Where in the Bible does it say that? (1 of 2)

New Christians who are just beginning their theological studies may encounter a few challenges (1 Timothy 3:6) because of their lack of experience in handling the Scripture and their zealousness and desire to be biblical. There are a few approaches to studying the Bible that I’ll get into in future post(s), but in this post I want to talk about the mindset that can hinder beginners from truly going deep into God’s words.

The desire to [be] biblical vs. The desire to [think] biblically

I believe there’s a difference between a desire to be biblical, using only biblical words and phrases and only believe in a doctrine or teaching if the Bible says it explicitly, vs. a desire to think biblically. Maybe there’s no difference at all, but this is just me trying to make sense of a disturbing trend. I fell into the same trap when I first started out as a new Christian. The desire to be biblical is good (who doesn’t?), but as always, the Devil knows how to twist a good thing and enslave our minds with it, and new Christians lack the wisdom and maturity to discern this.

It’s truly enticing and ear-tickling to hear a teacher or preacher of the word to boldly proclaim, “As Christians, we must be biblical! Show me in the Bible where it says that and I’ll believe it!” I don’t remember those making such a statement put an emphasis on thinking. It’s only in thinking biblically that we can be biblical otherwise we’ll fall into a trap…

One surprising fact that I did not expect to find was that the heretics protested most loudly over the non-scriptural language of the orthodox creed. They pointed out that the phrases, “of one essence with the Father,” and “one substance with the Father” were not in the Bible. The heretics demanded “no creed but the Bible” precisely so that they could use biblical language to evade biblical truth. For example, they would happily call Christ “Son of God,” and then argue that, like all sons, he must have had a beginning. So to my surprise one form of the doctrine of the “sufficiency of Scripture” was used to undermine Scripture’s truth.

This strategy of evading biblical truth by using only biblical language has been used over and over in the history of the church. For example, in 1719 over a hundred Presbyterian, Congregational, and Baptist ministers gathered in London to deal with the problem that some ministers, after reading Samuel Clark, refused to sign the Trinitarian creeds of their denominations. They had become essentially Arian. What was the key issue? “The technical issue was whether it was enough for ministers to promise to follow only the Scriptures” (Mark Noll, The Rise of Evangelicalism [Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 2003], p. 43). The Arians insisted on “no creed but the Bible,” or no language but Bible language. The vote was 57-53 against traditional Trinitarians. Again a form of the “sufficiency of Scripture” had been used to undermine the truth of Scripture. —John Piper¹

Most Christians today don’t want to think or reason biblically because thinking is hard work. They would rather be inconsistent by going with only what the Bible says and then reading into it. Imagine theologians denying the “Omniscience” of God simply because they scanned through the entire text of the Bible and the word “Omniscience” is nowhere to be found. You can now see why so-called “Christians” deny the Trinity because they desire to be biblical without thinking biblically! Roman Catholicism falls into the same trap when they deny justification by faith alone. Why? The Bible does not say “justified by faith ALONE.”

Looking for a specific wording is not how we do theology, otherwise we would have to throw the doctrine of the Trinity, and many others, out the window. Can you imagine Nicodemus questioning Jesus in this manner, “Where in the Old Testament does it specifically say ‘Kingdom of God’ or this ‘Born Again’ that you speak of? I don’t remember the Torah or any of the prophets ever saying those words.” Now that’s a problem if Nicodemus wanted to be biblical, but not if you’re thinking biblically.

We study theology not by approaching the Bible looking for a specific wording, but reading through it and take everything it says about a given topic into consideration. The word “Saving-Faith” is not in the Bible but the teaching is. Those that have looked through the biblical data encapsulated that teaching by calling it “Saving-Faith.” The same goes for “Believer’s Baptism.” It’s just a convenient way of referring to the teaching that Baptism is for those that have accepted the Gospel and received the Spirit of Christ. Without this handle (or any handle), it becomes difficult to get our points across without getting lengthy in our explanations. The Scripture are filled with doctrines without names, and it’s up to us, theologians, to categorize them for teaching purposes. Being biblical is not the problem. Not thinking biblically is. As Christians, we should strive to be biblical by thinking biblically.

In Part 2, I’ll give practical examples showing you why this practice, of giving label/name to doctrine, is biblical, and why Christians shouldn’t be quick to reject Reformed Soteriology because of the many words or phrases not found in Scripture.

See also:

1. https://www.desiringgod.org/articles/thoughts-on-the-sufficiency-of-scripture