If you want to justify faith, I think you do not have much choice but the Kant Friesian School. I mean to say that Hegel gets to principles of faith, but he does so by reason alone. But if (like me) you believe that faith is a different source of knowledge than reason, then the Friesian School seems the only choice. But this school is not one block. It has developed from Fries to Leonard Nelson until Kelley Ross.
There are others that have noticed and written on this school, but they all seem to get one point wrong-psychologism. To Nelson this was a thing a fought against his whole life-- [mainly against Husserl].
To the Friesian way, one does get to knowledge of the categories of Kant [which are roughly answers to the basic questions--how? where? when? what? etc.] by looking into ones mind--empirically,--but they are not known by the structure of the mind. Rather by non-intuitive immediate knowledge [which is close to the way Michael Huemer and the original intuitionists thought. It is close because to Huemer we know these things by reason, but in a wider understanding of what reason can tell us. But it is not like Huemer because pure reason is limited as Locke and Hume saw. Rather what Huemer thinks is reason is rather reasonable, but not reason.]
Non-intuitive immediate knowledge means knowledge that is known not by reason nor by sense perception.
