This article studies the debate on the secularization theorem, with special emphasis on the theorizations developed by Carl Schmitt and Hans Blumenberg. Its relevance and scope is of interest not only to the theory of history—and in particular to conceptual history—, but, by virtue of its significance, to the human sciences as a whole. For the so-called debate on secularization has brought to the fore controversies about the origin of modernity and its aftermath. The article first traces the origins of the word secularization, its explicit and implicit uses in modernity, and the debates surrounding Schmitt’s canonical formulation in his Political Theology I, published in 1922. This is followed by a critical assessment of Blumenberg’s well-known contribution, suggesting that it was rather a misunderstanding between the two authors. Finally, the so-called debate is analyzed in the light of Koselleck’s contribution, which may be seen in this context as a via di mezzo. Is there really a debate on the theorem of secularization? In what sense can it be understood as a genuine “theorem”? What kind of status does the knowledge provided by political theology have? This article takes a stance in this debate, and, at the same time, attempts to draw some speculative conclusions about the need to deepen theological-political investigations into the philosophy of the State in order to understand the crisis of baroque statehood in the age of the masses.