010818by admin
The God Who Is There Schaeffer Ebook Library
For over thirty years The God Who Is There has been the landmark book that changed the way the church sees the world. In Francis Schaeffer's remarkable analysis, we learn where the clashing ideas about God, science, history and art came from and where they are going. Now this completely retypeset edition includes a new introduction by James W. Sire that places Schaeffer's s For over thirty years The God Who Is There has been the landmark book that changed the way the church sees the world. In Francis Schaeffer's remarkable analysis, we learn where the clashing ideas about God, science, history and art came from and where they are going. Now this completely retypeset edition includes a new introduction by James W.
Sire that places Schaeffer's seminal work in the context of the intellectual turbulence of the early twenty-first century. More than ever, The God Who Is There demonstrates how historic Christianity can fearlessly confront the competing philosophies of the world. The God who has always been there continues to provide the anchor of truth and the power of love to meet the world's deepest problems. I first read this book in 2002 and it was the primer that got me into apologetics and philosophy. (Unfortunately, it is better labeled 'Apologetics for Fluffy Evangelicals').
Schaeffer argues that there is a philosophical struggle between the people of God and the secular humanists. In the sermon version of the book, Schaeffer defines secular humanism as the worldview where 'man is the measure of all things'. He claims that critics of the Christian right miss the mark by confusing the 'humanist.
From Schaeffer I moved to James Sire; from Sire to Douglas Groothuis, and from Groothuis to Cornelius Van Til. The book is quite exciting for the reader actually believes he will take these arguments and reclaim culture for Christ.
Schaeffer offers a stirring vision on how the loss of God affects every area of life. Unfortu I first read this book in 2002 and it was the primer that got me into apologetics and philosophy. (Unfortunately, it is better labeled 'Apologetics for Fluffy Evangelicals'). From Schaeffer I moved to James Sire; from Sire to Douglas Groothuis, and from Groothuis to Cornelius Van Til.
The book is quite exciting for the reader actually believes he will take these arguments and reclaim culture for Christ. Schaeffer offers a stirring vision on how the loss of God affects every area of life. Unfortunately, the devil is in the details. Schaeffer fundamentally misrepresents every philosopher and group with whom he deals. There is no intellectual rigor whatsoever. The prose is often stilted, and one suspects that Schaeffer, as he was notorious for, copied and pasted other philosophers without giving them credit. A few examples (and I am following the reviews of Mike Butler and Greg Bahnsen): Schaeffer sees himself broadly within the tradition of Cornelius Van Til, but he is a watered down version of Van Til.
For all of Van Til's problems, Van Til knew if you were going to press the antithesis, you were going to press it in the right place. Schaeffer fails that because he thinks 'The Greeks were okay who got reason right. It was Hegel who messed it up and introduced irrationality.' Now, I don't think the Greeks were as autonomous as Bahnsen makes them out to be, but which Greeks are we talking about? Schaeffer doesn't say. Schaeffer might actually have read Aquinas correctly, when he says Aquinas posited a 'two-storeyed' view of God.
Schaeffer has been savaged on this point, and while he gives his usual 'thirty second' reading of a philosopher, I think he might actually be right. While I agree with Milbank and Gilson that Aquinas did teach a unity in the continuum between reality, I don't see how imposing a Neo-Platonic ontology onto the Godhead really helps Aquinas' case, and the case that Aquinas didn't lead into secularism. This book is good to get people started in apologetics, this review ends with a warning: if you are going to rely on these arguments to debate 'stoners' at Woodstock, then Schaeffer is sufficient.
If you are going to debate anyone with more than a semester in the history of philosophy, and you think Schaeffer will help, you will lose badly. Read this book! Schaeffer gives his unique analysis of philosophical, socio-cultural and theological trends over the last 300 years, emphasizing Christendom's inability to keep pace with the rapid (and sometimes confusing) changes.
The Christian's solution: to engage the hurting person at the exact point where his epistemological foundation collides with his sense of despair. He fleshes this out practically in the final few chapters and Appendix.
I have yet to encounter a modern-day Christian who Read this book! Schaeffer gives his unique analysis of philosophical, socio-cultural and theological trends over the last 300 years, emphasizing Christendom's inability to keep pace with the rapid (and sometimes confusing) changes. The Christian's solution: to engage the hurting person at the exact point where his epistemological foundation collides with his sense of despair. He fleshes this out practically in the final few chapters and Appendix. I have yet to encounter a modern-day Christian who cares equally for the minds, hearts, wills and souls of a lost generation with such skill and compassion. This book has been foundational in developing a vision in me for ministry to the *whole* human being. In 'The God Who Is There', Francis Schaeffer explains that our world needs to know that GOD is THERE.
God is really there - not as a helpful psychological construct but really, a real personality who is truly alive and acts and acted in real, verifiable space-time history as certainly as I sit here typing now. And 'God' - the word is not up to our definition but refers to the God revealed in the Bible, this is the God who is there. In a culture that imagines an impassable chasm to exist between In 'The God Who Is There', Francis Schaeffer explains that our world needs to know that GOD is THERE. God is really there - not as a helpful psychological construct but really, a real personality who is truly alive and acts and acted in real, verifiable space-time history as certainly as I sit here typing now. And 'God' - the word is not up to our definition but refers to the God revealed in the Bible, this is the God who is there.
In a culture that imagines an impassable chasm to exist between faith and reason, the objective reality of this truth must precede anything else we wish to say or our words will be completely misunderstood. So that's the big idea. How do you get there?
Schaeffer contends that Christianity is a complete, livable system - and the dominant philosophy we encounter in other men is not. When the rational and faith were separated, when God was cut out of the picture, many of the most important concepts we discuss and value - morality, personality, purpose, became figments, or shadows of their former selves, if they could still be believed in at all. (One of the more interesting parts of the book to me was where Schaeffer traced out the repercussions of this separation as it moved from the realm of the philosophers down into music and art.
From the idea that life is random and chance came musicians and artists who used random methods to create their music and art - Jackson Pollock most well known, perhaps.) And yet, though their philosophy tells men these things are figments, they live as though they are not. And so the first task of an evangelist is to 'blow the roof off', to show men the real conclusions of their beliefs, conclusions they themselves could not live with. After this the evangelist may talk about our guilt before God and the necessity of faith - but ALWAYS making it clear what he means by guilt, and what he means by God, and what he means by faith, as the world has forgotten that reason and reality and faith go together. 'As the twentieth-century mentality would understand the concept of religion, the Bible is a nonreligious book' he says in one place. And elsewhere, 'The Bible insists that truth is one - and it is almost the sole surviving system in our generation that does.' But he doesn't end there, and I appreciated the final two chapters. We've spent all this time talking about how the world doesn't, really can't, live in consistency with its presuppositions about life - but are we Christians?
When man fell, he says, we were separated from God, separated from ourselves (the psychological problems of life), separated from others (the sociological problems of life), and separated from nature. The work of Christ does not cure all of these problems completely in this life, but should bring substantial healing, healing the world can see - 'behold how they love each other' the Romans said. Do the Americans say it today? And perhaps, he says at the very end, Christians should be the most 'human' people you ever meet. Because we know who God is (really), and so we know what humans are (really), how we are special and different, created uniquely in the image of God, what we are meant to be. So let us live lives that reflect that.
