Comments on: Analogia Entis: Hunsinger, Spencer, Hart

By: Spencer

Spencer — Sat, 06 Jan 2007 22:17:42 +0000

Hi Brian,

Thanks for the response. It is not a matter of his dismissal of Thomas, it is a matter of applying von Balthaasar’s understanding (which he largly recieves from Przywara) to Aquinas and then reading Nyssa as preparing for this same view in Aquinas. It simply cannot be done on any historical basis. The term does not even show up till Cardinal Cajetan. This is what I mean by his colonizing of history. Furthermore, he does not substantiate this reading historically, he merely assumes it. Had he read Jungel more closely he would have realized that this was a huge category mistake. If you send me your email I will send you a PDF version of my paper on condition it not be circulated. (Sorry for the personal note. You may edit it out if you wish)

By: Brian Hamilton

Brian Hamilton — Wed, 03 Jan 2007 22:11:18 +0000

Prof. Spencer, thanks for your response here. It was largely my unfamiliarity with the history of this concept that kept me from following the details of your presentation, I’m sure, and I’ll look forward to reading your finalized argument more carefully in print. By my comment regarding Radical Orthodoxy, I only meant that Hart is certainly not guilty of the strong-handed history that RO is sometimes (not unjustly) accused of. Hart’s historical dependence strikes me as much more organic, as really rooted in the tradition and growing outwards rather than flailing to find certain arguments within history.

And as I recall, Hart at least did say in response that he didn’t want to overcome or ignore Aquinas in reaching behind him; he only wanted to go back to the roots of the tradition of Christian ontology. That doesn’t respond to your charge of misrepresentation, but it does respond to the charge of dismissing Aquinas.

By: Spencer

Spencer — Wed, 03 Jan 2007 21:26:19 +0000

Thank you for the fair representation of my remarks. Despite the handicap of the shortness of time that I was under, (under normal conditions I am considered a highly effective communicator) you seem to have picked up on my central critique. Having studied the issue of analogy for some years I can tell you that though there were many brilliant moments in Hart’s book, that section was abysmal from am historical point of view, as far the tradition of analogy actually developed. Had I been given the time to focus on the paper I actually prepared for the occasion, your assessment of my “parroting” the critique of Milbank would be very different. If you read him carefully you will see that at a number of critical points he invokes Milbank. The result of his Neo-Platonism is the same in my estimation. On analogy, at least, he is indeed “colonizing history”. I am finishing the final edit on the paper I wrote for the occasion for publication soon. Then I will finally be clearly understood. I found out to late that I was merely to do a book review. What you heard was a contorted abstract of a carefully argued paper. Of course my concerns were completely overlooked as a result of the speed at which I had to read. Hart never did respond to me.

By: millinerd

millinerd — Tue, 19 Dec 2006 05:02:15 +0000

…suggested that he could subsume Barth’s analogia fidei into the Catholic analogia entis, or how David Bentley Hart (see p. 242) playfully turns the tables on Barth (a move which was debated at a recent session covered here and here), but as stated above, that may be more interesting to full-time theologians. The matter is not whether there is more than one mediator or more than one foundation, but just how big that mediator and foundation is. The question is not which of the two…

By: millinerd

millinerd — Mon, 18 Dec 2006 06:03:52 +0000

It does not seem to me that Hart is questioning whether there is more than one foundation, but just how big that one foundation is.

By: Faith and Theology

Faith and Theology — Tue, 28 Nov 2006 13:51:58 +0000

Speaking of duels, I’ve been really looking forward to hearing about the recent exchange between George Hunsinger and David Bentley Hart. Brian, David and Joshua have now posted excellent summaries of the session, and it sounds as though it was an interesting discussion. From the reports so far, though, I can’t help feeling that perhaps the criticisms of Hart didn’t quite get to the bottom…

By: The Way of a Pilgrim

The Way of a Pilgrim — Tue, 28 Nov 2006 09:29:15 +0000

I must confess, I have just begun to digest the implications and problems around the idea of the analogia entis. These blogs have a nice summary of the discussion, with some comments left by Dr. Hunsinger himself.

http://bdhamilton.com/articles/analogia-entis

http://fireandrose.blogspot.com/2006/11/summary-of-aarsbl.html

http://blog.joshuaralston.com/?p=119

After reflecting on the discussion afterwards, I must say that Hart seemed to make a whole lot of sense to me and I understood Hunsinger’s…

By: George Hunsinger

George Hunsinger — Mon, 27 Nov 2006 11:37:28 +0000

The analogia entis, by definition, sets up a second foundation, that is independent of Christ. One cannot build upon such a thing without loss.

“For no one can lay any foundation other than the one that has been laid; that foundation is Jesus Christ. Now if anyone builds on the foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw— the work of each builder will become visible, for the Day will disclose it, because it will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test what sort of work each has done. If what has been built on the foundation survives, the builder will receive a reward. If the work is burned up, the builder will suffer loss; the builder will be saved, but only as through fire” (I Cor. 3:11-15).

By: George Hunsinger

George Hunsinger — Mon, 27 Nov 2006 08:06:11 +0000

I think Hart’s view of salvation needs to be scrutinized carefully. The Neo-Platonist elements in it are not, I would say, under theological control.

Examining earlier centuries might or might not be useful. The term wasn’t in use, though the substance of the idea might be there to some extent. The position I am trying to represent is rooted in the Reformation with its solus Christus.

By: Brian Hamilton

Brian Hamilton — Sun, 26 Nov 2006 21:12:20 +0000

Thanks again, Prof. Hunsinger, for your willingness to have this conversation. That last comment was helpful in clarifying the differences at stake. As I’ve said, I think your Christocentrism is indispensable—if we lose that we’ve lost everything, since “in him all things hold together.” I’m still wondering if analogia entis is necessarily either revelatory or instrumental in reconciliation or a mode of mediation; I understood Hart to be rejecting all of this in his talk. But that question, I take it, is largely historical: it would require a closer look at how the analogia entis was understood and employed in earlier centuries. I admit, I’m still hopeful that a Christ-centered ontology is possible, even implied in passages like the one you cite. But perhaps, as you say, that ontology is much more circumspect than would allow the assertion of an analogia entis.