On Intelligibility, Determinability, and the Logos Who Makes Meaning Possible

For many years I have been puzzled by a question that refuses to dissolve: how are transcendental arguments possible at all? How can one speak meaningfully about the conditions for the possibility of experience, knowledge, or formalization without already presupposing what one claims to ground?

Logic and mathematics have sharpened this question rather than resolved it. Formal systems are extraordinarily powerful. They model relations, generate derivations, and articulate vast domains of structure. Yet the more rigorous they become, the more clearly they reveal something they cannot contain: the space in which they are intelligible as systems in the first place.

Gödel made this unavoidable. A sufficiently expressive system can represent its own syntax, yet it cannot secure from within the distinction between truth and provability. Even when meta statements are themselves formalized, the recognition that the formalization is adequate occurs at a higher level still. The meta recedes as it is captured. What is gained in rigor is accompanied by a renewed excess.

This excess is not merely epistemic. It is not simply a limitation of human cognition or a gap in symbolic technique. It belongs to intelligibility itself. Formal systems presuppose a horizon in which interpretation, relevance, adequacy, and meaning are possible at all. That horizon is not a theorem. It is the condition under which theorems can appear as meaningful.

Here a structural parallel becomes visible. The transcendental I cannot be thought as an object without ceasing to be transcendental. An I that is thought is already a higher order self, something represented rather than that by virtue of which representation occurs. The condition of objectivity cannot itself be an object in the same register without contradiction. This is not a contingent limitation. It is structural.

Something analogous occurs with intelligibility itself. Once a teleological space of meaning is determined, named, or even ontologically affirmed, that determination presupposes another horizon within which it is intelligible as a determination. The sine qua non of the determined as determined is not a further determination, but an indeterminate field that allows for determinability. The indeterminate does not issue in form. It makes form possible.

This is the insight Kant reached most clearly in the Third Critique. Determining judgment subsumes particulars under given rules. Reflecting judgment seeks the rule under which particulars may be unified without possessing that rule in advance. Reflecting judgment operates within a teleological space, oriented toward coherence and purposiveness without algorithmic closure. This space is not subjective whim. It is the condition under which object languages can be coordinated at all.

Seen in this light, intelligibility is teleological not because it aims at a humanly imposed end, but because it orients formal structures toward meaning without compelling their form. Formal systems are not self originating. They are drawn into being by the possibility of meaning that precedes them. This possibility is real, but it is not itself formal. It orders without determining. It attracts without necessity.

This is why attempts to algorithmize theory change inevitably fail. To formalize the rules of revision presupposes prior judgments of relevance, adequacy, and success that exceed the system being revised. The ladder by which a system ascends cannot be retained within the system without contradiction. The indeterminate that allows for determinability cannot be collapsed into determination without loss.

Here the question of Logos re emerges with new clarity. Logos is not first a word spoken, nor an idea grasped, nor a system constructed. Logos names that by virtue of which meaning is possible at all. It is the order that permits articulation without exhausting itself in articulation. It is the ground that calls without coercing, that grants intelligibility without dictating form.

“In the beginning was the Logos” is therefore not a temporal claim but an ontological one. In the beginning was that by virtue of which anything could be said, meant, or understood. Formal systems, scientific theories, languages, and even our most advanced machines live within this space. They do not create it. They respond to it.

To remember this is not to retreat from rigor but to fulfill it. Logic itself teaches that intelligibility cannot be fully objectified without remainder. That remainder is not a defect. It is the sign that meaning is grounded more deeply than any system can contain.

On Christmas, it is fitting to recall that the Logos who grounds intelligibility did not abolish finitude, form, or history, but entered them. The Word became flesh. Meaning did not collapse into mechanism, nor did transcendence remain aloof. The determinate was upheld by the indeterminate, and the finite was made capable of bearing what it could not generate on its own.

This is not sentiment. It is metaphysics. And it is, perhaps, the deepest reason theology and philosophy still find themselves speaking about the same thing—if only we are patient enough to listen.

Disputatio LIX: De Historia Ut Loco Revelationis

 On History as the Locus of Revelation

Quaeritur

Utrum historia ipsa possit esse locus revelationis divinae, ita ut eventus historici non solum referant ad voluntatem Dei sed manifestent ipsam actionem eius; et quomodo haec revelatio historica non redigatur ad immanentem causalitatem neque confundatur cum nudis factis temporalibus.

Whether history itself can be a locus of divine revelation, such that historical events do not merely refer to the will of God but manifest the divine act itself; and how such historical revelation neither collapses divine action into immanence nor becomes indistinguishable from ordinary temporal events.

Thesis

History becomes a locus of revelation because the Logos, who is the intelligible articulation of divine act, shapes the order of created temporality as the field in which divine action is enacted. History is therefore not a neutral sequence of temporal occurrences. It is the sphere in which divine intelligibility enters time under forms suitable for human encounter.

The Spirit illumines historical events so that their Logos-shaped form becomes perceptible to the creature. Illumination does not alter history, but renders history transparent to divine intention.

Thus historical revelation is not merely a symbolic interpretation of past occurrences, but is rather the manifestation of divine action within the temporal order, an action grasped through the form constituted by the Logos and opened by the Spirit.

Locus Classicus

Galatians 4:4
ὅτε δὲ ἦλθεν τὸ πλήρωμα τοῦ χρόνου…
“When the fullness of time had come…”

Time is not homogeneous. It receives fullness when divine act enters it.

Acts 2:11
ἀκούομεν λαλούντων… τὰ μεγαλεῖα τοῦ Θεοῦ.
“We hear them declaring the mighty acts of God.”

The apostles interpret concrete historical events as divine acts, not merely as human occurrences.

Luther, WA 40 II, 90
Opera Dei sunt historiae.
“The works of God are histories.”

