: An Exploration of David S. Dockery’s Typological Contributions to the Inerrancy Debate in Evangelicalism
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The present article explores the typological contributions to the inerrancy debate of David S. Dockery, the Chancellor of Trinity International University. Resulting from controversies in the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) during the 1970s and 80s, Dockery provided a valuable typological framework for iden-tifying a spectrum of positions in the inerrancy debate. Dockery’s frameworks provide a helpful lens for understanding the complexity of inerrancy. Some posi-tions are more conservative and deductivist, and other positions are more liberal and inductivist. These distinctions often create a barrier, a presuppositional di-vide, which is difficult to cross in a debate context. Dockery’s variations provide a means of at least understanding the divide and the positions that differ from one’s own. To that aim, I present Dockery’s variations as a vital component for all attempts at dialogue in the inerrancy debate.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".