by CBTS | Dec 8, 2023 | Apologetics, Historical Theology, Systematic Theology
*Editor’s Note: This is the fourth installment in a six-part series called “Francis Turretin’s Natural Theology.” As more installments are released, each part of the series will be linked to each post.
To read part 1 of 6, click here: https://cbtseminary.org/francis-turretins-natural-theology-clearing-the-historical-record-john-sweat/
To read part 2 of 6, click here: https://cbtseminary.org/francis-turretins-natural-theology-john-calvins-influence-john-sweat/
To read part 3 of 6, click here: https://cbtseminary.org/francis-turretins-natural-theology-francis-juniuss-influence-john-sweat/
To read part 4 of 6, click here: https://cbtseminary.org/francis-turretins-natural-theology-natural-theologys-definition-john-sweat/
To read part 5 of 6, click here: https://cbtseminary.org/francis-turretins-natural-theology-natural-and-supernatural-theology-john-sweat/
To read part 6 of 6, click here: https://cbtseminary.org/francis-turretins-natural-theology-natural-theologys-use-john-sweat/
Defined and Delineated
Turretin opens his Institutes of Elenctic Theology dealing with prolegomena and the nature of theology.[1] According to Turretin, theology is both a discourse from God (as to source) and a discourse about God (as to its object), embracing the “twofold principle of theology”[2] In other words, theology, properly speaking, is “a system or body of doctrine concerning God and divine things revealed by him for his own glory and the salvation of men.”[3] In addition, Turretin argues that God alone meets the necessary conditions to be the object of theology.[4] And yet, when God is studied as the object of theology, it is God as he has revealed himself ectypally through divine revelation, revealing through Jesus Christ that he is the church’s God. As the object of theology, God is neither considered in himself, archetypally, nor generically as deity. The former is incomprehensible for creatures and the latter knowledge is deficient and damning to sinners, for a generic knowledge of deity is not sufficient for salvation nor a true knowledge of God. .[5] Van Asselt notes how the archetypal/ectypal model shapes the way the Reformed orthodox considered God as the object of theology,
Moreover, the previous discussion on archetypal and ectypal theology as an overarching paradigm indicates that the Reformed orthodox never used the term “Deus” (as the principium essendi of theology) in a neutral or unqualified sense in order to construe a natural theology in a rationalistic way. What is more, from the very beginning the triune God or Deus foederatus in Christo was envisioned by the Reformed orthodox in their discourse about God as the object of theology.[6]
Turretin and the Reformed orthodox considered the triune God who has revealed himself both in nature, Scripture, and in Jesus Christ as both the object of knowledge and the object of worship in true theology. Embedded in Turretin’s conception of theology is the emphasis that true theology is derived from God and depends on God to reveal himself, as the triune God of his people. Whatever he says moving forward concerning natural theology must be conditioned by this foundational starting point.
