We need to recognize other foundations that compete with Scripture. Here are several common foundations for theology: human reason, human emotions, (i.e. man’s likes and dislikes, loves and aversions, hopes and fears), dreams, visions, or a so-called “Inner Light”, church history and/or tradition, superstition, oral tradition, and legends, Roman Catholic Magisterium, and personal experience. While each of these sources of knowledge may reveal some truth or truths about God, none of them can bear the weight of being the ultimate source of knowledge. Without the clear and present testimony of God’s inspired Word, all of them will result in error—great and small.  These are not the God-ordained means of his special revelation to us. Sources of knowledge derived from man’s experience will often be misguided and can even be malevolent. 

What do the following phrases all have in common?
“I know exactly what heaven is like, because I read a book about a kid who died and went there and came back to life.”
“God paying for our sins by sacrificing his son doesn’t make logical sense.”
“I just can’t believe in a God who would send people to suffer in hell forever.”
“The Holy Spirit told me to divorce my spouse and marry my co-worker.”
“The Pope now allows priests to bless same-sex unions, so they must be OK in God’s eyes.”
They all represent a statement that arises from a way of doing theology that lacks strong foundations. Consider our Lord’s declaration in his Sermon on the Mount:
Why do you call me ‘Lord, Lord,’ and not do what I tell you? Everyone who comes to me and hears my words and does them, I will show you what he is like: he is like a man building a house, who dug deep and laid the foundation on the rock. And when a flood arose, the stream broke against that house and could not shake it, because it had been well built (Luke 6:47–48, emphasis added).
Only a faith-filled response to Jesus’s words and an eagerness to obey them builds a flood-resistant foundation for the Christian life. And this applies to Christian theology too.
In order to do theology rightly, we have to get our fundamental principles right—what has traditionally been called the theological principia.[1] To do this, we have to undertake an excavation of sorts. We need to dig deep and investigate the foundation of our theology. What will we find? Where does theology itself come from and how can we come to know it? Let’s get started.
The Two Theological Principia
The two principles (principia) of theology are God and his revelation. These two, in different ways, comprise the proper foundation, source, or beginning of all theology, albeit in different ways.

God is the “essential foundation” of theology—theology’s ultimate Source, or principle of being (i.e. principium essendi).
God’s Written Revelation (Scripture) is the “cognitive foundation” of theology—theology’s principle of knowing (i.e. principium cognoscendi).

Theology, therefore, necessitates the unflinching assumption that God has made himself known in a way accessible to his creatures.[2] Theology is, as the medieval adage declares: “taught by God, teaches God, and leads to him.”[3]
Now, there is a bit more say. Who is this God that is theology’s principium essendi? And in what sense do we humans need to utilize the proper principium cognoscendi? With some simple definitions now in hand, let’s brush off any dust and debris from these principia and lift our magnifying glass to them.
The Principium Essendi: The Essential Foundation of Theology
First, there is a classic distinction in the history of theology between archetypal and ectypal theology. Archetypal theology is “God’s own knowledge concerning himself,” while ectypal theology is “a sort of copy of the former.”[4] The kind of theology we seek to know and teach—in our books, articles, and sermons—is an ectypal theology from God that “belongs to pilgrims, who are on earth.”[5]
This distinction is critical to properly understand because it leads us to consider the difference between God’s knowledge and our own. According to Scripture, there is an unfathomable, awe-inspiring difference between our knowledge and God’s—so much so that we ought to be led like Paul to declare: “Oh, the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are his judgments and how inscrutable his ways” (Rom. 11:33)!
Indeed, God’s knowledge is something only he can plumb the depths of, as Paul would go on to ponder through Isaiah: “For who has known the mind of the Lord” (Rom. 11:34)? While no man can know it, this infinite, comprehensive, and utterly true and right knowledge that God has of himself is shared perichoretically (amongst the three persons of the Trinity),[6] demonstrating it to be an eminently personal and thus able-to-be-shared knowledge:
But, as it is written, “What no eye has seen, nor ear heard, nor the heart of man imagined, what God has prepared for those who love him”—these things God has revealed to us through the Spirit. For the Spirit searches everything, even the depths of God. For who knows a person’s thoughts except the spirit of that person, which is in him? So also no one comprehends the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God (1 Cor. 2:9–11).
Read More
Related Posts:

Written by Gregory S. Baylor |
Thursday, November 17, 2022
The Respect for Marriage Act was introduced in July and quickly pushed through the U.S. House of Representatives without any public hearings, enabling its proponents to mischaracterize the bill as a simple codification of Obergefell. Let’s be clear: the Respect for Marriage Act is unnecessary and could have a disastrous effect on religious freedom.

