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 LIV: De Hyperintensionalitate Divinae Operationis:

 

On the Hyperintensionality of Divine Action

Quaeritur

Utrum actus divini, quoad identitatem, formam, et rationem essendi, non possint explicari per extensionalem aequivalentiam, modalem necessitationem, vel possibilia mundorum, sed sint essentialiter hyperintensionales; et utrum veritas theologica requirat talem hyperintensionalitatem ut Deus cognoscatur secundum actum, non secundum eventum.

Whether the identity and form of divine acts can be explained by extensional equivalence, modal necessity, or possible-world semantics, or whether they are essentially hyperintensional; and whether theological truth requires such hyperintensionality so that God is known according to the act God performs, not merely according to an outcome.

Thesis

Divine acts are hyperintensional. By this we mean that the identity of a divine act cannot be captured by any framework in which acts are considered the same whenever they yield the same outcomes, share the same extension, or hold necessarily across all possible worlds. A divine act is not defined by its effects, nor by the set of circumstances under which it occurs, nor by its modal profile. Instead, a divine act is individuated by its formal identity within the Logos, by the specific constitutive act through which the Logos brings a res into being or presence, and by the Spirit’s concrete donation of that act to creatures.

Thus, extension does not capture divine identity,modal equivalence does not capture divine identity, and possible-world semantics is too coarse-grained to describe divine agency. A hyperintensional account alone preserves the theological conviction that God’s acts are personal, irreducible, and internally differentiated modes of the one divine life.

Locus Classicus

1. Exodus 3:14 — אֶהְיֶה אֲשֶׁר אֶהְיֶה

“I AM WHO I AM.”

This is not a definition, but an identity of act. Being itself is hyperintensional, for it names a unique form of divine acting, not a property instantiated across possible worlds.

2. John 5:19 — ἃ ἂν ἐκεῖνος ποιῇ, ταῦτα καὶ ὁ Υἱὸς ὁμοίως ποιεῖ

“Whatever the Father does, the Son does likewise.”

The divine act is not duplicated or numerically separable. Rather, its identity is internal to the Trinity, not extensionalized in effects.

3. Athanasius, Contra Arianos I.21

ὁμοούσιος οὐ κατὰ θέλησιν ἀλλὰ κατὰ φύσιν.
“Of one being not by will but by nature.”

The divine act is identical with divine being; it is an identity finer than any modal equivalence.

4. Gregory of Nyssa, Ad Ablabium

Οὐ τὰ γινόμενα, ἀλλ᾽ ὁ τρόπος τῆς ἐνεργείας τὴν διαφοράν ποιεῖ.
“It is not the outcomes, but the manner of operation that makes the distinction.”

This is a classical statement of hyperintensionality clearly stating that the manner by which something obtains profoundly matters.

5. Luther, WA 40/III, 343

Deus non est causa sicut causae creatae.
“God is not a cause as created causes are causes.”

Thus God cannot be modeled extensionally.

Explicatio

1. Why extensional identity is inadequate

Extensional identity holds when two expressions apply to precisely the same set of objects. If two predicates pick out exactly the same individuals, classical extensional logic treats them as equivalent. For example, if every creature that is forgiven is also elected, and every creature that is elected is also justified, then these predicates are extensionally equivalent: they have the same extension.

Formally, if for all x, x is forgiven ↔ x is elected and x is elected ↔ x is justified, then the predicates forgiven, elected, and justified are coextensive.

Similarly, in the Spirit’s work, if for all x, x speaks in the Spirit ↔ x has been given the Spirit, and x has been given the Spirit ↔ the Spirit dwells in x, then Spirit-speaking, Spirit-giving, and Spirit-indwelling are extensionally equivalent expressions.

But extensional equivalence tells us nothing about what distinguishes these divine actions in God Himself. Forgiving is not the same divine act as electing, nor is electing the same divine act as justifying. Likewise, the Spirit’s giving, indwelling, and speaking are not identical divine operations simply because they coincide in the believer. Extensional identity collapses formally distinct divine works into a single undifferentiated outcome and therefore cannot serve as the framework for a theology that seeks to speak truthfully of God’s own acting because it identifies divine acts only under the aspect of creaturely reception.

