HERMENEUTICS OF CARL F.H.

HENRY

by

Teemu Lehtonen, PhD

A research paper submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements of "Change Agents: Biblical Scholars and Theologians Who Changed the Direction of the Church" DMIN 8223X5

Acadia Divinity College, D.Min. Program Wolfville, NS May 20, 2011

OUTLINE

Introduction......................................................................................................................... 3 Why Carl F.H. Henry? .................................................................................................... 3 Biography........................................................................................................................ 4 Publications..................................................................................................................... 5 Thought and Discourse ....................................................................................................... 6 Analysis............................................................................................................................... 9 Uneasy Conscience ......................................................................................................... 9 God, Revelation and Authority..................................................................................... 11 Revelation ................................................................................................................. 11 Inerrancy and Infallibility ......................................................................................... 14 Historical Criticism................................................................................................... 16 Conclusion ........................................................................................................................ 19 Legacy............................................................................................................................... 20 Bibliography ..................................................................................................................... 22

HERMENEUTICS OF CARL F.H. HENRY

By Teemu Lehtonen

Introduction
Why Carl F.H. Henry?
In this paper I will study the hermeneutics of Carl F.H. Henry (1913-2003). He was one of the most important evangelical theologians in the late 20th century, a "senior statesman" of evangelicalism1. Stanley Grenz writes: "The most prominent theologian in the neo-evangelical movement is without doubt Carl Henry".2 Bob Patterson regards Henry as "the prime interpreter of evangelical theology, one of its leading theoreticians, and the unofficial theologian for the entire tradition".3

My interest in Henry grew as I found him to be an "eminence" behind various laudable ideas of other excellent contemporary thinkers. He popped up everywhere. To my delight, to date there is a fair amount of biographical and analytical information on him and his thought. However, nothing can replace the study of the original writings and thoughts of the author himself.

In this paper, after reviewing a considerable amount of first- and second hand sources, I will concentrate in Henry's most famous works. They are an 89-page book "The Uneasy Conscience of Modern Fundamentalism", published in the year 1947, and a six-volume set of over 3000 pages, "God, Revelation and Authority Vol. I-VI", his magnum opus published 1976-1983. Especially helpful for preparing this paper has been G. Wright

John D. Woodbridge, "Carl F. H. Henry: Spokesperson for American Evangelicalism," in God and Culture : Essays in Honor of Carl F.H. Henry (Eerdmans: Grand Rapids, Mich., 1993), 393. 2 Stanley Grenz, Renewing the Center : Evangelical Theology in a Post-Theological Era (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Academic, 2000), 86. 3 Bob E. Patterson, Carl F.H. Henry (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1983), 11.

4 Doyle's introduction to Henry's magnum opus, "Carl Henry - Theologian for All Seasons" (2010).

Biography
Carl Ferdinand Howard Henry, born in 1913, was a son of German Immigrants, Karl F. Heinrich4 and Johanna Vthrder. Their home was not religious at all. There was not a Bible in their home and virtually no religious activity in the family. Instead, his father had a drinking problem and he ran a small distillery during the prohibition in their kitchen. In order to avoid debate, his Lutheran father and Roman Catholic mother sent him to an Episcopal Mission Church for Sunday school. By his own words, Carl Henry was a genuine worldling before his conversion in 1933.5

Henry's conversion was a radical one. Commenting on Ephesians 2, he admits: "I, like the rest, lived my life in sensuality and obeyed the prompting of my own instincts and notions. Yet by God's grace I chose the road less traveled. I became a follower of Jesus Christ." In a later interview he reflects on his conversion: "Christ has been real to me in a vital way ever since June 1933. I know he is real. He's alive. He is the Risen One. I've never, even in the most serious crises of life, doubted that."6

Carl Henry's non-religious background and radical conversion is an apparent background for his lifelong commitment. He believed that Christian conversion changes a person supernaturally and that this is also the key for the change of society: Redemption is needed for regeneration, both in the individual and at the collective level. The way of redemption is revealed in the Word of God, inspired, inerrant, and infallible, and that has authority over all other worldviews and ways for life or salvation.

4 5

Their family name was changed to Henry because of the anti-German sentiment during the World War I Woodbridge, 379-380. 6 Ibid.

5 Carl Henry, a Southern Baptist, is classified as a reformed theologian and he is genuinely reformed in every aspect of his thought.7 On the whole, he is more often listed among Baptist theologians than reformed ones.8 He was not constrained by denominational traditions for, from the very beginning, he was engaged with various ecclesiastical bodies and interdenominational agencies which shared the common denominators of faith, zeal for evangelism, and the battle against social and cultural evils.

