Thesis
Theological sentences possess truth-conditions only when the language of theology (T) is interpreted within a model that specifies an ontological domain and assigns denotations to its terms.
Explicatio
Language becomes semantically charged only when its symbols are given reference or extension. Logic distinguishes between the syntax of well-formed sentences and the semantics that determine what those sentences are about.
Theology, too, must follow this distinction. The language of faith, T, by itself defines forms of saying; but only when T is interpreted in an ontological model M—one that specifies the kinds of beings, relations, and properties relevant to God and the world—can its sentences be called true or false.
Theology therefore speaks truth not by fiat but by interpretation. The same expression in T may yield different meanings under different models. For example:
In a purely moral model, “Christ dwells in the believer” denotes ethical imitation.
In a participatory model, the same sentence expresses an ontological indwelling.
Each model defines how sentences with the predicate “dwells in” are to be satisfied, that is, what must exist and what relations must obtain for 'x dwells in y' to be true. Hence, truth in theology always presupposes a chosen ontological model, a model that specifies what there is, and how predicates and relations are constituted on the basis of what there it. Accordingly, to talk about truth without specifying that model is to speak ambiguously.
This is not relativism but precision. Just as physics distinguishes Newtonian and relativistic models of motion, theology can distinguish Aristotelian, Neoplatonic, or Lutheran-participatory models of divine–human relation. The statement “God acts in the world” is true only within the model that makes sense of divine action as a causal relation rather than as a mere metaphor.
To assign truth-conditions is thus to commit oneself ontologically. Theologians do not have the luxury of “neutral” statements about God. Every true sentence in T assumes a world in which its referents exist and its predicates obtain. Modeling makes that world explicit.
Objectiones
Objection 1. If truth depends on a model, does this not make theology relativistic? Each community could select its own model and call its sentences true.
Objection 2. Furthermore, divine reality exceeds any human model. To claim that truth arises within a model risks domesticating the transcendent into human categories.
Objection 3. The believer’s certainty is grounded in revelation, not in semantic interpretation. Why replace faith’s immediacy with formal mediation?
Responsiones
Ad 1, I answer that dependence on a model does not mean dependence on subjective choice. Models are not arbitrary; they are constrained by Scripture, tradition, and rational coherence generally. A model is the theologian’s explicit description of the ontological assumptions already operative in any claim about God. By exposing those assumptions, theology becomes accountable to reason and revelation alike. Truth is relative to a model, but models themselves are evaluable by adequacy, applicability, and fidelity to the deposit of faith.
Ad 2, I concede that God transcends all models. Yet this is precisely why theology must name its models, for in the naming of models we confess our finitude. A model is not a cage for the divine but a disciplined window through which finite minds may speak truly about God without presuming total comprehension. The necessity of modeling arises from our creatureliness; we have no God's eye perspective. Moreover, the humility of modeling arises from God’s transcendence.
Ad 3, I reply that faith’s immediacy does not bypass form. The Word that creates faith also creates meaning. To believe is to affirm a proposition embedded in a structure of sense, e.g., “Christ for me,” “The Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son.” These sentences are already modeled linguistically and ontologically. Formal interpretation does not destroy faith; it clarifies what faith confesses to be true.
Therefore, theological truth arises when felicitous expressions in T are interpreted within a model that faithfully renders divine–human relations. Without models, theology can speak only felicitously; with models, it can speak truly.
Nota
The Institute of Lutheran Theology's (ILT) intellectual vocation requires precisely this labor of modeling. The seminary must help the Church understand not only what it confesses but how its confessions become true. In a fragmented age, ILT can stand as a community that names the models through which theological language attains truth. By teaching students to interpret the Church’s speech within faithful models, we prepare a new generation to articulate the real presence of God in the world without confusion or collapse.
No comments:
Post a Comment