2. Why modal equivalence is insufficient

A second temptation is to appeal to modal identity. Accordingly, if two acts occur in every possible world in which God acts toward creatures, or if one cannot conceive God performing one without the other, then they are treated as identical.

Creation and preservation offer a clear example. Classical theology holds that God’s preserving of the creature is nothing other than the continued giving of being. Because no creature could exist for a moment apart from God’s sustaining act, creation and preservation are necessarily coextensive: wherever one occurs, the other is already taking place.

So too with incarnation and redemption. In the Christian confession, the Son becomes incarnate for our salvation, and His incarnate life is unintelligible apart from His redeeming work. One cannot separate them modally, for in every possible description of God’s salvific activity, incarnation and redemption occur together.

Yet modal inseparability does not entail formal identity. Creation and preservation differ in their reason, because one brings being into existence, while the other maintains that being in existence. Incarnation and redemption differ likewise, for one is the assumption of human nature, the other is the reconciling act performed in that nature. Modal equivalence cannot register these distinctions because it treats any necessarily co-occurring acts as identical, thereby losing the finer structure of God’s activity that theology must retain.

3. Why divine acts require hyperintensional individuation

If theology is to speak truthfully, it must be able to say why this particular divine act grounds this theological statement. In our broader account, a theological utterance is true because the Logos performs a determinate act—Λ ⊨* Tₜ. But determinate truth requires determinate action. If divine acts could not be distinguished except by their extensions or modal profiles, then the truthmaker for any theological statement would be some undifferentiated divine activity, and doctrinal distinctions would lose their ontological grounding.

By hyperintensional identity I mean that divine acts differ not by their outcomes or by their modal placement but by their internal form in the Logos—the determinate way God is acting here and not otherwise. This internal form cannot be captured by appeal to effects, extensions, or modal profiles; it belongs to the act as God performs it. Forgiving is formally distinct from electing because each expresses a different aspect of the divine life, even when the same creature receives both. The Spirit’s indwelling is formally distinct from the Spirit’s giving because each arises from a different manner of divine self-communication. Hyperintensionality preserves the integrity of these differences.

4. The Spirit’s donation is hyperintensional

The Spirit does not donate to creatures a general divine presence or a generic divine favor. Instead, the Spirit donates the specific act that God is performing toward the believer. In one moment, this may be forgiveness; in another, consolation; in another, empowerment. The specificity of the Spirit’s donation presupposes a finely articulated structure of divine action in God Himself. Without this specificity, divine presence would become conceptual rather than real, and theology would lose the concreteness of God’s address.

5. Felicity is indexed to particular divine acts

A theological assertion is felicitous only if it corresponds to the act God is performing here and now because that act is already determinate in God prior to its authorization in speech, already individuated in God with a hyperintensional precision. The Spirit authorizes not theological grammar in general but this particular word because this particular divine act is being given. Thus the intelligibility of theology depends on a hyperintensional account of divine acting.

Objectiones

Ob I: According to classical extensionalism if two divine acts produce the same effects, they are the same act. If this is so, there is o need for hyperintensional identity.

Ob II: Modal realism holds that if God necessarily performs A and B, then He performs A and B in all possible worlds, and thus A = B. Therefore, modal equivalence suffices in individuation.

Ob III: Thomism claims that since God is simple, all divine actions are identical and distinctions collapse.

Ob IV: Deflationism asserts that hyperintensionality describes linguistic distinction, not metaphysical difference.

Ob V: Postliberalism holds that since all distinctions arise from use within the community, divine action adds nothing.

Responsiones

Ad I: Effects underdetermine cause. Divine acts differ in their formal ratio, not merely in outcome (Gregory of Nyssa). Thus, extension collapses personal identity.

Ad II: Possible-world semantics assumes shared structure with creaturely action. But divine acts exist outside modal ontology; they ground modality rather than inhabit it. God is not a node in a modal structure but its creator.

Ad III: While implicity entails no composition in God, it does not follow that divine acts lack distinct formal identities. The Fathers held simplicity alongside real distinctions of operation.