Although ordained in 1941, he was not predominantly a pastor-preacher, but more a versatile journalist-writer, evangelist-teacher, theologian-apologist, and a strategic leader for an evangelical cause. In many ways, he was a prophet of our time, sharing also the fate of the prophets: he was misunderstood and opposed - or even rejected - by his own ranks. Today, there is both a controversy over and vindication of Carl Henry as one of the most prominent evangelical theologians in the 20th Century.9

Henry is often associated with famous persons such as Billy Graham, Harold Ockenga, Samuel J. Fuller, and Gordon Clark, or institutions like the National Association of Evangelicals (1942; founding board member, book editor), Fuller Theological Seminary (1947; founder, dean and teacher 1947-1956), Christianity Today (1956; founder, editor 1956-1968), Berlin 1966 and Lausanne 1974 World Congresses on Evangelism, and World Vision (lecturer-at-large 1974-86). He had B.A. from Wheaton College (1938), Th.D. from Northern Baptist Theological Seminary (1942), and Ph.D. in Philosophy from Boston University (1949), as well as other advanced degrees in theology, biblical studies and philosophy.

Publications
Carl Henry authored almost 30 books and edited many more, held numerous symposiums, and wrote hundreds of articles during his lifetime. The Uneasy Conscience of Modern Fundamentalism (1947) is often regarded as a "neo-evangelical manifesto"
7

G. Wright Doyle, Carl Henry - Theologian for All Seasons : An Introduction and Guide to God, Revelation and Authority (Eugene, Or.: Pickwick Publications, 2010), 38-50. 8 Ibid., 33, 41. 9 Ibid., 13-20.

6 shaping the emerging new evangelical movement, and initiating its final separation from fundamentalist isolation. The book was light and relatively easy to read an ignition for further action. In the following years, Henry wrote extensively about Christian ethics and challenges of culture. His major work God, Revelation and Authority was published in 1976-1983, a six-volume set of over 3000 pages. It has been widely hailed as the most important work of evangelical theology in the 20th century. On the other hand, being such a heavy piece of literature, it is also dismissed and even ridiculed by critics.10

Thought and Discourse

Carl Henry was not an exegete: he wrote only one commentary in John11 as a chapter for a series he was editing. He presented neither exegetical step-by-step guides nor concise definition of his hermeneutics.12 His program was far more comprehensive: he built a complete theological system starting from philosophy, epistemology, and the nature of theology and went on to ethics, apologetics, systematic theology, and programs for education and national awakening. Assuming the simple definition for theological hermeneutics as "the rules of interpretation and application of the Bible", we can formulate his hermeneutics from the ample material he produced during his career.

His doctrinal position was to the end that of the original writers of "Fundaments of faith" at the beginning of the 1900s. He deviated from later fundamentalists for sociological, not doctrinal reasons. According to H.R. Niebuhr's typology,13 Henry's position was "Christ the transformer of culture", whereas to his contemporary fundamentalists it was "Christ against culture". He defended and elaborated his position with the fundaments of inerrancy, infallibility, and authority of the Bible to the end not as blind doctrinal beliefs, but in terms of modern philosophy.

Ibid. Doyle analyzes in depth the reasons why Henry is belittled and bypassed in current reviews of contemporary theology. 11 Carl F.H. Henry ed., The Biblical Expositor, 3 vols., 1960; Henry was the author of chapter on John. 12 Alan Padgett, "Review: God, Revelation, and Authority by Carl F. H. Henry" in Journal of the American Academy of Religion 52, no. 4 (Dec., 1984), 785-786. Padgett points out that works of modern hermeneutic philosophy are not even listed in Henry's comprehensive bibliographies of "God, Revelation and Authority". 13 Woodbridge, "Preface", viii.

10

7 Henry engaged in debate especially with modernists (19th century liberals) and neoliberals (i.e. 20th century neo-orthodox), as well as any other party of philosophers or theologians who advocated dangerous misrepresentations of Christianity.14 He had rejected his theological relatives in the right (fundamentalists) and left (neo-orthodoxy).15 In the debate, he gave fair credit for all parties involved as much as they were in agreement with his system of thought. When rejecting an idea, he gave his opponents fair treatment and argumentation - as a true gentleman.

In Hans W. Frei's classification of five different types of theology, Carl Henry is frequently mentioned as a conservative evangelical representative of "Type 2". For this type of theology, the truth is validated by the logical consistency of a given system of thought for the best explanation is the most coherent one and has the greatest power to explain the phenomena it studies.16 Henry states it this way:

Christian theology is the systematization of the truth-content explicit and implicit in inspired writings. It consists essentially of the repetition, combination and systematization of the truth in revelation in its propositionally given biblical form. The province of theology is to concentrate on the intelligible content and logical relationships of this scripturally given revelation, and to present its teaching as a comprehensive whole. Scriptures is itself implicitly systematic. No one who contends that the Bible as a literary document is a canon of divinely inspired truths can hold otherwise without reflecting adversely on the mind of God. [T]he content of revelation does indeed lend itself to systematic exposition, and the more orderly and logical that exposition is, the 17 nearer the expositor will be to the mind of God in his revelation. (italics mine)

Henry has been criticized for being heavily influenced by Gordon H. Clark, an inventor of scripturalism,18who was Henry's mentor and teacher in Wheaton College. Henry cites
Doyle, 27-36. Patterson, 7. 16 Hans W. Frei, George Hunsinger, and William C. Placher, Types of Christian Theology (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1992); Frei's calassification: Type 1: Theology equals philosophy (Kant); Type 3: Theology is "internal" (Schleiermacher); Type 4: Theology is made without philosophy (Barth); Type 5: Theology is Christian self-description by language game (Phillips). 17 Carl F.H. Henry, God, Revelation and Authority: Vol I-IV (Waco, TX: Word Books, 1976; 1983), 1:238241. 18 Gordon H. Clark (1902-1985) was an American philosopher and Calvinist theologian. He was a primary advocate for the idea of presuppositional apologetics. He was an expert in pre-Socratic and ancient philosophy and was noted for his rigor in defending propositional revelation against all forms of empiricism and rationalism, in arguing that all truth is propositional and in applying the laws of logic. His theory of knowledge is sometimes called scripturalism. (Wikipedia)
15 14

8 Clark often, and admits openly his indebtedness to his teacher. Alan Padgett in his review of God, Revelation and Authority writes:
With respect to content, Henry's greatest weakness is an undefended reliance on the philosophy of Gordon H. Clark. This has lead [sic] to rationalistic theology, where logic is over-valued and propositions alone are considered to be true. Henry's understanding of Scripture is the heart of his theology, and that is the least acceptable aspect of it. An inerrant Bible of coherent propositions satisfies the mind, but does it fit the phenomenon 19 of Scripture? His point is well argued though, and [is] the best defense of it to date.

However, G. Wright Doyle shows in detail that Henry's critics just do not understand his overall program or the flow of his thought.20

Henry's own description of propositional revelation is as follows:

God supernaturally communicated his revelation to chosen spokesmen in the express form of cognitive truths, and that the inspired prophetic-apostolic proclamation reliably 21 articulates these truths in sentences that are not internally contradictory.

All this being said, it is also noteworthy that Carl Henry was not a boring rationalist or dry academic. On the contrary, he waged his war in both spiritual and intellectual arenas. He was a committed follower of Christ, a firm believer of God's regenerative power in "pentecostal fire":
[A] baptism of Pentecostal fire resulting in a world missionary program and a divineempowered Christian community could turn the uneasy conscience of modern 22 evangelicalism [sic] into a new reformation - this time with ecumenical significance.

He spoke in massive evangelistic campaigns with Billy Graham and led some of the most important missionary congresses ever. In his personal life, he experienced a healing miracle in his college days when God healed him from acute appendicitis that demanded urgent surgery for to which he had no time23. Moreover, he even found himself as a "mystic", in a New Testament sense:

Padgett, 786. Doyle, 52, 92-115. Doyle dedicates three whole chapters just for showing that critics have either not red the text or understood Henry's theological system. 21 Henry, God, Revelation and Authority, 3:457. 22 Carl F.H. Henry, The Uneasy Conscience of Modern Fundamentalism (Grand Rapids, Mich: Eerdmans, 2003; 1947), 89. 23 Carl F.H. Henry, Confessions of a Theologian : An Autobiography (Waco, TX: Word Books, 1986), 5859.
20

19

9
I have always been open to some so-called mystical aspects of the Christian life. Too many theologians have hastily dismissed apostle Paul's teaching on "union with Christ". New testament doctrine is remarkably different from what in philosophical circles is generally meant by mysticism. The Christian's relationship to Christ involves no absorption or disappearance of the self into the Infinite; distinctions of personality are not cancelled, but rather are intensified in man's relationship to the Deity. Equally important is the fact that the Bible anchors the most intimate divine-human relations in redemption Scripture knows nothing of a sinful humanity with immediate access to the holy God in man's own right or man's own terms; communion with God presupposes the God who speaks and saves. God has revealed his nature normatively to the inspired prophets and apostles as set forth in Scripture. But when God becomes my God, when divine revelation penetrates not only the mind but rather the whole self, when the Spirit personally illumines the believer, dynamic fellowship with God opens possibilities of spiritual guidance in which the Holy Spirit personalizes and applies the biblical revelation individually to and in a redeemed life.24

Furthermore, Henry had a prophetic insight into the moral and intellectual decay of western civilization. According to Henry, our civilization is in great danger because "the barbarians are coming" and Christianity is the only force that keeps them from taking over. Thus, defending and propagating the gospel was not an option for Henry. It was a necessity for our salvation in the eternity, for he held classical views of heaven and hell, as well as for our survival in this age.

Analysis
In the following, we will concentrate in some of Carl Henry's key writings and ideas for finding an essence of his hermeneutics. First we will explore The Uneasy Conscience (1947), and then some themes in God, Revelation and Authority (1976-83).

Uneasy Conscience
We will find the key for Henry's thought and lifelong program from his breakthrough book The Uneasy Conscience of Modern Fundamentalism. This thin book made him one of the leaders of new evangelical movement.

