# True Legacy of Francis Schaeffer.



## etexas

Firstly, I placed this under Philosophy as FS viewed himself to a certain degree, as a Christian Philosopher. (If any of you mighty Mods object my feelings will not be hurt if you do move it.) OK, my question is this Brethren: When I was new in the faith, I read a good bit of FS, his books helped me sort out a lot of things. I have not read much of his stuff in a long time, in my time as a PB member I have heard both positive things about the man as well as critical. In short I would like to explore the legacy of Schaeffer, both the positive and critical.


----------



## jogri17

read the triology, then his entire books, then read some of the books written about him by His students. In my opinion he is over rated by many fundamentalists but he provided spiritual guidance to a generation of Christians who lived during the 60's and struggled during that time. We can all thank God for the influence that He had on persons like Albert Mohler, Jack Kemp, C. Evertt Koop, Lignon Duncan, and inspiring local churches to fight liberalism in their denominations (as in the case for the southern baptists) or in the case of the Presbyterians start a new one. He was a figure many of them looked to as standing strong in a hostile world. And in my opinion that is the legacy of Schaeffer. He was not the world's greatest intellectual. He was no original philosopher nor a Jonathan Edwards, but he knew enough and had the gifts to stand up to a hostile world and stand upon the word of God as his only foundation.


----------



## Rev. Todd Ruddell

I will always remember Francis Schaeffer as an evangelist who studied the contemporary culture (especially the 'leading edges' of it) in order to be able to speak to his generation. His own testimony of this method was that of love for the unbeliever. In other words, he believed and practiced that in order to speak to unbelievers, one must love them enough to learn the language they speak, to understand the thought-forms that shaped their world view, and then patiently, lovingly, to take the roof off (expose the inconsistency) of those thought-forms and paradigms. 

I do not believe that he was logically rigorous, or always consistent in his method. I do believe his love for the unbeliever to be the most commendable portion of his "legacy".


----------



## RamistThomist

Positive: he put his money where his mouth is. He took culture seriously. Didn't retreat from the battle; took evangelism seriously.

Negatives: his son; he wasn't really a good philosopher, his apologetics isn't the strongest method.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

Read this post for a comparison between Francis Schaeffer and R.J. Rushdoony:

The Chalcedon Foundation - Faith for All of Life

Francis Schaeffer did much good, but I believe Dr. Rushdoony's legacy is much greater, as he did not avoid the "hard sayings" of Scripture, which is something that many of Francis Schaeffer's greatest admirers often do.


----------



## RamistThomist

Daniel Ritchie said:


> Read this post for a comparison between Francis Schaeffer and R.J. Rushdoony:
> 
> The Chalcedon Foundation - Faith for All of Life
> 
> Francis Schaeffer did much good, but I believe Dr. Rushdoony's legacy is much greater, as he did not avoid the "hard sayings" of Scripture, which is something that many of Francis Schaeffer's greatest admirers often do.



I thought about posting that. 


> JW: In the book, you discuss an incident at L’Abri when your father walked in on you having sex in the nude with the woman who later became your wife. He just kind of walks away from it. Some evangelicals are going to wonder, didn’t Francis Schaeffer lecture his son on premarital sex?
> 
> FS: They may shake their heads in disbelief. But my dad didn’t take a moralistic judgmental angle. If it had been a L’Abri student, he wouldn’t have said anything. It’s not that he wouldn’t express opinions on sexuality, but Dad was just not that kind of judgmental person. He had a very strong moral chord but not in terms of a church-lady kind of response to that sort of situation with a teenager.



Granted Franky moves from mixing the truth to outright lying, there might be something to the above.


----------



## py3ak

I read through the first two volumes in of the five-volume collected works set. It was mostly an exercise in patience. I did appreciate his gentle spirit in dealing with unbelievers, and some of his anecdotes were entertaining. He also had some good material on the cities of refuge. But when I got to the end of v.2 I breathed a sigh of relief and told myself I had read enough and never needed to read another line.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

py3ak said:


> I read through the first two volumes in of the five-volume collected works set. It was mostly an exercise in patience. I did appreciate his gentle spirit in dealing with unbelievers, and some of his anecdotes were entertaining. He also had some good material on the cities of refuge. But when I got to the end of v.2 I breathed a sigh of relief and told myself I had read enough and never needed to read another line.



That sounds interesting; what does he say about the cities of refugee.


----------



## py3ak

He takes them as types of Christ and had some interesting references to the Jewish practices concerning maintaining the roads leading to them, and so forth.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

py3ak said:


> He takes them as types of Christ and had some interesting references to the Jewish practices concerning maintaining the roads leading to them, and so forth.



