An e-pal sent me his note to Michael Pahl, of recent post on this blog:
I've heard that you and Cedarville have parted company.
Unlike
Cedarville, I *would* question your othodoxy.
Your view on Genesis 1,
etc. amounts to a claim that nothing in Genesis 1 actually happened, and
that our ontology, as Christians, therefore cannot be framed from the
Bible (ontology being about what is, and ipso facto, what really is),
but has to be grafted onto Christian faith from a pagan perspective in
some sort of idealist conceit. So it seems that you want to pretend that
questions of origins are 'scientific' questions, when their ontological
implications are such that they are always finally theological
questions, mediated in some ways philosophically.
Thus, you've resigned
the field, and instead of allowing the revelation of God about his
creation to set the structure of our understanding of our world, our
setting in it, and the relations that reticulate through it, with
reference to God himself (and this can only happen if G1 recounts things
that happened, not fantasies, "fameworks" emblems, signs, or
'suggestions'), we are left to start our thinking with an ontological
framework premised on there being no God, or if there is one, one who
doesn't communicate and doesn't matter.
This is not in any way orthodox, but a view that makes Christian faith
take its philosophical underpinning from a pagan world view, and is
ultimately derivative of a materialist orthodoxy and not a challenge to
it.