The divine act becomes narrative because it enters temporality.

Explicatio

History is not autonomous from divine intention. Modern historiography treats history as a closed temporal sequence governed by immanent causation. But revelation becomes, on this view, either a theological overlay or an interpretive projection. Accordingly, this view presupposes that history is self-sufficient and that divine action must be added to it from without. On the contrary, theological truth requires a different premise. History is the created field ordered by the Logos as the arena in which divine acts may occur. It is therefore intrinsically open to revelation.

Divine action in history is not an intrusion but fulfillment. To say that God acts in history is not to say that divine agency violates the temporal order. Rather, it is to say that the temporal order is constituted for participation in divine action. The incarnation shows this with the greatest clarity. Time does not resist the Logos but receives him. Similarly, redemption is not an exception to history but its completion. Thus, divine acts are not supernatural intrusions into an otherwise closed system. They are the realization of history’s deepest intelligibility.

Illumination makes historical acts revelatory.  History becomes revelation when the Spirit grants creatures to perceive its Logos-shaped form. Without this illumination, history is only asequence of events that bears no apparent reference to divine intention. However, with illumination, the same events manifest the structure of divine agency. This is not an interpretation imposed from without, but a recognition of the form given from within. Thus, revelation is not epistemic projection but an ontological disclosure.

There is a distinction between the event and revelation. A historical event may be the medium of divine action without yet being revelation for a creature. Revelation requires that the event be seen as the act it is. Although this seeing does not alter the event itself, it does alter the creature’s participation in its intelligibility. Therefore, revelation is not a second act added to history but the same act perceived in its divine depth through illumination.

We must thus reject reductive historicism.  While some theologies identify revelation wholly with historical process, divine action is not exhausted by such historical causation. Revelation is present in history because divine agency shapes history, not because divine agency is reducible to historical movement. While historicism collapses transcendence, theological realism insists that history becomes revelatory because God acts in it, not because history itself is divine.

Objectiones

Ob I. If history is a locus of revelation, does this not subject divine action to temporal limitation?

Ob II. If revelation requires illumination, how can historical events be objectively revelatory?

Ob III. If God acts in history, is this not indistinguishable from special providence?

Ob IV. If revelation depends on the Logos-shaped form of events, does this merely reduce history to a symbolic structure?

Ob V. If the Spirit grants perception of revelation, does this not make revelation dependent on subjective experience?

Responsiones

Ad I. Divine action is not limited by time because the Logos shapes time. The temporal manifestation of divine act does not restrict its eternal identity.

Ad II. Objective revelatory status arises from divine action, not from human perception. Illumination grants awareness of what is already true. Revelation is objective in its occurrence and subjective in its reception.

Ad III. Special providence describes divine governance of events. Revelation describes divine manifestation within events. These are distinct modes of divine relation to history, not identical functions.

Ad IV. Historical events are not symbols. They are the real media of divine action. Their form is intelligible because the Logos constitutes their order, not because they are figurative constructs.

Ad V. Revelation is not dependent on experience. It is dependent on divine agency. Experience becomes awareness of revelation only when illumined by the Spirit.

Nota

History is not merely the record of human deeds. It is the temporal field ordered by the Logos as the site of divine self-manifestation. The Spirit grants creatures to perceive this manifestation as revelation rather than as mere occurrence.

Thus revelation is neither outside history nor reducible to history. It is divine action in history, apprehended through illumination.

Determinatio

We therefore determine:

1. History becomes a locus of revelation because it is shaped by the Logos as the arena of divine action.
2. Divine acts in history are not interruptions but fulfillments of temporal order.
3. Illumination grants creatures to perceive historical events in their divine intelligibility.
4. Revelation is objective in occurrence and participatory in reception.
5. Historical revelation requires theological realism, for only if divine action is real can history mediate it.

Time thus becomes the sphere in which creatures encounter the intelligible form of God’s act.

Transitus ad Disputationem LX

Having established history as the locus of revelation, we now turn to the question of divine providence and human freedom. For if history becomes revelatory through divine action, one must ask how creaturely agency participates in or resists this action. 

We proceed therefore to Disputatio LX: De Providentia et Libertate, where we examine how divine intention orders history without dissolving the freedom and responsibility of human agents.

---

Disputatio LVI: De Formā Logi ut Principio Intelligibilitatis

 On the Form of the Logos as the Principle of Intelligibility

Quaeritur

Utrum forma Logi sit principium intelligibilitatis omnium divinorum actuum, ita ut omnis divina operatio sit cognoscibilis solum quia informatur a Logō; et quomodo haec informatio non solvat simplicitatem divinam neque introducat abstractionem supra vitam Trinitatis.

Whether the form of the Logos constitutes the principle of intelligibility for all divine acts, such that every divine operation is knowable only because it has its determinate form in the Logos; and how this does not compromise divine simplicity nor introduce an abstraction standing above the life of the Trinity.

Thesis

The Logos is not merely the interpreter of divine action nor a medium through which intelligibility flows. The Logos is the ground of intelligibility itself. Every divine act is intelligible because its act-form subsists in the Logos. There is no higher principle of order, no abstract structure, no metaphysical category that conditions God’s intelligibility from without.

The form of the Logos is therefore both metaphysically constitutive and epistemically foundational: constitutive because all divine action is structurally what it is in and as the Logos; foundational because creatures know divine action only by participation in this Logos-formed intelligibility.

Thus intelligibility is neither imposed upon God nor constructed by creatures. It is the radiance of the divine act as it subsists in the eternal Word.

Locus Classicus

John 1:18
ὁ μονογενὴς Θεὸς… ἐκεῖνος ἐξηγήσατο.
“The only-begotten God… He has made Him known.”

The Logos is the exegesis of God, not by reporting but by being the intelligible form of divine life.