Gary DeMar says that the cities of refugee show that it is the state's job to maintain the roads. I agree.


----------



## py3ak

I don't think Schaeffer was making any points concerning the _civil_ application of the cities of refuge.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

py3ak said:


> I don't think Schaeffer was making any points concerning the _civil_ application of the cities of refuge.



That figures. Gary North once said that although Francis Schaeffer wrote a book entitled _How Shall We Then Live?_, the only problem was that he never really answered the question himself.


----------



## py3ak

Well, in the interests of full disclosure, when I prepared a sermon on the cities of refuge I also neglected to mention any civil application, taking those passages in their redemptive-historical application. That was where I particularly appreciated Schaeffer's remarks about how the cities of refuge though typifying Christ very remarkably, nonetheless fall far short of exhausting the reality.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

py3ak said:


> Well, in the interests of full disclosure, when I prepared a sermon on the cities of refuge I also neglected to mention any civil application, taking those passages in their redemptive-historical application. That was where I particularly appreciated Schaeffer's remarks about how the cities of refuge though typifying Christ very remarkably, nonetheless fall far short of exhausting the reality.



I think Greg Bahnsen and Ken Gentry argue that cities of refugee are not for today. Don't know why though? I think they would argue that the law just grants protection to manslayers nowadays.


----------



## Narnian

I would say if you want to read Francis Schaeffer you might be better off reading _Total Truth_ by Nancy Pearcy. I believe she takes much of what Schaeffer said and puts it into a more structured presentation. She adds rigor that is missing in Schaeffer'sooks.


----------



## jwithnell

It is difficult to take Mr. Schaeffer outside of the context of L'Abri and evangelism -- radical hospitality was at the core of what he was about and bringing "honest answers to honest questions."

After reading a lot of philosophy, and many liberal and neo-orthodox theologians, I was introduced to the Schaeffer books and came to Christ as a result. He brought God's truth to the questions that had been surging in me, and did so in a straight-forward way that was neither condescending nor making things "intellectual" by twisting God's truth into nebulous, complicated extremes (my take on folks like Martin Buber).

We incorporated the _How Should We Then Live_ book and film series into our home schooling one year, and re-watched _Whatever Happened to the Human Race._ Although some of the examples might have seemed dated, the guy was right on. It is almost eerie to see how society marched down the paths he warned were coming.


----------



## RamistThomist

Schaeffer borrowed from Rushdoony and Van Til and didn't quote his sources.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

Ivanhoe said:


> Schaeffer borrowed from Rushdoony and Van Til and didn't quote his sources.



I remember hearing that this was because his works were not scholarly, though I think Gary North has another take on it.


----------



## DMcFadden

Post #2 and #4 capture my attitude on FS. However, there will always be a great fondness in my heart for him and for his impact. I was a teenager when his books began to tumble out into the evangelical world in the late 60s. _Escape from Reason_ was used mightily in my life to help me see the need for having a Christian worldview. It was instrumental in my attending an evangelical Christian college to "learn more" about how our faith can stand up against the assaults of this world. 

Regardless of his faults, I will also remember him with fondness for his willingness to engage the culture on its own terms, for his contention that Christianity is a reasonable coherent and consistent faith, and for his quixotic tilting at windmills for a heavenly cause.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot

For me the highlight of his legacy is his approach to the arts, as an outworking of the creativity impressed upon man made in the image of the Creator. 

I'm looking forward to this book coming out soon:

http://www.puritanboard.com/f29/francis-schaeffer-authentic-life-colin-duriez-31374/


----------



## etexas

jogri17 said:


> read the triology, then his entire books, then read some of the books written about him by His students. In my opinion he is over rated by many fundamentalists but he provided spiritual guidance to a generation of Christians who lived during the 60's and struggled during that time. We can all thank God for the influence that He had on persons like Albert Mohler, Jack Kemp, C. Evertt Koop, Lignon Duncan, and inspiring local churches to fight liberalism in their denominations (as in the case for the southern baptists) or in the case of the Presbyterians start a new one. He was a figure many of them looked to as standing strong in a hostile world. And in my opinion that is the legacy of Schaeffer. He was not the world's greatest intellectual. He was no original philosopher nor a Jonathan Edwards, but he knew enough and had the gifts to stand up to a hostile world and stand upon the word of God as his only foundation.


This brings about another question for me: Schaeffer was MUCH admired by Fundamentalist, in point of fact more than a few of his detractors have called FS a Fundamentalist in his own right. What was this "love affair" the Fundamentalist had with Schaeffer, and is there any fairness in the Fundamentalist label which some attached to FS?