What a fantastic book! I wish I had read it in college.
This was my first Francis Schaeffer book. I have read and been a fan of Nancy Pearcey (Author of 'Total Truth' and 'Saving Leonardo') who studied under Schaeffer. Though this book was written in 1968, the biblical principles Schaeffer covered in the book are relevant to today as we deal with postmodernism (i.e., the death of absolutism) and its ridiculous application in politics, art, morality.in everyday life. Schaeffer's ideas, apologet What a fantastic book! I wish I had read it in college. This was my first Francis Schaeffer book. I have read and been a fan of Nancy Pearcey (Author of 'Total Truth' and 'Saving Leonardo') who studied under Schaeffer.
Though this book was written in 1968, the biblical principles Schaeffer covered in the book are relevant to today as we deal with postmodernism (i.e., the death of absolutism) and its ridiculous application in politics, art, morality.in everyday life. Schaeffer's ideas, apologetics, christian worldview and application of theology are true to God's Word and integral to evangelicalism. No wonder some of my favorite authors refer to his work often. Many Christians seemed to have, at the least, forgotten, or worse, intentionally ignored, that the Biblical worldview is complete, that through his Word, God 'has granted to us all things that pertain to life and godliness.' This book reminds us that we can and should take hold of this wonderful, life-giving and hope-building confidence in the God who is there because no other worldview can fundamentally satisfy us. I look forward to reading Schaeffer's other works.
One of the most insightful and challenging books I have ever read. I had to reread some sections and consult the glossary for some definitions, but it was well worth the effort.
Schaeffer discusses the shift in the philosophy that has had the detrimental effect of creating a dichotomy between faith and reason. Most people in contemporary society now view the spiritual and the scientific as mutually exclusive whereas our predecessors looked to discover a philosophy that tied the two together. Sch One of the most insightful and challenging books I have ever read.
I had to reread some sections and consult the glossary for some definitions, but it was well worth the effort. Schaeffer discusses the shift in the philosophy that has had the detrimental effect of creating a dichotomy between faith and reason. Most people in contemporary society now view the spiritual and the scientific as mutually exclusive whereas our predecessors looked to discover a philosophy that tied the two together. Schaeffer points out the inconsistencies that are inherent in philosophies and religions other than Christianity. The author asserts that historical Christianity is the only holistic philosophy that ties together faith in God with scientific discoveries and historical events as well as providing a reasonable explanation for the human condition. Schaeffer also encourages Christians to not get caught up in just trying to win a debate but to always present the truth with genuine love.
Schaeffer shares an anecdote about Paul Tillich that stuck with me. He relates how Tillich was asked in an interview if he ever prayed.
Tillich said that he didn't, but that he meditates. I assumed that this was because Tillich doesn't believe in relationship with a personal god. I shared this anecdote with a friend, and she said that she was almost certain that he meditates on scripture.
What Tillich has to offer is less rich than orthodox Christianity, but it is important because he is able to Schaeffer shares an anecdote about Paul Tillich that stuck with me. He relates how Tillich was asked in an interview if he ever prayed. Tillich said that he didn't, but that he meditates. I assumed that this was because Tillich doesn't believe in relationship with a personal god. I shared this anecdote with a friend, and she said that she was almost certain that he meditates on scripture.
What Tillich has to offer is less rich than orthodox Christianity, but it is important because he is able to share Christ with people who don't believe in orthodox Christianity. I think Schaeffer is too hasty in writing off Tillich. Nevertheless, this is a fine book.
“We are surrounded by a generation that can find ‘no one home’ in the universe. If anything marks our generation it is this. In contrast to this, as a Christian I know who I am; and I know the personal God who is there. I speak and He hears.
I am not surrounded by mere mass, not only energy particles, but He is there. And if I have accepted Christ as my Savior, then though it will not be perfect in this life, yet moment by moment, on the basis of the finished work of Christ, this person to pers “We are surrounded by a generation that can find ‘no one home’ in the universe. If anything marks our generation it is this. In contrast to this, as a Christian I know who I am; and I know the personal God who is there. I speak and He hears. I am not surrounded by mere mass, not only energy particles, but He is there. And if I have accepted Christ as my Savior, then though it will not be perfect in this life, yet moment by moment, on the basis of the finished work of Christ, this person to person relationship with the God who is there can have reality to me.'
- The God Who is There by Francis A. Shaeffer I know nothing about Philosophy. I barely know the names of even the most famous philosophers.
While I still can’t say I understand their philosophies fully or even well, after reading this book, I do have a better, though really basic, grasp of the conclusion of their thoughts. Here is what I learned from this book Modern man’s philosophy claims man is nothing; man is dead; therefore, man has no meaning, and can know nothing. He says it through literature and art. He preaches it in every university. But he cannot live consistently with those beliefs, for he also loves and hopes. So he seeks, with experiences or actions, validation of his existence. Sadly Christians have also, to differing degrees, fallen prey to this philosophy.
It has told us that knowledge of absolute truth is impossible. It tells us, we might experience something or do something that gives us validity, but we can’t say for certain that we know absolute truth that applies to everyone. Once we accept that, we have divorced our God given reason from faith, and we are left with nothing more than a blind leap into the unknowable darkness. For faith, without reason, is simply another flight of fancy. Schaeffer shows how God uses the informed intellect to bring us to faith, but he doesn’t leave us with a sterile list of facts. He goes on to show that knowing truth leads to not only knowledge of, but also a relationship with, a very personal, living God if we want it.
If we accept it, the result is redemption from the death that modern philosophy speaks about so eloquently. For a book whose purpose is to illustrate the utterly ruinous and hopeless results of modern philosophy, it is refreshingly compassionate and hopeful.
Schaeffer speaks as directly as Christ did to the woman at the well. He makes men see the end of their beliefs. He shows them how lost, dead, they really are apart from God. Then, in magnificent detail, joy and hope are offered by knowledge of a God Who is There.
It is pointless to know truth if you don’t act on it. (James 1:22-25) Schaeffer encourages us to take what we have learned and apply it in our evangelism. People may not understand their own meaning.
It is up to us to explain to them, in a way they can understand, that they have no meaning or life apart from God. Then to show them, that the personal God cared enough to make a way to restore that life to them.
The last part of the book was very helpful with that. An understanding of absolute truth will change not only the way we evangelize but also the way we behave.
It will help us know God as He really is. It will help us see sin for what it really is. It will help us stand fast for what God commands.
It was done in a most compassionate yet uncompromising way. More quotes that were really good – (but to get the full effect you should really read the book) But the Christian also needs to be challenged at this point. The fact that he alone has a sufficient standard upon which to fight evil, does not mean that he will so fight. The Christian is the real radical of our generation, for he stands against the monolithic, modern concept of truth as relative – we believe in the unity of truth. But too often, instead of being radical, standing against the shifting sands of relativism, he subsides into merely maintaining the status quo. If it is true that evil is evil, that God hates it to the point of the cross and that there is a moral law fixed in what God is in Himself, then Christians should be the first into the field against what is wrong – including man’s inhumanity to man.
Love is not an easy thing; it is not just an emotional urge, but an attempt to move over and sit in the other person’s place and see how his problems look to him. Love is a genuine concern for the individual.