Colossians 1:16–17
τὰ πάντα δι’ αὐτοῦ καὶ εἰς αὐτὸν ἔκτισται… καὶ τὰ πάντα ἐν αὐτῷ συνέστηκε.
“All things were created through Him and for Him… and in Him all things hold together.”

Creation’s intelligibility depends on the Logos’ inner structural sufficiency.

Athanasius, Contra Arianos II.22
ὁ Λόγος μορφὴ τοῦ Πατρός ἐστιν.
“The Word is the form of the Father.”

Luther, WA 40 III, 64
Christus est ratio et forma omnium promissionum.
“Christ is the reason and form of all promises.”

Divine intelligibility is Christologically concentrated.

Explicatio

1. Intelligibility cannot arise from creaturely or abstract conditions

Theological modernity has sometimes treated intelligibility as a category external to God—a structure into which God must “fit” to be known. This misconstrues both metaphysics and revelation. Intelligibility is not a transcendental horizon that precedes God; neither is it a human conceptual framework imposed upon divine action.

To posit intelligibility as an abstract form above God would be to posit a metaphysical genus under which God falls. This violates the categorical dualism of Creator and creature and implicitly denies divine simplicity.

Therefore: whatever intelligibility divine acts possess must arise from within the divine life itself.

2. The Logos as the constitutive form of divine intelligibility

Following Disputatio LV, where divine intention and divine act were shown to be one in the Logos, we now articulate the deeper structure: Every divine act is intelligible because its form subsists in the Logos as its constitutive intelligibility.

This means:

• The Logos is not the representation of divine operations.

• The Logos is their formal principle, their internal determination.

• The Logos is not a cognitive filter applied by creatures but the intrinsic ground by which divine actions can be known at all.

Intelligibility is therefore ontological before it is epistemological. In classical terms: the forma logica of divine action is simply the Logos Himself, the eternal articulation of the Father’s being.

3. Intelligibility and divine simplicity

This view preserves simplicity rather than threatens it. For if God were intelligible by a form other than the Logos, God would be composite: essence + form, act + structure. But Scripture and tradition affirm that the Word is eternally “with God” and “is God.” Therefore the form that makes God’s act intelligible is not added to God but is God.

The Logos is the divine act in its intelligible articulation. This articulation is one with the being of God, not an abstraction above it.

4. Creaturely knowledge as participation in Logos-formed intelligibility

Creaturely knowledge of God, then, is not a climb toward divine essence nor a projection of human concepts onto divinity. It is the Spirit-enabled participation in the intelligibility that already inheres in the Logos.

The Spirit does not produce intelligibility; the Spirit grants access to intelligibility already constituted in the Logos. Thus every act of divine revelation—Scripture, sacrament, promise—is not merely information but participation in the Logos’ intelligible form.

What creatures perceive as “revelation” is nothing other than the Logos donating His own act-form to them.

5. Rejection of merely linguistic or postliberal construals

Some modern theologies, especially postliberal ones, treat intelligibility as a function of the ecclesial grammar that governs Christian discourse. But grammar without metaphysical anchor cannot disclose divine act. It only regulates human speech.

The intelligibility of theology must be anchored in the Logos or it becomes circular, self-referential, and finally empty. Revelation is not the community’s speech about God; it is God’s act made knowable because the Logos is its form.

Objectiones

Ob I. If intelligibility is located in the Logos, we introduce a second-level structure in God, undermining simplicity.

Ob II. If all intelligibility is in the Logos, the Father and Spirit become unintelligible except through the Son—an implicit subordinationism.

Ob III. Intelligibility is a creaturely category; to attribute it to God is anthropomorphism.

Ob IV. Intelligibility in the Logos suggests determination of divine acts, jeopardizing divine freedom.

Ob V. Postliberal theology denies that intelligibility is metaphysical; it is purely linguistic.

Responsiones

Ad I. No second-level structure is introduced. The Logos is God; therefore no composition arises. Intelligibility is not an attribute added to God but the radiance of divine act.

Ad II. The knowledge of God is indeed through the Son, but this is not subordination. It is Johannine metaphysics. The Son is the exegesis of the Father, and the Spirit grants participation. Each person is known personally in the one divine act.

Ad III. Creaturely intelligibility is a participation in divine intelligibility, not its source. Anthropomorphism arises only when creatures impose structures on God; we instead receive intelligibility from God.

Ad IV. Determination in the Logos is not constraint. It is the fullness of divine act in its eternal articulation. Freedom is the plentitude of act, not the absence of form.

Ad V. Grammar without ontology cannot speak of God. The Logos grounds all theological grammar by grounding the very acts theology names.

Nota

To say that the Logos is the principle of intelligibility is to say that divine truth is not a construction, approximation, or regulative ideal. It is the self-articulation of God’s own life. Theology’s intelligibility, then, is not a human achievement but a gift: the Spirit draws creatures into the Logos’ articulation of divine being.

This is why theology cannot begin with epistemology. It must begin with Christology. Knowledge of God is grounded not in the capacities of the knower but in the intelligible form of the One who acts and gives Himself to be known.

Determinatio

We therefore determine:

1. Intelligibility is not an external condition to which God conforms but an internal articulation of God’s act in the Logos.

2. The Logos is the constitutive form of all divine action; nothing God does is without this form.

3. Creaturely knowledge of God is participation in the Logos by the Spirit’s donation.

4. This view preserves divine simplicity, avoids abstraction, and grounds theological realism.

5. No theological statement (Tₜ) can be true unless grounded in the Logos-constituted act that Λ ⊨* Tₜ specifies.

Transitus ad Disputationem LVII

Having established that the Logos is the condition of intelligibility for all divine action, we now consider how this intelligibility becomes efficacious in creaturely life. If intelligibility is constituted in the Logos, it is communicated through the Spirit’s act of illumination.

