Prooemium ad Disputationes Theologicas
Why the Scholastic Form Is Employed
The scholastic form—thesis, locus classicus, explicatio, objectiones, responsiones, nota, determinatio—is not revived here as academic archaism, nor as nostalgic homage to a vanished intellectual culture. It is recovered because it uniquely embodies a logic of theological clarity and order. When rightly understood, the scholastic disputation is not the triumph of dialectic over faith but the grammar of faith’s own rational articulation.
The disputatio theologica begins in humility. It assumes that theological truth, being divine, cannot be possessed in a single act of assertion. Truth must instead be approached through the ordered interplay of affirmation, objection, and resolution. The structure of thesis followed by counter-statement and reconciliation mirrors the polarity of revelation, of Deus absconditus and Deus revelatus. The form of disputation therefore becomes a formal analogue of the cross, where contradiction is not suppressed but redeemed in higher unity.
Moreover, the scholastic method corresponds to the ontology of truth presupposed throughout these writings. Truth is not a mere property of propositions but participation in divine self-communication. For that reason, theology cannot be purely descriptive or expressive; it must be formally structured. The disputational form enacts that structure. It forces theology to move from surface assertion to internal coherence, from confession to understanding.
This method also allows theology to remain both rigorous and contemplative.
Rigorous, because every claim must withstand formal objection and be expressed in a grammar of precision.
Contemplative, because every resolution finally returns to the mystery of God who exceeds dialectic.
In this way, the scholastic disputatio becomes the proper vehicle for what these writings call model-theoretic theology, a discipline that seeks to relate the formal language of faith T to the ontology of divine being. Each disputation, while logically disciplined, remains theological in motive and eschatological in horizon. The thesis states what can be confessed; the objectiones test its intelligibility; the responsiones disclose its inner coherence; the nota unfolds its broader theological meaning; and the determinatio seals the act of understanding in doxology.
Historical Continuity
The use of the disputatio situates these essays consciously within the intellectual lineage of the Church. Luther, Melanchthon, and their students at Wittenberg employed the disputationes not as scholastic mimicry but as instruments of evangelical clarity. The form was not opposed to Reformation insight but its chosen discipline. The Disputationes Heidelbergae (1518), Melanchthon’s Loci Communes, and the later Lutheran scholastic systems of Gerhard, Calov, and Quenstedt all employed structured reasoning to preserve the unity of truth and faith.
By retrieving this form, the Disputationes Theologicae affirm that theology’s rational vocation remains valid. The contemporary theologian, no less than the medieval master or the Reformation doctor, must think within ordered form if he or she is to think at all. The scholastic discipline reminds theology that truth is not spontaneous expression but participation in divine Logos. In an age of intellectual fragmentation in which there is a pervasive assumption that theology is more about us than it is about God, the disputatio restores a seriousness to theology, a commitment to clarity, coherence, and truth.
A Theological Rationale
This recovery of form also serves a deeper purpose. The model-theoretic vision that animates these disputations holds that theology’s task is to interpret faith’s formal language within the ontological reality of divine being. That interpretive process requires structure.
The disputatio provides that structure by mapping theology’s logical, semantic, and ontological movements:
from syntax (faith’s given grammar),
through semantics (modeling that grammar within being),
to truth (participation in divine reality).
The scholastic method thus becomes a theological necessity; it is the visible form of theology’s internal logic. Its ordered movement from assertion to resolution mirrors theology’s own participatory logic from Word to understanding, and from faith to vision.
Conclusion
The scholastic method, then, is not a relic but is finally realistic; it is a structure adequate to a world in which language, thought, and being are ordered by the same divine Logos. The Disputationes Theologicae employ this method to demonstrate that theology, even in an age of disintegration, can still think truthfully since the Spirit, who once breathed through the schools, continues to speak through the Church’s ordered speech.
To think theologically in this form is thus itself a confession, a confession that divine truth, though transcendent, has chosen to dwell in the grammar of human words.
Deus loquitur, et fit veritas
Theologia ab ipsa voce Dei incipit. Dum Deus loquitur, mundus fit intelligibilis et homo vocatur ad intellectum. In hac prima parte quaeritur quomodo ipsa ratio creaturarum participet lucem Verbi, et quomodo intelligibilitas mundi sit primum testimonium divinae praesentiae. Non est hic sermo de analogia inter cogitationem humanam et ideam divinam, sed de ipsa communicatione lucis: lumen quod in tenebris lucet et sine quo nulla scientia nec fides subsistere possunt. Haec pars igitur ponit fundamenta totius operis. Ostendit quod theologia, antequam loquatur de Deo, debet intellegere quomodo mundus et mens ad Dei loquelam ordinantur. Sine hac ontologica participatione, nec verbum hominis nec veritas eius possunt stare coram Deo.
