Not Conflict But Harmony

This article answers the question, “How does Thomas Aquinas understand the relationship between Scripture and Natural Theology?” At one level, the question is not difficult to answer. Thomas lays out his position clearly in his major works. Yet, the history of interpretation of Thomas has obscured his clear distinctions.

The purpose of this article, therefore, is to expound Thomas’s views as stated in his major works to correct misconceptions of Thomas and to help readers distinguish Scriptural revelation from natural revelation and sacred doctrine from natural theology.

Sacred Doctrine: in Scripture, not nature

According to Thomas, sacred doctrine takes its source from divine revelation deposited in Holy Scripture, which transcends human reason (ST I.Q1.A1; CG 1.3). This sacred doctrine contains saving knowledge about the Trinity and Christ, which stems from God’s revelation as found in Scripture; such teachings transcend human reason and are a gift of God. By contrast, natural theology, derived through reason, describes general truths about God as Romans 1:19–20 explains.

That God exists may be known by tracing causes through effects, that is, by demonstrating that an Agent must have created the things that are made. Share on XAs Thomas explains in his Contra Gentes: “For certain things that are true about God wholly surpass the capability of human reason, for instance that God is three and one: while there are certain things to which even natural reason can attain, for instance that God is, that God is one, and others like these, which even the philosophers proved demonstratively of God, being guided by the light of natural reason” (CG 1.3).

Natural theology, therefore, exists. Interestingly, to affirm natural theology, Thomas points to Scripture as his authority by citing Romans 1:20: “The invisible things of Him are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made” (ST I.Q2.A2).

In other words, that God exists is something anyone can know through demonstration (ST I.Q2.A1). The fool may say in his heart that there is no God (Ps 14:1), but that is why he is a fool. That God exists may be known by tracing causes through effects, that is, by demonstrating that an Agent must have created the things that are made. “For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them,” explains Paul, precisely “in the things that have been made” (Rom 1:19, 20).

When Scripture speaks about theological truths known by reason, such as in Romans 1:19–20, it infallibly affirms truths of natural theology since, as Thomas explains, only a few philosophers and with great difficulty could discern such teaching about God. And even then, their theology may be intermixed with errors (ST I.Q1.A1; CG 1.4). One might think of Aristotle, Plato, or Islamic philosophers, who posit something like an eternal Creator in their own idioms. They each have something true to say, but intermix error into their ideas of God. So when Scripture overlaps with natural knowledge of God, it does so in a clarifying way.

Besides natural theology, sacred doctrine also exists. Thomas, following Paul, distinguishes truths known by natural reason and those only known by revelation—“articles of faith” which make up “sacred doctrine.” He explains: “The existence of God and other like truths about God, which can be known by natural reason, are not articles of faith, but are preambles to the articles; for faith presupposes natural knowledge, even as grace presupposes nature, and perfection supposes something that can be perfected” (ST I.Q2.A2).

The reason why truths about God known by natural reason cannot be articles of faith is because sacred doctrine transcends human reason. That said, sacred doctrine does not contradict reason (ST I.Q1.A8). So, for example, we might say that God is one and three. Divine revelation tells us this. But such a teaching does not fall prey to the law of non-contradiction because God is one in nature, three in person. Hence, Scriptural revelation transcends human reason but can be defended rationally since God’s truth is true by any measure, even if unknown until God in Christ through his Word reveals it to us (CG 1.7).

So here, we begin to see the difference between Scripture, which reveals sacred doctrine, and natural revelation, which leads to natural theology.

Sacred Doctrine: Revealed, not Argued

There is another important distinction to make between natural revelation and Scriptural revelation. Yes, the former reveals God generally, and the latter savingly and in a way that transcends reason; yes, the former is true but apart from Scripture can only be known by a few with great difficulty and admixture of error, while the revelation in Scripture provides clear teaching; but a third distinction needs to be stated, namely, that one cannot neutrally argue for the truth of sacred doctrine if an opponent denies the truth of Scripture.

As Thomas explains, “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. Since faith rests upon infallible truth, and since the contrary of a truth can never be demonstrated, it is clear that the arguments brought against faith cannot be demonstrations, but are difficulties that can be answered” (ST 1.Q1.A8).

Thomas’s thinking here centres on how divine revelation provides its own first principles, namely, the articles of faith which are found in Scripture (ST 1.Q1.A8); these first principles have no prior premises or argument to prove them (CG 1.7). In Thomas’s words, “this doctrine does not argue in proof of its principles, which are the articles of faith” (ST 1.Q1.A8). Sacred doctrine thus has no “has no science above itself.”^[1] Further, Sacred doctrine “accepts its principles not from other sciences, but immediately from God, by revelation” (ST I.Q1.A5). For this reason, in an apologetic setting, “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” (ST 1.Q1.A8).

Notice that far from teaching some value-neutral knowledge about God, Scriptural revelation must be received by faith. Or else the merit of faith, Thomas explains, would amount to nothing. Faith is an act whereby one receives truth from God (ST 1.Q1.A8.Rep 2), something necessary given that revelation from God transcends reason and must thereby be accepted by faith. In this case, faith relies on infallible truth as revealed in Scripture. That faith accepts the things of God unto salvation, but can only prove an article of faith (like the Incarnation) if someone accepts the first principles of reasoning for sacred doctrine, namely, the revelation of God in Scripture.

