I found the following in Terry's heresy trial defence at
http://mcgraytx.calvin.edu/gray/evolution_trial/evolution_appeal.html:
"A few citations from Warfield's own writings will suffice to make the
point that a theistically interpreted evolution is within in pale of
orthodoxy and that this extends even to the origin of Adam's body. In
his unpublished "Lectures on Anthropology" (D c. 1888) (cited in
Darwin's Forgotten Defenders, p. 119) he writes:
`The upshot of the whole matter is that there is no necessary
antagonism of Christianity to evolution, provided that we do not hold
to too extreme a form of evolution. To adopt any form that does not
permit God freely to work apart from law and which does not allow
miraculous intervention (in the giving of the soul, in creating Eve,
etc.) will entail a great reconstruction of Christian doctrine, and a
very great lowering of the detailed authority of the Bible. But if we
condition the theory by allowing the constant oversight of God in the
whole process, AND HIS OCCASIONAL SUPERNATURAL INTERFERENCE FOR THE
PRODUCTION OF NEW BEGINNINGS BY AN ACTUAL OUTPUT OF CREATIVE FORCE,
PRODUCING SOMETHING NEW I.E., SOMETHING NOT INCLUDED EVEN IN POSSE IN
THE PRECEDING CONDITIONS, we may hold to the modified theory of
evolution and be Christians in the ordinary orthodox sense."
(emphasis mine).
IMHO this is not TE but PC. Does your use of this opinion by Warfield
indicate that you could be receptive to PC, if it was defined as
above, and not requiring the de novo production of whole organisms
(except perhaps in the case of Eve)?
For your clarification please. Thanks.
God bless.
Stephen
----------------------------------------------------------------
| Stephen Jones ,--_|\ sjones@iinet.net.au |
| 3 Hawker Ave / Oz \ http://www.iinet.net.au/~sjones/ |
| Warwick 6024 ->*_,--\_/ phone +61 9 448 7439. (These are |
| Perth, Australia v my opinions, not my employer's) |
----------------------------------------------------------------