Well, of course, but by what epistemological slight of hand do we extend that to the Bible and overturn its literary clarity?
For instance, Michael was asked a while ago if he thought that Noah's flood occured. His answer? "Maybe".
Well, where did 'maybe' come from? On what basis does he set aside the biblical information for some other information? and where does this hermeneutical project draw its lines?
I have a fairly good feeling that he would think that uncertainty about the basic doctrine of the creation has a similar status: that is, the uncertainty is acceptable. Only this time we're not considering a trifle, but something that is basic about God, us and what connects us.
Mc'Neill puts it nicely, talking of Calvin:
Throughout his thought a judgement of the nature of man accompanies the doctrine of God; theology is linked with anthropology. God is not for a moment conceived merely as the author and ruler of the universe, but always as Creator and Redeemer of man. God's resources answer man's need.
Calvin de-abstracts the God which I think idealist views such as I think MJ entertains make increasingly theoretical and detached from the real interactions grounded in his word-acts in Genesis 1. The creation is about connection, its deconstruction evaporates this and isolates man from God, undoing the connection that is patent in the text.
So here, I think the Bible expects us to have certainty. If we want uncertainty, we can only achieve that by an arbitrary epistemological move, a move, I think, against the revelatory capacity of the Spirit, and one that muddles the historical stream of relations between God and man.
I've also talked about this in the four moves between God and man.
