Natural Theology: A Biblical and Historical Introduction and Defense

by David Haines

Christians affirm that Scripture alone reveals truths about God which cannot be known by mere reason, such as the Trinity or the Gospel itself. But how do we account for Scripture’s apparent talk of a knowledge of God possible solely from creation? Or for our own sense of the divine in nature? Or for the startling insights of ancient philosophers about the nature of God? The answer: natural theology.

Often misrepresented as a fruitless human attempt to comprehend God, natural theology has in fact been a significant part of Christian theology throughout history. It has shaped the Christian doctrine of God and provided a starting point for evangelizing non-Christians. In an age when theologians and missionaries alike are in need of stronger doctrinal foundations, it is a doctrine as vital as ever.

Genres: Theology, Philosophy, Nonfiction, Christian, Religion, Christianity, History

195 pages, Paperback

Published December 1, 2021

About the author

David Haines holds a BTh. from CTS, an M.A. in philosophy from Southern Evangelical Seminary, and a PhD. in philosophy from Université Laval. He and his wife live in Minnesota with their 4 children. David is assistant professor of philosophy and theology at Bethlehem College & Seminary, associate professor of philosophy and religion at VIU, lecturer in medieval philosophy at University of Sherbrooke, lecturer in dogmatics and philosophy with the Davenant Hall, associate professor of ethics at SEMBEQ, and has taught History of Christian Apologetics at FTE-Acadia. He is also the founder and was the first president of Association Axiome, an association of French Protestant scholars. His academic research focuses on Ancient and Medieval philosophy, C. S. Lewis, Thomism, and natural theology.

Reviews

[Samuel G. Parkison · Rating 5 out of 5]

A very welcomed resource on a very important topic. It is, in many respects, fated to be a dated resource. Although much of its contents is general as a Biblical, Theological, and historical overview and defense of natural theology, it is also occasional. The severe necessity of a book like this would not have been intuitive or obvious in past generations (nor, Lord willing, for future generations if Haines and others are successful). What Haines argues positively for in this volume is standard, non-controversial, and axiomatic for the vast majority of the great tradition of Christianity. Its occasion and pressing relevance for today is owing to an ostensibly reformed branch of evangelicalism that is thoroughly steeped in a historical revisionism of the highest order. Thanks to Van Til and others, it is not uncommon to find the notion that the protestant reformers and the Roman catholic tradition divide over the question of the legitimacy of natural theology, with the former rejecting it all together. In light of this unfortunate landscape, which makes this work so necessary and vital, the biggest weakness of this book may in fact be its greatest strength. Namely, the relatively short attention given to Thomas Aquinas. As it is, Haines’s treatment of Thomas leaves the reader desperate for more. But for polemical purposes to combat the notion that Thomas ruined the Church with his natural theology (and that the Reformers saved Her by doing away with it), a short chapter on Thomas’s endorsement of Natural Theology, followed by a (very restrained) lengthy chapter on the Reformers’ endorsement of the same, may have been to Haines’s advantage.

[Daniel Bouchoc · Rating 4 out of 5]

A decent introduction to natural theology. I enjoyed the walk through of church history.

I'm left with two questions for the author:

1. Why is there an assumption that the early philosophers came to their understanding of God from natural theology apart from any interaction with Scriptures? Unless I'm missing something, this is a massive and unconvincing assumption.
2. If natural theology is sufficient for just condemnation, as some argued in church history, then why isn't it sufficient for saving faith? I don't recall the question being asked in the book which was frustrating.

[Flynn Evans · Rating 5 out of 5]

Haines incontrovertibly proves that classical Reformed theology, in conjunction with the early church and the affirmation thereof in Aquinas, holds to the legitimacy of general revelation as a source of a true if only provisional knowledge of God and his attributes. Painstakingly demonstrating that it was never historically understood as a saving knowledge, Haines nevertheless shows how both pagan philosophers and Protestants alike shared in their appropriation of natural theology in seeking to know the Creator, and that it is the possibility of attaining toward that understanding which makes one without excuse should he reject him as Lord. Thus, the utility of natural theology is found not in itself but instead in its intimations beyond itself, impressing upon all their collective awareness of the divine design of the cosmos. Though it is more of a primer on the subject than a full-throated proposal for its necessity within Christian belief, this work by Haines dispatches with any claims that the Reformed faith has no regard for natural theology. Such a faith might very well reject it, but it cannot call itself "Reformed" in doing so.