As seen with Junius, Turretin distinguishes theology into false and true theology, and then further divides true theology into archetypal and ectypal.[7] There are three modes of communication in ectypal theology: “the theology of union,” concerning the incarnation, “the theology of vision,” concerning the beatific sight of angels and saints in heaven, and “the theology of revelation,” concerning the pilgrims on earth.[8] It is under the last category that natural theology falls.[9] Also, Turretin includes a unique division of ectypal theology, unlike Junius, by dividing the school of God into three subjects with an accompanying three books of study. The “threefold school of God” is nature, grace, and glory with their respective books being the light of nature, the light of faith, and the light of glory. The first school belongs to men in the world; the second belongs to the church in the world; the third belongs to the glorified saints in heaven.[10]
Turretin does not treat natural theology as a pre-dogmatic foundation upon which supernatural theology must be built nor as an exercise of pure reason divorced from revelation. Turretin appears to say something contradictory to this that will be addressed later. But Turretin situated both natural and supernatural theology underneath the communication of revelation in ectypal theology.[11] Natural and supernatural theology are dependent on revelation, the former resting on natural revelation and the latter upon special revelation.[12]
Natural Theology Defined
Turretin does not give a definition of natural theology other than describing what it consists of, “The natural, occupied with that which may be known of God (to gnōston tou Theou), is both innate (from the common notions implanted in each one) and acquired (which creatures gain discursively).”[13] His description includes the phrase, “that which may be known of God,” noting natural theology’s dependence on God’s revelation in nature. Both the unregenerate and regenerate have this revelation (implanted in them), but only the regenerate moves from this revelation to a true natural theology. It is interesting to note at this point that Turretin does not expand on the distinction between natural revelation and natural theology. This may be in part because he includes in natural theology an innate knowledge, which is the internal aspect of general revelation in man that Paul speaks of in Romans 1:19, and he also includes acquired knowledge, which man receives by observing natural revelation. Turretin may have considered it unnecessary to elaborate on the distinction.[14] Nonetheless, natural theology is from God and about God, making God both the source and object.[15] Natural revelation is the subject of natural theology, and natural theology consists of a twofold knowledge, innate and acquired. [16]
But what does Turretin mean by an innate and acquired knowledge? Turretin elaborates further on this twofold knowledge in natural theology by describing innate (or implanted)[17] as “derived from the book of conscience by means of common notions” and acquired as “drawn from the book of creatures discursively.”[18] Biblically, Turretin sees Psalm 19:1, Acts 14:15-17, 17:23 and Romans 1:19-20 as teaching that God has given to man a natural knowledge of God that is partly innate and partly acquired.[19] But the term “innate knowledge” can be taken in various ways. According to Muller, innate knowledge can refer to the seed of the religion (semen religionis) or the sense of the divine (sensus divinitatis) as a concept found in the Reformers and made more explicit in the Reformed orthodox. Innate knowledge does not refer to the Platonic theory of innate knowledge, cognito innata, nor does it refer to the sense of an infused knowledge leaving man as a tabula rasa[20] without this knowledge.[21] Furthermore, it is distinct from acquired knowledge, cognitio acquisita, which is gained mediately through the use of reason. The concept of innate knowledge used by the Reformed scholastics is cognition insita, which is an intuitive and immediate knowledge that is basic to the creature.[22] Michael Sudduth describes this knowledge as, “knowledge of God [that] is immediate, not a product of inference or argument, it involves theistic beliefs that are… properly basic.”[23]
About the Author
John Sweat is a marine veteran who serves as one of the pastors at Covenant Community Church in Lake Butler, Florida. He is a husband to Heather and a father to four girls. John has received an MA in biblical studies and an MA in Christian Thought at Gordon Conwell Theological Seminary.
[1] Refuting those that oppose the word “theology” since it is not found explicitly in Scripture, Turretin argues that all doctrine must derive from Scripture (concretely), but sound doctrine does not have to be expressly formulated with only the words of Scripture (abstractly). Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, 1.1.2-3.
[2] Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, 1.1.7. This twofold principle of theology in Reformed scholasticism is called the principium essendi (foundation of being) which is God and the principium cognescendi (foundation of knowing), which is Scripture. Muller, Dictionary of Latin and Greek Theological Terms, 290. This twofold principia was the essence of Christian theology that flowed out of the archetypal/ectypal distinction. God alone, the archetype, is the essential foundation of Christian theology, and his Word alone is the “cognitive foundation” as opposed to reason. Muller, Prolegomena to Theology, 1:432–433.
[3] Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, 1.1.8. Turretin, like Junius, agrees that the word “theology” attributed to the false theology of the heathen and heretics is abusively and equivocally used. Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, 1.1.9; 1.2.5.
[4] Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, 1.5.1-3.
[5] Turretin in this section names Aquinas and the medieval scholastics generally as examples of the those who make the object of theology as deity generically. Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, 1.5.4.
[6] Van Asselt, “The Fundamental Meaning of Theology,” 334. Deus foederatus in Christo refers to God covenanting in Christ with his people mirroring Turretin’s comments above. See also Muller, Dictionary of Latin and Greek theological terms, 126.
