Keeping it biblical

I like my big, long titles from previous posts, but I'm also kind of tired of writing them and trying to remember what number I'm on.  So, just supply the first part on your own, and I'll give you the subtitle.

This one comes from a recommendation that someone gave to my wife when she and I discuss our various theological differences.  That person said that we should "keep it biblical" when we have our discussions.  In other words, stick to what the Bible says to help adjudicate whatever differences we may have.  While this could be great advice, it conveniently ignores a couple of things:

1) "Keeping it biblical" doesn't really matter much unless you address the theological framework that shapes your interpretation.  In other words, nobody comes to the Bible with a blank slate.  We all bring our theological framework with us that helps guide our interpretations.

2) People have been "keeping it biblical," starting with the OT, and then with whatever the early Christians wrote, and it hasn't helped anybody come up with a consensus on much of anything.  There has to be a better way.  But first, some examples:

The Lord's Supper

In all of the gospel accounts, Jesus shares this supper with all of his disciples, including his enemy and betrayer, Judas.  Later, in 1 Corinthians 11, Paul talks about eating the body and blood of the Lord in an unworthy manner, and that a person should examine himself or herself before taking communion.  So, these passages seem to give two different answers to the question of who is welcome at the Lord's table.  Jesus welcomed his enemy and betrayer to the table, but Paul seems to be saying "get your sh*t together before you take communion or God might make you sick or kill you."  Which account of communion is going to provide the answer of who should take communion, and how it should be given?  According to my previously provided hermeneutic (interpretive key to understanding/interpreting the Bible), Jesus comes first, second, and third, and then everything else.  So, I'm going to interpret Paul in light of Jesus' practices.  Also, because of my view of sin (it's simultaneously both more serious and more trivial than many evangelicals give it credit for), I'm going to say that Paul is not asking people to remember and confess all of their evil deeds before they take communion.  The answer to what Paul is talking about may come a few verses later when he talks about those who eat without waiting for others.  It may have to do more with caring for others in the community, and being cognizant of what communion is about, than it does about whether or not you said a curse word before church or had a hateful thought about someone a couple minutes into the worship service.

Baptism

What exactly happens in baptism, if anything?  I had learned (as a good baptist) that baptism is a symbol, which means that nothing really happens in baptism.  It is simply an act of obedience to Jesus, who commanded that people be baptized, and it occurs when a person is old enough to make the decision to be baptized.  Well, in that case, what about verses like I Peter 3:21, Acts 22:16, and Acts 2:38, which seem to indicate that something more is going on in baptism than merely a symbolic act?  Honestly, I'm not sure.  I'm willing to live in the tension a little bit and admit that maybe I have more to learn here.  Perhaps participating in the act itself is far more important than whatever interpretation is given to it by those trying to reconcile the different ways of "keeping it biblical" in this case.

Salvation

Here's a couple of good ones: Romans 8 and John 10 (among other chapters) seem to indicate that salvation is a gift from God that can never be taken from a believer.  But, Hebrews 6 (and others) seems to say that it is possible for believers to apostatize and leave the faith.  So, which is right?  I dunno.  And, I'm glad it's not my job to figure out who is "saved" and who isn't.

So, what's the point of all this?  That the Bible is contradictory and wrong?  That it can't be trusted?  Nope.  It's just that you have to pick your poison.  There's no such thing as "keeping it biblical" as if there is some plain way of reading the scriptures that's going to eliminate all the controversy.  Instead, you just have to be clear about what theological framework is going to guide your interpretation.  Do you want to try to list out all the verses and stories on either side of an issue and then pick the side with the most verses on it?  Fine.  Do you want to try to let the "clearest" statements of scripture interpret the most obscure statements?  Ok.  Do you prefer the propositional statements of the NT epistles to the stories of the gospels and OT?  Good for you.  Or, maybe you are a fan of Jesus like me.  Whatever it is, just be clear about what you're doing.