Disputatio X: De Revelatione et Cognitione Dei

On Revelation and Knowledge of God

Revelatio est actus ipsius Dei se manifestantis, non per deductionem rationis sed per communicationem Spiritus. Cognitio Dei non oritur ex speculatione humana, sed ex participatione in Verbo revelato. Hic actus cognoscendi est simul passio et donum: Deus cognoscitur in ipso actu quo se revelat.

Revelation is God’s own act of self-manifestation—not the result of human deduction but the gift of the Spirit’s communication. Knowledge of God does not arise from human speculation but from participation in the revealed Word. This act of knowing is at once reception and grace: God is known in the very act by which He reveals Himself.

__________

Thesis

True knowledge of God (cognitio Dei) occurs only within revelation. Revelation is not the transmission of information about God but the divine act in which God gives Himself to be known. Hence, theology is not reflection upon an object but participation in a subject—the divine Word who both reveals and knows Himself.

Locus classicus

“No one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and anyone to whom the Son chooses to reveal him.” — Matthew 11:27

Here the Lord Himself locates all knowledge of God within His own life: revelation is reciprocal communion between Father, Son, and those brought into that communion by the Spirit. To know God is to share in God’s own knowing.

Explicatio

Revelation and cognition in theology are not parallel processes but one act viewed from two sides. When God reveals, He does not merely disclose propositions; He grants participation in His own self-understanding.

In the natural order of knowing, the subject apprehends an object. In revelation, the human knower is taken up into the act of divine self-knowledge. This is why revelation cannot be grasped through detached speculation. To know God is to be drawn into God’s own interpretive act—the Son’s eternal vision of the Father made present by the Spirit.

We may express this structurally (and then explain it):

• Let R represent revelation, the act of divine self-disclosure.

• Let K_h represent human knowledge of God, and K_d divine self-knowledge.
  The theological relation K_h ← R → K_d means: human knowing of God arises from and participates in divine knowing through revelation. The arrows indicate that revelation is the mediating act linking the two, not a neutral transmission.

Thus, the nova lingua theologiae (developed in Disputatio IX) is the very medium of revelation’s occurrence. God speaks in human words, and in those words He both gives Himself and illumines human understanding. This is why theology’s language must be both faithful to its divine source and humble in its human form—it carries the mystery of divine cognition within finite utterance.

Objectiones

Obiectio I. According to an empiricist epistemology, knowing God by revelation is impossible, because genuine knowledge requires sensory data or empirical verification. Since God is invisible and transcendent, a claim to divine revelation or cognition cannot meet the criteria of knowledge. Hence theology’s claim to knowledge of God is at best symbolic or metaphorical, not genuine cognition.

Obiectio II. If God is all-knowing, all-powerful and perfectly loving, then one would expect full clarity in divine revelation, so that human beings would know God unmistakably. Yet human experience is marked by ambiguity, dispute over revelation, and even ignorance of God’s being. Therefore the claim that God reveals Himself such that human cognition genuinely knows Him is doubtful.

Obiectio III. On the model of Karl Barth, revelation is not an object-of-knowledge but a divine event that confronts the human subject. One cannot therefore speak of “cognition of God” in the standard sense (as knowing a thing) when it comes to God. Theology must witness this event, not claim propositional knowledge. Thus the doctrine of cognition of God seems to import human epistemic categories into theology illegitimately.

Obiectio IV. Drawing on the apophatic tradition, one holds that God’s essence is utterly transcendent and beyond human concepts. Any attempt to speak of cognition of God risks projecting finite categories onto the infinite. Revelation may indicate God’s presence, but cognition of God qua God remains impossible. Theology must affirm unknowing rather than knowing.

Obiectio V. According to post-modern constructivist theology, our concepts of God are culturally, linguistically and historically conditioned. “Revelation” and “knowledge of God” are thus human constructions, not transcendent disclosures. To speak of cognition of God presumes universality of epistemic access which overlooks the diversity of human situatedness.

Responsiones

Ad I. While it is true that empirical knowledge depends on sensory input and verification, knowledge of God by revelation belongs to a different epistemic order, that of divine self-communication. God does not become an object among others but enters human cognition through the act of the Spirit. Thus revelation is not mere metaphor but the grounding of the cognitive relation: God authorises the knowing by revealing Himself. Human cognition remains finite and mediated, yet genuinely knows God insofar as it participates in the divine self-communication.