[James · Rating 5 out of 5]

Haines’s book clearly delineates and explains the importance of natural theology throughout history, particularly for Christianity. His short but thorough overview of the various philosophers and theologians throughout strongly make his case, especially against specious claims that natural theology has no place in Protestant or Reformed Christianity. If read, I think this book will help rehabilitate the importance of natural theology, and the more general topic of natural revelation.

[Zachary Horn · Rating 5 out of 5]

Superb. This is an excellent treatment/defense of natural theology in a highly readable and persuasive form. In many respects, this book proves the strangeness of its own task, because as Haines convincingly demonstrates, until Barthian and Van Tilian objections gained broad purchase, Reformed theology was historically united in its embrace of natural theology, and particularly that classicist form found in the writings of Augustine and Aquinas. This is an excellent companion to the work of Michael Sudduth, whose "The Reformed Objection to Natural Theology" is one of my favorite treatments of the subject.

My only minor complaint is that this book would have benefitted from a longer and more sustained interaction with Aquinas. Overall, this is a welcome contribution, and an excellent reintroduction of a lost heritage for many in Protestant circles. Highly, highly recommend.

[Jeremy]

Short and positive review here. More detailed interaction here. Markos review at Ref21. London Lyceum review here.

Here's a review of a book that critiques Aquinas.

Haines edited Without Excuse, which takes aim at presuppositional apologetics (Van Til). Here's a review of that book.

[Robert Hasler · Rating 5 out of 5]

Straightforward and immensely practical. Haines ably demonstrates the biblical case for natural theology as well as its place in Reformed orthodoxy.

The historical evidence Haines presents is overwhelming. One cannot sift through the quotes of Calvin, Turretin, Vermigli, Davenant, Junius, let alone the Reformed confessions and creeds and come to any other conclusion than that CVT and Barth are (at best) deviations from the norm.

I can certainly understand why they may have dismissed the merits of natural theology, especially with respect to apologetics. Still, that does not negate the clear biblical evidence for natural theology. Nor does it undo the necessity of natural theology for biblical and systematic theology. For God is our Creator and our Redeemer and is pleased to reveal himself in creation and the Scriptures. Like Paul in the Areopagus, may we direct our neighbors from the false worship of gods they intuit but do not know to the one, true God who has made himself known in Jesus Christ.

[Coleson White · Rating 3 out of 5]

A good biblical introduction. A great historical introduction. A weak defense.

An articulation of Van Til was needed and absent. I have many more questions than answers walking away from this book.

[Jason Alligood · Rating 5 out of 5]

Haines gives us a fantastic introductory volume to Natural Theology. Those who are unfamiliar with--or even skeptical or critical--of Natural Theology, should read this work.

[John Martindale · Rating 3 out of 5]

After Haines' initial justification of Natural Theology (on which I comment below), I enjoyed his brief history of natural theology. Haines touched on the pre-Socratics, Plato, Aristotle, Neoplatonism, Cicero, and early church fathers. My main critique of Haines here is the assumption that Aristotle was most aligned with Christian theism, for Aristotle posited an immutable, impassible, simple unmoved mover. The problem is that the only reason Aristotle is thought to align with scripturally "revealed" theology is because Christians so thoroughly appropriated parts of Greek thought and read the scriptures through this lens.
I have no issue with the Christians being so drawn to Greek Philosophy and allowing it to shape their thinking--but we should not pretend for even a moment that a careful reading of the Hebrew texts (without the Greek Philosophical Puzzlebox forcing us to make the pieces fit) could have even remotely led to a belief in such a timeless, impassible, immutable God. The God of the Hebrew scripture is the utter antithesis to the Supreme First Principle of the philosophers.
The formation of Christian theology, fascinatingly, was the triumph of the seeming reasonableness of natural theology to early Christian thinkers. It was so successful that it resulted in their reading an utterly alien concept of deity into their sacred text, and assuming it was exegesis. Their eisegesis was so thorough that they assumed that scripture truly presented the God of classical theism, and for the last 2000 years, theologians have followed their lead. It is, thus, kind of fascinating that Haines commends Aristotle as being the closest to the Christian "true" conception of God.