As Jesus Christ reminds us, we are to love him ‘as ourselves’. This is the place to begin. Therefore, to be engaged in personal ‘witness’ as a duty of because our Christian circle exerts a social pressure on us, it to miss the whole point. The reason we do it is that this one before us is the image-bearer of God, and he is an individual who is unique to the world. This kind of communication is not cheap.
To understand and speak to sincere but utterly confused twentieth-century people is costly It is tiring; it will open you to temptations and pressures. Genuine love, in the last analysis, means a willingness to be entirely exposed to the person to whom we are talking. Francis Schaeffer is a combination of intellect and compassion. In 'The God Who Is There,' Schaeffer does a brilliant job of communicating the importance of a logical worldview.
I particularly enjoyed his discussion of personality and culture in the last chapter of the book. He stressed the importance of critiquing art through a biblical worldview without condemning the artist. All men are created in the image of God, just because an artist choses to use his creative skills to promote something Francis Schaeffer is a combination of intellect and compassion. In 'The God Who Is There,' Schaeffer does a brilliant job of communicating the importance of a logical worldview. I particularly enjoyed his discussion of personality and culture in the last chapter of the book. He stressed the importance of critiquing art through a biblical worldview without condemning the artist. All men are created in the image of God, just because an artist choses to use his creative skills to promote something other than a Christian worldview does not mean he is any less valued in the eyes of God (or in the eyes of his fellow man).
I have always struggled with the sect of the Christian culture who claims the moral high ground and condemns a fellow man. We are always in a place to judge, but in a place to judge actions against what the Bible teaches. Condemn the sin, not the sinner.
We all live in a fallen world. My only real complaint about the book was its lack of detail concerning the philosophers discussed. Many philosophers were briefly mentioned, but Schaeffer assumed the reader was very familiar with all of them. I recommend having a laptop near by to do research as you go. The following were some of my favorite passages: 'True education means thinking by association across various disciplines, and not just being highly qualified in one field.'
[W]eight of scholarship in defining words does not make up for weakness of argument in the larger questions.' 26 'There is nothing more ugly than orthodoxy without understanding or without compassion.' 36 'The God who is there, according to the Scriptures is the personal-infinite God. There is no other god like this God.
It is ridiculous to say that all religions teach the same things when they disagree at the fundamental point as to what God is like. The gods of the East are infinite by definition - the definition being 'god is all that is'.
This is the pan-everything-ism god. The gods of the West have tended to be personal but limited; such were the gods of the Greeks, Romans, and Germans. But the God of the Bible, Old and New Testaments alike, is the infinite-personal God.'
94 '[I]f one lives in a world of non-absolutes and would fight social justice in the mood of the moment, how may one establish what social justice is?' The old saying goes the best time to plant a tree is 20 years ago, the second best time is today. This is the way I felt about finishing this Francis Schaeffer classic.
How did I get a Th.M. In historical theology without reading this book?
Well, I guess you can't read all the 'must read' books at once. I'm really glad I'm now a student of Schaeffer and sitting at his feet. The God Who is There felt like a cutting edge book and not one written 30 years ago by a guy now in glory. Os Guinness is on The old saying goes the best time to plant a tree is 20 years ago, the second best time is today. This is the way I felt about finishing this Francis Schaeffer classic. How did I get a Th.M. In historical theology without reading this book?
Well, I guess you can't read all the 'must read' books at once. I'm really glad I'm now a student of Schaeffer and sitting at his feet. The God Who is There felt like a cutting edge book and not one written 30 years ago by a guy now in glory.
Os Guinness is one of my favorite authors and was directly mentored closer than most by Schaeffer. I've read Guinness criticizing some of Schaeffer's scholarship but I found his arguments and his value for equipping our generation helpful and necessary. The God Who is There has a similar prophetic tone as Lewis' Mere Christianity. If you aren't accustomed to philosophical arguments or realizing the impact of theology to politics, philosophy, art and all the other fields of reality expression then it may take a while to get into a gear where you with Schaeffer. The pursuit will be worth the fruit. Can you have a ethical philosophy of life that is based in a metaphysical view that you reject as invalid? The obvious answer is no, but most of Western civilization has sought to live within this paradox for the past two centuries.
It is Schaeffer's goal in this work to show how it is, at the end of the day, impossible to reject God yet still claim a moral standard that is based in Judeo-Christian roots. Schaeffer shows how the absolutes of theism have been rejected in art, literature, music, an Can you have a ethical philosophy of life that is based in a metaphysical view that you reject as invalid? The obvious answer is no, but most of Western civilization has sought to live within this paradox for the past two centuries. It is Schaeffer's goal in this work to show how it is, at the end of the day, impossible to reject God yet still claim a moral standard that is based in Judeo-Christian roots. Schaeffer shows how the absolutes of theism have been rejected in art, literature, music, and philosophy.
He then goes on to demonstrate that once you knock out the moorings, the house will eventually fall. Many of his examples are dated (Modern, not Postmodern), but his points still stand. Only Christianity is entirely self-consistent.
The second-most consistent worldview is probably nihilism, but if you take nihilism to its extreme, you cannot inhabit it. I really appreciated his take on art, and literature and how they fit into our current mindset as moderns. Especially, his summary of Camus as I have just read a few of his books, and Leonardo dV's mindset. Eye opening to see how the shifts have taken place, and how much our placement on the time line of history affects our suppositions.While the first section of the book, on philosophy, was not of interest to me, I found the latter chapters very relevant.
Schaeffer is willing to delve into I really appreciated his take on art, and literature and how they fit into our current mindset as moderns. Especially, his summary of Camus as I have just read a few of his books, and Leonardo dV's mindset.
Eye opening to see how the shifts have taken place, and how much our placement on the time line of history affects our suppositions.While the first section of the book, on philosophy, was not of interest to me, I found the latter chapters very relevant. Schaeffer is willing to delve into the 'dust' of the current evangelical thinking and 'blow the roof off.' Schaeffer critiques modern philosophy 6 August 2013 Okay, the edition of this book that I read was published in 1990 which means that Schaeffer must have changed and updated it since its original publication. However, I suspect that despite a few additions to bring it up to date much of what he has written here is very much the same as the original publication.
After reading a couple of pages of this book I suddenly came to understand that Schaeffer's writing, and fundamentalist stance, was nothi Schaeffer critiques modern philosophy 6 August 2013 Okay, the edition of this book that I read was published in 1990 which means that Schaeffer must have changed and updated it since its original publication. However, I suspect that despite a few additions to bring it up to date much of what he has written here is very much the same as the original publication. After reading a couple of pages of this book I suddenly came to understand that Schaeffer's writing, and fundamentalist stance, was nothing necessarily new to him, however I guess we have a different aspect of fundamentalism with Schaeffer here than we do with modern day Christianity. What Schaeffer is concerned about here is not so much the church and its modern fundamentalist teachings but rather with where philosophy has headed and how our rejection of the sovereign God has sent us into a pit of despair. Schaeffer speaks about a philosophical line of despair in that our though pattern has moved away from an era of faith and hope and crossed into a realm of meaninglessness and despair, and in this he suggests that it started when we began to move away from our Christian heritage. Schaeffer dates this shift as beginning around the early to mid 19th century which arouse in Germany and then moved out across Europe. However, this is something with which I disagree because the philosophy of humanism did not begin in Germany, but much further a feild.
However without going too far back, the roots of modern humanism can be found in England during the 17th century with writers like Locke, Hume, and Hobbes. This thought form then crossed the Atlantic to the United States and during the revolution, where French auxiliaries assisted in the fight against British, it crossed back over the Atlantic to France (though English thought had already been influencing French and German culture). Then, with the outbreak of the revolution and the subsequent Napoleonic Wars, these ideas were spread across Europe where they in turn settled in Germany. Schaeffer's belief is that this new thought form has had quite a bad influence on our cultural direction, an idea with which I disagree. In one sense he speaks about how these thought patterns came about at certain points in history and if people had openly explored this ideas before them they would have either been laughed at, or executed a heretics. However does not Paul say 'at just the right time, Christ died for our sins'? Is it then not the case that Christ's appearance on Earth came about at a time of God's choosing for the message to have the greatest impact.
If that is the case, then could this also be the case with the modern philosophers? Schaeffer argues that these philosophies that have changed society, which is true, however I would suggest that technology has changed our society, and these philosophies have simply moved in step with our technological development. Is it not the case that the rise of modern art in all of its forms arose in lock step with the development of photography.
The change in the style of music, particularly the movement to electronic music at the turn of the 20th century came about with the development of technology to allow us to do that. Further, the dehumanisation of our identity has also come about with the dehumanisation of the labour force, first with the development of the assembly line where the skilled artisans were replaced with unskilled workers doing a single job all day. The next step comes along with the development of robotics which replaces the human with a machine. Is it not also interesting that the rise of our post-modern society has come about with the development of the internet, which comes to the point where our physical identity has become less important and our online identity (or avatar) have become more important.
The online world in fact has given us the ability to create multiple identities to the point that people can no longer determine who we really are. As for the philosophers that he attacks, I can understand Schaeffer's reluctance to accept the dialectic of with the synthesis while maintaining his own thesis and anti-thesis, but unfortunately that is not how progress works, and in a way I believe that God even uses the dialectic in his plans. If God and humanity (in its current form) are opposites, is it not the case that God becomes a synthesis of himself and humanity in the form of Christ? Is it not also the case that heaven and hell are opposites, and that what the fall did was to create a synthesis of this, that being Earth, the one in which we live?
Society also functions on a dialectic view as opposing factors form to create a compromise where both sides are content (if not happy). Now, he also speaks about 's leap of faith. This is the idea that one cannot arrive at a certain point through reason and logic alone and there comes a point where we must make a leap of faith to arrive at that conclusion. As far as I am concerned (and maybe this is my post-modern mindset working here, something that Schaeffer would baulk at) every conclusion that we arrive at involves a leap of faith. Those who say that God does not exist do not arrive at that point through some logical argument, but rather comes to a point where logic can go no further, and thus must leap to their conclusion. The idea comes up within evolution with the idea of the missing link.
We have evidence that demonstrates development up to a point, and then a gap, and then development from another point to humanity. That gap is the chasm that evolutionists leap across to get to reach their conclusion. However, Christianity also has that gap of logic because you cannot conclusively prove the existence of God, therefore we must rely upon circumstantial evidence (the empty tomb, the testimony of people long dead through the writings that are two thousand years old) to come to the conclusion of God's existence and of his character, and from there must make a leap of faith to conclude that the god of the Bible exists. Now, there is also this idea of the final experience that he talks about, though this is a term that he borrows from a philosopher (I cannot remember the name off hand).
It is basically an experience that we have that gives direction and purpose to our lives. Now, I would rather describe this as an epiphany, and we all, at least in the post-industrial Western World, go around trying to discover this purpose. Some of us try to arrive at it through drugs, others of us arrive at it through religious mysticism (which I put Christianity into that category) while others simply try to arrive at it through pure hard work. The point is that while there is nothing wrong with seeking a purpose, one must remember that in other cultures the idea of purpose is non-existent. The subsistence farmer does not spend his time thinking about his purpose in life, he knows where and who he is, and if he sees something that needs to be done, he goes and does it. However, this is a reflection of our modern society and the fact that, unlike the subsistence farmer, we have choice, and because he have choice we desire to know which choice is the correct choice (despite the fact that God can still use you despite what choice you make). Now I want to look at 's idea of authenticating oneself.
Schaeffer scoffs at this, claiming that it is ridiculous and uses the analogy of a lady trying to cross the street. You have a choice, you can either help her, ignore her, or mug her. Now, despite what actions you do each action results in you authenticating yourself. Schaeffer thinks that this is ridiculous because you cannot authenticate yourself through three different actions (though he only mentions two, helping the lady or mugging the lady). However, I would disagree because what I think it means is that your action defines your character, and that single action can have enormous consequences. If you help the lady you define (or authenticate) yourself as being a good Samaritan. If you ignore her, then while neither good or bad, it can identify you as a Levite or a Priest (yes, I am using the parable of the Good Samaritan because I feel that this parable most clearly illustrates this idea) and if you mug the old lady, you authenticate yourself as being a thief and a ruffian.
There, while I have not read Sartre, or understand what he actually meant by authenticating yourself, based on what Schaeffer was saying, this is my understanding, and thus see nothing wrong with Sartre's ideas. Schaeffer does write a bit about language and one of this things that he points out is that as with science, language tends to be precise, and the more precise science becomes, the more precise the language becomes. However, when we come to religion, language tends to become very vague, with one word, such as god, having multiple definitions, depending on to whom you speak. For instance, god can mean a vague entity that sits back and watches the universe from afar, one of a collection of gods, or basically everything, as in pan-theism. However, when I write God (capitalised) then I know that I am talking of the god of the Bible, and I suspect (or hope, because of the capitalisation) that I am speaking of the same. However, even by capitalising God, one can still be referring to the deist god.
As for Schaeffer's pan-everythingism, I find that a bit silly because I do not think, at least in our time, that people will confuse theism with the personal god of the Bible. In fact, using the term pan-everythingism, one is using what I believe is called a tautology. However, in our modern, existentialist world, Schaeffer is right to point out the problem of language.
Language has been a problem since the languages were confused back at the Tower of Babel. This has become moreso in our modern, English speaking world, were the English language can change depending on the era we are in or the person to whom we are speaking. Once again this is a result of industrialisation, which brought about a greater movement of people. Previously people would live in their tribes, and, as can be seen in places such as Papua New Guinea, where tribes still live separate existences, the language simply changes from tribe to tribe. In these cultures, there was not much movement, or interaction, therefore little ability for language to change. However as we begin to travel, our language groupings begin to change and evolve much faster to the point where within a single city there will be many different dialects, depending on with who you are speaking. Schaeffer also discusses the search for meaning, or the universal.
This is clear in the scientific disciplines, such as the search for the universal constant. There is no evidence that it actually exists, but the idea is to find a formula, or a constant, that applies across the universe on which we can base all of our theories Unfortunately, stepping outside of the fact that God loves us and sent his son to die for our sins, no such universal constant can be found in the Bible so scientists, even though they are Christian, must look outside of the Bible. However, there is a belief that such a constant will provide the solution for everything, which is pinning our hope on a shadowy belief because the idea of the universal constant only has a scientific application, not a social application, which means that it cannot solve the problems that we as a society face, such as greed, and guilt. Now, there is the idea of art as being a means for the universe to speak to us, and this in a way comes out of the search for the universal constant. Where as science cannot solve the problem of greed, people turn to art to try to create a means for the universe to speak.
