{"id":18294,"date":"2023-08-14T16:01:01","date_gmt":"2023-08-14T20:01:01","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/kolbecenter.org\/?p=18294"},"modified":"2023-08-14T16:01:01","modified_gmt":"2023-08-14T20:01:01","slug":"fundamental-theology-and-creation-part-1-faith-science-and-creation","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/kolbecenter.org\/fundamental-theology-and-creation-part-1-faith-science-and-creation\/","title":{"rendered":"Fundamental Theology and Creation, Part 1: Faith, Science, and Creation"},"content":{"rendered":"
This is the first in a series of articles investigating major aspects of Catholic fundamental theology and their significance for the doctrine of Creation.[1]<\/sup><\/a> By examining the foundations of theology\u2014Divine Revelation and Faith, Scripture and Tradition, Magisterial Teaching\u2014we will be able to better understand and evaluate the sources of revelation, and thereby come to greater clarity on what the Catholic Church actually teaches about Creation and related topics.<\/p>\n In this first article, we will briefly examine the nature of Divine Revelation and our God-given response to it, the supernatural virtue of faith. This will lead to a consideration of the science of sacred theology, which rests on faith, and how it relates to other (especially the natural) sciences. By doing so, we will begin to understand how Creation is a properly theological topic, and that therefore sacred theology can and ought to judge the natural sciences when they attempt to appropriate this fundamental subject.<\/p>\n When speaking of revelation in this article and those that follow, we will only be referring to divine, supernatural, public revelation;[2]<\/sup><\/a> the first Vatican Council defines this as follows:<\/p>\n the supernatural revelation [which], according to the faith of the universal Church, as declared by the holy synod of Trent, is contained \u201cin the written books and in the unwritten traditions which have been received by the apostles from the mouth of Christ Himself; or, through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit have been handed down by the apostles themselves, and have thus come to us\u201d[3]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n Note that this supernatural, public revelation of God is contained in Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition.[4]<\/sup><\/a> The entire content of divine revelation is referred to as the Deposit of Faith<\/em>.[5]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n A truth may be divinely revealed in one of two ways: formally or virtually. Formally <\/em>revealed truths are those which God has directly revealed, explicitly or implicitly. These truths are supernatural in form<\/em>, since God is the one manifesting them; truths supernatural in form <\/em>(formally revealed) may be either supernatural or natural in substance<\/em>; that is, they may either be such as can be known by unaided natural reason or could only be known by a supernatural revelation of God. For example: it is formally revealed both that God exists\u2014God said to Moses: I AM WHO AM <\/em>(Ex 3:14)\u2014and that God is three persons in one divine essence\u2014there are Three who give testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost. And these three are one<\/em> (1Jn 5:7). The first of these truths, that God exists, can be known with certitude by unaided natural reason, as the first Vatican Council infallibly teaches,[6]<\/sup><\/a> and so it is natural in substance <\/em>even though in this context it is supernatural in form. <\/em>The latter truth, that of the Trinity, could only be known from divine revelation,[7]<\/sup><\/a> and so is supernatural in both substance and form.<\/p>\n That God can (and has) revealed truths that are merely natural in substance, things which we could potentially know by natural reason alone, is an important point to remember as we progress through these articles. This importance will become more apparent as we consider further aspects of revelation and supernatural faith.<\/p>\n Virtually <\/em>revealed truths are those which are deduced from formally revealed truths through rational discourse. Such truths, though not directly revealed (and not strictly part of the Deposit of Faith), are necessary for the protection of the Deposit. The most notable of these are called theological conclusions: truths which are logically deduced from one formally revealed premise and one naturally known premise. The Church can infallibly define these truths, but with a kind of assent different from that of formally revealed truths, namely that they be \u201cdefinitively held\u201d (de fide tenenda <\/em>as opposed to de fide credenda<\/em>).[8]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n Returning to formal revelation, the focus of our treatment here, we need to examine two further distinctions in addition to that between truths supernatural in substance <\/em>or only in form<\/em>.<\/p>\n First, formal revelation may be either explicit or implicit. For example, it is explicitly <\/em>revealed in Matthew 16 that Christ established the Church upon the foundation of St. Peter\u2014And I say to thee: that thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church<\/em> (Mt 16:18). An implicitly <\/em>revealed truth comes from an analysis of, or simple deduction from, the revealed truths alone.[9]<\/sup><\/a> In this example, by considering the revealed truth of the Petrine primacy[10]<\/sup><\/a> with that of other passages in the New Testament showing that the Apostles were to hand on their office to later generations,[11]<\/sup><\/a> it is therefore (at least) implicitly revealed that the successors of St. Peter are likewise the foundation of the Church.[12]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n Second and more importantly, formal revelation is distinguished into things revealed properly <\/em>and per se<\/em>, and those which are revealed only consequently <\/em>or per accidens<\/em>. St. Thomas explains that \u201cthose things pertain per se <\/em>to faith the sight of which we shall enjoy in eternal life, and by which we are brought to eternal life.\u201d[13]<\/sup><\/a> These are the articles of faith,[14]<\/sup><\/a> which one must believe explicitly in order to be saved.[15]<\/sup><\/a> \u201cThe indirect [per accidens<\/em>] and secondary object [of faith] comprises all things delivered by God to us in Holy Writ,\u201d[16]<\/sup><\/a> which St. Thomas describes elsewhere as being \u201cproposed to our belief, not chie\ufb02y on their own account, but for the manifestation of those mentioned above,\u201d namely the articles of Faith, such as \u201cthe Divine majesty or the Incarnation of Christ.\u201d[17]<\/sup><\/a>\u00a0 These per accidens<\/em> revealed truths include all<\/em> the things recorded in Sacred Scripture, for example, \u201cthat Abraham had two sons, that a dead man rose again at the touch of Eliseus\u2019 bones,\u201d[18]<\/sup><\/a>\u00a0 that Christ went up into a boat and sat (Mt 13:2), or that St. Paul left his cloak in Troas (2Tm 4:13). These latter are no less divinely revealed than the former, since they likewise are proposed for our belief, albeit not for their own sake but for the sake of the per se <\/em>revealed truths. To use St. Robert Bellarmine\u2019s words, these per accidens <\/em>revealed truths are revealed not \u201cas regards the topic,\u201d but \u201cas regards the speaker;\u201d[19]<\/sup><\/a> since God is the true and primary Author of the whole of Sacred Scripture, whatsoever is contained in the holy books has God for its Author, and thus is formally revealed.<\/p>\n The importance of this distinction cannot be overstated, and will be revisited in a later article dealing directly with Sacred Scripture. While, strictly speaking, only per se <\/em>formally revealed truths constitute the primary object of our faith and the Church\u2019s infallible teaching, nevertheless per accidens<\/em> formally revealed truths are also true matters of faith, albeit \u201cindirectly and secondarily,\u201d as St. Thomas says.[20]<\/sup><\/a> This leads to several important conclusions.<\/p>\n In the first place, the denial of per accidens<\/em> revealed truths \u201cleads to the corruption of some article of faith,\u201d[21]<\/sup><\/a> since they are revealed for the sake of better manifesting or defending those articles, the per se <\/em>revealed truths. This is why the Church repeatedly admonishes the faithful of their duty \u201cto \ufb02ee also those errors which more or less approach heresy,\u201d[22]<\/sup><\/a> not merely the heresies themselves, and to reject any proposition which, even \u201cprovided there be no direct denial of dogmas, would lead to the conclusion that dogmas are either false or doubtful.\u201d[23]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n Secondly, St. Thomas teaches that \u201cthere may be heresy in either way,\u201d that is, with either per se<\/em> or per accidens<\/em> formally revealed truth, \u201ceven as there can be faith.\u201d[24]<\/sup><\/a> Thus it would be heretical to deny, for example, that St. Paul left his cloak in Troas, not because it is some supernatural truth, but simply because it is recorded in Sacred Scripture that the Apostle asks St. Timothy to bring with him the cloak that I left at Troas<\/em> (2Tm 4:13). And since all Scripture is divinely inspired, having God for its Author, the denial of even such a trivial fact would lead to the denial of Scripture\u2019s inerrancy, and thus the conclusion that God erred, or worse yet, lied\u2014either of which would be blasphemy. Therefore, while we are not strictly required to believe and confess explicitly all the per accidens <\/em>revealed truths as we are with those revealed per se<\/em>, nevertheless once we are aware that such-and-such a truth is clearly revealed in Sacred Scripture, even though it be only a per accidens <\/em>revealed truth, we are then morally bound to assent to it with divine faith.