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

Jean Piaget—perhaps the most respected psychologist of the twentieth century—told of a conversation with Einstein, who commented to Piaget that psychology is more difficult than physics. Why? Because, as Einstein made clear in other writings, without language there could be no study of physics. We could not ask about origins of any kind. A child could not wonder where God was before the world was made, and the great questions of science and religion could never be asked. There could be no theories of origins. - https://answersingenesis.org/tower-of-babel/more-than-pie/

Heard that? “Without language there could be no study of physics. We could not ask about origins of any kind” but more importantly “A child could not wonder where God was before the world was made, and the great questions of science and religion could never be asked”!

Scientists pushing into unknown territory often find themselves at a loss for words. The more mysterious the emerging landscape, the further they must reach for appropriate language to describe it. Lately, physicists who study the big questions of the universe can be heard tossing around such terms as “quintessence,” “X Dark Matter,” “smooth stuff,” “funny energy” and “tangled strings.” … For the time being, the physicists will continue to speak in tongues, struggling to invent an appropriate language, sounding more like wordsmiths than scientists. Perhaps that’s appropriate. The late Nobel laureate Niels Bohr, who first saw clearly into the fuzzy heart of atoms, said that physicists trying to describe the subatomic realm in everyday language were more poets than scientists. - https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1998-jun-15-mn-60102-story.html

Where would we be today if words such as, Energy, Matter, Atom, Big-Bang etc… hadn’t come into existence? You might think that only Scientists and Physicists deal with this but the reality is that it’s in every field. Here’s one from a world of design:

“Every field has it’s own set of vocabulary that to an outsider may make zero sense. Designers use terms like [orphan] and [widow] to identify issues that can interfere with legibility. What is important is not learning the design jargon, but becoming familiar with common typographic mistakes so that they can be identified and avoided in your own writing and layouts.” - http://www.taylorstudios.com/blog/2013/01/17/widows-orphans-and-rivers-oh-my-design-jargon-explained/

Without proper vocabularies we will have a hard time understanding or explaining God or the things of God to others. Those that refuse to use extra-biblical words or phrases when doing theological studies are denying reality and common sense, and they have traditions or man-made doctrines they want to safeguard, “Most heretics try to mask their heresy by using orthodox language to convey it.” (R.C. Sproul).

The question is: Why is it that Scientists, Physicists, Mathematicians and even Graphic Designers are allowed to have their own vocabularies but not Theologians, even when Scripture permits it? Which we’ll see in a moment.

Imagine a world without names. Imagine, for a moment, the horror and absurdity of ordering a simple meal without naming words. “I’ll take one of those things with the two soft, round things on the outside and one of those brown mushy things on the inside, and it’s got some red stuff and some yellow stuff and some round, green things on it.” Oh, you must mean a hamburger! You see, I couldn’t even get through this ridiculous scenario without using a couple of generic naming words, such as [stuff] or [things]. What’s in a name? Sometimes, a name is everything.

The word [noun] comes from the Latin word [nomen], meaning “name.” Nouns are names of people, places, things, and ideas. Anything we can imagine has a name. If someone discovers a person, place, thing, or idea without a name, you can be sure that steps will be taken to remedy that situation. —Michael Strumpf & Auriel Douglas (The Grammar Bible)

Imagine explaining God without words such as Omniscience, Omnipotent, Person, Being, Hypostatic-Union, Essence etc… When doing theological studies, you’ll encounter a lot of nuances, and it’s inevitable that words and phrases not found in the Bible get thrown around. As you move up to more advanced subjects, precision is required to avoid misunderstanding. For example, in Arithmetic, “x” is used for multiplication. In Algebra people use “•” because “x” is now used as a variable. The higher we go, the more precise our language must be. Mathematicians came up with and use precise language or notations to solve, describe and to teach about the universe. How much more then when it comes to God’s being and His truth. Are Theologians not allowed to be precise in their usage of language to understand, guard, explain and to teach about God and His truth to future generations and to promote the study of biblical doctrines? Don’t we all want God to be accurately presented and taught to His people? Then what’s wrong with carefully choosing the right words to accurately do so?

There’s nothing wrong with extra-biblical words. This is common sense stuff that the Scripture makes room for because without Nouns and Adjectives, we can’t communicate. We can’t even describe what a thing is without Adjectives. We can’t even begin to talk about anything without Nouns. This principle is taught in Scripture.

“So when the children of Israel saw it, they said to one another, ‘what is it?’ For they did not know what it was.” —Exodus 16:15-16

This bread that came from heaven was new to them. They had no idea what to call it. Then down in v.31, they agreed to call it “MANNA.” There you have it, a NOUN. Then they went on to describe this Noun using Adjectives, “And it was like white coriander seed, and the taste of it was like wafers made with honey.” Again, we see them describing this “Manna” in Numbers 11:7-9, “…the manna was like coriander seed, and its color like the color of… its taste was like…” They used Adjectives to describe a Noun they came up with.

What did Jesus think of this? He didn’t get into silly debate about using extra-biblical words, nor rebuked them for coming up with earthly nouns and adjectives for something that came from heaven. Instead, He approved it. They said, “Our fathers ate THE MANNA…” Jesus understood what they meant when they said “MANNA.” He knew what they were referring to, and to that He said, “Moses did not give you THE BREAD…” (John 6:31-32). Down in v.49, using the Noun they came up with, “Your fathers ate THE MANNA in the wilderness, and are dead.”

If we’re to think biblically, then the conclusion is that we shouldn’t reject Reformed Soteriology or even the Trinity simply because its vocabularies are not found in Scripture. What’s important is the teaching or doctrine behind the name or label.

I have more to say in the Addendum (a separate post).

Recommended reading: Shouldn’t a Biblical Doctrine Be Explained Using Only Biblical Words or Concepts?