Inerrancy is a necessary presupposition of the Church's activity of proclamation. This one of the major contradictions I find in the theology of people like Elert and Forde and in the conservatives in the ELCA.
Namely, if Forde is correct and proclamation of the Word gives absolute certainty of salvation, how is it that someone can claim that it’s not inerrant? In other words, I’m only saved because of certain historical events. To allow Scriptural history to be on the same level as all other history is to place it into the realm of probability. All history that we know, is in fact, merely probable. We have sources, we weigh evidence. But the Word and the Sacraments tells us that these things absolutely happened Pro me. So, if we believe that we are justified, Christ’s own history and therefore that of the whole Bible must be absolutely unquestionable. If not, then we are forced to say that Christ “probably” “died for our sins” and “probably rose for our justification.” Similarly, with the law, we “probably” “have all sinned” and “probably” “fallen short of the glory of God.”