Faith & Revelation

These two readings, Aquinas and Kindi, were interesting; however, I found myself quite intrigued with the former.

While I was reading through Thomas’s robust philosophical line of reasoning in which he defended God’s nature, the Trinity, and the Incarnation, I found myself certainly engaged in his argument. However, amid these questions, I kept coming back to the first part of his second chapter: “First of all I wish to warn you that in disputations with unbelievers about articles of the Faith, you should not try to prove the Faith by necessary reasons. This would belittle the sublimity of the Faith, whose truth exceeds not only human minds but also those of angels; we believe in them only because they are revealed by God.”

While I obviously find value in using philosophy and the human capacity for reason to enlighten our conversation about God, I think Thomas is making an important distinction here. Not only does one not need to defend articles of faith by necessary reason, but he claims that it would cut down on what faith is. This being said, my question is about the end of these polemics. Is this in the minds of some of these authors? If these truths are revealed by God, are these simply non-starters, given that both parties believe that they have received contradictory revelations from God?