Why inerrancy is still a useful term

I was reading over some old article by John Frame and Vern Poythress on inerrancy last night and came across a great quote by Frame on why the term inerrancy, although contentious, is still necessary:

We do have a problem here: Other things being equal, I would prefer to drop all extra-scriptural terms including “infallible” and “inerrant” and simply speak, as Scripture does, of God’s Word being true. That’s all we mean, after all, when we say Scripture is inerrant. But modern theologians won’t let me do that. They redefine “truth” so that it refers to some big theological notion [6] , and they will not permit me to use it as meaning “correctness” or “accuracy” or “reliability.” So I try the word “infallible,” a historical expression which, as I indicated in a footnote above, is actually a stronger term than “inerrancy.” But again, modern theologians [7] insist on redefining that word also, so that it actually saysless than “inerrancy.”

Now what is our alternative? Even “accuracy” and “reliability” have been distorted by theological pre-emption. “Correctness” seems too trivial to express what we want to say. So, although the term is overly technical and subject to some misunderstanding, I intend to keep the word “inerrant” as a description of God’s Word, and I hope that my readers will do the same. The idea, of course, is more important than the word. If I can find better language that expresses the biblical doctrine to modern hearers, I will be happy to use that and drop “inerrancy.” But at this moment, “inerrancy” has no adequate replacement. To drop the term in the present situation, then, can involve compromising the doctrine, and that we dare not do. God will not accept or tolerate negative human judgments concerning his holy Word. So I conclude: yes, the Bible is inerrant.