A comparative study of the way in which two great theologians - onemedieval and one modern - view the Christian doctrine of Revelation. KarlBarth''s debt to, and differences from, the theology of Saint Thomas Aquinas arefundamental to his theological development, and Fairweather''s discussion oftheir views of revelation is an important contribution to the history oftheology.

Fairweather examines the definition of revelation, questioning whetherits essence truly lies in the belief that it is the direct speech of God toman. He attempts to discover whether divinity in the form of revelation cancoexist with the corruption intrinsic in the human mind, or whether one negatesthe other. To answer these philosophical and theological problems, Fairweatherhas employed the beliefs and teachings of the famous medieval scholar, ThomasAquinas, and the mid-twentieth century theologian, Karl Barth. Aquinasexpounded the theory that whilst reason is bequeathed by God and is essentialto humanity, it is not sufficient to guide men towards the ultimate truth; forthis they need revelation. Although reason and revelation are distinct, they arenot mutually exclusive, and man without logic would be unable to grasp fullythe enormity of revelation.

By contrast, Fairweather employs the arguments of Karl Barth, whosedebt to, and differences from, the theology of Saint Thomas Aquinas arefundamental to his theological development. Although his beliefs have recentlycome under criticism for being too negative in their estimate of mankind andits powers of reason, Barth''s was an inspiration for the renaissance that tookplace in theology from about 1920 to 1950. Regarding revelation, Barth believedthat it was imparted by God in a similar manner to salvation, and that thesubjective responses of man were inconsequential when compared with theenormity of God''s design.