Theology begins with the very voice of God. When God speaks, the world becomes intelligible and the human being is summoned to understanding. This first part asks how the rational order of creatures participates in the light of the Word and how the intelligibility of the world is the primordial witness of divine presence. The issue is not a mere analogy between human thought and the divine idea, but the communication of light itself—the light that shines in the darkness and without which neither knowledge nor faith can endure. This part therefore lays the foundation for all that follows. It shows that theology, before speaking about God, must first understand how world and mind are ordered to the divine utterance. Without this ontological participation, neither human speech nor human truth can stand before God._______________
On Theological Expressions as Syntactical
Quaeritur
Utrum theologia, sub ratione syntactica considerata, in ipsa structura locutionis veritatem suam formet, ita ut ordo et nexus sermonis non solum instrumenta cognitionis sint, sed etiam ipsa forma interna veritatis quae posteriorem interpretationem fundat.
Whether theology, considered under its syntactical aspect, forms its own truth within the very structure of utterance, such that the order and connection of discourse are not merely instruments of knowledge but the inner form of truth itself, providing the foundation for later interpretation.
Thesis
Theological expressions, denoted as T, the total language of faith as it is spoken, written, and confessed, must first be regarded as syntactical, governed by formation and inference rules that secure coherence before questions of meaning or truth arise. Only when this system of expressions is interpreted within a model, that is, understood in relation to what there is, do meaning and truth properly emerge.
Locus classicus
Scriptura Sacra — Ad Hebraeos 4:12 (NA28):
Ζῶν γὰρ ὁ λόγος τοῦ Θεοῦ καὶ ἐνεργὴς καὶ τομώτερος ὑπὲρ πᾶσαν μάχαιραν δίστομον, καὶ διϊκνούμενος ἄχρι μερισμοῦ ψυχῆς καὶ πνεύματος, ἁρμῶν τε καὶ μυελῶν, καὶ κριτικὸς ἐνθυμήσεων καὶ ἐννοιῶν καρδίας.
For the word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing to the division of soul and spirit, of joints and marrow, and discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart.
Traditio Patrum — Augustinus, Confessiones XIII.12.13:
Loquitur Verbum tuum nobis in libro tuo, qui est firmamentum super nos: et ibi audiunt omnes, sed non uno modo.
Thy Word speaks to us in Thy Book, which is the firmament above us: all hear it, but not all in the same way.
Divine speech, according to both the Apostle and Augustine, is living and intelligible; it is piercing yet articulate, personal yet ordered. The Word’s vitality is not the energy of chaos but of form: it divides to discern, it speaks to create understanding. Hence theology begins not in silence but in structured hearing, where the life of God becomes intelligible speech within the heart.
Explicatio
Before theology can claim truth, it must possess disciplined language. Every theological expression belongs to a larger body of speech, the lingua fidei or language of faith, symbolized by T. This T is like a formal system in logic; its sentences must be well-formed, consistent, and properly related to one another before they can be said to express truth.
In logic, syntax refers to the internal structure of a language—how sentences are put together—while semantics refers to their meaning in relation to a world. Similarly, theology’s syntax orders the words of revelation before interpretation. Within this syntactical horizon, what matters is not whether a proposition is true or false but whether it can be rightly spoken, whether it fits the grammar of faith authorized by the Spirit.
For example, the statement “Christ is truly present in the Eucharist” is not yet about metaphysical presence when viewed syntactically. Rather it expresses a well-formed confession that belongs to a network of statements derived from Scripture, creed, and liturgy. To violate that network’s grammatical order, e.g., by detaching the statement from the Eucharistic context or from Christ’s promise, is to lose what might be called felicity, the Spirit-given rightness or legitimacy of speech (bene dicere in Spiritu Sancto).
Thus, theology’s first task is grammatical. It secures the coherence of divine speech once it has entered human words. Only after this grammatical integrity is achieved can theology responsibly advance to the next level of modeling, to an investigation of how its expressions are related to being, to how the language acquires truth-conditions.
Objectiones
Obiectio I. Karl Barth and the dialectical theologians contend that theology begins with divine self-revelation, not with the formal analysis of language. To start with syntax is to subordinate the immediacy of God’s address to human categories of logic and grammar. If God speaks, the structure of that speech must be received, not constructed.
Obiectio II. According to the later Wittgenstein, meaning is determined by use within a “form of life.” Theological expressions, therefore, have sense only within the lived practice of the Church. To formalize them syntactically is to abstract them from their communal context and distort their function. Theology should describe language-games, not engineer systems.
Obiectio III. Jacques Derrida and postmodern theorists insist that language is characterized by indeterminacy and différance: every sign refers to another sign, never to stable presence. A divinely ordered syntax would reinstate the metaphysics of presence. Theology should dwell within the play of meaning, not claim a fixed grammar of divine speech.
