This article examines the role of archetypal and ectypal forms in contextual theology, suggesting how these frameworks can develop both Dutch and Sino-Reformed perspectives.
This article supplements Ximian Xu’s efforts to draw on Abraham Kuyper’s neo-Calvinism to develop a Sino-Reformed theology. It does so noting Xu’s reliance on Kuyper’s views on (i) the tempo-spatiality of theology, and (ii) the manner in which theology progresses organically through cultures across history. The article supplements Xu’s argument by probing the layer of theo-logic that undergirds both points in Kuyper’s view of theology as inherently contextual: namely, the view that theology only exists in archetypal and ectypal forms. Setting neo-Calvinism in its critical reception of this distinction, which it received from early modern Reformed scholasticism, it argues that in its past and present, neo-Calvinism has drawn on the nature of human theologising as ectypal as a fecund resource in the task of contextual theology. In this neo-Calvinist theological framework, it is possible to develop both Dutch Reformed and Sino-Reformed theologies, affirming that both are ‘pilgrim theologies’ expressing the same notion of ‘true theology.’
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
James Eglinton (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: