David Haines' Natural Theology, 2nd Edition: A Review by John Sweat Jr.
/
In this book, David Haines seeks to articulate a “traditional understanding of the natural knowledge of God [natural theology]” (xviii-xix).[1] The book is divided into two parts. In part one, he argues for the biblical basis of natural theology. In part two, he surveys the history of natural theology from the Pre-Socratics to the Reformed scholastics. Then, in the final chapter, Haines responds to some common objections.
A Survey of the Book’s Arguments
In the introduction, Haines defines natural theology as the philosophical exploration of the knowledge of God in nature through reason alone, “unaided by special revelation from any religion, and without presupposing the truth of any religion” (xxii).[2] In other words, natural theology is the philosophical reasoning of man from nature to God without Scripture or any presuppositions of the Christian faith. Haines makes four distinctions to clarify his definition: 1. Natural theology is distinct but derived from natural revelation (xxii). 2. Natural theology is not “coextensive” with natural religion (xxiv). 3. Natural theology cannot prove all Christian truth claims (xxvi). 4. Natural theology is not “coextensive” with apologetics (xxvi). Haines’ thesis is that this definition of natural theology is consistently held from the Early Church to the end of the Reformed scholastic period.[3]
Moving to part one, Haines appeals to the locus classicus texts (Ps. 19:1-4; Acts 14:16-17; 17:26-27; Rom. 1:19-20; 2:14-15) to demonstrate the biblical basis of natural theology. But before dealing with those texts, he argues that “natural theology is a precondition for proper biblical interpretation” (2).[4] The principle of proper predication requires natural theology (1), and orthodox doctrinal formulations are impossible without it (6). The very act of interpreting Scripture requires natural theology. It must be assumed prior to interpreting the texts of Scripture that speak of natural theology.[5]
While appealing to the biblical texts, Haines’ argument is not primarily exegetical but rather historical. He interacts with the history of interpretation of these texts, and then gives three concluding points based on his observations: 1. God’s existence and nature are clearly revealed in creation. 2. Human contemplation of creation will “sooner or later” lead to some knowledge of God. 3. This knowledge of God through reasoning from nature is insufficient to save man from God’s wrath (30-31).
Part two of the book is the heart of Haines’ thesis. From chapters two to six, Haines seeks to demonstrate a consistent view of natural theology from unregenerate philosophers to the Reformed scholastics. In the Pre-Socratics, Haines notes that their starting point in philosophy was observing the natural world. This observation moved from the world to a “higher principle that must be the divine cause of the natural world” (36).[6] After summarizing Aristotle’s conception of God, Haines concludes that Aristotle’s conception of God is a clear statement of classical theism (52) and consistent with the Reformed confessions (59).[7] In the second half of the chapter, Haines highlights the natural theology of the Early Church Fathers.
In chapter three, Augustine’s view is examined. Augustine accepted Varro’s description of natural theology (101) and developed a view of knowledge that synthesized “Neo-platonic thought and Christian theology” (102). Augustine believed that reason was a precondition and aid to biblical interpretation (118). All men could know something of God from nature and Scripture whether they were unregenerate or regenerate (121). Augustine’s natural theology is summarized by Haines with four points: 1. All men in all times “can (and some indeed do) attain to true knowledge about God…”. 2. True knowledge of God is possible through “rational observations of the sensible universe and their reasoning process.” 3. Both points one and two are taught in Scripture. 4. This knowledge is a “prelude, introduction, and even motivation [preambles of faith]” for belief in the Christian God (139-140).[8]
In the next chapter, Haines engages Thomas Aquinas’ articulation of natural theology. Aquinas believed that philosophy or natural theology provides the preambles of faith[9] or the truths that are presupposed by faith (144-146).[10] According to Aquinas, philosophical theology (natural theology) is derived from human reason while supernatural theology is derived from inspired revelation (146, 155).
From here, Haines spends a considerable amount of space interacting with Aquinas’ treatment of whether God’s existence is self-evident (156). There are three possible ways that God’s existence is self-evident: 1. A natural implanted knowledge of God via creation. 2. Once ‘God’ is conceived in the mind, it is impossible to claim he does not exist. 3. God is truth, and it is impossible to claim there is no truth so God self-evidentially exists (157).[11] Charles Hodge argued for the first view, stating that man has an immediate natural knowledge of God (158-159), but Haines argues that according to Aquinas’ criteria for what constitutes as self-evident, God is not self-evident to man (165-169).
While Aquinas rejects an innate idea or implanted notion of God, Haines points out that Aquinas does speak about a twofold immediate knowledge of God. The first is immediate by implantation. All men know God vaguely, in a confused way (sensus divinitatis) (170-171).[12] The second is immediate through inference. Men reason from the order in nature to the one who orders things (171-172). Haines concludes his treatment of Aquinas with a discussion of the proofs of God’s existence and the purpose of natural theology.[13]
In the last historical chapter, Haines interacts with the Reformed theologians from the 1500-1700s. The key question Haines seeks to answer is, “did the Reformed theologians uphold the traditional understanding of natural theology” (200)?[14] The early Reformers made an important distinction in the knowledge of God. For Calvin, this distinction is the duplex cognition dei (201), but other Reformed theologians and later confessions make similar distinctions (202-206). The knowledge of God was possible through the “reasoned observation of creation” and a saving knowledge of God was possible through the revelation of Scripture (206).
