In my theological study I have studied about 250 pages of his material so far (across three books). I have nary a hint of militantism anywhere. He is NOT a bomb-thrower from anything I have read. In fact, of those 250 pages of theological analysis, he has spent less than 2 pages (combined) criticizing the Roman Catholic Church "by name". Instead, among other things he laments the beliefs that I think are consistent with Apostolic beliefs and explores ways to reach these people. He does NOT call them un-Christian, but he does explain why their beliefs cannot hold water, as any writer would who does what he did. He spends much more time on reaching the non-believer.
There is no chance there that Schaeffer might have twisted and cherry-picked things just a wee bit, is there?
I cannot be certain, as I am no authority on Schaeffer. However, I would doubt it. From the context, I don't think Schaeffer "needed" Heidegger to make his point. He was using Heidegger as an example of the emergence (or development) of a thought pattern that we all see prominently today.
As an aside, you might be interested to know that Schaeffer's son, Frank, an author and film maker, converted to Orthodoxy within a few years of his father's death. If you search his name on the Greek Orthodox website you will get several hits. He's on a bunch of councils and boards and such. THE PRODIGAL SON. :)
Heidegger was a Nazi.
Now THAT I did not know. :) Schaeffer makes no mention of it, presumably because he thought it irrelevant to the philosophy enunciated. But in any case, NO ONE is making any comparisons along the Nazi front. :)
If anything, being Protestant would be much more conducive to such extremism than being Orthodox.
Thanks a lot! That means you're scrambling. :)
Look at the universe and ask yourself if you can even imagine the logic which made it!
The universe is a work of art beyond human comprehension. It is logical to me that an omnipotent God would create such a place.
Just as we by necessity apply anthropomorphism to our pets, we are forced to do the same with God, because natures are not exchangeable. Most of our "understanding" of God is projecting human feelings and ideas onto that which is not human.
Then the Bible is just a tease. Of course we are not going to have FULL understanding, but that does not mean we can have NO understanding. Why would God give us so many analogies in the Bible that relate directly to us in our daily lives if He did not want us to have a partial understanding of how it is between us and Him?
The Bible reminds us that God's thoughts and ways are not ours—just as our thoughts and ways are not those of our pets, or better yet, ants and flatworms.
No. God TELLS us His ways to the extent He wants us to understand them. It is not exhaustive, but it is much more than nothing, which is what ants know of our ways.
Bad things happen to good people, FK. Good things happen to bad people. When faced with such dilemmas, we simply resign ourselves to not knowing God and his ways. But when we try to push our views of God on others, then we claim that we know God personally and with certainty.
There's that all or nothing thing again. That's just not right. Think of this, you know your wife better than anyone else on the planet knows her. Now, imagine that a team of scientists took her away and put her through a series of 100 experiments, all provoking her to make a choice, or no choice at all. Afterward, they told you the premise of each test and what her options were, and asked you to say what she did. I believe you would have gotten a very good grade, but I doubt it would have been a 100. By your reasoning, you would say that therefore you know nothing of your wife. :)
Orthodoxy is clear that God is Mystery revealed to us in fullness through Jesus Christ. That's the beginning and the end of Orthodox "heideggerianism." What's revealed in the Old Testament is not Christ. For, if Christ's revelation were clear and unambiguous in the Old Testament there would have been no need for the New Testament. There is no way for us to know Christ through the Old Testament. We can only "see dimly" in some instances the foreshadowing of Christ in it.
Wouldn't that be the CHURCH'S way, and not necessarily God's way? Christ said He came to fulfill. If the OT does not reveal Christ, then what does it reveal?
Sure enough. When the compost hit the air-conditioner he proved to be a coward. I am told that Jacob Klein, one of the "gods" at my college, said that as far as he knew Heidegger was the only great philosopher who was a bad man. (He also didn't think much of the US, but I think that was just continental snobbery and ignorance.)
But he WAS a GREAT philosopher. This is not the same thing as saying that he was right, and certainly not the same thing as saying he was right about everything.
FK, presuppositional approach, a method used by Schaffer, is a militant appraoch.
Well, and to a follower of Shintoism it is equally "logical" that all this work of art is God Himself!
Like I said, even ants have some "understanding" of us. They try to avoid us, if possible (within their means) for reasons only an ant will know.
The primitive man "understood" that the rumbling volcano was an "angry" god and that some serependitious act of people would "satisfy" him—on occasion. Sometime, their "prayers" were "answered," and sometimes they weren't.
No, FK, it's not the fact. The fact is that the men who wrote the books of the Binble tell us what they believed God told them, and we believe that it is true.
Of course, there is no proof that God told us anything. It is based on our belief that He did.
If what you say were a fact, then everyone would be on the same sheet of music. No one is arguing whether gravity exists because gravity is a fact that affects us all.
FK, your wife is real. You don't have to believe she exists.
The Church believes the OT "prefigures" Christ. I just don't see any convincing evidence coming from the Church that this is so.
The OT reveals a God as shaped by Jewish myth and legend.