This section introduces the foundational structure that governs all intelligibility within the relational-biblical model: the ontological-epistemological-semiotic cascade. Rather than treating these domains as interchangeable or autonomous, the model affirms a necessary sequence—Ontology → Epistemology → Semiotics—anchored in the One True God. This triangulated order is not a schema imposed upon reality, but the very architecture by which reality becomes knowable, meaningful, and communicable.
Building upon the ontological reorientation outlined in the Prologue, this section introduces the structural triangulation that undergirds the relational-submetaphysical model: the interrelation between ontology, epistemology, and semiotics.
In relation to traditional Reformed and Remonstrant theology, the model proposed here affirms the necessity of relational restoration as the foundation for all true ontological, epistemological, and semiotic alignment with God. It preserves Van Til’s insistence that receptive regeneration is essential for covenantal eligibility and full knowledge of God. However, unlike Van Til’s model of total noetic suppression—which can border on epistemic nullification—this framework acknowledges, with Arminian insight, that an Divinely imprinted deontic-modal moral unit (discussed later), situated in the phenomenological space and capable of volitional suppression (Rom 1:18-20), remains functional-even apart from a restored relationship-testifying to its ontological grounding (it's potential responsiveness, whether to volition, conscience, or grace* is explored in later sections).
While the deontic-modal unit remains embedded within phenomenological space, God does not continuously engage the human will. Rather, He sovereignly withholds or initiates confrontation according to His divine-ordained appointed time. In the ordinary course of life, individuals are left to their own volitional devices—a condition that serves both as moral exposure and as theodictic** evidence of the soul’s true posture apart from divine intervention. This exposure does not leave the soul passive; it reveals the will’s tendency to suppress rather than submit to truth (cf. Rom. 1:18–20). When God does choose to confront (like the Prodigal Son, Luke 15:11–32), such as through prevenient grace§, He initiates a relational crisis that invites the morals agent's will into a decision. This crisis often presents as a binary moral or existential threshold—typified by the Prodigal Son “coming to himself.” Partial phenomenal alignment (e.g., conviction, sorrow, or humility) may serve as a preparatory substrate, but full relational restoration (justification and subsequent life-long sanctification) occurs only upon the will's volitional and responsive return and God’s acceptance.
Furthermore, it affirms that relational restoration, once effected, is sufficient for salvation—even where noetic rehabilitation remains incomplete. This is exemplified by the thief on the cross (Luke 23:39–43), who was immediately justified through a declaration of faith and relational submission—recognized by Christ as belonging to the covenantal promise (though the ontological reality of redemption and regeneration remained contingent upon the completion of Christ’s atoning death). Where such relational restoration fails to occur, however, the result is soteriologically catastrophic, regardless of any outward ethical or intellectual coherence.
Uniquely, this model integrates semiotic-ontological realignment—a dimension largely absent in both Van Tilian and Arminian systems. Christ restored the severed relationship between token, signified, ontic instantiation, and ontological type—reestablishing moral and epistemic integrity by realigning signs to their rightful referents through His divine instantiation, personal confrontation, exemplification, and pedagogy. This is a prerequisite of coherent relational life. This is not speculative abstraction but grounded in the very pattern of Christ’s earthly ministry.
Jesus did not create new language or invent religious categories; He entered existing contemporary semiotic structures—tokens and types—and realigned ontic signs such as Kingdom, Father, Truth, Life, and Law to their rightful ontological types and covenantal referents in the Father and the Son through the pedagogical use of tropes (similitudes, beatitudes and parables). This presupposes the Divine Double Prerogative: only the One True God—and through His only begotten Son—possesses the authority both to instantiate a being and to define its ontological type: its essence, its limits, and its rightful function within the created moral order. Any attempt to redefine an ontological type apart from this prerogative constitutes ontological fraud. Through morally and epistemically grounded tropes, His speech and actions enacted the very semiotic, ontological, and epistemological realignment that this model seeks to articulate. Humans—as derivative agents may participate in God’s order through moral alignment and covenantal trust, but never as originators of being. Their function is one of receptive stewardship, not ontological authorship.
Thus, redemption is interpreted not only as legal atonement or moral example, but as the restoration of right relational being and knowing. Its implications extend into doctrine, theological historiography, linguistic integrity, and the epistemic frameworks distorted or suppressed after the apostolic era.