[7] Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, 1.2.5-9. These categories have been sufficiently explored above and Turretin is in large part with Junius’ structure other than what has been indicated already.
[8] Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, 1.2.6. This follows in step with Junius threefold division of ectypal theology in theses ten through thirteen. Junius, A Treatise on True Theology, 119–120. Van Asselt highlights the christocentric nature of Junius’s, and by extension Turretin’s, ectypal theology when he writes, “Whereas archetypal theology is the matrix of all forms of theology, the theology of union is the mother (mater) of the two other forms of ectypal theology…” Van Asselt, “The Fundamental Meaning of Theology,” 331. Junius, A Treatise on True Theology, 129.
[9] Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, 1.2.7.
[10] Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, 1.2.9.
[11] Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, 1.2.7.
[12] Muller, Prolegomena to Theology, 1:282, 272.
[13] Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, 1.2.7.
[14] Even as Turretin argues for the existence of natural theology, the arguments and Scriptural texts he employs typically are used as proofs for natural revelation, but Turretin uses them as proofs for natural theology. Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, 1.3.5-8.
[15] Though Turretin does not define natural theology in this way, by extension of his original definition of true theology it is consistent with his prolegomena. David Haines in his recent introduction to natural theology defines natural theology as follows, “that part of philosophy which explores that which man can know about God (His existence, divine nature, etc.) from nature alone, via man’s divinely bestowed faculty of reason, unaided by special revelation from any religion, and without presupposing the truth of any religion.” David Haines, Natural Theology: A Biblical and Historical Introduction and Defense (The Davenant Press, n.d.), 12. The problem with Haines’ definition is that he isolates natural revelation from special by denying the aid of Scripture, thereby restricting natural theology to pure reason and natural revelation. Further, he treats natural theology as a pre-dogmatic conception wherein man must reason from nature apart from any dogmatic commitments. But as seen in Calvin, Junius, and Turretin, a true natural theology is dogmatically conceived underneath ectypal theology and aided by supernatural theology. Third, even if it is granted that Haines is defining natural theology generically in order to include the unregenerate and the regenerate, he nowhere in the book makes the distinction between true and false natural theology. Last, his definition narrowly focuses on acquired knowledge and does not include innate knowledge.
[16] Junius in thesis fifteen defines natural theology as, “Natural theology is that which proceeds from principles that are known in relation to itself by the natural light of understanding, in proportion to the method of human reason.” Junius, A Treatise on True Theology, 145.
[17] He uses both terms interchangeably.
[18] Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, 1.3.4.
[19] Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, 1.3.6. Turretin goes on to argue for natural theology’s existence from Romans 2:14 which shows that all men have the natural law written upon their hearts and their conscience bears witness against them, implying a knowledge of God. Also, like Calvin, he points to the universal religion and worship of men as a proof for natural theology. Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, 1.3.5-14.
[20] Turretin grants that man’s mind is a tabula rasa relatively regarding dianoetical knowledge but he rejects it absolutely in regards to man’s intuitive or implanted knowledge. Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, 1.3.11.
[21] Muller, Prolegomena to Theology, 1:284-285. For a fuller definition of cognito innata or rasa see Muller, Richard A., Dictionary of Latin and Greek Theological Terms, 66–67, 354.
[22] Muller, Prolegomena to Theology, 1:285.For a fuller discussion on a distinction between immediate and mediate knowledge see Muller, Dictionary of Latin and Greek Theological Terms, 67–68.
[23] Sudduth, “Revisiting the ‘Reformed Objection’ to Natural Theology,” 43.
by Tom Nettles | Dec 5, 2023 | Old Testament, Practical Theology
*Editor’s Note: This is the second installment in a 9-part series on the book of Job by Dr. Tom J. Nettles. As more installments are released, each part of the series will be linked to each post.