Thus we proceed to Disputatio LVII: De Spiritu Ut Luminatore Intelligibilitatis, where we examine how the Spirit grants creatures access to the intelligible structure of divine act without reducing revelation to cognition or collapsing knowledge into mere conceptuality.

____________________

Quaestiones Analyticae Post Determinationem

Q1. You say that the Logos is the constitutive form of all divine action. Yet the term ‘form’ can be elusive. What exactly is meant here?

Responsio

The term form is not employed in its Aristotelian sense as an intrinsic constituent of a composed substance, nor in the Kantian sense of a subjective structuring condition. Rather, by form I mean the intelligible principle that makes an act the act it is. Every act must possess an internal principle of specification if it is to be identified as a distinct act. Divine action requires the same.

The Logos is the subsisting intelligibility of God. It is through the Son that divine agency is articulate rather than opaque, intelligible rather than merely asserted. To call the Logos the constitutive form of divine action is to say that divine acts have their identity through the one who makes God’s intentionality expressible. Without this, the category of divine action loses its internal criterion. It becomes a projection rather than an intelligible feature of God’s life.

Q2. Should this be understood as a grounding claim, a truthmaker claim, or something else?

Responsio.

It is best understood as a hyperintensional individuation thesis. Grounding and truthmaking presuppose that the relata already possess stable identity. My concern here precedes both. Before one can ask what grounds a divine act or what makes a proposition about divine action true, one must know what makes a divine act identifiable.

The Logos supplies this. It is the principle that secures the fine grained identity conditions of divine action. Once divine acts are intelligibly individuated, questions of grounding or truthmaking can arise. But the individuation of divine agency is logically prior, and that is what the claim addresses.

Q3. Does positing an eternal form for divine action entail modal collapse or eternalism?

Responsio.

No. An identity condition does not entail necessity. The fact that the Logos eternally provides the intelligible form of divine action does not imply that God must actualize any particular action. It means only that whenever God does act, the identity of that act will be articulated through the Son.

Thus the world’s history remains contingent and freely willed. Its intelligibility is eternal, because God is eternal, but its actuality belongs entirely to divine freedom. No eternalist picture is required. There is an eternal form of divine agency because God is eternally intelligible. But the exercise of divine agency takes place freely within the temporal economy.

Q4. Does this risk collapsing divine action into divine conceptualism, reducing divine acts to internal mental events?

Responsio.

No. Conceptualism arises only if one regards the Logos as a divine idea. But the Logos is not a concept. The Logos is a person. As the personal intelligibility of God, the Son is the one through whom God acts in creation. Thus the form of divine action is not conceptual but personal and causal.

Divine action is individuated in God but enacted in the world. The intelligibility that specifies divine action and the causality that accomplishes divine action coincide in the Logos. This unity prevents conceptualism. Divine actions are not mental episodes within God but the personal acts of God who reveals himself through the very structure that makes his acts knowable.

Nota Finalis

In this disputation we have asked how divine action can be intelligible without reducing God to a creaturely agent or dissolving divine agency into mere effects. The analytic questions press precisely on the point where intelligibility and transcendence meet. They reveal that the specification of divine action must lie within God and yet cannot remain a purely inward matter. The Logos answers this requirement. The Son is the one in whom divine agency is articulate for us and the one through whom divine agency is enacted toward us. These questions therefore serve not to complicate the Determinatio but to show its inner coherence: divine action is intelligible because God is intelligible, and God is intelligible because the Logos is God’s own self articulation.

Disputatio LI: De Verbo Realiter Praesente: Utrum Praesentia Logi Sit Conditio Omnis Veritatis Revelatae

 On the Real Presence of the Word: Whether the Presence of the Logos is the Condition of All Revealed Truth

Quaeritur

Utrum praesentia realis Logi—tam in revelatione quam in sacramento et praedicatione ecclesiae—sit conditio sine qua non omnis veritatis revelatae; et utrum veritas theologiae consistat non tantum in actu constitutivo Logi (XL) sed etiam in eius praesentiali actualitate qua Logos adest ut verum manifestetur.

Whether the real presence of the Logos—in revelation, sacrament, and ecclesial proclamation—is the indispensable condition of all revealed truth; and whether theological truth consists not only in the constitutive act of the Logos (L) but also in His presential actuality by which the truth is disclosed.

Thesis

The Logos not only constitutes truth by making being (Disputatio L), but makes truth knowable by being present. Presence here names not spatial proximity but ontological self-giving.Without the real presence of the Logos, revelation would be opaque, sacrament would be sign without reality, and proclamation would be sound without truth. Thus, the real presence of the Word is the condition of the possibility of revealed truth. Accordingly: Truth = Constitutive Act + Real Presence + Spirit-Authorized Reception. The Spirit unites these three by making the constituting Word present to the believing subject.

Locus Classicus

1. John 1:14 — Καὶ ὁ λόγος σὰρξ ἐγένετο

Καὶ ὁ λόγος σὰρξ ἐγένετο καὶ ἐσκήνωσεν ἐν ἡμῖν.
“And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us.”

Incarnation is the primal instance of Logos constituting truth through real presence: veritas visibilis. Truth is not merely spoken; Truth comes.

2. Luke 24:32 — Ἐνῆπτεν ἡμῶν τὰς καρδίας

“Did not our hearts burn within us while He was with us and opened the Scriptures to us?”

Here Christ’s presence interprets Scripture: revealed truth requires the Revealer present.

3. Matthew 28:20 — ἐγὼ μεθ’ ὑμῶν εἰμι

“Lo, I am with you always . . .”

Mission and proclamation contain revealed truth because Christ is with the Church. Presence grounds truth.

4. Cyril of Jerusalem, Mystagogical Catecheses I.7

Μὴ νομίσῃς τὸν ἄρτον εἶναι· σῶμα Χριστοῦ ἐστιν.
“Do not think this is bread; it is the Body of Christ.”

Sacramental truth is real presence, not an interpretive projection.

5. Luther, WA 26, 444 — “Das Wort ist der Träger der Gegenwart Christi.”

“The Word is the bearer of Christ’s presence.”

In preaching, the Logos is really present to accomplish what He says. Truth occurs because the Speaker is present in the speech.

Explicatio

While Disputation XL established that the Logos constitutes truth by creating the order of being, Disputation XLIX showed that theological truths require divine truthmakers, and Disputation L demonstrated that the Logos constitutes truth because He makes being, Disputatio LI advances the argument that truth must also be present to the recipient. Accordingly, revelation is not true because the world is shaped by the Logos alone, but it is true because the Logos is present in revelation.

1. Revelation: Presence as the Condition of Disclosure

Revelation is not information but manifestation. Truth is disclosed because the One who is Truth is present in the theophany in the Old Testament, the incarnation in the New Testament, and the indwelling of the Spirit.

2. Sacrament: Presence as the Condition of Efficacy

The truth of “This is my body” is contra Zwingli not symbolic, contra Lindbeck not merely intepretive, and contra Schleiermacher not merely communal. Rather, it is true because Christ is present constitutively and sacramentally.

3. Preaching: Presence as the Condition of Communication

Proclamation is not the recounting of absent truths, but is rather the mode of the Logos’ real presence through the Spirit. Thus, revelation is presence makes truth visible, the sacrament is presence makes truth tangible, and preaching is presence making truth audible. Accordingly, truth becomes truth-for-us by the real presence of the Word.

Objectiones

Ob I: According to Enlightenment rationalism, truth consists in clear propositions corresponding to empirical or conceptual content. Presence—divine, sacramental, or ecclesial—is epistemically irrelevant. Propositions can be true without the Logos being present; thus revealed truth does not require presence.

Ob II: According to Zwinglian and Memorialist Sacramental Theology, the sacrament need not involve the real presence of the Logos. Christ is absent bodily and present only in memory and faith. Sacramental truth is commemorative, not ontological. Therefore, real presence is not necessary for the truth of sacramental claims.

Ob III: On the reading of Postliberal Linguistic Theology, truth is intratextual coherence within the Church’s language-game. “Presence” introduces metaphysical commitments foreign to grammar-based theology. Meaning is generated by communal rules, not divine presence. Therefore, revealed truth does not require ontological presence.

Ob IV: Kantian Critical Philosophy claims that the divine, as noumenal, cannot be present in the phenomenal order. Revelation cannot involve real presence but must be symbolic or moral. Thus theological truth cannot depend on the Logos being present to human cognition.

Ob V: Secular Hermeneutics regards “presence” as a mythic remnant of pre-critical consciousness. Meaning is constructed, not given and nothing “comes” from outside interpretive structures. Therefore, the real presence of the Logos is neither possible nor necessary for truth.

Responsiones

Ad I: Propositions presuppose an intelligible world; intelligibility presupposes the Logos as arche and light. Rationalism mistakes derivative clarity for primordial illumination. Without presence, truth becomes abstraction without ontological ground. Presence grounds intelligibility itself.

Ad II: Divine speech is performative: God’s words accomplish what they signify. Christ’s “This is my body” is an ontological act, not a mnemonic suggestion. Sacramental truth is grounded in the Logos present as gift, not in subjective recollection. Without presence, sacrament has no truthmaker.

Ad III: Grammar accounts for internal felicity, not external truth. Without a real God present in Word and sacrament, theology becomes a self-referential linguistic practice. Presence supplies the external anchor postliberalism cannot provide.

Ad IV: Incarnation is the decisive negation of Kant’s phenomenal/noumenal divide. The Logos becomes flesh, rendering divine presence phenomenally given without ceasing to be infinite. Revelation presupposes a metaphysics larger than Kant’s categories permit.

Ad V:  Interpretation does not entail construction. That humans interpret does not imply that nothing is given. Presence is the metaphysical form of divine givenness—the condition under which revelation transcends mere projection. Meaning is received, not fabricated.

Nota

Presence is the ontological mode by which constitutive truth (L) becomes accessible as revealed truth.

Three clarifications follow:

1. Presence Makes Constitutive Truth Manifest. The Logos’ constitutive act grounds truth-in-itself; His presence grounds truth-for-us. Revelation requires not only that the Logos has acted but that He is present to the recipient.
2. Presence Is the Form of Theological Knowing. Theology is not cognition of absent propositions but participation in the Truth who comes. Knowledge of God is fundamentally encounter, not inference. Presence is the epistemic bridge uniting creaturely consciousness with divine act.
3. Presence Is the Sacramental Form of Divine Self-Giving. Revelation (light), proclamation (voice), and sacrament (gift) share one structure: the Logos present through the Spirit for the sake of truth. Without presence, revelation becomes history, sacrament symbol, and proclamation mere exhortation.

Thus: Veritas revelata = Verbum praesens. Revealed truth is nothing other than the Word present in His own disclosure. 

Determinatio

We determine:

1. The real presence of the Logos is necessary for all revealed truth, for without His presence revelation would not be self-disclosure.

2. Sacramental truth is grounded in real presence, not symbolic representation.

3. Preaching is a mode of presence, not a mere report of past acts.

4. Truth becomes truth-for-us through presence, as the Spirit unites creaturely knowing to divine manifestation.

5. Christ is both constitutive and presential truth: He makes truth and He is present as truth.

Thus theological truth is not merely metaphysical (L) nor merely linguistic (XLVIII), but presential:
the Truth who made all things is the Truth who comes to us.