I personally do not find a problem with that because if the artist paints, and while the artist may have an interpretation of the painting, there is no guarantee that everybody who looks at the painting will have the same interpretation. As such, art, whether it be visual, musical, or literature, speaks to everybody differently, meaning that there cannot really be a constant in that world, but also because through art we can garner a better understanding of ourselves and the universe in which we live. He also speaks about the idea of the dead god. Now, when said that 'God is dead' Christians immediately respond with cries of 'heresy'. However there are a couple of interpretations, one being that God is not listening to us, or that God does not exist.
Now, if the phrase 'God is dead' means what it says, it does not necessarily mean that God never existed. In fact it has a suggestion that God, at one stage, used to exist. However, it is not necessarily meaning that God is not listening to us, but may actually refer to the fact that we are no longer listening to God, as if to us God is dead. This can be very true of many Christians today who claim that they are listening to God, but in reality are listening only to their own hearts and beliefs, and pushing God into the background as somebody to rubber stamp their decisions. There is also the idea that humanity is depersonalising themselves, that is turning themselves either into a machine, or into a mindless animal. However Schaeffer suggests that these people live in a dichotomy because in their labs and public life, they act as if they are machines (or animals) but in their homes, behave as humans. To be honest with you, the idea of man as an animal does injustice to animals because there are many creatures in the animal kingdom that behave in a very human manner (such as dogs).
Also, the idea of describing humanity as a machine has changed as well, because no longer, when we describe somebody as a machine, we are not describing them as somebody without a soul or emotion, but a high performer in whatever professional or hobby they practice (and also suggests that their productivity is incredible, almost like a machine). I do agree with the idea of people putting their hope in a lie because I have seen this happen so often. One person that I knew pretty drew his entire life up as a web of lies to the point that as soon as he opened his mouth the automatic assumption would be that he was lying. I believe that there is a difference between what I call relative truth, and an outright lie. Lies are basically untruths, where as a relative truth is a truth that can exist despite opposite views.
For instances, if I were to say that I spent a week in Manila that would be a lie because I have never been to Manilla, however if I say that Hong Kong is an awesome place to visit with lots of shopping opportunities and a thriving culture, while another says that one should avoid Hong Kong like the plague because it is dirty and crowded, both of us would be telling a truth (Hong Kong is dirty and crowded, but it also has lots of shopping opportunities and a great culture). Here we are raising the emphasis on one point, based on our opinion, and lowing the other.
However, the conclusions are the opposite (Hong Kong is great verses Hong Kong is a dump). I don't agree with Schaeffer's outline of what he calls the scandal of the cross because I don't think he is correct on either point that he makes.
He claims that modern Christianity suggests that the scandal of the cross is that despite the horror of the world in which we live, God is good, but that despite God being good, humanity rebels. However, as far as I am concerned, the scandal of the cross is that God sacrificed his only son, an innocent man, to take the punishment of humanity, who deserved no mercy. That, my friend, is what I believe the scandal of the cross to be. It is not the premise, but the action. It is not based on our rebellion, but on God's mercy. Schaeffer's prose is clunky, and I have my doubts about how well he understands some other philosophers, but still a book worthy of consideration, IMHO.
And if Schaeffer is a poor introduction to other philosophers, he has suffered his fair share of being misunderstood. In the book itself, and in its first appendix, Schaeffer makes it as plain as possible that this is not an apologetics work in the sense of Bill Bright's Four Spiritual Laws, where you go through the steps and, Shazzam!, salvatio Schaeffer's prose is clunky, and I have my doubts about how well he understands some other philosophers, but still a book worthy of consideration, IMHO. And if Schaeffer is a poor introduction to other philosophers, he has suffered his fair share of being misunderstood. In the book itself, and in its first appendix, Schaeffer makes it as plain as possible that this is not an apologetics work in the sense of Bill Bright's Four Spiritual Laws, where you go through the steps and, Shazzam!, salvation.
But some people still try to 'sell' it on those grounds. Instead, this is Shaeffer's discussion of where he felt the average Western secular thinker of the mid-twentieth century was at, and some ideas for Christians to consider in light of that reality. It always seemed to me that his primary goal was to get Christians to 'think outside the box' and to work harder at understanding positions and philosophies they did not hold.
Granted, Schaeffer himself sometimes failed to do this effectively, but OTOH it is not an easy thing to do. Learning to see the world from someone else's perspective is a challenge in itself -- Schaeffer is arguing that Christians not only learn to see the world from another perspective, but also that they need to truly listen to everyone they talk to, in order to see the world from that person's perspective, and to help that individual see where their unspoken assumptions logically lead. This is a huge challenge and, as Schaeffer rightly points out, can only be done through profound love. Schaeffer does not precisely say so, but in light of his Reformed background, I think I can safely say that he figured Christians who truly loved, and who truly opened themselves to others, would receive aid from the Holy Spirit, because the challenge Schaeffer sets is not one people can do very often on their own. It is more a matter of creating a habit of openness and understanding, and a willingness to grapple with a multitude of ideas and philosophies, than it is an intellectual exercise per se. It is more a position of being open to foreign teaching than one of being highly educated, because knowing the broad positions of various philosophers is much less important than being able to see what philosophies the person you are actually speaking to uses to form their own personal world view. I suspect that Schaeffer's understanding of some philosophers was gleaned more from listening to people's interpretations of said philosophers than from reading the philosophers for himself.
Schaeffer was more of a populist than a deep thinker -- yet for a populist, he had some very deep thoughts. More importantly, he understood that Christianity is about love, and he honestly expressed God's love to many people. His intellectual accuracy may have been iffy, but he truly cared, and people responded to that. Schaeffer's dislike of emotionalism and insistence on grounding ideas in reality were two of his strengths that come through pretty clearly in this book. I'm less convinced that his caring does, or the fact that it was crucial to his success, although I think both the caring and the necessity of it are there if you look for them. A part of Francis Schaeffer's great trilogy of Christian philosophy and apologetics, 'The God Who Is There' is focused on contrasting the Christian system of thought with modern humanism (also labeled rationalism). The contrast is described through an examination of presuppositions, the historical radical change from a basic understanding of antithesis to that of synthesis, which formed the basis of modern rationalism, and finally by an overview of the Christian answer to modern humanism's exist A part of Francis Schaeffer's great trilogy of Christian philosophy and apologetics, 'The God Who Is There' is focused on contrasting the Christian system of thought with modern humanism (also labeled rationalism).
The contrast is described through an examination of presuppositions, the historical radical change from a basic understanding of antithesis to that of synthesis, which formed the basis of modern rationalism, and finally by an overview of the Christian answer to modern humanism's existential problem. As I've written before, Schaeffer is easy to read, but rather more difficult to comprehend. He uses simple phrases, but often in unconventional ways, which simply means if you aren't paying attention you can easily become confused. This isn't casual reading. You have to invest a bit in order to understand what he is driving. Yet when the pieces come together, his thinking is filled with power and clarity.
I especially appreciate his compassionate spirit and his urging to other believers to use Christian thought not as a weapon, but as a tool in order for them to see their eternal crisis and to turn to the only one who can save them. That is clearly seen in this book. Every page practically shouts the author's caring for the souls in despair that he writes about. If every Christian uses his or her mind and heart like Schaeffer, I wonder what a different world we would live in.
