What do you think?
Rate this book
Richard Hooker on Natural Theology and Scripture
Evangelical Protestants enthusiastically affirm the “sufficiency of Scripture” for the Christian faith. But how does this doctrine square with the church’s long tradition of “natural theology” which teaches that a surprising amount can be known about God from nature and reason alone?
In this short but incisive book, David Hainess demonstrates how the great English Reformer, Richard Hooker (1554-1600), answered this pivotal question. Usually, Hooker is associated with the questions of natural law and ethics rather than natural theology and the doctrine of God. However, Haines shows that a firm grasp of natural theology underpins Hooker’s teaching on natural law, and that the latter cannot be had without the former. In doing so, he provides not merely a survey of Hooker’s thought, but, via Hooker, a concise and lucid introduction to the whole topic of natural theology and a compelling defense against its biblicist critics.
In this short but incisive book, David Hainess demonstrates how the great English Reformer, Richard Hooker (1554-1600), answered this pivotal question. Usually, Hooker is associated with the questions of natural law and ethics rather than natural theology and the doctrine of God. However, Haines shows that a firm grasp of natural theology underpins Hooker’s teaching on natural law, and that the latter cannot be had without the former. In doing so, he provides not merely a survey of Hooker’s thought, but, via Hooker, a concise and lucid introduction to the whole topic of natural theology and a compelling defense against its biblicist critics.
85 pages, Paperback
First published September 24, 2024
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews
June 2, 2025
A fantastic little primer on Natural Theology and its rightful place in Reformed theology.
April 14, 2025
In the churches I come from, the leadership and members are driven by the laudable desire to affirm, among others, two fundamental truths: a high view of Scripture and an emphasis on the noetic effects of original sin on human nature. Consequently, with respect to the life of the mind, biblical exegesis and exposition are prized above all other means of attaining knowledge. Since theology is the queen of the sciences, there is much to be commended in this perspective. However, probably in the aftermath of the modernist controversies and the decline of Christendom in the West, this mindset is also often wedded to a disparaging approach to other disciplines of study, with the occasional exceptions made for "common grace". Additionally, despite centuries of Christian thought on the subject, natural theology is either marginalized or viewed with a great deal of skepticism, usually due to the misplaced fear that this will supplant the authority and sufficiency of Scripture or represents a Pelagianizing tendency in the church. In a complex world filled with a diverse set of challenges and an ever-expanding set of disciplines emerging to approach such problems, often in a way that is intentionally subversive to Christianity, it makes sense that Christians would be hesitant to embrace theological conclusions drawn from, among other disciplines, natural sciences and philosophy. Instead, it is more expedient to use concepts like "worldview" or simplistic paradigms to advance an evangelistic agenda or to confirm the intellectually curious in their faith. Though it is built on good intentions, I don't think this is the best way forward, and the arguments made by Richard Hooker and recapitulated by David Haines show what is, in my view, a more excellent way.
The Reformed have historically in their confessions affirmed with one voice the validity of the natural light of reason in knowing true things about God. These conclusions are part of what make up natural theology, which is partly innate from the testimony of conscience and partly acquired from the use of reason as it interacts with creation. Though some Reformed and other theologians have questioned this move as a compromise with Roman Catholic theology, Haines believes Richard Hooker is a prime candidate to teach the modern church to recover this kind of theological reasoning for introducing and confirming the faith since he is a representative and influential theologian from the 16th century (who also happens to have been admired by CS Lewis).
The book is structured to look at three issues: 1) Hooker's articulation of natural theology; 2) how Hooker would respond to objections, particularly biblicist ones; and 3) how Christians can use natural theology today.
Regarding the first point, Haines argues that Hooker views natural theology as those truths which we can know about God apart from special revelation. Though the image has been marred since the Fall, it is not so marred that man loses those essential qualities of the desire for truth and the capacity to reason. Man cannot, apart from special revelation and divine grace, come to a saving knowledge of God, but he can know true things about God. He can know God is one, simple, and wise, to name a few. Reaching these conclusions from the revelation of God embedded in creation is part of the task of natural theology. With these definitions and examples established, Haines then moves to Hooker's defense of natural theology against various objections.
The most important objection to me, since it is the one I encounter the most, is well-articulated by Haines: "Natural knowledge of God puts human reason above the Scriptures as arbiter and judge, rather than that which is judged" (39). According to Haines, this objection stems from a misunderstanding of sola Scriptura (and I would add, the sufficiency of Scripture), which must be addressed first before getting to the objection proper.
