I found this article to be totally fascinating. All this time I thought the theistics claiming him as their own were correct. (He isn't exactly what I'd call a classic creationist, but neither can today's theistic evolutionists claim his as their mentor if this author is correct.)
BB Warfield has a reputation as a truly brilliant and pious Reformed theologian, fully committed to inerrancy. It seems like so many Christian evolutionists hold him up as the theological standard for their position. So maybe they are wrong in using him to justify their evolutionary beliefs?
Wow. I find this soooooo interesting. It just thrills me to think I was wrong about good old brother BB.
Themelios | Issue 35-2
"This much is clear: although at times speaking with allowance of the possibility of evolution (carefully defined), Warfield never expressly affirmed it. Rather, he affirmed that he had rejected it sometime about age thirty and that he remained unconvinced. The Livingstone-Noll thesis does not reflect the evidence, and the prevailing understanding of Warfield as an evolutionist must be rejected."
BB Warfield has a reputation as a truly brilliant and pious Reformed theologian, fully committed to inerrancy. It seems like so many Christian evolutionists hold him up as the theological standard for their position. So maybe they are wrong in using him to justify their evolutionary beliefs?
Wow. I find this soooooo interesting. It just thrills me to think I was wrong about good old brother BB.
Themelios | Issue 35-2
"This much is clear: although at times speaking with allowance of the possibility of evolution (carefully defined), Warfield never expressly affirmed it. Rather, he affirmed that he had rejected it sometime about age thirty and that he remained unconvinced. The Livingstone-Noll thesis does not reflect the evidence, and the prevailing understanding of Warfield as an evolutionist must be rejected."