As soon as the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in June, activists went to work mischaracterizing the ruling.
Many used the decision—and particularly Justice Clarence Thomas’s concurrence—to claim that the Court could revisit other rulings, including the one in Obergefell v. Hodges, which created a constitutional “right” to same-sex marriage.
Using this feigned outrage as a cover, these activists pushed for a federal law called the Respect for Marriage Act.
The Respect for Marriage Act was introduced in July and quickly pushed through the U.S. House of Representatives without any public hearings, enabling its proponents to mischaracterize the bill as a simple codification of Obergefell.
Let’s be clear: the Respect for Marriage Act is unnecessary and could have a disastrous effect on religious freedom.
What is the Respect for Marriage Act?
The so-called Respect for Marriage Act is a misnamed bill that expands not only what marriage means, but also who can be sued for disagreeing with the new meaning of marriage.
While proponents of the bill claim that it simply codifies the 2015 Obergefell decision, in reality it is an intentional attack on the religious freedom of millions of Americans with sincerely held beliefs about marriage.
The Respect for Marriage Act threatens religious freedom and the institution of marriage in multiple ways:

It further embeds a false definition of marriage in the American legal fabric.
It opens the door to federal recognition of polygamous relationships.
It jeopardizes the tax-exempt status of nonprofits that exercise their belief that marriage is the union of one man and one woman.
It endangers faith-based social-service organizations by threatening litigation and liability risk if they follow their views on marriage when working with the government.

The truth is the Respect for Marriage Act does nothing to change the status of same-sex marriage or the benefits afforded to same-sex couples following Obergefell. It does much, however, to endanger religious freedom.
Has the Respect for Marriage Act passed Congress?
On July 19, 2022, the House passed the Respect for Marriage Act. The vote caught many by surprise: not only did it happen quickly—just one day after the bill was introduced—but a surprising 47 Republicans, many of whom likely did not appreciate the threat it posed to religious liberty, voted in favor of the bill.
As the bill moved over to the U.S. Senate, a strong coalition of religious organizations voiced concerns and urged the Senate to slow down and take time to consider its true consequences.
An alliance of over 80 groups sent Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell a letter urging him to stand firm against pressures to move the bill forward, and over 2,000 churches and ministries sent a letter to the Senate specifically calling attention to the effects of the bill on their ability to serve their communities in accordance with their religious beliefs. ADF organized and led both of these initiatives.
These efforts are working.
After the Respect for Marriage Act sped through the House, the Senate has delayed consideration of the bill so senators can better understand the harms it will cause to countless Americans. While many have voiced total opposition to the bill, a small group of senators from both parties, led by Sens. Tammy Baldwin of Wisconsin and Susan Collins of Maine, are attempting to amend the bill to address the concerns that have been raised.
Unfortunately, their proposed amendment does not adequately address the bill’s significant religious freedom issues.
What would the proposed amendment to the Respect for Marriage Act do?
While these senators seem to acknowledge the objections to the Respect for Marriage Act, their amendment fails to address the bill’s problems in a substantive way.
Here are the major issues with this amendment:

There are no real protections for religious individuals or organizations.

The amendment adds a new section to the Respect for Marriage Act that purports to address religious liberty and conscience concerns.
But rather than adding any new concrete protections for religious individuals and organizations threatened by the Respect for Marriage Act, the new section simply states that those Americans whose beliefs are infringed can invoke already existing legal protections, like the First Amendment and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). As such, this new provision does not fix the bill’s negative impact on religious exercise and freedom of conscience. Those targeted under the bill will be forced to spend years in litigation and thousands of dollars in attorneys’ fees to protect their rights.

The amendment leaves numerous religious social-service organizations vulnerable.

The proposed amendment adds language that confirms that churches and religious organizations would not be forced to solemnize or celebrate a marriage against their sincerely held religious beliefs.
Unfortunately, this proposed provision ignores the true threats to religious organizations. No one thinks the Respect for Marriage Act requires churches to solemnize marriages.
The real problem is that the bill can be used to punish social-service organizations like adoption or foster placement agencies that serve their communities in accordance with their religious belief that marriage is the union of one man and one woman. The proposed amendment does nothing to help such organizations.

