ABSTRACT
Concerning the epistemic authority for the Christian faith, I reply to Marshall and Webster by distinguishing between ‘beliefs that are central to a belief-system’ with ‘reasons for accepting the veracity of this system’ and the different starting points for each. I explain how the results can in principle converge and show that the classical approach to natural theology does not imply that sound reasoning based on laws of logic and experiences is a higher standard of truth than Christian doctrines. Concerning the noetic effects of sin, I show that the relevant Scriptural passages imply that the human cognitive equipment has not been affected by sin to such an extent that it is no longer able to arrive at some truths about God by inferential reasoning. Contrary to Barth, this ability can be seen as a result of God’s grace and the work of the Holy Spirit. Finally, I answer the questions why the Scripture does not present arguments for the existence of God, and whether natural theology would lead to Deism/Atheism and the denial of special revelation.
