Being Bible Driven // Part 2

One of our core values at Mission Hills is being Bible-driven, and we’re going to spend some time in these sessions digging into what exactly that means.

In the weekly Mission Hills staff chapel, Craig Smith shared the above study, the second part of this series. Below is a summary the highlights the main points of the video for the sake of brevity, but it is not exhaustive.

Right thinking precedes right living. Recognizing something needs to change creates the potential to change. To act rightly about being bible-driven we have to think rightly about what scripture is. Our goal is to shape thinking about scripture so that it comes out in a lot of different ways.

Is the Bible scientifically accurate?

1. It is accurate but lacks the scientific precision modern readers are often looking for.

2. It uses phenomenological language—describing things as they appear, not necessarily as they are (ie the sun “rises”).

3. The Bible claims that miraculous events occurred and there is nothing inherently “unscientific” about miracles (and this also depends on how you define “science”).

4. Scientific beliefs can and do change. It can become dangerous for the church to try to align our interpretation and understanding of scripture with current scientific theories.

5. The Bible is not a scientific text, but it has scientific implications. There is no properly understood scientific statement in the Bible which contradicts established scientific knowledge.


1. The Bible claims to be inspired

2. Full inspiration naturally leads to inerrancy

3. Inerrancy naturally leads to authority. There are other things that are accurate (inerrant), but that doesn’t necessarily make it authoritative. The Bible itself is authoritative because it’s the word of God—not just because it’s the Bible (or a particular version). The ultimate authority is God himself. It is God who makes the Bible authoritative

4. Is Scripture the most authoritative kind of revelation? It’s very difficult, if not impossible, to “rank” truth. If scripture is true revelation, then it is authoritative for that reason—because it comes from God and is true.

5. The Bible is authoritative to provide us a standard to judge some other forms of revelation. If Scripture is fully inspired and, for that reason, fully true, then it can serve as a fixed standard for judging the validity and truth content of other supposed revelations.


1. The author: Who wrote this?
a. Many authors confirmed by miracles.
b. Not everything these authors wrote became scripture.
2. Orthodoxy: Does this match up with previous revelation?
3. Relevance: Is this widely applicable?


Nonbiblical books from that same time period (eg gospel of Thomas, the gospel of Mary, the gospel of Judas, etc.).

Imitation scriptures: books that tried to sound like the bible with similar language and phrases; falsely attributed to a respected figured to gain credibility. Some often written well after the author lived. If the author isn’t authentic, the content is on shaky ground.


The Apocrypha are a subset of pseudepigrapha (the Old Testament books the Catholic church includes).

Included in the Septuagint (Greek translation of the Old Testament) included these additional books.Jewish people and the early church did not consider them scripture and were not quoted as authoritative. The Early church used the Greek translation of the Old Testament, so they were familiar with them.

It’s not quite accurate that the Catholic church “included” them as scripture or that the Protestant church “removed” them.Latin translation (Vulgate) included the Apocrypha (not as authoritative scripture), but people began to treat it as scripture. Some doctrines developed that depended upon the Apocrypha, so later English translations did not include them.