Ad IV: Hyperintensionality is not linguistic fineness but metaphysical precision. Divine act identity is not a function of language but of participation in the Logos.

Ad V: While usage explains how we talk, it does not identify what God does. Without hyperintensional divine action, grammar loses its anchor in reality.

Nota

Hyperintensionality is the ontological form of God’s personal action. We have seen that constitutive causation (L) requires fine-grained identity; that real presence (LI) is specific, not generic; that donation (LII) concerns a particular res, and that felicity (LIII) authorizes a particular act of creaturely speech. If theological semantics were simply extensional or modal, the Trinity collapses into one role, the sacrament collapses into symbol, revelation collapses into a proposition, grace collapses into an effect, and Christology collapses into monism.

Regarding the Trinity, hyperintensionality preserves the distinction of the trinitarian persons, Christ’s unique acts, sacramental specificity, and the performative depth of divine truth. Simply put, hyperintensionality is not an analytic embellishment but a theological necessity. Without it, we could not preserve the conviction that God acts personally and decisively for the creature, nor could we maintain the integrity of the Gospel’s claim that God’s work is addressed to us in its fullness and specificity.

Determinatio

We have determined that:

1. Divine acts are intrinsically hyperintensional, distinct in their internal form even when extensionally identical.

2. Neither extensional equivalence nor modal necessity suffices to individuate divine action.

3. Hyperintensional identity flows from the Logos’ constitutive act (L) and is made present (LI), donated (LII), and authorized (LIII).

4. Theological truth (Λ ⊨* Tₜ) requires such hyperintensional grounding.

5. Therefore, theology must employ a hyperintensional semantics to speak truly of God.

Transitus ad Disputationem LV: De Intentione Divina et Identitate Actuum in Deo

Having established hyperintensionality in divine action, we proceed to the related question as to how divine intentions are related to divine acts, and how the Logos unifies them without collapsing distinctions. 

Thus, we turn to Disputatio LV: De Intentione Divina: Utrum Intentiones Dei Sint Actus et Quomodo Unitas in Logō Constituitur, where we shall inquire as to whether God’s intentions are identical with His acts, and how the Logos grounds their unity and distinction.

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 L: De Causatione Constitutiva: Utrum Actus Divinus Ipsum Verum Efficiat

 On Constitutive Causation: Whether the Divine Act Makes Truth Itself

Quaeritur

Utrum divina actio non solum efficiat res esse, sed etiam efficiat verum esse; et utrum veritas theologiae consistat formaliter in actu Logos constituente ipsum ordinem entis, ita ut “truth through the Logos” sit constitutiva veritas, non tantum correspondentia.

Whether the divine act not only brings things into being but also brings truths into being, and whether theological truth formally consists in the Logos’ constitutive act that establishes the very order of being—so that “truth through the Logos” is constitutive truth, not mere correspondence.

Thesis 

Divine action is constitutive of theological truth. The Logos does not merely correspond to an independently existing world, but He makes the world, and thereby makes the truth about the world. Thus, theological truth is not simply descriptive adequation but constitutive adequation: truth obtains because the Logos acts. The Holy Spirit effects the union between statement and reality, such that the felicity of theological language and the ontological grounding of its truth coincide.

Therefore, Truth = Divine Constitutive Act + Spirit-Authorized Assertion. Metaphysically, God makes truth by making being, and the Spirit binds word to being. In short: in theology, truth is not first something we discover about reality, but something God constitutes by acting.

Locus Classicus

1. John 1:3 — πάντα δι’ αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο

πάντα δι’ αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο, καὶ χωρὶς αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο οὐδὲ ἕν.
“All things came to be through Him, and without Him not one thing came to be.”

Creation is not merely production of being but production of the order of being. Thus the Logos is not a truth-teller but a truth-maker: all truths about creatures depend on the act that constitutes them.

2. Hebrews 1:3 — φέρων τὰ πάντα τῷ ῥήματι τῆς δυνάμεως

“He upholds all things by the word of His power.”

The ongoing reality and truth of all things is constituted by the Logos’ sustaining act. Verum is continually performed by the divine act.