24

Ibid., 52-53

10 A reader of Henry's book will find the key idea is God's redemptive message that transforms people and society with its regenerative power. The dynamics of this message is lost to the fundamentalists, as well as to modern and liberal churches. Henry writes:
Hebrew-Christian thought, historically, has stood as a closely-knit world and life view. Metaphysics and ethics went everywhere together, in Biblical intent. The great doctrines implied a divinely related social order with intimations for all humanity. The ideal Hebrew or Christian society throbbed with challenge to the predominant culture of its generation, condemning with redemptive might the tolerated social evils, for the redemptive message was to light the world and salt the earth. No insistence on a doctrinal framework alone was sufficient; always this was coupled with the most vigorous assault against evils, so that the globe stood anticipatively at the judgment seat of Christ. Such, at any rate, was apostolic Christianity; such too was the spirit of the post-apostolic apologies. The emperors must come to terms with Jesus, if not in this life then in the next. . . . The ultimate values of Biblical supernaturalism are unchanging. New Testament ethics was no more entirely new than New Testament doctrine. The moral, as well as metaphysical, concepts had their Old Testament foregleams, simply because the Biblical view as a whole was rooted in the creative and revelational and regenerative God. Both in Old Testament and New Testament thought there is but one sure foundation for a lasting civilization, and its cornerstone is a vital knowledge of the redemptive God. In both eras it is wrong to worship false gods, to murder, to commit adultery, and for a reason more ultimate than that prophet Moses said so. These deeds were wrong before Moses, yea even before Adam; they have been wrong always, because they are antagonistic to the character and the will of the sovereign God of the universe. They are wrong for all creatures anywhere anytime. The universe is put together on moral lines: any attempt to build a civilization on other lines foredooms itself. The ten commandments disclose the only secure foundation for a society without the seeds of dissolution; all cultures, cut loose from these principles, have in them the vitiating leaven of decay. And no culture can hope to fulfill such high prerequisites, minus a relationship with that God, holy and 25 redemptive, who is the precondition for their very disclosure to man.

It was clear from the beginning, that for Henry the Word of God was not only for salvation of an individual soul but also it was for transformation of the society and world. This is the reason why he later invested in the defense of the consistency, rationality, inerrancy, and infallibility of Scriptures for without credibility there is no authority, and without authority there is no redemptive and regenerative power in the biblical message. He continues:
The evangelical task primarily is the preaching of the gospel, in the interest of individual regeneration by supernatural grace of God, in such a way that divine redemption can be recognized as the best solution of our problems, individual and social. This produces within history, through the regenerative work of the Holy Spirit, a divine society that transcends national and international lines. The great contemporary problems are moral and spiritual. They demand more than a formula. The evangelicals have a
25

Henry, The Uneasy Conscience of Modern Fundamentalism, 30-32.

11
conviction of absoluteness concerning their message, and not to proclaim it, in the assault on social evils, is sheer inconsistency. But the modern mood is far more likely to react first on the level of Christianity as a life view, than at the level of Christianity as a world 26 view. Obviously, from the evangelical viewpoint, the two cannot be divorced.

Considering our question about Henry's hermeneutics, we may conclude that some "rules of interpretation" according to this paperback are as follows: God's message to us is the same in all eras; God and his moral lines do not change; The message demands everyone come to terms with God, whether in this life or the next one; Christianity as a world view is coherent; however, Christianity as a life view is likely more persuasive to listeners and these two should not be divorced; In the message, there is redemptive power for regenerating any human or society; and There are doctrinal, prophetic and moral aspects in our message.

In this work - tiny in size but great in significance - nothing is said about the exegetical dimension of the studying Scriptures. However, what is stated above informs us what to expect from the biblical text and message. Also, this gives a framework for Carl Henry's subsequent program as a scholar.

God, Revelation and Authority

First we will deal briefly with Henry's thought about revelation. Revelation is the major focus of his writing in God, Revelation and Authority, and one of the leading themes of this six-volume work. In the following, section we will study his theses on revelation and their implications for interpretation of biblical text. Revelation In order to understand Henry's system of revelation it may be appropriate to list his fifteen theses related to the nature of revelation and Scripture. In general, one can find a
26

Ibid., 89.

12 classic reformed view of revelation in Henry's thought. Theses on revelation are as follows: 27

1. Revelation is a divinely initiated activity, God's free communication by which he alone turns his personal privacy into a deliberate disclosure of his reality. 2. Divine revelation is given for human benefit, offering us privileged communion with our Creator in the Kingdom of God. 3. Divine revelation does not completely erase God's transcendent mystery, inasmuch as God the Revealer transcends his own revelation. 4. The very fact of disclosure by the one living God assures the comprehensive unity of divine revelation. 5. The nature, content, and variety of revelation are exclusively God's determination. 6. God's revelation is uniquely personal both in content and form. 7. God reveals himself not only universally in the history of the cosmos and of the nations, but also redemptively within this external history in unique saving acts. 8. The climax of God's special revelation is Jesus of Nazareth, the personal incarnation of God in the flesh; in Jesus Christ the source and content of revelation converge and coincide. 9. The mediating agent in all divine revelation is the Eternal Logos - preexistent, incarnate, and now glorified. 10. God's revelation is rational communication conveyed in intelligible ideas and meaningful words, that is, in conceptual-verbal form. 11. The Bible is the reservoir and conduit of divine truth. 12. The Holy Spirit intends the communication of divine revelation, first, by inspiring the prophetic-apostolic writings, and second, by illuminating and interpreting the scripturally given Word of God. 13. As bestower of spiritual life, the Holy Spirit enables individuals to appropriate God's revelation savingly, and thereby attests the redemptive power of the revealed truth of God in the personal experience of reborn sinners. 14. The church approximates the kingdom of God in miniature; as such she is to mirror to each successive generation the power and joy of the appropriated realities of divine revelation.