To read part 1, click here: https://cbtseminary.org/have-you-considered-job-tom-j-nettles/
To read part 2, click here: https://cbtseminary.org/the-heavenly-origin-of-earthly-events-tom-j-nettles/
To read part 3, click here: https://cbtseminary.org/the-name-of-the-lord-is-to-be-blessed-tom-j-nettles/
To read part 4, click here: https://cbtseminary.org/it-is-your-fault-tom-j-nettles/
To read part 5, click here: https://cbtseminary.org/it-is-very-difficult-to-discuss-a-matter-with-god-tom-j-nettles/
To read part 6, click here: https://cbtseminary.org/if-god-will-just-listen-to-me-tom-j-nettles/
To read part 7, click here: https://cbtseminary.org/if-god-be-against-us-tom-j-nettles/
To read part 8, click here: https://cbtseminary.org/if-god-be-for-us-tom-j-nettles/
To read part 9, click here: https://cbtseminary.org/write-my-words-tom-j-nettles/
Having seen both the godliness and the prosperity as well as the respected status of Job, we are now introduced to transcendent issues that impinge on human life. The Lord Himself asked Satan if he had considered the character of Job (2:8). The contest against Job, therefore, comes from the suggestion of God himself. God had singled out Job for this question and brought him to the notice of Satan. God does not merely desire to show the character of Job in this but to show how God himself sustains and purifies his people under the most trying and devastating circumstances.
Satan indicates that Job serves in sunny weather, for God has given him an abundance of earthly comforts (2:9, 10). Job’s love for God and his efforts to sacrifice for any possible dereliction of proper deportment is not, so Satan argues, from any disinterestedness, but merely a self-protection device. God is a means for Job’s preeminence and comfortable circumstance; but if those go away, so also will Job’s apparent piety and worshipful submission to God. Satan believes Job will curse God if he loses his earthly comforts (11). All of this piety will flee in a moment when Job discovers that it no longer serves to protect him from harm. Then his true feelings will come out. God will be dismissed from his concerns and appear to his mind and proceed from his mouth only as a curse—a bitter reminder of his foolishness for ever having given himself in so demeaning a way to such a cruel and unloving sovereign.
This heavenly council was the foundation for the afflictions Job received. Luke 22:31-34 gives us the record of another of these. Jesus, on earth, informs Peter that Satan has asked to sift Peter like wheat. Jesus, however, interceded for Peter. We may well believe that this interaction happens with regularity. “Be sober-minded; be watchful,” Peter warned, for “your adversary the devil prowls around like a roaring lion, seeking someone to devour” (1 Peter 5:8). We learn that Satan is consistently used as an instrument to test the righteous for their greater sanctification. “In all circumstances take up the shield of faith, with which you can extinguish all the flaming darts of the evil one” (Ephesians 6:16). Also, he deceives the wicked and holds the unregenerate under dominion as his proper vassals. “The whole world lies in the power of the evil one” (1 John 5:19). The unregenerate willingly, and perhaps unconsciously, follow the “prince of the power of the air” (Ephesians 2:1-3). Because they live under the sway of deceived hearts they are “subject to lifelong slavery” (Hebrews 2:14, 15). Among other things, salvation involves a rescue from this dominion (Colossians 1:13, 14).
After this heavenly conference, events in Job’s life rapidly destroyed his wealth, his family, and his status (Job 1:13-19). Job receives 4 messages in which every evidence of his great status in the eyes of men is removed and the objects of his natural affection and concern are swiftly snatched away. One escaped messenger fled to report to Job that the oxen and donkeys were taken by the Sabeans and the servants were killed. A second messenger escapes a calamity to report that the “fire from God” burned up the sheep and the servants. A third reported that three raiding parties from the Chaldeans stole the camels and killed the servants. Finally, a fourth escapee tells Job of a great wind that destroyed the house of his eldest son while all his children were inside and killed them. Two groups of marauding enemies succeeded against Job’s interests, and two “acts of God,” fire and wind, leveled all of Job’s earthly evidence of the blessing of God on his life.