I've heard much about Schaeffer over the years, but I normally don't read these types of book. I appreciate fiction, and for non-fiction, I enjoy memoirs and such. I read this book with a pencil and a dictionary. While the book is a bit dated, it hold true and tracing the way thinking has changed and how it has affected the culture through art, science and so on was insightful and helpful. I believe, as Schaeffer does, that Christianity's view of a living, personal God is the only comprehensive I've heard much about Schaeffer over the years, but I normally don't read these types of book. I appreciate fiction, and for non-fiction, I enjoy memoirs and such.
I read this book with a pencil and a dictionary. While the book is a bit dated, it hold true and tracing the way thinking has changed and how it has affected the culture through art, science and so on was insightful and helpful.
I believe, as Schaeffer does, that Christianity's view of a living, personal God is the only comprehensive worldview that is livable and makes sense. I try to live that out for others to see, and I appreciated Schaeffer's challenges about how to do so. I keep meaning to read the fiction books sitting on my nightstand, but I keep picking up Francis Schaeffer's The God Who Is There instead. I came to Schaeffer via my newfound respect for, who sites Schaeffer's L'Abri ministry as the key to her return to faith. I don't know how to review this book without noting all the ways in which these books support and reinforce one another. There is simply no way I would have understood the first third of this book had I not read I keep meaning to read the fiction books sitting on my nightstand, but I keep picking up Francis Schaeffer's The God Who Is There instead. I came to Schaeffer via my newfound respect for, who sites Schaeffer's L'Abri ministry as the key to her return to faith.
I don't know how to review this book without noting all the ways in which these books support and reinforce one another. There is simply no way I would have understood the first third of this book had I not read with its terrific full color reproductions of paintings. Like Pearcey, Schaeffer begins his examination of culture by looking at the way an artist's world view and philosophy are expressed through art. Of course, these are not 'propositional truths' to be examined, but nonetheless, art expresses a way of experiencing the world and I appreciate that now better than I ever have. Schaeffer (I believe) originated the idea of the upper/lower story imagery, and Pearcey relies on it heavily in her two books. If you're not familiar, Schaeffer uses the upper/lower story image to explain how modern man must live in tension between his ideals of how he wants the world to work and the reality of how far the world is from those ideals. This despair can lead to nihilism, but it can also lead to a compartmentalizing of the two irreconcilable parts of life: if you imagine a person's mental life as a house, the 'upper story' contains 'a blind optimistic hope of meaning, based on a non-rational leap of faith' and the 'lower story' contains 'the rational and the logical which gives no meaning.'
If you're not convinced that this is the reigning contemporary mindset, read Pearcey. I think her work does a better job of explaining Schaeffer's ideas than he himself does. My favorite part of the book was Schaeffer's helpful explanation of how to use these ideas to help modern people approach the gospel. He is not trying to show off his intelligence by dismantling faulty worldviews, he is trying to take compassion on the despair of the people who hold these views. Schaeffer says 'The whole purpose of our speaking to twentieth-century people in this way is not to make them admit that we are right in some personally superior way, nor to push their noses in the dirt, but to make them see their need so that they will listen to the Gospel” (127). It is a very humble approach from a very intelligent man. The crux of the issue is that God is there and he is not silent.
He has interacted with humanity in ways that cannot be accounted for any other way. A personal God is the only rational source for people with personality. Modern man is prepared to explain away the whole universe as the products of blind chance and rational mechanics, but this doesn't explain (to use Schaeffer's words) the 'mannishness' of man. Schaeffer makes the point often that “Personality is not an intrusion in the universe but central” (159). We can't help but have personality, and that means it is not something we can ignore when we attempt to explain where humans come from.
Actually, the crux of the issue is the cross. All of Schaeffer's ideas in this book are to help the person who claims to be a Christian to understand that calling oneself a Christian means actually believing that Jesus came to earth, died, and rose again. When we share the gospel, we must make sure that our audience knows 'that we are talking to him about history, and that the death of Jesus was NOT just an ideal or a symbol but a fact of space and time” (127). God revealed himself in such a way that his existence was open to being verified. Schaeffer was passionate about preparing Christians to speak the gospel into their current culture, and even 30 years later his books continue to help us to do that. I believe one of the most important Christian philosophical writings from the twentieth century is “The God Who is There” by Francis Schaeffer.
In his book, which is almost 50 years old, Schaeffer discusses recent cultural shifts and the effects these changes have had on people’s belief systems. These ideas emerge first in the areas of philosophy, art, music, and theology; from there, these beliefs permeate popular culture and thinking. Schaeffer describes this transition as one replete with nih I believe one of the most important Christian philosophical writings from the twentieth century is “The God Who is There” by Francis Schaeffer. Windows Xp 64 Bit Iso Скачать С Торрента more. In his book, which is almost 50 years old, Schaeffer discusses recent cultural shifts and the effects these changes have had on people’s belief systems. These ideas emerge first in the areas of philosophy, art, music, and theology; from there, these beliefs permeate popular culture and thinking. Schaeffer describes this transition as one replete with nihilism, a rejection of absolutes, and moral relativism.
Schaeffer contends that this transition began in Europe and later manifested itself in the United States. The transition has been gradual, and people in the United States have been experiencing changes for approximately the past eighty years. Today, the transition has almost completely set in, and younger people are accepting these beliefs as culturally normative. As a result, we are observing a culture in which many people have adopted a belief system that cannot account for meaning; these same people have been developing these beliefs in contrast to a predominate culture which does allow for meaning. Consequently, these ideas have been buffered from their logical consequences. As these new beliefs become culturally normative, a foundation of meaning will swept out from underneath them, and the decline of culture may accelerate unless people begin thinking differently.
Biblical Christianity has always been counter-cultural. Schaeffer describes how orthodox Christianity remains as fixed truth in a shifting culture. Christianity stands in opposition to meaninglessness; belief systems which do not allow for a synthesis of meaning must borrow these ends from others belief system in order to hold together.
Light is meant to illuminate darkness, and beliefs about meaning have theological, political, and cultural consequences. Readers of Schaeffer will want to take some time to understand how he defines several terms. His use of the terms ‘rationalism’, ‘antithesis’, and ‘dialectical method’ is slightly different than usually understood.
Some readers have dismissed Schaeffer for these reasons; however, Schaeffer details his reasons for providing nuanced definitions and he applies them consistently. As much as I have enjoyed reading this book multiple times, I understand that not all readers will find it as engaging as I do. Schaeffer’s detailed discussion of philosophy, art, and music is longer than many people are interested in reading.
Chameleon 2 Rc4 Install Download. In this light, Ravi Zacharias’ assessment of Schaeffer is worth mentioning, “Few people deserve the accolade of being ‘prophetic.’ Among these few, Francis Schaeffer is unquestionably one. Virtually every social, moral or philosophical struggle that we face today was either addressed or envisioned by him.” Even though some will think Schaeffer’s cultural analysis is a bit antiquated, I believe that is the crux of the issue: the situation he describes is the challenge of our day since the cultural transition has become set. We can read Schaeffer to understand how our culture got to the place it is today; doing so becomes more than an academic exercise when we understand that how we engage people about truth and meaning must be framed in the terms they use to understand these issues. We face the challenge of sharing the truth, when many believe there are numerous truths or simply dismiss the concept of absolutes out of hand. As cultural norms continue to shift, we must engage our culture on its own terms while remaining faithful to the truth which does not shift. 'We are surrounded by a generation that can find 'no one home' in the universe.In contrast to this, as a Christian I know who I am; and I know the personal God who is there.'
