<abstract xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"><p>Carl Henry devotes a few chapters directly (and a few indirectly) in volume 6 of his <italic>God, Revelation, and Authority</italic> [<italic>GRA</italic>] to the problem of evil [POE]. The author examines Henry’s contribution as a theologian, noting that <italic>GRA</italic> is a work of theology, not philosophy proper. However, Henry had a PhD in Philosophy (Boston, 1949), and one finds present several presuppositions and control beliefs that are philosophically motivated. Observation of the text reveals several of these. Chief here is Henry’s working assumption that to understand and explain the nature of <italic>evil</italic>, one must first understand and explain the nature, origin and etiology of <italic>good</italic>. This point and its implications are developed at length in this article. Unsurprising is Henry’s contribution exhibiting an awareness of methods and theodical approaches traditionally used by philosophers of religion such as Rowe, Plantinga, and Hick. Surprising is the fact that Henry does not clearly take a side on the nature of human free will. What he does say seems to underdetermine his exact position. Finally, the importance of Kant vis a vis Henry’s theodicy and entire theological program is emphasized as well.</p></abstract>

Carl Henry devotes a few chapters directly (and a few indirectly) in volume 6 of his God, Revelation, and Authority [GRA] to the problem of evil [POE]. The author examines Henry’s contribution as a theologian, noting that GRA is a work of theology, not philosophy proper. However, Henry had a PhD in Philosophy (Boston, 1949), and one finds present several presuppositions and control beliefs that are philosophically motivated. Observation of the text reveals several of these. Chief here is Henry’s working assumption that to understand and explain the nature of evil, one must first understand and explain the nature, origin and etiology of good. This point and its implications are developed at length in this article. Unsurprising is Henry’s contribution exhibiting an awareness of methods and theodical approaches traditionally used by philosophers of religion such as Rowe, Plantinga, and Hick. Surprising is the fact that Henry does not clearly take a side on the nature of human free will. What he does say seems to underdetermine his exact position. Finally, the importance of Kant vis a vis Henry’s theodicy and entire theological program is emphasized as well.

Carl F. H. Henry on the Problem of (Good and) Evil

Perichoresis

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 License.

{"article-title":"Carl F. H. Henry on the Problem of (Good and) Evil"}

Carl Henry devotes a few chapters directly (and a few indirectly) in volume 6 of his God, Revelation, and Authority [GRA] to the problem of evil [POE]. The...

Carl F. H. Henry on the Problem of (Good and) Evil

Published Online: Aug 08, 2019

Page range: 3 - 24

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/perc-2019-0019

Keywords
Carl F. H. Henry, problem of evil, theodicy, Christian theology, Kant

© 2019 Edward N. Martin, published by Sciendo

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 License.

Carl F. H. Henry on the Problem of (Good and) Evil

Published Online: Aug 08, 2019

Page range: 3 - 24

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/perc-2019-0019

KeywordsCarl F. H. Henry, problem of evil, theodicy, Christian theology, Kant

© 2019 Edward N. Martin, published by Sciendo

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 License.

Keywords
Carl F. H. Henry, problem of evil, theodicy, Christian theology, Kant