[topcat54]

While Schaeffer was helpful, he had his issues as well. Because he was not fully engaged with biblical law as the basis for a just society, he bounced between the extreme views of capitulation and resistance.

Unfortunately, Schaeffer left behind an unfinished legacy. He knew where the answer was, but he was unable, within the confines of his own methodology and his premillennial eschatology, to see it through. It’s a shame that Schaeffer will best be remembered for his advocation of Christian resistance and not Christian reconstruction.

See Not Willing to Go Far Enough.

[circlecity]

Well, I very much part ways with Demar on his analysis of Schaeffer on this point and after reading his article I find it hard to believe he actually read the Schaeffer works he references. My bet is he just read a wikipedia type article about Schaeffer. In any event, his biggest gripe seems to be that Schaeffer doesn't agree with Gary Demar. I found this quote amusing:

"Schaeffer rightly decried a de facto sociological law—“law based only on what the majority of society thinks is in its best interests at a given moment”—but offered no worked-out worldview to counter and replace it."

This is laughable in that virtually all of Schaeffer's work was an extensive polemic against a humanist worldview contrasted with a detailed, "worked-out", comprehensive Christian worldview Schaeffer saw as the biblical alternitive. This is particularly true of "The God who is There" and "Escape from Reason". Schaeffer was the father of the modern "Christian worldview" movement and his entire legacy is a testament to the worldview Demar claims he failed to offer. Stick to eschatology Gary.