27

Henry, God, Revelation and Authority, 2:8-16.

13 15. The self-manifesting God will unveil his glory in a crowning revelation of power and
judgment; in this disclosure at the consummation of the ages, God will vindicate righteousness and justice, finally subdue and subordinate evil, and bring into being a new heaven and earth.

As seen above, Henry made remarkable work in defining the evangelical doctrine of revelation. For our purposes, the main focus will be laid into theses 4 - 7 and 10 - 14, as they help us to sketch out his hermeneutics in more detail.

There is overall unity in Scriptures. The interpreter must explain Scriptures by Scriptures. ("4. The very fact of disclosure by the one living God assures the comprehensive unity of divine revelation.")

There is variety in literary forms of scriptural revelation. The interpreter must know how to use various literary forms in defining God's message for us. ("5. The nature, content, and variety of revelation are exclusively God's determination.")

Revelation involves personal thought and it is brought forth in various personal styles. The interpreter must understand the backgrounds, personalities and styles of bearers of revelation. ("6. God's revelation is uniquely personal both in content and form.")

Revelation is given through historical acts. The interpreter must be interested in the historical context of the events and accounts under study. ("7. God reveals himself not only universally in the history of he cosmos and of the nations, but also redemptively within this external history in unique saving acts.")

Revelation is rational and is given by understandable concepts. There is nothing inherently mystical or hidden in biblical propositions, on the contrary. ("10. God's revelation is rational communication conveyed in intelligible ideas and meaningful words, that is, in conceptualverbal form.")

Grammatical-historical interpretation of the Bible expresses the original intent of the author, and thus, the intent of God; the intent may be conveyed also by parable or other figure of speech. ("11. The Bible is the reservoir and conduit of divine truth.")

The Bible can be understood properly only with the illuminating work of the Holy Spirit. Indeed, it will be "unlocked" for a reader who is in the same Spirit. ("12. The Holy Spirit intends the communication of divine revelation, first, by inspiring the prophetic-apostolic writings, and second, by illuminating and interpreting the scripturally given Word of God.")

14
We can and must expect God to work in redemptive and life-giving way in lives of those who receive God's message (13. As bestower of spiritual life the Holy Spirit enables individuals to appropriate God's revelation savingly, and thereby attests the redemptive power of the revealed truth of God in the personal experience of reborn sinners. See also analysis in the previous chapter, "Uneasy") We must interpret and apply the Bible in such a way that it is relevant for all generations. ("14. The church approximates the kingdom of God in miniature; as such she is to mirror to each successive generation the power and joy of the appropriated realities of divine revelation.")

It is also noteworthy that for Henry the source of redemptive revelation is in God's acts in history, not in our reason, conscience, plain human history, or in science exploring the universe. However, these are not in conflict with redemptive revelation. Anyway, except for regeneration and illumination by the Holy Spirit there is no space for individual-mystical feeling, "encounter", innovation, or experience.

Inerrancy and Infallibility In an interview (year 1976), Carl Henry was asked about his current position on the doctrine of Scripture, and how this related to what he had had in the past. He replied:
My position today is precisely what it has been through the years. I hold unequivocally to the authority, the inspiration, and the inerrancy of Scripture; and I think that any questioning of any of one or all of those emphases represents a departure from what the Bible teaches, explicitly or implicitly, a departure from the perspective of Jesus Christ 28 and the apostles, and a departure from the historic Christian position.

By inerrancy he means inerrancy of original manuscripts. Because we have now imperfect copies of the original text, and we usually rely on more or less accurate translations, a better term for inerrancy is the concept of infallibility of Scriptures.29 For Henry, infallibility follows inerrancy and it means total trustworthiness of the Bible. About inerrancy he writes as follows:

Interview by Donald T. Williams, Tim Erdel and Tom Garber, "The Battle for the Bible," in Carl C.F. Henry, Conversations with Carl Henry: Christianity for Today (Lewiston, NY: Edwin Mellen Press), 23. 29 Patterson, 113.

28

15
Verbal inerrancy implies that truth attaches not only to the theological and ethical teaching of the Bible, but also to historical and scientific matters insofar as they are part of the express message of inspired writings. While the Bible is not intended to be a textbook on scientific and historical matters, it nonetheless gives scientifically and historically relevant information. The inspired wording of Scripture is indeed accommodated to the language and vocabulary of the sociocultural environment in which the writings appear, but the sense of revelation is intelligible to readers in all times and places. without basic historical considerations its central message of redemption 30 would be nullified (1Cor15:14-15).