Ad II. The hiddenness of God and the ambiguity of human reception are real. Yet they do not negate that God reveals Himself; rather they indicate the finitude of human cognition and the mystery of divine freedom. Revelation is genuine, but its reception always occurs within historical, cultural, and existential constraints. Theology acknowledges the partiality of our knowledge (cf. “we see in a mirror dimly”) while affirming that cognition of God is possible because God discloses Himself. The fact that human cognition is limited does not show that cognition is impossible—instead it shows that the mode of cognition is participatory and mediated, not autonomous.

Ad III. Barth rightly emphasises revelation as event rather than object; theology is witness. Yet recognising revelation as event does not preclude cognition of God. The divine event triggers the cognitive relation: God speaks, human hearing occurs, understanding responds. Theology’s cognition of God is therefore event-grounded and relational rather than purely conceptual. The “object” known is not a thing outside but the living God who reveals. Thus knowledge of God remains propositional in one sense (we can speak truly of God) but always contextualised in the revelatory act.

Ad IV. The apophatic tradition protects the transcendence of God, but must be balanced with the cataphatic: God reveals Himself in ways we can know. The doctrine of cognition of God must affirm that while God’s essence remains ineffable, He reveals Himself truly in His acts and Word. Revelation does not exhaust God’s being but gives genuine knowledge of Him as He wills to be known. Theology holds that human cognition knows God analogically: we do not fully capture His essence, yet we know Him truly given His self-disclosure.

Ad V. Constructivism draws attention to the mediation of language and culture in theology—but revelation critiques and transcends those mediations. Knowing God by revelation means that human frameworks are not the origin of theology’s truth but the occasion for divine self-communication. Theology remains culturally embodied, yet its claim to knowledge is not simply human-constructed—it rests on God’s act of revealing. Therefore cognition of God is not eliminated by cultural mediation; instead it is enabled by the Spirit working within human contexts.

Nota

Revelation (revelatio) and knowledge (cognitio) form a single circle of divine communication. God reveals in order to be known, and He is known only in the revealing. This mutuality is the structure of the Trinitarian economy: the Father reveals through the Son; the Spirit causes that revelation to be received as knowledge within believers.

In the economy of faith, the Word that reveals becomes also the form of human knowing. Hence the ancient formula, fides quaerens intellectum (“faith seeking understanding”), describes not curiosity but participation: faith already contains understanding implicitly because it shares in the divine act of self-knowing.

If we recall earlier symbolic language, Tₙ, the “new language of theology,” is the linguistic body of revelation. Within this language, every true statement about God is a double movement:

• from God to man (revelation, grace descending), and

• from man to God (understanding, faith ascending).
  These two movements coincide in the Spirit, the living bridge of knowledge.

Thus, theology is not about God as distant object but about God in actu loquendi et cognoscendi—in the very act of speaking and knowing Himself within us.

Determinatio

From the foregoing it is determined that:

1. Revelation is God’s own self-disclosure, not information about God but the communication of God Himself.

2. Knowledge of God (cognitio Dei) arises within this act of revelation as participation in divine self-knowing.

3. The Spirit mediates this communion, enabling the human mind to know God by sharing analogically in God’s own knowledge of Himself.

4. The nova lingua theologiae is the linguistic form of revelation—finite words rendered luminous by divine presence.

5. Therefore, theology’s cognitive act is not speculative but participatory: to know God is to dwell within the Word that both reveals and knows.

Disputatio IX: De Nova Lingua Theologiae

On the New Language of Theology

Nova lingua theologiae orta est ex ipsa Incarnatione Verbi, qua Deus intravit humanam loquelam et eam in se assumpsit. Haec lingua, Spiritu Sancto sustentata, est finita forma veritatis infinitae, in qua sermo humanus efficitur instrumentum divinae communicationis.

The new language of theology arises from the Incarnation itself, in which God entered human speech and assumed it into Himself. Sustained by the Holy Spirit, this language is the finite form of infinite truth in which human words become the instrument of divine communication.

