# Exploring Ectypal vs. Archetypal Theology



## MW

Rich, I'll leave it to you to start a new thread if you think it will be beneficial. The following quotes may be of help.

Junius: “Ectypal theology considered either simply, as they say, or in relation to its various kinds, is the wisdom of divine things given conceptual form by God, on the basis of the archetypal image of himself through the communication of grace for his own glory. And so, indeed, theology simply so called, is the entire Wisdom concerning divine things capable of being communicated to created things by [any] manner of communication.” (De vera theologia, v.; quoted in PRRD, 1:235.) Muller provides an analysis of Junius and concludes: “Ectypal theology in se is, thus, the ideal case of communicated theology, the accommodated form or mode of the archetype readied in the mind of God for communication to a particular kind of subject, namely, Christ, the blessed, or the redeemed on earth.” (Ibid.) Consider also John Owen: “God has, in His mind, an eternal plan or concept which is truth, and which He wishes to be known by us. All of our theology, therefore, flows from that act of divine will by which He wishes to make known this truth to us.” (Biblical Theology, 15.)


----------



## Semper Fidelis

{I asked Rev. Winzer to provide some more information so I can grasp and interact with the concept. I had misunderstood, perhaps, what ectypal and archetypal theology were.}

OK, thanks Rev. Winzer. I guess I keep jumping back and forth thinking I understand it and then you correct me and I think I don't have it. 

It seems to me, in the above, that the distinction made between archetypal and ectypal theology is this:

Archetype = the mind of God or His Divine image.

Ectype = the ideal communication of that Truth in a form accomodated to make that truth known to His creatures.

In other words, ectypal theology is not necessarily how we _understand_ His Revelation because we make errors due to our fallen condition. It is ideal in the sense the entire corpus of God's Revelation has been truly communicated to reflect the archetype.

If I'm OK so far, might I say that our goal in proper exegesis is to properly communicate the ectype as it touches on a particular subject?

I think I just went cross-eyed.


----------



## py3ak

These are some quotes that I found very helpful for understanding this.

PRRD, v.1 p.229


> ...the theology of the Reformation recognized not only that God is distinct from his revelation and that the one who reveals cannot be fully comprehended in the revelation, but also that the revelation, given in a finite and understandable form, must truly rest on the eternal truth of God: this is the fundamental message and intention of the distinction between archetypal and ectypal theology.



p.228


> The _Annotatiunculae_ of John Eck implies another answer to this problem. Eck argues a threefold meaning for theologia: knowledge of God in the divine mind (_in mente divina_), in itself (_in se_), and in us (_in nobis_). According to the first of these categories, comments Eck, the maxim of Augustine holds, that "God alone is a theologian, and we are truly his disciples." Much like Scotus' basic definition of _theologia in se_, Eck's definition identifies this category of the knowledge of God as a knowledge proportionate to its object—but now it is defined specifically as knowledge _in intellectu humano_. _Theologia in se_, the pattern to which our theology is subalternate is, according to Eck, the theology of the blessed who know by sight. The theology that human beings have in ther pilgrim condition (_secundum statum viae_), the _theologia nostra_, is not proportionate to its object. Rather, it is limited to the knowledge our intellect is capable of accepting through belief. Further redefinition of the term _theologia in se_ or theology absolute considered (_absolute dicta_) occurs among the early Reformed orthodox who use the term in a fashion similar to Eck's usage as a proximate pattern for _theologia nostra_, but identify it not as the theology of the blessed but as the perfect truth of supernatural revelation.



Where I think I like the Reformed modification of Eck's formula, though I'm not sure Eck is wrong --do the holy dead know perfectly? If they do, then Eck's formulation seems fine. But it is a good statement that _theologia nostra_ is "not proportionate to its object". Indeed, I think we could tie this in with Calvin's doctrine of accommodation (Muller addresses accommodation in v.2, I think) and state that _theologia nostra_ is proportionate to its *subject*, while nonetheless conforming to the accurate pattern of _theologia in se_. In practice, I think it would work out like this: if at some point our capacity (as the subjects, the knowers) means that _theologia nostra_ can't speak in conformity with _theologia in se_ (because of our cognitive problems, at least primarily from sin), it shuts up instead of being inaccurate. And of course this distinction (_in se_ vs. _in intellectu humano_) rather corresponds to what Luther said about the perspicuity of Scripture in The Bondage of the Will. Scripture is quite clear: we are rather dull.

Those are my thoughts, but I am only beginning to learn about the issue and would be happy to be corrected by those who are more knowledgeable.


----------



## MW

Rich, spot on. Ruben's first quotation of Muller grasps the context well, showing that the distinction is to be understood as a justification of "true theology" (theologia vera) -- "must truly rest on the eternal truth of God." Blessings!


----------



## dannyhyde

py3ak said:


> Where I think I like the Reformed modification of Eck's formula, though I'm not sure Eck is wrong --do the holy dead know perfectly?



Ruben,

Dr. Clark can correct me if I am wrong, but theologia ectypa is known by the elect in their two states—the theology of pilgrims (theologia viatorum) and the theology of the blessed (theologia beatorum), yet they remain ectypal theology, as even in heaven, the blessed are creatures, not the Creator, therefore cannot know the mind of God (theologia archetypa).


----------



## MW

Ectypal theology is accommodated to creaturely capacity in terms either of union, vision, or revelation. Christ's knowledge is one of union, and therefore a perfect realisation of the ideal. Angels and glorified saints are recipients of vision whilst the redeemed on earth partake of revelation. In each case the knowledge of God is ectypal, but as has been shown elsewhere, it is the knowledge of God as formulated by His own will, and therefore divine and true -- it is the mind of God (exemplum, though not exemplar, 1 Cor. 2:9, 10, 16).

The word "perfect" is liable to equivocation. Is fulness meant or freedom from error? Glorified knowledge is definitely free from error; but is it complete? The Puritans would say that the beatific vision completely fills glorified saints like the ocean completely fills the vessels which each one brings to it, though the vessels might be of differing capacities. Every saint will have cause to say he is filled with the fulness of God, like one drawing water may say his vessel is filled with the ocean.


----------



## R. Scott Clark

Muller is very good on this. 

See also my essay on the free offer in the Strimple Festrschift. 

The distinction between TA/TE is really nothing other than the Creator/creature distinction or, as Luther put it, the theology of glory distinguished from the theology of the cross. 

By definition. Only God has archtypal theology.

Anything that any human knows, even Christ in his human nature (contra the Lutherans who predicate archetypal theology of Christ's humanity) is ectypal. If may be exalted (theology of union; theology of the blessed (i.e., what glorified Christians know) but it always remains ectypal.

Glorification is not deification.

This distinction is fundamental to Reformed theology. It's very encouraging to see it discussed here. 

rsc


----------



## polemic_turtle

I had heard of this from Dr. Truman's lectures on John Owen and it struck me that this is exactly what Van Tillians seem to be saying about analogical knowledge of God. I'm reading Bavinck's Dogmatics and those are the words he uses: "analogical", "anthropomorphic", "archetypal / ectypal". It makes perfect sense to me that the infinite must condescend to make Himself known to the finite.

I suppose it's like converting a CD to MP3; both are certainly the same song / lecture, but the CD posesses many things which cannot be fit into the filesize of an MP3 and is therefore useless until converted down to a level an MP3 player can play. I had to phrase it that way to make it fit, but I suppose the comparison should bear some merit. I like the distinction! I wonder why this hasn't come up before in the whole "denial of the possibility of systematic theology" accusations I've heard from Clarkian-minded folk. I daresay the same could be said of the Reformers, then, couldn't it?


----------



## Semper Fidelis

R. Scott Clark said:


> Muller is very good on this.
> 
> See also my essay on the free offer in the Strimple Festrschift.
> 
> The distinction between TA/TE is really nothing other than the Creator/creature distinction or, as Luther put it, the theology of glory distinguished from the theology of the cross.
> 
> By definition. Only God has archtypal theology.
> 
> Anything that any human knows, even Christ in his human nature (contra the Lutherans who predicate archetypal theology of Christ's humanity) is ectypal. If may be exalted (theology of union; theology of the blessed (i.e., what glorified Christians know) but it always remains ectypal.
> 
> Glorification is not deification.
> 
> This distinction is fundamental to Reformed theology. It's very encouraging to see it discussed here.
> 
> rsc



I'm glad you're encouraged because I had brought it up here:

http://www.puritanboard.com/showthread.php?p=255004

See posts #29, and then posts #40 until the end.

You said this above:


> The distinction between TA/TE is really nothing other than the Creator/creature distinction or, as Luther put it, the theology of glory distinguished from the theology of the cross.



I thought I had understood that correctly from your Strimple Festscrhift (by the way, I highly recommend the book to all).

I think I might have been sloppy in my use of terms. I think I only understood ectypal theology to be the type which is accommodated to creaturely capacity in terms of revelation. I didn't know there were other forms of it and Rev. Winzer was squaring me away.

It does seem to me, though, that my original guess was correct that Van Til is historically Reformed by insisting on the Creator/creature distinction as it relates to this particular distinction.

If there are those that disagree with this then maybe it would be helpful to discuss how his theology intersected properly with this formulation and how it might have been incomplete or in error at some point.