One central topic for Henry is the language.31 He advocates the notion that revelation is given in verbal propositions and plain language.
Verbal inerrancy implies that God's truth inheres in the very words of Scripture, that is, in the propositions or sentences of the Bible, and not merely in the concepts and thoughts of 32 the writers.

One must note that Henry was one of chief designers of "the Chicago Statement of Biblical Inerrancy" (1978)33 and it was included in its entirety in Henry's book. The article states: "We affirm that the text of Scripture is to be interpreted by grammaticohistorical exegesis, taking account of its literary forms and devices, and that Scripture is to interpret Scripture". In "exposition" of articles it is written as follows:
Infallible signifies the quality of neither misleading nor being misled and so safeguards in categorical terms the truth that Holy Scripture is sure, safe and reliable rule and guide in all matters. Similarly, inerrant signifies the quality of being free from all falsehood or mistake and so safeguards the truth that Holy Scripture is entirely true and trustworthy in all its assertions. We affirm the canonical Scripture should always be interpreted on the basis that it is infallible and inerrant. However, in determining what the God-taught writer is asserting in each passage, we must pay the most careful attention to its claims and character as human production. So history must be treated as history, poetry as poetry, hyperbole and metaphor as hyperbole and metaphor, generalization and approximation as what they are, and so forth. Differences between literary conventions in Bible times and also in our time must be 34 observed.
Henry, God, Revelation and Authority, 4:205. Henry has an extensive treatise on the issue of language. He is against various schools of mystical, "language as pointer", or religious uses, as represented in various streams of modern theology. In short, he advocates "plain language and meaning", consistent with his view of revelation and inspiration; see Henry, God, Revelation and Authority, 3:325-401. 32 Ibid., 4:205. 33 The International Council on Biblical Inerrancy (ICBI) disbanded in 1988 after producing three major statements: one on biblical inerrancy in 1978, one on biblical hermeneutics in 1982, and one on biblical application in 1986. 34 Ibid., 4:217.
31 30

16

Henry's preferred method of interpretation is "grammatico-historical exegesis", as drafted above, in conjunction with his view of revelation. The purpose of interpretation is God's self-disclosure, for redemption and regeneration of human and society.
God, who is himself Truth and speaks truth only, has inspired Holy Scripture in order thereby to reveal Himself to lost mankind through Jesus Christ as Creator and Lord, 35 Redeemer and Judge.

Historical Criticism Henry's treatise of historical-critical method sheds more light on his view on biblical interpretation. As a starting point, his view on historical criticism must be studied against his presuppositions; the Bible is all about our self-revealing God who speaks through inerrant and infallible Scriptures.

According to Henry's analysis, the historical-critical method strictly interpreted is based on rationalistic view of the history and some evangelical scholars reject it outright as destructive of evangelical theology. As a matter of fact, the historical-critical method has traditionally been "the scapegoat for all modern doubt about the Scriptures"36, but Henry does not discard the method in total. Even so, Henry asks some valid questions:
Is historical criticism only an academically refined methodology that facilitates reflective decision on the basis of all available evidence, and hence the best means of determining what the biblical text actually says and teaches? Or does it intrinsically involve a compromising judgment upon the content and sense of the Bible in deference to extraneous criteria? Is it merely an implementation of the Scripture principle championed by the protestant reformation that is, an obedient exploration of the text? Or is it an elevation of critical scholarship to the arbitrary role of master and judge over the inspired Scripture does its origin lie rather among those who, in the mood of Enlightenment rationalism, abandoned the tenets of transcendent divine revelation and the special 37 inspiration of the Bible?

35 36

Henry, God, Revelation and Authority, 4:212, The Chicago Statement. Ibid., 4:385; Citing Robert W. Lyon. 37 Ibid., 4:386.

17 Interestingly, what is said above tells much about Henry's position on the right method of interpretation of Scriptures. However, Henry explores the question closely and defines some standing points on the issue.

According to Henry, many scholars in the Evangelical Theological Society and evangelical campuses are employing the historical-critical method and compatibly with biblical infallibility. So, the method itself is not objectionable, but the alien presuppositions to which neo-Protestant scholars subject it are. Henry concludes: "Combination of the method with an anti-supernaturalistic bias reflects not a requirement of the method but a prejudice of the historian".38

Henry is in accord with scholars who champion various corresponding methods and approaches as follows (paraphrasing Henry's text):

historical-theological criticism recognizes the revelatory dimension in biblical history and the revelatory nature of the Bible (Ladd)39

historical method - that the New Testament is historical in connection with the apostolic witness to the meaning of the Christ-event and its indispensable context (Goppelt)40

the exegetical demands of an evangelical hermeneutics bind us to continue using the grammatico-historical method (Packer)41

evangelical students commitment to the intention of the biblical writers involves the fullest possible use of linguistic, literary, historical, archeological and other data bearing on the author's environment. The natural meaning of the biblical writer's words in the light of all this comparative material must be the starting point of any serious discussion whether by a conservative or by a radical. And that is what grammatical-historical exegesis means Grammatical-historical exegesis demands that we discover all we can of the background to the expressions and concepts used

