# Is utilizing Franky Schaeffer "Hitting below the belt?"



## RamistThomist (May 27, 2014)

I am writing a monograph on Eastern Orthdoxy and I am going to deal with some of the "conversion claims." The most notorious convertskii is Franky Schaeffer. It appears that Schaeffer has since abandoned any form of theism. On the other hand, he was one of the loudest convertskii. Is it fair to use his works in this regard?


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (May 27, 2014)

Baroque Norseman said:


> It appears that Schaeffer has since abandoned any form of theism.



Doesn't this alone prove a bitterness that would tend to paint white as black? I hadn't heard that Franky had totally apostatized. Can you direct us to the claims?


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (May 27, 2014)

I'd be interested in seeing that monograph, Jacob.


----------



## RamistThomist (May 27, 2014)

PuritanCovenanter said:


> Baroque Norseman said:
> 
> 
> > It appears that Schaeffer has since abandoned any form of theism.
> ...



His recent autobiograhy _Wacky for God_ or something like that. It was also in Huffington Post last year


----------



## The Baptist (May 27, 2014)

http://www.frankschaeffer.com/

I think this says enough. An Atheist who believes in God? Hmmm... It's fun to make up your own reality.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (May 27, 2014)

Baroque Norseman said:


> I am writing a monograph on Eastern Orthdoxy and I am going to deal with some of the "conversion claims." The most notorious convertskii is Franky Schaeffer. It appears that Schaeffer has since abandoned any form of theism. On the other hand, he was one of the loudest convertskii. Is it fair to use his works in this regard?



I would tend to avoid doing so, because discussing Franky will only distract from your main thesis. There are plenty of professed Calvinists who subsequently became atheists, so I do not know what highlighting Franky's apostasy will add to your argument against Eastern Orthodoxy.


----------



## RamistThomist (May 27, 2014)

^^That's what I thought, too. I had even asked a leading EO apologist about Schaeffer and he concurred. Recently, though, said same apologist was touting Schaeffer. I asked--but did not receive an answer--if that included atheist-phase Schaeffer.


----------



## py3ak (May 27, 2014)

If they use him to point out the problems in Protestantism, then he's relevant. Otherwise I think it'd be in better taste to leave him out. The anti-EO polemic would be true regardless of what FS did or does.


----------



## RamistThomist (May 27, 2014)

py3ak said:


> If they use him to point out the problems in Protestantism, then he's relevant. Otherwise I think it'd be in better taste to leave him out. The anti-EO polemic would be true regardless of what FS did or does.



Well said. If the sources I use (Clark Carlton, Matthew Gallatin) point to Franky as a reliable source, then I will reference him. If not, then not.


----------



## Wayne (May 27, 2014)

It was my understanding that Frank was not well received in EO circles, all touting aside.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (May 31, 2014)

Jacob, the religious historian Professor Brian Stanley (University of Edinburgh) has a discussion of Franky Schaeffer and the phenomenon of conversions to Eastern Orthodoxy in the concluding chapter to _The Global Diffusion of Evangelicalism: The Age of Billy Graham and John Stott _(IVP, 2003), pp 239-43. 

In both my personal and professional opinion, I think that you should refer to this book in order to highlight the importance of what you are writing about in your monograph. Besides, even without the material on Eastern Orthodoxy, I cannot recommend the book highly enough.


----------



## RamistThomist (May 31, 2014)

Reformed Covenanter said:


> Jacob, the religious historian Professor Brian Stanley (University of Edinburgh) has a discussion of Franky Schaeffer and the phenomenon of conversions to Eastern Orthodoxy in the concluding chapter to _The Global Diffusion of Evangelicalism: The Age of Billy Graham and John Stott _(IVP, 2003), pp 239-43.
> 
> In both my personal and professional opinion, I think that you should refer to this book in order to highlight the importance of what you are writing about in your monograph. Besides, even without the material on Eastern Orthodoxy, I cannot recommend the book highly enough.



Will do. Thanks.


----------