From here Haines shows that the Reformed universally agreed that both the regenerate and unregenerate could arrive at some knowledge of God through “reasoned observations of nature” (206-212).[15] While the effects of the fall corrupt man entirely, Haines notes that the Reformed still affirmed that sinful men can still arrive at some truths about God through human reason (217, 219). In the remainder of this chapter, he highlights the source, context, and effects of natural knowledge in the Reformed tradition. The source is creation, human history, and man’s conscience (220-221). The content of natural knowledge varies amongst the Reformed theologians, but Haines says the important point is not “how much” man can know but rather “the fact” that man can know truths of God from the things he has made (229). The natural knowledge of God has a negative effect that leaves all men condemned and without excuse, but the positive effect of natural theology is that men can still arrive at a true knowledge of God from nature (229).
In the final chapter, Haines addresses four common objections that are raised against natural theology. The four objections are: 1. If a triune knowledge of God is not present in the knowledge arrived at in natural theology, then there is no true knowledge of God (234-236). 2. Natural theology brings Greek philosophy into Christian doctrine (236-241). 3. Greek philosophy is “erroneous and incoherent” (242-245). 4. It is anachronistic to find “theistic proofs” in the Early Church Fathers (246). In the conclusion, Haines summarizes his arguments and makes a final case for the importance of natural theology (247-249).
An Evaluation of The Book’s Arguments
This book raises many historical and theological questions regarding the continuity and discontinuity of the doctrine of natural theology in the Christian tradition. The great obstacle in writing a predominantly historical work at an introductory level is the balance between being concise but not reductionistic. Any historical survey is susceptible to flattening the discontinuity of the Christian tradition into a monolith. Other men are more capable and suited to deal with the continuity between Augustine and Aquinas and the natural theology of the Greek philosophers. This evaluation will focus on definitional issues, Haines’ treatment of the Reformed tradition, and his interaction with Cornelius Van Til.
A Faulty Definition
Definitions are foundational to the shape, size, and limits of a theological structure. David Haines defines the Christian tradition’s doctrine of natural theology as,
that part of philosophy which explores that which can be known of God (His existence, divine nature, etc.) from nature alone, via man’s divinely bestowed faculty of reason, unaided by special revelation from any religion, and without presupposing the truth of any religion (xxii).
This definition has several theological assumptions and historical pre-commitments that distort his evaluation of natural theology in the Reformed tradition.
The problem with Haines’ definition is that he isolates natural revelation from special revelation by denying the aid of Scripture. The result is that natural theology is restricted to pure reason. Further, his definition requires men to reason from nature apart from any Christian dogmatic commitments. But in the Reformed tradition, a true natural theology is distinguished from pagan false natural theology and is dogmatically conceived underneath ectypal theology and aided by supernatural theology. Third, even if it is granted that Haines is defining natural theology generically to include the unregenerate, he nowhere in the book considers the important Reformed distinction between a true and false natural theology.[16] Last, his definition narrowly focuses on acquired knowledge and excludes innate knowledge.[17] These general criticisms of Haines’ definition will be further fleshed out below.
Identity Thesis
Embedded in Haines’ definition is an identity thesis. While the topic of natural theology has been present throughout the history of the church, natural theology has not been used or understood monolithically.[18] This is especially true when considering the natural theologies of the Medieval and Reformed scholastics. But Haines’ has made the argument that they are in substantial agreement and that the Reformed tradition upheld the traditional understanding of natural theology (xviii, 200).[19]
A common misunderstanding is that the natural theology of the Reformed scholastics is a pre-dogmatic model.[20] A pre-dogmatic model of natural theology is mediated by pure reason severed from supernatural revelation and establishes the first principles upon which supernatural theology must be built upon. This is rationalism that bifurcates reason from faith.[21] This description is identical to Haines’ definition of natural theology and what he says about preambles of faith, a precondition of interpretation, and philosophical theology (1, 118 140, 144-146, 155).
The Medieval scholastics, Jean A. Turretin, and the Wolffian theologians of the eighteenth century are examples of this pre-dogmatic conception.[22] But this type of natural theology is not found among the Reformers or the Reformed scholastics. The Reformed scholastics “uniformly maintained” the priority of revelation over reason and the subjugation of philosophy to Scripture.[23] Muller argues that the Reformed scholastics’ natural theology was never a “precondition for Christian theology.”[24] Elsewhere Muller writes,
The Protestant orthodox… do not view natural revelation, human reason, or the light of nature (lumen naturae, q.v.) considered in its corrupt state apart from supernatural revelation, or natural theology as a foundation on which sacred theology can build but rather as an instrument for use in exposition.[25]
Yet Haines argues that natural theology is the precondition for biblical interpretation (1, 6), and appeals to Aquinas’ use of philosophy to establish the preambles of faith (146). It is one thing to speak of the necessity of the precondition of logic, and rational language to read Scripture. It is something quite different to speak of natural theology as the necessary first principle to build up a supernatural theology.