----------



## MW

It seems we have gone full circle. Ectypal theology is given conceptual form by God, as is clear from Junius and Owen. It therefore cannot be identified with what the creature knows in distinction from the Creator. Its purpose is to bridge the Creator-creature gap in order to justify true theology.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

I'm not looking for a circle. I want to have a discussion on this.

The problem with a short snippet like you provide is that it doesn't really interact with it so that others who haven't come to the firm conclusion in your mind can see the steps you took to come to that point.

You wrote:


> Ectypal theology is accommodated to creaturely capacity in terms either of union, vision, or revelation. Christ's knowledge is one of union, and therefore a perfect realisation of the ideal. Angels and glorified saints are recipients of vision whilst the redeemed on earth partake of revelation.


The idea of "accomodation to creaturely capacity" in the form of revelation _seems to me_ to be the same notion as distinguishing how the Creator knows a thing from the way we know it. Our knowledge is true as it accurately reflects the ectype but it can never (even in glory) be as the Creature is in Himself.

Now, perhaps there is some other baggage associated with the terminology that you're aware of that makes you want to cry foul over its use. I think you alluded to it before in the sense that a dialectic is attached to how Van Til uses the terms. I think the terminology right now, for a lot of us who are not proper theologians, is a bit fuzzy and we don't feel the weight of your objection yet.


----------



## MW

Rich, I'm not trying to bring a Van Tillian or anti-VanTillian agenda into the use of these terms. I am only concerned to see that the terms are used in accord with their original intention when the authority of the orthodox reformed is invoked. I have already stated that they did not use terms like qualitative and quantitative, but independent and dependent. Ectypal theology, for reformed dogmaticians, is God's own conceptualisation of the truth. It is accommodated _for_ the creature, but it comes _from_ the Creator. In knowing this truth, we know Him, Jn. 17:3, Matt. 11:27; 1 Cor. 2:9-12. It is everywhere assumed that ectypal truth corresponds with what God knows since it is what God willed. Blessings!


----------



## Semper Fidelis

armourbearer said:


> Rich, I'm not trying to bring a Van Tillian or anti-VanTillian agenda into the use of these terms. I am only concerned to see that the terms are used in accord with their original intention when the authority of the orthodox reformed is invoked. I have already stated that they did not use terms like qualitative and quantitative, but independent and dependent. Ectypal theology, for reformed dogmaticians, is God's own conceptualisation of the truth. It is accommodated _for_ the creature, but it comes _from_ the Creator. In knowing this truth, we know Him, Jn. 17:3, Matt. 11:27; 1 Cor. 2:9-12. It is everywhere assumed that ectypal truth corresponds with what God knows since it is what God willed. Blessings!



Understood but if a person is trying to communicate the idea to somebody new to the concept they need to try to come up with terms that all of us can relate to. I cannot simply walk into a classroom of new students of theology and use Archetype and Ectype and have everyone nod in understanding. Even your quotes you have thus far provided are putting this idea into many different manners of expression that preserve the concept.

I understand your guard against quantitative knowledge but this is a way of underlining what our knowledge _isn't_. Doesn't Thomistic theology break the Archetype/Ectype correspondence by assuming that our being and knowledge is only different from God's Being and knowledge in a matter of degrees? In that sense we could see a bunch of different ways in which it departs from Scripture and how ectypal truth corresponds to what God knows.

In like manner, it would be helpful if someone evaluated how Van Til's theology or his use of terms departed from what you've been stating about the Reformed formulation. You simply re-stated the Reformed formulation above, which I think I understand pretty well now. What I'm not too sure about is where Van Til departed from this.

For instance, in my ignorance I might ask: Isn't Van Til's insistence on the Creator/creature distinction primarily his way of underlining our _dependent_ knowledge (the ectype of Revelation) as opposed to our independent knowledge?

To which someone might reply...


----------



## MW

Rich, today is not the best day for me to engage in in-depth discussion on such points, with much preparation needed for tomorrow's services.

Yes, Van Til emphasises dependence; and as noted before, he was right to do so. Our apologetic must be a defence of the Independence of God and the dependence of man upon Him for all things, so that there is no thinking outside the theistic box. The only ultimate interpretation of reality is found in God Himself. But it is evident, surely, from the statements provided, that the traditional use of AT and ET did not equate ectypal theology with creaturely knowledge. It is conceptualised by God Himself (sorry to keep saying the same thing, but it seems to be a fundamental point that is not being reckoned with). This *is* God's knowledge, not in its absolute fulness, but accommodated to the limitation of the creature for the purpose of blessing the creature with this knowledge. The issue with VanTil does not revolve around his insistence that human knowledge is *dependent* upon God's knowledge, but that human knowledge is *different* from God's knowledge. But if it can be grasped that God Himself has condescended so as to conceptualise Himself in accord with human limitation, the ontological distinction between the Creator and creature is bridged. We know God ectypically, not archetypically, just as God knows us ectypically, not archetypically. Blessings!


----------



## Semper Fidelis

> It is conceptualised by God Himself (sorry to keep saying the same thing, but it seems to be a fundamental point that is not being reckoned with).


Actually, I think I understand that pretty well at this point. I think you're reading into my questions. I understand that ectypal theology is God's theology and not what we understand it to be. The fact that it is accomodated to creatures in Revelation (one form) is what I'm trying to reckon or contrast with Van Til as an example.

I don't mean to imply you have to be the only one that answers this. Please do prepare for your sermon.

Thanks for reminding me that I still need to prepare my handout for my class on Ecclesiastes and the Song of Solomon tomorrow AM.

Blessings!

p.s. Really looking forward to Australia visit in June (looks like mid-June now.) My Deputy has been in the throes of preparing for that exercise. It's going to be a big exercise that culminates many of the technologies that I've integrated into our unit. It will be great to go down and see it all working AND I'll get to meet you and your "quiver full"!


----------



## py3ak

dannyhyde said:


> Ruben,
> 
> Dr. Clark can correct me if I am wrong, but theologia ectypa is known by the elect in their two states—the theology of pilgrims (theologia viatorum) and the theology of the blessed (theologia beatorum), yet they remain ectypal theology, as even in heaven, the blessed are creatures, not the Creator, therefore cannot know the mind of God (theologia archetypa).



Rev. Hyde,

I didn't mean to imply that I thought the _theologia beatorum_ was anything other than ectypal. I believe (and I think Rev. Winzer has been pointing this out) that ectypal theology is perfect. But our knowledge of it as pilgrims is certainly imperfect. We do not attain to the full measure of the creaturely capacity to know God. But the blessed do. So I could restate my question: is the _theologia beatorum_ identical to _theologia in se_? As I understood the quotation of Eck provided by Dr. Muller, _theologia in mente divina_ is archetypal theology (although Rev. Winzer's statements are causing me to wonder if this was accurate). Then ectypal theology can be considered _in se_ or _in nobis_. _In se_, of course, it is perfect: _in nobis_ as pilgrims is certainly another matter. I hope that didn't involve my thoughts in ever more dense obscurity!

Rev. Winzer,

Please don't feel any pressure to answer this until after the Lord's Day. I do have two questions:
1. You say that God knows us ectypically. Could you explain that a little more? I am not sure how to understand the statement that God's knowledge of us is not archetypal.
2. Am I understanding correctly in this summary of ectypal knowledge? Here goes: _Ectypal knowledge is God's own knowledge communicated/accommodated according to creaturely capacity: it is thus correspondent to archetypal knowledge and entirely trustworthy (considered in itself)._

This is one of the most interesting threads I've ever read on this board. Incidentally, I also have _The Pattern of Sound Doctrine_ and Dr. Clark's article is a very good thing to read and think about.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

py3ak said:


> Rev. Winzer,
> 
> Please don't feel any pressure to answer this until after the Lord's Day. I do have two questions:
> 1. You say that God knows us ectypically. Could you explain that a little more? I am not sure how to understand the statement that God's knowledge of us is not archetypal.


I'm not Rev. Winzer but I can fake an Australian accent.

Oy!

I don't think he's saying that. I think he's saying that ectypal knowledge is still God's knowledge but it is accomodated to creatures.

What I find fascinating is the aspect of the ectypal union with the archetype in the Incarnation. Talk about a mind bender!



> 2. Am I understanding correctly in this summary of ectypal knowledge? Here goes: _Ectypal knowledge is God's own knowledge communicated/accommodated according to creaturely capacity: it is thus correspondent to archetypal knowledge and entirely trustworthy (considered in itself)._


I believe that is exactly right and is what I stated earlier:


> Ectype = the ideal communication of that Truth in a form accomodated to make that truth known to His creatures.
> 
> In other words, ectypal theology is not necessarily how we understand His Revelation because we make errors due to our fallen condition. It is ideal in the sense the entire corpus of God's Revelation has been truly communicated to reflect the archetype.
> 
> If I'm OK so far, might I say that our goal in proper exegesis is to properly communicate the ectype as it touches on a particular subject?


To which Rev. Winzer replied: "Spot on."

I think your statement is equivalent.



> This is one of the most interesting threads I've ever read on this board. Incidentally, I also have _The Pattern of Sound Doctrine_ and Dr. Clark's article is a very good thing to read and think about.


I'm glad everyone finds it interesting. When I read Clark's Festschrift, I was surprised it wasn't a subject of more discussion. I e-mailed him after reading it and thanked him for it. It seems to me that the fact that this isn't discussed much has caused some problems in the maintenance of Reformed orthodoxy on some points.


----------



## py3ak

SemperFideles said:


> I'm not Rev. Winzer but I can fake an Australian accent.
> 
> Oy!
> 
> [...]
> 
> I'm glad everyone finds it interesting. When I read Clark's Festschrift, I was surprised it wasn't a subject of more discussion. I e-mailed him after reading it and thanked him for it. It seems to me that the fact that this isn't discussed much has caused some problems in the maintenance of Reformed orthodoxy on some points.



Well, pretend I'm faking a Belgian accent. 

Thanks for your points: this is so far out of the realm of what we normally talk about that it seems like I need to reiterate things again and again to make sure they become a functioning part of my intellectual paradigm.

I entirely agree that it ought to be talked about more. These questions of method do not seem to me to be hairsplitting, but rather fundamental. I really liked this section from Berkhof's _Introduction to Systematic Theology_


> Kuyper proceeds on the assumption that God cannot be the direct object of scientific study. In such a study the subject rises superior to the object, and has the power to examine and to comprehend it. But the thinking man is not so related to God, I Cor. 2:11. According to Kuyper it is quite essential to distinguish between two kinds of theology, namely: (a) theology as the knowledge of God, of which God is the object, and (b) theology as a science which finds its object in the divine Self-revelation. The former is the ectypal knowledge of God, contained in Scripture, and adapted to the cognitive faculties of man; while the latter is defined as “that science which has the revealed knowledge of God as the object of its investigation and raises it to _sunesis_ (insight).” By means of this distinction he seeks to establish an organic connection between theology and science in general. Now the question arises, whether this position is equivalent to a denial of the fact that God is the object of theology. On the one hand it certainly seems so, and as a matter of fact Kuyper clearly says that the revealed knowledge of God, and it only, is the object of theology as a science. This point even became the subject of a theological debate in the Netherlands. At the same time he also says that this science would not yet be entitled to the name theology, if it did not deepen our insight into the ectypal knowledge of God. The question arises, whether Kuyper's way of putting things is not merely another way of saying that God is the object of theology as a science only in so far as He has revealed Himself in His word. Or, to put it in other words, that God is not the direct, though He is the ultimate object of theology; that He is not the immediate object, but the object as mediated through His divine Self-revelation.



By the way, could we get the spell checker to stop underlining "ectypal"?


----------



## Semper Fidelis

py3ak said:


> By the way, could we get the spell checker to stop underlining "ectypal"?



Spell checker is a function of IE on your browser and not of the forum itself.


----------



## MW

py3ak said:


> 1. You say that God knows us ectypically. Could you explain that a little more? I am not sure how to understand the statement that God's knowledge of us is not archetypal.
> 2. Am I understanding correctly in this summary of ectypal knowledge? Here goes: _Ectypal knowledge is God's own knowledge communicated/accommodated according to creaturely capacity: it is thus correspondent to archetypal knowledge and entirely trustworthy (considered in itself)._



Point 2 is spot on. On point 1, God knows us decretively, Rom. 8:29, which is ectypical. "I will be thy God" is covenantal, which is ectypical. See WCF 7:1. More confirmation of the point that ectypal theology bridges the Creator-creature distinction.


----------



## py3ak

SemperFideles said:


> Spell checker is a function of IE on your browser and not of the forum itself.



Ah, well, then. I shall have to add that to my Firefox dictionary.


----------



## py3ak

armourbearer said:


> Point 2 is spot on. On point 1, God knows us decretively, Rom. 8:29, which is ectypical. "I will be thy God" is covenantal, which is ectypical. See WCF 7:1. More confirmation of the point that ectypal theology bridges the Creator-creature distinction.



Thanks for amplifying. I will have to chew on this for a while, since though I see your point about the decree and the covenant, I am having trouble grasping the idea that at any point God does not ALSO have archetypal knowledge. But perhaps I am misunderstanding?


----------



## Semper Fidelis

py3ak said:


> Ah, well, then. I shall have to add that to my Firefox dictionary.



That was the other choice: Firefox has a spell-checker.

You can download the IE spell checker from http://www.iespell.com for those interested.

In both instances, the dictionary additions have to be handeled by the user.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

py3ak said:


> Originally Posted by armourbearer
> Point 2 is spot on. On point 1, God knows us decretively, Rom. 8:29, which is ectypical. "I will be thy God" is covenantal, which is ectypical. See WCF 7:1. More confirmation of the point that ectypal theology bridges the Creator-creature distinction.
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for amplifying. I will have to chew on this for a while, since though I see your point about the decree and the covenant, I am having trouble grasping the idea that at any point God does not ALSO have archetypal knowledge. But perhaps I am misunderstanding?
Click to expand...


I'm waiting for clarification here. Here is the interesting thing I'm wondering about what Rev. Winzer said. Did he say:

1. God's decretive knowledge of us is ectypical

OR

2. Romans 8:29 is ectypical

If you look at the sentence I initially thought what you did but then I thought he was applying eptypical theology to the passage because it is revelation.


----------



## py3ak

Well, let us try our exegetical skills on Rev. Winzer's statement and then he can confirm or deny.

I take it that God's decretive knowledge is ectypical for these reasons:
1. Rom. 8:29 comes between commas, as an aside. It is thus simply referencing a Scriptural proof for a concept. We would get the same point made a little more forcefully if Rev. Winzer had used () but I am sure the sense is the same.
2. The decree is in the same position in its phrase as the covenant is in its phrase. Clearly he means that the covenant is ectypal, and he does provide Scripture proof there as well, though in the form of a quotation rather than a reference. Since in each case we have substantially the same elements, and in the second case it is clearly the covenant which is ectypal, by analogy the same thing should hold.
3. Theologically, does not Romans 8:29 establish that the decree is ectypal? If that is so, there is no compelling reason overthrowing the parallelism mentioned in argument 2.

After this it will be very embarrassing if Rev. Winzer should say that in each case it was Romans 8:29 and "I will be thy God" which he meant to be taken as the ectypical elements....


----------



## Semper Fidelis

I just went blind for a second trying to process all of this.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Incidentally Ruben, I agree with your conclusion.


----------



## py3ak

SemperFideles said:


> I just went blind for a second trying to process all of this.



I have the ability of a true critical commentator to make the smooth places rough!


----------



## R. Scott Clark

I do think and have argued that Van Til's account of incomprehensibility is effectively the same doctrine as taught by Junius et al.

Accommodated knowledge is just that. By definition, humans cannot have archetypal knowledge/theology. 

Ectyptal theology is true, but parallel to divine knowledge. It is divinely given, but theology is not given and we cannot comprehend it _as God knows_ _it_. 

The point of the Creator/creature distinction as articulated in this discussion is that we are not the Creator and our intellect never intersects his intellect, it intersects with his _revelation_ of himself and his mind, but that revelation is always accommodated and it would be equivocating to call that the divine intellect. 

We don't know God _in se_ (in himself). No revelation is gives us access to God _in se_. We know God truly, but only as he stooped to accommodate himself to us. 

Archetypal knowledge is described by the Reformed orthodox as analogous. Thus I agree with Rev Winzer's use of the word "corresponding." That's just right. Please remember too that the medieval realists had it that we can know the divine substance/essence by abstracting universals from particulars and those come into contact with the divine intellect; we could know what God knows the way he does, at least for a moment.

The assumption was (and remains for those who deny the TA/TE distinction, such as Hoeksema, Clark, and Gerstner) that unless we know something _the way God knows it_, at some point, we can't know anything. 

Obviously, all revelation comes from God. It is something that God knows and it is something that we know, but even revelation cannot be said to be something we know _the way God knows it_. 

Thus, to describe ectypal theology as a "bridge" is ambiguous. If by bridge one means to communicate some sort of continuum between divine and human knowledge, then we're back to medieval realism and the associated rationalism (in this case rationalism = knowing what God knows, the way he knows it). If "bridge" means, accommodated revelation that gives and uses divinely authorized analogies to reveal to us the truth that God want us to have, fine.

We need to avoid the sketpticism that says that we can't know anything truly and the rationalism that says that we can know what God knows the way he knows it.

A little bit of divinization is a lot of divinization.

rsc


----------



## R. Scott Clark

We can and must know _that_ God has decreed everything that comes to pass and _that_ there are elect and reprobate, and _that_ God loved Jacob and reprobated Esau from all eternity, but having been revealed to us, these truths are not archetypal, by definition. 

Archteypal theology is not identical with all things eternal. It's not the case that if we know things eternal or about eternity (e.g., the intra-Trinitarian covenant between the persons of the deity) that know archetypal theology.

We know about election, Jacob and Esau, because these things are revealed. Otherwise (unless there are others revealed to be reprobate, e.g., Judas and the folks named in Jude and the like) the content of the decree is hidden from us. 

So, no, God's decretive _knowledge_ is not ectypal. His revelation about his decree and of a limited number of particulars (no more of which are forthcoming until the judgment) is, of course, ectypal, but God knows everything there is to know simply, naturally and freely, effortlessly, perfectly, eternally, exhaustively, and effortlessly.

We don't even know ectypal theology _the way_ God knows it.

The TA/TE distinction is very important, even essential and I argue that its loss in the modern period has damaged Reformed theology, piety, and practice severely. Reformed folk speak routinely know as if they know what God knows, the way he knows it. This leads to hubris and other vices.

Nevertheless, the TA/TE distinction cannot be used to solve all problems.

rsc



py3ak said:


> Well, let us try our exegetical skills on Rev. Winzer's statement and then he can confirm or deny.
> 
> I take it that God's decretive knowledge is ectypical for these reasons:
> 1. Rom. 8:29 comes between commas, as an aside. It is thus simply referencing a Scriptural proof for a concept. We would get the same point made a little more forcefully if Rev. Winzer had used () but I am sure the sense is the same.
> 2. The decree is in the same position in its phrase as the covenant is in its phrase. Clearly he means that the covenant is ectypal, and he does provide Scripture proof there as well, though in the form of a quotation rather than a reference. Since in each case we have substantially the same elements, and in the second case it is clearly the covenant which is ectypal, by analogy the same thing should hold.
> 3. Theologically, does not Romans 8:29 establish that the decree is ectypal? If that is so, there is no compelling reason overthrowing the parallelism mentioned in argument 2.
> 
> After this it will be very embarrassing if Rev. Winzer should say that in each case it was Romans 8:29 and "I will be thy God" which he meant to be taken as the ectypical elements....


----------



## Semper Fidelis

I was musing about this TA/TE distinction yesteday while listening to James White on the way to Church. He was answering a question about the infallible magisterium of the Roman Catholic Church and I began to wonder about the formulation of that concept up against the formulation of this concept.

It seems that the recognition that God's ideal communication in ectypal revelation accomodates to us all Truth that God has chosen to reveal necessarily precludes the idea of the infallible Magisterium of Rome. 2 Tim 3:16-17 would be a presentation of this concept that God has revealed a perfectly sufficient revelation to equip men for every good work. 

It was very helpful when it dawned on me that Ectypal theology is not how we understand it but what God reveals. It seems it is the task of the Church to accurately bear witness to that Truth but that is different than saying that the witness is infallible like TE itself.

Thoughts?


----------



## JohnV

> It was very helpful when it dawned on me that Ectypal theology is not how we understand it but what God reveals. It seems it is the task of the Church to accurately bear witness to that Truth but that is different than saying that the witness is infallible like TE itself.


Now that's a very good observation, Rich. That hits closer to the heart of it for me. I cannot agree with any kind of paradigm that suggests that God must accommodate Himself the the unchangeableness of Truth. That's my problem with some of the language, if nothing else, of the TA/TE discussion. I know it is not intended, but it seems to slip in all the same; and that makes it difficult to accept it as a philosophical approach to knowledge of truth. It seems like it wants to answer the hard questions, but as if it ignores or even negates first principles. 

I see God as logically prior to truth, that truth finds its unchangeableness in God, and not the other way around. I know that the TA/TE approach believes the same thing, but still I can't help but feel a looming shadow of God's accommodation to truth being compared to man's acccommodation to truth, as if truth is unchangeable outside of God, or is above God in some way. It's as if God is in the third person here (I don't mean Third person of the Trinity, but as in prose.)

If truth is an expression of God's eternally unchangeable character, along with beauty and holiness and personhood, and this is maintained throughout, then it's easier to understand for me. This observation of yours, Rich, puts it back into perspective for me.


----------



## MW

The position -- that things decreed are archetypal -- fails to distinguish the decree from its objects; just as a philosophical error is sometimes made by confusing knowledge with things known. What do we say about the fact that we cannot know who are elect and who are reprobate? These are certainly the hidden things of God; but it would be absurd to say that we cannot know who are elect and who are reprobate after the judgment at the consummation of all things. This shows ectypal theology is too easily identified with revelation as a distinct mode of communication; whereas it is much broader than that.

It has been clearly shown that ectypal theology is God's conceptualisation, not man's; it is true theology, that is, it is what God Himself knows about Himself and His actions in relation to His creatures. It is accommodated for the creature, but it comes from the Creator. To borrow Calvin's image of a father lisping to his child -- what the father knows is conceptualised and communicated into a form that the child can understand. To then say that the child's knowledge is different from the father's is counterproductive -- the father knows what he has conceptualised according to the capacity of the child. The knowledge is the same.


----------



## JohnV

armourbearer said:


> The position -- that things decreed are archetypal -- fails to distinguish the decree from its objects; just as a philosophical error is sometimes made by confusing knowledge with things known. What do we say about the fact that we cannot know who are elect and who are reprobate? These are certainly the hidden things of God; but it would be absurd to say that we cannot know who are elect and who are reprobate after the judgment at the consummation of all things. This shows ectypal theology is too easily identified with revelation as a distinct mode of communication; whereas it is much broader than that.
> 
> It has been clearly shown that ectypal theology is God's conceptualisation, not man's; it is true theology, that is, it is what God Himself knows about Himself and His actions in relation to His creatures. It is accommodated for the creature, but it comes from the Creator. To borrow Calvin's image of a father lisping to his child -- what the father knows is conceptualised and communicated into a form that the child can understand. To then say that the child's knowledge is different from the father's is counterproductive -- the father knows what he has conceptualised according to the capacity of the child. The knowledge is the same.



My problem with that, Matthew, is just as you say; only I would put it this way: ...that echtypal theology is man's conception of God's conceptualisation, not actually God's own conceptualisation of His own knowledge. That's the sticky point for me, God's conceptualisation of His own knowledge of truth. That's running around in circles, as I understand it. It doesn't stay consistent with the Creator/creature distinction, but overlaps in the foundational concepts. God doesn't have a conceptualisation of His own knowledge of truth, because that would suggest that God accommodates Himself to the unchangeableness of Truth; whereas it is truth itself that is accommodated to God's unchangeable character, which makes it an unchangeable truth. 

Everything has to figured around God's superior, unchangeable, eternal character and person. And truth for man has to be figured around his personal relationship to this unchangeable God. In other words, logically speaking, person precedes knowledge. I cannot think of it in any other way.


----------



## MW

JohnV, that's obviously the sticky point for Dr. Clark as well, as it was also for Van Til. Whether it is a sticky point is not really within the purview of what I have been trying to show. My concern is only to show that it was not the sticky point for the orthodox reformed, and therefore the terminology should not be adopted in the interests of introducing dialecticism into theological method, as if it has the countenance of the orthodox reformed. Blessings!


----------



## MW

PS. Were I to enter into the biblical merits of the orthodox reformed position, I would begin with Eph. 5:17, and show that the Scriptures everywhere assume that a renewed mind can understand the will of the Lord.


----------



## JohnV

armourbearer said:


> JohnV, that's obviously the sticky point for Dr. Clark as well, as it was also for Van Til. Whether it is a sticky point is not really within the purview of what I have been trying to show. My concern is only to show that it was not the sticky point for the orthodox reformed, and therefore the terminology should not be adopted in the interests of introducing dialecticism into theological method, as if it has the countenance of the orthodox reformed. Blessings!



I think that was what I was saying too. I would point to Eph. 4:24 as my starting point, but it is within the same context as where you would start. I would agree with you about introducing dialecticism, or any temporal approach, into proper theology.

Where I see the difference in the later Van Til is that he can no longer avoid subjecting the echtypal to the archtypal, or having it show in some manner or form. He cannot avoid any longer the consequence of his philosophy of subjecting everything to a presuppositional beginning. And that's all wrong in my thinking; presuppositions are by nature subjected to truth. I know that this is what it all swings around, that man's presuppositions are subjected to truth; I understand that. But the reality is that this is now a philosophy that is accommodated to man's limited understanding, subjecting even God's conceptualisation of truth to it; hence the proposed archtypal proposition along with some definitions of what that entails which go beyond revelation. 

The difference for me can perhaps better be described as philosophical necessity vs. philosophical proposition: how much of the archtypal paradigm is the one, and how much of it is the other. And at what point does it become a breaking of the second commandment? There's far too much of the second, of speculation, in it for me to allow it to get past my guard of keeping the faith whole and undefiled, rooted only in God's Word.


----------



## JohnV

But I too would add a PS:

Since I'm not really well versed in this, I should go back to just viewing. Adding my thoughts on this may not be helpful at all.


----------



## R. Scott Clark

SemperFideles said:


> I was musing about this TA/TE distinction yesteday while listening to James White on the way to Church. ...
> 
> ...It was very helpful when it dawned on me that Ectypal theology is not how we understand it but what God reveals. It seems it is the task of the Church to accurately bear witness to that Truth but that is different than saying that the witness is infallible like TE itself.
> 
> Thoughts?



As I understand it TE includes both revelation and our understanding of revelation. They are not identical, of course.

Scripture is the _principium cognoscendi _(the beginning of understanding) and theology is usually described as _sapientia_ in the classic theologians - but it is ectypal.

rsc


----------



## R. Scott Clark

armourbearer said:


> ...It has been clearly shown that ectypal theology is God's conceptualisation, not man's; it is true theology, that is, it is what God Himself knows about Himself and His actions in relation to His creatures. It is accommodated for the creature, but it comes from the Creator.
> 
> ... The knowledge is the same.




The point of Calvin's image is not that the knowledge is the same, but the Creator/creature distinction. God has to lisp to us (he uses an onomatopoetic word, _balbutire_, "to speak baby-talk") _because_ he is the Creator and we are creatures and he can't speak to us in any other way without destroying us.

It's not quite accurate (as I read Polanus and Junius) to say that ectypal theology _is_ TA accommodated, but rather it's better to say that TE is accommodated theology reflecting TA.

rsc


----------



## R. Scott Clark

John,

I know you've had a bad time with some VanTillians, but the whole point of CVT's system, throughout his career, was to deny the very thing you're attributing to him.

Can you cite a place in CVT where he thinks that we can have TA?

Remember this is the fellow who said all his career that human knowledge and divine knowledge are also parallel, that they exist on two planes. 

The assumptions with which we begin are always revealed ergo they are necessary TE not TA.

rsc



JohnV said:


> I think that was what I was saying too. I would point to Eph. 4:24 as my starting point, but it is within the same context as where you would start. I would agree with you about introducing dialecticism, or any temporal approach, into proper theology.
> 
> Where I see the difference in the later Van Til is that he can no longer avoid subjecting the echtypal to the archtypal, or having it show in some manner or form. He cannot avoid any longer the consequence of his philosophy of subjecting everything to a presuppositional beginning. And that's all wrong in my thinking; presuppositions are by nature subjected to truth. I know that this is what it all swings around, that man's presuppositions are subjected to truth; I understand that. But the reality is that this is now a philosophy that is accommodated to man's limited understanding, subjecting even God's conceptualisation of truth to it; hence the proposed archtypal proposition along with some definitions of what that entails which go beyond revelation.
> 
> The difference for me can perhaps better be described as philosophical necessity vs. philosophical proposition: how much of the archtypal paradigm is the one, and how much of it is the other. And at what point does it become a breaking of the second commandment? There's far too much of the second, of speculation, in it for me to allow it to get past my guard of keeping the faith whole and undefiled, rooted only in God's Word.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

R. Scott Clark said:


> As I understand it TE includes both revelation and our understanding of revelation. They are not identical, of course.
> 
> Scripture is the _principium cognoscendi _(the beginning of understanding) and theology is usually described as _sapientia_ in the classic theologians - but it is ectypal.
> 
> rsc



But the _sapientia_ aspect of ectypal theology can't be true theology if sin has caused us to inaccurately discern the actual meaning that God intended to communicate in a portion of Scripture.

It seems to me that if ectypal theology includes all manner of understanding by a creature then pentecostalism and reformed theology are both ectypal theology (two different _sapentia_). That seems to be an awfully broad definition so I think I'm missing something.


----------



## MW

R. Scott Clark said:


> It's not quite accurate (as I read Polanus and Junius) to say that ectypal theology _is_ TA accommodated, but rather it's better to say that TE is accommodated theology reflecting TA.



Junius: "theology simply so called, is *the entire Wisdom concerning divine things* capable of being communicated to created things.


----------



## JohnV

Dr. Clark:

I think you're misunderstanding me. I'm not saying at all, by a long shot, that CVT says that we can have TA, as you put it. 

I'm depending on my study of the differences between the '32 Van Til and the late '60's -70's Van Til, the framework I use to try to understand these concepts. I well know that the "some VanTillians" that I had a bad time with are hardly VanTillians. I'm more VanTillian than they are, and I knew it back then already. I'm not confusing the two at all. 

What I am saying, although obviously not well, is that TA is philosophically part of TE, because the comparison is from a human point of view. We don't know that God's concept of knowledge is TA; that's our own speculative assumption. It isn't just pure Word of God, but man's deduction from the Word of God added to it. The only deduction that is allowed is that which is of necessity. Because there is man's own speculation involved in this approach to the differences, it is not of necessity. That means that, in actuality, we speculate that God's knowledge is TA, which means that this idea springs from TE. 

Why can't I just say that this TA/TE paradigm is speculative, and everyone immediately know what I'm talking about? It's like Matthew says, we have to keep it in perspective, being careful to mark the difference between what we confess and what we speculate, not confusing the two. 


R. Scott Clark said:


> John,
> 
> I know you've had a bad time with some VanTillians, but the whole point of CVT's system, throughout his career, was to deny the very thing you're attributing to him.
> 
> Can you cite a place in CVT where he thinks that we can have TA?
> 
> Remember this is the fellow who said all his career that human knowledge and divine knowledge are also parallel, that they exist on two planes.
> 
> The assumptions with which we begin are always revealed ergo they are necessary TE not TA.
> 
> rsc


----------



## Semper Fidelis

I don't know John. To say that TA is speculative ignores some Scripture that support not only that God knows Himself but also that He is incomprehensible in His essence. I see God's dialog in Job as an example of this idea.


----------



## MW

John, I don't think the archetype/ectype distinction is speculative. It is clearly revealed in 1 Cor. 2, only without the terms. I only insist that the ectype be considered the true knowledge of God, not some universe parallel to the true knowledge of God.


----------



## JohnV

OK, I don't want to go too far in this. But just to be clear about where I stand on this:

The model of AT/ET is not cut-and-dried, and has some problems with it. I'm only pointing out one of them. Granted that knowledge for the natural man is not comparable to knowledge in the Spirit. But spiritual discernment for man is not denied. 

I don't agree that the AT/ET model follows necessarily from 1 Cor. 2, although I do not deny some of its merits. I believe that I can know spiritually, that spiritual knowledge transcends natural knowledge which depends on the elemental principles of the world, and that the concept of the Trinity is far from being a logical paradox, but is instead a key to opening the doors to spiritual knowledge. It is not for me to know necessarily as God knows, but rather that I strive to know as He would have me know. As such, I cannot believe that what He tells me is not truth, but is rather accommodated, or is a revelation in discontinuity with His truth. 

The AT/ET model, therefore, has some merit insofar as it does not transgress revelation on this and other matters, and insofar as it does not transgress the holiness of God's character. It is helpful to a degree. But if it tells me that I cannot know truth because what I can know is not what God knows, then I must object. For the Bible clearly says that I can know the truth, and that the truth will set me free. That means that I can know spiritually, not captured by the elemental principles as is the case for natural man. Bearing God's image in true righteousness, holiness, and knowledge (Eph. 4:24, Col. 3:10, WLC, Q&A's 17, 67) is possible through Christ and the Spirit, via the Word. 

If there is a distinction between AT and ET, it is not altogether as an either/or distinction. It has to be that ET is a subset of AT, not a parallel or different type of knowledge. The distinction of types should be secondary to the fact that it is indeed knowledge of truth. It cannot be that two sets of truths exist in the same field. Nor that there are two unrelated fields for truth to abound in. We are compelled to believe that only one system of truth exists, and that knowing it temporally, though sinlessly, is different than knowing it eternally, yet without demonstrating any discontinuity in truth itself, or in God. 

So I agree that there is some merit to the AT/ET model. I don't have to accept it as Van Til did, nor as Clark did, in order to hold to that. 

I'm sorry if I'm steering this off course. I didn't mean to. I should have stayed a reader, and not put my two cents in.


----------



## Civbert

JohnV said:


> ...Because there is man's own speculation involved in this approach to the differences, it is not of necessity. That means that, in actuality, we speculate that God's knowledge is TA, which means that this idea springs from TE.
> 
> Why can't I just say that this TA/TE paradigm is speculative, and everyone immediately know what I'm talking about? It's like Matthew says, we have to keep it in perspective, being careful to mark the difference between what we confess and what we speculate, not confusing the two.



Amen.


----------



## Civbert

armourbearer said:


> John, I don't think the archetype/ectype distinction is speculative. It is clearly revealed in 1 Cor. 2, only without the terms. I only insist that the ectype be considered the true knowledge of God, not some universe parallel to the true knowledge of God.



But John's point is 1 Cor 2 _is_ TE. So we get TA from TE.


P.S. My view of 1 Cor 2 "spiritual knowledge" is the God's knowledge revealed in Scripture (the mind of Christ). The key in 1 Cor 2 is also the Spirit's role in making it possible for man to "know" the things revealed through scripture. And that "natural man" is simply man unregenerate who does not believe the truths of Scripture and so can not discerner spiritual things. (1 Cor 2:14). This doesn't mean ET/AT is invalid, but that 1 Cor 2 does not support the "analogical" model of knowledge per Van Til.


----------



## Civbert

R. Scott Clark said:


> I do think and have argued that Van Til's account of incomprehensibility is effectively the same doctrine as taught by Junius et al.
> 
> Accommodated knowledge is just that. By definition, humans cannot have archetypal knowledge/theology.
> 
> Ectypal theology is true, but parallel to divine knowledge. It is divinely given, but theology is not given and we cannot comprehend it _as God knows it_.



"True but parallel to divine knowledge" sounds like Ectypal theology is not known by God, since archetypal theology = the divine mind of God, which implies all that God knows. So how can something be true and God does not know it? If Ectypal theology is on a different "parallel" plane, then either God's mind is segregated into separate areas, or God does not know the Ectypal theology he has revealed to man.