3. Augustine, De Trinitate XV.2

Veritas est ipse Deus in quo nihil mutabile, nihil mendax.
“Truth is God Himself, in whom there is nothing changeable or false.”

Truth is identical with God’s actus essendi. Thus, creaturely truths are true by participation in divine truth.

4. Athanasius, Contra Gentes 41

ὁ Λόγος τὸ εἶναι τοῖς οὖσι δίδωσιν.
“The Word gives being to the things that are.”

To give being is to give truth conditions. The Logos constitutes essence and therefore constitutes truth.

5. Martin Luther, WA 40/III, 342

Deus dicendo facit.
“God, by speaking, makes.”

Luther’s ontology of the Word grounds a strong truthmaker principle and thus divine speech is not annotation but creation.

Explicatio

While in XLVIII we distinguished internal and external truth, in XLIX we argued that external truth requires truthmakers, which are hyperintensional divine acts. Now we articulate the deeper principle: The truthmaker for any theological proposition is the Logos’ constitutive causation.

1. Constitutive vs. Efficient Causation

While classical efficient causation claims that A causes B, theological constitutive causation declares that A is the very ground of B’s existence, identity, order, and truth. Efficient causation explains why a candle lights the room; constitutive causation explains why there is such a thing as light, order, and intelligibility at all. Theology claims God does the latter.

Since the Logos constitutes 1) the being of things, 2) the structure of their relations, 3) the intelligibility through which truths are possible, and 4) the order that statements answer to, divine causation is thus truth-making, not merely world-making.

2. Why Theology Requires Constitutive Causation

1. Theology’s claims depend on the identity of God’s actions, not merely on worldly states of affairs.

2. Only constitutive causation can explain why distinct divine acts yield distinct truths.

3. The Spirit’s role in felicity (XLVIII) requires grounding in ontological acts, not merely representation.

4. The incarnation shows that God’s act is the truthmaker of salvation (John 1:14).

3. Constitutive Truth vs. Correspondence

Correspondence is derivative while constitutive causation is primary. This entails both that statement S is true because God has acted such that the world corresponds to S, and that the “correspondence” is a manifestation of constitutive causation, not its origin. Hence theology’s fundamental truth relation is:

Λ ⊨* T

The Logos constitutively satisfies T.

Objectiones

Ob I: According to Thomistic epistemical realism -- "Truth is adequation alone” - truth resides in the intellect, and adequation requires only that statements match being, not that being be caused by God for that purpose.

Ob II:  Classical Analytic Metaphysics claims that truths supervene on the distribution of properties across the world. Thus, no hyperintensional divine acts are needed.

Ob III: Neo-Barthian theology declares that God reveals truth in Christ but does not ontologically ground all truths through constitutive act.

Ob IV: Process theology argues that divine causation is only persuasive and thus not constitutive.  Accordingly, truths arise cooperatively through divine-creaturely synergy.

Ob V: Postliberal Linguistic Theology tells us that theological truth is intra-textual, and thus it concerns the shape of Christian discourse, not metaphysical grounding.

Responsiones

Ad I:  Adequation requires a ground of being. Since God constitutes being, He constitutes the order in which adequation is possible. Thus constitutive causation underwrites, not replaces, adequation.

Ad II: Supervenience explains dependence but not grounding. Truth requires a because—a reason for being thus. Divine constitutive act supplies this grounding, not merely the extensional pattern.

Ad III: Revelation is not separable from ontology because to reveal the Father, the Son must be eternally begotten, and thus He must be the primal constitutive act. Revelation presupposes ontology, not vice versa.

Ad IV: Persuasion cannot alone constitute truth. Theology requires more. Indeed, the object of faith must be ontologically able to make truths true. Constitutive causation is required for realism.

Ad V: Grammar governs internal truth (felicity), but external truth requires a real God who grounds the being spoken of. Without constitutive causation, theology collapses into performance without ontology.

Nota

Constitutive causation solves the problem raised in XLVIII–XLIX. Accordingly, internal truth as Spirit-authorized assertion and External truth as Logos-constituted reality coincide because the Spirit unites the word to the act by which the Logos grounds truth.

