Disputatio VII: De Participatione et Ontologia Theoseos

On Participation and the Ontology of Theosis

Quaeritur

Utrum participatio sit ille nexus ontologicus inter creaturam et Deum, per quem homo fit particeps naturae divinae non per essentiae confusionem sed per gratiam communicationis; et quomodo ontologia theoseos describat modum huius participationis, qua Spiritus Sanctus causat realem communionem inter divinum et humanum.

Whether participation is that ontological bond between creature and Creator through which the human being becomes a partaker of the divine nature—not by confusion of essence but by the grace of communication—and how the ontology of theosis describes the mode of this participation, whereby the Holy Spirit causes a real communion between the divine and the human.

Thesis

Theosis is a real participation in divine life, constituted by the Holy Spirit. This participation is not metaphoric elevation nor essential fusion, but the Spirit’s causal communication of divine perfections in a creaturely mode. Thus participatio is the ontological relation in which the creature truly shares in God while remaining finite.

Locus Classicus

1. 2 Peter 1:4
κοινωνοὶ θείας φύσεως
“Partakers of the divine nature.”

Scripture itself dares the language of theosis. Participation is not mystical embellishment but the revealed grammar of salvation: divine life given, not divine essence seized.

2. Athanasius, De Incarnatione 54.3
Αὐτὸς γὰρ ἐνηνθρώπησεν, ἵνα ἡμεῖς θεοποιηθῶμεν.
“He became man that we might be made god.”

Participation has its ground in the Incarnation. The divine descends so that the creature may ascend—not by nature, but by grace.

3. Maximus Confessor, Ambigua 7
Ἡ θεοποίησις ἐστὶν ἡ τῆς μετουσίας πρὸς τὸν Θεὸν ἐνέργεια.
“Deification is the energy of communion with God.”

Participation occurs through divine energeia—a real operation binding God and creature without erasing distinction.

4. Augustine, De Trinitate XV.26
Deus fit omnia in omnibus, non natura sed gratia.
“God becomes all in all, not by nature, but by grace.”

What God is by essence, the creature becomes by participation; the distinction remains, yet communion is real.

Across these witnesses—from Peter to Athanasius to Maximus to Augustine—the same truth resounds: participation is the mode of salvation; the Spirit is its cause.

Explicatio

In Disputatio VI we saw that divine causality extends not only to creaturely being but also to creaturely speech. Here we advance a step further: the Spirit who causes words to be true also causes persons to be new.

This requires precision. The tradition speaks of participation in various ways—formal, exemplar, efficient, energetic, existential—but none of these, by itself, fits what is required.  What is needed is a participatio constitutiva. 

Let us formalize the structure. 

1. Two-Sorted Ontological Relation 

Assume a two-sorted ontological relation and let D_G denote a divine property (e.g., righteousness, life, wisdom), while D denotea the creature’s participated analogue. Then the relation: D_G → D expresses the Spirit’s causal act of communication. The arrow is not metaphor, imitation, or moral effort, but signifies an ontological procession: 1) divine life communicated, 2) not as essence, 3) but as gift. Thus, righteousness in God D_G becomes created righteousness D in the believer—finite, receptive, dependent, yet real.

2. Asymmetry Without Separation

Participation is one-directional for God communicates and the creature receives. God does not participate in the creature; the creature participates in God.

3. Pneumatic Mediation

Participation is not an abstract relation but a Spirit-caused communion. He is 1) the mediator, 2) the causal bridge, and 3) the giver of both being and union.

4. Transformation Without Confusion

The creature remains creaturely—finite essence, finite mode—yet becomes radiant with divine life. What is changed is not essence but participation.

5. Ontological Depth of Theosis

Theosis thus does not mean 1) moral imitation, or 2) conceptual analogy, or 3) symbolic representation. Instead it is the constitutive reception of divine life. Accordingly, the Spirit constitutes new being in the creature as the very form of salvation.

Explicatio Analytica: De Participatione Constitutiva

In analytic metaphysics, participation raises two problems:

1. How can the finite share in the infinite without contradiction?

2. How can divine properties be communicated without multiplying them?

The notion of a participatio constitutiva addresses both.

1. A Hyperintensional Distinction

Following Fine and Zalta, divine properties may be identical extensionally yet still distinct hyperintensionally. Thus: D_G (uncreated justice) and D (created justice) are not two justice-properties but two modes of the same attribute grounded in differing causal ontologies.

2. Constitutive Causality

Participation is explained not by efficient causation but by constitutive causality, the Spirit’s ongoing act that 1) grounds the creature’s being, 2) grounds its new disposition, and 3) grounds its ability to bear divine predicates.

Thus, participatory ontology fits cleanly within contemporary theories of: grounding (Fine, Schaffer), dependency (Rosen), hyperintensionality (Cresswell, Jago), and metaphysical explanation (Audi, Bennett). Participation becomes a constitutive grounding, not a property-transfer.

3. Avoiding Identity-Theory Pitfalls

Because divine and created modes are hyperintensionally distinct, participation avoids essential identity (pantheism), property multiplication (anti-simplicity), and nominalist reduction (anti-realism). Participation is the Spirit’s causal grounding of creaturely life in divine life, not an ontological blending. This analytic clarification is essential for making theosis intelligible in the contemporary intellectual horizon.

Objectiones

Ob I. Participation implies sharing in divine essence, violating the Creator–creature distinction.

Ob II. If divine attributes are communicated, they appear multiplied, threatening divine simplicity.

Ob III. Theosis replaces justification by faith with metaphysical transformation.

Ob IV. Participation language risks collapsing into Eastern Palamism, contrary to Lutheran theology.

Responsiones

Ad I. Participation concerns gifts, not essence. The creature receives divine life as communicated perfection, not as a shared essence. The distinction of essences remains absolute.

Ad II. Attributes are not multiplied; they are refracted. The same divine righteousness that exists uncreated in God exists createdly in the believer. There are two modes but one source.

Ad III. Faith is the mode of participation, not its competitor. Faith unites the believer to Christ; that union is precisely the participation by which righteousness is received.

Ad IV. Lutheran theosis follows from Christology, not from an essence–energies distinction. Participation is grounded in union with Christ and mediated by the Spirit, not in any metaphysical strata. It is fundamentally sacramental and pneumatic, not neo-Palamite.

Nota

The ontology of theosis completes the logic of divine communication, for in Disputatio IV, truth was duplex: inner and outer.  In Disputatio V, felicity and truth formed a circle and in Disputatio VI, divine causality grounded both speech and being. Here, in Disputatio VII, we see that being itself is communicative.

Thus salvation is not an external favor but a constitutive transformation grounded in divine causality: 1) The Word speaks, 2) the Spirit causes, 3) the creature receives, and 4) the result is participation.

Participation thus expresses the deepest grammar of theological realism: God gives Himself without ceasing to be Himself; the creature receives God without ceasing to be creature.

Determinatio

From the foregoing it is determined that:

1. Theosis is the real participation of the creature in divine life.

2. Participation is constitutive, not merely moral or analogical.

3. The Holy Spirit is the causal mediator of this participation.

4. Divine attributes exist in two modes: uncreated D_G and participated D.

5. Participation preserves both divine transcendence and creaturely integrity.

6. The ontology of theosis is the completion of divine communication—speech becoming being, word becoming life.

Excursus: De Historia et Notionibus Participationis

On the History and Concepts of Participation

Participation (participatio) is one of the most enduring and yet least clarified notions in the philosophical and theological tradition. It is invoked whenever thinkers attempt to describe the relation between the finite and the infinite, the contingent and the necessary, the creature and the Creator. The term appears indispensable, yet its meaning has remained elusive. What exactly is the relation “by virtue of which” (δι’ ὃ) the creature shares in the divine? What sort of relation allows the creature truly to receive what properly belongs to God without collapsing the Creator–creature distinction?

The present disputationes have reached a point at which this question can no longer remain implicit. In Disputatio VI, we argued that the Holy Spirit is the causa principalissima not only of being but of speaking. In Disputatio VII, we advanced the thesis that the creature’s new being is constituted by a real participation in divine life. To proceed further—toward eschatological manifestation—we must clarify the very notion of participation on which these arguments depend. This Excursus offers a conceptual and historical map in order to situate the doctrine of participatio constitutiva, the pneumatological ontology that grounds the entire second movement of the Disputationes Theologicae.

I. Plato: Participation as the First Problem

Plato introduced methexis, participation, to explain how sensibles relate to the Forms. A beautiful thing is beautiful “by participating” in Beauty itself. Yet Plato never defines the relation. The “Third Man Argument” exposes the ambiguity: if the Form and the particular resemble one another by sharing a common property, then a further Form seems required ad infinitum. Participation was therefore necessary for Plato’s metaphysics but conceptually unstable, signaling the need for a deeper account of the “in virtue of which” by which the finite shares in the transcendent.

II. Aristotle: The Immanent Transmutation of Participation

Aristotle rejects Platonic participation in favor of immanent form. The relation between particular and universal becomes intrinsic: form inheres in matter rather than standing above it. Yet participation reappears indirectly in the act–potency schema. Potency receives act; act actualizes potency. Though Aristotle would not call this “participation,” the metaphysical structure is analogous: finite beings exist by receiving actuality from another. The immanentization clarifies metaphysics but does not yet explain how creatures might share divine life.

III. The Neoplatonists: Participation as Emanation

Neoplatonism reasserts participation through the doctrines of procession (proodos) and return (epistrophē). All beings emanate from the One and return toward it through a hierarchy of being. Participation becomes a metaphysics of ontological dependence. Yet the relation remains essentially metaphysical, not personal; it lacks a clear account of how the creature is actively constituted in communion with the divine. Moreover, participation is tied to ontological gradation rather than covenantal gift.

IV. The Patristic Reconfiguration: Participation and Grace

Christian theology reconfigured participation by rooting it in divine grace and the personal agency of the Spirit.

• For the Cappadocians, participation designates communion with the divine energies rather than the divine essence: a real sharing without confusion.

• For Augustine, participare Deo means to be drawn into the life of God by love: participation is affective, transformative, and pneumatic.

• Participation becomes relational, covenantal, and trinitarian—yet the concept remains suggestive rather than analytically defined.

Participation is now identified not with emanation but with grace.

V. Scholastic Clarification and Its Limits

Aquinas provides the most systematic account in the premodern West.
Participation is:

1. Two-sorted (creature shares in what is proper to God)

2. Analogical (effect reflects cause proportionally)

3. Limited (finite being receives in a finite mode)

This clarifies the metaphysical grammar, but participation remains primarily a way of speaking about perfections received by creatures. It does not yet provide a pneumatological explanation of how such participation is effected or sustained.

VI. Lutheran Reconfigurations: Union Without Confusion

While the Lutheran tradition does not foreground “participation,” it provides conceptual foundations:

• Luther’s unio cum Christo describes a real communion grounded in promise and enacted by the Spirit.

• The communicatio idiomatum in Christology provides an ontological precedent for participation that is neither essentialist nor merely moral.

• Gerhard and the Lutheran scholastics articulate the believer’s renewal as participation in divine life, yet without a formal metaphysics of participation.

The Lutheran tradition thus offers rich material but lacks a conceptual account that unites grace, ontology, and Spirit.

VII. Modern Attempts and Persistent Ambiguities

In the modern period:

• Lossky, Zizioulas, and the neo-Palamite tradition recover participation through the language of divine energies and ecclesial personhood.

• Rahner’s “supernatural existential” redefines participation as the horizon of human transcendence.

• Barth and Bonhoeffer reframe participation christologically and ecclesially.

Yet in many modern accounts, participation becomes either:

• existential-symbolic and thus it loses its ontological bite, or

• metaphysically abstract where it loses its pneumatic specificity.

What is lacking is a doctrine that is at once metaphysically precise, trinitarian, and causally grounded.

VIII. Toward a Clarified Concept: Participatio Constitutiva

The foregoing traditions, though profound, leave unanswered the central question: In what does participation consist? The present disputationes propose the following definition of participatio constitutiva.  Participation is the Spirit’s constitutive causality whereby the creature receives—really and ontologically—a finite correlate D of a divine perfection D_G, such that the creature remains creaturely, God remains wholly transcendent, and yet the creature truly shares in what belongs properly to God. Thus, participation is not imitation, analogy, moral conformity, exemplarist reflection, or metaphysical proximity.

It is causal reception—the Spirit’s inward act that constitutes the creature’s new being. Participation is therefore:

1. Ontological, for it gives being.

2. Pneumatological, for its agent is the Spirit. 

3. Christological, because it is mediated through union with Christ. 

4. Asymmetrical, since God communicates and the creature receives. 

5. Constitutive, because what is communicated becomes the creature’s new reality. 

This clarifies why deification is not essence-sharing but grace-sharing: the creature becomes luminous with divine life not by becoming divine essentia but by receiving divine actus.

Participation, properly understood, contains within itself an eschatological orientation. What is now possessed in grace is destined for manifestation in glory.