<\/p>\n This is extremely <\/em>important to keep in mind when dealing with subjects contained in Sacred Scripture which are in some manner related to those treated by the natural sciences, since such natural truths recorded in Scripture are no less divinely revealed than the supernatural ones. As we will see in a future article, the inerrancy of Sacred Scripture applies to everything<\/em>, including all per accidens <\/em>truths, contained in the sacred books\u2014not merely matters of faith or morals. The per accidens<\/em> truths are truly and formally revealed, not because they are supernatural in substance<\/em>, but rather because they are at least supernatural in form<\/em>, having been written under the inspiration and authorship of the Holy Ghost. Now these truths include many things which, though the part of the material object of Faith (as will be discussed below), fall also under the material object of other sciences, such as history, biology, astronomy, etc. Thus when Sacred Scripture records some historical or natural fact, such as (among many other and controversial things[25]<\/sup><\/a>) that Adam lived for 930 years (Gn 5:5),[26]<\/sup><\/a> one cannot claim \u201cthat this is not a matter of faith, since while it is not a matter of faith \u2018as regards the topic\u2019, it is a matter of faith \u2018as regards the speaker\u2019,\u201d[27]<\/sup><\/a> and therefore one must be ready and eager to believe it, just as one is \u201cprepared to believe whatever is contained in the Divine Scriptures.\u201d[28]<\/sup><\/a> St. Augustine teaches this very thing, which Pope Benedict XV authoritatively repeats:<\/p>\n Holy Scripture is invested with supreme authority by reason of its sure and momentous teaching regarding the faith. Whatever, then, it tells us of Enoch, Elias and Moses\u2014that we believe. [\u2026] we believe it simply because it is written in Scripture, and unless we believe in Scripture we can neither be Christians nor be saved.[29]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n These and further considerations will be taken up again in the article on Sacred Scripture. For the time, it is clear from the above that one is in no way free to merely dismiss or reinterpret under some vague \u201creligious sense\u201d those revealed propositions in apparent (or real) contradiction with the testimony of modern science. Rather, as Ven. Pius XII admonishes, such matters \u201cdemand the greatest moderation and caution,\u201d and must \u201cbe weighed and judged with the necessary seriousness, moderation and measure\u201d requisite for things \u201cin which the doctrine contained in Sacred Scripture or in Tradition is involved.\u201d[30]<\/sup><\/a> And indeed, in these cases the burden of proof is on the natural sciences, not the Scriptures or sacred theology, as will become increasingly apparent as we progress through this and subsequent articles.<\/p>\n To conclude this section on revelation itself, it remains to speak about the concept of a mystery<\/em>, defined as follows:<\/p>\n In the strict<\/em> sense, therefore, a mystery is a truth, whose existence can be known by human reason only by way of revelation, while its essence cannot be properly and fully understood, even after revelation. Thus, e.g., the mystery of the Holy Trinity.[31]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n It is important for modern man to realize, or perhaps re-discover, that there are realities which surpass the abilities of his natural reason to grasp or comprehend. This is true not only in the case of supernatural or theological mysteries, but even at the level of nature: there are natural <\/em>mysteries as well, truths of the natural world which can be recognized, but not comprehended in their essence.[32]<\/sup><\/a> For hardly do we guess aright at things that are upon earth: and with labour do we find the things that are before us<\/em> (Ws 9:16). As St. Thomas famously stated, \u201cour manner of knowing is so weak that no philosopher\u201d\u2014much less a natural scientist\u2014\u201ccould perfectly investigate the nature of even one little fly.\u201d[33]<\/sup><\/a> Our rational intellect is truly amazing, for it is there that the image and likeness to God is principally found in us[34]<\/sup><\/a>\u2014but it is far less, infinitely less, than the divine intellect that formed the nativity of man, and that found out the origin of all <\/em>(2Mc 7:23). The mysteries of God, then, and those which He has built into the nature of things, demand our respect\u2014and our humility.<\/p>\n This brings us to the second half of the definition of a mystery:<\/p>\n In a broad<\/em> sense we call it also a truth known only through revelation but comprehensible by reason once it has been revealed, e.g. the creation of the world in time<\/em>.[35]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n The creation of the world in time is a mystery, known only by divine revelation. This will appear obvious after brief consideration. For it seems to have escaped the notice of even some otherwise sound theologians of the past and present centuries that creation is a necessarily supernatural act.<\/em> Only God can create; only God can produce something ex nihilo<\/em>, which is to create in the strict sense, or produce a thing in its entire substance, which is to create in a broader sense.