I found The God Who Is There by Francis Schaeffer to be really heavy reading. The book had been recommended to me by family and church-going friends who I don't think of as deep philosophical thinkers, so I was surprised at how thick it was to wade through some of the thoughts that Schaeffer lays out.
Basically, he speaks 'We are surrounded by a generation that can find 'no one home' in the universe.In contrast to this, as a Christian I know who I am; and I know the personal God who is there.' I found The God Who Is There by Francis Schaeffer to be really heavy reading. The book had been recommended to me by family and church-going friends who I don't think of as deep philosophical thinkers, so I was surprised at how thick it was to wade through some of the thoughts that Schaeffer lays out. Basically, he speaks about the concept of truth and whether it is absolute or not, and he talks about how without a concrete, absolute truth, there is no hope. While heavy, I do think it was an important read and pushed me to think about my beliefs to their conclusion.
I stumbled across Francis Schaeffer in a used bookstore, and because of the title I thought I'd give it a shot. I only found out later that Francis Schaeffer was one of the most influential Christian thinkers of the 20th century, that he had founded the L'Abri fellowship which sponsors retreats in multiple countries where people can go to study and ask the deep questions of life. In this book, we see a sampling of the sort of thought that pervades Schaeffer's writings. He is a committed Christian I stumbled across Francis Schaeffer in a used bookstore, and because of the title I thought I'd give it a shot. I only found out later that Francis Schaeffer was one of the most influential Christian thinkers of the 20th century, that he had founded the L'Abri fellowship which sponsors retreats in multiple countries where people can go to study and ask the deep questions of life. In this book, we see a sampling of the sort of thought that pervades Schaeffer's writings. He is a committed Christian, a deep thinker, and someone who looks at culture and history, seeing the trend toward secularization all around us.
He talks about the absurdity of meaning without God, describing the 'leap of faith' that non-believers must make into the upper story when there is no logical path to it via their own worldview (he does not seem to apply the same meaning of 'leap of faith' that Kierkegaard had, as far as I can tell). Schaeffer offers his thoughts on how we can re-connect the lower story of our lives (the material world) with the upper story (faith, purpose, meaning and destiny). He does this in a way that is both intellectually rigorous and deeply meaningful. One thing I especially love about Francis Schaeffer is how he always presented himself in such a kind and respectful manner. No matter the type of question he was being asked, he would assume it was being asked legitimately (rather than just to stir up controversy), and he would answer it calmly and kindly. This is the model we should all follow when discussing our worldview with a hostile secularized culture.
Schaeffer advocated a process of 'taking the roof off' of the other person's worldview. He used the analogy of a roof which kept falling rocks from hitting those beneath, and said that the non-believer's worldview is like the covering which prevents him from dealing with the problems of life.death, suffering, meaninglessness, etc.
He felt that the Christian's task was to show the non-believer that their worldview was inadequate (what he called 'taking the roof off') and then being willing to let them experience the rocks falling while there was nothing to cover them (since their worldview has been shown not to provide adequate answers to the hard questions.the rocks.of life). Only after the worldview of non-believers has been shown to be flawed, and only after they have experienced living life without a roof, can we have any success in showing them the true roof that does provide actual protection from the hard questions of life.
This was Schaeffer's philosophy, and he introduces it quite well in this book. Schaeffer is another one of those 'must read' theologians. His writings are classics of Christian thought.
For anyone interested in (or even willing to consider) theological and philosophy, Schaeffer's writings are indispensable. 'The God Who is There' is one of Francis Schaeffer's earliest books. He revised and updated it and added three appendices in the early 1980s, not long before his death. Schaeffer argues that figures such as Kierkegaard in philosophy, John Cage in music and Van Gogh in art led our culture down an existential path to despair.
Without understanding and engaging in that culture, Christianity can't offer solutions, he said. Before we get to 'Jesus died for your sins,' we have to start with 'In the beg 'The God Who is There' is one of Francis Schaeffer's earliest books. He revised and updated it and added three appendices in the early 1980s, not long before his death. Schaeffer argues that figures such as Kierkegaard in philosophy, John Cage in music and Van Gogh in art led our culture down an existential path to despair. Without understanding and engaging in that culture, Christianity can't offer solutions, he said. Before we get to 'Jesus died for your sins,' we have to start with 'In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.' The evangelical church of his day was a middle-class institution that spoke to the middle class, Schaeffer said, but it did little to reach intellectuals or laborers, are its own youth.
'Every honest questions deserves an honest answer,' he wrote in Appendix B. 'It is unbiblical for anyone to say, 'Just believe.'
' Truly engaging our culture is risky business, he said. 'To be engaged in personal 'witness' as a duty or because our Christian circle exerts a social pressure on us is to miss the point,' he wrote. 'The reason we do it is that the person before us is an image-bearer of God, and he is an individual who is unique in the world. This kind of communication is not cheap. To understand and to speak to sincere but utterly confused twentieth-century people is costly.
It is tiring; it will open you up to temptations and pressures. Genuine love, in the last analysis, means a willingness to be entirely exposed to the person to whom we are talking.' What historic Christianity had to say to his generation, and to our generation, is a message of objective truth in the midst of postmodern murkiness.
This is from Appendix A: 'For the 'modern person,' we can keep talking in a way which helps because in contrast to the concept that everything is relative, we know that there are good, adequate and sufficient reasons to know that Christian answers are truth. I do not believe that there is a leap of faith needed.' I won't pretend to have fully grasped what Schaeffer had to say in a single reading. This isn't a long book, but it's packed full. I don't really understand, for example, his use of the term 'antithesis,' even though the term itself is simple enough.
(Joy is the antithesis of sorrow.) There are deep waters here, and I feel I'll have to buy my own copy -- so I can put my highlighter to use -- and read this book again, and perhaps a few more times after that. I think it will be worth it. This is definitely a work written with the lay church as the audience, which means that both the educated clergy and readers outside the church may not find much to draw them in. Despite a rough start, wherein Schaeffer comes out with a very aggressive and unreflective tone, mishandling history, crouching at the door of fear-mongering, and glorying in intellectual bully tactics, The God Who is There finishes with a few far more moderate and thoughtful chapters, and appendices that continue in a l This is definitely a work written with the lay church as the audience, which means that both the educated clergy and readers outside the church may not find much to draw them in. Despite a rough start, wherein Schaeffer comes out with a very aggressive and unreflective tone, mishandling history, crouching at the door of fear-mongering, and glorying in intellectual bully tactics, The God Who is There finishes with a few far more moderate and thoughtful chapters, and appendices that continue in a less offensive, if not quite intellectually humble mode. Schaeffer's argument in favor of Christian belief is primarily grounded in reducing complex theories into manageable villains.
He knocks down Hegelian dialectics, Kierkegaardian Existentialism and Heideggerian Epistemology with relish, but his counterarguments are weakened because they are not well nuanced and appear to be mostly a form of dismissal. Greater detail in his analysis and a better sense of the role that citation can play in establishing case studies as representative of general trends would make the reader less dependent on blindly accepting him as an authority in handling very heady topics in order to be persuaded by his argument. The acknowledgment that he is not a philosopher and that he very well might be wrong should have been made in the first chapter, not put out as an appendix that borders on retraction.