Thus theological truth is neither sheer correspondence, sheer grammar, nor sheer experience, but it is rather participation in the constitutive act of the Logos.

Determinatio

We determine:

1. Truth in theology is grounded in the Logos’ constitutive act, which gives being, order, and intelligibility.

2. Constitutive causation is hyperintensional, because divine acts differ in internal form, not merely in effect.

3. Correspondence is a derivative effect of constitutive causation, not its replacement.

4. The Spirit is the mediating principle, uniting linguistic felicity with ontological grounding.

5. Christ is the paradigm of constitutive truth, for in Him the truthmaker and truth coincide.

Thus: Theology speaks truly because God makes truth, and God makes truth because He is the One who makes being.

Transitus ad Disputationem LI

Having established that the Logos constitutes truth through constitutive causation, we now proceed to the next question: How does the constitutive act of the Logos relate to the real presence of the Word in revelation, sacrament, and ecclesial proclamation? For if truth is constituted by divine act, then the presence of the Logos is the mode by which truth becomes accessible to creatures.

Thus we move to: Disputatio LI: De Verbo Realiter Praesente: Utrum Praesentia Logi Sit Conditio Omnis Veritatis Revelatae where we shall examine how constitutive causation becomes manifest presence, binding ontology to revelation.

Disputatio XLIX De Veritate Facienda: De Truthmakeribus et Hyperintensionalitate Theologica

 On the Making of Truth: Truthmakers and Theological Hyperintensionality

Quaeritur

Utrum veritas theologiae requirat veritatem facientia (truthmakers) quae non tantum determinent extensionem enuntiationum sed ipsam rationem, modum, et causam secundum quam enuntiationes theologicae verae sunt; et utrum haec veritatem facientia sint hyperintensionalia, id est, finioris resolutionis quam illa quae per modum possibilitatis vel extensionis explicari possunt.

Whether the truth of theology requires truthmakers that determine not only the extension of theological claims but the very reason, manner, and cause by which such claims are true; and whether these truthmakers must be hyperintensional, that is, finer-grained than any account reducible to modal or extensional equivalence.

Thesis

In theological discourse, two claims may share an extension yet differ in truth because Spiritus Sanctus determines felicity and actus Dei determines truth. Thus truthmakers in theology must be more fine-grained than possible-world semantics or classical extensional identities.

Locus Classicus

1. “Ὁ λόγος σὰρξ ἐγένετο” — John 1:14

Ὁ λόγος σὰρξ ἐγένετο καὶ ἐσκήνωσεν ἐν ἡμῖν.
“The Word became flesh and dwelt among us.”

This is a paradigmatic case of truthmaking: the claim “God is with us” is true because God has acted, not because of a description of the world’s extension. No possible world analysis captures the ontological fact that God has joined Himself to flesh. The truthmaker is the very event of incarnation, not a set of worldly facts.

2. Fiat lux. Et facta est lux. — Genesis 1:3

וַיֹּאמֶר אֱלֹהִים יְהִי אוֹר וַיְהִי־אוֹר‎
“God said ‘Let there be light,’ and there was light.”

Here divine speaking is truthmaking: verbum is res. The statement “light exists” is true because of a specific divine act. Not all causes producing the same extension could be the truthmaker of this theological claim.

3. Thomas Aquinas, De Veritate 1.1

Veritas est adaequatio rei et intellectus.

But in theology, the adequation is not passive comparison; it is acheived through divine causation: adaequatio fit per actum Dei constituens ipsum esse rei.

4. Cyril of Alexandria, In Joannis 1.9

Ὁ λόγος ἀληθεύει τὰ ῥητὰ ποιῶν.
“The Word makes true what is spoken.”

A direct witness to theological truthmaking.

Explicatio

While XLVIII distinguished internal truth (felicity of faith’s language) and external truth (adequation to divine reality), XLIX specifies the metaphysical principle by which external truth occurs, that is, that truth is made true by divine acts.

