|
|
|
|
| LEADER |
04483nmm a2200277 u 4500 |
| 001 |
EB000719817 |
| 003 |
EBX01000000000000000572899 |
| 005 |
00000000000000.0 |
| 007 |
cr||||||||||||||||||||| |
| 008 |
140122 ||| eng |
| 020 |
|
|
|a 9789401195263
|
| 100 |
1 |
|
|a Mondin, Battista
|
| 245 |
0 |
0 |
|a The Principle of Analogy in Protestant and Catholic Theology
|h Elektronische Ressource
|c by Battista Mondin
|
| 250 |
|
|
|a 1st ed. 1963
|
| 260 |
|
|
|a Dordrecht
|b Springer Netherlands
|c 1963, 1963
|
| 300 |
|
|
|a 202 p. 1 illus
|b online resource
|
| 505 |
0 |
|
|a I. The Use of the Term “Analogy” in Greek and Mediaeval Philosophy -- 1. Greek use of “analogy” -- 2. Latin use of “analogy” -- II. Aquinas’ Division of Analogy -- 1. Aquina’ division of analogy in the Commentary to the Sentences -- 2. Aquinas’ division of analogy in the De Veritate -- 3. Aquinas’ division of analogy in the Contra Gentiles -- 4. Aquinas’ division of analogy in the De Potentia -- 5. Aquinas’ division of analogy in the Commentaries to Aristotle, Boethius and Pseudo-Dionysius -- 6. Aquinas’ division of analogy in the Summa Theologica and Compendium Theologiae -- 7. Main textual conclusions -- 8. Cajetan’s version of Aquinas’ doctrine -- 9. Criticism of Cajetan’s interpretation -- 10. A new classification of Aquinas’ modes of analogy -- 11. Basic logical differences between Aquinas’ four fundamental types of analogy -- III. Metaphysical Presuppositions of Aquinas’ four Types of Analogy -- 1. Ontological presuppositions --
|
| 505 |
0 |
|
|a 2. Epistemological presuppositions -- IV. Aquinas’ Theological Use of Analogy -- 1. The principle “omne agens agit simile sibi” -- 2. Restrictions to this principle -- 3. The likeness between God and the world, and theological language -- 4. Negative and positive theology -- 5. Analogy of intrinsic attribution and proper proportionality -- V. Analogy in Protestant Theology from Luther to Kierkegaard -- 1. Martin Luther -- 2. John Calvin -- 3. A. Quenstedt -- 4. Soren Kierkegaard -- VI. Tillich’s Doctrine of Religious Symbolism -- 1. History of the doctrine of symbolism -- 2. Tillich’s doctrine of the symbol in general -- 3. Tillich’s doctrine of the religious symbol -- 4. Symbolism and analogy -- VII. Barth’s Doctrine of Analogy of Faith -- 1. Philosophy and theology -- 2. Necessity of “analogia fidei” -- 3. Theologicalsemantics of “analogia fidei” -- 4. Theological epistemology of “analogia fidei” -- 5. Theological ontology of “analogia fidei” --
|
| 505 |
0 |
|
|a 6. Analogia fidei, analogia entis and analogy -- VIII. The Meaning of Theological Language -- 1. The meaning of theological language according to Aquinas, Tillich and Barth -- 2. The meaning of religious language according to Linguistic Analysis -- 3. The mysterious meaning of theological language -- Index of proper names
|
| 653 |
|
|
|a Religion
|
| 041 |
0 |
7 |
|a eng
|2 ISO 639-2
|
| 989 |
|
|
|b SBA
|a Springer Book Archives -2004
|
| 028 |
5 |
0 |
|a 10.1007/978-94-011-9526-3
|
| 856 |
4 |
0 |
|u https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-9526-3?nosfx=y
|x Verlag
|3 Volltext
|
| 082 |
0 |
|
|a 200
|
| 520 |
|
|
|a In recent years there has been a remarkable revival of interest in the doctrine of analogy, and many important studies on this doctrine have appeared in the form of articles and books. Today many of the greatest living philosophers and theologians consider some sort of analogy to be an indispensable tool for any fruitful research in metaphysics and theology. In this atmosphere we are sure that a study of the history of the principle of analogy in Protestant and Catholic theology is welcome. This is one of the reasons for the present undertaking. A second reason for this study is to seek to divert the ecumenical dialogue from secondary questions and to direct it to an area where it is necessary to agree in order to be one. The title of our work is somewhat misleading; it may lead one to believe that it deals with all Catholic and Protestant theologians of past and present. Actually it does not. It deals only with some of the major figures of Catholic and Protestant theology. It concentrates especially on Aquinas' analogy of intrinsic attribution, on Barth's analogy of faith and on Tillich's symbolic analogy. It attempts to compare and evaluate these three theological methods, from the standpoint of determ ining their adequacy to interpret the God-creature relation and to justify the use of theological language
|