[36]<\/sup><\/a> True, man by natural reason (though the pagan philosophers never perfectly succeeded) can come to a knowledge of creation and the Creator generically, but it is only by divine revelation that we could know that the world did not always exist, or when it began to exist and in what circumstances, as St. Thomas ably proves.[37]<\/sup><\/a> When and how God created, then, in addition to being an intrinsically supernatural event, are what is known as a past contingent<\/em>.[38]<\/sup><\/a> Just as only God knows future <\/em>contingent events (which is the basis for true prophecy), so only He knows the past <\/em>contingent of the precise time and circumstances of His creative act. This is why Pope St. Gregory the Great, St. Thomas Aquinas, and others refer to Moses as \u201cprophesying of the past\u201d in writing the first chapters of Genesis.[39]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n The doctrine of Creation, then, is a matter properly of divine revelation, a supernatural mystery<\/em>, and not <\/em>a matter for the natural sciences to investigate or explain. For how can one investigate, by means of the natural<\/em> sciences and the method of observation and experimentation, a supernatural<\/em> event that took place at a contingent time in the past, and is therefore far beyond the ability of men to observe? But the creation of the heavens and the earth and all things that are in them<\/em> (Ex 20:11) is just such an event. While certain theistic evolutionists chide those holding to the traditional view on the grounds that \u201cthe author [of Genesis] never intended to provide an astronomical or a zoological record for an event at which he was not present,\u201d[40]<\/sup><\/a> rather it is the natural scientists who were not present and can thus provide no \u201castronomical or zoological record\u201d of any<\/em> certitude; God, however, who is the primary author of Genesis and all of Sacred Scripture (as the Church infallibly teaches), was indeed present at His own Creative act, and gave us the absolutely inerrant account of both when and how He created\u2014including any astronomical or zoological facts recorded (which would be per accidens <\/em>revealed truths), as will be seen in the subsequent article. While the natural sciences can and should utilize all the powers of natural reason, illumined and guided by supernatural faith, to investigate the natural world as it is now, offering their service to support (but never prove, let alone disprove) the revealed truth about Creation\u2014nevertheless an understanding of the creation event, or even of the world that then was, <\/em>which perished <\/em>in the Deluge (2Pt 3:6), is totally outside of their competence; that belongs to sacred theology alone.<\/p>\n The whole Deposit of Faith, all the truths which God has publicly revealed, must be believed by the virtue of divine faith which, as Vatican I defined,<\/p>\n \u201cis the beginning of human salvation\u201d, [and] is a supernatural virtue by which we, with the aid and inspiration of the grace of God, believe that the things revealed by Him are true, not because the intrinsic truth of the revealed things has been perceived by the natural light of reason, but because of the authority of God Himself who reveals them, who can neither deceive nor be deceived.[41]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n The points of this definition cannot be overlooked. In the first place, faith is a supernatural virtue: it \u201cis in itself a gift of God,\u201d which He infuses into our souls when we cooperate with the grace offered to us.[42]<\/sup><\/a> It is not owed to us since it is something above our nature, super<\/em>-natural, just as is the salvation of which this faith is the beginning: For by grace you are saved through faith: and that not of yourselves, for it is the gift of God<\/em> (Eph 2:8). This brings us to the second point: supernatural faith is absolutely necessary for salvation: for without faith it is impossible to please God. For he that cometh to God must believe that He is: and is a rewarder to them that seek Him<\/em> (Hb 11:6). Since both faith and the salvation for which it is requisite are above our nature and in no way owed to us, we must therefore humbly pray and ask our heavenly Father for that foundational grace, that free gift (which is what grace means), of true faith: the apostles said to the Lord: Increase our faith <\/em>(Lk 17:5; cf. Js 1:5\u20136).<\/em><\/p>\n Thirdly, by this faith we believe everything that God has revealed, that whatever He has revealed is true, and this whether or not we understand the things revealed\u2014in fact, the mysteries of the faith proper cannot be demonstrated by natural reason, nor fully understood in this life (though they can be shown to be reasonable). Hence why faith is defined by the Apostle as the evidence of things that appear not<\/em>, that is, an assent based on God\u2019s authority to things which we do not yet see or understand, but hope for <\/em>in eternal life (Hb 11:1).