38 39

Ibid., 4:393. Ibid., 4:386 40 Ibid., 4:386 41 Ibid., 4:394

18 by the New Testament writers, but forbids us to interpret them as merely echoing ideas of their non-Christian contemporaries. (France)42 historical-critical method is inevitably destructive of supernatural concerns it is inadequate to cope with all the relevant data and that biblical theology must be understood as a theological-historical discipline Historical and theological interpretation must go hand in hand; along with philological, linguistic and historical considerations, faith helps bring out the full meaning of the text. (Hasel)43

As seen above, for Henry it is necessary to review and assess all relevant data concerning the text and it's original meaning, in order to find God's original intent and message for us. Yet, with the historical-critical method there is an inherent problem:
Historical criticism is never philosophically or theologically neutral, and it is unable to deal with questions concerning the supernatural and miraculous. However, it is relevant to miracles as long as they are historical events, as much as it is relevant to nonmiraculous historical events. Historical criticism cannot prove or disprove those events, 44 and is by no means our only source of truth.

The main problem with the historical-critical method is not the method itself, but unbelief. An interpreter may have weighed prejudices and uncritical attitude towards the reliability to the text:
If the historian begins with the assumption that the most qualified or concerned witnesses are likely to be unreliable, even when they lay down their lives in full confidence of the truth of their cause, not only does the recovery of history become an impossible task, but historical criticism then renders no greater service than the aesthetic self-entertainment of 45 the historiographer himself.

The overall verdict for the method is as follows:

It goes without saying that the critical investigation of Scripture has raised questions, stimulated discussion, and provoked studies that impel evangelicals to state their case more precisely and lucidly. The spoken Word of God is not given to us directly in an internal miracle; it is given objectively in writings and that span many centuries, involve several languages even in their autographs, and enlist writers who personally share many of the ideas of their age and often reflect the society in which they live. The very fact that the revelation has been given in objective literary form means that it can in some respects become an object of human investigation and research. The ready temptation
42 43

Ibid., 4:394 Ibid., 4:394 44 Ibid., 4:403. 45 Ibid., 4:404.

19
of believers to leap over issues such as the progressive character of divine disclosure, and problems of communication in a changing historical milieu, underscores the propriety of many of the questions posed by criticism. But the full attention to these concerns does not require the critical negation or sensational rejection of biblical claims. The fact that the biblical writers say what they say, ought, all things considered, to be taken at first glance - even by practitioner of historical criticism - as in all probability expressing what 46 was actually the case, that is, as a reliable and trustworthy report.

In general, Henry is in favor of historical-critical study of Scriptures, as far it is exercised with right presuppositions, motives and within the scope of the method. On the other hand, it is not Henry's preferred choice, and he is not really an advocate of historical criticism, but is not willing to bypass it, either.

Conclusion
The focus of biblical interpretation for any classic reformed or evangelical theologian should be christological; so it is with Henry also. When reflecting on liberation theology, he states explicitly:
The hermeneutical principle affirmed by evangelical theology is christological, not sociological. The New Testament exalts Jesus Christ as superior to and supreme over every political ideology and activity promoting ethical and cultural change. For the 47 Church everything turns on the Lordship of Christ.

Moreover, summing up the christological chapters in Henry's magnum opus, Doyle concludes: "the entire thrust of God, Revelation, and Authority [is] the good news of salvation by grace through faith in Jesus Christ, in the hope that some will hear, receive, and be born again."48

How should we condense Carl Henry's hermeneutics, then? In accordance with our analysis above and including the obvious christological focus, the key principles of Carl Henry's hermeneutics are as follows:

46 47

Ibid., 4:402-3. Carl F.H. Henry, Twilight of a Great Civilization : The Drift Toward Neo-Paganism (Westchester, Ill.: Crossway Books, 1988), 67. 48 Doyle, 78.

20 1. One may be sure that God's message, inscripturated in Scriptures, is rational, coherent and understandable by human reason. Studying the biblical text is intellectual activity. 2. One should remember that Scriptures are inspired by the Holy Spirit, and they can be understood properly in the same Sprit only. By the right relationship with God, one may be confident that the intent of the original writer - and thus the message from God - will become clear and understandable. Thus, studying the text is also spiritual activity. 3. One should be engaged with the study by using all available and relevant information about the passage. Even so, the text says what it says in plain language except when the literature genre suggests otherwise. With conflicting interpretations, one should keep in mind the coherent nature of God's message. 4. One should seek to discover God's timeless message, both moral and redemptive. The focus of the revelation is the person Jesus Christ and his salvific work for us. 5. One should expect to find the supernatural power of God through his message, the Word of God; it is capable of regenerating and renewing any person, and in the long run, the whole society.

Legacy
Without contrasting Carl Henry's thought to the streams of modern (since Enlightenment) and contemporary (neo-liberal/orthodox) theological thought, it is hard to understand or appreciate his significance in the intellectual arena; his radical conservatism, being a defender of classic reformed view of Scriptures and theology. For us, contemporary evangelicals, many of his ideas are self-evident and natural, but actually they were revolutionary in his time.

