Disputatio IV: De Veritate Theologiae Duplex

On the Twofold Truth of Theology

Quaeritur

Utrum veritas theologiae duplicem habeat formam: internam, quae consistit in felicitate Spiritu data intra linguam fidei T, et externam, quae consistit in adaequatione huius linguae ad esse divinitus constitutum; et utrum hae duae veritates, distinctae sed ordinatae, in Christo, qui est simul Verbum et Res, suam unitatem reperiant.

Whether the truth of theology possesses a twofold form: an internal truth, consisting in Spirit-given felicity within the language of faith T, and an external truth, consisting in the adequation of that language to the reality constituted by God; and whether these two forms of truth, distinct yet ordered, find their unity in Christ, who is both Word and Reality.

Thesis

Theology bears a double truth—internal, arising from the Spirit-authorized felicity of its language, and external, arising from the correspondence of that language to divine reality—yet these two modes of truth converge without confusion in Christ, the unity of Word and being.

Locus classicus

1. John 14:6

Ἐγώ εἰμι ἡ ὁδὸς καὶ ἡ ἀλήθεια καὶ ἡ ζωή.

"I am the way, and the truth, and the life."

Christ does not possess truth but is truth; in Him the form of saying and the form of being coincide.

2. 1 Corinthians 11:23

Ἐγὼ γὰρ ἐλάβον παρὰ Κυρίου ὃ καὶ παρέδωκα ὑμῖν.

"For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you."

The pattern of theological speech is reception and handing-on; its internal form mirrors divine giving.

3. Clement of Alexandria, Stromata V.14

Λόγος ἐστιν ἐνδιάθετος καὶ προφορικός.

"The Word exists inwardly and outwardly."

The distinction between conceived and uttered word anticipates theology’s twofold truth.

4. Augustine, De Trinitate XV.11

Forma sermonis, sicut et forma rerum, a Verbo Dei derivatur.

"The form of speech, like the form of things, derives from the Word of God."

Truth in language and truth in being share a single archetype.

5. Thomas Aquinas, Super Ioannem 1.1

Per Verbum Dei fit omnis creatura.

"By the Word of God every creature comes to be."

The Word who orders speech also orders being; the twofold truth flows from one act.

Explicatio

The previous disputations distinguished theology as a language T, authorized by the Spirit (veritas interna), and interpreted within models that relate its expressions to being (veritas externa). Yet theology’s full truth requires seeing how these two dimensions mutually inform one another.

Internal truth is the truth of felicity: speech consonant with Scripture, confession, and Spirit-guided practice. Symbolically this is FT, the felicity conditions of T. These guarantee that theology speaks rightly, though not yet that what it says obtains.

External truth arises when these authorized expressions are interpreted within being M, producing TC, the truth conditions through which God’s Word is fulfilled in reality.

Neither dimension alone suffices. Internal truth without external fulfillment is coherence without ontology; external truth without internal authorization is speculation without confession. Theology is true when FT and TC converge—when the Spirit who authorizes speech also mediates its correspondence to divine reality.

This duplex truth is not two truths but one truth in two modes, unified in Christ, the Logos who is both Order of speech and Fulfillment of being.

Objectiones

Ob I. Aquinas defines truth as adaequatio intellectus et rei; theology must therefore have a single truth grounded in God, not a duplex truth divided into internal and external.

Ob II. Nominalism holds that theological truth is the expression of divine will in language; there is no ontological adequation beyond God’s decree. A second truth adds unnecessary metaphysics.

Ob III. Kant restricts truth to the conditions of possible experience. Theology may speak morally but cannot claim objective correspondence to divine being; the distinction between internal and external truth confuses the bounds of cognition.

Ob IV. Lindbeck and cultural-linguistic theology insist that truth is intralinguistic coherence within a community’s grammar; any appeal to ontological truth reintroduces representationalism.

Ob V. Constructivist views claim that truth is a linguistic production. To posit a duplex truth merely multiplies fictions and masks theology’s constructed nature.

Responsiones

Ad I. Aquinas’s realism is upheld, not denied. Internal truth concerns the ordered form of theological knowing; external truth concerns its ordered relation to being. The Spirit unites these: He renders theology’s intellect true in form and true in conformity.

Ad II. Nominalism preserves divine freedom but dissolves divine intelligibility. The duplex truth expresses two modes of one divine will: will communicated in speech and will enacted in being. The Spirit bridges both without compromising God’s sovereignty.

Ad III. Kant’s limits pertain to speculative cognition, yet revelation exceeds speculation by divine initiative. The duplex truth preserves the integrity of human cognition (internal) while affirming the Spirit’s capacity to join language to reality (external) without collapsing phenomena and noumena.

Ad IV. Post-liberal grammar is necessary but insufficient. Theology is indeed a rule-governed language, but a sacramental one: its grammar mediates what it signifies. The duplex truth formalizes this sacramentality.

Ad V. Constructivism rightly notes the historicity of speech but errs in denying the priority of divine speech. The duplex truth affirms that theology is indeed constructed (internal) but constructed in participation with a reality not of its own making (external).

Nota

The twofold truth may be pictured as a circuit rather than a division.

• Internal truth (FT): the Spirit orders language so that it may be spoken in faith.

• External truth (TC): the Spirit orders reality so that what is spoken in faith corresponds to what God has done.

Theological statements are therefore true twice: in the Spirit’s ordering of speech, and in the Spirit’s ordering of being. Christ unites both by being simultaneously Verbum and Res: the eternal Word and the fulfillment of what the Word says.

Determinatio

1. Theology has an internal truth grounded in Spirit-given felicity.

2. Theology has an external truth grounded in correspondence to divine reality.

3. These two truths are ordered modes of one truth, not two competing truths.

4. Christ, the Logos, is the unity of verbum and res.

5. The Spirit mediates the conjunction of internal and external truth, ensuring both form and fulfillment.

Transitus ad Disputationem V: De Relatione inter Veritatem et Felicitatem Theologicam

Having established the duplex nature of theological truth, we now face the deeper question of their relation. For if internal truth arises in the Spirit’s felicity and external truth in the adequation of language to divine reality, then truth and blessedness cannot be separated. The same Spirit who renders speech felicitous also grants joy in truth, and the believer’s delight becomes the living confirmation of what theology teaches.

Yet dangers remain. A theology concerned only with external correspondence risks aridity; one concerned only with internal felicity risks collapsing truth into experience. Only where veracity and beatitude meet does theology attain its proper fullness: a truth that is confessed, enacted, and enjoyed.

Thus we proceed to Disputatio V: De Relatione inter Veritatem et Felicitatem Theologicam, wherein we inquire how truth and felicity stand as form and act, how blessedness perfects truth, and how the Spirit unites the clarity of doctrine with the joy of divine participation.

Disputatio III: De Spiritu Sancto et Finitudine Felicitatis

On the Holy Spirit and the Boundary of Felicity

Quaeritur

Utrum Spiritus Sanctus sit ille divinus actus qui verbum et esse in vita credentis coniungit, ita ut veritas theologica, quae in Disputatione II ut correspondentia constituta est, perficiatur per participationem et communionem, et sic ipsa finita intelligentia fiat locus felicitatis divinae.

Whether the Holy Spirit is that divine act which unites word and being within the life of the believer, such that theological truth, constituted in Disputation II as correspondence, is brought to completion through participation and communion, and finite understanding thereby becomes the site of divine blessedness.

Thesis

The Holy Spirit is both the formal and causal condition of theological felicity. He is the divine source by which expressions are included or excluded from the language of faith T. The Spirit’s presence sets both the possibility and the limit of theological discourse. He authorizes what may be spoken rightly and, by the same act, defines what cannot.

Locus classicus

1. Psalm 115(116):11 LXX

Ὁ Θεὸς ἀληθής ἐστιν· πᾶν δὲ ἄνθρωπος ψεύστης.
"God is true, but every human being a liar."

Truth is predicated first of God Himself. Human speech attains truth only by participation in the divine reality.

2. John 14:6

Ἐγώ εἰμι ἡ ὁδὸς καὶ ἡ ἀλήθεια καὶ ἡ ζωή.
"I am the way, and the truth, and the life."

Truth is not a property Christ possesses but His very identity. In Him the correspondence of mind and reality becomes personal and incarnate.

3. Gregory of Nyssa, Contra Eunomium II

Ἀλήθεια Θεοῦ ἐστιν ἡ ἐνέργεια τῆς σοφίας αὐτοῦ.
"The truth of God is the energy of His wisdom."

Truth is the active self-manifestation of divine being, not static equivalence.

Across these witnesses, truth appears as theophany. What philosophy calls correspondence, theology understands as participation: finite knowing becomes true by being drawn into the life of the Logos.

Explicatio

The first disputation established theology as a coherent language T. The second argued that this language becomes truth-bearing only when interpreted within models that relate it to the order of being God has constituted. Yet grammar and reference do not suffice. A further condition is required, for theological speech must be not only coherent and correspondent but authorized.

Authorization is not merely ecclesial or rational. It is pneumatic. The Spirit is the living rule of theological speech, determining which expressions belong within T and which fall outside it. To speak felicitously is to speak in the Spirit, under His ordering and enlivening act. These felicity conditions, denoted FT, include logical coherence, scriptural consonance, and communal reception, yet their ultimate source is the Spirit who bestows life upon doctrine.

The Spirit thus functions as the boundary condition of theology. He grants form and sets limit. He makes theology possible and protects it from presumption. The finitude of felicity does not signify defect but the determinate mode in which the infinite communicates Himself to the finite. No utterance exhausts divine truth, yet the Spirit renders human speech capable of bearing truth without containing it.

Objectiones

Ob I. Barth holds that divine revelation is an undivided act of God. To speak of a finite felicity of the Spirit’s operation introduces limitation into the divine act and makes revelation dependent on creaturely measure.

Ob II. Kant argues that any claim of union with the divine exceeds the bounds of possible knowledge. Felicity, if it refers to participation in divine truth, cannot be known or described; it is at most a moral postulate.

Ob III. Wittgenstein maintains that felicity is simply the successful performance of language within a form of life. To appeal to the Spirit adds nothing beyond communal practice. Finitude and infinitude are grammatical, not metaphysical.

Ob IV. Hegel identifies Spirit (Geist) with infinite self-realization. If Spirit is infinite, He must overcome finitude rather than inhabit it. To speak of finitude of felicity arrests the dialectic and misunderstands Spirit’s nature.

Responsiones

Ad I. Revelation is indeed infinite in source, yet its reception occurs in creaturely form. The Spirit’s act is infinite in essence but finite in mode, for divine generosity adapts truth to the measure of the creature. Finitude here is not imposed upon God but granted by Him for our sake; it is the medium of grace.

Ad II. Kant’s limits pertain to speculative cognition. Theology seeks not theoretical knowledge but participation in divine communication. Felicity is an event of the Spirit, not a cognitive achievement. The limits of reason remain, yet within those limits the Spirit communicates divine truth in a manner proportionate to the creature.

Ad III. Wittgenstein discerns rightly the communal dimension of felicity but overlooks its ontological ground. The Church’s grammar is not self-originating. It is constituted by the Spirit, whose authorization exceeds communal convention. A sentence is felicitous because the Spirit speaks through it, not because a community employs it.

Ad IV. The Holy Spirit is not Geist realized through historical self-consciousness. He is the eternal Love who indwells the finite without dissolving it. The Spirit does not abolish finitude but sanctifies it. The finitude of felicity is not a failure of dialectic but the perfection proper to creaturely participation.

Nota

Let T_in designate expressions included within the Spirit-ordered language of faith, and T_out those excluded. This symbolic division formalizes the discernment practiced throughout the Church’s history. T_in consists of expressions rendered felicitous through the Spirit’s ordering—coherent, scriptural, ecclesially received. T_out consists of expressions incoherent, contrary to revelation, or unfit for confession.

The Spirit is both grammar and breath: grammar, because He orders theological speech; breath, because He animates it. In His presence, theology becomes a living language. The finitude of felicity confesses that even Spirit-filled speech does not exhaust divine truth. The Spirit authorizes speech and guards it from overreach, ensuring that theology speaks truthfully yet humbly.

Determinatio

1. The Holy Spirit is the divine ground of theological felicity.

2. The Spirit authorizes expressions within T through both internal (coherence, entailment) and external (Scripture, confession, ecclesial life) criteria.

3. The boundary of felicity is grace, not limitation: the finite form in which divine truth becomes communicable.

4. Theology’s felicity is finite because its subject is infinite; yet within finitude, truth becomes living and participatory.

5. The Spirit renders theology a living language, finite in utterance, limitless in source.

Transitus ad Disputationem IV: De Veritate Theologiae Duplex

Disputatio III has shown that theological truth becomes complete only in the event of the Spirit, who unites word and being within the believer. The truth described by models must become truth lived, and the correspondence between language and reality must be transformed into communion. In the Spirit, truth ceases to be static adequation and becomes the participation of the finite in the infinite.

Yet such a pneumatic conception of truth raises a further question concerning its nature and distinction. For theology must speak not only of truth internalized in the believer but also of the outward truth of doctrine, publicly confessed and taught. The Spirit internalizes what the Word declares, yet the Church must articulate both the inward veracity of grace and the outward content of confession.

Thus theology must learn to speak of truth doubly without dividing it: as lived truth and as spoken truth, as inward participation and outward articulation. In the convergence of these two modes lies the unity of theological truth in the Logos, who is both reality and form.

We therefore proceed to Disputatio IV: De Veritate Theologiae Duplex.

Disputatio II: De Theologia ut Systemate Modelorum

On Theology as a System of Models

Quaeritur

Utrum theologia, ut veritatem habeat, interpretanda sit intra systema modelorum, quibus expressiones syntacticae linguae fidei referuntur ad statum rerum a Deo constitutum; ita ut veritas theologica non sit mera congruentia signorum, sed consonantia inter linguam divinitus datam et esse divinitus productum.

Whether theology, in order to bear truth, must be interpreted within a system of models through which the syntactical expressions of faith’s language are related to states of affairs constituted by God; such that theological truth is not mere congruence of signs but the harmony between divinely given language and divinely created being.

Thesis

Theology, once established as a coherent formal language T, becomes truth-bearing only when its expressions are interpreted within models—structured accounts of reality that specify what exists and how what exists stands in relation to God. Modeling joins theology’s syntactical order to ontological reference and shows how speech about God corresponds to being as given by God.

Locus classicus

1. Scriptura Sacra — Psalm 32(33):6 (LXX)

Ἐν λόγῳ Κυρίου οἱ οὐρανοὶ ἐστερεώθησαν,

καὶ τῷ πνεύματι τοῦ στόματος αὐτοῦ πᾶσα ἡ δύναμις αὐτῶν.

"By the Word of the Lord the heavens were made, and by the breath of his mouth all their host."

Here divine speech and divine constitution coincide. Creation is the world shaped by a speaking God.

2. Scriptura Sacra — John 1:1–3 (NA28)

Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ Λόγος… πάντα δι’ αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο, καὶ χωρὶς αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο οὐδὲ ἕν.

"In the beginning was the Word… all things came to be through Him, and without Him not one thing came to be."

The Logos is not only divine speech but the personal ground of all existence.

3. Athanasius — Contra Gentes 40.2

Ἐκ τοῦ Λόγου καὶ τῆς Σοφίας ἡ σύστασις τῶν ὄντων ἐγένετο·

ὁ γὰρ Λόγος τοῦ Θεοῦ ἐποίησεν τὰ πάντα.

"From the Word and Wisdom came the constitution of beings; for it was the Word of God who made all things."

Athanasius insists that creation bears the rational imprint of the eternal Logos.

4. Augustine — De Trinitate VI.10.12

In Verbo Dei sunt rationes omnium creaturarum.

"In the Word of God are the reasons of all creatures."

Creation’s intelligibility derives from the inner intelligibility of the divine Word.

5. Thomas Aquinas — Summa contra Gentiles II.24

Quod in Deo est ratio omnium, hoc in rebus est veritas omnium.

"What in God is the reason of all things, that in creatures is the truth of all things."

Aquinas expresses the same principle: the world’s truth is participation in God’s inner reason.

These witnesses affirm a single truth: Verbum et esse unum sunt in Deo.

The Word and being coincide in God, and theology models truth only by retracing this coincidence.

Explicatio

If Disputatio I showed that theology must first be grammatically coherent, Disputatio II shows that coherence alone does not yield truth. A language of faith, no matter how precisely ordered, remains incomplete until it is interpreted within an ontological environment. Syntax without reference is empty form.

In logic, a model assigns meanings to expressions so that sentences may be said to be true or false. In theology, a model is not merely a semantic device but a structured description of the world as it stands before God. Let T denote the language of faith and M the model that depicts the divine order of creation, redemption, and consummation. To interpret T in M is to connect theological expressions to the realities that God has constituted.

For example, the confession “Christ is risen” is modeled not by symbolic reformulation but by the ontological affirmation that the crucified Jesus truly lives, an event located within God’s causally ordered world. Modeling theology is therefore not speculation added to confession but the faithful translation of divine acts into the grammar of being. It enables theology to say not only what is believed but what is.

Objectiones

Ob I. Kant limits theoretical knowledge to phenomena shaped by human categories. To model theology in relation to divine reality exceeds possible knowledge and reinstates pre-critical metaphysics.

Ob II. Heidegger argues that ontological structures conceal Being and reduce God to a highest being. To model God within being risks onto-theology and suppresses divine mystery.

Ob III. Logical empiricism insists that only empirically verifiable claims or tautologies have meaning. Theological models are unverifiable and thus cognitively meaningless.

