On Theological Felicity: Whether the Spirit is the Author of Faithful Speech
Quaeritur
Utrum felicitas locutionis theologicae, id est, rectitudo, auctoritas, et veritas performativa sermonis fidei, non ex intentione vel peritia humana oriatur, sed ex ipso Spiritu Sancto qui loquentem informat, linguam fidei custodiens, purgans, et in Verbo ordinans.
Whether the felicity of theological speech—its rightness, authority, and performative truth—arises not from human intention or rhetorical skill but from the Holy Spirit, who forms the speaker, guards the language of faith, and orders it to the Word.
Thesis
Theological felicity is Spirit-authored rightness of speech. A theological utterance is felicitous not merely when it is grammatically correct or doctrinally sound, but when the Spirit authorizes the speech-act so that the real presence of the Logos (Disp. LI) and the constitutive truth (Disp. L) are authorized for creaturely utterance in one act of fidelis locutio.”
Thus: Felicity just in case forma recta + auctoritas Spiritus + ordinatio ad Verbum. The creature speaks truthfully because the Spirit speaks in, with, and through the creature.
Locus Classicus
1. 1 Corinthians 12:3 — οὐδεὶς δύναται εἰπεῖν· Κύριος Ἰησοῦς, εἰ μὴ ἐν Πνεύματι Ἁγίῳ
“No one can say ‘Jesus is Lord’ except in the Holy Spirit.”
Since the simplest and most central Christian confession is impossible without the Spirit, felicity is pneumatic.
2. Romans 8:26 — τὸ Πνεῦμα συναντιλαμβάνεται τῇ ἀσθενείᾳ ἡμῶν
“The Spirit helps us in our weakness… He intercedes with groanings too deep for words.”
The Spirit perfects our speech when our words fail.
3. John 14:26 — ἐκεῖνος διδάξει ὑμᾶς πάντα
“The Spirit will teach you all things and remind you of all that I have said.”
Speech becomes felicitous when it is brought under the teaching and remembrance of the Spirit.
4. Augustine, De Trinitate XV.19
Spiritus est nexus amoris quo redimus ad Verbum.
“The Spirit is the bond of love through whom we return to the Word.”
The Spirit links the human speaker to the Word He speaks.
5. Luther, WA 10/3, 14
Spiritus Sanctus est verus doctor verbi.
“The Holy Spirit is the true teacher of the Word.”
Preaching is felicitous only as the Spirit’s work.
Explicatio
Disputatio LII established that reference in theology is donation, that the Spirit gives the res. Yet the possession of a donated res does not by itself yield a felicitous assertion. Between the ontological gift of the thing and the faithful utterance of the Word, another act is required. This act is not interpretive mediation but authorization.
1. Felicity as Pneumatic Authorization
In theological speech, felicity is not reducible to correctness of syntax, accuracy of doctrinal formulation, sincerity of intention, rhetorical force, or conceptual clarity. All of these may be present without faithful speech occurring. Felicity consists rather in the Holy Spirit’s act of authorizing a finite utterance to function as faithful speech within the order of the Word.
This authorization does not interpret the Word, translate the Word, or supply meaning to the Word. It grants the speaker the right to speak under the Word, so that the utterance stands as obedient proclamation rather than autonomous discourse.
2. The Structure of Felicity
A theological utterance is felicitous if and only if two conditions are jointly satisfied.
First, the utterance must satisfy the internal conditions of theological grammar: it must be well formed, consistent, coherent, and suitably derivable within the rule governed language of faith.
Second, the utterance must be externally authorized by the Holy Spirit, who orders it to the Word and grants it the status of faithful speech.
This is why Paul says:
“We speak not in words taught by human wisdom, but taught by the Spirit” (1 Cor 2:13).
The contrast is not between interpretation and its absence, but between speech generated by human authority and speech authorized by the Spirit.
3. Felicity and the Operator Λ ⊨* Tₜ
Truth through the Logos (Λ ⊨* Tₜ) concerns the constitutive grounding of theological truth in the divine act. Felicity does not add content to this truth, nor does it mediate its meaning. Rather, felicity concerns whether a particular utterance may bear that truth as faithful speech.
Felicity is thus the Spirit’s authorization of a grammatically proper utterance to function as a vehicle of truth, not by interpretive enrichment, but by pneumatic commissioning.
A felicitous theological assertion occurs when a Spirit authorized utterance is permitted to stand within the Church as obedient speech under the Logos.
4. Felicity as Participation
To speak felicitously is to participate in the Logos’ constitutive act (L), the Logos’ real presence (LI), and the Spirit’s authorizing work (LIII). Human speech does not become divine speech by interpretation, but is taken up into divine speech by authorization.