The amendment fails to address concerns over nonprofits’ tax-exempt status.

The amendment adds a new section that attempts to address concerns about the tax-exempt status of nonprofits that live out their beliefs about marriage.
Once again, the amendment fails to substantively remedy this problem. When the IRS determines whether an organization is “charitable” under the Internal Revenue Code, it asks whether the entity’s conduct is “contrary to public policy” or violates a “national policy.”
If the Respect for Marriage Act were enacted, the IRS could rely upon the bill to conclude that certain nonprofits are not “charitable.” The amendment’s new provision does nothing to prevent this.
Unfortunately, the proposed amendment utterly fails to meaningfully address the serious religious freedom problems with the Respect for Marriage Act. The inclusion of provisions that purport to address religious freedom concerns may be a sign that senators heard the criticisms of the bill, but the hollow nature of the amendment demonstrates they do not understand the depth of the concerns being raised.
How can I advocate for marriage and religious freedom?
Alliance Defending Freedom is working hard to take a stand for marriage by opposing this bill, but it is imperative that senators hear from their constituents about the threat to religious liberty and the institution of marriage that the Respect for Marriage Act represents—even if amended.
We need the Senate to hear from you.
The Senate is expected to vote on the Respect for Marriage Act before the end of the year. Call your two senators and ask them to vote NO on the Respect for Marriage Act. You can find your senators’ phone numbers on this page by clicking on your state.
When you call them, remind them about the three main problems with the bill:

It empowers the government to punish tens of millions of Americans who wish to live according to their deeply held beliefs.
It exposes religious individuals and organizations to predatory lawsuits.
It could weaponize the IRS against faith-based organizations by threatening their nonprofit status.

Every phone call to a senator helps. The Respect for Marriage Act has little to do with protecting rights—quite the opposite. Its text betrays an intent to stigmatize and take rights away, especially from people of faith.
Tell your senator to stand firm against these blatant attacks on religious freedom and the institution of marriage.
Source
Related Posts:

If our students are all knowledge with no love, they are dangers to the church; and it is the duty of the church to conform pastors-in-training to the loving character of Christ. Training them in the knowledge they will lovingly administer is our seminary’s specialty. That’s what we do: Pastoral preparation that is proven, rich, and robust. Welcome to Traditional Model Seminary.

How I wish seminaries described themselves in press releases (let the reader understand):
Our approach to pastoral preparation is time-tested, rich, and rigorous.
The university has been the handmaiden of the church for over a thousand years. The model of pastoral preparation of devoting years of one’s life to study under specialized masters has produced generations of competent and faithful ministers who have lovingly shepherded Christ’s church. Here at Traditional Model Seminary (TMS), we are committed to continuing this great tradition of pastoral preparation with a successful track record literally millennia long.
Teaching students to read the Bible is our real priority. How can the church call on Christ if its ministers don’t know how to preach him, and how can they faithfully preach him if they don’t know how listen to his word? Doctors don’t learn medicine in the emergency room, nor lawyers the law during a trial, and those who care for souls should never learn on the job. Untold spiritual malpractice and shipwrecked souls can be avoided through proper pastoral preparation. That’s why we eschew faddish “practical” courses and electives, and carefully steward the few precious years we have students to teach them how to interpret scripture. Running elder meetings, crafting church budgets, leading small groups, recruiting nursery volunteers — all things ministers need to learn, but not here at TMS. Our goal is to forge ministers who have studied scripture so faithfully they have no need to be ashamed of their handling of the word of truth.
At TMS, we believe that ministers of the word should be able to read God’s word before they ever teach it. That’s why basic competency in Hebrew and Greek is required before our students ever get to their exegetical courses. As Martin Luther said, if you lose the biblical languages, you lose the gospel. Outsourcing reading scripture to translation software is outsourcing pastoral care to your computer. There are no “survey” courses: a full 27 credit hours are devoted to instructing students in not only the particulars of the biblical canon, but also its sociohistorical context and the church’s critical interpretive history of the biblical text.
We teach hermeneutics, not only as a class, but as a unified, interpretive lens shared in all of our exegetical and doctrinal courses.
Read More