Help Finding Van Til Quote

[Dearly Bought]

I just read this line earlier today and now I can't find it!

“According to all non-Christian thought, man is potentially divine.”

I read it in either The Defense of the Faith or An Introduction to Systematic Theology (I'm fairly sure it was the latter). Would anyone be able to help me locate this passage? I'd also be really grateful if someone could aid me by fleshing out how this might apply to worldviews such as that of Islam..

 

[Whitefield]

I just read this line earlier today and now I can't find it!

“According to all non-Christian thought, man is potentially divine.”

I read it in either The Defense of the Faith or An Introduction to Systematic Theology (I'm fairly sure it was the latter). Would anyone be able to help me locate this passage? I'd also be really grateful if someone could aid me by fleshing out how this might apply to worldviews such as that of Islam..

That sentence appears on page 184 of P&R edition of An Introduction to Systematic Theology, first paragraph on the page. If you have another edition, it is about half-way through Chapter 14.

It is true that Romanism and Arminianism will not put the matter as plainly as this. They want to maintain the Creator-creature relationship, but, in the last analysis, their teaching with respect to the ultimacy or autonomy of the human mind accounts for their compromise with the non-Christian view of the relation between God and man as illustrated by the teacher-pupil relationship. According to all non-Christian thought, man is potentially divine. Man is not really dependent upon God. Man is not created by God. The world is not under the providential control of God. So the mind of man may eventually know all things.

 

[Dearly Bought]

That sentence appears on page 184 of P&R edition of An Introduction to Systematic Theology, first paragraph on the page. If you have another edition, it is about half-way through Chapter 14.

It is true that Romanism and Arminianism will not put the matter as plainly as this. They want to maintain the Creator-creature relationship, but, in the last analysis, their teaching with respect to the ultimacy or autonomy of the human mind accounts for their compromise with the non-Christian view of the relation between God and man as illustrated by the teacher-pupil relationship. According to all non-Christian thought, man is potentially divine. Man is not really dependent upon God. Man is not created by God. The world is not under the providential control of God. So the mind of man may eventually know all things.

Thanks!!

So in that context, it appears that this assertion specifically pertains to the ultimacy/autonomy of the human mind in non-Christian thought. If I understood the preceding section right, non-Christian worldviews end up conceiving of a mere quantitative rather than qualitative difference between our thought and God's, i.e. the teacher-pupil analogy. The only way to avoid this view is to conceive of an analogical revelation to man by the self-contained God of Scripture, i.e. the Christian worldview. Have I understood this correctly?