Haines has projected this pre-dogmatic model onto the Reformed tradition.[26] The Reformed scholastics did affirm a natural theology, but it is dogmatically conceived and constructed in light of their faith not apart from it. The latter point is in direct conflict with Haines’ strict parameters of a natural theology developed through reason without “recourse to Scripture.”[27]
A Missing Distinction
Additionally, the Reformed tradition distinguished between a true and false natural theology.[28] According to Junius, false theology is “the shadow of wisdom grasping at something or another in the place of divine matters,” exchanging the true God for idols and dreams.[29] This is true of all unregenerate natural theology. The category of a false natural theology does not deny man’s real natural knowledge of God and man’s capacity to know first principles, such as God exists and he is to be worshipped. It affirms the former while recognizing in addition that man’s reason is corrupted, and he is bent toward idolatry and false imaginations.
The early Reformed scholastics described false theology as a "non-Christian form of natural, philosophical, or rationale theology" solidifying a distinction between a Christian and a pagan natural theology, "the former communicated by revelation, the latter resting solely on corrupted reason unable to grasp revelation.”[30] But true natural theology falls underneath the category of ectypal revealed theology.[31] True natural theology depends on God and is derived from God. The one true and living God is the only object of true theology and never was “deus” used in a generic way to build up rational build-up to a natural theology.[32]
Haines’ lack of distinction between true and false natural theology distorts his reading of the Reformed traditions’ use of natural theology. While the unbeliever can give positive statements about God through natural observations, these statements are ultimately false. The unregenerate man’s natural theology always arrives at an idol.[33] A positive use or function of natural theology must not be confused with a saving or true (healthy) use. The unregenerate man possesses a positive use of natural theology, despite it being a false theology.
This Reformed distinction between a true and false natural theology grounds true natural theology not in reason generically, but rather in faithful reason that has been renewed by the Spirit. Both the regenerate and unregenerate have this revelation (implanted in them), but only the regenerate moves from this revelation to a true natural theology.[34]
Innate Knowledge in Turretin
While Haines’ definition does not mention innate knowledge, he does mention it occasionally throughout the book. In one place he writes, “Was this [speaking of the sense of divinity] an innate idea of God or a natural tendency of human reason toward recognizing that God exists” (211)? Haines notes that Reformed theologians answer this in different ways. Later, he interacts with Turretin’s use of the word “innate” and says that this is “Turretin’s interpretation of Calvin’s sensus divinitatis which “is to be understood not as Platonic innate idea, but rather, as the potency of this knowledge” (224, fn. 63). Therefore, in light of Haines’ interpretation, this means Turretin affirms that natural theology is partly the ability to know God through nature (“partly innate”) and partly the acquiring of that knowledge through reason (“partly acquired”).[35] This seems like a redundancy if this is what Turretin means by “innate”- man can reason from nature and man does reason from nature.
Haines is right that the sensus divinitatis in Calvin and innate knowledge in Turretin does not refer to the Platonic idea (cognition innata). Also, Muller notes that this word is distinct from any idea of an infused knowledge (cognition infusa) or acquired knowledge by the use of reason (cognitio acquisita).[36] But Haines is incorrect to posit that innate (insitam) knowledge in Turretin merely speaks of potency. The concept of innate knowledge used by the Reformed scholastics is cognitio insita, which is an intuitive and immediate knowledge that is basic to the creature.[37] It is natural to the human mind and immediately present at birth, “an inward knowledge of eternal truths.”[38] Michael Sudduth describes this knowledge as, “knowledge of God [that] is immediate, not a product of inference or argument, it involves theistic beliefs that are… properly basic.”[39]
Neither Calvin nor Turretin have merely a concept of potency when speaking of implanted, innate, or a sense of the deity. This raises questions about Haines’ appeal to Calvin’s sensus divinitatis (207). Also, this raises questions over how Aquinas’ on the one hand can reject an “implanted notion of God” like what is found later in Charles Hodge yet affirm something like the sensus divinitatis that is found later in Calvin (170). Is that still the case, if Haines has misread what Calvin and Turretin mean by these terms?
The sensus divinitatis or innate knowledge (cognition insita) is an immediate awareness of God not merely the capacity to know God through reason “sooner or later” (31, 139). This means when Turretin says that natural theology is partly innate and partly acquired, he means that all men partly know God in an immediate way by virtue of being created in God’s image and partly in a mediate way as they reason from nature. Man was created in natural religious fellowship with God. He did not merely have the capacity to know God through reason. He knew God immediately upon being created. Even after the fall, while religious fellowship with God is lost, men know God immediately by virtue of the image of God remaining in them.
