Neo-Barthians think this is Antichrist.
I hold to some version of this.
Does this require an ontotheological approach? I’ve flirted with, but turned away from merely God is Being/Fount of being. I think DB Hart is able to appreciate the best of the analogia entis while evading ontotheology and maintaining the ‘hyperousia’ of the East. I’d be curious if you readdress this idea at some point.
Some analogia guys are ontotheological, to be sure, but Hart and MIlbank are not.
What is the relation between the analogia entis and the archetype-ectype distinction? Are they antithetical or complementary?
Complementary. Analogy implies dissimilarity as much as similarity. My confusion on this was that I equated analogia with chain of being, but that was wrong.
Interesting. I, too, had been under the impression that it implied some sort of chain of being.
Jacob, do you still deny a chain of being ontology?
In the sense that God and creation are on the same continuum of being, yes I reject chain of being.
Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:
You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. ( Log Out / Change )
You are commenting using your Twitter account. ( Log Out / Change )
You are commenting using your Facebook account. ( Log Out / Change )
You are commenting using your Google+ account. ( Log Out / Change )
Connecting to %s
Notify me of new comments via email.