Hermeneutics as Epistemology: A Critical Assessment of Carl F. H. Henry’s Epistemological Approach to Hermeneutics

by William C Roach

Historic Protestantism and evangelicalism has always been committed to the authority of Scripture and interested in the proper interpretation of the Bible. They uphold the As Scripture says, God says; and as God says, Scripture says. Many today claim this type of reasoning is faulty, since individuals can no longer know the true meaning of Scripture because there are no stable metaphysical or epistemological frameworks. Moreover, they claim that approaches, such as the one presented by Carl F. H. Henry, no longer provide adequate grounds to address the pressing hermeneutical issues. This study responds to these types of claims showing each of these proposals is based upon faulty first principles or misrepresentations. This book surveys hermeneutical innovations and Henry's epistemological hermeneutic to show that Henry's epistemology is foundational to his hermeneutic, offering present-day evangelicals an epistemologically justified approach to hermeneutics as epistemology and methodology. The book will be of importance to those with interest in evangelical hermeneutics or philosophical hermeneutics in general. It provides a clear assessment of the impact of Carl F. H. Henry's epistemology and hermeneutic, and strives to respond to criticisms raised against his Augustinian, Reformed, revelational, cognitive-propositional hermeneutic. "The decisive way to counter error in biblical understanding is to outflank it at the level of its own arbitrary first principles, and to set biblically based first principles in their place. Dr. Roach shows us very fully how Carl Henry did this, by setting current hermeneutical fashions in the corrective frame of an Augustinian, Bible-based, cognitive-propositional account of how God reveals, and how we receive, his word of truth. As Henry was masterful in doing this on the grand scale, so Roach is masterful in vindicating Henry against those who would critique or ignore him. This is a very valuable piece of work."--J. I. Packer, Professor of Theology, Regent College and Co-founder of ICBI"Carl F. H. Henry was a theological titan--a man whose theology is worthy of careful academic investigation. William Roach's assessment of Henry's hermeneutics is both stimulating and illuminating. Readers will find this book to be a well-researched and careful investigation of Henry's theology and a welcome addition to existing scholarship on him."--R. Albert Mohler, Jr., President of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary"During a century when liberal and neo-orthodox theologians were insisting upon non-cognitive and modified cognitive views of propositional revelation; Carl F. H. Henry helped to define and defend the classic evangelical stance of the Bible as cognitive-propositional revelation. During our time serving together on the International Council on Biblical Inerrancy, Henry and the rest of the ICBI leaders sought to clearly articulate the evangelical view and resist all opposing views. William C. Roach (PhD, Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary) is the senior-editor of The Journal of the International Society of Christian Apologetics and adjunct professor at The College at Southeastern in Wake Forest, NC and Capital Theological Seminary in Washington, D.C. Dr. Roach has authored numerous articles and book chapters, including his co-authored book Defending Inerrancy. He also regularly contributes articles to the www.defendinginerrancy.com and operates a blog Confessions of a Theologian.

316 pages, Kindle Edition

First published July 24, 2015

Reviews

[Kevin Higginbotham · Rating 3 out of 5]

2.5 stars. Interesting study, but a bit wordy (felt as though the author repeated himself in an attempt to reach a word count…this reads very much like a graduate thesis which it very well may be). Several typos/errors in the e-book version I read; not sure if it’s the author’s fault or not. Author was extremely defensive of Henry’s epistemology/hermeneutic, without really fairly looking to see if there might be any legitimate criticism of Henry’s viewpoint — and I think there might be.

For instance, I do think, regardless of the author’s protests to the contrary, that Henry’s approach could easily reduce the Bible to nothing more than a list of facts, making genre and literary style incidental, rather than an essential part of scripture. In my opinion, the author doesn’t really ever address this. He just says something to the effect of, “Some people say Henry’s view reduces the Bible to nothing more than a list of factual statements, making genre irrelevant—but they’re wrong, because in this one quote, Henry said they were wrong and that genre was still important—that proves it!” Henry (and this author) never said HOW exactly, on Henry’s viewpoint, genre and literary style could avoid being sidelined. I am open to the fact that Henry may have had a very robust view of literary form and genre in scripture, but this author did a very unsatisfying job of showing this if it is the case.

All in all, Henry raises some very interesting points and some valid criticisms of contemporary hermeneutics, but I think there is some room for nuance between Henry’s view and the view that literary style (not historical factuality) is all that matters. Unfortunately, this author doesn’t explore that nuanced possibility because he seems so busy defending one man’s ideas. I didn’t feel the author had much original to offer, but perhaps the book was intended more as a research project than as a persuasive one. Even then, I feel he could’ve done a better job commenting on the research/citations rather than simply paraphrasing everything Henry said. Every paragraph was either a) a quote from Henry or someone else, b) a paraphrase right after a quote, or c) a summary of what the next chapter would be about/previous chapter was about. There’s not really any room in there for anything original from the author himself.

Wouldn’t say it’s something you NEED, but if you’re a hermeneutics/philosophical/theological nerd like me, you might find it food for thought.

[Jonathan Anderson · Rating 4 out of 5]

Helpful in several ways—he surveys Henry’s God, Reason and Revelation in a way that helps the reader understand how Henry framed up at least the first four volumes, and he interacts with Henry’s foes and allies very thoroughly (from Vanhoozer to Enns, and from Thornbury to Helm). This work definitely demonstrates that one’s epistemology indelibly affects their hermeneutics. I do believe the work could have benefitted from a more critical examination of Henry’s epistemology—specifically, with regard to his presuppositional claims. It is hard not to see a tension between Henry’s claims that he is not a rationalist and the regular appeal for man to make a judgement about the truth based on rational consistency as defined by human reason.