Haines’ definition limits natural theology to acquired knowledge and appears to place upon Calvin and Turretin a view of innate knowledge which gives men only the capacity to know God. By doing so, this conception of natural theology opens the door for a version of natural theology that is severed from revelation, built upon reason alone, undermines the noetic effects of the fall, is not interpreted by Scripture, and creates a dualism between nature and grace.
The Great Foe of Natural Theology
Cornelius Van Til is one of Haines’ primary interlocutors throughout the book.[40] Haines uses Van Til’s views of natural theology as an example of a modern Reformed theologian who rejects natural theology and his Reformed tradition (xvi).[41] He interacts with Van Til’s exegesis of Romans 1:19-20 (21-22), and some of the primary objections that Haines deals with come from Van Til’s pen.
There are a few problems with Haines’ interaction with Van Til. First, Haines quotes Van Til but fails to engage in the substance and context of Van Til’s position.[42] In the introduction, Haines summarizes Van Til’s “rejection” of natural theology, “For Cornelius Van Til, the problem of natural theology is that, in sum, man (regenerate or unregenerate) cannot rightly understand it without special revelation” (xvi).[43] Haines then provides a lengthy quote from Van Til (xvi-xvii).
To understand God's general revelation in the universe aright it was imperative for man that he see this revelation in relationship to a higher revelation with respect to the final destiny of man and the universe. If then even man in paradise could read nature aright only in connection with and in the light of supernatural positive revelation, how much the more is this true of man after the fall.[44]
According to Haines’ proposed definition of natural theology, this would constitute a denial.
However, Van Til in this quote is clearly drawing from Geerhardus Vos’ biblical insights.[45] Vos emphasized the need of pre-redemptive special revelation to interpret nature in paradise, and Vos emphasized the eschatological orientation of creation which is seen in the covenant of works. Even in paradise man needed pre-redemptive special revelation to interpret nature rightly and to understand creation’s eschatological goal.[46] Van Til’s point is, if this is true of man before the fall, how much more so is this true after the fall? Van Til writes elsewhere,
It is this revelation that Dr. Vos speaks of as pre-redemptive, special revelation…[Van Til concludes from Vos’ insight] even in Paradise man was never meant to study nature by means of observation and experiment without connection with positive supernatural thought communication given to him by God.[47]
But Haines already leveraged Vos against Van Til (v-vi). Vos in his lectures on natural theology does use more traditional language than Van Til, but Haines fails to wrestle with how Van Til’s position is influenced by the biblical theology of Vos.[48]
Is Calvin a Foe too?
Furthermore, if Van Til’s insistence upon the necessity of Scripture to interpret nature is a denial of Haines’ definition of natural theology, then does that mean John Calvin denies natural theology too?[49] Calvin extensively speaks about how “Scripture is needed as a guide and teacher for anyone who would come to God the Creator.”
Just as old or bleary-eyed men and those with weak vision, if you thrust before them a most beautiful volume, even if they recognize it to be some sort of writing, yet can scarcely construe two words, but with the aid of spectacles will begin to read distinctly; so Scripture, gathering up the otherwise confused knowledge of God in our minds, having dispersed our dullness, clearly shows us the true God.[50]
Calvin does not deny a natural knowledge of God, but Calvin emphasizes the necessity of Scripture to reveal to men the true God. The spectacles of Scripture correct errors in natural theology. The unregenerate men know God vaguely in a distorted and uncertain way in nature, but God is revealed to men more clearly in the Scriptures.[51] How we ought to think of God rightly is revealed in the Scriptures.
While Calvin plays a prominent role in Haines’ thesis, nowhere does he interact with Calvin’s emphasis on the necessity of the spectacles of Scripture to read nature rightly. There is not a single reference to this section of the Institutes. Van Til, like Calvin, emphasized the need for Scripture to interpret nature. If you are going to use Van Til as your example of one who denies natural theology, then it warrants an explanation why Calvin is in, but Van Til is out. Furthermore, if Scripture is not warranted to clarify and correct natural theology, then “reason unaided by Scripture” usurps Scripture’s authority.
Misrepresentation of Van Til’s Position
Second, Haines misrepresents Van Til’s position on Romans 1:19-20. Haines claims that Van Til interprets the rejection of the natural knowledge of God in Romans 1:18-21 “as having happened at the fall of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden (thus this verse does not refer to the knowledge that all men can have of God from nature)” (21). Then, in a footnote, Haines gives a citation from Van Til’s Introduction to Systematic Theology (21-22 fn. 48).