To counter Van Til and Barth, Haines began the book by considering the primary biblical texts (Psalm 19; Acts 14 and 17; Romans 1) that suggest some biblical authors believed in the legitimacy of natural theology. Then, working from a Reformed tradition, Haines looks at Calvinist interpretations of the verses, from John Calvin to Douglas Moo. While I am a champion of Natural theology, I find the Reformed appropriation of it to be rather problematic.

Calvin, in using Paul, sought to further justify God condemning the majority of humanity to eternal torment, simply for His good pleasure. He argued that while nature/reason is not sufficient to lead to salvation (which would require sovereign election, regeneration, and irresistible grace), it is sufficient for people to know that God exists—and thus be culpable and worthy of damnation.

By analogy, suppose a father has abandoned his daughter. This father plans to return at the end of her life. Now, as a righteous judge, he plans to send her to a torture chamber when he returns—unless she believes the “right” thing about him and his son, whom she has also never met. However, the truths necessary for salvation are not things she could arrive at on her own; they must be revealed to her by the Father. Yet, the loving and just Father, having already determined to send her to the torture chamber before she was even born, leaves her in the dark--to ensure his will and sovereign plan. Still, the father, being a just judge, claims that nature itself suggests that a father exists—his daughter, simply through reason, can deduce that some man donated seed. Thus, she “knows” that a father exists and is therefore without excuse. When the father returns, full of rage, he gives her the elixir of immortality and then sends her to the torture chamber to be tortured forever for having the audacity not to believe what he sovereignly chose to withhold from her. But hey, through reason alone, she could have known a father exists—so she deserves every ounce of pain and suffering. Oh, the glorious and righteous ways and judgments of that Father!

Unsurprisingly, for the Reformed community, natural theology functions primarily as a flimsy justification for the eternal torment of people in hell—despite the damned never having heard the gospel or haing any chance to believe what is said to be necessary for salvation. The idea is that nature is enough to suggest there is a God, and so they are deserving of eternal punishment for not then taking the next step (which they couldn't have made or even have known to try and make). This rationalization is morally and intellectually repugnant.

In the analogy with the girl and the father, any sane individual would recognize the father as an evil, wholly unjust, and unloving sadistic fiend. The vacuous attempt to justify such a supreme act of injustice only compounds the horror.

It is likely that Paul (though, unlike Calvin, may not have held to the model of eternal conscious torment) was wrestling with the question of how God could judge people for not believing in Jesus, when almost no one in the world had heard of Jesus or could believe in him. He attempted to invoke natural theology, but it only goes so far. Nature is ambiguous. While it may suggest a being or beings of power and intelligence—and perhaps benevolence due to beauty, order, and complexity—it also suggests malevolence, given nature's violence, chaos, and indifference to suffering.

Nature is a riddle. There is no way to reason from nature to the gospel, which was thought necessary for salvation. Anyone placed in this situation has an excuse, a very legitimate one. If God condemns people in such a situation, then God is squarely unjust and evil. Paul's theology, in this respect, resulted in a problem—a gaping wound—revealing God as unjust. Rather than recognizing that the real issue was the belief that certain doctrines were required for salvation, Paul may have tried to place a band-aid over the wound. He created a post-hoc justification that fails on every level. Yet, having been canonized, his thin, desperate rationalizations were made dogma and sacrosanct.

It is due to the fallibility of biblical authors' assertions and "solutions" to the problems their theology gave them, and the Christian interpreters who came after them who defended the indefensable, and insisted that what is obviously false is actually true, that I am now drawn towards natural theology. Since what is supposed to be divine revelation is so full of error, delusion, mistakes, falsehood, and evil, natural theology (even with all its ambiguities) seems a better foundation to try to speculate on the nature of the divine.

[Timothy · Rating 4 out of 5]

Yes to Natural Theology!