Transitus ad Disputationem LII

Having established that truth requires the real presence of the Logos, we next consider: How does the Spirit make this presence intelligible? Presence alone is not yet understanding.

Therefore we proceed to Disputatio LII: On the Donation of Reference by the Spirit wherein it will be asked how the Spirit gives the res of theological language—whether all theological understanding rests upon the Spirit’s act of donating the referent by interpreting the presence of the Logos to the creature.

Disputatio XLI: De Phenomenologia et Apparitione Entis

On Phenomenology and the Appearance of Being

Quaeritur

Utrum phaenomenologia, in doctrina sua de apparitione entis, patefaciat aditum ad veritatem ontologicam et theologicam, an potius concludat ens intra ambitum immanentiae conscientiae.

Whether phenomenology, in its doctrine of the appearance of being, opens a path to ontological and theological truth, or rather confines being within the immanent sphere of consciousness.

Thesis

The appearing of beings is not merely a psychological event or a representation before consciousness, but the ontological act through which being manifests itself. In the horizon of phenomenology rightly understood, the act of manifestation already presupposes participation in a transcendent Logos: the divine reason through which beings appear as intelligible.

Locus Classicus

“Was uns zunächst und zumeist begegnet, ist das Seiende im Ganzen.” — Martin Heidegger, Sein und Zeit §29.
(“What first and most of all encounters us is beings as a whole.”)

This sentence marks the turning point from phenomenology as method to phenomenology as ontology: the recognition that appearance is not a derivative mental state but the disclosure of beings themselves within the openness of Being.

Explicatio

Phenomenology arose as a protest against both empiricism and speculative idealism. Husserl’s cry to return “zu den Sachen selbst” called philosophy back from abstraction to the immediacy of what shows itself. In this return, being was no longer treated as a hidden substrate behind appearances, but as that which becomes manifest in appearing. As Heidegger explained in Section VII of Sein und Zeit, it is that which shows itself as itself. 

The key structure of this manifestation is intentionality, the directedness of consciousness toward its object. Yet intentionality itself presupposes the prior possibility that something may appear at all. Since this givenness is not created by the subject but received, the act of consciousness is receptive before it is constructive.

Thus, phenomenology, in its most radical sense, reveals that appearing is not a mere event within the subject but a participation in a more original disclosure of being. Every horizon of experience already implies the transcendence of what appears beyond it. The horizon of the world points to an infinite openness which no act of consciousness can totalize.

Theologically interpreted, this openness intimates the divine Logos, the principle of manifestation that both grounds and exceeds all finite givenness. In the shining of the phenomenon, theology perceives a trace of the Word through whom all things appear and by whom they are sustained in intelligibility.

Obiectiones

Ob I. Transcendental idealism holds that phenomenology, by its very method, brackets metaphysical commitments. But to posit a divine Logos as the source of appearing violates the neutrality of the phenomenological reduction and collapses philosophy into theology.

Ob II. Naturalistic empiricism claims that appearance is merely a function of perceptual mechanisms. The world “appears” only because the brain interprets sensory inputs, and thus there is no ontological act of showing, only causal processes.

Ob III. Confessional theology declares that revelation is not equivalent to appearance. God discloses Himself through Word and Spirit, not through the natural horizon of phenomenality. To identify divine revelation with appearing is to naturalize grace.

Ob IV. Existentialist atheism supposes that the horizon of appearance is bounded by finitude and death. Phenomenology uncovers not divine transcendence but the absence of God, the silence Nichts that defines human existence.

Responsiones

Ad 1. The phenomenological epoché suspends metaphysical assertions within the act of reflection, but it does not deny their ontological ground. To recognize that appearance implies givenness is not to violate the reduction, but to unfold its presupposition that what appears gives itself. The question of the giver is intrinsic to phenomenology’s logic and opens naturally toward theology.

Ad 2. The causal explanation of perception presupposes the very appearing it seeks to explain. Neural correlates describe how phenomena are processed, not how being becomes manifest. Empiricism can analyze conditions of sensation, but not the ontological event of manifestation itself.

Ad 3. While revelation exceeds phenomenology, it does not exclude it. Appearing is the analogical condition under which revelation becomes thinkable. Because the same Logos who speaks in Scripture also grounds the intelligibility of all phenomena, phenomenology, properly ordered, is a vestibule to theology.

Ad 4. The disclosure of finitude is itself an intimation of transcendence. The awareness of limit presupposes orientation toward the unlimited. Even the horizon of death testifies to the Being that grants all horizons, whose givenness endures beyond negation.

Nota

Phenomenology reopens the ontological question under the sign of appearing. Its most fruitful contribution to theology lies in showing that the world is not a closed system of object, but rather it is a field of manifestation. To appear is already to participate in a revealing act. By interpreting phenomenology in the light of faith, theology recognizes that this revealing act is not anonymous but personal. It is the act of the Word who “was made flesh and dwelt among us.”

In this sense, phenomenology becomes a philosophical propaedeutic to theology. It purifies the gaze so that the appearing of beings may again be seen as the trace of divine self-showing. While it neither proves God nor replaces revelation, it nonetheless restores the world to its capacity for epiphany.

Determinatio

Phenomenology, when pursued to its limits, discloses an ontology of manifestation that opens naturally toward the theology of the Word. The act of appearing (phainein) is not grounded in the subject’s synthesis but in the Logos that gathers being into visibility. Every phenomenon is thus a finite participation in divine intelligibility, an echo of the eternal self-showing of God. To behold the appearing of beings is, implicitly, to behold the shining of the Creator through them.

Transitus ad Disputationem XLII

Having discerned in phenomenology that appearing is not a closed immanence of consciousness but an ontological event of manifestation, we must now ask after the ground of this intelligibility itself. For if beings appear as intelligible, and if this appearing is not constituted by the subject, then reason must inquire into what renders appearance intelligible rather than opaque, meaningful rather than arbitrary.