Job went into a position of mourning and worship. He placed himself in a posture of abject humility. Torn clothes and bald-headedness were symbols of being outcast and disrespected in society. Every earthly value was now gone, except for the wife that soon would upbraid him. His actions indicate personal abandonment of any appearance of earthly status.
In that attitude of loss of all personal advantage, he also worshipped. His most basic reflex was to put his trust in God when his own soul was downcast. He recognized that as the creature he has no right to make demands or have expectations of the creator. He knew in his conscience the answer to the question, “Shall the thing formed say to its maker, ‘Why did you make me like this?’” (Romans 9:20). When he came into the world, his very birth showed his utterly dependent position. “Naked came I into the world” (21). Thus, all that he had accumulated, like life itself, came to him from God. When he leaves this world in death, none of these earthly accumulations will go with him: “Naked shall I return there.” Thus, he is stripped of the most fundamental contemplation of his soul in the presence of God. No attraction of any worldly thing can now intrude on that attempt to gain a vision of the sovereign disposer of all things.
From dust we were made; to dust we will return. Naked we breathed our first breath, and after our last clothes lose their meaning. Any act of God that fixes our minds on the surpassing value of heavenly and eternal life is an excellent gift.
Dr. Tom Nettles is widely regarded as one of the foremost Baptist historians in America. He joined the faculty of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary after teaching at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School where he was professor of Church History and chairman of that department. Previously, he taught at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary and Mid-America Baptist Theological Seminary. He received a B.A. from Mississippi College and an M.Div. and Ph.D. from Southwestern. In addition to writing numerous journal articles and scholarly papers, Dr. Nettles has authored or edited nine books including By His Grace and For His Glory, Baptists and the Bible, and Why I Am a Baptist.
Courses taught: Historical Theology of the Baptists, Historical Theology Overview, Jonathan Edwards & Andrew Fuller.
by CBTS | Dec 1, 2023 | Apologetics, Historical Theology, Systematic Theology
*Editor’s Note: This is the third installment in a six-part series called “Francis Turretin’s Natural Theology.” As more installments are released, each part of the series will be linked to each post.
To read part 1 of 6, click here: https://cbtseminary.org/francis-turretins-natural-theology-clearing-the-historical-record-john-sweat/
To read part 2 of 6, click here: https://cbtseminary.org/francis-turretins-natural-theology-john-calvins-influence-john-sweat/
To read part 3 of 6, click here: https://cbtseminary.org/francis-turretins-natural-theology-francis-juniuss-influence-john-sweat/
To read part 4 of 6, click here: https://cbtseminary.org/francis-turretins-natural-theology-natural-theologys-definition-john-sweat/
To read part 5 of 6, click here: https://cbtseminary.org/francis-turretins-natural-theology-natural-and-supernatural-theology-john-sweat/
To read part 6 of 6, click here: https://cbtseminary.org/francis-turretins-natural-theology-natural-theologys-use-john-sweat/
Francis Junius’s Archetypal and Ectypal Theology
The early Reformed scholastic Francis Junius influenced Reformed theology greatly in his work A Treatise of True Theology.[1] Junius is the first Protestant to employ the distinction between archetypal and ectypal theology, laying the groundwork for a Reformed prolegomena that dispels rather than promotes rationalism. Junius’s distinction between archetypal and ectypal theology became the normative approach to the prolegomena of the Reformed scholastics, and not surprisingly, it is also used in Turretin’s Institutes.[2] Van Asselt notes that Junius’s categories impacted as far as the neo-Calvinist tradition of Kuyper, Bavinck, and Berkhof.[3] The distinction between archetypal and ectypal theology frames Christian theology as a “relational enterprise, determined by and determinative of the divine-human relationship,” in contrast to a theology that begins or deals only with an abstract generic deity.[4]
Junius’s treatise follows the scholastic questions of An sit? Quid sit? and, Quale sit, beginning first in theses one through four with the question of whether theology exists (An sit?).[5] In thesis three, Junius deals with false theology. False theology is subject to opinion rather than subject to truth. False theology is “the shadow of wisdom grasping at something or another in the place of divine matters,” exchanging the true God for idols and dreams.[6] False theology is the opinion of the creature that does not “rest in authoritative testimony.” Muller writes, “Theologica falsa is a depraved judgment of the soul, falsehood posing as truth, vain and erratic opinion concerning divine powers (numen), ignorance of God, fables about divine things.”[7] This is the characteristic of all unregenerate natural theology. The early Reformed orthodox described false theology as a “non-Christian form of natural, philosophical, or rationale theology” solidifying a distinction between a Christian and a pagan natural theology, “the former communicated by revelation, the latter resting solely on corrupted reason unable to grasp revelation.”[8] The category of false theology mentioned here in Junius is found earlier in Calvin in terms of unregenerate knowledge of God. False theology does not deny man’s real natural knowledge of God and man’s capacity to know first principles, such as God exists and he is to be worshipped. It affirms the former while recognizing in addition that man’s reason is corrupted, and he is bent toward idolatry and false imaginations.
