Dr. Alister McGrath continues the discussion started in EN on the question of Biblical inerrancy . . .
It is a great pleasure to be invited to contribute once more to the discussion on biblical authority in this newspaper. Evangelicalism has always taken its stand on the total reliability and trustworthiness of 'the word of God incarnate and the word of God written', seeing the closest of connections between Jesus Christ and Scripture. It is excellent that evangelicals continue to affirm these seminal truths in an age in which the uniqueness of the Christian gospel is being challenged on many fronts.
It will be clear from the discussion in EN that there is a genuine debate within evangelicalism over whether the word 'inerrancy' is the most appropriate word to use when we affirm the total reliability and trustworthiness of Scripture. My personal position is that the crucial issue of the supreme authority and total trustworthiness of Scripture as the written word of God can be affirmed perfectly well using other terms, and I would be saddened if our common evangelical commitment to this vital insight is overshadowed by debates about exactly which word we use. I fully respect the motives and concerns of those who feel that the word 'inerrancy' is the most appropriate; my own preference is for a phrase such as 'the total reliability and trustworthiness' of Scripture, which states the same insight in a positive manner. As J.I. Packer comments: 'Inerrancy and infallibility thus become synonyms, differing only in nuance and tone (the former accenting trustworthiness as a source, the latter accenting trustworthiness as a guide). Neither word need be used; both may be used to advantage.'
