Theology as of the revealed as opposed to the believed-UPDATED

Theology studies the things of revelation as opposed to the things of faith; the revealed as opposed to the believed. Theology will remain in heaven, but faith will not; Christ had the most perfect theology in this life, but no faith (even on the part of his human intellect, the reason given here). Theology, as such, does not connote imperfection; but faith does.

By insisting on the difference between “faith and reason” we run the risk of seeing theology as dealing with matters of faith as such. We have to begin seeing theology as opposed or distinguished from faith. As soon as I saw this I thought I saw a giant door open up to a world of sunshine and angels.

Theology is truly faith seeking understanding; but more properly it is the revealed revealing. It is he act of our potential with regard to knowledge of the revealed. for this reason, we might also account for theology as our participation in the revealed.


  1. Peter said,

    December 29, 2007 at 7:21 am

    This is interesting. I don’t think I have ever noticed this before.

    In the second question of the Summa (Whether sacred doctrine is a science?) he doesn’t mention faith in his exposition. At the end of the paragraph he states, “Hence, just as the musician accepts on authority the principles taught him by the mathematician, so sacred science is established on principles revealed by God.”

    The only place in that article where faith is mentioned (besides in the Augustine quotation) is in the first *objection*. And in his reply to that objection, faith is not mentioned.

    What do you think the relationship between faith and theology is?

  2. a thomist said,

    December 29, 2007 at 7:43 am

    I don’t know everything to make of this. It’s a principle that I think just needs to percolate for a little while, but I think it is superabundantly potent and fertile.

%d bloggers like this: