Record few Americans believe in Biblical inerrancy.

[John V]

Anyhoo, my argument deals with where you get this idea of inerrancy in the first place. Take Paul, for example. Why is it assumed that when he wrote letters to various congregations that he didn't make one single mistake? Paul certainly never referred to his own letters as inerrant. In Timothy, "scripture" is likely meant to refer to the Jewish law alone, not books in the NT yet to be written. 

Peter says regarding Paul's letters:

2 Peter 3
14 Therefore, beloved, looking forward to these things, be diligent to be found by Him in peace, without spot and blameless; 15 and consider that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation—as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, has written to you, 16 as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures.

Peter notes that Paul's letters are Scripture. Combined with the Timothy passage, you get inerrancy for Paul at least.

I've heard that it is Paul's status as an apostle which makes his writings inerrant. If this is true, where do you get the notion that apostles are inerrant?

I don't subscribe to the notion that apostles were inerrant 24/7. Inerrancy only refers to Scripture, as you should see from the Timothy passage.

Guidance from the Spirit doesn't need to be an all-or-nothing thing.

---

I think that it has been definitively settled by scholars that the author of Luke's Gospel erred.

OK. I see two sources that differ - Luke and Josephus - and no reason why I must accept Josephus over Luke. They could even both be right but incomplete. I really can't discuss it with you though when you don't read up on it, and just say you trust modern scholars who hold that view.