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.

To read the rest, follow the link below

Read More