In Hooker's words, "Scripture was the only infallible and finally authoritative standard in matters of faith, and thus the only basis on which any doctrine or action could be required of the Christian conscience as needful for salvation" (40). Hooker also offers further clarity to this definition, including "needful for salvation" as especially relevant. His definition, if taken in an unqualified sense, could lead to significant problems. For instance, Scripture must be interpreted for it to have authority in the lives of Christians and to show us the way of salvation. Therefore, all interpretive tools must be within the scope of Scripture as well, including language, grammar, philosophy, history, and geography, among other disciplines. Yet, we know that Scripture does not contain within itself these things needful for its own understanding. The easiest way to see this is in language itself. The very existence of Scripture obviously assumes a knowledge of how language and grammar works as a prerequisite. This is a species of "natural knowledge", yet it is necessary to understanding Scripture and by implication is needful for salvation. Hooker deals with this difficulty by defining "all things needful for salvation" under the rubric of the sufficiency of Scripture (or as Haines calls it, sola Scriptura) as those things which are ordinarily needful for salvation which we could not know by natural reason, such as the Trinity or of the gospel of Christ. Thus, in Hooker's epistemological scheme, the Scriptures presuppose and perfect the light of reason which man has naturally. Both Nature and Scripture are neither sufficient on their own, but working jointly are so complete that nothing else is needed to "find eternal joy" (46). They do not contradict one another, but work together for our good.
Getting to the biblicist objection proper, Hooker makes one general objection of his own to their theological method. The first is that those who take the sufficiency of Scripture in the absolute sense extend the use of Scripture far beyond its intended purpose, which is to inform us of our supernatural duties and blessings. In doing so, they ironically dishonor Scripture, because they are forced to twist it to fit these overextended purposes they've designed for it to meet. In specific response to the objection, Hooker begins by replying with a historical theological argument that shows the pedigree of natural theology as it has been held almost unanimously by sound theologians. Then, he moves to the Scriptural citations made by the objectors. Before getting to specifics, he notes that often those who are making the objection forget the nature of comparisons, that is, if our wisdom is compared to that of God, of course it is folly in this relative sense. This does not negate our wisdom in an absolute sense, as can be clearly seen from other portions of Scripture. Secondly, condemnations of false knowledge does not imply the same for all human knowledge. Specifically, in 1 Cor. 2:14, this is not referring to truths about God which can be known from nature, but instead concerning those things needful for salvation which can only be learned from Scripture. Colossians 2:8 also refers to false human knowledge and doesn't condemn human philosophy as such, but only inasmuch as it improperly moves one from Christ as Creator and Redeemer. The weakest point in Haines' presentation is regarding 1 Cor. 1:19-21, about which he does not really say anything. Nevertheless, the general points made above should cover this objection soundly. There are a few other points made, but these are the most important ones, and though it could be improved, I think Haines did an admirable job demonstrating that the biblicist objection is unsustainable.
So, what is this all for? This may seem like a theoretical dispute of little relevance and easily dismissed. While this may be true for some who know intuitively or functionally how unworkable the biblicist ideology is and live their lives accordingly, I do think this is an important issue. For evangelism, contrary to at least some forms of presuppositionalism, this argument ensures that we do have common notions we share with unbelievers which can share as points of contact for the gospel. We can build on an unbelievers' intuitive understanding of the world and causation to show the reasonability of believing in God as judge, which can open the door for the medicine of the gospel. In addition, for those who already believe, natural theology can confirm to them the reasonability of their faith, which is increasingly important given the strong cultural headwinds which make the Christian faith seem implausible. The rich heritage of Christian theology, including natural theology developed with other philosophers of the Western tradition, is marvelous and worth preserving. It is amazing how well God's world and his Word cohere, and we should celebrate this marriage rather than seek their divorce. This also relieves some of the pressure from the "worldview" paradigm, which often is just using a form of special pleading disguised as a high view of Scripture, allowing Christians to breathe and explore God's world freely. This is a pathway to great enrichment and a thriving Christian mind in the modern age, which I admit appeals to me greatly as a conservative, since the way is well-trod by our fathers in the faith like Richard Hooker.
The Reformed have historically in their confessions affirmed with one voice the validity of the natural light of reason in knowing true things about God. These conclusions are part of what make up natural theology, which is partly innate from the testimony of conscience and partly acquired from the use of reason as it interacts with creation. Though some Reformed and other theologians have questioned this move as a compromise with Roman Catholic theology, Haines believes Richard Hooker is a prime candidate to teach the modern church to recover this kind of theological reasoning for introducing and confirming the faith since he is a representative and influential theologian from the 16th century (who also happens to have been admired by CS Lewis).
The book is structured to look at three issues: 1) Hooker's articulation of natural theology; 2) how Hooker would respond to objections, particularly biblicist ones; and 3) how Christians can use natural theology today.
