Boy, get a little busy and suddenly that post I've left sitting unfinished is several weeks old. Anyway, I thought this essay was worth pointing out:
It highlights a very problematic point for biblical inerrantists: if the Bible is indeed free of error and intended by God to be usable as a clearly stated instruction manual for all people in all places and times, why is there such vast and irreconcilable disagreement between different groups of believers who consider themselves inerrantists?
The short answer, of course, is "Satan," by which the speaker always means that everyone but the speaker's group has been led astray by the enemy. Being an inerrantist also means never admitting to the possibility that one's own interpretation of the Bible might be in error (at least not in any significant way), since ultimately there is no clear dividing line between biblical inerrancy and personal inerrancy.
Note that this applies primarily to fundamentalists like McArthur and not to all inerrantists equally, since more moderate evangelicals have a far more nuanced take on biblical inerrancy, but the problem never completely goes away. At least, not until we stop treating the Bible like a divinely perfect rulebook and allow it to speak to us on its own terms.