Francis Schaeffer as Apologist and Evangelist (Part Five)

Schaeffer’s Critics

1). The Evidentialist Critique of Schaeffer’s Apologetics

Most evidentialists have been fairly restrained in their criticisms of Francis Schaeffer. I am not aware of any “evidentialist” who has published negative or critical work concerning Schaeffer (although there must be some out there). This is likely the case for several reasons. Most evidentialists tend to approve of almost any attempt to do apologetics, even if the apologetics themselves are sloppy methodologically speaking. Also, most evidentialists are not concerned with the relationship between apologetics, historical theology, and dogmatics. If Schaeffer is not cogent in his methodology, it is either not noticed, or is simply not an issue. This is unfortunate. Those who are evidentialists need to be aware of the theological reasons and the biblical evidence for their position.[1]

The confusion that I see in Schaeffer results from the fact that he did not articulate his apologetic methodology in a fashion which was consistent with either of the two apologetic methodologies found in the Reformed tradition from which he hailed. A consistent presuppositionalism is consistent with the epistemological framework of Abraham Kuyper, Herman Bavinck, and Cornelius Van Til (CVT), but often fails to address matters of common ground and the use of Christian evidences (as utilized by Schaeffer). On the other hand, a consistent evidentialism is compatible with certain varieties of Reformed theology (e.g., Old Princeton), but often fails to deal properly with both presuppositions of method and/or content. Schaeffer seems perfectly content to combine elements from both traditions, as he felt the occasion required.

The strongest evidentialist critique of Schaeffer is the simplest one. If Schaeffer utilized an evidentialist apologetics, why did he not espouse an evidentialist methodology? As we have seen, the inconsistency in Schaeffer here could have been easily corrected.

It is my contention that the strongest argument for the use of Christian evidences (those given in redemptive-history) is the simple fact that the Scriptures themselves espouse an incarnational truth claim–God was in Christ, reconciling the world to himself (2 Corinthians 5:17). Jesus did say, “he who has seen me has seen the Father,” declaring himself to be the self-attesting Christ of Scripture. But how did he self-attest? Paul repeatedly appealed to the fact of the resurrection.[2] But nowhere in Schaeffer’s discussion of apologetic methodology does he evaluate the methodology of the apostles themselves. When encountering Jews and God-fearers, the apostles began from the Scriptures and used arguments from fulfilled prophecy and miracle (God raised Jesus from the dead). When encountering pagans, the appeal was to the innate knowledge of God, and then the resurrection is presented as the vindication of the Christian truth-claim. The biblical data reveals an apologetic grounded in evidences (God actually did what the Scripture declared he did).

2. The Presuppositionalist Critique

The presuppositionalist critique of Schaeffer is an altogether different matter. Almost all of the negative critiquing of Schaeffer has been done by those who call themselves presuppositionalists. One can only think of the less than favorable reviews given Schaeffer by CVT, Reymond, Frame, Geehan as well as from theonomists. It is no accident that all of these critics are self-professed Van Tilian presuppositionalists.[3]

Because this line of criticism derives from CVT, I think that it is very helpful to consider his evaluation of Schaeffer’s apologetics. CVT is very critical of Schaeffer. In a faculty letter (sent to Schaeffer as well), dated March 11, 1969, and circulated among Westminster Theological Seminary insiders, CVT comments on Schaeffer’s book The God Who is There.

CVT begins with an admission. “Here you have the advantage over me. You converse constantly with modern atheists, modern existentialists, etc., as they eat at your table, study their literature, whereas I am only a book worm.”[4] This is indeed an interesting concession by CVT, although it is my guess that CVT is trying to be genuinely humble.

Given Schaeffer’s frequent encounters with non-Christians, it does not take long when arguing presuppositionally for the non-Christian to accuse the Christian of circular reasoning. The presuppositionalist often ends up in the same predicament as the Mormon missionary when asked “How do you know that the Book of Mormon is the Word of God?” The Mormon missionary will respond “because it claims to be, and I have had an experience which certifies this to be true.” As Schaeffer had undoubtedly encountered this same predicament when arguing presuppositionally, he saw that somewhere along the line in the apologetic process that he must justify his starting point epistemologically. Bookworms don’t benefit from the experience that constantly forces us to check our theology and methodology against the Scriptures themselves, although CVT is well known for his tireless efforts in personal witness.

Says CVT,

“These difficulties [which I have with The God Who is There] all center around the question whether you are presenting the God who is there adequately to modern man. Are you really adequately presenting the God who is there as the presupposition of the possibility of meaningful predication for man? Are you really adequately showing that unless one makes the God who is there the presupposition of all his intellectual and moral activities, he, in effect, destroys all human experience?”[5]

This is a serious charge. If CVT is correct, then the ministry of L’Abri, as well as Schaeffer’s published work, adequately fails to challenge the unbeliever (i.e., the foundation of Schaeffer’s outreach to non-Christians. CVT points out . . .

“My first difficulty pertains to what you say about `absolutes'. . . . My basic difficulty here is that you seem to be committing yourself to some form of the traditional method of apologetics. If only we were able to get people today to admit the possibility of absolutes we would be on their wave length again. The traditional method of apologetics starts with the assumption that the natural man is fully justified in assuming that he can and does interpret reality correctly up to a point.”[6]

This is a standard presuppositional critique of evidentialism, that it offers only probability instead of certainty. Again, it would be nice if we could have such certainty in matters where truth claims are primarily historical— Jesus was raised from the dead. But if our apologetic centers around the resurrection of Jesus Christ, then we are necessarily in the realm of historical evidence which is based upon probability. CVT feels so strongly about this, that in another place he calls this method a “compromise of the Gospel.”[7]

CVT goes on to state,

“My own opinion is that you are indeed committed to the Biblical view of apologetics. You hold that Christianity alone has the answer to the problem of man. Christianity must be taken as the presupposition of the possibility of predication. I hold to this conviction in spite of the fact that you nowhere commit yourself to this position. . . . The lack of clarity in your book is therefore, I think, due to the fact that you are seeking to combine the traditional method of apologetics which starts from below with the Biblical method of apologetics which starts from above.”[8]

Presuppositional apologists, such as CVT, Robert Reymond, and John Frame correctly see in Schaeffer the inconsistent use of multiple methods. For CVT, this amounts to a failure to truly defend the Christian faith.

John Frame, who while more reserved than CVT, follows the same basic criticisms of Schaeffer.

“Schaeffer does not make explicit the natural man’s rejection of all legitimate standards of verification. . . . He calls men to a neutral notion of truth apart from Scripture which believers and unbelievers share in common. . . . Essentially Schaeffer is an Evangelist. As such, he is one of the best. . . . The emphasis on both presuppositions and verification is important; possibly even an advance over Van Til in emphasis.”[9]

The key here is that Frame sees that verification is important, but it is not what you think. For Frame, verification is possible only if the non-Christian adopts biblical presuppositions for the sake of argument, because as autonomous he rejects all legitimate standards of verification.

Gary North roundly criticizes Schaeffer.

“His books are important in some ways, and liabilities in others. They are important because a lot of people are reading them, and because some of his readers are discovering that his books are important primarily as introductions to the nature of the enemy’s thoughts and works. They are liabilities as training manuals for the battle, for they do not really answer the questions Dr. Schaeffer raises. Eventually, some readers within the select group which have made the discovery are going to discover that what answers Schaeffer does have usually come from other people - people who fail to show up in his footnotes.”[10]

This is indeed a weakness in Schaeffer.

Given all of the above criticism, much of it from Reformed colleagues, is it any wonder that Schaeffer is so mystified by what has been said about “Schaeffer’s Apologetics?” My guess is that Schaeffer’s reluctance to discuss methodology is precisely because of this type of rebuke. If you were Schaeffer, wouldn’t you be worn out by having all these guys sniping at you? Constructive criticism is one thing, but the tenor and tone are negative and certainly wearisome. It is no wonder that Schaeffer simply refused to discuss it.

3. Other criticisms

One of the areas where Schaeffer is wrong is in blaming Thomas Aquinas for most of the evils of Western Civilization. Schaeffer tends to follow CVT at this point, but is far more careless than CVT.[11] When Schaeffer discusses St. Thomas in Escape From Reason,[12] Schaeffer makes sweeping generalizations but not a single attempt is made to document his contentions, which are decidedly negative.

For Schaeffer, Thomas Aquinas has contributed greatly to the intellectual malaise of the Renaissance and Enlightenment.

“While there were good things that resulted from Renaissance thought, at the same time we are now able to see the significance of the diagram of nature and grace in a different way. While there were good results from giving nature a better place, it also opened the way for much that was destructive. In Aquinas’s view the will of man was fallen, but the intellect was not. From this incomplete view of the Biblical view of the Fall flowed subsequent difficulties. Out of this as time passed, man’s intellect was seen as autonomous.”[13]

Schaeffer adds,

“This sphere of the autonomous growing out of Aquinas takes on various forms. One result, for example, was the development of natural theology [the subjective knowledge of God derived from nature]. In this view, natural theology is a theology that could be pursued independently from the Scriptures. Aquinas certainly hoped for unity and would have said that there was a correlation between natural theology and the Scriptures. But the important point that followed was that a really autonomous area was set up.”[14]

Schaeffer raises a series of problems he has with Aquinas:

“From the basis of this autonomous principle, philosophy also became increasingly free, and was separated from revelation. Therefore philosophy began to take wings, as it were, and fly off wherever it wished, without relationship to the Scriptures.”[15]

“Nor did it remain isolated in what developed out of Thomas Aquinas's philosophic theology. Soon it began to enter the Arts.”[16] And, of course, as Schaeffer traces out the history of ideas, it will soon permeate all of culture.

Schaeffer believes that Aquinas “opened the floodgates” (to borrow a phrase from the How Then Shall We Live film series) toward the principle of man's autonomous search for knowledge. Yet, is his evaluation of St. Thomas correct?

In one place, Aquinas writes that “reason is darkened by sin, especially in practical matters. The will is hardened against the good. . . . In so far as reason has lost the way to truth, there is the wound of ignorance.”[17] I think that it is safe to say that Thomas did indeed believe that the will of fallen man and his reasoning abilities are darkened by sin and that his natural propensity is to lose the way to truth. While Thomas makes some uncomfortable statements for me as a Reformed Christian about man’s reasoning abilities after the Fall,[18] he emphatically repudiates any notion of autonomy. “Even regarding truths accessible to the reason, men need to be instructed by divine revelation, otherwise few would know them, and then only after a long time, and jumbled with errors.”[19] Men must be instructed by revelation, or forever bog down in error.

Therefore, at least in these passages, Aquinas repudiates both Schaeffer’s and CVT’s notion of the “principle of autonomy” supposedly found in his writings when he declares “truths above reason can be believed on authority alone.”[20] If there are truths above reason (i. e. “Divine”), then they can be accepted only on the authority of the creator of them. God alone stands above the mind of man, in matters both involving reason and in matters above reason. If God is to be the supreme authority in all matters above or involving reason, where does Aquinas advocate a principle of autonomy? Thomas Aquinas cannot be blamed for the current evils of Western Civilization.

In an important work, Arvin Vos, Professor of Philosophy at Western Kentucky University, himself a Reformed Christian, argues that most Protestant treatments of Aquinas are woefully deficient. Vos criticizes CVT, Schaeffer and others for failing to understand Thomas’s system of thought. Reformed Christians should read it.[21]

Another concern that I see in Schaeffer’s apologetic methodology what appears to be a pragmatic test for the truth of Christianity. On this point, I am in agreement with Kenneth C. Harper who sees in Schaeffer a very subtle, though nonetheless real tendency to identify the “Christian community [as] a self-validating expression of truth. The approach also seems to concede too much to pragmatism as a test for truth: Christianity works (in history and in the individual), therefore it is true.”[22] As you read Schaeffer’s work The Mark of a Christian, particularly the subsection “The Final Apologetic,” there is an underlying pragmatic test for truth. “Jesus here gives us the final apologetic. What is the final apologetic? `That they all may be one, as Thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us; that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.' This is the final apologetic.”[23]

Is Christianity true because of the fact that all of Jesus’s followers are one? Or is Christianity true because Jesus rose again from the dead? Is the Church of Christ effectively one? Is Christianity true if it is one? What if the Church is not unified? Schaeffer's concern for unity is indeed biblical and is important to consider. But is this really the “final apologetic”? These kinds of statements are not clear and therefore, potentially problematic.

What Can We Learn from Francis Schaeffer?

1. Before we address specifics, it would be unfair at this point to give the impression that the only issues addressed by Schaeffer were in the area of apologetics. As indicated earlier, apologetics is but one area of thought for Schaeffer (although certainly fundamental) to which he devotes great time and energy, but there are others as well. Schaeffer refuses to separate ethics from dogmatics. For Schaeffer, the critical doctrines of Christianity have inevitable consequences in the lives of the individual believer and the Church corporately. Therefore, Schaeffer seeks to include all of life under the realm of Christian doctrine. If Christianity is true, it therefore speaks to all endeavors of life. This approach to things gives Schaeffer the desire and capability of speaking to people at every stage and strata of life, from intellectuals to laborers, from church leaders to rebels from the Christian faith, from housewives to feminists.

2. The first and most important lesson which we can learn from Schaeffer is that we must be conversant with what he calls “modern man” if we are to reach our contemporaries with the gospel. All of us must have a sufficient theological base from which to do this–the Reformed system of doctrine as spelled out in our confessions and catechisms gives us exactly that. Schaeffer teaches that the cross of Christ has significant consequences and impact upon all areas of life.

3. Another very important lesson to be gleaned from Schaeffer, is that individuals have inherent dignity before their fellow creatures. Schaeffer constantly reminds us to take unbelievers seriously. They are created in the image of the living God. Even if the unbeliever is hostile to the cross of Christ, they are to be seen as one who needs God’s grace as the element to give meaning to their lives and salvation to their eternal souls. Apologetics is therefore no intramural wrestling match and should not be separated from evangelism. There are eternal consequences for this individual with which we are endeavoring to give an answer. And no matter how wrong they are, they have inherent dignity and they deserves an honest answer for an honest question.

4. And yet Schaeffer constantly reminds us of the converse of this, that unbelief is the enemy of the cross of Christ and of our faith. We must take the Scriptures seriously when they challenge us to “take every thought captive to Christ and demolish every stronghold of unbelief raised up against the knowledge of God” (2 Cor. 10:4-6). Every Christian is to work to oppose this real enemy in every endeavor of life–not only the academic. For Schaeffer, a life lived to the glory of God is in itself an apologetic of sorts. His view of the doctrine of creation is such that even the mundane things of life can and should be used as weapons against the citadels of the enemy.

5. Another significant lesson to be learned from Schaeffer is his stress on living within our presuppositions. While Schaeffer perhaps goes a bit too far with this, nevertheless, there is significance in this point. While it is not a proof for the truth of Christianity, the living out of what one believes to be true removes a hindrance from correct interpretation of already objective evidence. A Christian who manifests the Fruit of the Spirit will be patient and kind with the non-Christian. The Spirit enables us to do so with the most obnoxious of pagans, as well as giving us the boldness to oppose their anti-Christian worldviews. While this is not a proof of the truthfulness of Christianity, we do not disprove Christianity if we blow it by losing our cool or not providing a timely answer! Schaeffer reminds us that we may have to get some of the world’s dirt on our shoes if we are to make a significant impact for Christ in our culture.

6. Speaking of culture, another significant impact of Schaeffer is his insistence upon seeing the history of Western Civilization flowing largely from the prevailing world view which underlies it. Schaeffer is a big-picture sort of thinker. Therefore culture, specifically art, music, philosophy, literature, and popular culture of the mass media, will convey to us this prevailing world view. Culture is therefore the mirror of what people believe about reality. To understand what people believe, understand their culture. It is through the medium of popular culture that the apologist will find his greatest opportunity to use his apologetic tools–exposing non-Christian presuppositions, presenting evidences for the truth of Christianity (including arguments for the resurrection of Christ, and the reliability of Scripture). The truth of Christianity serves as the basis for moral absolutes. We should use the principle of antithesis and challenge unbelievers to live out their own presuppositions–we cannot allow them to make their own world and then live in it. Non-Christians live in God’s world. Schaeffer shows us how to use examples from popular culture to demonstrate to people how impossible it is for non-Christians to live within their presuppositions.

7. Of course we can learn as well from those areas where Schaeffer is perhaps careless or unclear:

a. The use of conflicting apologetic methodologies and tests for truth can be problematic.

b. Schaeffer’s sweeping generalizations and broad strokes of intellectual history undermines his efforts.

Clearly Schaeffer is a big-picture thinker and does not wish to bog down in details. But we must endeavor to be accurate about our opponent (i.e. Schaeffer’s treatment of Aquinas, for example), and clear (i.e. Schaeffer's “final apologetic”). While I understand why Schaeffer bristles when his methodology is discussed, he brings a fair bit of this down upon himself.

