I’ve read most of Schaeffer’s work, and watched his video series. What lead him there? A peculiar view of reality which is 100% Western rationalist. He is a modern day example of the complaints I’ve made about latter day Calvinism becoming entirely too logical, losing the element of mystery, and the biblical element of fuzzy reality — a reality God has chosen not to reveal in its entirety. Within the context of his analytical background, it makes perfect sense for Schaeffer to say those men had rejected a clear and precise logical definition of sin and righteousness (which is what he means by going below the line of despair). Of course, I dislike those writers’ theologies, too, but for different reasons than what Schaeffer gives.

Thanks, Ed.

I was thinking about your comments on the topic when I was reading Schaeffer. I think the Kierkegaard-Barth Existentialist theology certainly veers much more into the realm of mystery (in a good way — it is rather unfortunate that Tillich, and not Barth, was the major theologian of the time in the U.S.). That Eliot was drawn into the fire (or, rather, the “early Eliot,” though that sounds like somewhat of a disservice to the later Eliot) isn’t too surprising considering the similar Existentialist underpinnings of his poetry. All of them call into question our ability to understand everything.

I’m a bit more puzzled about poor Thomas Aquinas. He’s nothing if he is not logical (he does, after all, learn from the Philosopher). I’m guessing maybe his primary tiff with Aquinas is Thomas’s point that positive statements on God can only be made using analogies and not literal statements. But, that seems almost commonsensical once it is considered for a few moments.

Maybe I should get Schaeffer’s book so that I could see more of what his complaints rest on.

I don’t haven my copy at hand or I could be more precise about his opinion of Aquinas. However, I believe you hit on part of it, at least. The point Schaeffer is making is God can most certainly be discussed (partially, at least) in standard propositions, because Scripture does that. However, his greater complaint warranted a book, and I can’t summarize that here. My own complaint with existentialism is different from Schaeffer’s. I suppose to really get where he’s going, you would have to read the whole thing. Then maybe read someone who critiqued Schaeffer.

Thanks, Ed. Did you like Schaeffer in general enough that you think he’d be worth reading? (I probably should, regardless, because of his stature, but….)

At first I really liked his clarity of thought. Eventually I became tired of his limitations. I suppose the one seminal work which best represents him is “The God Who Is There.” His film series is easier to follow, but posits the same basic contention about art as the cutting edge of Western culture, and theology the trailing edge which somehow is determined to follow the same path. In this history proves him right, but the book does more to explain his reasoning of what should be.

Name:
Location:
Homepage:
E-mail:
Subject:
Remember my information