# Francis Schaffer: Evidentialist or Presup?



## sastark (Oct 16, 2007)

Last night, we had a guest speaker (Greg Koukl of Stand to Reason) for one of my classes. He was a great guy, and I really enjoyed listening to and talking with him. But, he said one thing I had never heard before (well, he said several, but this one made me curious): he believes Francis Schaffer was an evidentialist and not a presuppositionalist. Has anyone heard this claim before? Was Schaffer an evidentialist and I have just never realized it?


----------



## ZackF (Oct 16, 2007)

sastark said:


> Last night, we had a guest speaker (Greg Koukl of Stand to Reason) for one of my classes. He was a great guy, and I really enjoyed listening to and talking with him. But, he said one thing I had never heard before (well, he said several, but this one made me curious): he believes Francis Schaffer was an evidentialist and not a presuppositionalist. Has anyone heard this claim before? Was Schaffer an evidentialist and I have just never realized it?



Kim Riddlebarger's lectures are helpful on this. Schaeffer doesn't seem to fit neatly in any category. Both Van Til and Clark were always on him about it. However, he doesn't easily fall into Evidentialism either. He is Presupevident or an Evisupper.


----------



## RamistThomist (Oct 16, 2007)

He was a compromised presuppositionalist. While Schaeffer explicitly advocated, in formal terms, the use of presuppositional reasoning, he didn't really live up to it in practice. 

Bahnsen helped out here
PA089

Bahnsen writes,


> Schaeffer does not press a choice between apostate and regenerate philosophy, but rather a choice between Hegel and the Greeks - despite the fact, that the Greeks were just as unregenerate in their theorizing and worldviews as any philosophers who have gained attention in Western history. Schaeffer's desired antithesis draws no antithesis, then, between Christianity and the world. The antithesis he wants would be acceptable to both and understood in a common fashion.



So what was he: presup or evidential? Both, I think. Norman Geisler gave an even sharper critique than Bahnsen, though I am less impressed with Geisler on this one.


----------



## sastark (Oct 16, 2007)

Hmm. Interesting. Thanks to you both.


----------



## MrMerlin777 (Oct 16, 2007)

His approach is definitely eclectic. He doesn't seem to fit into either catagory snuggly.

Either way I like his stuff.


----------



## Pilgrim (Oct 16, 2007)

MrMerlin777 said:


> His approach is definitely eclectic. He doesn't seem to fit into either catagory snuggly.
> 
> Either way I like his stuff.



From what I have read about Schaeffer, I think he primarily saw his role as being an evangelist and wasn't as consumed by what could be termed academic concerns as others were. His was a more pragmatic approach.


----------



## RamistThomist (Oct 16, 2007)

Schaeffer was very weak on philosophy, but AWESOME on social ethics. He copied and pasted RJ Rushdoony on some points, although he pulled back at points.


----------



## RamistThomist (Oct 16, 2007)

this will be fun


> “The commands of God were carried through Moses to the people in a written, propositional form. We are watching here the Scripture growing before our eyes” (2:165).
> 
> . “There is* continuity of written objective authority* all the way from the Pentateuch through the New Testament” (II: 181).
> 
> ...


----------



## ZackF (Oct 16, 2007)

sastark said:


> Last night, we had a guest speaker (Greg Koukl of Stand to Reason) for one of my classes. He was a great guy, and I really enjoyed listening to and talking with him. But, he said one thing I had never heard before (well, he said several, but this one made me curious): he believes Francis Schaffer was an evidentialist and not a presuppositionalist. Has anyone heard this claim before? Was Schaffer an evidentialist and I have just never realized it?



One more thing, Covenant Seminary has two online courses about Francis Schaeffer. They are taught by Dr. Jerram Barrs, a former L'Abri Worker and student of Schaeffer. Of course they are sympathetic to his ministry and not critiques of Schaeffer but throughout the courses Barrs often answer criticisms of Schaeffer. Schaeffer often got criticized on many different fronts in total contradiction to equally vociferous attacks from another angle.