__________

Thesis

Theology speaks in a nova lingua, a new language born from the Incarnation and animated by the Holy Spirit. This language is finite in form yet infinite in meaning, because divine truth now dwells within human words. The nova lingua is therefore the linguistic expression of the Incarnation itself: the Word made flesh becomes the Word made speech.

Locus classicus

“And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, full of grace and truth.” — John 1:14

The Incarnation is simultaneously an event of being and of language. The eternal Word does not merely assume human nature, but also assumes human speech. Through this act, the structure of human language is transfigured into a medium capable of bearing divine truth.

Explicatio

Theology’s language is not simply inherited from the old world but is reborn through the Word made flesh. In the old grammar of reason, contradiction signified error; in the new grammar of faith, contradiction becomes revelation. The nova lingua is thus a theological grammar where God is known sub contrario, under the sign of what appears its opposite.

Luther called this transformation a “new grammar” (nova grammatica), for one must learn to say that God is hidden in weakness, that death is life, that the cross is glory. This is not mere rhetoric but a new logic of being. In the nova lingua, the syntax of heaven passes into the phonemes of earth.

Formally, we can describe the change in this way: Let Tₒ denote the old language (the grammar of nature and reason) and Tₙ the new language (the grammar of faith). The transition Tₒ → Tₙ represents the Spirit’s act of translating finite speech into a vessel of divine meaning. This arrow does not mark replacement but transfiguration: what was merely human becomes theophanic through grace.

The nova lingua therefore bears within itself an inherent tension; it is simultaneously grammatical and miraculous. It possesses rules of form and order (syntax) yet overflows them through divine content (semantics). New wineskin is needed to hold new wine. To speak theologically is to live within this paradox of incarnation: finite speech filled with infinite truth.

Objectiones

Obiectio I. If theology requires a nova lingua, it implies that ordinary human language is inadequate to speak of God, making revelation unintelligible to natural reason.

Obiectio II. A “new grammar” seems to introduce irrationality into theology, reducing faith to paradox and contradiction.

Obiectio III. If God assumes human language, divine truth becomes bound to history and culture, losing universality.

Responsiones

Ad I. Ordinary language is not destroyed but assumed. The nova lingua transforms the old. The Incarnation does not render reason obsolete; it fulfills it, giving speech a deeper telos. The words of faith remain human, but their authorization comes from the Spirit, not from philosophical sufficiency.

Ad II. The new grammar is not irrational but hyper-rational. It is an order of meaning higher than human logic can generate. Paradox is not nonsense; it is sanctified tension, revealing the finite’s openness to the infinite. The “contradictions” of faith are signs that reason has touched mystery.

Ad III. The Word’s entry into history does not limit truth but universalizes it. By assuming particular speech, God redeems all speech. The universality of the gospel is secured precisely in its historical concreteness: the eternal speaks within the temporal.

Nota

The nova lingua of theology is not merely new vocabulary but new being-in-speech. It marks the union of divine causality and human language. To speak in this language is already to participate in God’s self-communication.

Its structure mirrors the Incarnation:

• Finite form: human grammar, word order, syntax.

• Infinite content: divine meaning, given by the Spirit.

• Mediating act: the Spirit’s authorization (felicity) that makes the finite capable of bearing the infinite.

Thus, each true theological statement is a microcosm of the Word made flesh. The finite (word) does not contain the infinite (God), yet it truly conveys it, because the Spirit joins them without confusion or separation.

The nova lingua does not function as a metalanguage standing above the old order of speech but as a new object language born within it. Through the Spirit, the old grammar of reason is inverted into the new grammar of faith. What was formerly sign of absence becomes sign of presence; what once denoted defeat now names victory. The nova lingua thus transforms rather than transcends the old: it is human speech re-created in the form of divine contradiction.

This linguistic participation is not accidental to theology; it is its very essence. Theology exists only because divine communication has entered human speech.

Determinatio

From the foregoing it is determined that:

1. The nova lingua of theology arises from the Incarnation, where divine meaning assumes human form.

2. This new language is finite in grammar yet infinite in signification, sustained by the Spirit’s act of authorization.

3. The grammar of faith (Tₙ) both fulfills and transfigures the grammar of reason (Tₒ), producing a linguistic structure in which opposites become sites of revelation.

