[unspun]

Francis Schaeffer

Yes, God bless him and his knickerbockers.
(But you may know me by now... although I started at least one of his books, Christian Manifesto, I haven't finished any. Saw most of the How Should We Then Live films more than 20 years ago, so I'm glad for articles that summarize --and discussion.)

Cicero tells me there was an RC theologian/philosopher/historian in Switzerland at the same time, who from what I see, dealt with many of the same issues in many of the same ways: Hans Urs von Balthasar. I wonder if they met.

I've read a-lot more of the other patron saint of "evangelorthodox" Christian thought of the 20th C., Lewis, but I need to get caught up with Abolition of Man which betty boop mentioned a few days ago.

[exmarine]

"How Should We Then Live" is an outstanding historical overview of the corruption of Christianity and philosophy and the arts. He wrote several other books and they are readily available on Amazon.

Cicero tells me there was an RC theologian/philosopher/historian in Switzerland at the same time, who from what I see, dealt with many of the same issues in many of the same ways: Hans Urs von Balthasar. I wonder if they met.

I haven't heard this, but the name "Copleston" comes to mind. However, Dr. Schaeffer had some things to say about the RC church that cast a decidedly unfavorable light on that church. For example, Aquinas is perhaps the most prominent catholic philosopher and Dr. Schaeffer points out that Aquinas made a big mistake when he tried to reconcile Aristotlean thinking (dealing with the particulars and man's autonomy) with Christianity (dealing with the universals and God's autonomy), and how Aquinas' writings served to corrupt Christianity more than help it.

[exmarine]

The blurb on Schaeffer is not bad, but in it, the writer says, Francis Schaeffer also was skeptical of the increase of Platonism in culture (identified with mysticism) and leaned more towards an Aristotelian view of reality (identified with rationalism).

This is incorrect. Schaeffer did NOT embrace rationalism, but "rationalistic approach". There is a HUGE difference (which Schaeffer himself points out) between rationalism (man is the measure of all things) and rationalistic thought (right reason). Just wanted to clear that up...