I think I've always believed in natural theology, even if at times I almost neglected it, being influenced by some of Van Til's (and Barth's) ideas. This book was great in articulating and showing the pedigree of natural theology, the extent and limits of natural theology, how some recent reformed theologians mischaracterised and/or denied natural theology. I'm glad I read this book!

The book has a fairly brief discussions on the biblical passages about natural theology, which was fine for me as I was already convinced of natural theology from those passages, but it might have been helpful to show how those who deny natural theology interpreted those biblical passages. Also, the chapter on Aquinas (chapter 4) was strangely brief, and a few examples and quotes from the reformed theologians in chapter 5 seemed a bit too brief to understand in context while others sounded a bit repetitive.

Notwithstanding my "wish list" above, this book would be a great resource for anyone who has some doubts about the legitimacy of natural theology in reformed orthodoxy and wanting to think carefully about natural theology.

[Noah · Rating 4 out of 5]

A helpful and interesting book for anyone who is at least somewhat conversant with classical theism and Western Christian theology proper. For the layman or someone new to the faith, this is not beginner level. It may be an introduction (as the subtitle claims) in the sense of only touching on a lot of different primary sources, but it's not well suited to guide the newcomer into these waters.

Haines is at his best, in my opinion, when he's showing from Scripture and Christian tradition that natural theology, in the sense of showing that the existence and some attributes of God are discoverable by reason in creation, is legitimate and has been with the Church from the beginning. I think perhaps he should have started and spent more time there, and then perhaps gone to the Pre-Socratics and others.

[Sam Nesbitt · Rating 2 out of 5]

Haines’s Natural Theology is an introduction and defense of Christian natural theology, particularly in the context of Reformed theology. Colored by recent debates about the status and role of natural theology in systematic theology and apologetics, this work is framed as a historical demonstration of the validity of natural theology as opposed to modern Reformed theologians, namely Karl Barth and Cornelius Van Til (but mainly Van Til because Haines predominantly interacts with Van Til and not very much with Barth if at all). The main portion of the book is a historical sketch of natural theology from the pre-Socratics to the Reformation era, but the beginning and ending chapters are more polemical against Van Til (there is also a biblical exposition of passages that support natural theology, but this is motivated from polemics as well). Overall, Haines does a poor job of defending natural theology, and this is the case for several reasons: Haines is fast and loose with distinguishing natural theology and natural knowledge of God, despite offering definitions in the beginning of the book. By fast and loose, I mean that within the span of a few pages he will equivocate between natural theology and natural knowledge of God, a connection that is certainly not warranted in the context of this debate (see 24–25). Haines also does not distinguish between true and false natural theology, a crucial category for the Reformers (see Muller’s PRD vol I 275, 28, 294). Haines severely misreads Van Til’s understanding of natural theology and natural revelation (see 37), which is especially seen when Haines does not address Van Til’s ethical emphasis as it pertains to the unbeliever’s knowledge of God (see 172). Additionally, Haines defines natural theology in fundamentally modernistic terms when he qualifies the discipline by negating the presence of presuppositions (12). In his words, natural theology is to be done “without presupposing the truth of any religion.” This a fundamentally modernistic understanding that is most definitely not in harmony with the Reformed, or Christian, prolegomena tradition. Of course, there will be a difference between postmodern and premodern understandings of presuppositions and their role in knowledge, but the notion that the Reformers approached theology and religion first by throwing off their Christian convictions is false. In fact, according to Muller’s description of Arminian natural theology, Haines’s view coheres much more with Arminianism than the Reformed tradition (see Muller 279). In sum, the value of Haine’s Natural Theology is low due to its poor representation of Van Til that frames the entire purpose of the book and the historical sketch. The historical sketch of natural theology is valuable insofar as it goes as an introduction to the subject from the history of western theology and philosophy, but since the historical sketch is meant to prove a positions that has been fundamentally misconstructed, its overall purpose falls flat (i.e., Van Til does not deny natural theology in the unequivocal/simplistic way that Haines makes it out to be, and therefore when all that Haines is doing in his history is proving that philosophers and theologians affirmed that unbelievers can know true things about God is to say something Van Til would agree with, albeit he would qualify such knowledge in the ways that he does in his works, ways that are omitted from Haines’s discussion). The result is a boxing match between Haines and his own imagined ghost, and therefore he ends up saying a lot of things that Van Tillians do actually agree with, while also making ridiculous arguments that demonstrate Haines’s incredible lack of familiarity of, or ill-spirit towards, Van Til.

