earl40
Puritan Board Professor
You are going to have to clarify this...
I was responding to what I have a feeling Frame means when he say "that some accounts of archetypal/ectypal distinction posit a different God, or God behind God." I of course would like to see the context where he said what he did, and I suspect the basis of what he said may (I say may) be based on a faulty view of archeytypal theology.
When one says we cannot know God as He is, and that He is incomprehensible, I suspect many would take issue with such, and think one is posting about a "God behind a God". To assume one can know God, without accommodation to us creatures, is foreign to most Christians.