Regarding the first point, Haines argues that Hooker views natural theology as those truths which we can know about God apart from special revelation. Though the image has been marred since the Fall, it is not so marred that man loses those essential qualities of the desire for truth and the capacity to reason. Man cannot, apart from special revelation and divine grace, come to a saving knowledge of God, but he can know true things about God. He can know God is one, simple, and wise, to name a few. Reaching these conclusions from the revelation of God embedded in creation is part of the task of natural theology. With these definitions and examples established, Haines then moves to Hooker's defense of natural theology against various objections.
The most important objection to me, since it is the one I encounter the most, is well-articulated by Haines: "Natural knowledge of God puts human reason above the Scriptures as arbiter and judge, rather than that which is judged" (39). According to Haines, this objection stems from a misunderstanding of sola Scriptura (and I would add, the sufficiency of Scripture), which must be addressed first before getting to the objection proper.
In Hooker's words, "Scripture was the only infallible and finally authoritative standard in matters of faith, and thus the only basis on which any doctrine or action could be required of the Christian conscience as needful for salvation" (40). Hooker also offers further clarity to this definition, including "needful for salvation" as especially relevant. His definition, if taken in an unqualified sense, could lead to significant problems. For instance, Scripture must be interpreted for it to have authority in the lives of Christians and to show us the way of salvation. Therefore, all interpretive tools must be within the scope of Scripture as well, including language, grammar, philosophy, history, and geography, among other disciplines. Yet, we know that Scripture does not contain within itself these things needful for its own understanding. The easiest way to see this is in language itself. The very existence of Scripture obviously assumes a knowledge of how language and grammar works as a prerequisite. This is a species of "natural knowledge", yet it is necessary to understanding Scripture and by implication is needful for salvation. Hooker deals with this difficulty by defining "all things needful for salvation" under the rubric of the sufficiency of Scripture (or as Haines calls it, sola Scriptura) as those things which are ordinarily needful for salvation which we could not know by natural reason, such as the Trinity or of the gospel of Christ. Thus, in Hooker's epistemological scheme, the Scriptures presuppose and perfect the light of reason which man has naturally. Both Nature and Scripture are neither sufficient on their own, but working jointly are so complete that nothing else is needed to "find eternal joy" (46). They do not contradict one another, but work together for our good.
Getting to the biblicist objection proper, Hooker makes one general objection of his own to their theological method. The first is that those who take the sufficiency of Scripture in the absolute sense extend the use of Scripture far beyond its intended purpose, which is to inform us of our supernatural duties and blessings. In doing so, they ironically dishonor Scripture, because they are forced to twist it to fit these overextended purposes they've designed for it to meet. In specific response to the objection, Hooker begins by replying with a historical theological argument that shows the pedigree of natural theology as it has been held almost unanimously by sound theologians. Then, he moves to the Scriptural citations made by the objectors. Before getting to specifics, he notes that often those who are making the objection forget the nature of comparisons, that is, if our wisdom is compared to that of God, of course it is folly in this relative sense. This does not negate our wisdom in an absolute sense, as can be clearly seen from other portions of Scripture. Secondly, condemnations of false knowledge does not imply the same for all human knowledge. Specifically, in 1 Cor. 2:14, this is not referring to truths about God which can be known from nature, but instead concerning those things needful for salvation which can only be learned from Scripture. Colossians 2:8 also refers to false human knowledge and doesn't condemn human philosophy as such, but only inasmuch as it improperly moves one from Christ as Creator and Redeemer. The weakest point in Haines' presentation is regarding 1 Cor. 1:19-21, about which he does not really say anything. Nevertheless, the general points made above should cover this objection soundly. There are a few other points made, but these are the most important ones, and though it could be improved, I think Haines did an admirable job demonstrating that the biblicist objection is unsustainable.
So, what is this all for? This may seem like a theoretical dispute of little relevance and easily dismissed. While this may be true for some who know intuitively or functionally how unworkable the biblicist ideology is and live their lives accordingly, I do think this is an important issue. For evangelism, contrary to at least some forms of presuppositionalism, this argument ensures that we do have common notions we share with unbelievers which can share as points of contact for the gospel. We can build on an unbelievers' intuitive understanding of the world and causation to show the reasonability of believing in God as judge, which can open the door for the medicine of the gospel. In addition, for those who already believe, natural theology can confirm to them the reasonability of their faith, which is increasingly important given the strong cultural headwinds which make the Christian faith seem implausible. The rich heritage of Christian theology, including natural theology developed with other philosophers of the Western tradition, is marvelous and worth preserving. It is amazing how well God's world and his Word cohere, and we should celebrate this marriage rather than seek their divorce. This also relieves some of the pressure from the "worldview" paradigm, which often is just using a form of special pleading disguised as a high view of Scripture, allowing Christians to breathe and explore God's world freely. This is a pathway to great enrichment and a thriving Christian mind in the modern age, which I admit appeals to me greatly as a conservative, since the way is well-trod by our fathers in the faith like Richard Hooker.
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews