I've been reading the relevant chapters of Herman Bavinck's Reformed Dogmatics Volume 1 in preparation for paper on inerrancy. (You can see an earlier version of it here). It is sometimes suggested that the Dutch theologian's emphasis on the servant form on biblical revelation meant that he had problems with inerrancy. Judge for yourself whether this is the case:
"The incarnation of Christ demands that we trace it down into the depths of its humiliation, in all its weakness and contempt. The recording of the word, of revelation, invites us to recognise that dimension of weakness and lowliness, the servant form, also in Scripture. But just as Christ's human nature, however weak and lowly, remained free from sin, so also Scripture is is 'conceived without defect or stain'; totally human in all its parts but also totally divine in all its parts." (Reformed Dogmatics Volume 1, Baker Academic, 2003, p. 435).
Unlike Charles Hodge and B. B. Warfield, Bavinck did not reflect at length on the integrity and purity of Scripture. He regarded such matters as the domain of biblical scholars rather than dogmaticians. His treatment of the attributes of Scripture is limited to the authority, necessity, sufficiency and perspicuity of the Bible. The main opponent for Princeton theologians was sceptical liberalism, which is why they concentrated their firepower on inerrancy. In discussing the attributes of Scripture, Bavinck has Roman Catholicism in his sights, hence the difference of emphasis.