NATURAL THEOLOGY has been playing in Abrahamic faiths the role of a link relating revelatory teachings to the current human knowledge. Notwithstanding, the validity and possibility of NATURAL THEOLOGY has never been agreed upon by the theologians of the faiths. Karl Bath, who is believed by many to be the most prominent and influential twentieth-century protestant, and even Christian, theologian, adamantly opposes any system of thought that hinges Christian beliefs on the findings of human intellect. Accordingly, he could be considered as an archetype of unmitigated opposition against NATURAL THEOLOGY in the present world. In this paper, we have tried to show that Barth’ s critique of NATURAL THEOLOGY has to do with his analysis of the role NATURAL THEOLOGY played in the history of Christianity, on the one hand, and his peculiar reading of some Christian doctrines, on the other. However, seen from an epistemological point of view, Barth’ s position against NATURAL THEOLOGY will pose serious challenges to revealed THEOLOGY as well.

NATURAL THEOLOGY has entered a new phase in the contemporary period and empirical evidence or explanatory gaps of the new NATURAL sciences take a significant role in this project. On the other hand, Theism has been wounded by a strategy in which the epistemological unknowns were argued in favour of the existence of God (God of the Gaps). In this article, the problems faced by the strategy of the god of the gaps and their proposed solutions are reviewed, and accordingly, two points have been declared: 1) Separation of boundary or limit questions from scientific questions are recognized and accepted, then a criterion is provided for this distinction based on the definition of Muslim philosophers for philosophical statements. 2) The activity of superNATURAL agents, including God, is comprehensively portrayed from the perspective of Islamic wisdom, and based on it, both the contemporary NATURAL THEOLOGY and its rival project (NATURALism) have been rejected.

Critical analysis of Karl Barth's opposition to NATURAL THEOLOGY shows that it is demonstrably based on a narrow understanding of NATURAL THEOLOGY and is mostly shaped through his reaction to the misuse of theological concepts during the heydays of Hitler's rule over Germany. In his increasing opposition to NATURAL THEOLOGY in its various implications and forms, Barth seems to have been basing his arguments on ontological, epistemological, biblical and practical grounds as he leaned heavily on revelation as the sole basis of all that pertains to the formation of faith and dogma. By engaging Barth in the aforementioned areas, it will be shown that Barth's arguments fall short of consistency in that they contain false designations of NATURAL THEOLOGY by focusing on a limited and outdated version of it, an inherent vicious circularity, a highly selective interpretation of respective biblical texts as well as a fallacy of relevance. It will be argued that the concept of revealed THEOLOGY is not necessarily opposed to a constructive approach to NATURAL THEOLOGY, which seeks to appreciate the manifest glory of God in creation as an unfolding secret observed and understood through the rational faculties within the human mind.

NATURAL THEOLOGY is known to be a type of THEOLOGY that seeks to justify religious beliefs, particularly the belief in God, based on human knowledge unaided by revelation. NATURAL THEOLOGY has been always seen to be a link relating science and religion. If the purpose of religion, the revealed truths and the purpose of science is a collection of human knowledge, then NATURAL THEOLOGY can always be cemented by the efforts of theologians to establish a relationship between religion and human knowledge.Is such a way valid and if it is valid, is it necessary? Plantinga in this regard has chosen two different perspectives in his intellectual life. In the first view, he did not only consider NATURAL THEOLOGY as unnecessary, but it has discredited as NATURAL atheism. At the same time, it was emphasizing its rationality by resembling the belief in the existence of God in the belief in other minds. In the second view, however, despite the emphasis on the negation of the necessity of NATURAL THEOLOGY, he considers it epistemically valid and mentions some functions for it.

In this article the encounters of two great Christian theologians of modern era, Friedrich Schleiermacher and Karl Barth, with aridity of their contemporary theological thoughts are comparatively surveyed. The comparison of these two shows relations between their relatively adverse views. They tried to enter enthusiasm in THEOLOGY, but concerning the problems of their contemporary theologies based this enthusiasm on different bases. Schleiermacher emphasized on feeling, intuition and piety and Barth on something other-worldly a complete different from human experience. In this way, most of their views especially on Bible and doctrine of Christ are different. In spite of these differences, Barth argued depending on a Spirit-based or Christ-based interpretation of Schleiermacher’s THEOLOGY we can hope on making a bridge between Barth and his views.