Obiectio IV. Friedrich Schleiermacher and the liberal theological tradition maintain that theology arises from the inward feeling of absolute dependence. Faith expresses itself symbolically but resists propositional form. To impose syntactical order upon religion is to betray its essence as life and feeling.
Obiectio V. Analytic and empiricist philosophers of religion argue that theological statements, lacking empirical verification, are not propositions in any meaningful sense. To speak of a “syntax” of faith’s language is to confer logical structure upon utterances that are neither factual nor falsifiable.
Responsiones
Ad I. The dialectical theologian rightly insists that revelation precedes all theological discourse, yet revelation comes clothed in human words. Syntax, in this sense, is not construction but preservation. The Spirit who gives the Word also gives the grammar by which the Church may speak it intelligibly. To attend to syntax is to attend to the order of revelation’s communicability, not to impose alien form upon it.
Ad II. Wittgenstein’s insight that meaning is rule-governed and communal remains invaluable; nevertheless, theology’s “form of life” differs from empirical practice in that its rules are Spirit-given, not conventionally negotiated. Formal analysis of theological syntax does not abstract language from life but clarifies the divine order that sustains it across times and cultures. The lingua fidei is a living grammar, not a sociological dialect.
Ad III. Deconstruction rightly unmasks the instability of autonomous sign systems, yet theology never claimed autonomy for language. Its signs refer not because they are self-grounding but because they are Spirit-grounded. Theological syntax confesses the presence of the Logos who anchors signification within grace. The Spirit’s rule of speech secures openness to mystery without collapsing into chaos.
Ad IV. The liberal tradition’s appeal to inner experience perceives an essential dimension of faith, but experience without grammar quickly dissolves into solipsism. The Spirit who kindles faith also orders confession. Syntax renders faith communicable; it enables the Church to speak one faith with many tongues. Grammar, in theology, is the sacramental form of life’s interior truth.
Ad V. Empiricism confuses the scope of verification with the scope of meaning. Theological sentences are not empirical hypotheses but covenantal assertions within a distinct order of reference. Their syntax marks that order. The absence of empirical reducibility does not entail meaninglessness; it reveals participation in a different ontology—one defined by God’s speech, not by sensory data.
Nota
The study of theology as syntactical is not an idle formalism. At the Institute of Lutheran Theology and beyond, this concern for grammar defines how the Church, the academy, and public reason preserve the intelligibility of faith. Where Christian discourse forgets its grammar—whether in preaching, scholarship, or popular devotion—confession decays into sentiment and doctrine into opinion.
The renewal of theological language therefore depends upon communities capable of grammatical fidelity:
schools that teach precision in the use of sacred terms,
churches that guard the patterns of sound words handed down, and
scholars who render the faith publicly intelligible without diluting its form.
Every age must recover its grammar of belief, lest the gospel be spoken in tongues no longer understood.
Determinatio
From the foregoing it is determined that:
Like all object languages, theological discourse T is syntactical before it is semantical; its form precedes its reference.
The Spirit grants the Church a rule-governed language whose coherence must be secured prior to interpretation.
What we call FT, the felicity conditions of T, are the marks of Spirit-given coherence (consistency, entailment, and authorization).
Only when T is joined to an ontological model, to a structured account of what is real, do we obtain TC, its truth conditions. In symbolic shorthand, FT + Modeling = TC. This means that the Spirit’s authorization of speech, combined with its proper relation to being, yields theological truth.
This syntactical priority ensures both theology’s autonomy from empirical reduction and its dependence upon divine address.
To speak theologically, therefore, is to inhabit a grammar already constituted by God’s self-communication and to let that grammar shape every truthful word about God.
Transitus ad Disputationem II: De Theologia ut Systemate Modelorum
In the first disputation, theology was considered under its syntactical aspect, where the very structure of discourse was shown to form the inner configuration of truth. Yet if theology possesses this formal integrity within its own language, the question now arises: how does this form relate to the order of reality itself? It is not enough to discern the grammar of divine speech; one must also discern its reference.
For if theological utterance does not merely reverberate within the mind but reaches outward toward a reality constituted by God, then nlike every truth-bearing language, theology requires a system of models through which its expressions correspond to a divinely ordered state of affairs. Theological truth, therefore, lies not only in the coherence of language but in the consonance between the verbum Dei that speaks and the esse creatum that answers it.
Thus we proceed to Disputatio II: De Theologia ut Systemate Modelorum, in which it will be asked whether, and in what manner, the language of faith attains truth through correspondence to the reality established by God, and how this relation between divine language and created being grounds the metaphysical intelligibility of theology itself.
