Van Til Supralapsarian?

[Dorcas]

I ran across this passage by Van Til in my studies:

"For Satan is not some sort of principle of non-being that is somehow given some sort of power independent of God. He is a creature of God that has fallen into sin. And the entrance of sin is within the plan of God. It is on this basis only that one can maintain the sovereignty of grace. It is the God who is truly sovereign in all things who alone can be sovereign in giving or withholding grace."

Cornelius Van Til, pg. 35 of indroduction to B.B. Warfield The Inspiration and Authority of the Bible. Presbyterian and Reformed Pub. Co., 1948.

I thought maybe a few of you would enjoy this special nugget.

[wildboar]

The passage quoted does not really have anything to do with supra vs. infra. There are double predestinarians in both camps. The infra/supra debate is over the logical order of God's decrees as they exist in the mind of God which is something Van Til would probably say we shouldn't even try to delve into and he has point in that regard at least. Although it provides a certain framework for doing systematic theology, it is mostly philosophical and not directly addressed in Scripture. As for Warfield's book that it is quoted from, throw it away. Although I thoroughly enjoy much of what Warfield writes elsewhere, in that particular volume Warfield departs in a major way from the Reformed and Presbyterian doctrine of Scripture. The Westminster Confession was not concerned with inerrant autographs which nobody has, but with infallible extant manuscripts.

[Dorcas]

I very much wish to throw this book away, but unfortunately it is assigned reading.

[wildboar]

I probably shouldn't have said to throw it out. It's a highly influential book and well-worth the read in understanding where people are coming from. Just keep in mind that what the Westminster Confession of faith clearly ascribes infallibility to is the extant manuscripts, not some autographs which nobody has. Warfield was reacting to some in his day who saw contradictions in the Scriptures and rather than working to explain that there were not real contradictions, he claimed that the original autographs did not have these errors.

[Robert R. Higby]

One thing to note: this appears to be an OLD statement of Van Til, not that it means a whole lot. But the thinking and apologetic methods of any individual might progress a lot over time. One thing we do know for sure: Van Til did not end up a supralapsarian!