This is an important point of confusion amongst some theologians in properly understanding what is meant by “false theology,” in relation to Junius’s treatise. False theology is often collapsed into a denial of a positive function of natural theology in the unbeliever. But a positive use or function of natural theology must not be confused with a saving or true (healthy) use. The unregenerate man possesses a positive use of natural theology, despite it being a “false theology.” Jeffrey Jue seems to confuse false and positive, arguing that unregenerate men do not have a positive use of natural theology since their natural theology falls under Junius’ category of false theology.[9] In contrast, Kevin DeYoung confuses the unregenerate’s positive use of natural theology with true natural theology. DeYoung attempts to argue that Junius distinguishes between the pagan false theology in thesis three and four from the true natural theology of “unregenerate man deducing principles from the light of nature” in thesis fourteen through sixteen.[10] This inserts a foreign distinction under Junius’s category of true natural theology that is not there.[11] Man’s natural knowledge of God must be held in tension with man’s depraved nature.
In contrast to false theology, Junius explains what true theology is (Quid sit?) in thesis five, and in the remainder of the treatise, he explains what true theology is like (Quale sit?). The focus here will be on true theology distinguished as archetypal and ectypal in order to further demonstrate its importance for Christian theology and Turretin’s natural theology.[12] Junius defined theology as “wisdom concerning divine things,” which consists of both the theoretical and practical.[13] Junius divided true theology into God’s knowledge of himself- “divine wisdom of divine matters,”- the creature’s knowledge of God- “wisdom of divine matters.”[14] The first kind of theology is archetypal, that is “essential and uncreated” theology that belongs to God alone and is incommunicable to creatures.[15] God’s knowledge of himself is identical to God’s being according to his simple nature. Archetypal theology is identical with God’s essence; if it were the only theology, then creatures would be unable to know God.[16]
The second kind of theology is ectypal. Ectypal theology is a copy or image derived from the former but is communicated to fit the creature’s capacity. Archetypal theology is the actual stamp, whereas ectypal theology is the impression or image created from the stamp. Junius maintains that archetypal and ectypal theology are distinct, and the latter is dependent on the former.[17] God is the “causal basis,” the craftsman of ectypal or “human theology.”[18]
God fashions ectypal theology, Junius writes, “by His most wise counsel,” and second, “externally by His most powerful work.”[19] The divine will of God, is the source for this internal form, while the external form communicated to men is the lake that is derived from the source. Nathaniel Gray explains that God’s revelation of that internal ectypal theology, which is “contingent on his [God’s] will,” adapts itself to the creature’s capacity. This revelatory accommodation is the proper object of creaturely theology. [20]
Junius’s categories help distinguish archetypal from ectypal. He maintains the communicability of revelation to the creature from God’s mind to the works of God while equally maintaining the distinction between the Creator and creature. Van Asselt notes that ectypal theology (theologia simpliciter dicta) fashioned in God’s mind is distinct from archetypal theology. The former is communicable, the latter is not. However, when ectypal knowledge is communicated to creatures- moving from the mind of God to the works of God- it becomes theologia secundrum quid.[21] This is a theology that is relational and dependent on God’s revelatory condescension, communicating himself to creatures in accordance with their finitude.[22] True theology born out of an ectypal theology demonstrates the relational nature of Christian theology,[23] keeping before the eyes of the theologian his dependence on God to reveal himself and his duty to him as creatures to the Creator.[24]
The schema and ordering of Junius’s prolegomena are seen in Turretin’s first locus as he deals with the question of whether theology exists and how it is to be divided. In distinguishing between true and false theology, like Junius, Turretin acknowledges that while false theology contains partial truth its “errors are fundamental.”[25] Further, Turretin follows Junius in recognizing “wisdom” as the most appropriate habit to “be attributed to theology.”[26] Turretin then echoes Junius’s archetypal/ectypal distinction as he begins to unfold the nature of true theology, and yet Turretin considers it improper to apply the term “theology” to God’s knowledge of himself.[27] Because Turretin defines theology as discourse about and from God, “theology” is not properly applied to God.[28] However, Junius attributes the term to God in reference to his archetypal knowledge without any impropriety because his definition distinguishes between the theology of God and the theology of the creature. God’s theology is divine wisdom, and man’s theology (ectypal) is creaturely wisdom.[29] In God’s knowledge of himself, there is no learning, acquiring, or receiving knowledge, but the creature receives, learns, and grows in his knowledge of God.
Another place Turretin departs from Junius is in his distinction within ectypal theology between the internal and external.[30] Junius’s distinction explains how ectypal theology moves from the mind of God to God’s revelation in his works. Turretin’s omission of this distinction may further account for his regarding the term “theology” as an improper term to apply to God. Nonetheless, the structure of Junius’ prolegomena is maintained and affirmed in Turretin. Last, and most significantly for this paper’s thesis, Turretin follows Junius in placing true natural theology under ectypal revealed theology, which will be further explored in the next section.[31]
About the Author
John Sweat is a marine veteran who serves as one of the pastors at Covenant Community Church in Lake Butler, Florida. He is a husband to Heather and a father to four girls. John has received an MA in biblical studies and an MA in Christian Thought at Gordon Conwell Theological Seminary.
[1] Franciscus Junius, A Treatise on True Theology: With the Life of Franciscus Junius, trans by. David C. Noe (Grand Rapids, MI: Reformation Heritage Books, 2014). Kevin DeYoung, “Franciscus Junius, Old Princeton, and the Question of Natural Theology: a Response to Shannon’s ‘Junius and Van Til on Natural Knowledgde of God,’” Westminster Theological Journal WTJ 83 (2021): 251.
[2] Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, 1.2.6.
[3] Asselt, “The Fundamental Meaning of Theology,” 321, 323-324. Van Asselt argues that Francis Junius is representative of the Reformed Scholastic view on theology. Willem J. Van Asselt, Introduction to Reformed Scholasticism, Reformed Historical-Theological Studies (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Reformation Heritage Books, 2011), 130. Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, 1.1-2.
[4] Van Asselt, “The Fundamental Meaning of Theology,” 324.
[5] Junius, A Treatise on True Theology, 91–98. Muller, Prolegomena to Theology, 1:161. Likewise, Turretin follows the scholastic pattern of questioning, though it is more loosely followed in some portions of the institutes. Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, 3.1.2.
[6] Junius, A Treatise on True Theology, 95. 97, 156. While Junius does further explain the nomenclature of false theology in thesis four, the stated goal of his treatise is to lay forth a true theology not a pagan natural theology. Junius, A Treatise on True Theology, 95. Van Asselt, “The Fundamental Meaning of Theology,” 325.
[7] Muller, Prolegomena to Theology, 1:159. See also Theologica falsa in Richard A. Muller, Dictionary of Latin and Greek Theological Terms, 362.
[8] Muller, Prolegomena to Theology, 1:1160-61.
[9] Jue, Jeffrey K., “Theologia Naturalis: A Reformed Tradition,” 178–179.
[10] DeYoung, “Franciscus Junius, Old Princeton, and the Question of Natural Theology: a Response to Shannon’s ‘Junius and Van Til on Natural Knowledge of God,’” 255.
[11] Nathan D. Shannon, “A Brief Rejoinder to Kevin DeYoung,” Westminster Theological Journal 83 (2021): 268–270.
[12] The three parts of ectypal theology will be further elucidated in the next section.
[13] Junius, A Treatise on True Theology, 99, 101, 114.
[14] Junius, A Treatise on True Theology, 86. Turretin follows this exact structure showing his dependence on Junius. Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, 1.2.6.
[15] Junius, A Treatise on True Theology, 108.
[16] Muller, Dictionary of Latin and Greek Theological Terms, 357–358. Isaac Bronkema, “Archetypal and Ectypal Theology and the Christian Task,” Puritan Reformed Journal 14, no. 1 (2022): 73.
[17] Junius, A Treatise on True Theology, 104–106. Junius argues that there must be a “analogical equivocation” between the two kinds of theology where in one sense there is a point of similarity but in another sense there is a point of difference. Junius, A Treatise on True Theology: With the Life of Franciscus Junius, 103, 106.
[18] Van Asselt notes Junius’s use of Aristotelian causality in this section of his treatise as a “heuristic device” rather than an uncritical wholesale appropriation of Aristotelian philosophy. Van Asselt, “The Fundamental Meaning of Theology,” 328-329. Junius, A Treatise on True Theology, 114–115.
[19] Junius, A Treatise on True Theology, 116.
[20] Nathaniel Gray Sutanto, “Two Theological Accounts of Logic: Theistic Conceptual Realism and a Reformed Archetype-Ectype Model,” International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 79, no. 3 (June 2016): 244.
[21] Muller, Dictionary of Latin and Greek Theological Terms, 328–329. For a visual conception of the archetypal/ectypal distinction see Sutanto, “Two Theological Accounts of Logic,” 247.
[22] Junius, A Treatise on True Theology: With the Life of Franciscus Junius, 329.
[23] Nathan Shannon argues that Junius and Van Til’s conception of natural theology are both shaped by the God-human relationship. Nathan D. Shannon, “Junius and Van Til on Natural Knowledge of God,” Westminster Theological Journal, no. WTJ 82 (2020): 300. See also Michael Horton for a discussion on Van Til’s Creator/creature distinction as paralleling the Reformed scholastic distinction of archetype/ectype. Michael Horton, “Consistently Reformed: The Inheritance and Legacy of Van Til’s Apologetic,” in Revelation and Reason: New Essays in Reformed Apologetics (Phillipsburg, NJ: P & R Publishing, 2017), 134–139.
[24] Sutanto expresses this well, “This archetypal-ectypal paradigm curbs at every point any rationalistic desire to know God from the bottom-up, for God is unknowable apart from his revelatory will, while eschewing the mystical tendency to preclude the possibility of articulating a firm knowledge of God. Not only so, that ectypal theology finds its locus in God’s will (though grounded in his being) reminds the theologian that whatever knowledge he has of God from revelation must take into account a significant qualitative discontinuity between that knowledge and the divine archetype.” Sutanto, “Two Theological Accounts of Logic: Theistic Conceptual Realism and a Reformed Archetype-Ectype Model,” 244–245.
[25] Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, 1.2.5.
[26] Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, 1.6.7.
[27] Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, 1.1.9.
[28] Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, 1.1.7.
[29] Franciscus Junius, A Treatise on True Theology, 86.
[30] Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, 1.2.6.
[31] Franciscus Junius, A Treatise on True Theology: With the Life of Franciscus Junius, 135, 141.