Phenomenology shows that beings appear; it does not yet explain why there is intelligibility rather than mere givenness, nor why the intellect is proportioned to receive meaning rather than chaos. The question of manifestation thus presses beyond phenomenality toward its rational foundation.

This leads necessarily to the Principle of Sufficient Reason. If appearing is not accidental, if intelligibility is not brute fact, then there must be a sufficient ground why beings are manifest as they are, and why intellect is capable of receiving them as meaningful. The very possibility of phenomenological disclosure presupposes a participation of finite reason in a deeper order of rationality.

Therefore we proceed to Disputatio XLII: De Principio Sufficientis Rationis et Participatione Intellectus, wherein it shall be examined whether the principle that nothing is without reason expresses not merely a logical demand of thought, but the ontological participation of the human intellect in the Logos, the divine reason in whom all beings have both their ground and their intelligibility.

Disputatio XXX: De Veritate Interna et Externa Theologiae

On Internal and External Truth in Theology

Quaeritur

Utrum veritas theologiae sit tantum interna in suo sermone, an etiam externa in relatione ad ipsum Deum, ita ut sermo theologicus non solum sit fidelis in se, sed etiam verus de eo quod est.

It is asked whether the truth of theology is only internal to its own discourse, or also external in its relation to God himself, so that theological language is not only faithful in itself but also true of what is.

Thesis

Theology possesses a twofold truth: internal and external. Veritas interna is the felicity of discourse authorized by the Holy Spirit within the community of faith; it is the truth of theology intra systema fidei. Veritas externa is the adequation of this discourse to divine reality: the truth of theology de Deo ipso.

The former concerns the integrity of theological grammar; the latter, the participation of that grammar in the infinite Word. The two are not opposed but ordered: the Spirit authorizes language internally so that it may participate externally in the Logos.

Formally expressed:

$$\text{<i>Auth</i>}<i>(</i>{\mathrm{<i>L</i>}}_{\mathrm{<i>t</i>}}<i>)</i><i>\Rightarrow </i>\mathrm{<i>\exists </i>}\mathrm{<i>I</i>}<i>:</i>{\mathrm{<i>L</i>}}_{\mathrm{<i>t</i>}}<i>\hookrightarrow </i>{\mathrm{<i>L</i>}}_{\mathrm{<i>\infty </i>}}$$

This states that theological truth obtains only if the Spirit establishes an interpretive inclusion of the finite theological language $L_t$ into the infinite divine discourse $L_{\mathrm{\infty }}$. This symbol (↪) indicates participatory inclusion, not the formal subset relation. It is the Spirit’s act by which finite discourse is gathered into infinite meaning.

Locus Classicus

“I am the way, and the truth, and the life.” — John 14:6

In this declaration, Christ identifies truth not as correspondence or coherence, but as personal participation in the divine Logos. Augustine reads this as meaning that “veritas non est aliquid extra Deum, sed ipse Deus veritas est” (De Trinitate VIII.4). Aquinas echoes: “Veritas est adaequatio intellectus et rei; in Deo autem idem est intellectus et res” (ST I.16.5). Therefore, for theology, truth cannot be merely formal, but it must be participatory. The finite intellect is true only insofar as it shares in the divine act of knowing.

Explicatio

On the Transcendental Nature of Truth

The transcendentals—ens, unum, verum, bonum—are convertible: whatever is, is one, true, and good.

1.  Ens signifies being under the aspect of actuality.
2. Verum signifies being under the aspect of intelligibility, that is being as capable of being known
3. Thus, truth is not something added to being; it is the luminosity of being itself.
4. Wherever there is being, there is an implicit veritas, because to be is to be capable of being understood
5. Hence, truth is a transcendental property of being.

In God, who is ipsum esse subsistens, being and intelligibility are identical; He is the verum primum, the archetype and measure of all other truths.

In creatures, truth is participatory: finite beings are true insofar as they share in divine intelligibility and correspond to the divine idea in which they are conceived.

On Internal and External Truth

a. Veritas interna refers to the integrity and coherence of a discourse or system—its syntactic and performative correctness, its internal felicity.

b. Veritas externa refers to the correspondence between what is said and what is—between sign and reality, intellect and being.

Theological language, like all human speech, can achieve felicity without necessarily achieving truth; yet without internal felicity, it could not even aim at truth.

Felicity, then, is the condition of possibility for truth, but not its ground. The ground of truth is the being of God, in whom every finite coherence finds its measure.

Theology, as language about God, must therefore transcend its own grammar: its truth lies not merely in saying well (bene dicere), but in saying what is (dicere esse). It is true when its internal felicity participates in divine external truth.

On the Participation of Theology in Divine Truth

Theology does not produce truth; it participates in it. When the theologian speaks truly of God, this occurs because divine being grants intelligibility to that speech—because the light of being shines through language. The Holy Spirit is the mediating act through which this participation occurs: the one who makes human words capable of bearing divine meaning.

Thus, every theological assertion is twofold:

• Internally: it is grammatically felicitous, coherent, and consistent.
• Externally: it is illuminated by the light of the One who is Truth itself.

In this participation, truth and being are united without confusion. Theology is not the measure of God; God is the measure of theology.

Obiectiones

Ob I. Empiricism claims that all truth must be verifiable by observation. Theological claims are unverifiable and thus have no external truth. There is only the internal coherence of theological discourse for believers using it. 

Ob II. From the cultural-linguistic standpoint, theology’s meaning arises only within the communal grammar of faith. Thus, to speak of “external truth” misunderstands language as representational rather than formative. Theology is true insofar as it performs its grammar.