Ob IV. Post-liberal theology maintains that religious meaning arises solely from communal grammar. Modeling introduces an external reference foreign to theology’s intratextual logic.

Ob V. Process thinkers hold that divine–world relations are dynamic and evolving. Static models distort the relational becoming of God and world.

Responsiones

Ad I. Kant’s boundary concerns epistemic access, not ontological structure. Revelation transcends these limits by grounding knowledge in divine communication. Modeling does not violate the Critique but extends it analogically: it interprets faith’s language within the world constituted by God’s Word. The Spirit mediates where pure reason cannot.

Ad II. Heidegger rightly warns against reducing God to a being among beings. Yet Christian confession does not speak of a highest entity but of the Word through whom all being is constituted. Modeling does not capture God within being but depicts being as participation in God’s creative utterance.

Ad III. Verificationism collapses under its own criterion, which is itself unverifiable. Theological models are verifiable within theology’s own domain, where truth is pneumatic rather than empirical. Their adequacy is tested by coherence with revelation and by the Spirit’s witness in the Church.

Ad IV. Post-liberal grammar rightly highlights communal practice but risks enclosure. Scripture and creed speak not only about communal life but about divine reality. Modeling makes explicit the ontological reference implicit in Christian confession.

Ad V. Process thought recognizes genuine relationality but mistakes relation for mutability. Theological models can articulate relation without surrendering divine immutability. They describe the world’s participation in God’s eternal act, not God’s evolution.

Nota

Modeling is the bridge between theology’s formal order and its truth. If FT denotes theology’s felicity conditions, then modeling furnishes its truth conditions, TC. The formula is simple:

FT + Modeling = TC.

The Spirit who authorizes theological language also mediates its rightful interpretation within reality. Modeling is not an imposition upon faith but a clarification of faith’s inherent realism. It permits theology to speak with intellectual rigor while preserving its confessional depth.

A theological model is not a cage for divine mystery but the intelligible space where divine truth becomes shareable. Through models the Church’s speech becomes not only meaningful but true.

Determinatio

1. Theological language T is incomplete until it is interpreted within models that reflect divine reality.

2. Modeling joins the syntax of faith to the ontology of creation, grounding reference in God’s act of speaking.

3. The Holy Spirit mediates both the felicity of T and the adequacy of its interpretation.

4. The plurality of models reflects the richness of divine truth refracted through creation.

5. Theology’s coherence and its truth converge where divine language meets divinely ordered being.

Thus theology becomes truth-bearing only where the Word that speaks is joined to the world that answers.

Transitus ad Disputationem III: De Spiritu Sancto et Finitudine Felicitatis

The second disputation has shown that theological truth emerges where the grammar of faith meets the structure of reality. Yet correspondence, though necessary, is not sufficient for the fullness of truth. For truth in theology is never merely structural. It is participatory. It depends not only on language and ontology but on the divine act that unites them in the life of the creature.

Theological models describe how the Word’s intelligibility is refracted into the order of creation, but they cannot themselves actualize the unity they depict. The bond between sign and reality must be effected by the Spirit, who brings coherence to completion through a living union. Without the Spirit, theological truth remains static; with the Spirit, it becomes event, communion, and joy.

Thus arises the next inquiry: how does the Holy Spirit mediate the correspondence between divine Word and created understanding? How does the Spirit transform finite cognition into participation in divine truth? These questions lead us to Disputatio III: De Spiritu Sancto et Finitudine Felicitatis.

Prooemium ad Partem I: De Intelligibilitate et Participatione; Disputatio I: De Expressionibus Theologicis ut Syntacticis

Prooemium ad Disputationes Theologicas

Why the Scholastic Form Is Employed

The scholastic disputation is retrieved here not from nostalgia but from theological necessity. Its form—thesis, locus classicus, explicatio, objectiones, responsiones, nota, determinatio—exposes the ordered movement by which theology advances from confession to understanding. The disputation never replaces revelation. It receives revelation in the only manner proper to finite reason: through articulated structure. The form refuses both the spontaneity that mistakes immediacy for truth and the skepticism that dissolves language into indeterminacy.

The grammar of the disputation mirrors the polarity of revelation itself. Divine truth appears as verbum incarnatum, at once hidden and manifest, transcendent and given. The structure of assertion, challenge, and resolution reflects this pattern. Contradiction is not suppressed but taken up into higher clarity. The method resonates with the ontology presupposed throughout these disputations, namely that truth is participation in God’s own act of self-communication. Because divine truth gives form, theology must receive that form in an ordered manner.

The disputatio is therefore both rigorous and contemplative. It is rigorous because it holds every claim accountable to logic and coherence. It is contemplative because every resolution gestures beyond itself to the mystery that grounds understanding. Within a model-theoretic theology, where T denotes the language of faith and its ordered expressions, the disputation provides the visible structure of theology’s movement from syntactical integrity to semantic interpretation and finally to truth. Its parts guide the mind toward the intelligibility that revelation both grants and commands.

Praefatio ad Partem I: De Intelligibilitate et Participatione

Deus loquitur, et fit veritas

Theology begins with divine speech. When God speaks, the world becomes intelligible, and the human being is summoned into understanding. This first part investigates how the rational order of creatures participates in the light of the Word, and how the intelligibility of creation becomes the primordial witness to divine presence. This is not a matter of analogy between finite thought and divine ideas; it is the communication of light itself, the light that shines in the darkness and renders both knowledge and faith possible.

Accordingly, theology must first ask how mind and world are ordered to the divine utterance. Without this ontological participation, neither human discourse nor human truth can endure before God. Part I therefore lays the foundation for all that follows, showing that intelligibility itself is a gift of participation in the Word who speaks creation into being.

Concerning the Expressions of Theology as Syntactical

Quaeritur

Utrum theologia, secundum rationem syntacticam considerata, in ipsa structura locutionis veritatem suam formet, ita ut ordo sermonis sit forma interna veritatis quae posteriorem interpretationem fundat.