In 1976 Newsweek's cover story announced "The Year of the Evangelical". By this time, fifty million Americans denoted themselves as born-again evangelicals, whereas at the beginning of the 1940's the new evangelicalism was only a vision of the few. Carl Henry was at the heart and core of the new evangelicalism, and was a key player in bringing forth the ideas and values of the new movement. Henry writes:

21

Year 1976 marked the peaking of the movement that had slowly emerged from its cultural ghetto through incentives like the Graham crusades, the founding of the Fuller Seminary?, and the launching of Christianity Today as a thought journal. Those events coalesced in a transdenominational alliance of evangelical theology, evangelism, and social concern that impacted on the church world and the larger culture and helped 49 reshape the face of American Protestantism.

Was Carl Henry a significant "change agent" in the course of Christian history? Without any hesitation, the answer is crystal-clear "yes". We should not only consider his impact in establishing remarkable institutions that have shaped post-war evangelicalism, but also his presence in contemporary evangelical thought, especially in the North American evangelicalism.

49

Henry, Twilight, 163.

22 Bibliography
Ashcraft, Morris. "Response to Carl F H Henry, 'Are we Doomed to Hermeneutical Nihilism?'" Pp 197-215, Rejoinder]." Review & Expositor 71 no. 2 (Spr 1974): 217-223. "Henry Center :: Carl F. H. Henry " http://www.henrycenter.org/about/carl-f-h-henry/ (accessed 3/21/2011, 2011). Dorrien, Gary J. The Remaking of Evangelical Theology. Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox Press, 1998. Doyle, G. Wright. Carl Henry, Theologian for all Seasons : An Introduction and Guide to God, Revelation, and Authority. Eugene, Or.: Pickwick Publications, 2010. Frei, Hans W., George Hunsinger, and William C. Placher. Types of Christian Theology. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1992. Grenz, Stanley. Renewing the Center : Evangelical Theology in a Post-Theological Era. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Books, 2000. . Revisioning Evangelical Theology : A Fresh Agenda for the 21st Century. Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1993. Henry, Carl F.H.. The Uneasy Conscience of Modern Fundamentalism. Grand Rapids, Mich.: W.B. Eerdmans, 2003; 1947. . Twilight of a Great Civilization : The Drift Toward Neo-Paganism. Westchester, Ill.: Crossway Books, 1988. . Christian Countermoves in a Decadent Culture. Critical Concern Books. Portland, Or.: Multnomah Press, 1986. . Confessions of a Theologian : An Autobiography. Waco, Tex: Word Books, 1986. . Conversations with Carl Henry : Christianity for Today. Symposium Series. Vol. 18. Lewiston: E. Mellon Press, 1986. . God, Revelation, and Authority. Waco, Tex: Word Books, 1976; 1983. . "Interpretation of the Scriptures : Are we Doomed to Hermeneutical Nihilism?" Review & Expositor 71, no. 2 (03/01, 1974): 197-215. . The Biblical Expositor : The Living Theme of the Great Book, with General and Introductory Essays and Exposition for each Book of the Bible. Philadelphia: A. J. Holman Co, 1973. . A Plea for Evangelical Demonstration. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1971.

23
. Jesus of Nazareth, Saviour and Lord. Contemporary Evangelical Thought. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1966. . Revelation and the Bible : Contemporary Evangelical Thought. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1958. . Contemporary Evangelical Thought. Great Neck, N.Y.: Channel Press, 1957. . Evangelical Responsibility in Contemporary Theology. Pathway Books. A Series of Contemporary Evangelical Studies. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1957. . "The Spirit and the Written Word." Bibliotheca Sacra 111, no. 444 (10/01, 1954): 30216. Henry, Carl F.H., D. A. Carson, and John D. Woodbridge. God and Culture : Essays in Honor of Carl F.H. Henry. Grand Rapids, Mich.; Carlisle, England: Eerdmans; Paternoster Press, 1993. Henry, Carl F.H. and Merrill Chapin Tenney. The Word for this Century. New York: Oxford University Press, 1960. Leung, Mavis M. "With what is Evangelicalism to Penetrate the World? a Study of Carl Henry's Envisioned Evangelicalism." Trinity Journal 27, no. 2 (09/01, 2006): 227-44. Lindsell, Harold, Carl F.H. Henry, and Joel A. Carpenter. Two Reformers of Fundamentalism : Harold John Ockenga and Carl F.H. Henry. Fundamentalism in American Religion, 18801950. New York: Garland Pub, 1988; 1947. Padgett, Alan. "Review: God, Revelation, and Authority by Carl F. H. Henry." Journal of the American Academy of Religion 52, no. 4 (Dec., 1984): pp. 785-786. Patterson, Bob E. Carl F.H. Henry. Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1983; 1983. Patterson, James A. "Cultural Pessimism in Modern Evangelical Thought: Francis Schaeffer, Carl Henry, and Charles Colson." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 49, no. 4 (12/01, 2006): 807-20. Walvoord, John F. Inspiration and Interpretation. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1957. Wikipedia contributors. "Gordon Clark" Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. 2011.