----------



## Sebastian Heck (Dec 3, 2007)

Schaeffer was no systematician, not involved in creating an apologetical methodology - for better or worse. (See William Edgar's excellent article "Two Christian Warriors: Cornelius Van Til and Francis A. Schaeffer Compared," Westminster Theological Journal 57.1 (1995): 57-80. Edgar, now at Wstminster, studied with both Schaeffer and Van Til.)

Schaeffer has some "presuppositional" influences, but all in all is very eclectic. Sometimes he even argues like a Thomist with some kind of nature/grace-dualism: he says that unbelievers only have "one half of the orange" and the apologict must give them the other. So, the are right "as far as it goes"... Also, Schaeffer usually let human reason (natural reason) stand unchallenged and unchecked for far too long. The Bible came in very late... Only after the preparatory work of reason has been done, the evangelist can appeal to the unbeliever to repudiate his autonomy and accept the dogmatic truth of Scripture. I don' t think that works!


----------



## ReadBavinck (Dec 3, 2007)

KS_Presby said:


> Kim Riddlebarger's lectures are helpful on this.





Christ Reformed Info - MP3's and Real Audio (of Academy Lectures)


----------



## Robert Truelove (Feb 8, 2008)

I think the real issue is not what METHOD Schaeffer employed. As many have pointed out, he comes across rather eclectic. 

The issue is what was his view of epistemology as argued from a presuppositionalist or evidentialist perspective? I've always seen this as the real issue in the debate over apologetics. A presuppositionalist can use evidences as part of his defense and still be consistent and an evidentialist can use the presuppositional argument to tear down the faulty world view of the non-Christian and still be consistent. 

I use both methods depending on the situation and many times within the same conversation. As to the question of epistemology as it relates to these two schools of apologetics, I remain happily undecided.


----------



## Vytautas (Feb 8, 2008)

It would seem that evidences and arguments come under the topic of method rather than epistemology, since evidence and arguments are what the apologist employs, rather than uses to warrent his belief in Christianity. Could you explain the difference between method and epistemology Robert?


----------



## ReformedChapin (Feb 8, 2008)

He kind of mixed both systems. Just from reading his books he presents arguments for God but keeps the pressup. format by analyzing non-christian positions through the eyes of scripture.


----------



## Grymir (Feb 9, 2008)

Yea, It seems his approach was presuppositional, but his philosophy was evidential. He talked about theologians going under the line when they use the Bible in a Kierkegaard leap of faith. His epistemology (how do we know what we know) was based on the Bible, but he said it was trustworthy and the evidence backed it up. But when doing apologetical methodology, he would use the presup approach with people. To take the roof off and show there was no evidence for their clinging to non-biblical worldviews. Hope this help's - Grymir


----------



## Robert Truelove (Feb 9, 2008)

Your question seems to make you think I meant that epistemology is irrelevant to one's apologetical methodology. I didn't say that exactly. 

While there is a difference between method and epistemology in regards to apologetics, these two are fundamentally connected. 

I however, as I stated, am happily undecided (meaning I don't feel the obsessing need to force myself under the banner of presuppositionalism or evidentialism in regards to epistemology, though I employ both methods in my own apologetics). Schaeffer seems to have been in the same camp with me in this regards. He made his case without drawing epistemological/apologetical lines in the sand. 

I suppose one of the problems I have with an 'either or proposition' on the question of epistemology is that I honestly believe my indecision is due to the hunch that there is more work that needs to be done in this area. I have issues with both schools of thought in regards to the claim that either understanding has completely 'nailed down' the issue of epistemology. 

Having said that, I have a great respect for both sides of the debate (as long as they are actually employing their apologetics to defend the faith and not merely engaging in polemics over the subject).



Vytautas said:


> It would seem that evidences and arguments come under the topic of method rather than epistemology, since evidence and arguments are what the apologist employs, rather than uses to warrent his belief in Christianity. Could you explain the difference between method and epistemology Robert?


----------