Accordingly, it must now be added, as Calvin points out so fully on the basis of Paul’s words, that God is displayed before men in the works of his hands. This means that God, not some sort of God or some higher principle, but God, the true God, is displayed before men. That is the fact of the matter, whether men recognize it or not. Paul does mention the power of God in particular as the attribute that comes most prominently to the foreground, but he also says that men have the divinity (Theiotes) displayed before them. This does not mean that God is as fully displayed in nature as he is in the gospel of Christ… All too often it has been argued that on the basis of nature or by natural theology man should be able to establish the existence of a God, while it is only by Christ and through grace that we can know anything more fully about the nature of this God. Now it is true that we have the fullest revelation of the nature of God in Christ. On the other hand, it is also true that when man was created in paradise, he knew not merely of the existence of God, but he knew the nature of God as far as it had been revealed to him. It is for the loss of this actual knowledge of the nature of God that man, when he became a sinner, must be held responsible. If this is not done, men will be looked upon merely as unfortunates who have not had the good fortune of having had the right information about God…[52]
First, in the quote provided by Haines, Van Til affirms the present revelation of the true God that is displayed before all men in agreement with Calvin and based on Romans 1:18-21. Second, Haines splices together two clumps of Van Til’s words without giving their proper context. At the beginning of this section, Van Til emphasizes that a true knowledge of nature and self are mutually dependent on a true knowledge of God. There is no true knowledge of God where there is no true piety of God. Van Til is drawing this emphasis from Calvin. [53]
Then, between the two clumps of text Haines cites, Van Til contrasts the quality of natural knowledge between man pre-fall and post-fall. He goes on to say that it is important to keep this contrast in mind in the context of discussing man’s current situation. This point illuminates what Van Til means when he says, “It is for the loss of this actual knowledge of the nature of God that man, when he became a sinner, must be held responsible.”[54] Men are condemned and held responsible to God for their loss of this actual knowledge in their federal head Adam, and men are held responsible to God for their current suppression of God’s revelation. Van Til’s point is that the loss of original righteousness (knowledge, righteousness, and holiness) produces in man an ethical antithesis toward God.[55] Original sin conditions the way men interpret and receive God’s natural revelation.[56] Van Til does not deny that there is a present rejection of the knowledge of God in nature by all unregenerate men, but rather he emphasizes that this rejection must be understood in light of man’s condition in Adam.
Furthermore, in evaluating Van Til’s other comments in An Introduction to Systematic Theology, the reader is confused by Haines’ interpretation of Van Til. Van Til is clear that the obscuration of God’s glory in nature due to man’s sin is not an obliteration or lessening of God’s revelation in nature. He makes clear that God’s revelation is so clear that men ought to know God through reasoning from nature.[57]
Men ought, therefore, to know him. Men ought to reason analogically from nature to nature’s God. Men ought, therefore, to use the cosmological argument analogically in order thus to conclude that God is the creator of this universe. Men ought to realize that nature could not exist as something independent. They ought to sense that if anything intelligible is to be said about nature, it must be in relation to the absolute system of truth, which is God. Hence, they ought at once to see nature as the creation of God. Men ought also to use the ontological argument analogically. Men ought to realize that the word “being” cannot be intelligently applied to anything unless it be applied to God without limitation. They ought not, as is usually done in the case of the ontological argument, first assume that the word “being” can be intelligibly applied to this universe in order then and thereafter to conclude that it must also be applied in an unlimited way to a still higher being than ourselves or this world[58]
Van Til has a high regard for what can be known about God from nature, but a low regard for what man can know rightly and consistently with who God is in his unregenerate state. This is where the doctrine of Word and Spirit plays a prominent role in Van Til’s theology like in Calvin. For Van Til, only believing reason can rightly move from nature to God.[59] Haines’ misrepresentation of Van Til shows that he is either unwilling to engage with Van Til on his terms or has made an honest mistake by positing such a tenuous reading of Van Til.
A Conclusion Concerning the Book’s Arguments
David Haines has taken up the difficult task of summarizing the “Christian tradition’s” doctrine of natural theology in just over two hundred pages. This is a commendable endeavor. Haines’ engagement with the Greek philosophers and modern scholarship on natural theology is impressive. However, the book has several significant problems. First, Haines’ definition is incompatible with the Reformed tradition. Second, Haines’ identity thesis undermines the differences between the Reformed and Medieval theologians’ conception of natural theology. Third, Haines misses the Reformed distinction between true and false natural theology. Fourth, Haines in places ignores and misunderstands “innate knowledge” in Calvin and Turretin. Last, Haines’ engagement with Van Til is tenuous. While this book is a helpful bibliographic guide to the conversation of natural theology, Haines’ overall thesis is problematic as it relates to the Reformed tradition.[60] Haines eclipses the Reformed conception of natural theology by a pre-dogmatic conception.[61] Even so, may all Christians share Haines’ desire to delight in the natural world as it reveals to them the one true and living God! As he puts it,
Through His world He reveals Himself as great and majestic, distinct, beyond our imagination and even our words, effable, immutable, eternal, omnipotent, Good, True, and Beautiful; but also as worthy of worship and as the judge of those who turn from Him to idolatry and evil (xiii).
John Wayne Sweat Jr.
[1] Haines writes in the preface, “This book is primarily, then, about what man can know about God through philosophy- through the human ability to think rationally about the universe” (i).
[2] This is a “natural knowledge of God independent of the Scriptures” (xi). Haines argues that since the days of Augustine, this has been the standard conception of natural theology (xxii).