One of the bases for a historical study of the theory of nature, fitrah, in THEOLOGY consists in what has been said by Muslim scholars including narrators, theologians, mystics philosophers and interpreators under the verse 172 in Aaraf chapter, called promise verse. During the history of Islamic thought, three main conceptualizations on NATURAL, fitri, THEOLOGY have been established. They have been founded on a public awareness of God before coming into worldly life, self-evidency and necessity of the existence of God and the capability of human soul for attaining the knowledge on His existence. Among them, the only one in agreement with the verse is the first.

On Tabatabais Viewpoint, human being is of a particular nature leading to special manner of life and way that is ended to God. , that he is certain that led to the Lord is leading and Specific traditions and way of life. Calvin’s THEOLOGY is based on the acknowledgment of God in the depths of the human mind. It is a theory one may not acquire by common education, rather it is something that each of us knows it in the womb completely and the nature does not let us forget it. In this paper, we have tried to extract the similarities and differences of the views. As is described, heart’s state. of being the place for innate knowledge, the need to evolve and mature NATURAL tendency and the effect of sin on such an inner knowledge have been in common, while the purpose of the discussion, the nature of such an inner knowledge, its object and the way in which the knowledge happens are counted as the cases of difference.

Abstract Using analytical-critical method, this article examines the position of intellect in the NATURAL THEOLOGY of Jonathan Edwards, a Christian theologian. The study of his works shows that he was well aware of the gaps in the NATURAL THEOLOGY of his time and was looking for a solution to maintain man’s faith and NATURAL intellect at the same time. In this regard, he argues that in entering into theological issues, NATURAL reason faces some challenges because of man's inherent sin and also because NATURAL reason is abstract, conceptual and far from the practical life of believers. From his point of view, the only way for man to return to his original nature is the reliance of his deficient NATURAL intellect on revelation. This way, the education of the intellect through revelation leads to the clarification of theological proofs through the common grace of God and awareness of theological truths through the special grace of God. Of course, in his interpretation of these theological awareness, Jonathan Edwards states that this requires the accompanying of the heart with the educated intellect in religious contexts. However, his view has faced some challenges.

There are attributes in the ordinary language that have been commonly attributed to God and His creatures. Ascribing these attributes to God and His creatures univocally or equivocally leads respectively to anthropomorphism and agnosticism. To solve this problem, some Islamic thinkers have appealed to the gradational meaning of these attributes. Mulla Sadra has presented a theory for this problem thatbased on his philosophical principles and can be called “gradational THEOLOGY”. St. Tomas Aquinas has tried to cope with the problem by appealing to the doctrine of Analogy. This theory has been criticized both by Islamic and Christian thinkers. By the semantic analysis of the key words of Aquinas’s theory, it can be said that his theory is similar to the gradational THEOLOGY with some slight differences. Besides, it can be said that, concerning this problem, he was influenced by Avicenna. This article seeks to explain this claim in an analytic-descriptive way along with comparing the theories of Mulla Sadra and Thomas Aquinas.

The age of the sign is essentially theological. The system that is based on a basic concept, a concept that shapes the circulation of signs, is essentially theological. This central concept has named in each thought differently: the reality, essence, existence, truth, God, Logos, Nous, End etc. In This logocentric system(s), there is a transcendental signified that means and proves the chain of signification. Deconstructive reading of Derrida showed that there is no signified outside of the chain of signification that makes language to have bound. This revolutionary idea collapses hierarchical significative oppositions, and thus makes signifiers to be rank and homologous.By erasing the oppositions of signifiers, it is nonsense to talk about death of God; there is no death, and no life. We're always in the middle of an eternal play. Word (Logos), yet constantly erased and written and rewritten. A/ THEOLOGY is the absurdity of this claims that THEOLOGY has terminated; a new a/ system for those who lives in borders.