As other sciences do not argue in proof of their principles, but argue from their principles to demonstrate other truths in these sciences: so this doctrine [theology] does not argue in proof of its principles, which are the articles of faith, but from them it goes on to prove something else; as the Apostle from the resurrection of Christ argues in proof of the general resurrection (1 Cor. 15)…Sacred Scripture…can dispute with one who denies its principles only if the opponent admits some at least of the truths obtained through divine revelation…If our opponent believes nothing of divine revelation, there is no longer any means of proving the articles of faith by reasoning, but only of answering his objections---if he has any---against faith…[S]acred doctrine makes use even of human reason, not, indeed, to prove faith (for thereby the merit of faith would come to an end), but to make clear other things that are put forward in this doctrine.Here is a question for my more-or-less Barthian friends and colleagues: How do you think this matches up with Barth’s own position vis-à-vis natural theology and apologetics?
Friday, September 19, 2008
Thomas Aquinas and Apologetics
Posted by W. Travis McMaken
Consider this passage from the Summa Theologica - I.q1.art8: