Many scholars consider the classic formulations of the doctrine of Scripture to be that of Hodge's and Warfield's. Yet many criticisms have been brought in against their views over the years. Claims have been made that the Dutch Reformed theologians like Abraham Kuyper and Herman Bavinck promoted a “functional” (organic) rather than a “philosophical” (mechanical) method to understand the nature of Scripture. This article wants to look at areas where it is suggested by others that there are differences between the Princetonians and Bavinck related to the concept of inerrancy. The author argues that the differences cited by A. T. B. McGowan in particular are not differences of actual doctrine but rather of the defense of that doctrine.