----------



## RamistThomist

etexas said:


> jogri17 said:
> 
> 
> 
> read the triology, then his entire books, then read some of the books written about him by His students. In my opinion he is over rated by many fundamentalists but he provided spiritual guidance to a generation of Christians who lived during the 60's and struggled during that time. We can all thank God for the influence that He had on persons like Albert Mohler, Jack Kemp, C. Evertt Koop, Lignon Duncan, and inspiring local churches to fight liberalism in their denominations (as in the case for the southern baptists) or in the case of the Presbyterians start a new one. He was a figure many of them looked to as standing strong in a hostile world. And in my opinion that is the legacy of Schaeffer. He was not the world's greatest intellectual. He was no original philosopher nor a Jonathan Edwards, but he knew enough and had the gifts to stand up to a hostile world and stand upon the word of God as his only foundation.
> 
> 
> 
> This brings about another question for me: Schaeffer was MUCH admired by Fundamentalist, in point of fact more than a few of his detractors have called FS a Fundamentalist in his own right. What was this "love affair" the Fundamentalist had with Schaeffer, and is there any fairness in the Fundamentalist label which some attached to FS?
Click to expand...


Schaeffer belonged to an explicitly fundamentalist denomination that reared itself as an alternative to more historically Reformed presbyterian churches.


----------



## RamistThomist

Daniel Ritchie said:


> Ivanhoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> Schaeffer borrowed from Rushdoony and Van Til and didn't quote his sources.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I remember hearing that this was because his works were not scholarly, though I think Gary North has another take on it.
Click to expand...


Rush is far more scholarly. The reason he didn't quote Rush, according to Gary North, is ithat quoting Rush would have been ecclesiastical and political suicide for Schaeffer. And he's right. Reformed institutions will look at you with suspicion at best if you quote Rush, and __________ at worst.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

Ivanhoe said:


> Daniel Ritchie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ivanhoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> Schaeffer borrowed from Rushdoony and Van Til and didn't quote his sources.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I remember hearing that this was because his works were not scholarly, though I think Gary North has another take on it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Rush is far more scholarly. The reason he didn't quote Rush, according to Gary North, is ithat quoting Rush would have been ecclesiastical and political suicide for Schaeffer. And he's right. Reformed institutions will look at you with suspicion at best if you quote Rush, and __________ at worst.
Click to expand...


Yes, I was surprised even to hear Doug Kelly quote Rush in a lecture on RTS iTunes (it was one about Christology, and he was quoting Rush to show how the denial of Christ's deity leads to Statism).

I fear for the churches and institutions which have shunned such prophetic voices as Rush and Greg Bahnsen in favour of the disastrous ethics of humanism.


----------



## etexas

Ivanhoe said:


> Daniel Ritchie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ivanhoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> Schaeffer borrowed from Rushdoony and Van Til and didn't quote his sources.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I remember hearing that this was because his works were not scholarly, though I think Gary North has another take on it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Rush is far more scholarly. The reason he didn't quote Rush, according to Gary North, is ithat quoting Rush would have been ecclesiastical and political suicide for Schaeffer. And he's right. Reformed institutions will look at you with suspicion at best if you quote Rush, and __________ at worst.
Click to expand...

 How so?


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

etexas said:


> Ivanhoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daniel Ritchie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I remember hearing that this was because his works were not scholarly, though I think Gary North has another take on it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rush is far more scholarly. The reason he didn't quote Rush, according to Gary North, is ithat quoting Rush would have been ecclesiastical and political suicide for Schaeffer. And he's right. Reformed institutions will look at you with suspicion at best if you quote Rush, and __________ at worst.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How so?
Click to expand...


They are afraid you might start advocating EXPLICITLY BIBLICAL solutions to social problems. I am amazed to hear Presbyterians, every time you quote an OT text and apply it to modern society, say "that was only for Israel as a Theocracy". Little wonder the Reformed remain on the back of the cultural bus; that is exactly where they want to be.


----------



## RamistThomist

etexas said:


> Ivanhoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daniel Ritchie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I remember hearing that this was because his works were not scholarly, though I think Gary North has another take on it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rush is far more scholarly. The reason he didn't quote Rush, according to Gary North, is ithat quoting Rush would have been ecclesiastical and political suicide for Schaeffer. And he's right. Reformed institutions will look at you with suspicion at best if you quote Rush, and __________ at worst.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How so?
Click to expand...


Little more specific?

Schaeffer isn't a scholar. He made no pretense at being one. Rush is. Rush has written over fifty books in 40 years. His books, a few exceptions here and there, have footnotes from a wide range of material, follow a rigorous logic (even when faulty) and demonstrate a competent grasp of history and philosophy. 

Schaeffer was arguing with hippies. I am not being flippant. He is a good guy. He was the first "apologist" I read, then I found Bahnsen and Van til. 

Schaeffer is like a .22 pistol. A good gun. I like .22s.

Rush is like a .45. A little harder to handle, but bringing more power.

Please, I write this with respect to Schaeffer.


----------



## etexas

Ivanhoe said:


> etexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ivanhoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rush is far more scholarly. The reason he didn't quote Rush, according to Gary North, is ithat quoting Rush would have been ecclesiastical and political suicide for Schaeffer. And he's right. Reformed institutions will look at you with suspicion at best if you quote Rush, and __________ at worst.
> 
> 
> 
> How so?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Little more specific?
> 
> Schaeffer isn't a scholar. He made no pretense at being one. Rush is. Rush has written over fifty books in 40 years. His books, a few exceptions here and there, have footnotes from a wide range of material, follow a rigorous logic (even when faulty) and demonstrate a competent grasp of history and philosophy.
> 
> Schaeffer was arguing with hippies. I am not being flippant. He is a good guy. He was the first "apologist" I read, then I found Bahnsen and Van til.
> 
> Schaeffer is like a .22 pistol. A good gun. I like .22s.
> 
> Rush is like a .45. A little harder to handle, but bringing more power.
> 
> Please, I write this with respect to Schaeffer.
Click to expand...

THank you! That helps! I rather like the pistol caliber analogy!


----------



## HaigLaw

Ivanhoe said:


> Granted Franky moves from mixing the truth to outright lying, there might be something to the above.



What was your point in quoting this excerpt from the Whitehead interview of Franky?


----------



## RamistThomist

HaigLaw said:


> Ivanhoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> Granted Franky moves from mixing the truth to outright lying, there might be something to the above.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What was your point in quoting this excerpt from the Whitehead interview of Franky?
Click to expand...


Again, I am not trying to smear Schaeffer. And when I originally read that Franky hadn't made his more outlandish statements. But I am in an environment that is tempted to make Schaeffer do more than he could. Of course, equally bad things could be said of Bahnsen and Rushdoony. I don't doubt that. Anyway, this is more of a black mark on Franky than it is on Francis.


----------



## HaigLaw

As a brand new Christian, I visited L'Abri in June 1969 and listened to a lot of Dr. Schaeffer's tapes. I didn't understand a thing of his philosophy then. The only thing I understood then was a tape from his wife Edith from her book _Tapestries_. She talked about how God weaves the tapestry of our lives, and we see it like a confused twisting of threads from the back, but He sees it as the beautiful picture He's weaving from the front.

During the 70's I read his _How Shall We Then Live_, and others and began to understand him more, and appreciate his outreach to my generation, which was burned out on existentialism. Whether he was a great philosopher or not, he reached out to people who were victims of philosophies like existentialism. 

I discovered the Reformed Faith in 1976 and by the early 80's was beginning to have some trouble with Schaeffer, in regards to him not being as consistent and as Reformed as people like Rushdoony. I remember him appearing on the _700 Club,_ probably in 1983 or 1984, and telling Pat Robertson he didn't believe in any kind of theocracy, and that the civil magistrate did not have any jurisdiction over the first table of the law. Somehow, and I don't remember why, I took this as a backhanded slap against Rushdoony. At Fran Schaeffer's last rally in Dallas in 1984 or 1985, I confronted him about that and gave him Rush's definition of "theocracy" and asked him what his definition was. It was something about the church running the state, as I recall. And I asked him whether there was any Biblical support for his notion that the civil magistrate had no jurisdiction over the first table. He cited references from his books, but no scripture, obviously. And his views on pluralism.


----------



## etexas




----------



## HaigLaw

Ivanhoe said:


> Again, I am not trying to smear Schaeffer. And when I originally read that Franky hadn't made his more outlandish statements. But I am in an environment that is tempted to make Schaeffer do more than he could. Of course, equally bad things could be said of Bahnsen and Rushdoony. I don't doubt that. Anyway, this is more of a black mark on Franky than it is on Francis.



I'm not sure it's either. I read that entire interview by Whitehead, and I think I've already summarized it here somewhere on PB, so I'll just say now that I think the point Franky was making with that vignette was simply that his dad was very human, and he and his dad both knew they were sinners.

I did not get the take that this quote implies without any context, which is, that Fran Schaeffer was soft on sin. I don't think that was Franky's point, and I don't think that was true of Fran. 

It is par for the course, for a kiss and tell book. I think that's about all you can make of that vignette. There is some good to the book, but as I say, I've already commented on that, and will not repeat that.


----------



## jwithnell

I'm not sure I understand what's meant about Mr. Schaeffer coming out of a fundamentalist denomination -- he was at Covenant church in St. Louis, which is now part of the PCA. One of the current L'Abri leaders holds a degree from Westminster. I didn't know the reformed connections until after I joined the PCA: when I started looking for a church as a new believer, I tried to find one that was in agreement with Mr. Schaeffer, and am extremely grateful that the Lord placed me under excellent reformed teaching.

I'm also a little puzzled about claims of poor scholarship where Mr. Schaeffer intersected with others. While he liked to push people to their logical conclusions, it didn't seem to have the same flavor as the fully presuppositional approach taught by Mr. Van Til. In fact, I've puzzled over Mr. Schaeffer's apologetics because they don't seem to entirely square with any other approach. Also, the idea that we must develop a thoroughly Christian world and life view certainly didn't originate in the mid-20th century. I think he was being consistent with the whole stream of reformed thinking, particularly in his call to Christians to take on the political side of life to the shame of those churches in the 50s and 60s who were willing to abandon the state to the secularists.


----------



## DMcFadden

See this site for free courses on Francis Schaeffer and his legacy. The first one deals with his early years and the second his later years.

Covenant Worldwide -- Francis A. Schaeffer: The Early Years

Covenant Worldwide -- Francis A. Schaeffer: The Later Years

Schaeffer only spent two years at WTS, where he studied under Van Til.



> In 1937, Schaeffer transferred to Faith Theological Seminary, graduating in 1938. This seminary was newly formed as a result of a split in the Presbyterian Church of America (now the Orthodox Presbyterian Church) and the Bible Presbyterian Church, a Presbyterian denomination more identified with Fundamentalist Christianity and premillennialism. Schaeffer was the first student to graduate and the first to be ordained in the Bible Presbyterian Church.



The Faith Seminary connection would stick to him like glue in some circles. When I was a seminarian, Jack Rogers had a case study on Schaeffer to show what a fundy he was. It devoted itself to every little squabble Schaeffer had with anyone back in his early years prior to L'Abri.


----------



## jwithnell

That is interesting. I was aware of the split, but not aware of where Mr. Schaeffer was in all this.


----------



## RamistThomist

jwithnell said:


> I'm not sure I understand what's meant about Mr. Schaeffer coming out of a fundamentalist denomination -- he was at Covenant church in St. Louis, which is now part of the PCA. One of the current L'Abri leaders holds a degree from Westminster. I didn't know the reformed connections until after I joined the PCA: when I started looking for a church as a new believer, I tried to find one that was in agreement with Mr. Schaeffer, and am extremely grateful that the Lord placed me under excellent reformed teaching.



Schaeffer was an early leader in the Bible Presbyterian Church, a Fundamentalist denomination.



> I'm also a little puzzled about claims of poor scholarship where Mr. Schaeffer intersected with others. While he liked to push people to their logical conclusions, it didn't seem to have the same flavor as the fully presuppositional approach taught by Mr. Van Til.



I don't think I said poor scholarship. I said he wasn't as rigorous as Van Til or Rushdoony. Read _Christian Manifesto_. He almost quotes verbatim from Rushdoony but sees where Rush's (and Samuel Rutherford's) conclusions leads and pulls back--which is why the book, for all its good points, is a muted trumpet.

]QUOTE]In fact, I've puzzled over Mr. Schaeffer's apologetics because they don't seem to entirely square with any other approach.[/QUOTE]

That's part of the weakness to it. He defines neutrality in a way that gets Greek paganism off of the hook. 


> Also, the idea that we must develop a thoroughly Christian world and life view certainly didn't originate in the mid-20th century.



I know. Bavinck or Kuyper on that one



> I think he was being consistent with the whole stream of reformed thinking, particularly in his call to Christians to take on the political side of life to the shame of those churches in the 50s and 60s who were willing to abandon the state to the secularists.



He wasn't consistent with his Reformed approach. See how many times he mentioned predestination. I think the failures of the religious right can be contributed to his work. He misdefined theocracy. He merely wanted a place at the table when he should have declared the Table belonging to King Jesus. That is why Evangelicals today can talk about a "Christian voice" in politics but really haven't done anything about it. 

Again, I really don't like saying this since he was a great leader.


----------



## Grymir

Hi Etexas. Sorry it's taken so long for me to post, I would of done it earlier in the discussion, but I've been camping with my wife for 3 wonderful days.