If one does not, we cannot simply persuade someone into the kingdom. We can, however, provide answers to objections since the articles of faith that God reveals are infallible, necessarily true, even if they transcend natural knowledge. Hence, we can defend them. We can say that Christ hypostatically unites divinity and humanity. He is one person in two natures. This defense follows from the cheerful confidence that God’s Word speaks infallibly.

Here, Thomas follows traditional Christian teaching, such as is found in Augustine, who writes: “Only those books of Scripture which are called canonical have I learned to hold in such honor as to believe their authors have not erred in any way in writing them. But other authors I so read as not to deem everything in their works to be true, merely on account of their having so thought and written, whatever may have been their holiness and learning” (ST I.Q1.A8; or Letter 82 in Letters (1–82), FOTC, 1951).

Sacred Doctrine: First Principles and Five Ways

Thomas maintains that Scripture provides infallible truths about God and saving knowledge that transcend human reason. Share on XTo answer the question of this essay more precisely, Thomas maintains that Scripture provides infallible truths about God and saving knowledge that transcend human reason. Its first principles are the articles of faith, which stem from God’s revelation in Scripture. Natural revelation reveals general truths about God that accord with human reason, allowing some, with great effort and possible error, to affirm truths about God: “For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made” (Rom 1:20).

This natural theological knowledge of God renders one “without excuse” and makes one’s rejection of God all the more lamentable (e.g., Rom 1:21). But more than that, natural knowledge of God cannot save us, even if accurate because natural theology cannot discover saving truth apart from faith in God’s revelation that transcends human reason. Hence, “It was necessary for man’s salvation that there should be a teaching revealed by God beyond the philosophical disciplines, which are investigated by human reason” (ST I.Q1.A1).

Thomas explains why by citing 2 Timothy 3:16: “All Scripture inspired by God is useful for teaching, for reproving, for correcting, and for instructing in justice. Now Scripture, inspired by God, is no part of the philosophical disciplines, which were discovered by human reason. Therefore it is useful that besides the philosophical disciplines, there should be another science inspired by God” (ST I.Q1.A1).

Sacred doctrine then has no part in philosophical disciplines because its first principles stem from divine revelation in Scripture (e.g., ST I.Q1.A5, A8). Certainly, philosophical knowledge can act as a handmaiden by clarifying sacred doctrine (ST I.Q1.A5.Rep2). But note that even when Thomas argues for the truthfulness of the statement “God exists,” by using reason in his Five Ways, he begins by citing Exodus 3:14 as an authority (ST.I.Q2.A3). God exists because he says so. And this scriptural citation precedes Thomas’s entire discussion on the statement “whether God exists” (utrum deus sit) via reason (e.g., the argument from motion).^[2]

Here, Thomas shows that we can infer causes from effects (propter quia) to affirm the proposition, God exists. In this demonstration, he shows how natural theology looks in practice; yet by citing Exodus 3:14 before the demonstration, he shows how Christians ought to approach natural theology. Apart from Scripture, natural knowledge would be discovered by (1) few, (2) over long period of time, and (3) their conclusions may contain error (CG 1.4). Hence, Scripture insofar as it overlaps with natural knowledge, is an important source for our natural theology.Christians therefore have an advantage because they can rely on Scripture whose contents contain both sacred doctrine and teaching that overlaps with natural knowledge of God. Share on X

This does not gainsay the act of demonstrating God exists by reason. But it provides reins on our expectations of non-Christian natural theology. Christians therefore have an advantage because they can rely on Scripture whose contents contain both sacred doctrine and teaching that overlaps with natural knowledge of God. And this truth matters since “some things which reason is able to investigate must be held by faith: so that all may share in the knowledge of God easily, and without doubt or error” (CG 1.4).

Conclusion

To understand how Scripture and natural theology relate to each other, one would do well to follow Thomas. Although his distinctions may take time to absorb, by doing so, we will strengthen our theological muscles lest they become weak from lack of use. Or as Abraham Kuyper says, “Whoever refuses to go back to Thomas Aquinas weakens himself as a theologian.”^[3]

Notes: 

^[1] More precisely, sacred doctrine in us descends from God’s knowledge of himself: “sacred doctrine is a science because it proceeds from principles established by the light of a higher science, namely, the science of God and the blessed” (ST. I.Q1.A2). As music borrows principles from mathematics, so sacred doctrine borrows principles from God’s knowledge of himself as revealed to his creatures (so Stephen Loughlin, Aquinas’s Summa Theologiae [T&T Clark, 2020], 33.

^[2] Thomas carefully argues for the truth of the proposition “God exists,” not God’s existence per se since God’s esse is identical to his essentia. On this small but important distinction, see Brian Davies, Thomas Aquinas’s Summa Theologiae (Oxford University Press, 2014), 34–5.

^[3] Cited in Eglinton, “The Reception of Aquinas,” 452.

Image Credit: Andrew Milligan Sumo | Flickr