(The Reformed structure this discussion) “Around the epistemological problem of the finitum no capax infiniti and its resolution in the explication of the eternal decree and its execution of the sovereign will of God in and for the temporal economy. Here we see both a statement of the non capax and an approach to the divine relatedness: the mind cannot conceive of the way in which the attributes belong to the utter simplicity of the divine essence; nonetheless, the distinct attributes are correctly distinguished by reason in the effects and operations of God in the world—and these effects and operations rightly and genuinely reveal the identity of God, indeed, the invisible essence of the utterly simple Godhead. The effect of this distinction, like the effect of the distinction between the decree and the execution, is to direct attention away from the divine essence toward the divine economy” (298).
Again, I am amazed at how the Reformed orthodox interweave epistemology, (Christology), trinitarian distinctions, and predestination in one fell move. If we begin with the Creator-creature distinction, then we necessarily have the archetypal-ectypal distinction. If we have the ectypal distinction, then we realize that we can never give adequate and full accounts of how their can be distinctions in the divine essence. Yet God has not left us in the dark. We can see distinctions in God’s operations toward us in the world. These are the outworking of God’s decree. Yet, if there is an outworking of the decree, it logically follows that there is a divine decree.
Christological issues of the Supper aside, this is the second most reason I am Reformed: ectypal theology. People will ask, “Yeah, but how do you know you are elect?” If we begin with the understanding of ectypal theology, then we can begin to answer this question (though I doubt any answer I give will satisfy the interlocutor).. I can not “know” in the sense of having ultimate, archetypal knowledge (and to seek such is sinful). I can know, however, based on the understanding of God’s providence and execution of the decree (and issues of Christ, the Supper, Church discipline). The problem is that the interlocutor has presuppositionally denied any predestination by God, so dialogue is fruitless.
This is also another reason why I read Orthodoxy so sympathetically, yet ultimately rejected it. I liked the way they rejected the Romanist reading of absolute divine simplicity and seeking the knowledge of God in his operations and energies. Yet problems remained. I couldn’t find a satisfactory account of foreknowledge and predestination that did not lead to open theism. And even the energies was problematic: while it is true we know God by his outworkings to us (emininter and virtualiter) in the ad extra, this is not exactly the same thing that the Eastern Orthodox were claiming. They were claiming that we know God by the peri ton theon and the logoi around God. It’s hard to see how this isn’t any less speculative than Thomas’s beatific vision.