Francis Schaeffer: The Last Great Modern Theologian

Next Wave ^ | December, 1999 | David Hopkins

[Biblical Calvinist]

Francis August Schaeffer was a Presbyterian who was a Historic Premillenialist (as opposed to Dispensational Pessimillenialism), attended Westminster Theological Seminary in the early '30's, where he sat under the teaching of Cornelius Van Till. Schaeffer was greatly influenced by Van Till's "Presuppositional Apologetics", as was evidenced by Schaeffers Evangelical methodology.

Schaeffer was Reformed, a man who greatly appreciated Calvin's Institutes...sure; he was a man who had a terrible temper on occasion; simply refecting his fallen nature.. but this was certainly a Godly man in every respect.

I had the honor of meeting Francis and Edith Schaeffer in 1982, at the Christian Booksellers Convention, in Dallas...I talked with him for a few minutes; expressing my appreciation for his influence on my life, helping me to come back to Biblical Christianity.

Francis A. Scheaffer's insights are still remarkably applicable in this Era. Truly a man of God.

[nicmarlo]

Thanks, slimer, I do too, lol!!!

[P-Marlowe]

I remember reading his book "How shall we then live" about 20 years ago, but it did not strike me as particularly profound. I didn't think of his stuff as theology as much as it was apologetic and practical. That's why I think the term "Last Great Modern Theologian" didn't fit. That's why I asked the question. It seems to me that the Last Great "Theologians" came out of the Reformation era.

Now if he could have solved the Calvin/Arminian dispute through the application of love and logic (which to me it appears to have been his forte), then I think he might be entitled to that monicker. :-)

[Darlin']

I'm not familiar with Mr Schaeffer's writings but I'd like to know more and will look for his books in our church library. Thanks for the ping.

[Biblical Calvinist]

I agree that Schaeffer wasn't a theologian per se; he never wrote a systematic theology. There are audio tapes extant wherein he gives lectures on Calvin's Institutes; which is - in essence, the first Protestant Systematic Theology. He was most effective within the realm of applying Presuppostitional thought in Evangelism and apologetics. Schaeffer was only able to do this because he was well acquainted with Orthodox theology and philosophy.

With regard to what you've indicated in earlier posts- and also inferred from your tag line - I may be wrong, but you seem to hold to a doctrinal stance that is called "Amyraldianism"- which is an attempt to marry Calvinism and Arminianism together (what some jokingly call "Calminianism"). I found a great article, which you may enjoy reading, that defines what this doctrinal position is, where it originated; then, where it fails; both logically, and above all, Scripturally. You may read the article here =

http://www.apuritansmind.com/PuritanWorship/Amyraut%20Universalism.htm

I hope that you do read the article; it may be simply food for thought at this point in time; but may help you and other Freepers to re think some important doctrinal presuppostions as well :>)

[NH Liberty]

Uncanny. Only a few minutes after I viewed your message, my husband brought the mail in and one of envelopes was a large heavy packet from Ravi Zacharias. In it was a beautiful calendar/planner for 2003, but I hadn't even ordered it. The RZIM crew just sent it as a gift, I presume.

Ravi and crew truly are a thoughtful bunch. God bless them.

BTW, how did you come upon the opportunity of meeting him?

[anniegetyourgun]

OOOOooo...that is "weird"!! Seriously, I did have a chance to meet some of his 'crew' too - and they are wonderful. Met Dr. Z. as part of having the honor to introduce him at a conference a few years back. We had a 5 minute exchange in the "green room" prior. Wish I could have had hours, however his brilliance, humility, and godliness comes through upon impact!

[cpforlife.org]

unspun,

Thanks for the post and ping. As an active Pro-Lifer, I highly recommend FS's "Whatever Happened to the Human Race?" It was Co-written with C. Everett Koop, M.D. They powerfully expose mankinds ever-growing bloodlust.

Since I have not spent much time in the Religion forum (yet), I would like to invite everyone to visit my site: Christian Patriots For Life

[don-o]

Gotta bump so I can find it later.

Shaeffer was an important influence to me.

[P-Marlowe]

Actually I don't like to categorize myself in theologies inasmuch as when it comes down to brass tacks it is not a systematic theology that saves us, it is Christ alone. The importance is not in how we came to the Lord, either by free will or irresistible grace, but whether we came to the Lord. The problem lies mostly in definitions of terms. The solution lies with God. As we cannot understand the nature of God in the Trinity, we cannot understand the principles of Divine Election. Sometimes its best to throw up your hands and say, "I don't understand" rather than to assume you know stuff which is essentially unknowable.

