The Riddleblog

Posts in Francis Schaeffer

Francis Schaeffer -- Apologist and Evangelist (Part Four)

“Taking the Roof Off”

1). I think this is the most helpful and significant area of Francis Schaeffer’s apologetic methodology. “Taking the roof off,” or “finding the point of tension,” is at the center of Schaeffer’s approach to defending the faith.

2). Schaeffer bases this notion upon the principle of “common ground” occupied by both believer and unbeliever. Says Schaeffer,

“If the man before you were logical to his non-Christian presuppositions, you would have no communication with him. . . . But in reality no one can live logically according to his own non-Christian presuppositions, and consequently, because he is faced with the real world and himself, in practice you will find a place were you can talk. . . . In practice then, we do have a point for conversation, but this point is not properly to be spoken of as `neutral’. There are no neutral facts,[1] for facts are God’s facts. However, there is common ground between the Christian and non-Christian because regardless of a man’s system, he has to live in God’s world.”[2]

For Schaeffer, then, the Christian doctrine of creation underlies the apologetic task. The world has been created by God in a particular manner, and therefore certain foundational first principles of knowledge which work in our world are necessary to both Christian and non-Christian alike—no communication is possible without them.

3). For Schaeffer, the central principle is that of antithesis (the law of non-contradiction). God has created humans in his own image, therefore people are naturally able (even while fallen they remain human) to use those foundational first principles of knowledge. In fact people cannot even think or communicate without them. But the non-Christian believes in a world of chance (no God, but order), fate, or determinism, or chaos. If this is the world that is, then what use is there in even trying to communicate? A first principle might change or no longer be valid tomorrow. Schaeffer sees this point very clearly. “If he were consistent to his non-Christian presuppositions he would be separated from the real universe and the real man, and conversation and communication would not be possible.”[3]

4). Schaeffer correctly fancies this to be the presuppositional method—i.e. challenging the foundation of non-Christian thought using a transcendental argument. “In this way, it does seem to me that presuppositional apologetics should be seen as ending the conversation with the people around us. . . . There is no use talking today until the presuppositions are taken into account, and especially the crucial presuppositions concerning the nature of truth and the method of attaining truth.”[4] But one can argue presuppositionally without adopting the presuppositionalist epistemology–Schaeffer being a good example. We can identify presuppositions of method (i.e., Thomas Reid and the Scottish Common Sense philosophers), without arguing for presuppositions of content (Van Til). What is necessary to know, not what is known innately? Since everyone does have presuppositions, the question should be asked, “whose presuppositions are the right ones?” To answer this, we must then deal with the ways in which we come to know before we examine the facts at hand. This is what Schaeffer is trying to do here.

To read the rest, follow the link below

Francis SchaefferKim RiddlebargerFebruary 14, 2025Taking the Roof Off Comments

Francis Schaeffer -- Apologist and Evangelist (Part Three)

Francis Schaeffer’s Apologetic Methodology

Part one can be found here

Part two, the life and times of Francis Schaeffer

Presuppostionalist or Evidentialist?

1). Examining Schaeffer’s comments about epistemology will help us to answer a critical question often asked in regards to Schaeffer: “Is Francis Schaeffer an evidentialist or a presuppositionalist?”[1] While Schaeffer does not like this kind of question, nevertheless, he is one or the other, or some combination thereof.

2). Most important for our discussion, we cannot understand someone’s method for defending the faith apart from their views on knowledge, truth, and method. The study of Schaeffer’s epistemology is therefore essential in determining his methodology for defending the faith.

3). It seems that everyone who studies Schaeffer arrives at different conclusions about his methodology. As Gordon Lewis points out, in 1976 alone three major works appeared, all evaluating Schaeffer’s apologetic, and all arriving at differing conclusions.[2]

4). This raises the question, “when so many knowledgeable reviewers reach such different conclusions, what is the problem?” “Are the reviewers confused?” “Or is Schaeffer not clear?” I affirm the latter.[3]

5). Schaeffer is not clear in discussing verification and he appears to be very much at ease about mixing conflicting methodologies. There is a strong pragmatic inclination in his work. He approaches questions of truth as a pastor and evangelist (concerned with the person), not as a theologian or philosopher.[4] Nevertheless, he does indicate sympathy for the presuppositional approach to apologetics.

To read the rest, follow the link below

Francis SchaefferKim RiddlebargerJanuary 24, 2025Evidentialist?, Presuppositionalist?, Schaeffer's apologetic method Comment

Francis Schaeffer -- Apologist and Evangelist (Part Two)

The Life History of Francis Schaeffer

Schaeffer’s life spans a tumultuous period in American history–from World War One, the Great Depression, World War Two, then the debate over inerrancy among evangelicals (the only time I met and spoke with Schaeffer was at The International Congress on Biblical Inerrancy held in San Diego in 1980), and finally the initial phase of the culture wars and the rise of political activism among evangelicals closely associated with the pro-life movement (from the “Silent Majority” to the “Moral Majority”).

