Francis Schaeffer
- Thread starter Mayflower
- Start date
- Status
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
He copied and pasted pages from Rushdoony. But I like him, though. I have been meaning to do a post on Francis Schaeffer's view of the Law of God. While balking at what we may call theonomy, he explicitly advocated the law of God being applied to and by the civil magistrate.
He courageously and heroically advocated the Christian confrontation and transformation of culture. Unforunately, he was premillennial. Thus, his call could never be more than a theological suicide mission.
He courageously and heroically advocated the Christian confrontation and transformation of culture. Unforunately, he was premillennial. Thus, his call could never be more than a theological suicide mission.
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
This is going to be a lot of fun:
I am saving up for the complete works of Schaeffer. It was a shame he was premillennial. Had he an articulate constructive vision of God's victory that was as equally cogent as his devastating critiques of secularism, the church would be even more better off today (of course, were it not for Schaeffer and the man who profoundly influenced Schaffer--Rushdoony--we would be in dire straits.
I am saving up for the complete works of Schaeffer. It was a shame he was premillennial. Had he an articulate constructive vision of God's victory that was as equally cogent as his devastating critiques of secularism, the church would be even more better off today (of course, were it not for Schaeffer and the man who profoundly influenced Schaffer--Rushdoony--we would be in dire straits.
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
Please do not take my comments as criticisms of Dr Schaeffer. I have utmost admiration and affection for him. He was the first person I read when I wondered how the bible made a difference in my life (e.g., could one really apply biblical norms to the problems of the day?). His answers seemed passionate and he left no doubt that God's word has the only clear guidance for the crisis of the day. (I was a little disappointed with Christian Manifesto. He stopped short of what Rutherford wanted to do).
Schaeffer was the one who got me thinking. Of course, it was only a time before I found Van Til and Bahnsen...
Schaeffer was the one who got me thinking. Of course, it was only a time before I found Van Til and Bahnsen...
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
My favorite Schaeffer quote:
No society can tolerate a group of people who have a transcendent absolute by which to judge that society's actions.
No society can tolerate a group of people who have a transcendent absolute by which to judge that society's actions.
Ivan
Pastor
Then, brother, we are at odds with our society and we will have to take our stand. Fear God more than man.
VirginiaHuguenot
Puritanboard Librarian
When it comes to a Reformed understanding of culture and the arts, I would rank Francis Schaeffer among the very best of theologians in the 20th or any other century.
bradofshaw
Puritan Board Freshman
Count me as an admirer of his work as well. A very passionate man who's life and actions reflected his ideology and theology. A personal favorite work of his is Genesis in Time and Space. It gives such a great foundation for viewing the Bible and the world around us. A good place to start with evolutionists or those doubting the creation account I think.
crhoades
Puritan Board Graduate
Also check out Hans Rookmaaker. He was Schaeffer's mentor in the arts.
Here is his biography http://www.wtsbooks.com/product-exe...tian_Mind_The_Life_and_Work_of_H_R_Rookmaaker
Here is a 13 CD set on Christianity and Culture from WTS
http://www.wtsbooks.com/product-exec/product_id/3326/nm/Christianity_and_Culture_13_audio_CDs_
I've listened to them and he is a fascinating lecturer.
Also check out this thread that has links to his complete works on CD:
http://www.puritanboard.com/forum/viewthread.php?tid=16613#pid237102
Originally he did not want to publish books, because all his work was done in dialogue and adapted to the individual he was dealing with. But he also did talks that were on tape.
People urged him to publish, and even transcribed the tapes. He eventually was persuaded to let them be published as books, and James Sire at Intervarsity Press put the books together. That is how the earlier books came about. But the particular history shows through, in that they do not come up to what they would have been had Schaeffer gone through a proper writing process on them.
There is a lot of Dutch theological influence, because of the partners Schaeffer worked with in developing his ideas. Schaeffer said that he and Rookmaaker could no longer tell which of them was responsible for which idea as they had kicked them back and forth for so long. Schaeffer would refer people to Covenant Seminary if they wanted more advanced theological study.