Whether theology, considered under its syntactical aspect, forms an inner structure of truth in its very mode of utterance, such that the order of discourse becomes the internal form upon which interpretation depends.

Thesis

Theological expressions, denoted T, the total language of faith as spoken, written, and confessed, must first be regarded as syntactical. They are governed by rules of formation and inference that secure coherence prior to questions of meaning or truth. Only when this linguistic system is interpreted within a model—related to what is real—do meaning and truth properly emerge.

Locus classicus

1. Scriptura Sacra — Hebrews 4:12 (NA28)
Ζῶν γὰρ ὁ λόγος τοῦ Θεοῦ καὶ ἐνεργὴς… κριτικὸς ἐνθυμήσεων καὶ ἐννοιῶν καρδίας.
For the word of God is living and active… discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart.

2. Scriptura Sacra — Isaiah 55:11 (MT)
כֵּן יִהְיֶה דְבָרִי בַּאֲשֶׁר יֵצֵא מִפִּי… וְהִצְלִיחַ אֲשֶׁר שְׁלַחְתִּיו
So shall my Word be that goes forth from my mouth… it shall accomplish that which I purpose.

3. Augustinus — Confessiones XIII.12.13
Loquitur Verbum tuum nobis in libro tuo…
Thy Word speaks to us in Thy Book…

4. Luther — WA 39/I, 175.12–15
Das Wort Gottes ist nicht stumm, sondern lebendig und kräftig.
The Word of God is not mute, but living and mighty.

5. Thomas Aquinas — ST I, q. 34, a. 1 ad 3
Verbum importat ordinem ad id quod per ipsum manifestatur.
The Word implies an order toward that which is manifested through it.

Together these witnesses affirm that divine speech is ordered, intelligible, and life-giving. Theology begins not in silence but in structured hearing, where divine form enters human words.

Explicatio

Before theology may speak truthfully, it must speak coherently. Every theological utterance belongs to the larger body of discourse that constitutes the lingua fidei, designated T. As in logic, syntax concerns the structure of expressions, the rules by which sentences are formed, related, and inferred. Theological syntax orders the words of revelation prior to their interpretation. Within this initial horizon the question is not truth or falsity but whether a sentence may be rightly spoken at all.

To say “Christ is truly present in the Eucharist” is not yet to advance a metaphysical account of presence. It is to give voice to a confession that stands within a network of scriptural, creedal, and liturgical statements. Detached from that network, the assertion loses its felicity—its Spirit-given rightness or authorization. The first task of theology is therefore grammatical: to preserve the coherence of divine speech once it has entered human language. Only then may theology inquire into meaning, reference, and truth.

Objectiones

Ob I. Barth holds that revelation precedes all linguistic form; syntax makes divine address dependent on human categories.

Ob II. Wittgenstein argues that meaning is use within a communal practice; formal syntax abstracts theological speech from the Church’s form of life.

Ob III. Derrida contends that signs are marked by indeterminacy; a fixed divine grammar reinstates metaphysics of presence.

Ob IV. Schleiermacher claims that religion arises from inner feeling and precedes propositional articulation; grammatical form distorts this immediacy.

Ob V. Empiricists argue that theological statements lack empirical content; to ascribe logical syntax is to treat them as propositions when they are not.

Responsiones

Ad I. Revelation indeed precedes human form, yet it comes clothed in words. Syntax does not construct revelation; it receives the order in which revelation becomes communicable. The Spirit who grants the Word grants also the grammar by which the Church speaks it intelligibly.

Ad II. Theology agrees that language is rule-governed, but the rules of the lingua fidei are Spirit-given rather than conventionally negotiated. Formal clarification does not abstract from the Church’s life; it renders explicit the structures that sustain it across ages and cultures.

Ad III. Deconstruction uncovers the instability of self-grounded signs. Theology does not claim such autonomy. Its signs refer because the Logos grounds signification. Grammar here is not metaphysics of presence but participation in the divine act that makes meaning possible.

Ad IV. Experience without grammar dissolves into private intuition. The Spirit orders confession as well as ignites faith. Syntax renders the truth communicable and guards the unity of the Church’s speech.

Ad V. Verification is not the limit of meaning. Theological sentences belong to a different order of reference, one determined by divine address rather than sensory data. Syntax marks the structure of this order.

Nota

Attention to theological syntax is foundational for the renewal of Christian speech. Where grammar erodes, proclamation withers into sentiment and doctrine into opinion. Communities of faith therefore require institutions that teach precision in sacred terms, churches that guard the patterns of sound words, and scholars who articulate the faith without compromising its form. To forget the grammar of belief is to lose the idiom in which the gospel may be heard.

Determinatio

It is determined that:

1. Theological discourse T is syntactical before it is semantical.

2. The Spirit grants a rule-governed language whose coherence must be secured prior to interpretation.

3. The felicity of T, denoted FT, is the Spirit-given integrity of speech.

4. Truth conditions arise only when T is placed within a model of reality: TC = FT + Modeling.

5. Theology’s autonomy from empirical reduction is preserved, even as its dependence on divine address is affirmed.

To speak theologically is to inhabit a grammar constituted by God’s self-communication and to let that grammar guide every truthful word.

Transitus ad Disputationem II: De Theologia ut Systemate Modelorum

In this first disputation theology has been examined in its syntactical aspect. The structure of discourse was shown to be the internal form by which divine speech becomes intelligible in human words. Yet syntax alone cannot yield truth. It orders expression but does not determine its relation to what is real. If theology is to speak truthfully about God and creation, its language must be joined to an ontology that gives the world its structure.

Hence the next question arises naturally: how does T, the language of faith, touch reality? If divine speech grounds both meaning and being, then theological discourse must be interpreted within a system of models that reflect the order God establishes. Theologia non est mera locutio; est interpretatio verbi ad mundum. We therefore proceed to Disputatio II: De Theologia ut Systemate Modelorum, where the relation between divine language and created being will be examined.