Francis Schaeffer is great! He can tie the strands of philosophical thought like no one else and apply them to the church's thought. Of course he sounds like Rush (not Limbaugh) because he studied under Van Til. DMcFaddens links are a great study. (Mega Ditto's DMc!!) His How Now Shall We Live is a wonderful study of Art, Culture, and Philosophy that should be viewed by all!! I've even used it as a class in my church. Even in PCUSA, they were hungry for it and ate it all up. Don't worry about what Franky Schaffer is saying. Everyone has issues, and Franky seems to have a boatload. (To cut down someones work because of moral character is a logical fallicy. Franky should have listen to his father more ((God and Francis )) ) Francis shines in taking advanced thoughts and ideas and bringing them down to a level that most can read. 

His legacy will be good. Time will be good to him.


----------



## bookslover

Os Guinness, who knew Francis Schaeffer well, takes down Schaeffer's son here: Fathers and Sons - Books & Culture


----------



## calgal

When did Francis Schaeffer move to the RPCES and is Franky agnostic now?  curious minds want to know...


----------



## DMcFadden

Frank claims to affiliate with the orthodox communion, I believe.


----------



## christiana

Back in the 70s while working as a Visiting Nurse I attended a workshop where a video was shown. I believe it was How Should We Then Live. The video remains in my mind as a stunning reminder of the horrors of abortion. One scene showed thousands and thousands of baby dolls washing up on the beach! It stuck as an image of the great damage done in our country daily. The workshop was a joint effort of Francis Schaeffer and C. Everett Koop way before Dr. Koop ever became our Surgeon General. I also read many of Francis Schaeffer's books and though some were very deep they made lasting impact. I still have a video marketed by Coral Ridge Ministries with Francis Schaeffer speaking. I will watch it again soon to recall his message! A friend of mine went to L'Abri and I always had a longing to go there but it never took place! I loved reading about L'Abri and the impact of Francis Schaeffer's efforts to call our country to attention to its coming dark days, in which we live even now!!


----------



## MrMerlin777

calgal said:


> When did Francis Schaeffer move to the RPCES and is Franky agnostic now?  curious minds want to know...



The RPCES formed out of the BPC. 

Franky is now Eastern Orthodox and has been for some time.


----------



## Ivan

Grymir said:


> Francis Schaeffer is great!...His legacy will be good. Time will be good to him.



Amen! I am indebted to him.


----------



## JohnV

I am greatly indebted to Schaeffer. For me his books, especially The God Who IsThere and He Is There And He Is Not Silent, were crucial at the time. They are still so to this day.


----------



## MrMerlin777

JohnV said:


> I am greatly indebted to Schaeffer. For me his books, especially The God Who IsThere and He Is There And He Is Not Silent, were crucial at the time. They are still so to this day.



Indeed, they are the same for me.


----------



## christiana

The video I had is A Christian Manifesto and it was rather frightening to watch it again. I did find the transcript online here:

Francis Schaeffer, A Christian Manifesto

The address was in 1982 when Dr. Schaeffer was 70 yrs old. He makes a very forceful plea to christians regarding the dangers of humanism which have now taken the schools as he had warned and also in the medical practice where humanism is the measure of all things! Its is plain to see how very in tune he was with what he saw coming and in the passivity of christians in upholding our Creator God and His rights to all of life!


----------



## Ivan

christiana said:


> The video I had is A Christian Manifesto and it was rather frightening to watch it again. I did find the transcript online here:
> 
> Francis Schaeffer, A Christian Manifesto
> 
> The address was in 1982 when Dr. Schaeffer was 70 yrs old. He makes a very forceful plea to christians regarding the dangers of humanism which have now taken the schools as he had warned and also in the medical practice where humanism is the measure of all things! Its is plain to see how very in tune he was with what he saw coming and in the passivity of christians in upholding our Creator God and His rights to all of life!



He was a prophet without promoting himself as one. My pastor while I was in college was an admirer of Dr. Schaeffer. He has noted many times Francis Schaeffer's foresight.


----------



## Josiah

calgal said:


> When did Francis Schaeffer move to the RPCES and is Franky agnostic now?  curious minds want to know...



I believe in 1956 Schaeffer stayed with the BPC (Columbus Synod), when the BPC (Collingswood Synod) broke away. There he continued as that group took on the name the Evangelical Presbyterian Church in 1961, until that particular body merged with the Reformed Presbyterian Church General Synod in 1964, to become the RPCES. 

I think that is correct.