William H. Burnside, "Francis Schaeffer's Philosophy of History"
http://www.contra-mundum.org/cm/features/02_schaeffer.pdf
crhoades
Puritan Board Graduate
For one of the best resources on his life and thought, check out Covenant Theological Seminary's Extension courses. There are two courses and they are available for free in .mp3 format. I've listened to the Early Years but haven't made it through the latter one.
Early Years
http://www.covenantseminary.edu/worldwide/en/CC578/CC578.asp
Later Years
http://www.covenantseminary.edu/worldwide/en/CC579/CC579.asp
Early Years
http://www.covenantseminary.edu/worldwide/en/CC578/CC578.asp
Later Years
http://www.covenantseminary.edu/worldwide/en/CC579/CC579.asp
JohnV
Puritan Board Post-Graduate
I've read his Complete Works a few times. He has been quite helpful to me. I have to give him the credit for being the author who forced me to a point of tension, of displacing my own predispositions to see the teachings of Scripture as objective. I was reading his book "The God Who is There". The companion books, "Escape from Reason" and "He is There and He is Not Silent" were very helpful in working out some things which the first book impressed on me.
MrMerlin777
Puritan Board Post-Graduate
Yeah he was premillennial but then so was Spurgeon and quite a few others that I admire.
Pilgrim
Puritanboard Commissioner
I have not read any of his works on art. What was his position on so-called images of Christ and the 2nd Commandment?
bookslover
Puritan Board Doctor
And what's wrong with being premillennial (not the Dispensational kind, of course)? It's the oldest eschatological position in church history! And there are at least 3 of us (!) in my OPC presbytery (southern California) who are premillennial. We're taking over!
bookslover
Puritan Board Doctor
I saw Schaeffer at what turned out to be his final public appearance, in 1984, just about 6 weeks before his death. He had to be literally carried (by being lifted by one man on each side of him) into the building where the meeting was held (the gym at Biola University). His body was as good as dead, but his mind was still as sharp as ever.
At the end of his talk, he took questions. I still remember one student stood up and said that Christians should seek out persecution, that being persecuted was a great way to glorify God, etc., etc. I'll never forget the look that came over Schaeffer's face: he didn't say anything in reply to this guy, but he didn't really need to. His face was saying, "What kind of nutjob is this guy, anyway?"
He was insightful, he was thoughtful, and he was funny. And, six weeks, later, he was with the Lord.
JohnV
Puritan Board Post-Graduate
And what's wrong with being premillennial (not the Dispensational kind, of course)? It's the oldest eschatological position in church history! And there are at least 3 of us (!) in my OPC presbytery (southern California) who are premillennial. We're taking over!
No, no, no! You've got that all wrong. Postmillennialists are in the process of taking over; Premillennialists are in the process of getting taken over; and Amillennialists will overtake no matter what the process. Didn't you pay attention in eschatology class?
JohnV
Puritan Board Post-Graduate
I heard a tape of one of his last lectures. It was the last lecture on "How Should We Then Live?" It may have been the same one. He sounded more frail in his voice, but yet as strong in his message. If I remember, the title of his speach was "The Final Apologetic", but I'm not sure anymore. I do remember that it was the final lecture in his video series.
caddy
Puritan Board Senior
VirginiaHuguenot
Puritanboard Librarian
That's a good question. I don't recall reading his position on this point specifically and some of my books are already packed up in anticipation of our upcoming move. Perhaps JohnV or someone else can elaborate on this.
But I do have available my copy of Art and the Bible, a pamphlet that has been very influential in my own thinking on Biblical aesthetics in general.
In it he addresses the argument of some (Muslims?) who say that the second commandment forbids all representational art. He defends the Biblical warrant for the creation of representational art, but does not address images of God directly. His focus here, it seems to me, is on demonstrating the propriety and lawfulness of artistic representations generally, not on specific types of representations that might violate the second (or seventh) commandments.
You can read some of his thoughts on art online here, here and here. The last link can be accessed via the internet archive at http://www.archive.org/index.php (type in the url where it is says "take me back").
