On the Hyperintensionality of Divine Action: Whether the Acts of God Are Not Reducible to Extensions or Possibilities
Quaeritur
Utrum actus divini, quoad identitatem, formam, et rationem essendi, non possint explicari per extensionalem aequivalentiam, modalem necessitationem, vel possibilia mundorum, sed sint essentialiter hyperintensionales; et utrum veritas theologica requirat talis hyperintensionalitas ut Deus cognoscatur secundum actum, non secundum eventum.
Whether divine acts, regarding their identity, form, and ground of being, cannot be explained by extensional equivalence, modal necessity, or possible worlds, but are essentially hyperintensional; and whether theological truth requires such hyperintensionality so that God is known according to His act, not merely according to an outcome.
Thesis
Divine acts are hyperintensional. Thus, their identity cannot be captured by extensions, possible worlds, or any semantics in which coextensive or necessarily equivalent descriptions count as identical.
A divine act is individuated by:
-
its internal form in the Logos,
-
its constitutive causation (Λ ⊨* Tₜ),
-
its presential mode (LI), and
-
its Spirit-given donation to creatures (LII–LIII).
Thus, divine acts cannot be reduced to effects or modal profiles. Accordingly, only a hyperintensional semantics preserves the truth of theology, for God is actus purus whose works are irreducibly personal, not merely structural.
Locus Classicus
1. Exodus 3:14 — אֶהְיֶה אֲשֶׁר אֶהְיֶה
“I AM WHO I AM.”
This is not a definition, but an identity of act. Being itself is hyperintensional, for it names a unique form of divine acting, not a property instantiated across possible worlds.
2. John 5:19 — ἃ ἂν ἐκεῖνος ποιῇ, ταῦτα καὶ ὁ Υἱὸς ὁμοίως ποιεῖ
“Whatever the Father does, the Son does likewise.”
The divine act is not duplicated or numerically separable. Rather, its identity is internal to the Trinity, not extensionalized in effects.
3. Athanasius, Contra Arianos I.21
ὁμοούσιος οὐ κατὰ θέλησιν ἀλλὰ κατὰ φύσιν.
“Of one being not by will but by nature.”
The divine act is identical with divine being; it is an identity finer than any modal equivalence.
4. Gregory of Nyssa, Ad Ablabium
Οὐ τὰ γινόμενα, ἀλλ᾽ ὁ τρόπος τῆς ἐνεργείας τὴν διαφοράν ποιεῖ.
“It is not the outcomes, but the manner of operation that makes the distinction.”
This is a classical statement of hyperintensionality clearly stating that the manner by which something obtains profoundly matters.
5. Luther, WA 40/III, 343
“Deus non est causa sicut causae creatae.”
“God is not a cause as created causes are causes.”
Thus God cannot be modeled extensionally.
Explicatio
The last four disputationes established this:
-
Disputation L: Logos constitutes truth by constituting being.
-
Disputation LI: Truth becomes present to us in the Logos.
-
Disputation LII: The Spirit donates the referent.
-
Disputation LIII: The Spirit authorizes the felicitous word.
Now we must explain why this entire structure requires hyperintensionality.
1. Extensional Failure
Extensional identity fails to distinguish distinct divine acts. Consider these:
-
Forgiven = Elected = Justified. Clearly, these are extensionally identical in the saved.
-
Spirit-speaking = Spirit-giving = Spirit-indwelling. These too are exstensionally equivalent.
However, these differ formally and personally in God.
2. Modal Failure
Modal identity is insufficient to distinguish these. Notice the following:
-
Creation and preservation are necessarily coextensive.
-
Incarnation and redemption are necessarily inseparable.
Yet creation and preservation are distinct forms of act in the Logos. The same is true of incarnation and redemption.
3. Truthmaker Precision Requires Hyperintensionality
A theological statement is true because the Logos does something specific (Λ ⊨* Tₜ). Accordingly, a truthmaker is hyperintensional, for differing internal acts yield differing truths even when two situations are extensionally identical, or necessarily extensionally identical
4. Donation Is Hyperintensional
The Spirit does not donate “God” generically, but it grants a particular forgiveness, a particular presence, and constitutes a particular act of uniting to Christ. Donation is individuated at the fineness of God’s specific act.
5. Felicity Is Hyperintensional
Since a felicitous assertion is indexed to a particular speaker, at a particular time, bearing a particular donation of the res, under a particular act of the Spirit, fidelity is finer-grained than both grammar and propositional equivalence. Thus, theology must be hyperintensional.
Objectiones
Ob I: According to classical extensionalism if two divine acts produce the same effects, they are the same act. If this is so, there is o need for hyperintensional identity.
Ob II: Modal realism holds that if God necessarily performs A and B, then He performs A and B in all possible worlds, and thus A = B. Therefore, modal equivalence suffices in individuation.
Ob III: Thomism claims that since God is simple, all divine actions are identical and distinctions collapse.
Ob IV: Deflationism asserts that hyperintensionality describes linguistic distinction, not metaphysical difference.
Ob V: Postliberalism holds that since all distinctions arise from use within the community, divine action adds nothing.
Responsiones
Ad I: Effects underdetermine cause. Divine acts differ in their formal ratio, not merely in outcome (Gregory of Nyssa). Thus, extension collapses personal identity.
Ad II: Possible-world semantics assumes shared structure with creaturely action. But divine acts exist outside modal ontology; they ground modality rather than inhabit it. God is not a node in a modal structure but its creator.
Ad III: While implicity entails no composition in God, it does not follow that divine acts lack distinct formal identities. The Fathers held simplicity alongside real distinctions of operation.
Ad IV: Hyperintensionality is not linguistic fineness but metaphysical precision. Divine act identity is not a function of language but of participation in the Logos.
Ad V: While usage explains how we talk, it does not identify what God does. Without hyperintensional divine action, grammar loses its anchor in reality.
Nota
Hyperintensionality is the ontological form of God’s personal action. We have seen that constitutive causation (L) requires fine-grained identity; that real presence (LI) is specific, not generic; that donation (LII) concerns a particular res, and that felicity (LIII) authorizes a particular act of creaturely speech. If theological semantics were simply extensional or modal, the Trinity collapses into one role, the sacrament collapses into symbol, revelation collapses into a proposition, grace collapses into an effect, and Christology collapses into monism.
Regarding the Trinity, hyperintensionality preserves the distinction of the trinitarian persons, Christ’s unique acts, sacramental specificity, and the performative depth of divine truth. Simply put, hyperintensionality is not an analytic embellishment but a theological necessity.
Determinatio
We have determined that:
-
Divine acts are intrinsically hyperintensional, distinct in their internal form even when extensionally identical.
-
Neither extensional equivalence nor modal necessity suffices to individuate divine action.
-
Hyperintensional identity flows from the Logos’ constitutive act (L) and is made present (LI), donated (LII), and authorized (LIII).
-
Theological truth (Λ ⊨* Tₜ) requires such hyperintensional grounding.
-
Therefore, theology must employ a hyperintensional semantics to speak truly of God.
Transitus ad Disputationem LV: De Intentione Divina et Identitate Actuum in Deo
Having established hyperintensionality in divine action, we proceed to the related question as to how divine intentions are related to divine acts, and how the Logos unifies them without collapsing distinctions.
Thus, we turn to Disputatio LV: De Intentione Divina: Utrum Intentiones Dei Sint Actus et Quomodo Unitas in Logō Constituitur, where we shall inquire as to whether God’s intentions are identical with His acts, and how the Logos grounds their unity and distinction.
No comments:
Post a Comment