Expounds and extols traditional, evangelical Christianity, confronting and rebutting recent conjectural alternatives and emphasizing intelligible divine revelation and scriptural authority
Carl Ferdinand Howard Henry was an American evangelical Christian theologian who served as the first editor-in-chief of the magazine Christianity Today, established to serve as a scholarly voice for evangelical Christianity and a challenge to the liberal Christian Century.
- Against Barth: Barth makes revelation too mystical and subjective. God revealed himself in history, our history. - Against Pannenberg: God did not only reveal himself in history. He also inspired the Bible. Faith doesn’t rest on historical examination. - Against modern transcendental idealism movements: to divinize the self is to reduce everything else. It is selfishness. - Against Aquinas: to construct a natural theology is to demote special revelation. General revelation is real, but it results in guilt, not theology.
I skimmed a lot of the stuff I wasn’t interested in. Mostly focused on the Thomistic stuff. I’m a little confused how it demotes special revelation. Hodge would construct natural theology because it is explicitly warranted by scripture.
Henry’s main goal is to focus all theological construction on the special revelation recorded in scripture. He doesn’t negate general revelation and allows for historical and scientific insights into theological construction, but maintains that there is no theology built on general revelation. Theology is the intellectual response to special revelation
Great against skeptical biblical scholarship. Honors the value of historical studies (biblical religion might be the origin of the idea of history after all), but demands limitations as well. Presuppositions matter and are always apparent.
After getting the prolegomena out of the way, Henry begins to tackle the structure of revelation. Of the interesting points he makes he really takes the "biblical theology/narrative" theologians at their word: if God is really the God who discloses himself in the biblical acts, then wouldn't that ascribe an objective function to God-talk? This means God, not man, takes initiative. God talk is real. Kant is wrong.