His comments about Exodus 28.33 and blue pomegranates, as well as the precious stones of 2 Chron. 3.6, were especially insightful to me.
Theogenes
Puritan Board Junior
It was the works of Francis Schaeffer that helped me out of the charismatic movement and started me in a Reformed direction. I read all his books back in the late 70's and early 80's and had the privilege of hearing him speak at the house where he stayed in Rochester, MN where he would go for chemo treatments at the Mayo clinic. I went to a couple of L'abri conferences in Rochester and even stayed there for a week at Rochester L'abri listeing to hours and hours of his taped lectures and having great talks with the staff there. Ahhhh, the good old days...
One day while I was working in the basement of the house where FAS would stay I noticed a case of beer and asked the person who lived there about that and she said that FAS would enjoy a beer now and then. This was revolutionary thinking for one coming out of pietistic charismania. It was liberating... anyways,
I'll stop.
Jim
One day while I was working in the basement of the house where FAS would stay I noticed a case of beer and asked the person who lived there about that and she said that FAS would enjoy a beer now and then. This was revolutionary thinking for one coming out of pietistic charismania. It was liberating... anyways,
I'll stop.Jim
JohnV
Puritan Board Post-Graduate
Off hand I can't say. I don't recall him addressing it. His overview of art was that our ability to express and create through the arts was an example of our being in God's image. His main thesis in the areas of philosophy and art was based on the two categories of the attributes of God: His infinity and His personhood. He stresses that when it comes to the distinction between creation and God in the area of personhood, man stood on God's side of the great divide; when it came to the distinction of infinity, man was on creation's side of the great divide, for only God was infinite. God created man to share in His personhood, for that was the image man was to bear in creation. (It's been too many years since I read him. I'm having trouble putting it right. Forgive me if I've misrepresented Schaeffer.)
He had an appreciation for the art of the great many religious and iconic historical works, but as works of art, not as religious or iconic relics. He had a deep appreciation of man's ability to create and express out of his personality, as an attribute that could only be possible if God was a triune God, and if man was created by this God, and in His image.
I would conclude from the above that he would be greatly opposed to any efforts to venerate the art works themselves, or any effort to use art in a way that violated that limit of image-bearing, it being that man bears God's image, but man's works could not. When it comes to the works of art that man creates, it comes down on the side of being finite; but the fact that he can create works of art comes down on the side of personhood.
JohnV
Puritan Board Post-Graduate
I would like to read one of Morris' other books, but I haven't yet.
Normally I would recommend Schaeffer's book He Is There And He Is Not Silent, but I think that it needs a qualification with it. It's not that it does not stand on its own, but I think that (having read a description of Morris' critique) we have to admit that we live in a post-Presuppositionalist era, and that makes a difference in how you understand Schaeffer. I'm not implying (by "post-Presuppositionalism") that Presuppositionalism has had its day and is over, but rather that it has been introduced into the general consensus of most of the discussions on apologetics. That was not my background when reading him the first time. So the way I understood him may be quite different than some others would have, and likely quite differently than Morris. When I read criticism of Schaeffer's work I sometimes wonder what they're talking about, sometimes wonder if we're talking about the same man, and sometimes wonder how I missed some of the things they seem to nail.
I disagree with the way Schaeffer put forth his argument in He Is There, but I don't disagree with the argument that he's trying to put forth. I'd like to rewrite it, but I also see what he was up against, and why he said it the way he did. And I think that's the proviso in a lot of Sshaeffer's work: in expression it is bound to the particular time in which he lived. His was the immediate post-war time, a time of great upheaval in culture and cultural environment. That makes the terms that he uses distinct and peculiar.
I think that he too realized that, and deliberately chose to follow the course he did. He did provide a glossary of his terms in the books he published. Just the glossary alone is a study in his philosophy and approach. The books allow us to see these terms in use so that we can get a feel for the meanings he put into them. His works seem to gravitate around the meanings he put into these important terms; they are applications of the terms rather than philosophical statements or defined positions.