[Tyler C · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book is a breath of fresh air for anyone interested in this often-misunderstood concept. Haines not only dismantles the misconception that natural theology is a prideful attempt to grasp God through reason alone, but also makes a compelling case for its importance within the Protestant tradition.

As someone familiar with the prevailing sentiment that equates natural theology with a straying from Scripture, this book was a revelation. Haines meticulously demonstrates how the Bible itself lays the groundwork for understanding God through creation. He then dives into the fascinating world of Christian thinkers throughout history, highlighting how prominent theologians like Calvin and Aquinas embraced natural theology. This historical context was invaluable, especially considering the current downplaying of natural theology in certain Reformed circles.

Haines' writing is clear, concise, and engaging. He doesn't shy away from complex topics, but explains them in a way that is accessible to both academics and interested laypeople. The book is well-organized, with each chapter building upon the previous one.

For me, the most helpful part of the book was the clear explanation of how natural theology fits within not on the Christian tradition, but especially the Protestant tradition. Haines effectively counters the claims of those who portray it as a departure from Scripture. This is a much-needed corrective, and it has significant implications for both Christian apologetics and evangelism.

If you're looking for a well-researched and engaging defense of natural theology, look no further than "Natural Theology."

[Laurent Dv · Rating 4 out of 5]

Natural theology est une excellente introduction accessible à la fois biblique et historique à la théologie naturelle (en termes plus contemporains “philosophie de la religion”), discipline de la philosophie qui étudie l’existence de Dieu et ses attributs accessibles par la raison sans révélation surnaturelle (par exemple la Bible).
1) Biblique car l’auteur donne les fondements bibliques d’une telle démarche (les versets clés) et
2) Historique parce qu’il survole comment les philosophes antiques (des présocratiques jusqu’aux néoplatonistes en passant par Aristote et Platon) et les théologiens chrétiens l’ont approuvée et même pratiquée (les Pères de l’Eglise, Augustin, Thomas d’Aquin, Luther, Calvin).

Il aborde la théologie naturelle selon ces deux points de vue pour montrer qu’elle est bien légitime et que la majorité des chrétiens (et en particulier les Réformés). C’est donc le premier livre à lire par un croyant qui veut s’assurer du bienfondé de la théologie naturelle avec sa foi en Christ avant de se lancer dans les arguments philosophiques.

[Alan Fuller · Rating 5 out of 5]

Natural theology is about God revealing Himself in nature, as found in such passages as Psalm 19:1–4; Acts 14:16–17,17:26–27; and Romans 1:19–20, 2:14–15. Men can understand God’s word through observation and reason. The beauty and majesty of the cosmos can be seen as evidence of a great divine artist. David Haines takes a look at the history of natural theology, from the pre-Socratic philosophers to the Reformers. The errors and inconsistencies of the pre-Christian philosophers should not keep us from understanding the correct things they said about God. History teaches us:

“(1) the general tendency of Reformed theologians and philosophers (from the Reformation to the end of the nineteenth century) to both accept and engage in natural theology, and (2) the overwhelming tendency of twentieth-century Reformed theologians and philosophers to reject natural theology in different ways.” p. 193

“One of the positive uses of natural theology is that it guides us in our interpretation of Scripture…” p.171

[Matt Miller · Rating 3 out of 5]

More like 3.5.

Surveys Ancient Greeks, Early Church Fathers, and the Reformers to show how there was a sense of “knowing God” apart from special revelation. Takes an entire book to affirm what’s already clearly stated in Romans 1 and 2, ironically undermining the objective of the book.

No real discussion or conclusion on the place and value of natural theology.

I kept waiting for the “so what...” Unfortunately, it never came. He’s seeking to show how natural theology was a historical, but also reformational category, so it needs to be recovered. However, I’m still left wanting to know why, other than the fact of historical precedent. An interesting historical study, but the case was not made as to the true necessity of the discipline for the church.