Why ATS Accreditation?

I am sometimes asked, "Why did you seek Association of Theological Schools (ATS) accreditation for ILT's Christ School of Theology? You already had Association of Biblical Higher Education (ABHE) accreditation. Why wasn't that enough? 

While I have many friends at ABHE, gaining ATS accreditation was a very important step for us at the Institute of Lutheran Theology (ILT). According to the ABHE website, the following ABHE schools offer some type of doctorate: 

• American Evangelical University
• Beulah Heights University
• Bridges Christian College and Seminary 
• California Prestige University 
• Calvary University 
• Carolina Christian College 
• Columbia International University 
• Faith Baptist Bible College and Theological Seminary 
• Family of Faith Christian University 
• Georgia Central University 
• Henry Appenzeller University 
• Huntsville Bible College 
• International Reformed University and Seminary 
• Lancaster Bible College 
• Luther Rice College and Seminary 
• Mid-South Christian College 
• Midwest University 
• Northwestern Baptist Theological Seminary
• Moody Bible Institute 
• Olivet University
• South Florida Bible College and Theological Seminary 
• Texas Baptist Institute and Seminary 
• Universidad Pentacostal Mizpa 
• Veritas College International Graduate School 
• Wesley Bible Seminary 
• World Mission University 

Outside of Moody Bible Institute and perhaps Lancaster Bible College, it is unlikely that most reading this, particularly most Lutherans, have heard of many of the other schools above. Although there are no doubt wonderful faculty and students at these institutions, they have not in general gained academic notoriety.  Part of this is due to the credentialing of their faculty. Of schools approximately our size, about 47% of regular and adjunct faculty at ABHE schools have terminal degrees.  

Now consider the following truncated list of ATS schools that are approved to offer a PhD. 

• Boston University
• Brite Divinity
• Calvin Theological Seminary 
• Catholic University of America
• Chicago Theological Seminary 
• Columbia Bible Seminary 
• Concordia Seminary, St. Louis
• Dallas Theological Seminary
• Drew University Theological Seminary 
• Garrett-Evangelical Theological Seminary 
• Graduate Theological Union
• Iliff School of Theology
• Kairos University 
• Knox College 
• Luther Seminary 
• Lutheran School of Theology Chicago
• McMaster Divinity School 
• Princeton Theological Seminary 
• Trinity College Faculty of Divinity
• Union Theological Seminary
• United Lutheran Seminary 
• University of Chicago Divinity School 
• University of Notre Dame Department of Theology 
• Villanova University Department of Theology 
• Westminster Theological Seminary 
• Wycliffe College 

Most people reading this has no doubt heard of the majority of these schools, five of which are Lutheran (including are Christ School of Theology). Almost all faculty in ATS institutions have terminal degrees.  

So, to which list ought ILT's Christ School of Theology be compared? 

We are Lutheran and 93% of our regular, adjunct and visiting faculty have PhDs. (When checking us out on the ATS website, always search 'Christ School of Theology at ILT'. We have been ATS-accredited for over a year. Find us here at the ATS site.)  Clearly, our faculty credentialing points to a deeper affinity with ATS than ABHE. 

In addition, Lutherans are accustomed to having their theological schools accredited by ATS who accredits 228 institutions in the USA and 263 total in North American.  (ABHE, by comparison, lists 117 accredited schools.)  A majority of the faculty at Lutheran seminaries in North America have been trained at ATS-accredited institutions, while very few if any hold PhDs from ABHE institutions. (Realize that both Harvard and Yale Divinity schools belong to ATS, but while both institutions offer PhDs, they do not do so through their divinity schools so are hence not on the PhD list.) 

The Institute of Lutheran Theology mission is to "preserve, promote and propagate the classical Christian tradition from a Lutheran perspective." To accomplish this, it must train not only pastors, but teachers of those pastors. This can be done only by providing the type of theological education found in our nation's best theological schools. While we could be credible perhaps training pastors in the Lutheran tradition without ATS accreditation, we cannot be credible training the teachers of those pastors. If we want to preserve and promote the Christian tradition, we must know it deeply, and this demands that the competitive set to ILT's theological programming be those schools offering ATS-accredited programming. 

It takes a very long time to build reputation in the accreditation world. ABHE is a very good accrediting agency, but it does not yet enjoy the reputation of ATS. While one might argue that the schools of ATS are more faithful to Scripture than the schools of ATS, this assertion would engender much opposition among ATS members whom I know. So what does ATS' reputation add for ILT? 

1) ATS-accreditation gives ILT's Christ School of Theology the opportunity to receive major grants from theological grant agencies, most of which do not provide grants to non-ATS school. ILT's Christ School of Theology has in the 2024-25 academic year been so far awarded an ATS Lead forward grant for $25,000 and a $50,000 Phase I Pathways grant from Lilly, and has other significant grant applications pending.   

2) ATS-accreditation allows us to build strategic partnerships that likely otherwise would not happen. We have made two new strategic partnerships in 2024-25, one with Global Methodists issuing in the Center for Wesleyan Studies, and one with members of the LCMS eventuating in the Center for Missional and Pastoral Leadership.  Stay tuned for updates on this front! 

3) ATS-accreditation allows us to attract a cadre of very accomplished faculty who might otherwise not associate with us. It is not unusual now to encounter faculty hoping to connect with us with PhDs from Chicago, Princeton, and Harvard, and with very significant publication records. 

4) ATS-accreditation allows us to pursue corporate and institutional gifts not otherwise available to us, and to fundraise in other areas of the world. ATS-accreditation is recognized around the world, and so it grants us more credibility with foreign donors.  

5) ATS-accreditation allows ILT and its Christ School of Theology to carry out global aims through possible reciprocity agreements with non-North American accreditation agencies which would allow ILT operations in regions of the world that might otherwise be closed to us. 

6) Finally, some students will only embark on study with us if we are ATS-accredited. I personally had discussions with four whom ultimately opted to study at ILT who nonetheless claim that the would not nave considered study here were we only ABHE-accredited. 

It is indeed a new day at ILT's Christ School of Theology. We are hoping to increase student enrollment by 25% from fall 2024 to fall 2025.  Browse our programming as well at our new Center for the Word and Christ College!  

What will the Institute of Lutheran Theology Become?

Some of you ask about the future of the Institute of Lutheran Theology and what we are doing now to actualize that future.

The Institute of Lutheran Theology began in humility. We were without adequate funding, had no faculty, and very definitely unaccredited. We had decided to do education online, but online programs were often dismissed by the academy as not sufficiently rigorous. At best, we were thought about as a well-intentioned group dedicated to "training a few Lutheran pastors."

Slowly we have been changing people's perceptions of us. While we had acquired a very good faculty by the end of 2011, we still were "unaccredited." After getting ABHE accreditation, we were disparaged as being "online" and only accredited by an "undergraduate accrediting agency." After theological education moved towards online education after Covid and ABHE became recognized by the USDE for its graduate programs, we still were charged for not having "ATS accreditation -- the gold standard for theology."

After receiving ATS accreditation last March, successfully bringing new partners to the table, and further developing our PhD program, we are sometimes now charged with "creating scholars, not pastors." While our "Center for Congregational Revitalization" initiative clearly counts against this, people continue to wonder about us, and what we want to accomplish.

Here is what we want to accomplish:

• Working through the creation of strategic partnerships, we shall grow the Christ School of Theology five-fold in the next decade, making us one of the largest (or largest) Lutheran seminary in the English-speaking world.

• Grow our current PhD program of 35 students to 125 excellent PhD candidates by 2034, making the Christ School of Theology the de facto center of Reformation-based theological education in the English-speaking world.

• Grow our undergraduate Christ College in ways of excellence so that the conferral of a degree from Christ College is highly-valued in the academic world. We shall grow Christ College in ways consonant with the overall developmental trajectory of the Christ School of Theology.

• Develop ILT's Center for the Word by developing its "centers," e.g., the Center for Congregational Revitalization, a Center for Wesleyan Studies, a Center for Pastoral Leadership and Mission, a Center for Forde Studies, etc. Being Lutheran means connecting with others taking seriously the classical Christian tradition.

• Establish a true "Institute of Lutheran Theology" at our Center for the Word, an Institute that shall connect important Lutheran theological emphases to the three audiences of which Edward Farley spoke: The Church, the Public, and the Academy. Through the Institute we shall perform the research necessary to engage deeply the contemporary intellectual and cultural horizon, seeking to disseminate the results of our research through journals, monographs, and podcasts.

We shall not ask our wonderful individual and congregational donors to bear all of the costs of this developmental trajectory. Instead, we shall apply for and procure appropriate grants to help make this possible. We just received one from ATS, and finished another grant application with Lilly that we believe shall be funded as part of the effort to apply for a major Lilly grant in late spring. We will be applying for InTrust and Templeton grants within the next couple of months as well.

We ask for your prayers along the way. God called ILT into being, and I think He has rather big plans for us. We have the right technology for our time and scholars who are now with us, or who soon will be with us, to make this possible.

At the end of the day, we simply want to get the Good News of Jesus Christ proclaimed with passion and creativity in pulpits throughout the world. To do this means we shall have to disrupt the industry some, and that we will have to create a cadre of theological teachers and researchers recognizing the centrality of preaching "not cleverly devised fables," but the universal significance of the life, death and resurrection of Jesus the Christ. Make no mistake: truth is at issue. We shall partner with any and all of those who are called to such preaching and for whom truth is at issue.

Announcing VERBA VITAE

Preamble to a Phenomenology of Congregational Life

Oftentimes we don't know what we have lost until we don't have it. 

The phenomenological movement attempted to uncover the fundamental meaning of the entities, properties, and relations in which we find ourselves, in which we dwell. The idea is simple enough. We are always already within a world of meaning prior to any explicit philosophical reflection upon this world. The man at work in his workshop knows how to get around in the shop; he knows what things he needs in order to make the things he wants to make. He "knows" these things pre-reflectively. He probably has not stopped to do an explicit ontological inventory of items in his shop and the properties each has that allow them to be related to each other.  Rather he just walks his shop and gets what he needs when he needs them. 

Edmund Husserl (1859-1938), Martin Heidegger (1889-1976), Jean-Paul Sartre (1985-1980),  Merleau-Ponty (1908-1961) and a host of other thinkers were interested in getting to the immediate meaning of things, to their sense prior to explicit investigation. Husserl, in particular, was interested in what Frege (1848 - 1925) called Sinn, the mode of presentation of objects in the world, the that by virtue of which objects could be picked out in the world and referred to. Frege famously said that names had both sense and reference. Names refer when the sense of the name picks out an existing object.  Just because a name does not refer does not mean it has no meaning. After all, the name could have referred were there to be an object that satisfied the Sinn of the name. 

Frege's famous example was the Morning Star and Evening Star. Astronomers for centuries were able to identify the Morning Star as Morning Star and the Evening Star as Evening Star without knowing that the Morning Star is the Evening Star. The modes of presentation of Morning Star and Evening star differ, but there is identity in that to which they refer: Venus.  Accordingly, the name Morning Star refers to Venus as it presents itself as the Morning Star while the name Evening Star  refers to Venus as it presents itself as Evening Star.  Within a more comprehensive theory we identify the Morning Star and Evening Star.  So what is this world of sense by and through which we believe we have made reference to the world? 

Wilfrid Sellars (1912-1989) spoke in terms of the manifest and scientific images of the world.  He espoused a scientific naturalism that nonetheless sought to save the appearances.  In Philosophy and the Scientific Image of Man, Sellars characterizes the manifest image of the world as "the framework in terms of which man came to be aware of himself as man-in-the-world," it is the framework in and through which we ordinarily observe and explain our world.  (See Willem deVries, "Wilfrid Sellars," in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.). Persons and the things meaningful to persons is what has center stage in the manifest image of the world.  