[3] Haines asserts if Francis Beckwith’s definition of Thomas Aquinas’ conception of natural theology is true, then Aquinas is in substantial agreement with the Reformed tradition (xviii). The reader is left wondering what Beckwith’s general definition of Aquinas’ natural theology is. Haines does not further explains Beckwith’s view in the introduction nor in his chapter devoted to Aquinas. Is it identical to what Haines explains in his chapter on Aquinas? Second, what constitutes a rejection of natural theology? The criteria of what qualifies as a rejection is never explicitly laid out.
[4] He draws on Warfield’s apologetical theology to further substantiate the claim that natural theology is necessary as a precondition for biblical interpretation (4-6).
[5] The infallible interpretation and illuminating work of the Spirit along with the self-attestation of Scripture are the ultimate preconditions for interpreting Scripture. In Haines’ lengthy discussion of preconditions, these are absent.
[6] Haines sees this approach to philosophy by the Pre-Socratics as being synonymous with what he means by natural theology (36).
[7] Haines, “It would seem, then, that if there is only one true God, and if something of God is knowable when we consider His creation, then Aristotle has come to some knowledge of the one true God- namely, that God exists, something of the divine nature, and that this God is worthy of worship.” (52).
[8] Haines notes that these four points are representative of the Christian tradition’s conception of natural theology (140).
[9] Haines, “The preambles of faith are affirmed and assumed by special revelation but are not proved in Sacred Theology. Rather they are properly proved in philosophy” (146).
[10] Haines, “For Thomas, what we today call ‘natural theology’ is the knowledge that man can have of the divine nature, through ‘natural’ or philosophical means, without appeal to Christian Scriptures” (145).
[11] Haines says the first view is held by Augustine and Charles Hodge, while the second view is held by Anselm (157-158).
[12] The reader is left puzzled over the finer details of how Aquinas’ view of implanted knowledge is distinct from Hodge’s view yet like Calvin’s sensus divinitatis (169-171).
[13] Reflecting on what Aquinas has said concerning the usefulness of natural theology to convince unbelievers of the preambles of faith, Haines writes, “Unbelievers might not accept the authority of Christian Scripture, but they must bow, suggests Aquinas, to truths that can be known about God from our reasoned observation of the cosmos” (198).
[14] Haines writes in the conclusion of this chapter, “Indeed, an honest examination of the history and development of Reformed theology demonstrates that there is a general continuity (though there are major changes through the years in the philosophical positions undergirding their doctrine) from the earliest Reformers straight through to the end of the 1800s” (231).
[15] Haines does note that amongst the Reformed there are varying opinions on what the sensus divinitatis is. Is the innate idea of God a tendency toward recognizing God or an implanted immediate knowledge of God (211)?
[16] Petrus Van Mastricht, Theoretical-Practical Theology: Prolegomena, trans. Todd. M Rester, ed. Joel R. Beeke (Grand Rapids, MI: RHB, 2018), 1:81.
[17] Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, ed. James T. Dennison Jr., trans. George Musgrave Giger (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 1992-1997), 1.2.7.
[18] Beeke and Smalley give a historical overview of natural theology in the history of the church from the ancient church to the Reformed tradition. Joel R. Beeke and Paul M. Smalley, Reformed Systematic Theology Volume 1: Revelation and God, vol. 1 (Wheaton, ILL: Crossway, 2019), 1:244–263. Oxford’s handbook in the first seven chapters lays out in further detail the variety of historical perspectives on natural theology throughout different periods of the church. Manning, Russell Re, ed., The Oxford Handbook of Natural Theology (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013).
[19] The irony is that one of the reasons many protestants reject natural theology today is because of this identity thesis. The prevailing thought is that the natural theology of the Reformed scholastics is a pre-dogmatic model. Manning, The Oxford Handbook of Natural Theology, 205–209. Willem J. Van Asselt and Eef Dekker, eds., Reformation and Scholasticism: Texts and Studies in Reformation and Post-Reformation Thought (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2001), 28–34. Willem J. Van Asselt, “The Fundamental Meaning of Theology: Archetypal and Ectypal Theology in Seventeenth-Century Reformed Thought,” The Westminster Theological Journal, no. WTJ64 (2002): 320.
[20] This stems from two faulty historical views concerning the relationship between the Reformed scholastics and Reformers: 1. A discontinuity view that places the Reformed scholastics in agreement with the medieval period but against the Reformers. 2. A negative continuity view, that traces a straight line from the Middle Ages through the Reformed scholastics. The first view rescues the Reformers from the “rationalism” of the Middle Ages but the Reformed scholastics are infected by it. The second view sees a fundamental agreement between the Reformers and Reformed scholastics. Grabrill notes that much of the scholarship on Reformed orthodoxy in the nineteenth and twentieth century repeat the conclusions of Schwizer, Heppe, Althaus, and Weber, who claimed that the Reformed orthodox's theological systems of the sixteenth and seventeenth century are rationalistic. Stephen J. Grabill, “Natural Law and the Noetic Effects of Sin: The Faculty of Reason in Francis Turretin’s Theological Anthropology,” Westminster Theological Journal Vo. 67 (2) (2005) 261. Richard Muller, Willem Van Asselt, and others have countered these two views with a positive continuity view. There is continuity in the Reformed scholastics with the Medieval scholastics and Reformers but they are not copies. Van Asselt and Dekker, Reformation and Scholasticism, 28–34. Richard A. Muller, Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics: Prolegomena to Theology, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2003), 1:27–28. Jeffrey K. Jue, “Theologia Naturalis: A Reformed Tradition,” in Revelation and Reason: New Essays in Reformed Apologetics, ed by. K. Scott Oliphant and Lane G. Tipton (Phillipsburg, NJ, 2007), 170–176.
