One of the quiet assumptions of modern theology is that Law and Gospel are fundamentally about us. They are taken to be modes of address, structures of conscience, or existential postures toward God. The Law accuses; the Gospel comforts. The distinction lives in preaching, psychology, and experience.
There is truth here. But it is not the whole truth.
What if Law and Gospel are not first about how we experience God, but about how reality itself is structured? What if they belong not merely to theology’s grammar, but to the very intelligibility of what is?
That is the wager of the recent disputations I have been writing, and it is a wager worth making.
Law and Gospel Are Older Than We Are
The claim is simple to state, though difficult to absorb: Law and Gospel are ontological before they are experiential. They are not created by human awareness, nor do they arise from moral reflection or religious language. Rather, they name two real ways in which intelligibility itself is given.
Law names intelligibility grounded in itself. It is the structure by which what is stands under necessity, coherence, and closure. In Law, reality is intelligible as that which must be so. This is not moralism. It is metaphysics.
Gospel names intelligibility grounded in another. It is the structure by which what is stands as gift, donation, and reception. In Gospel, reality is intelligible as received. This too is not sentiment. It is ontology.
These are not two interpretations of one neutral world. They are two real modes in which reality is intelligible at all. Human beings do not invent them. We inhabit them.
Why Speak of Intelligibility at All?
At this point a fair question presses itself upon the reader: Why talk about intelligibility at all? Why not remain with Scripture, proclamation, experience, or practice? Why introduce a term that sounds abstract, philosophical, even remote from the concrete realities of faith?
The answer is straightforward and unavoidable. Theology already presupposes intelligibility. The only question is whether it will acknowledge this presupposition or allow it to remain hidden and unexamined.
To speak of God, to confess Christ, to distinguish Law and Gospel, to proclaim grace, to judge between truth and falsehood—all of this already assumes that reality is intelligible, that it is not sheer chaos, brute facticity, or meaningless flux. Theology does not create intelligibility. It depends upon it. The task, then, is not to invent intelligibility, but to ask what must be true of reality for theology itself to be possible.
Here the boldness of the move must be named clearly. Modern thought has trained us to assume that intelligibility is supplied by the human subject: by cognition, language, conceptual schemes, or social practices. When intelligibility becomes difficult to ground, the temptation is either to psychologize it (meaning as experience), linguisticize it (meaning as use), or proceduralize it (meaning as rule-following).
All of these moves share a common feature. They make intelligibility derivative of human activity.
The present argument proceeds in the opposite direction. It claims that intelligibility is ontologically prior to perception, judgment, language, and agency. Human understanding does not generate intelligibility; it participates in it. We do not first think and then find the world meaningful. We find ourselves already within a world that can be understood.
This is why intelligibility must be discussed as such. If it is not, it will quietly be replaced by something else: consciousness, discourse, power, or will. And when that happens, theology is forced to speak about God within a framework that God did not give.
Once intelligibility is acknowledged as real and prior, several things follow immediately.
First, Law and Gospel can no longer be reduced to human responses. They are no longer merely how the subject experiences God, but how reality itself is ordered before God. Law names intelligibility closed upon itself, grounded in necessity. Gospel names intelligibility opened as gift, grounded in another. These are not inventions of preaching; they are the conditions under which preaching can be true.
Second, grace can be understood without arbitrariness. Grace does not interrupt an otherwise closed system. It realizes what reality was always open to receive. What metaphysics names possibility, theology encounters as the work of the Spirit.
Third, truth itself is re-situated. Truth is no longer merely the alignment of words with facts, but participation in the Logos through whom facts and meaning come to be together. To ask about intelligibility is therefore to ask about the deepest grammar of truth.
Seen in this light, speaking of intelligibility is not a speculative luxury. It is an act of theological responsibility. It is the refusal to let theology borrow its most basic assumptions from accounts of the world that cannot finally sustain them.
The move is bold precisely because it reverses a long habit. Instead of asking how human beings make sense of God, it asks how God makes sense of anything at all.
Once intelligibility itself is recovered as a real feature of creation, the familiar Lutheran distinction between Law and Gospel is no longer confined to psychology or proclamation alone. It is revealed as something far more radical: a differentiation written into the fabric of reality itself.
Why the Modern Turn Went Wrong
Much modern thought assumed that if intelligibility exists, it must be grounded in the subject. Kant’s famous “Copernican Revolution” is the clearest expression of this move. The empirical subject was transmogrified into the transcendental subject and tasked with supplying the conditions under which anything could appear as meaningful.
This was an impressive detour. It taught us a great deal about cognition, judgment, and freedom. But it came at a cost.
Necessity was relocated to the algorithm of experience. Contingency was assigned to practical reason. Teleology became merely “purposiveness without purpose.” Nature lost its end. Intelligibility became heuristic rather than real.
The result was not atheism, but anthropocentrism. Reality slowly became a function of being human.
Theological reflection then followed suit. Law and Gospel were increasingly understood as functions of conscience, existential need, or linguistic practice. The deeper question—what must reality be like for Law and Gospel to be true at all—was quietly abandoned.
Luther Did Not Make That Move
Luther stands on the other side of this modern reversal.
For him, the human being is not an origin but a site. The spirit is not sovereign but inhabited. His famous image is intentionally unsettling: the human being is like a beast that is ridden—either by God or by the devil.
This is not psychology. It is ontology.
To live curvatus in se ipsum is not merely to feel anxious or guilty. It is to exist under a false grounding, to live as though intelligibility could be grounded in the self. Law exposes this condition. It kills because it tells the truth.
To live by the Gospel is not to adopt a new attitude. It is to be re-grounded in reality itself, to exist as gift rather than as self-justifying necessity. Gospel does not negate Law. It re-locates intelligibility.
Possibility, Grace, and the Spirit
Earlier disputations asked a prior question: how can necessity and contingency both be real without collapsing into determinism or arbitrariness? The answer was possibility, not as unrealized potential, but as the ontological openness of intelligibility itself.
What metaphysics names possibility, theology encounters as grace.
Grace arises necessarily from God, who is love. But it is received contingently by creatures. This contingency is not a defect. It is the very form divine love takes in time. The Holy Spirit is not a supplement to this structure, but its personal enactment—the divine act by which eternal necessity becomes temporal gift.
Grace is not God responding to us. It is God giving reality itself anew.
Truth Is Not Just About Propositions
This same structure reaches all the way into truth itself. Theology cannot be content with saying that propositions correspond to the world. That assumes the world is already there, already intelligible, already ordered.
Christian theology claims something deeper: the Logos gives both being and meaning together. Truth is not merely correspondence but participation. We do not simply describe reality. We are invited into the act by which reality is made intelligible at all.
Law, Gospel, grace, truth—these are not late arrivals in human history. They are woven into the fabric of creation.
Turning the Page
This is not a rejection of modern philosophy, nor a retreat into nostalgia. Kant’s detour was instructive. Existentialism named real anxieties. Linguistic theology taught us to attend to speech.
But it is time to return to serious work.
Reality is not about being human. Human beings are about reality.
Law and Gospel do not originate in us. They name how the world itself stands before God. And only because this is so can preaching still kill and make alive, grace still surprise, and truth still be more than our own reflection.
That is not a bomb for the playgrounds of modern Europe.
It is an invitation to leave the playground altogether.
No comments:
Post a Comment