18
dismiss the particular contours of Henrys definition of revelation, one might lose
something important about Henrys disposition toward theology something which is
distinctly Protestant. And that distinctive includes no less than the following: that God
and God alone is the source and dispenser of all wisdom and knowledge, and that God
himself determines the bounds and limits of all true knowledge. In some ways, one
might say that Henry poses the following fundamental question to evangelicals today: is
the truth the truth because God wills it to be the case and reveals it to human beings? If
so, do you trust God to decide what human beings can know? Before answering that
question with an "of course," one must revisit ones epistemological commitments.
As recently as 1995, Carl Henry was still holding forth articulately for a
Reformation worldview in the pages of First Things in his straightforward article,
"Natural Law and a Nihilistic Culture." Essentially, Henry dropped a plumb line before
his readers in a refreshingly direct way. Choose ye this day, he seems to say, which
epistemology you will serve: natural law or divine revelation. For his part, Henry casts
his lot with the Reformation.
The greatest appeal of natural law theory lies in the claim that it mirrors
universally shared norms and moral principles that lift humanity above modern
subjectivism and relativism. Yet the Reformers in principle questioned the
epistemic viability of natural law theory, whether stated in pre-Christian Greco-
Roman terms or on premises pursued by Thomas Aquinas. The Reformers do
have a doctrine of transcendent and universal morality, but it is based upon
different foundations. Upon the resolution of this conflict may well turn the
moral fortunes of the Western world, and beyond that, ultimately, the planet.
27
27
Carl F. H. Henry, "Natural Law and a Nihilistic Culture," First Things 49 (January
1995): 55-60. [database online: available at: