Coherence vs. Correspondence Theories of Truth

So I've been reading W.V. Quine's "Methods of Logic" lately to try and sharpen my analytic skills. This, of course, for the sake of my main interest in the philosophy of religion. I've only just begun the book, but it's already got the gears a'turning.

The thought occured to me: Why is it that things should stand in logical relations to one another? What necessitates "If A=B, and B=C, then A=C" ?

The logical law, of course, expressed in the above formula is transitory. But again, why is it that it should work like this? One might immediately give the simple solution that what we mean when we say it "works" is merely that it is true by virtue of being coherent to our self-constructed logical system as a whole. This is known as the "coherence" theory of truth. A proposition is considered true if it relates to the majority of our other beliefs in a non-contradictory way.

This theory is the one which Quine advocates. Let's assume he's correct (I believe he is not), but let us nonetheless for the sake of argument. If it's true that all our beliefs should be coherent to our logical system as a whole, and should abide by it's most basic laws, then let us sharply consider the following principle:

1) Any given entity X must have an explanation for it's existence.

- support: Nothing can exist inexplicably, even if it exists necessarily. It would at least find it's explanation within it's own ontological essence (e.g. God is said, in classical theism, to find his explanation in his very nature).

This is the so-called "Principle of Sufficient Reason". If the coherence theory of truth, then, is to remain coherent then it itself must abide by this principle. Afterall, is the proposition "The coherence theory of truth is true" exempt from the system? I think not. So we have two options here. Either

1) The system finds its explanation apart from itself.

or

2) The system explains itself.

I find the notion that it explains itself almost paradoxical. The statement "The proposition 'the coherence theory of truth is true' is coherent to the coherence theory of truth" seems a misnomer, if not arbitrary. I think the more likely, and indeed coherent, of the two options is that it does not explain itself. There is something other than the system of logic proposed which explains it. But what could? I think two options may suffice. Either some form of platonism or some form of theism. Platonism would insure that logical relations exist necessarily as some sort of transcendent Form. Theism would be near to this, but would have the extra benefit of explaining how propositions could exist in the absence of human percievers, or minds rather (that is another discussion altogether).

So if what I say is true (it could very well not be, I have not yet subjected them to much real analysis) then the coherence theory of truth, including the principle of sufficient reason, may actually necessitate a correspondence theory of truth. Interesting indeed.