Return to Ithaca: A Reply to A. M. Gaginsky

This article responds to A. M. Gaginsky’s paper “Between the Scylla of Analytic Theology and the Charybdis of Postmodern Theology”. Gaginsky offers an overly shallow and primitive characterization of analytic theology, attributing to it methodological dogmatism and, above all, the univocity of predication about God. The central error of this critique is a level- confusion: Gaginsky conflates the norms for constructing persuasive theological discourse with the ontological properties of divine reality. From this confusion follows the mistaken claim that analytic theology “subjects God to the laws of logic”, thereby forfeiting the transcendence of its subject. The article shows that analytic theology inherits not a specific ontology but a discipline of reasoning compatible with both cataphatic and apophatic strategies. As counterexamples, it surveys programs that work with analogical predication, apophaticism, and even tools of paraconsistent logic systems. Case studies illustrate the field’s methodological pluralism. The conclusion argues that analytic theology can plausibly claim continuity with classical Christian theology.