1912 - Francis August Schaeffer was born January 30 in Germantown, PA. He was an only child.
1930 - Schaeffer became a Christian at the age of eighteen after reading the Bible for a six-month period.[2]
1932 - Met Edith Seville (his future wife) at the First Presbyterian Church of Germantown.
1935 - Graduated from Hampden-Sydney College. Schaeffer was second in his senior class and graduated magna cum laude. Married Edith in the same year.
1935 - Entered Westminster Theological Seminary, where he studied under Cornelius Van Til, Oswald T. Allis and J. Gresham Machen and was further immersed in confessional Calvinism.
1937 - After a split with Westminster, Schaeffer transferred to Faith Theological Seminary (under Carl McIntire, Allan MacRae, and J. O. Buswell), which he helped to found.
1938 - After graduation from Faith, he became the first ordained pastor in the new Bible Presbyterian Church.
1938-47 - Served as pastor of several Bible Presbyterian Churches (most notably in St. Louis) throughout the east and midwest.
1947 - After WWII, Schaeffer traveled throughout Europe as a representative of the Independent Board for Presbyterian Foreign Missions.
1948 - Moved to Lausanne, Switzerland as missionaries, helping Children for Christ.
1951 - Schaeffer experienced a deep and profound spiritual crisis. This event drastically changed Schaeffer's ministry.
1953-54 - Traveled extensively through the United States, lecturing on the subject of true spirituality.
1955 - Resigned from the Independent Board of Foreign Missions, marking the formal beginning of the L'Abri Fellowship.
1968 - Schaeffer publishes The God Who Is There, based upon a series of lectures given at Wheaton.
1974 - Begins work on the book and film series, How Should We Then Live?
1977 - Helped found International Congress on Biblical Inerrancy (ICBI).
1977 - Began work on the Whatever Happened to the Human Race? book and film series.
1978 - Diagnosed as having lymphoma cancer.
1982 - Publication of The Complete Works of Francis Schaeffer.
1983 - Received honorary Doctor of Laws from the Simon Greenleaf School of Law.
1984 - Died in his home in Rochester, Minnesota on May 15.

To read the rest (including Schaeffer’s crisis of faith) follow the link below

Francis SchaefferKim RiddlebargerJanuary 2, 2025Schaeffer's life and times Comments

Francis Schaeffer – Apologist and Evangelist (Part One)

Introduction

These lecture notes on “Schaeffer’s Apologetics” were prepared for a course taught at the Simon Greenleaf School of Law in Anaheim, CA, in the Fall of 1988, and taught several times subsequently. The notes were revised and updated in 2007 for an Academy series at Christ Reformed Church. They are dated, but hopefully still of value.

Why Study Schaeffer?

1). To gain a basic understanding of the apologetic methodology of Francis Schaeffer.[1]

2). A study of Schaeffer’s life, times, and apologetic methodology will help us to hone and refine our own approach to unbelievers in both evangelistic and apologetics contexts.

3). Such a study can also shed great light on the on-going debate within the Reformed tradition on apologetic method.

a. To answer the broad question, “of what significance is the work of Schaeffer as an evangelist, pastor, and apologist for us today?”

b. To identify those things we can learn from Schaeffer not only in defending our faith, but in communicating, applying, and living out our Christian faith in the twenty-first century.

Cautions When Studying Schaeffer

1). I am not an expert on Schaeffer. I have never been to L'Abri, nor to any of the L'Abri conferences in the States.[2]

2). I never had the privilege of studying under Schaeffer in any personal forum.

3). Schaeffer’s own stated concerns present several areas of difficulty in working through his apologetic material. In his essay “The Question of Apologetics” (which is an appendix to Schaeffer’s book, The God Who Is There), Schaeffer expresses some perplexity over how his readers and students evaluated his work. Therefore, we need to be sensitive to Schaeffer’s clearly-stated desire to have his endeavors understood in the manner in which he intended. Yet, that is easier said than done, as Schaeffer’s work is profound in some areas and perplexing in others.

4). Schaeffer made it clear in a number of places that in some sense he wished to avoid the type of treatment that we will be giving to him in this series of lectures.

a. Schaeffer makes his sentiments clearly known:

“The answer as to whether I am an apologete depends upon how the concept of apologete or apologetics is defined. First. I am not an apologete if that means building a safe house to live in, so that we Christians can sit inside with safety and quiescence. Christians should be out in the midst of the world as both witness and salt, not sitting in a fortress surrounded by a moat. Second . . . as we turn to consider in more detail how we may speak to men of the twentieth century, we must emphasize first of all that we cannot apply mechanical rules. We, of all people, should realize this, for as Christians we believe that personality really does exist and is important. We can lay down some general principle, but there can be no automatic application. If we are truly personal, as created by God, then each individual will differ from everyone else. Therefore each man must be dealt with as an individual, not as a case or static or machine. If we would work with these people; we cannot mechanically apply the things of which we have been speaking in this book. We must look to the Lord in prayer, and to the work of the Holy Spirit, for effective use of these things.”[3]

To read the rest of these lecture notes, follow the link below

Francis SchaefferKim RiddlebargerNovember 20, 2024Intoduction to SchaefferComment