One small thing I’d add (and I know Trevin wouldn’t disagree). Using the language of Scripture doesn’t make something biblical, and not using the language of Scripture doesn’t make something unbiblical. The most important thing is that we reflect the meaning (logic and intention) of Scripture. But it should certainly make us pause when we get so detailed in our semantics that we wince at a Scriptural writer using certain unqualified expressions.
So my encouragement–building off of Trevin’s–is for people not to be semantic legalists (either in favor of, or in opposition to, repeating Scriptural language).
Well, I’ll add one small thing to Justin’s statement, not knowing if he would agree or disagree. He has a point in what he says, and I agree with it as anyone looking at the number of times I use the word “Trinity” (or even “covenant” when it is not used as often in Scripture).
But even so, I want to never forget, nor fail to communicate, that the Bible is not just a sent message but a means of discipleship. Yes it can and must be translated, but even so its words and expressions are intended to re-teach us how to talk and write and pray.
If the Bible was just a message, it would be much shorter. There wouldn’t be 150 Psalms. We wouldn’t have two tellings of the architecture of the Tabernacle in one book. Et Cetera. (See, I even still use Latin. I’m just another scholastic, I tell you!)