Thus, while VII established participation as ontological transformation, VIII will show participation as eschatological manifestation. This Excursus has clarified the formal concept at the hinge point between ontology and eschatology. Participation is the grammar of deification; manifestation is its consummation.

Transitus ad Disputationem VIII: De Manifestatione Eschatologica Veritatis

In the seventh disputation we beheld participation as the Spirit’s constitutive act, grounding both creaturely being and creaturely communion with God. Such participation is real yet incomplete; begun in time, it strains toward consummation. For every participation bears a teleology: what is received as grace seeks revelation as glory.

The hidden union of faith awaits its eschatological unveiling. The righteousness participated now will be manifested then. The divine life communicated secretly will be revealed openly. Thus, theology must now inquire how truth, which is presently mediated by word, Spirit, and participation, will appear in its eschatological fullness.

We therefore proceed to: Disputatio VIII: De Manifestatione Eschatologica Veritatis—on the unveiling of divine truth in glory, where participation becomes vision and the economy becomes consummation.

Disputatio VI: De Causalitate Divina et Loquela Theologica

On Divine Causality and Theological Speech

Quaeritur

Utrum causalitas divina non sit externa actio super mundum, sed interna ratio tam essendi quam loquendi; cum Spiritus Sanctus, qui est amor subsistens, causet non solum esse rerum sed etiam recte loqui de Deo, ita ut omnis loquela theologica sit ipsa participatio in causatione divina.

Whether divine causality is not an external action upon the world but the inner reason both of being and of speaking; since the Holy Spirit, who is subsistent love, causes not only the existence of things but also the right speaking of them, such that every theological utterance is itself a participation in divine causality.

Thesis

The Spirit’s causality extends from being to language. The God who causes creatures to exist also causes them to be spoken truly. Hence theological discourse is not a human representation of divine acts but a divinely grounded participation in those acts.

Locus Classicus

1. Philippians 2:13 (NA28)
ὁ θεὸς ἐστιν ὁ ἐνεργῶν ἐν ὑμῖν καὶ τὸ θέλειν καὶ τὸ ἐνεργεῖν
“For it is God who works in you both to will and to act.”

Divine agency is interior, not extrinsic; God is the cause of both the act and the willing of the act.

2. Augustine, De Gratia et Libero Arbitrio 17.33
Non enim per solam gratiam fit ut faciamus, sed etiam ut velimus.
“It is by grace that we are enabled not only to act but even to will.”

Grace is the inner principle of creaturely freedom.

3. Gregory of Nyssa, In Canticum Canticorum II
Ἡ θεία ἐνέργεια πάντα κινεῖ ἀκινήτως
“The divine energy moves all things while itself unmoved.”

The divine act is the stable ground of every creaturely operation.

4. John of Damascus, De Fide Orthodoxa II.12
Ἡ τοῦ Πνεύματος ἐνέργεια διδοῖ τὸ εἶναι καὶ τὸ λέγειν
“The energy of the Spirit bestows both being and speech.”

The Spirit is the cause both of existence and of the words that manifest it.

Across these witnesses a single confession emerges: Divine causality does not stand outside creaturely action, but grounds its very possibility. The Spirit is the inward cause of willing, acting, and speaking. Theology therefore speaks truly only where it participates in this causal order.

Explicatio

The preceding disputations established that theological language T possesses: 1) syntactic order (a logic of predication), 2) pneumatic felicity (authorization by the Spirit), and 3) external correspondence (modeling within divine reality). Yet such correspondence itself presupposes a deeper ground:

• The realities to which theology refers exist only because God causes them to exist.

• The speech that refers to them exists only because God causes it to be spoken.

Thus divine causality operates in two inseparable modes:  the causalitas essendi where God gives being to creatures and the causalitas loquendi where God gives utterance to theological truth. Both belong to the Spirit as causa principalissima—the inner cause through whom secondary causes act according to their natures.

We may formalize this through our earlier notation: Let D_G denote a divine property (e.g., wisdom). Let D denote its participated creaturely share. Then: D_G → D signifies not metaphor but causal procession: the Spirit communicates divine perfections analogically to creatures, grounding both their being and their capacity to declare divine reality.

Thus theological discourse is a theophysical participation: human words become instruments of divine causality, bearing the reality they signify.

Explicatio Analytica: De Causalitate Constitutiva in Horizonte Analytico

Modern analytic philosophy seeks to clarify causation through precise criteria—counterfactual dependence (Lewis), event-causation (Davidson), grounding (Fine, Schaffer), and truthmaker adequacy (Armstrong). These analyses collectively illuminate what causation must accomplish to count as explanatory. Constitutive causality, as articulated in the doctrine of constitutive satisfaction, not only satisfies these criteria but reveals their deeper presuppositions.

1. Counterfactual Dependence (Lewis)

If the divine constitutive act had not obtained, no creaturely being, power, or predicate—including theological speech—would obtain. Thus constitutive causality grounds the modal space in which counterfactuals are meaningful.

2. Event-Causation (Davidson)

Davidson treats causes as events related by explanatory necessity. The Spirit’s actus essendi is precisely an event-like, continuous operation sustaining all secondary causes—more fundamental than any efficient event.

3. Grounding (Fine, Schaffer)

Grounding presupposes ontological facts. Constitutive causality supplies those facts; it is not one ground among others but the ground of all grounding, the reality in virtue of which grounding relations obtain.

4. Truthmaker Theory (Armstrong)

Truthmaker adequacy requires entities of ontological “heft.” Constitutive causality provides the robust reality that makes theological propositions true, constituting both the res and the verbum in a single causal act.

Thus constitutive causality fulfills analytic criteria, grounds their intelligibility, and aligns perfectly with patristic and scholastic insights. It is the transcendental condition for causation, meaning, and truth.

Objectiones

Ob I. According to Aristotelian naturalism, human speech belongs to the domain of secondary causes.
If God is its cause, human agency collapses.

Ob II. Nominalist voluntarism claims that theological language expresses obedience to divine decree but cannot share in divine causality.

Ob III. If God directly causes every act (occasionalism), humans contribute nothing. If humans contribute, divine causality must recede. The view is contradictory.

Ob IV. Analytic philosophy of language locates meaning in convention and intention, not metaphysical causality. Divine causality is irrelevant to semantics.

Responsiones

Ad I. Primary and secondary causes do not compete. The Spirit acts as primary cause precisely by enabling secondary causes to act freely and fully. The theologian truly speaks, yet speaks only by the Spirit’s inward act.

Ad II. Nominalism preserves sovereignty but denies divine presence. The Spirit’s causality is participatory: human signs remain human, yet become transparent to divine reality through the Spirit’s interior enabling.

Ad III. The dilemma arises only if divine and human causality inhabit the same plane. In theology, divine causality is in esse: it grants being and efficacy to secondary causes without replacing them. God causes the act to be the creature’s act.

Ad IV. Analytic semantics describes proximate structures of meaning but cannot ground them. The Spirit is the transcendental condition of theological reference: He makes divine predicates possible, determinate, and true. Meaning is conventional; theological adequacy is causal.

Nota

Relating causality and language secures theology’s realism. If to be is to act, then truthful speech must participate in divine action. Felicity is the form of divine causality in language. When the Spirit renders an utterance felicitous, He does more than permit it: He empowers it.

The felicitous word is causal because it breathes with the Spirit’s energy. It accomplishes what it signifies because God speaks through it. Without causal participation, divine predicates become empty abstractions. With causal participation, they become acts of communion—finite words bearing infinite life.

Determinatio

From the foregoing it is determined that:

1. Divine causality operates in the order of being and in the order of speaking.

2. The Holy Spirit is the principal cause of every felicitous and truthful theological utterance.

3. Theology speaks truly only insofar as it participates in divine causality.

4. Felicity is the formal manifestation of this causality within language; truth is its ontological fulfillment.

5. The Spirit binds ontology and discourse in a single causal order, causing both what is spoken and what is spoken of.

Transitus ad Disputationem VII: De Participatione et Ontologia Theoseos

In the sixth disputation, divine causality was shown to be the inner act by which the Spirit grants both being and discourse. Theological utterance is thus not an autonomous human construction but participation in the causal energy by which God constitutes reality.

Yet causality that gives both being and speech points toward a deeper unity: to be is already to participate in God; to speak truly is to participate knowingly. Creation, therefore, is not merely an effect but a participation in the divine life. The Spirit who causes speech to be true is the same Spirit who causes being to be radiant with God.

Thus we proceed to Disputatio VII: De Participatione et Ontologia Theoseos, where it will be asked how creaturely existence is constituted as participation in the divine, how the Spirit effects real union without confusion of essences, and how this participatory ontology grounds the Lutheran doctrine of theosis.

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.