Scriptural and Biblical

NOTE: We have moved to our new home, http://bibleexpose.org/.

What does it mean when we say that something is “not in the Bible”? We need to clarify such a statement because there is a difference between something that is not found in the Bible and that which is not taught by it. 

The Iglesia ni Cristo (INC) teaches that the doctrine that our Lord Jesus is equal with God (or the Trinity) is not in the Bible. They even label it as a “monumental error on the belief concerning Christ.” (Pasugo July 1994, 13) They even call it a “doctrinal innovation” (Ibid, 14). Then, they claim that,

“The belief of the Iglesia ni Cristo that Christ is man and not God is apostolic and biblical. … The Iglesia ni Cristo in these last days gallantly upholds this apostolic and scriptural teaching in the face of criticism and opposition from those who believe otherwise.” (Ibid, 16, 12. Emphasis added.)

So, as far as the INC is concerned, the teaching on the deity of Christ is not scriptural or biblical. It appears that they used the adjectives “scriptural” and “biblical” interchangeably. For them, both words seems to mean that, “It’s in the Bible.” So, when they say that a teaching is not scriptural or biblical, they are saying that, “It’s not in the Bible.” But such use of those words is too simplistic. When we dig deeper, we will see that there’s an important distinction between scriptural and biblical.

“We must always distinguish between something that is contrary to Scripture and something that is not in Scripture; a thing may be non-scriptural without being against Scripture. We are allowed to do [Bible Exposé: and, if I may add, to believe in] things not specifically mentioned in Scripture provided they are not contrary to Scripture; that is, provided they are in harmony with scriptural principles.” (Brian Edwards, Nothing but the Truth, 103)

Something is scriptural when the exact words or phrase is “specifically mentioned” or “in the Scriptures.” It is “biblical” when it is taught in the Bible or not “against Scripture.” So, when we evangelicals say something is scriptural, what we meant was that it is found in the Bible. When we say that it is biblical, it is taught by the Bible.

When something “is not in Scripture” or “not specifically mentioned in Scripture”, we call it “non-scriptural.” But that does not mean that it is automatically unbiblical. Keep in mind that “a thing may be non-scriptural without being against Scripture.” In other words, it may not be scriptural but that does not mean it is also not biblical. As long as it is “not contrary to Scripture; that is, provided [it is] in harmony with scriptural principles”, that which may not be scriptural can still be biblical.

Groups that deny the Trinity assert that, “It is not in the Bible.” (For example, Eli Soriano of Ang Dating Daan for dramatic effect would even run a word search using Bible software to show that the word “Trinity” is not found in the Scriptures.) But that only means the word itself is not scriptural. Of course, they would want to make us believe that it is also not biblical. Yet, the term may not be scriptural but the concept behind that term is biblical. “Even though the word ‘Trinity’ does not appear in Scripture, its essence pervades New Testament revelation.” (Noel A. Espinosa, Trinity: Take A Second Look, 7) The Trinity may not be scriptural but it is nonetheless biblical. 

From BibleGateway.com

Let’s look at it from another point of view. The word “shabu” is not found in the Bible. It is not scriptural. Does that mean that we can now use methamphetamine? Of course not! Why? The Bible tells us, “‘I have the right to do anything,’ you say—but not everything is beneficial. ‘I have the right to do anything’—but I will not be mastered by anything.” (1 Corinthians 6:12, NIV. All Bible verses are from the ESV, unless noted.) Shabu is not beneficial. It is in fact harmful. It masters or controls the person who uses it. So, even if the word itself is not scriptural, the use of shabu is not biblical. Its use is contrary to the Scripture.

Now, the INC may disagree with us on this. But, if we follow their logic to its end, we can also question why they believe their founder, Felix Manalo, was “the last of God’s messengers.” Search the entire Scripture and we will never find the words “Felix Manalo.” So, we can say that Felix Manalo is not in the Bible. We merely used their “not scriptural” argument against their teaching. But, despite the fact that we cannot find his name in the Bible, the INC would still insist that it prophesied about him. They are not even consistent with their argument. If they reject the Trinity because it is not scriptural, then they should also reject Felix Manalo on the same ground. 

From BibleGateway.com

Actually, in a sense, we can argue that the belief that Jesus is God is not only biblical but also scriptural. We may not read Jesus saying the exact words, “I am God.” But that doesn’t really mean He did not make such a claim. The problem is we are reading the ancient words of God through a modern mindset.

In John 5:17b, Jesus declared, “My Father is working until now, and I am working.” Look at the response of the Jews: “This was why the Jews were seeking all the more to kill him, because not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God.” (Emphasis added.) Now, from our point-of-view, when Jesus called God “My Father,” it is not much of an issue to us. But from the Jewish eyes, Christ claimed equality with God. 

“The words My Father should be noted. Jesus did not say ‘your Father’ or even ‘our Father.’ His opponents did not miss His claim to Deity.” (The Bible Knowledge Commentary, 290. Emphasis theirs.)

A Jew would not dare call God “My Father” unless he adds the phrase “in heaven.” But our Lord Jesus did not even qualify His statement. To the Jews, when He called God “My Father,” it is really equivalent to Him saying “I am God.” So, in effect, He did say “I am God.” That's the Jewish way of making such a claim.

Thus, to say that something is not “in the Bible” is a sweeping generalization. We need to be precise with our words so as not to mislead people. Keep in mind that, “For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and with the measure you use it will be measured to you.” (Matthew 7:2) Based on their own measure, we measured the INC and we found them wanting.

© 2012 Bible Exposé Apologetics Ministry. To know more about us, click here.

NOTE: We have moved to our new home, http://bibleexpose.org/.

________________________________

REFERENCES

Aromin, Ruben D. “Just when was Christ made God?” Pasugo: God’s Message. July 1994.

Edwards, Brian H. Nothing but the Truth. Great Britain: Evangelical Press, 1993.

Espinosa, Noel A. Trinity: Take a Second Look. Mandaluyong: OMF, 1987.

Martin, John A. “John” in The Bible Knowledge Commentary, New Testament. Ed. John F. Walvoord, Roy B. Zuck and Dallas Theological Seminary. Wheaton, IL: Victor Books, 1983, 1985.