[43]<\/sup><\/a> To define faith more colloquially: \u201cGod said it, I believe it, that settles it.\u201d This does not mean that we set our God-given natural reason aside; far from it! Rather, the gift of faith is a supernatural perfection given to our rational intellect. Faith gives the intellect a participation in the divine nature, in the very knowledge of God, the First Truth, from which divine revelation comes: we have the mind of Christ <\/em>(1Co 2:16).<\/p>\n The final point from this definition is the absolute certitude of faith. Though subjectively faith might appear to us to be less certain, since it concerns things that appear not <\/em>(Hb 11:1) and because of the weakness of our intellects, nevertheless it is objectively more certain than any other kind of knowledge, since it is assent to the Word of God, than which nothing is more certain, nothing more true.[44]<\/sup><\/a> Nor does it follow that things other than faith are not certain, since certitude admits of different grades: metaphysical or absolute (to which grade divine faith belongs), physical, and moral. While certitude generally only excludes all prudent fear of error, divine faith (objectively) is absolutely infallible, having the highest of all grades of certitude.[45]<\/sup><\/a> As such, any proposition put forward contrary to a truth of divine faith must necessarily and indubitably be false\u2014a concept to which we will return shortly.<\/p>\n In order to see the proper relation between faith (along with divine revelation, its basis, and sacred theology, its derivative science) and the lower sciences, we need to distinguish the object of faith.<\/p>\n The object of any habit (such as faith[46]<\/sup><\/a>) or science (such as theology[47]<\/sup><\/a>) is distinguished into two: the material object and formal object. The material <\/em>object is \u201cthe general or common subject matter,\u201d[48]<\/sup><\/a> the things to which the given habit is directed\u2014in colloquial terms, it\u2019s your subject matter. For supernatural faith, the material object is the entire Deposit of Faith, all the contents of divine revelation, including everything recorded in Sacred Scripture. Everything said above, the distinctions regarding formal revelation, etc., thus apply here.<\/p>\n The formal <\/em>object of a habit or science is \u201cthe specialized feature of study or the specialized viewpoint under which the subject [that is, the material object] is studied.\u201d[49]<\/sup><\/a> It is the unifying aspect of the habit or science, the unique perspective by which the material object is considered. For faith, the formal object is God Himself, the First Truth, since it is on His authority, not any motive of natural reason, that we believe, and whatever we believe by faith has the aspect of having been revealed by God.[50]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n That God is the formal object of faith is better understood when we further distinguish between the formal object that <\/em>is known (objectum formale quod<\/em>, or the formal object strictly) and the formal object under which <\/em>it is known (objectum formale quo<\/em>, also called the formal motive). Both supernatural faith and sacred theology share a formal object (objectum formale quod<\/em>): namely, God sub ratione Deitatis, <\/em>God as He knows Himself, and all other things insofar as they relate to and are known by God in His inner life which He reveals to us.[51]<\/sup><\/a> In other words, we are giving assent to God<\/em>, as God, and to everything He reveals as known and revealed by Him. The formal motives, however, of faith and theology are slightly different: the formal motive of supernatural faith is formal<\/em> revelation (in dicendo<\/em>),[52]<\/sup><\/a> the authority of God revealing, the veracity of God the First Truth revealing Himself; whereas that of sacred theology is virtual<\/em> revelation, \u201cthe light of reason illuminated by faith [\u2026] that is, revelation as virtually containing conclusions that can be deduced through rational discourse.\u201d[53]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n The importance of these distinctions for the doctrine of creation begins to appear when we consider this important principle: habits and sciences are distinguished by their formal <\/em>object, not <\/em>by their material object.[54]<\/sup><\/a> This means that there can be many sciences dealing with the same material object, the same subject matter, but from many di\ufb00erent points of view\u2014that is, having di\ufb00erent formal objects. Take, for example, a man: this man may be considered by a theologian as made in God\u2019s image and likeness; by a philosopher as a rational animal; by a microbiologist in the operations of his cells and genetic information; by a psychologist in his mental processes or childhood experience; by a physician in the function of his bones, muscles, and organs; by a physicist as having a certain velocity while walking; and so on. While each of these scientists is considering the same material<\/em> object, namely a man, they are all doing so with a di\ufb00erent formal<\/em> object, under a different formal aspect<\/em>, depending on their science.[55]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n Further, from that formal object distinguishing them flows the method proper to the given science. Therefore the method proper to one science will not be proper for another science. Failure to observe this principle results in an error in methodology, and thus an error in one\u2019s conclusions. It would be an error, for example, to try and investigate theological subjects by the \u201cScientific Method,\u201d or teach natural sciences with the method proper to sacred theology, namely by arguments from infallible authority.[56]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n Now, one often hears in the context of the creation debate the objection that \u201cthe Bible\u2019s not a science textbook.\u201d[57]<\/sup><\/a> In other words, the objector is asserting (at least tacitly) that, as a religious book, the Bible is only meant to teach on religious subjects; if it happens to say something about matters pertaining to the natural sciences, the natural sciences have the higher authority, since this is their proper object, and especially since these sciences have progressed so much since the times when the books of the Bible were written.<\/p>\n This objection, in addition to being very old,[58]<\/sup><\/a> makes at least three errors: first, it implies that sciences are distinguished by their material rather than formal object; second, it ignores the formal motives of both the natural and sacred sciences; third and following upon the second, it implicitly denies the inerrancy of Sacred Scripture. This third error will be addressed in a subsequent article; we will visit the first two here in turn.<\/p>\n The first error of the common objection is that it implicitly claims that faith and theology are distinguished from the natural sciences by reason of their material objects. It implies that the portions of Sacred Scripture which touch on matters also considered in the natural sciences have no relevance to the faith, and so are not inspired, revealed truths, and thus not inerrant. Rather, the implication is that these are the domain solely of the natural sciences, which have the true authority in these matters\u2014faith, Sacred Scripture, theology: these only deal with \u201cmatters of faith and morals,\u201d so the argument goes.<\/p>\n On the contrary, we saw above that habits and sciences are distinguished by their formal <\/em>object, whereas many habits or sciences can share some or all of their material objects; St. Thomas explains:<\/p>\n[If] we consider, in faith, the formal aspect of the object, it is nothing else than the First Truth. For the faith of which we are speaking, does not assent to anything, except because it is revealed by God. [\u2026] If, however, we consider materially the things to which faith assents, they include not only God, but also many other things, which, nevertheless, do not come under the assent of faith, except as bearing some relation to God.[59]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n Faith\u2014and thus sacred doctrine, which rests upon faith as upon its first principles[60]<\/sup><\/a>\u2014is distinguished from other habits and sciences by its formal object, namely God the First Truth: that He is First Truth is the formal object quod<\/em>; His supreme authority as First Truth is the formal motive. In this light, St. Thomas rightly delineates the material object of faith, saying:<\/p>\n In sacred science, all things [i.e. its material object] are treated under the aspect [i.e. formal object quod<\/em>] of God: either because they are God Himself or because they refer to God as their beginning<\/em> and end.[61]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n St. Thomas is making a very important point: the material object of sacred theology, and of the faith itself, includes virtually everything insofar as it has some relation to God. Now the most fundamental relation that any thing can have to God is that of a creature <\/em>to its Creator; therefore it pertains to faith and theology to consider the creation of things, the origins of the universe, or things insofar as \u201cthey refer to God as their beginning\u201d: for it is by faith we understand that the world was framed by the Word of God<\/em> (Hb 11:3).<\/p>\n The beginning, the origin of things, is thus a Revelation<\/h1>\n
Divine and public revelation<\/h2>\n
The Deposit of Faith<\/h3>\n
Formal revelation<\/h2>\n
Formal vs. virtual revelation<\/h3>\n
Distinctions regarding formal revelation<\/h3>\n
Importance of these distinctions<\/h3>\n
Mysteries<\/h2>\n
Definition of a mystery<\/h3>\n
Creation as a revealed mystery<\/h3>\n
Faith<\/h1>\n
Divine Faith<\/h2>\n
Definition of faith<\/h3>\n
Above, not against, reason<\/h3>\n
Certitude<\/h3>\n
The object of faith<\/h2>\n
Material and formal objects<\/h3>\n
Formal object and Formal motive<\/h3>\n
Faith and Science<\/h1>\n
The Textbook Objection<\/h2>\n
The distinction of the sciences<\/h3>\n
The textbook objection (in more ways than one)<\/h3>\n
Formal objects and Creation<\/h3>\n