Rather, I would think ET would be a subset of AT. ET is that divine knowledge God has condescended to reveal to man, knowledge which can be understood by man. ET is not some knowledge that is separated from the divine knowledge on a parallel plane. 

And we can't know if the "form" of ET is different than AT. We do know that the ET is not complete (in that it is not _all_ of God's knowledge). But we don't know if it is anything but propositional - since all we know is propositional. Anything other than propositional knowledge would be pure speculation because _all_ we know of God is his revelation. (Of course, that's my Clarkian view that knowledge is propositional since to know something includes understand true/false status which requires it to be in propositional form. "Non-propositional knowledge" is a self-contradicting. We can't know a non-proposition since it is neither true or false.)



R. Scott Clark said:


> The point of the Creator/creature distinction as articulated in this discussion is that we are not the Creator and our intellect never intersects his intellect, it intersects with his _revelation_ of himself and his mind, but that revelation is always accommodated and it would be equivocating to call that the divine intellect.



Which seems to be based on a theoretical model of divine vs human knowledge. This non-intersecting zones is why Van Til's model of knowledge leads to skepticism. His revelation will always be less than truth if it is always analogical and completely separate from AT. 



R. Scott Clark said:


> We don't know God _in se_ (in himself). No revelation is gives us access to God _in se_. We know God truly, but only as he stooped to accommodate himself to us.



Are you saying that God is what God knows? If not, then the _in se_ clause does not make sense to me. And I thought one purpose of AT/ET was "that God is distinct from his revelation". If so, knowing what God knows (his revelation) would not violate the creature/creator distinction. 




R. Scott Clark said:


> Archetypal knowledge is described by the Reformed orthodox as analogous. Thus I agree with Rev Winzer's use of the word "corresponding." That's just right. Please remember too that the medieval realists had it that we can know the divine substance/essence by abstracting universals from particulars and those come into contact with the divine intellect; we could know what God knows the way he does, at least for a moment.
> 
> The assumption was (and remains for those who deny the TA/TE distinction, such as Hoeksema, Clark, and Gerstner) that unless we know something _the way God knows it_, at some point, we can't know anything.


Simply untrue. Clark never said we know the same way God knows. What Clark said was man knows univocally what God knows when man believes and understands the truth revealed to him by Word and Spirit. _How we_ know is by revelation (Scripture which we know through God's condescending to reveal certain truths to us by the written Word and power of the Spirit to understand and believe). Clearly the "how" is entirely different! Also, we can not know comprehensibly as God knows. Again, this does not mean we can not know _what_ God knows because God has revealed the _what_ to us.




R. Scott Clark said:


> Obviously, all revelation comes from God. It is something that God knows and it is something that we know, but even revelation cannot be said to be something we know _the way God knows it_.


 Obviously.



R. Scott Clark said:


> Thus, to describe ectypal theology as a "bridge" is ambiguous. If by bridge one means to communicate some sort of continuum between divine and human knowledge, then we're back to medieval realism and the associated rationalism (in this case rationalism = knowing what God knows, the way he knows it). If "bridge" means, accommodated revelation that gives and uses divinely authorized analogies to reveal to us the truth that God want us to have, fine.



"Bridge" is much more helpful than "divide". Since God knows ET, it must be a subset of AT. And the "bridge" is how the ET is made known to man. 



R. Scott Clark said:


> We need to avoid the skepticism that says that we can't know anything truly and the rationalism that says that we can know what God knows the _way he knows it._



How about we just leave it "we can know what God knows". We can avoid skepticism by realizing that the "parallel knowledge" model of AT/ET is inherently flawed. Analogy is a terrible description of God's revelation as an analogy is never the univocal truth, it is merely a pointer to the truth. But the mysteries have been made known to us by Christ (in the Word and by the power of the Spirit). We have the mind of Christ. We do know what God has reveled to us.

Aside: Rich, I noticed that quotes are italicized. Is there some way to change that? It destroys the italicization of the original post.


----------



## JohnV

There is a particular problem that Armourbearer and I face. He reads my posts from his yesterday, while I read his posts from my tomorrow. When he answers my posts, he answers out of my future, and when I answer his posts, I answer out of his past. He's sixteen hours ahead of my time. 

You've got to admit, that's enough to put a dent in our ET.


----------



## py3ak

armourbearer said:


> The position -- that things decreed are archetypal -- fails to distinguish the decree from its objects; just as a philosophical error is sometimes made by confusing knowledge with things known. What do we say about the fact that we cannot know who are elect and who are reprobate? These are certainly the hidden things of God; but it would be absurd to say that we cannot know who are elect and who are reprobate after the judgment at the consummation of all things. This shows ectypal theology is too easily identified with revelation as a distinct mode of communication; whereas it is much broader than that.
> 
> It has been clearly shown that ectypal theology is God's conceptualisation, not man's; it is true theology, that is, it is what God Himself knows about Himself and His actions in relation to His creatures. It is accommodated for the creature, but it comes from the Creator. To borrow Calvin's image of a father lisping to his child -- what the father knows is conceptualised and communicated into a form that the child can understand. To then say that the child's knowledge is different from the father's is counterproductive -- the father knows what he has conceptualised according to the capacity of the child. The knowledge is the same.



Rev. Winzer,

Thank you for the light you've been shedding on this difficult subject. I believe I am largely understanding you, but there are still two questions I am not quite clear on.
1. When God knows ectypically does that exclude archetypal knowledge?
2. What is the relation of ectypal knowledge to revelation (whether general or special, natural or supernatural)?


----------



## Semper Fidelis

I need to tighten up the thread here. This thread is primarily to understand what archetypal and ectypal theology are as they have been historically defined. Asking questions about the historical definition is fine but I don't want to get into a Van Til detractor/supporter thing here. I introduced him to allow his thought to be contrasted against TA/TE to help understand how the historic formulation might be like and unlike Van Til's thought since his thought is fairly well known.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Civbert said:


> Aside: Rich, I noticed that quotes are italicized. Is there some way to change that? It destroys the italicization of the original post.


I'll see what I can do.


----------



## Civbert

FYRP: http://www.wscal.edu/clark/thesestheologicae.php


----------



## MW

JohnV said:


> There is a particular problem that Armourbearer and I face. He reads my posts from his yesterday, while I read his posts from my tomorrow. When he answers my posts, he answers out of my future, and when I answer his posts, I answer out of his past. He's sixteen hours ahead of my time.
> 
> You've got to admit, that's enough to put a dent in our ET.


----------



## Civbert

FYI: 


> Adjective: ectypal ektupul
> Copied, reproduced as a moulding or cast, in contradistinction from the original model
> 
> http://www.wordwebonline.com/en/ECTYPAL



Thoughts. Is there such a thing as a "copy" of a proposition? That is, if you know P and I know P, do we know two different propositions? I guess that depends on your idea of what knowledge is. 
....
Is Humes the first to use the concept of ectypal? It seems for Humes, the idea depends on his concept ontology which was empirical, no? His view was all knowledge was ectypal - you know not an object "in itself" (archetypal) but a reflection or image of the object (ectypal). This is a little different than what I've read about ET and AT, but it seems to be related. 

Very interesting discussion so far.


----------



## MW

Ruben (and for JohnV and Civbert if listening in),



> 1. When God knows ectypically does that exclude archetypal knowledge?



ET can't exclude AT for God. The knowledge is the same so far as the Subject knowing is concerned. AT is God's infinite essence, whereby He knows Himself infinitely. ET is God's knowledge of Himself in relation and action to His creatures accommodated for the benefit of the creature. It is God's knowledge in both instances. Just as when I accommodate something as simply as possible so one of my little ones can understand it, I know the thing in both its models.

To ask if ET excludes AT for the creature is counter-intuitive. We can't know AT. 1 Cor. 2:11, "For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God." It is because we can't know AT that God gives us ET. Ver. 12, "Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God." ET is AT accommodated and communicated to us. However, we always have to keep in mind that we do not know God archetypically, just as God does not know us archetypically. He knows us by means of His decree and covenant, as before noted, both of which are to be distinguished from His essence.



> 2. What is the relation of ectypal knowledge to revelation (whether general or special, natural or supernatural)?



Revelation is one mode of communicating ectypal theology. For Christ, the mode of communication is the hypostatical union. For elect angels and glorified saints the mode is vision. For the redeemed on earth who are still "on the way," the mode is revelation.

Hope that helps rather than hinders. Blessings!


----------



## MW

Civbert said:


> Thoughts. Is there such a thing as a "copy" of a proposition? That is, if you know P and I know P, do we know two different propositions? I guess that depends on your idea of what knowledge is.



The proposition is the "copy" in this context. God does not know propositionally so far as His essential knowledge is concerned. The ectype is the knowledge of God conceptualised.


----------



## JohnV

So just a quick question: does that mean that man can only know propositionally, since ET is the "copy" (I assume) and the copy is propositional? If so, what exactly does that mean? If not, what other ways does man know besides propositionally? For example, can he know immediately?


----------



## MW

JohnV said:


> So just a quick question: does that mean that man can only know propositionally, since ET is the "copy" (I assume) and the copy is propositional? If so, what exactly does that mean? If not, what other ways does man know besides propositionally? For example, can he know immediately?



I believe there is a personal element to all of knowledge, so that it is not ever to be restricted to propositions. Hence revelation always addresses us as standing in some relation to God, whether as sinner or as son. The relationship is personal and so it adds emotional and moral obligations to the propositional content. Consider the way this is conveyed in Eph. 5:1, and Col 3:12 as examples. However, the reformed have denied the mystical idea of knowing God immediately. In heaven faith is turned to sight so the mode of communication is one of vision rather than absorption.


----------



## JohnV

What about illumination by the Spirit? Does He illumine mediately or immediately?


----------



## MW

JohnV said:


> What about illumination by the Spirit? Does He illumine mediately or immediately?



According to Rom. 1, the Spirit bears witness naturally to men "by the things which are made." And according to 1 Cor. 2:13, he teaches by means of the words of inspiration. When the Scriptures speak of a direct work of God upon the heart it is still "in the face of Jesus Christ," 2 Cor. 4:6, and as the context clearly shows, that is the unveiling of Jesus Christ in the gospel; for we must contrast this illumination with the gospel being hid to them that are lost, vv. 3, 4.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

armourbearer said:


> According to Rom. 1, the Spirit bears witness naturally to men "by the things which are made." And according to 1 Cor. 2:13, he teaches by means of the words of inspiration. When the Scriptures speak of a direct work of God upon the heart it is still "in the face of Jesus Christ," 2 Cor. 4:6, and as the context clearly shows, that is the unveiling of Jesus Christ in the gospel; for we must contrast this illumination with the gospel being hid to them that are lost, vv. 3, 4.



I don't know if this answers my question as well.

I was musing on this discussion as I was driving to work this AM. I realized that much of the discussion in the Apologetics or Philosophy forums has to do with epistimology in terms of heated debate.

It is established that ectypal theology is the ideal. It tells us _that_ it is God's theology accomodated to us but it doesn't seem like it explains _how_ we completely understand it. 

Allow me to qualify. I understand that we understand TE in the sense that "...My sheep hear My voice..." and so all those regenerate can "hear" and understand ET. Those things perspicuous are clearly revealed to all the redeemed. But what about the more obscure stuff? Why do some redeemed men understand ET more fully when others do not?

Is it also fair to say that the intent of the AT/ET model is not to present an entire philsophical system of epistimology and shouldn't be pressed too hard to answer all questions?


----------



## MW

SemperFideles said:


> Is it also fair to say that the intent of the AT/ET model is not to present an entire philsophical system of epistimology and shouldn't be pressed too hard to answer all questions?



I would look at it another way -- the questions themselves are specious and undermine the possibility of true theology. The ideas of qualitative and quantitative knowledge fall outside of biblical parameters. Most of these questions arise for the simple reason that our knowledge is being seen in relation to AT instead of ET. Paradox is established on the basis of incomprehensibility at the expense of the equally important teaching of God's knowability. Eph. 3:19 speaks of knowing what surpasses knowledge and being filled with infinite fulness. Paradox? Rhetorically, yes. Rationally, no. The orthodox reformed, by their useful classification of AT and ET have resolved the tension; whereas if dialecticism were permitted as a part of theological method, the tension must remain unresolved, and the AT/ET distinction regarded as null and void.


----------



## py3ak

armourbearer said:


> Ruben (and for JohnV and Civbert if listening in),
> 
> 
> 
> ET can't exclude AT for God. The knowledge is the same so far as the Subject knowing is concerned. AT is God's infinite essence, whereby He knows Himself infinitely. ET is God's knowledge of Himself in relation and action to His creatures accommodated for the benefit of the creature. It is God's knowledge in both instances. Just as when I accommodate something as simply as possible so one of my little ones can understand it, I know the thing in both its models.
> 
> To ask if ET excludes AT for the creature is counter-intuitive. We can't know AT. 1 Cor. 2:11, "For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God." It is because we can't know AT that God gives us ET. Ver. 12, "Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God." ET is AT accommodated and communicated to us. However, we always have to keep in mind that we do not know God archetypically, just as God does not know us archetypically. He knows us by means of His decree and covenant, as before noted, both of which are to be distinguished from His essence.
> 
> 
> 
> Revelation is one mode of communicating ectypal theology. For Christ, the mode of communication is the hypostatical union. For elect angels and glorified saints the mode is vision. For the redeemed on earth who are still "on the way," the mode is revelation.
> 
> Hope that helps rather than hinders. Blessings!



Very much so (helping), thank you.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

armourbearer said:


> I would look at it another way -- the questions themselves are specious and undermine the possibility of true theology. The ideas of qualitative and quantitative knowledge fall outside of biblical parameters. Most of these questions arise for the simple reason that our knowledge is being seen in relation to AT instead of ET. Paradox is established on the basis of incomprehensibility at the expense of the equally important teaching of God's knowability. Eph. 3:19 speaks of knowing what surpasses knowledge and being filled with infinite fulness. Paradox? Rhetorically, yes. Rationally, no. The orthodox reformed, by their useful classification of AT and ET have resolved the tension; whereas if dialecticism were permitted as a part of theological method, the tension must remain unresolved, and the AT/ET distinction regarded as null and void.


Great point. In other words, instead of approaching God from the direction of His incomprehensibility as a philisophical brute fact, the Scriptures reveal God as knowable because He comes to us accomodated to our capability.

I was also wondering more broadly whether there is a theory of epistimology outside of TE? Does TE include how we know what trees, cars, plants, etc are as well? I'm sorry if I ask questions poorly. I'm trying to get my arms around it.


----------



## MW

SemperFideles said:


> I was also wondering more broadly whether there is a theory of epistimology outside of TE? Does TE include how we know what trees, cars, plants, etc are as well? I'm sorry if I ask questions poorly. I'm trying to get my arms around it.



Yes, its the nominalist tradition. We know things by their attributes; only God knows them according to essence. General revelation makes attribution possible. I'm swamped in research today; sorry for the brevity.


----------



## JohnV

Are miracles possible in the area of knowledge? (E.g.: Joseph's and Daniel's knowledge of and interpretation of dreams.)


----------



## R. Scott Clark

SemperFideles said:


> But the _sapientia_ aspect of ectypal theology can't be true theology if sin has caused us to inaccurately discern the actual meaning that God intended to communicate in a portion of Scripture.
> 
> It seems to me that if ectypal theology includes all manner of understanding by a creature then pentecostalism and reformed theology are both ectypal theology (two different _sapentia_). That seems to be an awfully broad definition so I think I'm missing something.



If a doctrine is false, e.g., the claims of the neo-Pentecostalists re ongoing revelation and apostolic phenomena, then it isn't "ectypal theology."

Only that is ectypal that is derived from the revealed Word of God.

rsc


----------



## R. Scott Clark

John,

TA is only the Reformed way of talking about what God knows.

Why is this speculative?

God's Word says: 

"In the beginning God..." That cannot be said of humans. 

How about the end of Job? "Where were you when?..." (Job 38).

Deut 29:29 distinguishes between the revealed things and the hidden things.

Is. 55:8 For my thoughts are not your thoughts,
neither are your ways my ways, declares the LORD. 
9 For as the heavens are higher than the earth,
so are my ways higher than your ways
and my thoughts than your thoughts. 

If there is a Creator/creature distinction, then there is a distinction between the way God knows things and the way we know things.

That difference has been described for centuries as the difference between TA and TE.

The technical terminology doesn't make it speculative.

rsc



JohnV said:


> Dr. Clark:
> 
> I think you're misunderstanding me. I'm not saying at all, by a long shot, that CVT says that we can have TA, as you put it.
> 
> I'm depending on my study of the differences between the '32 Van Til and the late '60's -70's Van Til, the framework I use to try to understand these concepts. I well know that the "some VanTillians" that I had a bad time with are hardly VanTillians. I'm more VanTillian than they are, and I knew it back then already. I'm not confusing the two at all.
> 
> What I am saying, although obviously not well, is that TA is philosophically part of TE, because the comparison is from a human point of view. We don't know that God's concept of knowledge is TA; that's our own speculative assumption. It isn't just pure Word of God, but man's deduction from the Word of God added to it. The only deduction that is allowed is that which is of necessity. Because there is man's own speculation involved in this approach to the differences, it is not of necessity. That means that, in actuality, we speculate that God's knowledge is TA, which means that this idea springs from TE.
> 
> Why can't I just say that this TA/TE paradigm is speculative, and everyone immediately know what I'm talking about? It's like Matthew says, we have to keep it in perspective, being careful to mark the difference between what we confess and what we speculate, not confusing the two.


----------



## JohnV

Dr. Clark:

I just don't agree. I can answer why I consider it speculative, but don't think that this is the intent of this thread. In this thread I merely assert that I consider it speculative, not authoritative; and I question some of the ways that the terms are used. I believe that questioning the your concluding remark is sufficient for this: is it indeed true that introducing philosphical or technical terminology does not necessarily make it speculative? 

But I have a question instead: would you consider the Archtype to be in any way opposite to the Echtype? That is, is the way God knows in some way (at least one way) opposite to the way man knows?



R. Scott Clark said:


> John,
> 
> TA is only the Reformed way of talking about what God knows.
> 
> Why is this speculative?
> 
> God's Word says:
> 
> "In the beginning God..." That cannot be said of humans.
> 
> How about the end of Job? "Where were you when?..." (Job 38).
> 
> Deut 29:29 distinguishes between the revealed things and the hidden things.
> 
> Is. 55:8 For my thoughts are not your thoughts,
> neither are your ways my ways, declares the LORD.
> 9 For as the heavens are higher than the earth,
> so are my ways higher than your ways
> and my thoughts than your thoughts.
> 
> If there is a Creator/creature distinction, then there is a distinction between the way God knows things and the way we know things.
> 
> That difference has been described for centuries as the difference between TA and TE.
> 
> The technical terminology doesn't make it speculative.
> 
> rsc


----------



## R. Scott Clark

John,

I realize that the language is unfamiliar, but that unfamiliarity is due to historical reasons that I hope to try to explain in a forthcoming work. That unfamiliarity doesn't make them speculative.

Is the Creator/creature distinction speculative?

As to philosophical language, it isn't philosophical. It is _theological_ language. Theologians must be able to use technical terms or there will be no such thing as theology! If we were doing botany, no one would question the validity of technical terms. Why are they invalid for theology? Are we restricted only to biblical language? That was the Socinian argument and, of course, we know where that got us! (they denied the Trinity, among other things, all the while claiming only to be following the Bible).

I highly recommend this essay:

Willem J. van Asselt, "The Fundamental Meaning of Theology: Archetypal and Ectypal Theology in Seventeenth-Century Reformed Thought," _Westminster Theological Journal_ 64 (2003): 319-35.

It is available via inter-library loan from most public libraries.

As to archetypal and ectypal theology being opposites, I'm not sure what you mean. Can you explain?

If opposites mean "contradictory," I would say "no." They are analogues. Think of two parallel lines that never intersect. Are the lines opposites? No. Is the bottom line identical to the top? No. The bottom line is a reflection of the top. The bottom line is not the top and it is true as far as it goes, but given that the bottom line is not the top, it is an imperfect reflection of the top.

Consider the divine attributes. We speak of "attributes" but because we are capable only of ectypal theology we must do so. The finite is not capable of the infinite. We know from Scripture that, in God, there are not "attributes." God is holy, just, merciful, infinite, immense etc. All his mercy is immense and all his justice is merciful. We must speak of "attributes" in order to speak of him at all and yet, in so doing, we've said something that we know isn't true absolutely, but there's no other way (at least we haven't found it yet) to speak about God.

The same is true of the biblical anthropomorphisms. We know that God does not have an ear, yet he is revealed as having an ear because it is a way of helping us to think about and understand that God is cognizant of us and "hears" us, as it were. Strictly speaking, there is a certain degree of falsehood in the words: "God's ear," yet revelation gives us warrant for speaking thus, so long as we recognize the sort of speech we are using. 

The truth is we cannot comprehend what it means for God "to hear." He hears, as it were, in a way that utterly transcends our ability to understand. 

So, when Junius and Polanus et al spoke of theologia archetypa et ectypa, they were speaking of infinite theology and accommodated theology. God understands our theology completely, better than we do or ever shall, but God being who and what he is, we can never know his theology.

The Scripture pictures the moral and ontological transcendence of God by describing him as a "consuming fire" (Deut 4:24; Heb 12:29). If God revealed himself to us as he is, he would consume us. We're not able to see his face and live (Exod 33:20). These sorts of places in Scripture witness to the very distinguish at stake in the archetypal/ectypal distinction.

rsc



JohnV said:


> Dr. Clark:
> 
> I just don't agree. I can answer why I consider it speculative, but don't think that this is the intent of this thread. In this thread I merely assert that I consider it speculative, not authoritative; and I question some of the ways that the terms are used. I believe that questioning the your concluding remark is sufficient for this: is it indeed true that introducing philosphical or technical terminology does not necessarily make it speculative?
> 
> But I have a question instead: would you consider the Archtype to be in any way opposite to the Echtype? That is, is the way God knows in some way (at least one way) opposite to the way man knows?


----------



## R. Scott Clark

JohnV said:


> Are miracles possible in the area of knowledge? (E.g.: Joseph's and Daniel's knowledge of and interpretation of dreams.)



Yes, certainly, but we're still speaking about revelation.

Anything that is revealed is, by definition, not archetypal. 

There is an infinite set of things (known by God) that exists. The only thing we know about that set is that it is. We don't and cannot know anything in particular from that set.

Anything that is revealed is necessarily not archetypal. 

Anything that is revealed, however done, is ectypal.

rsc


----------



## Semper Fidelis

R. Scott Clark said:


> If a doctrine is false, e.g., the claims of the neo-Pentecostalists re ongoing revelation and apostolic phenomena, then it isn't "ectypal theology."
> 
> Only that is ectypal that is derived from the revealed Word of God.
> 
> rsc



OK, Thanks. I've got it now. In other words, Baptist sacramentology and ecclesiology are not ectypal theology.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

R. Scott Clark said:


> I highly recommend this essay:
> 
> Willem J. van Asselt, "The Fundamental Meaning of Theology: Archetypal and Ectypal Theology in Seventeenth-Century Reformed Thought," _Westminster Theological Journal_ 64 (2003): 319-35.
> 
> It is available via inter-library loan from most public libraries.



See here:

http://www.wts.edu/publications/wtj/bissues.html

It's the Fall 2002 issue (#64)


----------



## crhoades

R. Scott Clark said:


> I highly recommend this essay:
> 
> Willem J. van Asselt, "The Fundamental Meaning of Theology: Archetypal and Ectypal Theology in Seventeenth-Century Reformed Thought," _Westminster Theological Journal_ 64 (2003): 319-35.
> 
> It is available via inter-library loan from most public libraries.
> rsc


 
Dr. Clark,

I have this essay as well as the one mentioned in the Karl Barth thread regarding Machen in the Logos/Libronix format. Would it go against copyright or scholarly secret handshakes to offer to email them to anyone who wanted it here on the board? I wouldn't post it here for general consumption. Thoughts?


----------



## R. Scott Clark

Chris,

I don't know copyright law in detail, but I think that the usage is restricted by "fair use." This means that one can copy an article in a book (or a journal). 

I don't see the difference between you copying it and sending it to others.

The point, I think, (Fred can correct me), is that the Journal or publisher should not lose revenue that it would ordinarily have through unfair copying of it's publications. If one wants to read more than one essay of a copyright publication then one should purchase it (assuming it's available for purchase).

If anyone can order the same article by ILL I don't see the difference morally between getting it from you and getting it from a library via ILL.

rsc


----------



## Civbert

R. Scott Clark said:


> The truth is we cannot comprehend what it means for God "to hear." He hears, as it were, in a way that utterly transcends our ability to understand.



No - a strong protest. What it means for "God to hear" is simply that God understands what we are saying. This does not "utterly transcend our ability to understand". We can understand what this means or God would not have put these words in the bible.



R. Scott Clark said:


> ... God understands our theology completely, better than we do or ever shall, but God being who and what he is, we can never know his theology.



ET is also God's theology - that which He reveals to us. We know God's theology by knowing ET. If we can not know the knowledge God reveals to us, then Christianity is meaningless. As far as knowing AT is concerned, the only certain reason we can not know AT is because God has not revealed it to us. The idea that AT is in inherently unknowable makes God unknowable - which is about as anti-Christian a sentiment I can think of. 



R. Scott Clark said:


> The Scripture pictures the moral and ontological transcendence of God by describing him as a "consuming fire" (Deut 4:24; Heb 12:29). If God revealed himself to us as he is, he would consume us. We're not able to see his face and live (Exod 33:20). These sorts of places in Scripture witness to the very distinguish at stake in the archetypal/ectypal distinction.
> 
> rsc



This consuming fire burns away sin - not us. 
For us it simply means that the "man of flesh" would be burned away. We would know that we must first die physically before we can stand in his presence. But in the mean time, God burns away our sinfulness (sanctification). He does not destroy us by revealing himself to us, he cleanses us with purifying fire. 



> 2Co 3:16-18 Nevertheless when one turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away. (17) Now the Lord is the Spirit; and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty. (18) But we all, with unveiled face, beholding as in a mirror the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from glory to glory, just as by the Spirit of the Lord.



We see the face of God reflected in the Lord Jesus as in a mirror. We still do not have knowledge of God immediately from God, but we do have knowledge from and of God through the Word. And so what was hidden in the Old Testament, and from the Jews of that age, is revealed to us in Scripture, to those who believe the Word.


----------



## JohnV

Thanks, Dr. Clark. But if I may take a reply from Mr. Samuel Goldwyn, you improved it worse. However, that does not necessarily mean that your explanation is at fault. It could be me. I think there is enough in this thread for me to chew on for a while. I think I need to toss these things around in my own head for some time, and see what comes of it. I have a very structured way of thinking about these matters, and I need to do some sorting out. Thank you for your time and effort for my sake.


----------



## crhoades

Anyone who wants said article, PM me and I'll send you a link to download the article.

Willem J. van Asselt, "The Fundamental Meaning of Theology: Archetypal and Ectypal Theology in Seventeenth-Century Reformed Thought," _Westminster Theological Journal_ 64 (2003): 319-35.


----------