4. The Spirit functions as the mediating cause of this transformation, making theological language both truthful and efficacious.

5. Theology’s nova lingua is thus the ongoing miracle of Pentecost—the continual creation of meaning whereby human words, caught up in grace, speak the infinite Word.

Disputatio VIII: De Manifestatione Eschatologica Veritatis et Summarium

On the Eschatological Manifestation of Truth

Veritas theologica in hoc saeculo est participata et sub signo fidei, sed in consummatione saeculorum manifestabitur in gloria. Manifestatio eschatologica veritatis est revelatio plena illius quod nunc in Spiritu dicitur et creditur, ubi verbum et res, fides et visio, felicitas et veritas perfecte coincident.

Theological truth in this age is participatory and veiled under the sign of faith, but in the consummation of the ages it will be revealed in glory. The eschatological manifestation of truth is the full unveiling of what is now spoken and believed in the Spirit—when word and reality, faith and vision, felicity and truth coincide perfectly.

__________

Thesis

Theology’s present truth is partial and anticipatory, grounded in faith’s participation in divine speech. Its consummation will occur eschatologically, when what is now felicitous and true in faith becomes manifest in glory. The eschaton is not the abolition of theology but its fulfillment—the moment when the grammar of faith becomes the language of sight.

Locus classicus

“Now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I have been fully known.” — 1 Corinthians 13:12

Here the Apostle distinguishes two modalities of knowing: faith’s partial vision and glory’s full manifestation. The eschatological transformation is not a change in truth but its completion—when what was once known through participation is seen in presence.

Explicatio

Every theological statement in this life belongs to the order of faith. It is true, but its truth is mediated through language, symbol, and participation. The felicity of theological utterance (FT) secures right speaking; modeling links it to reality (TC); participation extends it into being. Yet all these remain partial reflections of the divine Word, awaiting fulfillment.

To put it in the language we have developed:

In the present, FT + Modeling = TC,
but in the eschaton, FT = TC,
for the act of speaking and the reality spoken will be one.

In the age of faith, truth requires mediation—language, symbols, sacraments. In the age of glory, mediation is not abolished but transfigured: it becomes immediate transparency to divine life. The “truth conditions” of theology (what must be real for theology’s words to be true) are themselves finally realized in unveiled communion.

Thus the eschatological manifestation of truth is not a new truth but the manifestation of what faith has always confessed. The finite will not become infinite, but will participate in infinite clarity.

In this sense, theologia eschatologica is not speculation about the end but the horizon toward which all theology tends: the point where the felicity of speech becomes the felicity of being.

Objectiones

Obiectio I. If truth will one day be seen rather than believed, theology will cease; there will be no more faith or discourse.

Obiectio II. If the eschaton reveals all, then current theological statements are provisional and unreliable.

Obiectio III. To speak of “manifestation” suggests a temporal unfolding; but God’s truth is eternal and unchanging.

Responsiones

Ad I. Theology will not cease but be transformed. The form of faith (trust in the unseen) will give way to the form of vision (love’s direct knowledge), yet the content of theology will be consummated, not abolished. The language of faith becomes praise; its discourse becomes doxology. Theology’s end is liturgical, not silent.

Ad II. Present theology is reliable because it is already true in participation. What changes is not its truth but its mode of access. The eschaton adds nothing new in content, only the perfection of immediacy. The mirror is replaced by face-to-face vision, not by contradiction.

Ad III. God’s truth is eternal; what changes is our reception of it. Manifestation belongs to creatures, not to God. In the eschaton, the eternal truth will shine without obscurity within the redeemed order. Time is not destroyed but gathered into divine light.

Nota

The eschatological manifestation of truth fulfills the entire logic of theology’s movement.

• In T, we speak under grace.

• In modeling, we interpret language within being.

• In participation, we live that being in God.

• In the eschaton, we see what we have lived and spoken.

Thus, theology’s formal order—grammar, felicity, truth, causality, participation—finds its telos in manifestation (manifestatio).

This manifestation is not the dissolution of mediation but its perfection. The sacraments will no longer signify but will be what they signified. The church’s language will no longer interpret but will be identical with praise. The believer will no longer speak about God but in God.