[Karyn Hall · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book put forth a pretty comprehensive and persuasive argument for the doctrine of natural theology - that there are many truths about God which are knowable through creation alone, without the aid of the special revelation of scripture. And that pagans can - and in fact have - discerned many of these truths about God, even if they have been sprinkled with error.
This doctrine of natural theology has been a part of orthodoxy from the advent of the church all the way to the last few hundred years where it has been challenged for the first time, and forgotten by many. However, Haines demonstrates the weaknesses in contemporary critiques of this doctrine and offers a compelling case as to why it should be wholly embraced.

[Nicholas · Rating 3 out of 5]

Still mulling this over. But I will admit … it’s hard to disagree with everyone from Augustine to Aquinas to Calvin to Cranmer to Sibbes to De Young.

I think for me the question for natural theology is not if but how (or maybe how much?) That seems to be what the reformers differed more on. Yes Rom 1, Psalm 18 etc. But to what effect post-fall today?

Giving it 3 stars as I think less would have been more. Lots of and lots of evidence in this book of people who subscribed to natural theology. But I think I wanted a little bit more detail on how they understood it, the differences between them, how they deployed it. All of that was mentioned, but only briefly as the pages kept moving.

Still, treasure trove of primary sources…

[Nolan · Rating 4 out of 5]

An excellent overview of biblical basis for natural theology, as well as the Western history of the concept from the Pre-Socratics to the early Protestant Reformers. Haines does well at addressing opponents, particularly at the end.

I have a few small quibbles. I wished his chapter on Aquinas dug deeper into Thomas's thought as opposed to Hodge in conversation with Thomas.

I also found the chapter on Protestant Reformers somewhat repetitive, and I lost the train of thought several times. (But this could certainly be due to my own faults as a reader)

Overall, the book is not only interesting but encouraging to Christians who consider how to be in the world yet not of it.

[Alex Yi · Rating 5 out of 5]

Very informative and a very good starting point to the world of natural theology. Haines takes you through the biblical foundations first then introduces the views of the early philosophers in Plato, Aristotle, and others, then takes you through the views of the early church then into the reformation era and the next.

Very appreciative that this book exists and anyone who wants to start on a natural theology study should start here.

[Thomas · Rating 4 out of 5]

Overall, this is a good introductory-level defense of natural theology. The author starts with biblical data, with the bulk of the book consisting of a historical survey of various Christian theologians positive views toward natural theology, and Haines ends by answering some objections. While I would probably more prefer the work of Alister McGrath in this area, this is a solid, Reformed-leaning argument for natural theology.

[Kenneth Clayton · Rating 5 out of 5]

A helpful work on Natural Theology. Whether one agrees with it or not at a minimum you have to deal with the vast amount of reformed theologians who are show to have positively taught natural theology. The audiobook recording was very well done.

[Nick Roark · Rating 5 out of 5]

Glorious

[Will O'kelley · Rating 4 out of 5]

Excellent introduction. I still have lots of questions I'd love to chat with the author about, but a very solid defense of natural theology.

[Samuel Bierig · Rating 4 out of 5]

Good little intro

[Gary · Rating 4 out of 5]

This proved very helpful.

Liked it a lot.

[Steve Herreid · Rating 3 out of 5]

Seems to be persuasive case for natural theology, with evidence ranging from non-Christian philosophers to early Church fathers to the Reformers and up to the present. I wonder if there any Van Tillians who will challenge it? I liked this book. I listened to the audio version.

[Ian · Rating 4 out of 5]

Been the theological topic that has really occupied my thoughts recently. Found this helpful and compelling, a little repetitive at points. Addressed counterpoints well and I felt like I was having some lightbulbs go off while reading this. Feel like he didn’t talk much/enough about Barth’s arguments though against natural theology and pulled mostly from others.

[Tyler Hurst · Rating 4 out of 5]

Haines has given an excellent overview as to the biblical import of Natural Theology and a robust defense from the criticisms of overly biblicist approaches to ethics. This is a crucial project in that evangelical ethics are going to be increasingly hard pressed to make certain bioethical arguments as the technology we create becomes increasingly foreign to the strict text of scripture.