>While one may not appreciate or relish such verbal attacks, to say as you
>do, that they are antichristian is to characterize Christianity as
>Naturalism, an opinion I, for one do not share.
Art, you missed the point entirely. JOHNSON is the one who characterizes my
concept of the Creation's robust formational economy as equivalent to
Naturalism. It's not my characterization that you should contest, it's his.
>While you distance
>yourself from Naturalism, that is, after all, the enemy to which Johnson
>directs his attacks, and it seems to me that you have put your definition
>of Christianity directly in his path.
No, Art, the problem is not with my claim to hold a position that is well
within the bounds of historic Christian theology. The problem is that
Johnson's warpath against Naturalism is so wide and unfocused that he is sure
to wound many of his fellow Christians in his rhetorical battle.
> While you seem to define yourself a
>scenario that makes sense to you, you should not make the mistake of
>thinking that your view of the world is the only, or even necessarily, the
>best one.
It is, I would say, the best that I can come up with in my attempt both to
honor the Christian theological heritage and to respect the work of natural
science that is done with competence and professional integrity. To the best
of my knowledge, I have never said that it is only Christian view.
>Perhaps you could have couched your terms in a way that did not
>make a purported attack against your particular read on Christianity, an
>attack against Christianity itself.
Once again, it is Johnson's rhetoric that is in question here, not mine.
>I know that you are more broad minded than that.
Good news, Art. We agree on this one:)
Howard Van Till