Accordingly, theological language remains fully creaturely in form while becoming faithful in act. Felicity is the mode by which creaturely speech is grafted into divine discourse without ceasing to be creaturely.
Objectiones
Ob I: According to the speech act theory of Austin and Searle, felicity conditions are constituted by socially established conventions governing successful performance. If a speech act satisfies the relevant conventional conditions, it is felicitous. Therefore theological felicity requires no pneumatic authorization beyond conformity to established pragmatic rules.
Ob II: Classical Protestant orthodoxy assumes that speech is felicitous when it conforms to orthodox doctrine. If this is so, divine authorization appears unnecessary.
Ob III: Liberal Protestantism claims that truthful speech arises from the authenticity of the speaker’s self-expression. If so, felicity does not require external divine agency.
Ob IV: Contemporary linguistic philosophy maintains that felicity consists in correct rule following within a linguistic practice. If a theological utterance conforms to the grammar, norms, and inferential roles of ecclesial language, no further authorization is required. Therefore felicity is exhausted by internal linguistic propriety.
Ob V: Barthian Theology declares that since human speech cannot bear divine truth as such, God alone speaks truly. If this is the case, talk of Spirit authorized human felicity collapses either into interpretation or into an incoherent hybrid of divine and human speech.
Responsiones
Ad I: Speech act theory correctly identifies conditions governing the successful performance of human acts within social practices, but it does not account for the authorization of speech to bear divine truth. Austinian felicity concerns whether an act counts as performed within a convention; theological felicity concerns whether an utterance is permitted to stand as faithful speech under the Word. The Spirit is not an additional pragmatic condition alongside human conventions, but the agent who grants authority to speak in the name of the Word. Speech act theory explains how acts function; it cannot explain how creaturely speech becomes obedient proclamation rather than autonomous performance.
Ad II: Orthodoxy is necessary but not sufficient. One may confess correct propositions without the Spirit’s life. Felicity requires authorization, not merely accuracy.
Ad III: Authenticity is indexical to the self; felicity is ordered to the Logos. Theological speech is not self-expression but participation in divine speech.
Ad IV: Rule following governs the form of theological language, not its authority. An utterance may be grammatically correct, inferentially coherent, and ecclesially recognizable, yet remain unauthorised speech. Felicity does not arise from conformity to linguistic rules alone, nor does it emerge from participation in a linguistic practice as such. Rather, the Holy Spirit authorizes a rule governed utterance to stand as faithful speech under the Word. Grammar determines what can be said; the Spirit determines whether it may be said.
Ad V: Barth is correct to deny that human speech can, by its own capacity, bear divine truth. Yet this denial does not exclude Spirit authorized human speech; it presupposes it. The Spirit does not convert human words into divine words by interpretation, nor does He replace human speech with divine monologue. Instead, He authorizes creaturely utterance to function as obedient proclamation. Felicity names the mode by which God’s speech becomes present in human speech without ceasing to be God’s act or the creature’s act. Human speech remains human in form and origin, yet becomes faithful by divine authorization.
Nota
Felicity is the Spirit’s bridging act between the ontological donation of the res (Disp. LII) and the faithful assertion of truth (Disp. L). It is the pneumatic fitting of human speech to divine being. Thus, we can claim the following about the Trinity:
-
The Father constitutes truth.
-
The Son is present as truth.
-
The Spirit donates the res and authorizes the word.
Felicity is the Spirit’s signature on human speech because without felicity doctrine becomes mere abstraction, the sacrament becomes only a symbol, preaching is only exhortation, and theology remains only grammar. However, with felicity doctrine becomes light; the sacrament becomes communion; preaching becomes divine address; and theology becomes true participation.
Determinatio
We determine that:
-
Felicity is Spirit-authored, not humanly achieved.
-
A theological utterance is felicitous when the Spirit authorizes it to stand as faithful speech under the Word.”
-
Felicity unites presence, donation, and truth, completing the semantic-ontological structure of theological meaning.
-
The Spirit’s act is the condition of faithful, truthful, and effective theological speech.
-
Thus, the Spirit makes human speech a participation in divine discourse.
Transitus ad Disputationem LIV
Having established that the Spirit authorizes speech to carry the divine res, we now turn to the final structural element of our semantic theory and ask as to why divine acts require a hyperintensional semantics. For if felicity depends on Spirit-authorization rather than mere extension or modal profile, then divine acts must be individuated at a finer semantic grain than extensional or modal semantics allow.
Thus, we proceed to Disputatio LIV: De Hyperintensionalitate Divinae Operationis: Utrum Actus Dei Non Sint Reducibiles ad Extensiones vel Possibilia, in which we ask whether divine acts differ in such a fine-grained manner that no extensional or modal semantics can capture their truth.