8. Schaeffer seems to be (when all is said and done) willing to adopt a pragmatic approach–you speak to people where they are. This is okay to a point, and is the reason for the use of multiple methods, generalizations, etc. But there is a genuine problem here. If we can have multiple tests for truth, and if we can say that Christianity is true because it meets the deepest and most intimate personal needs of man, and if we can say that our starting point is here one time and then here the next, why can’t the non-Christian do the same thing when they argue for the truth of their position? This should caution us to be careful. We should use one methodology and its test for truth, but, as Schaeffer warns us, we need to be careful in the mechanical application of that method. This is one area where we will have to work to attain balance between the use of one method, and the personal application of it in each individual encounter with an unbeliever. This will take time and practice.

9. When all is said and done, the best thing that we can say about Schaeffer is that his greatest strength is his approach and attitude toward apologetics and his concern for the needs of each non-Christian as a unique individual. His greatest weakness is his synthesis of conflicting methods and tests for truth. But no matter what conclusions we reach as to particular details, we all must acknowledge that Francis Schaeffer was truly a man who lived by the credo - “take every thought captive to Christ.” In this, he is a wonderful role model for all of us.

________________________________________________

[1] And we should certainly insist that our apologetic arguments are consistent with, and fortified by biblical theology, systematic theology and historical theology.

[2] See John 14:9 for example.

[3] As mentioned earlier, all of these apologists fancy themselves to be the correct interpreters of Van Til.

[4] Hereafter cited as “Letter,” 4.

[5] “Letter,” 8.

[6] “Letter,” 11.

[7] Cornelius Van Til, Paul at Athens (Phillipsburg: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1978), 18.

[8] “Letter,” 13.

[9] John Frame, Unpublished Class Syllabus, 58-59.

[10] North, Gary and David Chilton, “Apologetics and Strategy,” in Christianity and Civilization, No. 3 (Tyler, Tx: Geneva Divinity School Press, 1983), 118-119.

[11] Both Schaeffer and Van Til have the very annoying habit of not footnoting their sources. For example, in The Defense of the Faith, (132-139), Van Til discusses the Roman Catholic view of apologetics, yet fails to give a single primary source citation from St. Thomas. Van Til does show great knowledge of Kuyper’s work, citing numerous references in Dutch, but one wishes he had extended the same courtesy to those whom he opposes.

[12] Schaeffer, Escape From Reason, 11-12; See also CW, 209-211.

[13] CW, 210-211.

[14] CW, 210-211. Again such gross generalizations may or may not be true. On the one hand Schaeffer says that Aquinas wanted to see a unity of natural theology and Scripture, and yet on the other, he says that Aquinas set up a theology that allows man to proceed apart from Scripture. Which of these did Aquinas actually do? Schaeffer obviously implies the latter, and yet he obviously knows that Aquinas said or did no such thing. This kind of sweeping critique, done completely independently of the writings of Aquinas himself, is most unfortunate and unfair.

[15] CW, 210-211. Of course, the errors introduced by Aquinas spread to philosophy as well.

[16] CW, 210-211. The leaven of St. Thomas spread to the whole loaf! And all of the serious (and perhaps even true) critiques without a single word from St. Thomas himself.

[17] A. M. Fairweather, ed., Aquinas on Nature and Grace: Selections From the Summa Theologica of Thomas Aquinas, The Library of Christian Classics (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1964), 130.

[18] For example, see Aquinas's treatment of Romans 1:19, where he writes “there are other heights to be reached only by the skill of experts, guided by their reason: that which is known about God is manifest to them.” Cited in Thomas Aquinas; selected and translated by Thomas Gilby, St. Thomas Aquinas; Philosophical Texts (Durham; Labyrinth Press, 1982), 188.

[19] St. Thomas Aquinas; selected and translated by Thomas Gilby, St. Thomas Aquinas: Theological Texts (Durham: The Labyrinth Press, 1982), 11.

[20] Gilby, St. Thomas Aquinas: Theological Texts, 13.

[21] See Arvin Vos, Aquinas. Calvin. & Contemporary Protestant Thought (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1985).

[22] Kenneth C. Harper, in a review of William Dyrness’s book Christian Apologetics in a World Community, in the Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, Volume 27, No. 4, December 1984, 490. Harper labels Dyrness a disciple of Schaeffer.

[23] CW., Vol. 4, 189.]

[23] CW, Vol. 4, 189.

Francis SchaefferKim RiddlebargerMarch 12, 2025Schaeffer's critics4 Comments