In the last century or so, the doctrine of inerrancy has exerted an influence within evangelical theology to move the doctrine of scripture to the beginning of systematic theologies, offering to serve there as an epistemological foundation for all other doctrines derivable from scripture. This paper will draw primarily on the work of B. B. Warfield, T. F. Torrance and John Webster to argue that the doctrine of scripture properly belongs not at the beginning of systematic theology but within an account of God’s gracious work of redemption and thus that the proper use of the doctrine of biblical inerrancy is not to serve as an epistemological basis but to confess the faithfulness and truthfulness of God. Torrance and Webster both expressed the concern about evangelical accounts of scripture making it bear too much epistemological weight, and neither explicitly endorsed inerrancy, though neither practically violated it either. Warfield’s arguments for inerrancy, however, never endorse locating the doctrine of scripture at the beginning of dogmatics and actually imply a location downstream from more basic commitments on God’s nature and work of redemption. I will argue that Warfield’s construction of inerrancy, as well as the Chicago Statement’s formulation, can be harmonized with Torrance and Webster’s insistence that scripture’s trustworthiness be derived from God’s rather than vice versa. The result of this construction is a doctrinal framework whereby we can more clearly see that the ultimate object of Christian faith is not scripture but the triune God who inspired and speaks through it.