BTW, most of the Modern "Theologians" like Paul Tillich have been disasterous. Modern Theology denies not only the principle tenets of the Reformation, but the principle tenets of all of traditional Christendom. I don't think Schaeffer would want to be lumped in with that crowd. I'm sure he'd prefer to be associated with the Reformation Theologians. At least they believed in the God they were studying.

[unspun]

I'd say that he tended to agree with Paul, John, and the writer of Hebrews -- and Christ. ;-`

...Christ, the eternal Word of God made flesh, crucified and resurrected, revelation of God, intently and intricately involved and at work by His Spirit, redeeming His own from His fallen creation, and calling us to be engaged, loving witnesses here, light and salt for all His eternal and temporal purposes, for as long as He tarries.

The wonderful thing about Shaeffer is that he let the Light shine upon competing philosophical presuppositions, especially in the increasingly secular, fragmented, hedonistic/nihilistic culture. He had numerous favorite themes (e.g., paraphrase: absolutes vs. relativism, God the Subject every consistent truth begins with vs. fragmentation and contradictions in man-centered philosophies) but I'm not such an expert as to give a three paragraph synopsis. One could say he tended to take up where C.S. Lewis left off, both theologically and by the calendar.

BTW, personally, I don't really like the word "theology" very much, due to the arrogance apparent in its inferences. "Discipleship" is a much better word for the unmerited privilege of being involved in a learning relationship with God (actively learning from God, as opposed to thinking we could "study" Him). As for evangelism, well, one man sows, another waters, etc. -- and if we're obedient, what can we do that is not supportive of evangelism?

[unspun]

Pardon, "Shaeffer" is a pen. "Schaeffer" was the knickerbockered pastor.

[unspun]

It's scary to think that this needs to be said: "...Francis Schaeffer believed one had to be converted to the appropriate set of presuppositions, namely the law of non-contradiction ("A" cannot be "non-A"), first, in order to believe and experience the God of Christianity."

Aint' it just?

Whew....

[unspun]

Interesting that this thread gets side-tracked to "Religion," when posts such as this: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/836099/posts thrive in "News/Activism." To me, understanding such things as the subject of this thread is pivotal to understanding the American republic.

Not a criticism though, an observation! I understand the obvious reason for diverting this thread is that Francis Schaeffer is labeled a "theologian," while a republican theorist writing about government per se (or a typical libertarian theorist, who believes the concept of discipleship irrelevant to the social contract) are labeled "political philosophers."

"Separation of Church and State" meets FR then, eh? Tempts me to wish that Thomas J. had never written back to the Danbury Baptists.

Pinging a few FR philosophy guru's ;-) for any comments.

Thanks for your good work, servants of the server!

[aardvark1]

FS is one of my all time favorites and his writings were instrumental in my transitions from Arminianism to Calvinism, baptistic to presbyterian, and dispensational to covenantal. I own many of his books and reread them regularly.

Having said all that, I have to say that I think FS's one huge professional flaw is that he tended not to credit his sources. Although he broke somewhat with Van Til's apologetical method, he still owed much of his approach to him. Also, much of his critique of culture came from RJ Rushdoony's teaching and writing, but rarely if ever a mention of these.

[unspun]

AFM, don't know Van Til at all - Rushdoony just a little. In the case of the latter, I can guess at why FS wouldn't want to give much credit. Didn't Rushdoony come down somewhere between Schaeffer and say, Oliver Cromwell, maybe closer to Cromwell?

[aardvark1]

I don't really understand your question...it's worded awkwardly.

RJR was persona non grata in some circles because of his theonomy. Although Schaeffer kept his distance from that crowd, he still could cite and credit his sources. Rushdoony's theology was much bigger than the theonomic straw man built by his critics. Intellectually, he was a giant. Schaeffer was able to take some of those ideas and dissiminate them to a much wider audience because he was much more well-known.

[RnMomof7]

I finally had time to devote to reading this. I have heard of Schaffer , but I had no clue who he was..excellent read..

[RnMomof7]

And which is more important, the work of a theologian or the work of an evangelist?

Marlowe how does an evanglist determine what he will teach? Seems to me it that he teaches a theology..you may have the JW's or Mormons on your door..both with faulty non saving theology ..

So might it be that the theology is MORE important than the evangelist?

[RnMomof7]

Actually I don't like to categorize myself in theologies inasmuch as when it comes down to brass tacks it is not a systematic theology that saves us, it is Christ alone.

Agreed .........but a faulty theology can damn:>)