[21] Grabill, “Natural Law and the Noetic Effects of Sin," 261.
[22] Muller, Prolegomena to Theology, 174–175. Beeke and Smalley, Revelation and God, 1:236, 238, 254.
[23] Muller, Prolegomena to Theology, 1:28, 38–39, 67–73, 301.
[24] Muller, Prolegomena to Theology, 1:280.
[25] Muller, Dictionary of Latin and Greek Theological Terms: Drawn Principally from Protestant Scholastic Theology, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2017), 363.
[26] Herman Bavinck is quite critical of the method of approaching natural theology devoid of any Christian dogma and special revelation. Herman Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics: Prolegomena (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2003), 1:87, 105, 302, 320. Ibid., Reformed Dogmatics: God and Creation (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2004), 2:74-75.
[27] Haines lack of engagement with modern scholarship on the continuity of the Reformed tradition is a significant omission.
[28] Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, 1.2.5-9. Van Mastricht, Prolegomena, 1:77-78.
[29] Franciscus Junius, A Treatise on True Theology: With the Life of Franciscus Junius, trans. David C. Noe (Grand Rapids, MI: Reformation Heritage Books, 2014), 95. 97, 156. While Junius does further explain the nomenclature of false theology in thesis four, the stated goal of his treatise is to lay forth a true theology not a pagan natural theology. Junius, A Treatise on True Theology, 95. Van Asselt, “The Fundamental Meaning of Theology,” 325.
[30] Muller, Prolegomena to Theology, 1:160-161.
[31] Junius, A Treatise on True Theology, 35, 141.
[32] Van Asselt, “Moreover, the previous discussion on archetypal and ectypal theology as an overarching paradigm indicates that the Reformed orthodox never used the term “Deus” (as the principium essendi of theology) in a neutral or unqualified sense in order to construe a natural theology in a rationalistic way. What is more, from the very beginning the triune God or Deus foederatus in Christo was envisioned by the Reformed orthodox in their discourse about God as the object of theology.” Van Asselt, “The Fundamental Meaning of Theology,” 334.
[33] Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, 1.4.7.
[34] Manning and Asselt argue similar points here. Manning, The Oxford Handbook of Natural Theology, 207. Van Asselt, “The Fundamental Meaning of Theology," 333–334.
[35] Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, 1.2.7.
[36] Muller, Prolegomena to Theology, 1:284-285. Turretin grants that man’s mind is a tabula rasa relatively regarding dianoetical knowledge but he rejects it absolutely in regards to man’s intuitive or implanted knowledge. Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, 1.3.11.
[37] Muller, Prolegomena to Theology, 1:285.
[38] Muller, Dictionary of Latin and Greek Theological Terms, 67.
[39] Sudduth, Michael Sudduth, “Revisiting the ‘Reformed Objection’ to Natural Theology,” European Journal for Philosophy of Religion Vol. 1 (2) (2009): 43.
[40] Haines, “Cornelius Van Til had come on my radar, but he and his followers seemed to me at the time to be a relatively insignificant and fanatical group within the larger Reformed family. I did not realize just how influential his work was (or would become in Quebec)” (xi-xii).
[41] Haines comments on the irony that Van Til, the incessant critique of Karl Barth’s theology, agreed with Barth’s rejection of natural theology (xvi fn 5). However, nuance removes the irony. Van Til’s rejection of natural theology was qualitatively different from Karl Barth’s. Barth’s denial of natural theology stemmed from his deficient doctrine of revelation, particularly Scripture. Van Til’s articles in the Presbyterian Guardian exposed this. The dialectic theology of Barth and Brunner have more in common than Barth and Van Til’s denial of natural theology. See John Muether’s excellent chapter “The New Machen against the New Modernism” in his biography Cornelius Van Til: Reformed Apologist and Churchman (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R, 2008) where he summarizes Van Til’s opposition to Barth. Van Til rejected any conception of natural theology that severed reason from faith and undermined the organic unity of natural and special revelation. Van Til’s chapter “Nature and Scripture” in the Symposium of the Infallible captures Van Til’s robust doctrine of natural revelation and his affirmation of a version of natural theology. Van Til rejected a particular species of natural theology. Only if Haines’ definition of natural theology is the authoritative position of the Reformed tradition is it fair to say that Van Til rejected his tradition’s view of natural theology.
