Unbiblical: contrary to Scripture or unsupported by Scripture?

[karen freeinchristman]

This topic began in another thread, with the following posts:

Granted that it does assume that St Peter can hear, understand, has the time to take account of the millions of requests he gets etc, but since the bible doesn't really clear that up either way it seems to be going a bit far to call that "unbiblical" (which, to me at least, implies contrary to with the bible says).

You see to me that is an interesting distinctive. I do not read "unbiblical" as meaning contrary to Scripture but rather not supported by Scripture.

I find this distinctive very interesting as well. I am wondering a lot about what this might mean for us as Christians. Certainly there are many things we do in life that are not supported by Scripture, but are not contrary to Scripture, specifically. Driving a car, for example. But does this distinctive only apply to things that are spiritual? And then where do we draw the line between the spiritual and the non-spiritual parts of our lives, especially if we allow God into all aspects of our lives? Just questions floating through my mind. I'm wondering whether to start a new thread about it.



Driving a car is a spiritually neutral thing. We must ensure our lives are in accordance with God's will of command or his revealled will. If they are then we have a degree of freedom to do what we wish (sort of).



That's why I asked whether the distinction only applies to spiritual things. And should God not guide every aspect of our lives?

I thought it would be interesting to discuss this. Thoughts?

[karen freeinchristman]

For a Christian, is there anything that is 'spiritually neutral'?

Even driving a car has implications - there is a difference between the choice of car driven, and the manner in which it is driven.

[ebia]

Is spiritual/secular even a valid distinction in the Judeo/Christian tradition?

[AngCath]

Is spiritual/secular even a valid distinction in the Judeo/Christian tradition?
No.
The Incarnation has made any such division between sacred and secular invalid.

[AngCath]

To add to my previous post...
the opposite of the sacred is not the secular, but the profane.

[IowaLutheran]

My vote would be for "contrary to scripture."

"Not supported by scripture" strikes me as being too close to the extreme position of sola scriptura held by some, i.e., if its not in the Bible, don't do it.

Many traditions are not explicitly supported by Scripture, but that does not mean they are unBiblical. They become unBiblical, IMHO, if they contradict Scripture.

[ebia]

To add to my previous post...
the opposite of the sacred is not the secular, but the profane.
Feel free to reword my "sacred/secular" split more appropriately, but sacred/profane is clearly not what I'm getting at.

[ChaliceThunder]

No.
The Incarnation has made any such division between sacred and secular invalid.
Agreed. And very well put, I might add! :clap:

[ebia]

No.
The Incarnation has made any such division between sacred and secular invalid.
It was valid before the incarnation in Jewish thinking?

[Iosias]

For a Christian, is there anything that is 'spiritually neutral'?

Even driving a car has implications - there is a difference between the choice of car driven, and the manner in which it is driven.

There was a reason for the ' marks :) My point was simply that driving a car is not in and of itself right or wrong but neutral. Of course the manner in which it is driven would be an issue but let us take a simpler example...watching TV is a neutral activity for the TV set is not inherently sinful but watching pornography would be sinful as would driving in such a way that others are put in danger and road rage.

[Iosias]

BTW: I would use the term "unBiblical" to mean "contrary to Scripture".

[No Swansong]

I really had never thought about it. I have always just assumed that the term "unbiblical" meant not supported by Scripture. But I do not mean that in the manner in which our friend Iowa Lutheran feels is implied. Just because something is not supported in Scripture does not, to me, mean that it is ethically or morally "wrong". I am more of the mind that not being supported by Scripture simply means that Scripture itself does not say that act "A" is wrong because it isn't supported by Scripture. Instead to me it is more like saying there is no Scriptural support so we will need to look for other resources etc in order to determine appropriateness.

But to be honest I think that that term has been used with both ideas in mind determined by the intent of the author. Although I do not read the term as meaning "contrary to Scripture I certainly can accept that this may be the majority use of the term.

[Albion]

BTW: I would use the term "unBiblical" to mean "contrary to Scripture".

That would be my understanding of the word, too.

[AngCath]

I don't think the definition of "unbiblical" is the problem... it is how often it is tossed around

[karen freeinchristman]

I don't think the definition of "unbiblical" is the problem... it is how often it is tossed around
Yes, you are right. But there is a pretty big difference between the two definitions that were proposed previously - whether something is actually contrary to Scripture, or whether there is simply nothing in Scripture that supports (or disallows) it.

[No Swansong]

Yes, you are right. But there is a pretty big difference between the two definitions that were proposed previously - whether something is actually contrary to Scripture, or whether there is simply nothing in Scripture that supports (or disallows) it.
It is a pretty significant difference and as our friend ebia has pointed out it could easily lead to significant misunderstandings. The term probably should be avoided as much as possible. I guess if I was going to say something was contrary to Scripture I would probably just say that and provide the Scripture that I feel it is contrary to.

[karen freeinchristman]

It is a pretty significant difference and as our friend ebia has pointed out it could easily lead to significant misunderstandings. The term probably should be avoided as much as possible. I guess if I was going to say something was contrary to Scripture I would probably just say that and provide the Scripture that I feel it is contrary to.
I think that is a good idea! And if something were supported or unsupported by Scripture we could just say that, too. Words are so powerful and we all need to be careful how we use them (I'm speaking to myself as well as anyone who wants to listen). One thing about being a member of a message board is that we learn so much about being careful about words, and hopefully we get better and avoid misunderstandings. But I know from experience (elsewhere in 4U) that I make mistakes and people get the wrong end of the stick... :sorry:

[Colabomb]

Luther Called the Things that are not Supported or condemned in Scripture adiaphora. I thnk I will adopt this term.

[gtsecc]

Then you might have a problem if the general historic practice of the Church says something is a certain way, and Luther's lens of scripture says it is adiaphora. You see, then we are holding Luther's "lens" in higher regard than the entire church, so it is a problematic solution.

[Albion]

Luther Called the Things that are not Supported or condemned in Scripture adiaphora. I thnk I will adopt this term.

I like the term too, and it causes us to keep in mind the difference between essentials and non-essentials.