Comments on: Salvation within the functional hermeneutic http://heissufficient.com/2008/05/01/salvation-within-the-functional-hermeneutic/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=salvation-within-the-functional-hermeneutic A personal walk in a wilderness of words Wed, 08 Feb 2012 04:32:36 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: ElShaddai Edwards http://heissufficient.com/2008/05/01/salvation-within-the-functional-hermeneutic/#comment-1351 ElShaddai Edwards Thu, 01 May 2008 23:33:38 +0000 http://heissufficient.wordpress.com/?p=712#comment-1351 You're not "off topic" in my book - this thread is about the function of salvation and I welcome your comments! You’re not “off topic” in my book – this thread is about the function of salvation and I welcome your comments!

]]> By: Dave http://heissufficient.com/2008/05/01/salvation-within-the-functional-hermeneutic/#comment-1350 Dave Thu, 01 May 2008 23:06:58 +0000 http://heissufficient.wordpress.com/?p=712#comment-1350 EE, I think, to some extent anyway, that is THE question as far as pre-Christ Jews are concerned. I've heard a theory that they are given the choice of accepting Christ after they have died, but I don't think there is any Biblical basis for that. Anyway, I don't mean to veer this off topic ;) EE,

I think, to some extent anyway, that is THE question as far as pre-Christ Jews are concerned. I’ve heard a theory that they are given the choice of accepting Christ after they have died, but I don’t think there is any Biblical basis for that. Anyway, I don’t mean to veer this off topic ;)

]]> By: ElShaddai Edwards http://heissufficient.com/2008/05/01/salvation-within-the-functional-hermeneutic/#comment-1349 ElShaddai Edwards Thu, 01 May 2008 20:25:03 +0000 http://heissufficient.wordpress.com/?p=712#comment-1349 Good catch - I should have said that their sins were atoned for (or expiated) by the sacrificial system. Your latter point, that "they were somehow saved through what Christ would eventually do", does raise the question that, if salvation was a function established at Creation, were the Jews who died <i>in atonement</i> automatically saved since the sacrificial system was in reality a precursor to Christ, and both were/are structures of the same overarching function. Good catch – I should have said that their sins were atoned for (or expiated) by the sacrificial system.

Your latter point, that “they were somehow saved through what Christ would eventually do”, does raise the question that, if salvation was a function established at Creation, were the Jews who died in atonement automatically saved since the sacrificial system was in reality a precursor to Christ, and both were/are structures of the same overarching function.

]]> By: Dave http://heissufficient.com/2008/05/01/salvation-within-the-functional-hermeneutic/#comment-1348 Dave Thu, 01 May 2008 20:04:22 +0000 http://heissufficient.wordpress.com/?p=712#comment-1348 ElShaddai wrote: "We are saved/redeemed within the context of whatever structure God has made available for us: for the OT Jews, it was the sacrificial system" EE, I always thought the more "orthodox" view was that the OT sacrificaial system wasn't what saved them, but they were somehow saved through what Christ would eventually do. Any thoughts? Dave ElShaddai wrote: “We are saved/redeemed within the context of whatever structure God has made available for us: for the OT Jews, it was the sacrificial system”

EE,

I always thought the more “orthodox” view was that the OT sacrificaial system wasn’t what saved them, but they were somehow saved through what Christ would eventually do. Any thoughts?

Dave

]]> By: TC http://heissufficient.com/2008/05/01/salvation-within-the-functional-hermeneutic/#comment-1347 TC Thu, 01 May 2008 17:48:59 +0000 http://heissufficient.wordpress.com/?p=712#comment-1347 Kevin, after reading what Elshaddai wrote, I believe we need to keep the structures as our footing for the functional view. Elshaddai, I'm out of town for a few days, so I haven't come around to Dr Walton. I'll have to wait for the weekend. But I find this topic quite intriguing. I'll really like to get my hands around this one. I'm looking forward to more posts on this. Kevin, after reading what Elshaddai wrote, I believe we need to keep the structures as our footing for the functional view.

Elshaddai, I’m out of town for a few days, so I haven’t come around to Dr Walton. I’ll have to wait for the weekend.

But I find this topic quite intriguing. I’ll really like to get my hands around this one. I’m looking forward to more posts on this.

