The Theistic Conceptual Realism Model view of relationship between God and logic
The Archetypal Ectypal Model view of relationship between God and logic
Key:
AEM = Archetypal-Ectypal Model.
TCRM = Theistic Conceptual Realism Model
ATSC = Archetypal Trinitarian Self Coherence
I = ‘‘l’’ refers to the laws of logic as we know it, an accommodated form of the ectypal laws of thought in God’s mind
————-
Nathaniel Sutanto’s comments on the two diagrams which map out the relationship between divine logic and human logic according to TCRM or Theistic Conceptual Realism Model [first diagram above] and according to AEM or Archetypal Ectypal Model [second diagram above]:
1) Contra TCRM (diagram 1), the connection between the above two circles [pertaining to laws of logic] should not be taken to express an ontological overlap, but rather an overlap of denotation. Divine thoughts remain distinct from human thoughts, even when human thoughts may express propositions identical with divine thoughts. AEM (contra TCRM) entails two levels of being and logic – God’s own logic and our ideas of logic.
This ectypal theology in the mind of God is a result of God’s will, based on his archetypal knowledge, and is the ‘‘causal basis for human theology.’’ Ectypal theology is thus divided into two, an internal form and an external form. The internal form in the mind of God is a theology contingent on his will and is distinct from archetypal theology in that it is communicable, yet remains known to God alone: ‘‘This uncreated and essential archetypal theology differs entirely from ectypal theology which is accidental and finite and a sort of outflow…of the former…It is a theology created by God, who is its efficient cause.’’ When God reveals that internal ectypal theology to human beings it again changes form as God accommodates it to the capacity of finite creatures. The internal is the source (fons) for the external, which is a ‘‘lake (lacus) derived from the source.
2) AEM implies is that the laws of logic do apply to God, but only ectypally. Thus, AEM revises not the content but the ontology of these laws. The self-evident character of the laws of logic relative to creatures does not entail the absolute necessity of those laws. AEM conditions its use as the norm for creaturely discourse.
3) Human thoughts, so to speak, apprehend necessary divine thoughts when they express the laws of logic, but God’s self-coherence transcends the propositions of the laws of logic, and is ontologically prior to it [ATSC = Archetypal Trinitarian Self Coherence].
4) TCRM starts with human conceivability as a reliable guide for possibility, and thus for a theistic conceptualization of the laws of logic. Stated more specifically, the self-evident character of the necessity of x is a witness to its actual absolute necessity. For AEM the laws of logic enjoys the modality of hypothetical necessity rather than absolute necessity, which God (and his rationality) alone enjoys. AEM model, by contrast, begins with the twin-starting points of the ontological Archetype and his condescension to construct their model.
5) God does not violate the laws of logic. The reason he is incapable of doing so is not because the propositions of the laws of logic are identical to his thoughts, nor is it because the laws of logic stand independent above or over God, but because God is faithful to his decreed word. God has made the laws of logic the way they are. The final reference point or criteria to determine a real contradiction is not the propositions of the laws of logic, but God himself whose rationality does transcends these laws. In accordance to ATSC, one cannot determine the logical possibility or impossibility of a given idea by isolating it from its Trinitarian context, and measuring it according to abstract principles of identity and contradiction.
6) One may not identify ‘‘l’’ with ‘‘ETL’’, much less can one identify ‘‘l’’ with any part of ATSC. The difference is that, again, of substance, rather than mode. However, because ‘‘l’’ has its source in ‘‘ETL’’, which is a created analogical approximation of ‘‘ATSC’’, it remains an adequate communication from God to man, despite man’s incapability to know the archetype the way the archetype knows himself.
7) The proponent of AEM does not start with the laws of logic in abstraction from a paradigm he gleans from divine revelation. Rather, he incorporates what he knows about the laws of logic into a larger system of dogmatic theology—a dogmatic theology inaccessible from a pure natural-theological starting point.
Source
Nathaniel Sutanto, “Two theological accounts of logic: theistic conceptual realism and a reformed archetype-ectype model” International Journal for Philosophy of Religion (2015), pp. 239-260.
Related Post
Herman Bavinck Archetypal-Ectypal Model of Knowledge and True Theology. BB003