Why Theological Truth Requires Truthmakers

In theology:

1. A proposition’s extension does not fix its truth.

   • “God forgives” and “God elects” may apply to the same set of saved persons yet differ profoundly in reality.

2. The causal grounding matters:

   • Forgiveness is a specific act of mercy, not merely an outcome.

3. The mode of divine presence matters:

   • Christ’s Eucharistic presence is not interchangeable with omnipresence, though extensionally both may involve presence.

4. The source of felicity matters:

   • Statements authorized by the Spirit differ even if extensionally identical with statements not authorized.

This yields a hyperintensional truth-structure.

Hyperintensionality Explained

A context is hyperintensional when:

• substitution of co-referential terms changes truth,

• substitution of necessarily equivalent propositions changes truth,

• grounding, not just extension, determines truth.

Theology is hyperintensional because:

1. Divine acts differ in their inner form, not only in outcome.

2. Participation is specific and non-interchangeable 

3. Felicity (Spirit-authorization) cannot be replaced by mere semantic equivalence.

4. Truth is identical with being only in God, not creatures.

5. Revelation determines the mode of truth, not merely the result.

Thus theology inevitably operates at a finer semantic grain than any modal logic.

For example, “Christ is present” is not made true in the same way by omnipresence and by Eucharistic presence, even if no difference in extension can be specified.

Objectiones

Ob I. Truthmaking violates divine simplicity by treating divine acts as distinct truthmakers.

Ob II. Hyperintensionality undermines classical semantics and threatens coherence. Truth should depend only on the world, not on modes of presentation.

Ob III. Scripture itself often speaks extensionally: “Your faith has saved you.” Why therefore introduce metaphysical machinery alien to the biblical text?

Ob IV. If truth requires divine acts as truthmakers, we risk collapsing into occasionalism or voluntarism.

Ob V. Truthmaking presumes metaphysical realism incompatible with postliberal grammar models of theology.

Responsiones

Ad I. Divine simplicity is not violated, for the truthmaker is God as acting, not “a part” of God. The distinction is one of formal expression, not ontological composition.

Ad II. Hyperintensionality does not threaten coherence, but rather it protects the specificity of divine revelation. Theology cannot collapse distinct divine acts into one extension without losing referential integrity.

Ad III. Scripture’s economy of language does not negate metaphysics. The biblical claim is hyperintensional in that faith saves because it unites one to Christ, not because of abstract extension.

Ad IV. Truthmaking is not voluntarism, for it locates necessity in God’s being, not in arbitrary divine willing, and therefore preserves secondary causality at the creaturely level. Accordingly, while voluntarism posits an arbitrary divine decree,  truthmaking anchors truth in God’s eternal act.

Ad V. Grammar models (Lindbeck) explain internal felicity but not external reality. Truthmakers bridge that gap without collapsing theology into metaphysics or vice versa.

Nota

Truth in theology cannot be reduced to any of these:

• correspondence

• coherence

• pragmatic usefulness

• communal grammar

• modal possibility

This is the case because none of these capture the specificity of divine causation. Thus, Truth = Felicity + Divine Fact-making. The Spirit authorizes what the Father and Son accomplish. This, however, requires a semantics richer than extension or modality; it requires a hyperintensional semantics grounded in ontological participation.

Determinatio

We determine that:

1. Theological propositions require truthmakers in the form of divine acts, not merely worldly facts.

2. Truthmakers in theology are hyperintensional, because divine actions differ not only in effect but in internal form.

3. The Spirit mediates truth, ensuring that felicity (internal truth) and divine causation (external truth) coincide.

4. Theology requires a semantics beyond the modal, for God cannot be captured extensionally.

5. Christ Himself is the supreme truthmaker, for in Him every divine act is both form and fulfillment.

Transitus ad Disputationem L: De Causatione Constitutiva

Having shown that divine acts are truthmakers and that theology is hyperintensional, we now ask how such truthmaking occurs in actu, such that a theological statement becomes true through God.

Thus we proceed to Disputatio L: De Causatione Constitutiva: Utrum Divina Actio Ipsum Verum Efficiat where we inquire as to whether the Logos not only makes truths true but constitutes the very ontology in which theological truth obtains.