[42] An example of a thoughtful and careful engagement with an interlocutor is seen when Haines interacts with Hodge’s argument that God’s existence is self-evident (158-169).
[43] This is a fair summary of Van Til’s view of natural theology, but when fleshed out, this is when the interpreters of Van Til go awry. In other words, “rightly” does not mean that men do not know anything of God from nature, but apart from the Word and Spirit working in a regenerated man’s mind, man cannot know God as he ought to from nature. The word “rightly” bares a lot of weight in Van Til’s theology.
[44] Haines’ citation comes from Cornelius Van Til, The Defense of the Faith, 4th ed., ed. K. Scott Oliphant (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R, 2008), 128.
[45] Van Til says just prior and after the quote provided by Haines, “Even before the entrance of sin, as already noted, man required supernatural positive revelation… In paradise the supernatural revelation of God to man told. Him that if he would eat of the forbidden tree, he would surely die.” The Defense of the Faith, 128.
[46] Geerhardus Vos, Biblical Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1948), 28-31.
[47] Italics added for emphasis. Cornelius Van Til, An Introduction to Systematic Theology (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R, 1979), 67 see also 73, 84. Francis Junius also argued that pre-fall supernatural theology was necessary to perfect the imperfect natural theology. Junius, A Treatise on True Theology, 151. Nathan Shannon argues that Junius and Van Til’s conception of natural theology are both shaped by the God-human relationship. Nathan D. Shannon, “Junius and Van Til on Natural Knowledge of God,” Westminster Theological Journal, no. WTJ 82 (2020): 300.
[48] Vos, Natural Theology, trans. Albert Gootjes (Grand Rapids: Reformation Heritage, 2022).
[49] Van Til commended Herman Bavinck’s chastened remarks about natural theology. Van Til, Introduction to Systematic Theology, 44. “The content of both revelations, not that of the special only but that of the general also, is contained in Holy Scripture. General revelation, although derived from nature, is nevertheless taken up in Scripture, for, without it, we human beings, because of the darkness of our understanding, would never have been able to read it out of nature. Bavinck, The Wonderful Works of God (Glenside, PA: Westminster Seminary Press, 2019), 22. “Even when Christians do theology, from the very beginning they stand with both feet on the foundation of special revelation. They are Christ-believers not only in the doctrine of Christ but equally in the doctrine of God. Standing on this foundation, they look around themselves, and armed with the spectacles of Holy Scripture, they see in all the world a revelation of the same God they know and confess in Christ as their Father in heaven.” Bavinck, God and Creation, 2:75.
[50] John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, ed. John T. McNeill, trans. Ford Lewis Battles, (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2011), 1.6.1.
[51] Calvin “For, since the human mind because of its feebleness can in no way attain to God unless it be aided and assisted by his Sacred Word, all mortals at that time…without the Word, had of necessity to stagger about in vanity and error.” Calvin, Institutes, 1.6.4. Turretin commenting on Acts 17:23 distinguishes between seeking the favor and grace of God through the Word in the promises of Christ and seeking the unknown god through nature. The objects and the manner of seeking are different, and like Calvin, Turretin states that if man is left to a knowledge of God as Creator via nature alone, he/she will be left with seeking an unknown god. Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, 1.4.7.
[52] Van Til, An Introduction to Systematic Theology, 100.
[53] Calvin, “Yet, however the knowledge of God and of ourselves may be mutually connected, the order of right teaching requires that we discuss the former first, then proceed afterward to treat the latter… Indeed, we shall not say that, properly speaking, God is known where there is no religion or piety.” Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, 1.1.3; 1.2.1. Van Til, An Introduction to Systematic Theology, 87.
[54] Van Til, An Introduction to Systematic Theology, 100.
[55] Van Til, An Introduction to Systematic Theology, 26-27.
[56] Van Til, “If therefore men would only reason analogically they should be able to reason from nature to nature’s God. But sinners until saved by grace do not reason analogically. They reason univocally. And because they reason univocally about nature they conclude that no god exists or that a god exists but never that the true God exists. It has been a basic misunderstanding of Scripture and of Calvin’s interpretation of Scripture to say that even by reasoning univocally with respect to nature man should be able to come to the knowledge of God’s existence.” An Introduction to Systematic Theology, 101.
[57] Van Til, An Introduction to Systematic Theology, 22.
[58] Van Til, An Introduction to Systematic Theology, 102.
[59] Van Til, An Introduction to Systematic Theology, 44.
[60] Other questions that need to be addressed in light of Haines’ thesis- 1. How is the Protestant deeper conception incompatible with Haines’ thesis? 2. How does the work of the Spirit factor into the conversation of natural theology? 3. Is Aquinas’ rejection of God’s existence being self-evident to the image of God unique to his conception of natural theology?
[61] Joel Beeke and Paul Smalley offer a more nuanced biblical and Reformed survey and evaluation of natural theology in the Christian tradition. Beeke and Smalley, Revelation and God, 1:244-263.