This framework discerns the flow of meaning along two axes: the vertical, from Creator to creature, and the horizontal, from creature to creature. All ontological fidelity begins with vertical confrontation—the One True God revealing, the moral agent receiving—but the moral responsibility does not end there. Once restored, the agent becomes a steward of semiotic coherence, charged with transmitting truth across relational and discursive space. The epistemic and moral integrity of horizontal expression depends entirely on prior vertical realignment. Thus, triangulated discernment requires not only recognition of divine disclosure, but awareness of how its truth is mediated—or manipulated—between moral agents. Semiotic fidelity is not merely a technical matter; it is covenantal.
This project will further explore the implications of the relational, axiologically-referenced Deontic–Modal (DM) moral unit—a structural sub-metaphysical framework that intersects with phenomenology, semiotics, epistemology, and ontology—anchored in the Divine Double Prerogative: the sole right of the Absolute not only to instantiate ontic realities, but also to define their corresponding ontological types. This includes the assignment of moral obligation, but also precedes it by determining what kinds of being exist, what constitutes deviation, and what is irreducibly grounded in divine ontology. This prerogative anchors the moral unit's structure in Divine authority, not human convention or autonomous moral reasoning.
The model will engage semiotic theory both theologically and philosophically, but always in reference to relational integrity, rejecting unstable self-referential systems such as structuralism, deconstructionism, and adaptive Overton paradigms. A suite of diagnostic tools will accompany this framework, including: the Multi-Dimensional Morpheme Analysis Tool (MMAT), preserving relational meaning across syntagmatic shifts and aiding biblical hermeneutics; the Onto-Discursive Analysis (ODA) framework, diagnosing manipulation through deixis, presupposition, implicature, typophoric projection, and structural framing; and the Bandwidth Suppression Tool, which traces how ontological flattening leads to epistemic and moral silencing.
Together, these tools are designed to scale into critical discourse analysis and pedagogical applications, offering rigorous ways to detect, expose, and resist ideological drift while remaining anchored in biblically grounded, relationally coherent truth.
The triangulation between ontology, epistemology, and semiotics is not merely an abstract structure—it is a moral frame of human existence. To distort one axis distorts all, and what results is not merely theoretical error but practical injustice. Truth divorced from reality leads to deceit; being detached from value results in exploitation. The relational frame is designed not only to reveal God but to hold humanity accountable for responding to that revelation. The ethical imperative here is foundational: one cannot rightly speak, act, or think without reference to the One who grounds what is, what is known, and what ought to be. This triangulated frame establishes the structural backbone for the relational model, enabling the development of tools that can diagnose, critique, and reconstruct systems of thought, discourse, and doctrine.
Footnotes:
*This reference to grace pertains to sanctifying grace—that which operates post-restoration to conform the will and affections to divine order (cf. Acts 20:32) and should be contrasted with Prevenient grace- see below.
§Prevenient grace—famously articulated by Arminius—that is irresistable, refers instead to the divine initiative, at God's appointed time, that precedes relational restoration, awakening moral awareness and volitional attentiveness (cf. Acts 16:14, where “the Lord opened” Lydia’s heart before she responded). Both forms are addressed in greater depth in subsequent sections.
For a formal treatment of the entire framework and volitional suppression and the twin operations of grace, see
Logic Appendix B
.
**The term “theodictic” is used here in its theological sense as a reference to the vindication of divine justice. In this context, it denotes how God's justice is demonstrated not merely by judgment itself, but by what is revealed when He withholds intervention: the human will's tendency to suppress truth, thereby justifying divine confrontation and exclusion (cf. Rom. 1:18–20).
On the Meaning of Total Depravity
While this framework rejects any reading that implies ontological or epistemological absence, it does affirm that fallen humanity retains embedded moral awareness—particularly in the deontic-modal structure—which makes suppression possible, in line with Romans 1:19–20 and 2:14–15. Total depravity, properly understood, refers not to annihilation of knowledge, but to its resistance. Thus, God remains just in judgment precisely because He appeals to an internally accessible moral law that the unregenerate actively suppress. This was elaborated upon in the preceding
Prologue and Presuppositions
section.
Summary:
To reverse or collapse the Ontology → Epistemology → Semiotics sequence is to sever meaning from being and truth from the One who reveals it. All secular attempts to derive knowledge or meaning apart from ontological grounding result in simulation—internally coherent but metaphysically hollow. By restoring the primacy of divine being, this model realigns knowledge and signification within the only framework where truth can be both known and trusted.
