This is not to stumble anyone. If you can't swallow it, leave it.
The argument for inerrancy is usually God-centred as in it presupposes God's preservation in the canonization process:
1) God is inerrant
2) The Bible is God's word
3) Thus the Bible is inerrant
The problem here is at (2).
Question 1. How do we judge a New Testamental book/letter belongs in to the category of the Bible or not?
The usual answer from apologists is 3:
1) The book/letter has to be authored by the direct apostle of Jesus or the direct followers of the apostles.
2) The book/letter has to be circulated widely among the early churches.
3) The book/letter doesnt contradict the early doctrines of the church.
I come to realize that a fundamental shift happened when a deeper question being raised (Question 1). The shift is from a very God-centred paradigm to a very human-centred one. In the first, apologist presupposes God's sovereignty over the canonization of the Bible, when the question on the canonization being raised, the apologist draws bullets from human judgement. That means the ultimate foundation for the argument for inerrancy is not by prsupposing God but by investigating human's findings. Thus the argument by presupposing God's sovereignty for inerrancy doesnt stand because at best it only able to argue for the inerrancy of the 'pre-determined canon'; and left the fundamental issue left unsettled (the canonization).
Granted that God's sovereignty covers the canonization process (means presuppositional argument being validated). All books in the NT are being canonized because the early church was guided by God to recognised them. If that can be argued, then why shouldnt we canonized the gospel of Thomas as well? Or better, the shepherd of Hermas and the epistle of Barnabas, since both of them are found in codex sinaiticus and vaticanus (two earliest full manuscripts available) which our modern Bible translation based upon? Or even better, the Didache (teaching of the 12 apostles) which its authorship (not its earliest manuscript) dated as early as AD 70. The usual argument offered by apologist for the exclusion of these extra-biblical manuscripts in the Canon is 'late authorship'. But then, again, it's going back into investigating human findings instead of the philosophical argument offered at first. If the presuppositional argument stands, then the sovereignty of God can also be argued to have cover the process of authoring the shepherd of Hermas, the epistle of Barnabas, Thomas gospel, and the Didache.
Problem 3 (the biggest) If canonization can't be settle by philosophical argument, then the inerrancy part doesnt hold water. How can one talk about inerrancy when there is no canon?