The scientific image of the world is deeper; it is that which we hold ultimately is the case despite how things appear. Sellars famously adjusted Protagoras' statement to "science is the measure of all things, of what is that it is, and of what is not that it is not" ("Empiricism and the Philosophy of Mind).  The scientific image states what is the case, while the manifest image states what appears to be the case. Importantly, the manifest image is not merely an error.  It is a description of the place in which humans find themselves phenomenally prior to theory and experiment and the reality of how things stand in themselves.  

While Sellars held that what ultimately exists is that to which oue best scientific theories appeal in explanation and prediction, he understood that we do not and cannot live our lives merely within the conceptual categories of scientific naturalism. While neither Husserl nor Heidegger in anyway denigrate the activity of scientific theory-formation and confirmation, they really were interested in the world as it appears to and for consciousness.  (Heidegger despised the term consciousness for many reasons, but I will use it nonetheless in this context.). Husserl was so interested in what immediately appears to and for consciousness that he advocated a suspension of thinking in terms of our natural attitude of what there really is, and bid us to hold in abeyance questions of what there ultimately is apart from us and concentrate on that which is present to consciousness. His phenomenological reduction advocates that we again encounter the things themselves that give themselves to consciousness, before pressing on to the question of whether those things are real, whether they somehow track with that which ultimately is.  

Husserl believe that returning to die Sache Selbst of immediacy allow us to ground science even the more deeply. Heidegger wanted to examine the objects of our intentional acts within the meaningful context in which they dealt in order to get clarity about the nature of the world we immediately inhabit.  

While both he and Husserl were interested in the Umwelt in which we find ourselves, Husserl could never find a way ultimately out of his own transcendental image of things.  For Husserl, the transcendental ego exists as that which reaches out through its intentional "ego rays" to objects in meaningfully encounters.  Heidegger, however, had no time for such metaphysics.  What is given to consciousness is being-in-the-world.  Instead of an isolated ego related to its world of intentional objects, there is already the unitary phenomenon of hat which is phenomenologically prior to an ego and that which the ego intends. Husserl's transcendental ego becomes Heidegger's Dasein, the unitary being-in-the-world phenomenon that is clearly present in ways that a transcendental ego cannot be. 

Heidegger's emphasis was on the immediacy of that which shows itself as itself in the Lichtung (lighting up) of Dasein itself. Dasein is the "there-being" that in its being is always interested in being.  While Husserl's project was epistemological, Heidegger's became ontological. What are all those things that are, that in relating themselves to us, make us the kind of beings that have worlds?  

We are always already in a world and what it is to be me is to have a world of a definite contour. The manifest image of things, according to Heidegger, has been passed over in the history of philosophy.  It has not been deeply explored because our attention has always been drawn away from the immediacy of our life in the world to the question of what lies "present-at-hand" to us beyond that image.  We have been traditionally interested in the world of the Vorhandsein, the world of beings that are. But in concentrating on this, we have lost what is before our eyes. We have lost the very meaningful context in which we already live in all of our inquiry.  

Sellars understand that we cannot do without the manifest image of things, but he believes what ultimately is cannot be given by what phenomenally stands close by. We need to move to the deeper structural explanation of that surface the manifest image reveals.  Heidegger, however, wants us to follow Husserl and attend deeply and passionately to that which displays itself to us in all we think and do. Heidegger's interest in the immediacy of the world and the universal structures of immediacy that ground that world gives him quite a different orientation from Sellars. They latter was interested in science, but the former in religion. 

Heidegger's work at Marburg was filled with religious interest. Accordingly, Husserl had designated Heidegger to be his student that could apply the phenomenological method to religious experience and religion as such. What is the world of religion, and what are the deeper structures of religious experience and meaning as such that make possible any religious world?  Heidegger is accordingly interested in the facticity of religious life, the meaningful structures within which religious people operate and find themselves. Heidegger famously tried to understand the experience of the early Christian as being-to-the-parousia, an idea he later adjusted to Sein zum Tode, being-unto-death.  

All of this is is preamble for the topic to which I allude in the title: A phenomenology of congregational living. What is it to live congregationally?  In our penchant to treat congregational life using the tools of the social sciences we may shortchange what it is to be congregationally. Clearly, we could seek to understand congregational growth and decline by appealing to general sociological principles indexed for our particular historical-cultural standpoint. This can be extremely enlightening, of course.  But in the effort to explain and predict congregational processes, we may lose what shows itself as itself.  Were we to attend to the be-ing of congregational life we might find in the manifest image the world itself in which religions lives and moves, the world in which we finally find meaning, a salvific meaning allowing us to live unto the future.  What I am suggesting here, inter alia, that it is in the manifest image of things that we find meaning, purpose and ultimately hope.  

While the body dies and scientific naturalism finds no basis upon which survival of death is possible -- or maybe even conceivable -- within the manifest image, God is close at hand. Christ saves us and brings us into his house of many rooms. Our fundamental experience of being-in-the-world is not one where meaning is absent and must be constructed.  Our fundamental experience is filled with meaning for we are beings who in our be-ing find the question of be-ing at issue for us. As Heidegger says, the ontic superiority of Dasein is found in its ontological constitution.  As Augustine said, "our heart is not at rest until it finds its rest in you, O Lord." A thick description of the facticity of Christian being-in-the-world reveals what that life is like, and holds open the possibility that that life which is ontologically possible can be my life or your life. 

As the embers of western Christianity begin to smolder, it is important for us to know what it was for men and women to have lived this extraordinary life.  For many of us, the living of Christian life is always a living of that life within the Christian congregation.  We can perhaps remember what it was and how it was decades ago, and we can compare that living to living today.  Where was the axes of meaning then and now? What has changed? How was it that we could once recoil at the thought of touching the sky while now such touching is simply business as usual?   

In the next post I will try my hand at examining the facticity of congregational living. Perhaps we will be granted ontological insight into the preciousness of being-as-communion in Lutheran congregational life.