Additionally, drawing in the work of other thinkers with whom Schaeffer can agree would save him from painting his work as the single light in a dying world, something he certainly is not. Once the argument is done with critique and moves on to dealing with Schaeffer's specialty, pastoral counseling, it improves immeasurably.
While, in the text itself, Schaeffer still makes little room for personal humility, he does write with greater deftness and insight. His primary focus becomes the need for each person to come to grips with the realities around them, and in themselves, in a way that pushes them out of the fantasies and philosophical cages that imprison them. There are things which are really real, he says, and we are tricking ourselves if we do not face them. Enter the title of the work. This book was a bit difficult in that it is dated by the topic covered. I feel that the subject that Schaeffer is writing to address has come and gone and we are currently in the aftermath of what was then the approaching postmodern relativism.
In that sense, this book was difficult to get into. In another sense this exists for more the intellectual Christian than possibly the ordinary. The first half of the book is a struggle to get to and it's hard to see where it's coming from or what its poi This book was a bit difficult in that it is dated by the topic covered. I feel that the subject that Schaeffer is writing to address has come and gone and we are currently in the aftermath of what was then the approaching postmodern relativism.
In that sense, this book was difficult to get into. In another sense this exists for more the intellectual Christian than possibly the ordinary. The first half of the book is a struggle to get to and it's hard to see where it's coming from or what its point is. At about page 100, Schaeffer finally comes to the point. Essentially, he's laid the postmodern relativist point of view down and now he's contrasting where that philosophical world view fails.
Then launches into why the Christian world view if superior. On a scale from easy to very hard philosophically - it ranges in the middle to upper middle. From a utility point of view from, say, between Jason Lyle and Van Till - this is about upper middle.
There are some suggestions but it almost seems that we're fighting past the point Schaeffer is talking about and we're having to take a new approach now that postmodernism has become very popular for people to ascribe to. It's an ok book but hard to get into with some words of warning from the past that would help us today. Such as - become honest apologetics with a clear Biblical world view expressed in Christ's love. Final Grade - D+.
Schaeffer's influence on evangelicalism in the 20th century is incalculable and overwhelmingly positive. In this book Schaeffer challenges Christians to engage with modern culture where it is at, particularly by discovering modern man's presuppositions and forcing him to recognize the final end of those presuppositions. He suggests that in the end, every worldview except the Christian worldview will prove to be inconsistent. Schaefer's main paradigm in the book involves the 'line of despair,' be Schaeffer's influence on evangelicalism in the 20th century is incalculable and overwhelmingly positive. In this book Schaeffer challenges Christians to engage with modern culture where it is at, particularly by discovering modern man's presuppositions and forcing him to recognize the final end of those presuppositions.
He suggests that in the end, every worldview except the Christian worldview will prove to be inconsistent. Schaefer's main paradigm in the book involves the 'line of despair,' below which a man has fallen when he refuses to recognize the reality of thesis and antithesis. According to Schaefer, modernity has fallen below this line, and as Christians we must address this problem before we address the problem of man's guilt before God. For all of its strengths, this book is thin in places.
Schaefer doesn't spend as much time as I wish he would explaining himself. I also wish he would have spent more time in his section on critiquing art. Even though I often found myself wanting him to elaborate, Schaeffer does make me want to strive to engage culture more and to do so in an apologetically Christian way. Francis August Schaeffer was an American Evangelical Christian theologian, philosopher, and Presbyterian pastor. He is most famous for his writings and his establishment of the L'Abri community in Switzerland. Opposed to theological modernism, Schaeffer promoted a more historic Protestant faith and a presuppositional approach to Christian apologetics which he believed would answer the questions of Francis August Schaeffer was an American Evangelical Christian theologian, philosopher, and Presbyterian pastor.
He is most famous for his writings and his establishment of the L'Abri community in Switzerland. Opposed to theological modernism, Schaeffer promoted a more historic Protestant faith and a presuppositional approach to Christian apologetics which he believed would answer the questions of the age. Wife: children.
$1,130,643 $1.5M Dear Open Library Supporter, We ask you only once a year: please help Open Library today. You may not know it, but we’re an independent, non-profit website that the entire world depends on. We protect reader privacy, so we never sell ads that track you. Most readers can’t afford to donate, but we hope you can. Our work is powered by donations averaging about $41. If everyone chips in $5, we can keep this going for free. Right now, a generous supporter will match your donation 3-to-1.
So your $5 donation becomes $20! For the cost of a used paperback, we can share a book online forever. When I started this, people called me crazy. Collect web pages?
Who’d want to read a book on a screen? I founded this as a nonprofit so together we could build a special place to read, learn and explore. We lend three e-books per minute and answer a thousand of your questions per month.
Open Library is a bargain, but we need your help. If you find our site useful, chip in what you can today. —Brewster Kahle, Founder, Internet Archive. $1,130,643 $1.5M Dear Open Library Supporter, We ask you only once a year: please help Open Library today. You may not know it, but we’re an independent, non-profit website that the entire world depends on. We protect reader privacy, so we never sell ads that track you. Most readers can’t afford to donate, but we hope you can.
Our work is powered by donations averaging about $41. If everyone chips in $5, we can keep this going for free. Right now, a generous supporter will match your donation 3-to-1. So your $5 donation becomes $20! For the cost of a used paperback, we can share a book online forever. When I started this, people called me crazy. Collect web pages?
Who’d want to read a book on a screen? I founded this as a nonprofit so together we could build a special place to read, learn and explore.
We lend three e-books per minute and answer a thousand of your questions per month. Open Library is a bargain, but we need your help. If you find our site useful, chip in what you can today. —Brewster Kahle, Founder, Internet Archive.
Dear Open Library Supporter, We ask you only once a year: please help Open Library today. You may not know it, but we’re an independent, non-profit website that the entire world depends on. We protect reader privacy, so we never sell ads that track you. Most readers can’t afford to donate, but we hope you can. Our work is powered by donations averaging about $41. If everyone chips in $5, we can keep this going for free.
Right now, a generous supporter will match your donation 3-to-1. So your $5 donation becomes $20! For the cost of a used paperback, we can share a book online forever. When I started this, people called me crazy. Who’d want to read a book on a screen? I founded this as a nonprofit so together we could build a special place to read, learn and explore.
If you find our site useful, chip in what you can today. —Brewster Kahle, Founder, Internet Archive. Dear Open Library Supporter, We ask you only once a year: please help Open Library today. You may not know it, but we’re an independent, non-profit website that the entire world depends on. We protect reader privacy, so we never sell ads that track you. Most readers can’t afford to donate, but we hope you can. Our work is powered by donations averaging about $41.
If everyone chips in $5, we can keep this going for free. Right now, a generous supporter will match your donation 3-to-1. So your $5 donation becomes $20!
For the cost of a used paperback, we can share a book online forever. When I started this, people called me crazy. Who’d want to read a book on a screen? I founded this as a nonprofit so together we could build a special place to read, learn and explore. If you find our site useful, chip in what you can today. —Brewster Kahle, Founder, Internet Archive.