If we wish to describe this symbolically (and then explain it immediately), we could say:

Tₑ → V, where Tₑ represents theology in the age of faith and V represents the vision of God in glory. The arrow “→” marks not replacement but transfiguration: the Spirit’s act of transforming mediated participation into direct presence.

Hence, theology’s end is not silence but song; not knowledge replaced, but knowledge perfected in communion.

Determinatio

From the foregoing it is determined that:

1. Theological truth in the present age is real yet participatory, grounded in faith’s participation in divine speech.

2. The eschatological manifestation of truth is the unveiling of that same truth in glory, when mediation gives way to immediacy.

3. The felicity of theological speech and the truth of divine being converge perfectly in the eschaton; faith becomes sight, confession becomes communion.

4. The Spirit, who now mediates participation through grace, will then reveal it in glory; the same divine causality remains, but its mode changes from hidden to manifest.

5. Theology’s telos is doxological: in the eschatological manifestation of truth, theology becomes the eternal praise of God, the verbum that has finally become vision.

__________

Summarium Ordinis Theologiae

Ordo theologiae est ascensus Spiritus a verbo ad esse, a fide ad visionem. Sicut Deus in Verbo suo mundum creavit et in Spiritu vivificavit, ita in eodem Spiritu sermo fidelis formatur, veritas constituitur, et gloria manifestatur.

The order of theology is the ascent of the Spirit from word to being, from faith to vision. As God created the world by His Word and enlivened it by His Spirit, so in that same Spirit faithful speech is formed, truth established, and glory revealed.

1. The Grammar of Faith (Disputatio I)

Theology begins as a language (T), a Spirit-given grammar that orders Christian confession. Before theology can be true, it must be speakable rightly. The Spirit grants the Church a rule-governed discourse whose coherence—its felicity—is the precondition of meaning. Here theology learns to speak bene dicere before it dares to prove.

2. The Modeling of Faith (Disputatio II)

What is rightly spoken must then be interpreted within the order of being.
To model T is to relate its expressions to divine reality. Thus, the language of faith becomes truth-bearing when it is inserted into a model of what exists under God’s causality.Theology moves from grammar to ontology: the Word that orders speech also orders being.

3. The Spirit and the Boundary of Speech (Disputatio III)

The Holy Spirit defines the frontier between what may and may not be said.
He is both the form and the breath of theological discourse, distinguishing felicitous speech (T_in) from unfit speech (T_out). This boundary of felicity is grace itself: the mark that language, though finite, lives by divine authorization.

4. The Twofold Truth of Theology (Disputatio IV)

Theology’s truth is double in aspect:

• internal truth — the coherence of speech in the Spirit (felicitas),

• external truth — the adequacy of that speech in being (veritas).
  

• These are not two truths but two dimensions of the same divine act: the Word that speaks and the Word that is. Their unity is Christ, who is both meaning and reality.

5. The Relation of Felicity and Truth (Disputatio V)

Felicity and truth are thus distinct but inseparable. Felicity is the Spirit’s formal causality in language; truth is the same Spirit’s fulfillment in being. The felicitous word awaits its eschatological verification: what is spoken rightly in faith will be made fully true in glory.
Hence, theology’s discourse is a living anticipation of divine causality.

6. Divine Causality and Theological Speech (Disputatio VI)

The Spirit who authorizes theology’s language also causes it. Divine causality is not merely efficient but communicative: the God who causes being also causes speech.
Every true theological utterance participates in the same causality by which God creates.
Theology therefore becomes theophysical language—an act of participation in God’s self-speaking.

7. Participation and the Ontology of Theosis (Disputatio VII)

In theosis, divine causality attains its ontological depth. The creature does not merely imitate God but participates in His perfections by grace.
Each divine property (D_G) has its participated correlate (D) in the believer; this relation, mediated by the Spirit, constitutes the new being of the redeemed.
Participation thus unites linguistic felicity and ontological transformation in one movement of grace.

8. The Eschatological Manifestation of Truth (Disputatio VIII)

The final perfection of theology occurs when faith becomes sight. The felicity of speech (FT) and the truth of being (TC) converge in eschatological manifestation. Theology’s mediation gives way to immediacy; its confession becomes communion. In the end, theology is not abolished but transfigured—the Word that once spoke of God becomes the song of those who see Him.

Nota

The eight disputationes together trace theology’s full formal movement:

Aspect	Mode	Principal Agent	Fulfillment
Grammar	Language formed in the Spirit	Spirit as giver of form	Right speech (felicity)
Semantics	Interpretation within being	Spirit as mediator	Truth-bearing modeling
Authorization	Boundary of discourse	Spirit as discerner	Inclusion within T_in
Truth	Internal and external adequacy	Spirit as unifier	Unity of word and being
Causality	Divine communication	Spirit as cause	Speech made efficacious
Participation	Ontological sharing	Spirit as transformer	Theosis
Manifestation	Eschatological unveiling	Spirit as revealer	Vision of God (visio Dei)

Through these stages, theology passes from the syntax of faith to the ontology of glory.
It begins as the grammar of divine discourse and ends as the manifestation of divine life.

Determinatio

From the foregoing it is determined that:

1. Theology, as scientia Spiritus, proceeds in ordered stages from speech to being, from felicity to truth, from faith to glory.

2. This order is not temporal but logical and participatory: each stage presupposes and deepens the last.

3. The Spirit is the single causal agent across the entire ordo—the one who gives language, grounds truth, causes participation, and manifests glory.

4. Theological reason is therefore doxological: its beginning, progress, and end are all in the praise of God.

5. In the eschatological manifestation of truth, theology reaches its own perfection: the Word spoken truly in faith becomes the Word beheld eternally in light.

Disputatio VII: De Participatione et Ontologia Theoseos

On Participation and the Ontology of Theosis

Participatio est nexus ontologicus inter creaturam et Deum, per quem homo fit particeps naturae divinae non per essentiae confusionem sed per gratiam communicationis. Ontologia theoseos describit modum huius participationis, qua Spiritus Sanctus causat realem communionem inter divinum et humanum.

Participation is the 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. The ontology of theosis describes the mode of this participation, wherein the Holy Spirit causes a real communion between the divine and the human.

__________

Thesis

Theosis, or deification, is not metaphorical elevation but real participation in divine being. This participation occurs through the Holy Spirit, who causally unites the finite and infinite without mixture of essences. Ontologically, participation (participatio) is a relation of dependence and transformation: the creature truly shares in divine perfections while remaining creaturely.

Locus classicus

“He has granted to us his precious and very great promises, so that through them you may become partakers of the divine nature.” — 2 Peter 1:4

Here Scripture itself uses the language of participation (koinōnoi theias physeōs). Theosis is not a pious metaphor but a scriptural assertion: believers truly partake of divine life, though not of divine essence.

Explicatio

If in Disputatio VI we saw that divine causality extends into speech, here we see that it extends into being. The Spirit who authorizes theology’s words also constitutes theology’s subjects.
To be Christian is to live in participatione Dei—to exist by sharing in what belongs properly to God.

Let us recall our earlier notation and make it fully clear.

• D_G designates a divine property as it exists in God (for example, righteousness, wisdom, or love).

• D designates the participated correlate of that divine property as it exists in the believer by grace. Thus, when we say D_G → D, we mean that God’s own property (say, divine righteousness) communicates itself to the creature as participated righteousness.
  This arrow “→” is not a mechanical transmission but symbolizes the Spirit’s causal act of mediation—the gift by which divine life becomes creaturely without ceasing to be divine.

Participation, therefore, is neither an abstract analogy nor a pantheistic fusion. It is an ontological relation in which divine causality constitutes new being in the creature.
The believer does not merely imitate God; he is made new by receiving within himself a correlate of God’s own perfection. This is the real ontology of deification.

In formal theological terms, we might say:

• The relation of participation is two-sorted—it joins distinct orders of being, the divine and the creaturely.

• It is asymmetrical—the creature participates in God, never God in the creature.

• It is personal and pneumatic—mediated by the Spirit, who unites without confusion.

Theosis thus represents the ontological depth of salvation: the Spirit’s causality does not merely declare righteousness but constitutes it.

Objectiones

Obiectio I. Participation implies that the creature shares in the divine essence, which contradicts the Creator–creature distinction.

Obiectio II. If divine properties are communicated, they seem multiplied; there would then be many instances of God’s attributes, violating divine simplicity.

Obiectio III. Theosis makes salvation a metaphysical transformation rather than an act of grace received by faith alone.

Responsiones

Ad I. Participation does not entail identity of essence but communion of life. The creature remains distinct, but receives existence and renewal from the divine act. As Luther said, “Faith unites the soul with Christ as a bride is united to her bridegroom.” The union is real but not essential.

Ad II. Divine attributes are not multiplied but refracted. The same divine righteousness that exists uncreated in God exists createdly in the believer. The distinction is not between two righteousnesses, but between two modes of the same causal source—one infinite, one finite.

Ad III. Faith is the mode by which participation occurs, not its substitute. To believe is to receive, and what faith receives is nothing less than divine life. Theosis therefore fulfills sola fide: faith justifies because it unites the believer to Christ, and that union is participation itself.

Nota

The ontology of theosis clarifies how theological realism must be understood. To say that salvation is participation is to assert that grace is ontological causation, not merely external favor. When God declares the sinner righteous, He causes righteousness to exist in that person as participation in His own righteousness.

This participatory realism avoids both the extremes of nominalism and pantheism. Against nominalism, it maintains that grace effects real transformation; against pantheism, it preserves the Creator–creature distinction. The medium of this relation is the Spirit, who is both divine presence and causal agent.

The structure of participation may thus be expressed symbolically (and then immediately explained):

S participates in D, where S is the human subject and D the participated property derived from God’s own D_G. This means: the believer’s new dispositions (faith, hope, love) are not self-generated moral habits but gifts of divine life.

The ontological grammar of theosis therefore complements the syntactical grammar of theology. Just as words become true when authorized by the Spirit, persons become real when constituted by that same Spirit’s causality. The Spirit is the bridge across both language and being.

Determinatio

From the foregoing it is determined that:

1. Theosis is the ontological form of salvation: the creature’s participation in divine life through the Spirit.

2. Participation (participatio) expresses an asymmetrical relation—God communicates, the creature receives.

3. The Holy Spirit is the causal mediator of this participation, uniting Creator and creature without confusion or separation.

4. Divine properties (D_G) are communicated not as multiplied essences but as participated correlates (D) in the believer.

5. The ontology of theosis thus completes the logic of divine communication: the Word spoken truly becomes the life lived divinely.

Disputatio VI: De Causalitate Divina et Loquela Theologica

On Divine Causality and Theological Speech

Causalitas divina non est externa actio super mundum, sed interna ratio essendi et loquendi. Spiritus Sanctus, qui est amor subsistens, causat non solum esse rerum sed etiam recte loqui de Deo. Sic omnis loquela theologica est participatio in causatione divina.

Divine causality is not an external action imposed upon the world but the inner reason both for being and for speaking. The Holy Spirit, who is subsistent love, causes not only the existence of things but also the right speaking of them. Every theological utterance is thus a participation in divine causality itself.

__________

Thesis

The Spirit’s causality extends from being to language. The God who causes things to exist also causes them to be spoken truly. Hence, theological language is not merely a human representation of divine acts but itself a divinely caused act of participation in those same realities.

Locus classicus

“For it is God who works in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure.” — Philippians 2:13

Here Paul affirms that divine causality penetrates human willing and acting. The same holds for speech: God works in us not only to do but to say according to His good pleasure.

Explicatio

In the preceding Disputationes, we established that theological speech (T) is syntactically ordered, Spirit-authorized, and rendered true through its correspondence with divine reality. Yet this correspondence itself presupposes a causal link: the reality that theology names exists only because God brings it into being, and the speech that names it exists only because God causes it to be spoken.

Divine causality therefore operates on two planes:

1. Ontological causality, whereby God gives being to creatures.

2. Linguistic causality, whereby God gives utterance to truth-bearing speech.

Both forms of causation are united in the Holy Spirit, the divine causa principalissima — the first and inner cause through whom all other causes act.

To express this relation in our earlier symbolism:

• Let D_G represent a property belonging properly to God (for example, divine wisdom).

• Let D represent the creature’s participated share in that property (human wisdom given by grace).