Ob III. Post-modernity assumes that every discourse is self-referential such that “outside” a language game there is nothing. Hence “external truth” is a non-starter. All truth is internal to interpretation.

Ob IV. Barthians held that God’s revelation is self-grounded and free, and that appeal to participation or adequation cannot verify it. Truth exists only in the event of revelation, it is not tied to ontology.

Ob V. Contemporary analytic thinking holds that model-theoretic analogies fail for theology. There is no definable model of God; hence talk of inclusion Lt​↪L∞​ is metaphorical and lacks formal content.

Responsiones

Ad I. Verificationism mistakes the order of reality for the order of appearance. Theology is not an empirical but a participatory science: it knows by union, not by observation. External truth in theology is not sensory correspondence but ontological inclusion in the act of God.

Ad II. The Church’s grammar is indeed formative, yet its form is the Spirit’s work, not a human construct. The Spirit’s authorship makes the grammar porous to transcendence; hence, its truth cannot be merely communal but is grounded in the divine speech that precedes the Church.

Ad III. Postmodern closure presupposes the very transcendence it denies. The internal system’s finitude points beyond itself to the infinite that constitutes it, just as, by the Löwenheim–Skolem principle, any consistent system admits higher interpretations. The finite theological discourse testifies by its very limitation to the necessity of the divine meta-language.

Ad IV. Revelation is not opposed to participation but presupposes it. God’s free act of self-disclosure is the mode in which creatures participate in divine truth. To say revelation alone grounds truth is already to affirm that truth has external reality in Deo ipso.

Ad V. While theology cannot construct a formal model of God, the analogy holds analogically: God is the modelus sui sermonis, the reality to which divine discourse is perfectly adequate. Finite theology participates in that adequation by the Spirit. Thus, the inclusion ${\mathrm{<br>}}_{}$ is not formal but real: it signifies the Spirit’s act of joining human speech to the eternal Word.

Nota 

The distinction between internal and external truth in theology mirrors the structure of revelation itself. Veritas interna designates the truth of faith—the Spirit’s authorization of discourse within the divine economy of speech, and veritas externa names the correspondence of that discourse to divine reality as such. These are not two truths, but two perspectives upon one act. The internal truth is the participation of the believer in the Word, while the external truth is the participation of the Word in the world.

Within the sphere of veritas interna, felicity and faith coincide: the statement “Jesus is Lord” is true because it is spoken in the Spirit. Within veritas externa, that same statement is true because the incarnate Word is objectively Lord of all. The Spirit assures, the Word grounds, and the Father unites these two horizons in the single act of truth.

Thus, theology’s truth is not reducible to logic nor to experience; it is a relation of participation. Language, illumined by the Spirit, shares in the ontological act of the Word and so becomes both performative and correspondent. The finite utterance is true when it is gathered into the divine discourse that both causes and completes its meaning.

Determinatio

1. Truth is a transcendental property of being: verum est ens in quantum cognoscibile.

2. Being and intelligibility are coextensive; full being entails full intelligibility.

3. In God, being and knowing are one: esse et intelligere sunt idem.

4. Every finite act of truth is participatory, grounded in the infinite act of self-identical being.

5. Theology’s internal coherence (felicity) depends upon its participation in external divine truth.

6. Therefore, theology is true because it shares in the self-identical fullness of being, in whom to be and to be known are one.

7. Veritas interna is the pneumatological authorization of theological discourse, its faithfulness, coherence, and integrity within the Spirit’s grammar.

8. Veritas externa is the Christological participation of that discourse in the divine Logos, the ontological adequation by which the Word that words also constitutes what is.

9. The two are ordered: the Spirit perfects language internally so that it may correspond externally to the Word.

10. Finite discourse, like a logical system, cannot ground its own truth; it requires inclusion in the infinite speech of God.

11. Therefore, theological truth is neither merely communal nor purely propositional but participatory, It is rather the inclusion of finite utterance in infinite meaning.

Hence we conclude: Veritas interna sine externa est infidelis; veritas externa sine interna est muta. Only when the Spirit authorizes and the Logos fulfills does theology speak the truth.

Postscriptum Modernum

Gödel’s incompleteness theorems and the Löwenheim–Skolem results together illuminate the formal necessity of theological participation.
Gödel showed that any sufficiently rich, consistent formal system contains truths that cannot be proven within it; there are statements true in the system but not demonstrable by it. The Löwenheim–Skolem theorems, conversely, reveal that no formal language uniquely determines its own model, for even first-order theories with infinite models admit both smaller and larger interpretations.

Taken together, these findings expose a deep structural fact: no finite system can secure its own truth. Consistency does not entail completeness and satisfaction within does not entail adequation without. Hence, every coherent finite language gestures beyond itself toward a meta-language or an infinite frame in which its truth is grounded.

Theology mirrors this logic. The finite L_t of human discourse may be internally consistent—Spiritually felicitous—but its truth as about God depends upon participation in the infinite L_∞ of the divine Logos. The incompleteness of reason is not its defect but its vocation: it is the mark of the finite’s openness to the Infinite.

Thus, what logic demonstrates negatively—that no system can prove itself complete—theology confesses positively: Finite speech becomes true only when the Word that words gathers it into the world that worlds. In this gathering, internal felicity becomes external truth; the Spirit’s authorization becomes the Logos’s fulfillment.

Transitus ad Disputationem XXXI

If the Spirit authorizes theology’s internal felicity and the Logos grounds its external truth, what is the nature of the concept that mediates between them? The next disputation investigates the structure of human conceptuality itself: its finitude, its schematism, and its completion in the real Word. 

We proceed to Disputatio XXXI: De Conceptuali Schematismo et Verbo Reali, and ask how human concepts, limited by finitude, become vessels of infinite meaning, and how the Real Word transforms thought itself into a mode of divine speech.