]]> By: ElShaddai Edwards http://heissufficient.com/2008/05/01/salvation-within-the-functional-hermeneutic/#comment-1346 ElShaddai Edwards Thu, 01 May 2008 17:26:33 +0000 http://heissufficient.wordpress.com/?p=712#comment-1346 <i>rather than viewing the hermeneutical of Genesis 1 as either/or, Is it possible for us to view it as a both/and.</i> Yes, I think so. Steve and Dave more or less came to that conclusion in the "Genesis 1 as functional creation..." comment thread. I've tweaked the language in that paragraph to be more accommodating. <i>Don’t we need the structures of Genesis 1 before we can get to their functions, so much so that we understand them as literal within the Genesis narrative?</i> I don't know... it might depend on whether you mean "we" as humanity in general, across time, or as modern, post-Enlightenment people. Walton's point seemed to be that our modern concept of thinking about objects or structures as the root of our interpretation would have been completely foreign to an ANE culture. This is new to me, so I don't have the knowledge to adequately contrast the two - did you have a chance to browse his Genesis commentary that you said you had? rather than viewing the hermeneutical of Genesis 1 as either/or, Is it possible for us to view it as a both/and.

Yes, I think so. Steve and Dave more or less came to that conclusion in the “Genesis 1 as functional creation…” comment thread. I’ve tweaked the language in that paragraph to be more accommodating.

Don’t we need the structures of Genesis 1 before we can get to their functions, so much so that we understand them as literal within the Genesis narrative?

I don’t know… it might depend on whether you mean “we” as humanity in general, across time, or as modern, post-Enlightenment people. Walton’s point seemed to be that our modern concept of thinking about objects or structures as the root of our interpretation would have been completely foreign to an ANE culture. This is new to me, so I don’t have the knowledge to adequately contrast the two – did you have a chance to browse his Genesis commentary that you said you had?

]]> By: Kevin Sam http://heissufficient.com/2008/05/01/salvation-within-the-functional-hermeneutic/#comment-1345 Kevin Sam Thu, 01 May 2008 17:22:11 +0000 http://heissufficient.wordpress.com/?p=712#comment-1345 TC, I like the both/and view this hermeneutic. We seem to separate views into two camps. Often, seeing things with a wider hermeneutic lens is more difficult but can also make sense. Being brought up with a literal interpretation of creation and now coming into more of a functional view has helped me make more sense in the 7 days of creation. I'm still struggling with this though and I appreciate learning about this. Great posts ElShaddai. TC, I like the both/and view this hermeneutic. We seem to separate views into two camps. Often, seeing things with a wider hermeneutic lens is more difficult but can also make sense. Being brought up with a literal interpretation of creation and now coming into more of a functional view has helped me make more sense in the 7 days of creation. I’m still struggling with this though and I appreciate learning about this. Great posts ElShaddai.

]]> By: TC http://heissufficient.com/2008/05/01/salvation-within-the-functional-hermeneutic/#comment-1344 TC Thu, 01 May 2008 17:06:40 +0000 http://heissufficient.wordpress.com/?p=712#comment-1344 <i>The functional hermeneutic suggests that the things we view as structural objects to Creation, e.g. light, water, plants, animals, all have an overlying function or reason for their being. For example, the function of light was to establish time as an organizing principle of the universe. Rather than viewing Genesis 1 as the definite creation of objects, of things, we should instead read it as God creating organizing principles of function and purpose where there was only purposeless chaos before</i>. Elshaddai, great post! It's hermeneutically challenging. I have a question: rather than viewing the hermeneutical of Genesis 1 as either/or, Is it possible for us to view it as a both/and. <i>I would caution against the suggestion that this allows for the possibility of other redemptive structures in other religions. The point of a function-driven account of Creation is that the relationship between God and his people is set apart from other cultures and systems. The lineage of faith through the Bible establishes this remnant, not the population of the entire world. Salvation is a function of God’s Kingdom; those who live outside of His kingdom do not experience the purpose of redemption</i>. Put another way: Don't we need the structures of Genesis 1 before we can get to their functions, so much so that we understand them as literal within the Genesis narrative? I do agree with your hermeneutic of redemption because of the signposts in Scripture. The functional hermeneutic suggests that the things we view as structural objects to Creation, e.g. light, water, plants, animals, all have an overlying function or reason for their being. For example, the function of light was to establish time as an organizing principle of the universe. Rather than viewing Genesis 1 as the definite creation of objects, of things, we should instead read it as God creating organizing principles of function and purpose where there was only purposeless chaos before.

Elshaddai, great post! It’s hermeneutically challenging. I have a question: rather than viewing the hermeneutical of Genesis 1 as either/or, Is it possible for us to view it as a both/and.

I would caution against the suggestion that this allows for the possibility of other redemptive structures in other religions. The point of a function-driven account of Creation is that the relationship between God and his people is set apart from other cultures and systems. The lineage of faith through the Bible establishes this remnant, not the population of the entire world. Salvation is a function of God’s Kingdom; those who live outside of His kingdom do not experience the purpose of redemption.

Put another way: Don’t we need the structures of Genesis 1 before we can get to their functions, so much so that we understand them as literal within the Genesis narrative?

I do agree with your hermeneutic of redemption because of the signposts in Scripture.

]]>