What does it mean for a chair to exist? A computer? A business? Does something exist merely when its material components exist? Can a chair can be said to exist when all of its parts have just come off the factory line, or do they need to be assembled and working before a chair exists?

Another Way to Understand Existence

Contrary to what the opening paragraph might suggest, this article is not a philosophical argument about a specific ontological position. John Walton, in his work The Lost World of Genesis One, suggests that existence can be understood in other ways than merely by material presence. That is to say, it is possible to understand that something’s existence is not necessarily based solely on the fact that its material is present. He suggests this, not to argue that we ought to revise our own materialist ontological assumptions (although a case might be made for that), it is instead to show that other possibilities exist, namely functional ontology. Existence can be understood in terms of functionality.

Ancient Understand Existence in terms of Functions

http://www.flickr.com/photos/kenlund/3378221946/

He argues that the ancients held to this sort of a functional ontology. For something to exist, it not only needs to have a material aspect, but more importantly, it needs to have a function. He argues persuasively in his second proposition, through the literature of the ancient near eastern peoples, that, for them, non-functioning things are non-existent. A barren landscape, to them, is non-existent land. Their creation stories deal with making the world a functioning place out of a non-functioning one.

What Does This Have To Do With Genesis?

This is extremely important in developing an understanding of Genesis. If all ancients held this view of existence, and for something to be created meant that something is given a function rather than given material substance (implying the material substance is required, but not part of the act of creation), then this could change our understanding of what Genesis is trying to convey. What if the act of creating is more literally understood as an act of making the world functional, rather than making its materials?

Next Time

We’ll examine how Walton proposes to make the leap from how non-Hebrew ancient near eastern people viewed creating to how Hebrew ancient near eastern people viewed creating through the evidence from Genesis.

Second, Christians should always remember that the truthfulness and authority of the Bible are not based upon any authority external to the Bible itself. There is no external evidence required to “prove” the Bible’s truthfulness. It stands on its own claim to be the Word of God. Archaeology may sell magazines and make for interesting reading, but it cannot prove nor disprove the Bible.
www.albertmohler.com

for the first two sentences I think to myself, well yeah, of course something’s truthfulness is not based on anything external. But when he says,

It stands on its own claim to be the Word of God

I think he’s got truth and argument mixed up (not that I believe he did this intentionally, perhaps it was an over-site). Just as something’s truth is not based on external arguments, neither is its truth based on internal arguments (i.e. in this case, it’s own claims). It’s truth or falsity simply is. Arguments are not the same as truth nor are they the basis for something’s truth, but that doesn’t mean arguments aren’t useful. On the contrary they are extremely useful because arguments persuade someone of the something’s truth.

So while the truth that the Bible is the Word of God is not dependent on external claims, neither is it dependent on its own internal claims. But we are persuaded of the truth of this claim both by external and internal arguments. I tend to think that to an outsider an internal claim of truth is circular, which is to say that it is valid (logically) but not persuasive. This leaves external claims (valid ones that is) for persuasion.

How the specific claim that the Bible is the Word of God connects with external arguments for or against it’s truth (i.e. from science, history, archaeology, etc) is an import topic, but one for a different post.

First, what does the “Bible alone” mean? For the Bible is never alone, in that an interpretation must always be made. With regard to the general Protestant era (Luther up to the present), we have a variety of ways to interpret the Bible. Do we interpret as Luther did with differentiating between the literal and historical and the spiritual and prophetic? Or do we side with Zwingli and attempt to find a natural sense of Scripture? Or should we use modern rational approach, historical approach, sociological approach, or literary approach? Whichever way one goes, there is always an interpretation of the Bible to go along with the words of the Bible. While unlikely, if the by the “Bible alone,” interpretation of the Bible is to be included, we must then look at the next term: “religion.”

So what of this term? Is by religion meant the works of man to merit the righteousness of God? Or is it meant the structure of the Christian faith that the Protestants have built? Or is it simply the faith of Christ followers? If by “religion” is meant the faith of Christ followers, then to answer our question we still have one more term to examine: “Protestant.”

It is historically plain to see that there is no one “Protestant” faith or religion. If the mainstream Reformation wing is meant, then one can find tradition (as in the traditional method of interpretation), reason (as in the basic human faculty of thinking), and experience (as in theology interpreting our inner experience) all impact the faith of Christ followers. Only in the radical wing of the Protestant reformation do you find a total rejection of tradition.

It seems then the only way Protestants can agree with this statement is to define the Bible alone to include its interpretation, religion to simply mean the faith of Christ followers, and Protestant to mean those denominations derived from the radical wing of the Reformation. Otherwise the Bible alone is not the religion of the Protestants.