----------



## christiana

Ivan said:


> christiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> The video I had is A Christian Manifesto and it was rather frightening to watch it again. I did find the transcript online here:
> 
> Francis Schaeffer, A Christian Manifesto
> 
> The address was in 1982 when Dr. Schaeffer was 70 yrs old. He makes a very forceful plea to christians regarding the dangers of humanism which have now taken the schools as he had warned and also in the medical practice where humanism is the measure of all things! Its is plain to see how very in tune he was with what he saw coming and in the passivity of christians in upholding our Creator God and His rights to all of life!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He was a prophet without promoting himself as one. My pastor while I was in college was an admirer of Dr. Schaeffer. He has noted many times Francis Schaeffer's foresight.
Click to expand...


Foresight is definitely a good way of saying that he definitely saw clearly what was ahead for us! What is so terribly said is the truth of his say 'We are all just stupid' for not declaring our rights and following our Creator God, rather that sliding on down the slipery slope! As he said, 'Where were the lawyers, the doctors the leaders that failed to speak up and stop this encroaching humanism that now has put life in the hands of evil men in power'. He was so right about all he said!
The video in my first post on this thread was 'Whatever Happened to the Human Race?'. I was unable to edit and correct for some reason.
Scary is the thought of once abortion was approved then all life is at risk! To me as one who is older and has had experience in hospitals, nursing homes and private homes with nursing I know the dangers that are up close and personal! To me all medical care and hospital stays are risky! The value of life is of no consequence when one ceases to follow the one true God and His values!


----------



## RamistThomist

He predicted the coming collapse, but given his denial of theocracy he didn't have a plausible alternative.


----------



## Zenas

> 'Where were the lawyers, the doctors the leaders that failed to speak up and stop this encroaching humanism that now has put life in the hands of evil men in power'.



To our credit, there are groups of lawyers who are fighting the encroaching humanism. It seems like it's more of a battle to regain lost ground than it is to hold what we have though. 

You know, some of you smarty-pants on here are vastly more intelligent and able than I, come join the battle.


----------



## bookslover

MrMerlin777 said:


> Franky is now Eastern Orthodox and has been for some time.



And he once claimed that, if his father were still alive, he, too, would be Eastern Orthodox - which I think is a complete crock.


----------



## JohnV

I'm not sure that a lagacy is what we should be talking about when it comes to F.A. Schaeffer. I suppose that his real legacy is L'Abri itself. But he made sure that L'Abri didn't depend upon his own ideas or philosophy. Whatever else may have been thought, the truth of the Word was supposed to be the foundation.

It may be that his son shows various kinds of indiscretions and a lack of wisdom; and it may be that we might have various weaknesses in his character or views pointed out to us; and it may be that he doesn't overtly identify with other men we would like to see him tied to; but for all the things that have been said about him, nothing takes anything away from the truths he brought to the unique culture of his time. And these transcend that culture if they are indeed true. And that is exactly what we find to be the case. 

I don't think we should be pointing to Schaeffer's legacy, for I would tend to think that he himself wouldn't approve of that. For him, as for us, it should be the objective truths of the Word that continue on, himself doing his best at being a mere servant of it. As we should also.


----------



## bookslover

JohnV said:


> It may be that his son shows various kinds of indiscretions and a lack of wisdom...



Poor Franky. He'll be 56 years old in August, and is still trying to figure out what he wants to be when he grows up. A problem all too common with children of famous parents.

Meanwhile, Schaeffer's widow, Edith, will be 94 some time this year.


----------



## R Harris

Ivanhoe said:


> He predicted the coming collapse, but given his denial of theocracy he didn't have a plausible alternative.



Exactly. He had the same problem that Van Til had; oddly, they never could come to grasp the implications of what they were saying and what their teachings should logically lead to.

Those same problems still plagued conservative Presbyterianism and evangelicalism today. Somehow, they all seem to think (with Chuck Colson being a primary example) that some sort of compromise with the world on political, cultural, and social issues is still possible. As long as they maintain this position, no real hope for change is possible.

I often have wondered why Van Til and Schaeffer did not come to the same conclusions that RJR and other theonomists/reconstructionists/national confessionalists did. Was it fear? Was it uncertainty? Was it "respectability"? Maybe someone else can answer, but I don't know.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

I am speaking into the dark here but I think the reason more people are not theonomists and/or Christian Reconstructionists is a bit of fear of a loss of respectability and admiration in the academy and among unbelieving friends.

I also think the same fear keeps many from accepting a 6/24 reading Gen 1-2:4a...


----------



## etexas

JohnV said:


> I'm not sure that a lagacy is what we should be talking about when it comes to F.A. Schaeffer. I suppose that his real legacy is L'Abri itself. But he made sure that L'Abri didn't depend upon his own ideas or philosophy. Whatever else may have been thought, the truth of the Word was supposed to be the foundation.
> 
> It may be that his son shows various kinds of indiscretions and a lack of wisdom; and it may be that we might have various weaknesses in his character or views pointed out to us; and it may be that he doesn't overtly identify with other men we would like to see him tied to; but for all the things that have been said about him, nothing takes anything away from the truths he brought to the unique culture of his time. And these transcend that culture if they are indeed true. And that is exactly what we find to be the case.
> 
> I don't think we should be pointing to Schaeffer's legacy, for I would tend to think that he himself wouldn't approve of that. For him, as for us, it should be the objective truths of the Word that continue on, himself doing his best at being a mere servant of it. As we should also.


I understand what you are saying my Brother, I think if you read my OP you will see my intent was not to create a Cult of Francis, this threads intent is to examine his legacy (books, writings, lectures) and create a balanced view, this is to take it all in "warts and all" and see how the Lord used him in our lives. Blessings.


----------



## RamistThomist

R Harris said:


> Ivanhoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> He predicted the coming collapse, but given his denial of theocracy he didn't have a plausible alternative.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly. He had the same problem that Van Til had; oddly, they never could come to grasp the implications of what they were saying and what their teachings should logically lead to.
> 
> Those same problems still plagued conservative Presbyterianism and evangelicalism today. Somehow, they all seem to think (with Chuck Colson being a primary example) that some sort of compromise with the world on political, cultural, and social issues is still possible. As long as they maintain this position, no real hope for change is possible.
> 
> I often have wondered why Van Til and Schaeffer did not come to the same conclusions that RJR and other theonomists/reconstructionists/national confessionalists did. Was it fear? Was it uncertainty? Was it "respectability"? Maybe someone else can answer, but I don't know.
Click to expand...


Chuck Colson is the best negative proof for CR.


----------



## JohnV

etexas said:


> JohnV said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure that a lagacy is what we should be talking about when it comes to F.A. Schaeffer. I suppose that his real legacy is L'Abri itself. But he made sure that L'Abri didn't depend upon his own ideas or philosophy. Whatever else may have been thought, the truth of the Word was supposed to be the foundation.
> 
> It may be that his son shows various kinds of indiscretions and a lack of wisdom; and it may be that we might have various weaknesses in his character or views pointed out to us; and it may be that he doesn't overtly identify with other men we would like to see him tied to; but for all the things that have been said about him, nothing takes anything away from the truths he brought to the unique culture of his time. And these transcend that culture if they are indeed true. And that is exactly what we find to be the case.
> 
> I don't think we should be pointing to Schaeffer's legacy, for I would tend to think that he himself wouldn't approve of that. For him, as for us, it should be the objective truths of the Word that continue on, himself doing his best at being a mere servant of it. As we should also.
> 
> 
> 
> I understand what you are saying my Brother, I think if you read my OP you will see my intent was not to create a Cult of Francis, this threads intent is to examine his legacy (books, writings, lectures) and create a balanced view, this is to take it all in "warts and all" and see how the Lord used him in our lives. Blessings.
Click to expand...



I guess I'm looking at what Schaeffer was pointing to, not at Schaeffer himself. He could only give to us his own limited views and understanding of that bigger beauty he beheld, and it is to that bigger beauty that I too gaze. Just like Calvin pointed us to something bigger than himself; and Augustine before him. I was thinking that if we don't look in the direction that they were pointing then we're really looking at the wrong thing. If we're looking at the men, as if their teachings were limited to their own views, then we haven't really understood their teachings. 

I think that this more than anything else is what I've gotten from Schaeffer, by his example and his teaching. 

And...

My best wishes go out to Mrs. Schaeffer. Apparently I just missed her when I was at L'Abri in Southborough.


----------



## yeutter

*Legacy*

Back in 1970, when I was a freshman at Michigan State University it was hard to find Christian critques of modern thought. Gordon Clark's treatment of Dewey and Barth filled that void for me. Schaeffer filled that void for many of my peers. I liked much of what he said but thought, and still think, his critique of Aquinas was wrong. 

Schaeffer's most lasting legacy may be showing young Christians that Christianity is not just intellectually respectable but is really the only intellectually honest view to hold.


----------



## MrMerlin777

bookslover said:


> MrMerlin777 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Franky is now Eastern Orthodox and has been for some time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And he once claimed that, if his father were still alive, he, too, would be Eastern Orthodox - which I think is a complete crock.
Click to expand...



Yeah, I think Franky has completely missed the boat on that one. I understand to some extent why he would say it but, in my opinion it shows a lack of understanding on Franky's part. (Many a son has missunderstood their dad, I know from experience.)


----------

