Despite continuing enthusiasm for the writings of Herman Bavinck, no clear consensus has emerged regarding the use of Scripture in his Reformed Dogmatics. A number of scholars have found Bavinck’s use of Scripture to be deficient (e.g. Pass; Van der Kooi and Van den Brink) while at least one biblical scholar has offered a more optimistic evaluation (Van Bekkum). These evaluations should be distinguished from earlier readings that found Bavinck’s doctrine of Scripture to be either deeply divided (e.g., Vroom) or at odds with Reformed scholasticism and “Old Princeton” (e.g. Rogers and McKim). Careful consideration of Bavinck’s use of Scripture is needed, taking into consideration his historic context, his methodological aspirations, and his wider dogmatic architecture. This paper will provide a “state of the debate” before considering the various ways that Bavinck uses Scripture in his Reformed Dogmatics, especially in dialogue with several of John Webster’s methodological proposals.