This makes a difference in how you appreciate He Is There. I too can find things wrong with it, but that's not the point. He doesn't ever try to have an air-tight argument, because that's not his concern. If he completely falls flat in his presentations, that does not change the unchangeable, and makes the true and eternal no less true and no less eternal. If he falls then it is he that falls, not the truth that he's trying to represent. He just tries his best, counting on the Holy Spirit to do His work through him. His only concern is to be as true to the Spirit's witnes as he can be.
Sometimes a sincere honesty with oneself calls for an admission of our own fallibility in what we're trying so hard to get right. I think that Schaeffer was not afraid to face and confess his own limitations and fallenness. When he sat and answered the questions of young people then he was not above them, but was as one of them. He didn't claim to have the answers himself, but was interested in helping people find the answers as a pastor to Christ's people, to the ones He was calling. I don't think he wanted to be taken as some religious guru, as the prophet of the age, but only as a servant to the Church.
A lot of the criticisms that I read of Schaeffer, I believe, would not have concerned him a great deal. At least I don't think that he would feel any great need to answer them. He would likely take great pains to thank his critics, though. He was one who appreciated and valued criticisms, even if they came from animosity to his what he considered his life's work. He took it seriously. I think he practiced what he preached (The Mark Of The Christian).
Normally I would recommend Schaeffer's book He Is There And He Is Not Silent, but I think that it needs a qualification with it. It's not that it does not stand on its own, but I think that (having read a description of Morris' critique) we have to admit that we live in a post-Presuppositionalist era, and that makes a difference in how you understand Schaeffer. I'm not implying (by "post-Presuppositionalism") that Presuppositionalism has had its day and is over, but rather that it has been introduced into the general consensus of most of the discussions on apologetics. That was not my background when reading him the first time. So the way I understood him may be quite different than some others would have, and likely quite differently than Morris. When I read criticism of Schaeffer's work I sometimes wonder what they're talking about, sometimes wonder if we're talking about the same man, and sometimes wonder how I missed some of the things they seem to nail.
I disagree with the way Schaeffer put forth his argument in He Is There, but I don't disagree with the argument that he's trying to put forth. I'd like to rewrite it, but I also see what he was up against, and why he said it the way he did. And I think that's the proviso in a lot of Sshaeffer's work: in expression it is bound to the particular time in which he lived. His was the immediate post-war time, a time of great upheaval in culture and cultural environment. That makes the terms that he uses distinct and peculiar.
I think that he too realized that, and deliberately chose to follow the course he did. He did provide a glossary of his terms in the books he published. Just the glossary alone is a study in his philosophy and approach. The books allow us to see these terms in use so that we can get a feel for the meanings he put into them. His works seem to gravitate around the meanings he put into these important terms; they are applications of the terms rather than philosophical statements or defined positions.
This makes a difference in how you appreciate He Is There. I too can find things wrong with it, but that's not the point. He doesn't ever try to have an air-tight argument, because that's not his concern. If he completely falls flat in his presentations, that does not change the unchangeable, and makes the true and eternal no less true and no less eternal. If he falls then it is he that falls, not the truth that he's trying to represent. He just tries his best, counting on the Holy Spirit to do His work through him. His only concern is to be as true to the Spirit's witnes as he can be.
Sometimes a sincere honesty with oneself calls for an admission of our own fallibility in what we're trying so hard to get right. I think that Schaeffer was not afraid to face and confess his own limitations and fallenness. When he sat and answered the questions of young people then he was not above them, but was as one of them. He didn't claim to have the answers himself, but was interested in helping people find the answers as a pastor to Christ's people, to the ones He was calling. I don't think he wanted to be taken as some religious guru, as the prophet of the age, but only as a servant to the Church.
A lot of the criticisms that I read of Schaeffer, I believe, would not have concerned him a great deal. At least I don't think that he would feel any great need to answer them. He would likely take great pains to thank his critics, though. He was one who appreciated and valued criticisms, even if they came from animosity to his what he considered his life's work. He took it seriously. I think he practiced what he preached (The Mark Of The Christian).
- Status
