Divine revelation is the foundation of true knowledge of God
For Herman Bavinck, the only adequate foundation for human knowledge of God is God’s self-disclosure. Without divine revelation, human knowledge remains speculative and distorted by finitude and sin. Divine revelation bridges the knowledge gap between God and man, but what is the relationship between knowledge in God and knowledge that is revealed to us?
Bavinck’s draws insights from Reformed Scholasticism (16th to 18th century theologians represented by Franciscus Junius and Francis Turretin) which distinguishes between “archetypal” and “ectypal” knowledge [AEM = Archetypal Ectypal Model]: (1) Archetypal knowledge (theologia archetypa) is God’s perfect, infinite, and uncreated self-knowledge. This is the knowledge God has of Himself, which is exhaustive and intrinsic to His divine being. (2) Ectypal knowledge (theologia ectypa) is the derivative, finite, and accommodated knowledge that creatures possess. All revelation is “an act of grace; in it God condescends to meet his creature, a creature made in his image.” Truth is not a mental construct. The mind receives it from outside and then reflects on it to reproduce the knowledge of God within creaturely capacity (ectypal knowledge).
Bavinck is an epistemological realist in that he regards the mind to be able to grasp reality so that there is a genuine correspondence between human knowledge and reality. Bavinck carefully qualifies human knowledge as analogical to knowledge of God, that is, while finite human concepts can grasp truths about both the created world and its Creator, nevertheless, human concepts fall short of corresponding to divine knowledge in every aspect. The analogical relationship, along with similarities and dissimilarities between divine knowledge and human knowledge is the result of the ontological gap between the Creator (archetypal being) and creatures (ectypal being).
Nathaniel Sutanto agrees with Bavinck and Reformed Scholasticism when he writes, “AEM demands an articulation of the doctrine of analogy in terms of the existence of two levels of being and knowledge rather than by clarifying the modality with which God possesses an attribute or piece of knowledge.” [c.f. next post on “God and the Laws of Logic”].
Bavinck writes, “Our knowledge of God is always only analogical in character, that is, shaped by analogy to what can be discerned of God in his creatures, having as its object not God himself in his knowable essence, but God in his revelation, his relation to us, in the things that pertain to his nature in his habitual disposition to his creatures” (Bavinck. RD. 2.110).
“The relation of God’s own self-knowledge to our knowledge of God used to be expressed by saying that the former was archetypal of the latter and the latter ectypal of the former. Our knowledge of God is the imprint of the knowledge God has of himself but always on a creaturely level and in a creaturely way. The knowledge of God present in his creatures is only a weak likeness, a finite, limited sketch, of the absolute self-consciousness of God accommodated to the capacities of the human or creaturely consciousness. But however great the distance is, the source (principium essendi – principle of being or existence) of our knowledge of God is solely God himself, the God who reveals himself freely, self-consciously, and genuinely” [Bavinck, RD.1.212].
Bavinck elaborates, “the distinction [between archetypal and ectypal knowledge] contains the true idea that the ectypal knowledge of God that is granted to creatures by revelation is not the absolute self-knowledge of God but the knowledge of God as it has been accommodated to and made fit for the finite consciousness—hence anthropomorphized. This ectypal knowledge of God, which lies objectively before us in revelation, is external but intended to be transferred into the consciousness of rational creatures to become ectypal internal knowledge of God, knowledge of God in the subject. In the process this knowledge again undergoes changes, depending on the nature of the subject. It differs, not in substance and rational order (re et ratione), but nevertheless in degree and manner (gradu et modo).” [Bavinck, RD.1.214]
Reformed scholastics divided the degree and manner of ectypal theology into three categories:
1) Theologia Viatorum: pilgrim knowledge on earth. This is the knowledge of God that is available to humans on earth through revelation (e.g., Scripture). It is imperfect, incomplete and faith based in a journey of ongoing learning and understanding.
2) Theologia Visionis/beatorum: knowledge of angels and the blessed, glorified saints in heaven. This refers to the knowledge of God held by angels and saints in heaven, who have a clearer and more perfect, but still ectypal and finite, non-exhaustive knowledge of God.
3) Theologia Unionis refers to Christ’s human knowledge in his incarnate state as God-man. It is a unique type of ectypal theology as the God-man receives revelation perfectly (Col. 2:3). We should note the observation given by Richard Muller, “The Christological problem follows the [epistemological issue]: if the human nature of Jesus, as finite, is incapable in itself of comprehending the infinite knowledge of the theologia archetypal, then any equation of the theologia unionis with archetypal theology must involve some alteration of the human nature of Jesus” (PRRD I:250).
All our knowledge of God originate from God (archetypal knowledge) and is grounded in his revelation. God’s revelation is an act of condescension as it is accommodated to the capacity of the finite creature to understand what is revealed (ectypal knowledge). While ectypal knowledge is a true reflection of archetypal knowledge, it is never exhaustive or identical to it. Ectypal knowledge is derivative copy to original archetypal knowledge, and therefore does not possess the same measure of clearness and perfection (Louis Berkhof). Our knowledge of God is only a finite and faint creaturely impression of the perfect knowledge which God has of himself. Nevertheless, this knowledge is true and trustworthy insofar as it originates and is grounded in God’s self-revelation.
The AEM theological framework prevents human theology from falling into either of two errors: Rationalism – claiming direct, unmediated access to God’s self-knowledge. Skepticism – denying the possibility of any true knowledge of God. Humans have analogical knowledge of God – they know God truly but not as God knows Himself. Hence, both the genuineness of human knowledge and the transcendence of God are preserved. We conclude with Bavinck’s criteria of true knowledge of God, that is, true theology must be based on an archetypal and ectypal theological framework (AEM) which maintains both the transcendence of God and truth of (revealed) knowledge.
Related Post:
God and the Laws of Logic. Archetypal Ectypal Model vs Theistic Conceptual Realism Model