When theology speaks of “wisdom,” its words participate in the same causal current by which divine wisdom communicates itself to creatures. Thus, the correspondence D_G → D (read: “from God’s wisdom to creaturely wisdom”) does not indicate a metaphor but a causal transmission—the Spirit’s act of sharing divine properties across the Creator–creature divide.

Accordingly, theology’s language is not neutral description but theophysical communication—a speech that exists because God causes it to exist as part of His ongoing self-disclosure.

Objectiones

Obiectio I. According to Aristotelian naturalism, divine causality, operates only through the natural order as its first cause. Human speech, being a voluntary act of rational creatures, belongs to the realm of secondary causes. To make God the cause of theological language would collapse creaturely agency and render human discourse a mere divine puppet show.

Obiectio II. According to late medieval nominalist voluntarism, God’s will alone determines what is true, but human language cannot share in that causality. The words of theology are human signs that express obedience, not divine acts themselves. To attribute causal efficacy to them confuses sign with thing and diminishes God’s absolute freedom.

Obiectio III. If God directly causes every act as in occasionalism, then human beings contribute nothing real to theological speech. But if humans truly speak, then divine causality cannot determine their words without destroying their freedom. The doctrine of divine causation in theological discourse thus faces an insoluble dilemma: either language is divine and not human, or human and not divine.

Obiectio IV. Contemporary analytic philosophy of language regards meaning as determined by social-linguistic conventions and intentions, not metaphysical causes. “Causality” has no place in semantic explanation. To describe divine causality in theological speech is therefore a category mistake, a misuse of causal vocabulary in the domain of meaning.

Responsiones

Ad I. Aristotle’s distinction between primary and secondary causes provides the very structure theology must preserve. The Holy Spirit acts as the primary cause of theological language, not by replacing human agency but by enabling it. Just as God moves creatures to act according to their own natures, so the Spirit moves theologians to speak according to their own intellects and tongues. Divine causality grounds, rather than negates, the freedom of theological speech.

Ad II. Nominalism rightly guards divine sovereignty, yet by confining causality to decree it denies God’s intimate presence in creation. The Spirit’s causality in theological language is not competitive but participatory: divine agency establishes the very possibility that human words can signify God. Theological language is not deified but divinely grounded—the Spirit makes creaturely signs transparent to divine reality without abolishing their created nature.

Ad III. The dilemma between occasionalism and autonomy arises only when divine and human causality are conceived as rival forces within the same ontological plane. In theology, however, divine causality is in esse—it grounds the creature’s act without competing with it. The human theologian truly speaks, yet that speech is what it is by virtue of the Spirit’s enabling presence. Divine causality does not override secondary causes but constitutes their being and efficacy.

Ad IV. Analytic semantics rightly locates meaning within communal use, but this use itself presupposes a deeper ontological ground. In theology, the relation between word and referent is not purely conventional but pneumatic: the Spirit causes words to bear determinate reference to divine reality. Theological meaning therefore involves both human convention and divine causation—the Spirit as the transcendent condition of linguistic signification in the domain of revelation.

Nota

The connection between causality and language clarifies theology’s realism. If “to be is to have causal powers,” as philosophers often say, then to speak truly of God requires that theological terms participate in divine causal power. The Spirit ensures this participation by joining word and world in a single act of communication.

We might say that felicity is the form of divine causality in speech. When the Spirit authorizes an utterance within T, He does more than declare it permissible; He makes it effective as a bearer of divine power. The felicitous word, therefore, is not merely correct but causal—it accomplishes what it signifies because it lives in the Spirit’s energy.

This understanding also guards against theological irrealism. A theology that speaks of God without causal reference—without affirming that God’s acts truly bring about what is said—would empty divine predicates of power. The Spirit, as cause of both being and saying, guarantees that theological truth is not detached commentary but participation in divine action.

Determinatio

From the foregoing it is determined that:

1. Divine causality operates not only in the order of being but also in the order of speaking.

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

3. To speak truly of God is to participate causally in God’s own self-communication; theology is therefore a theophysical act.

4. Felicity represents the formal aspect of divine causality in language, while truth represents its ontological fulfillment.

5. The Spirit thus binds ontology and discourse in a single causal order: the God who causes being to exist also causes His praise to be spoken.