Re: GEN 1-11: Beyond the concordist debate

From: Michael Roberts (
Date: Tue May 07 2002 - 17:42:01 EDT

  • Next message: Walter Hicks: "Re: GEN 1-11: Beyond the concordist debate"

    May I make a comment. I began to read Schaeffer when I was converted in 1968
    and found his works a great help and they led me onto wider things,

    In May 1971 I went to L'abri in Switzerland before going to seminary and
    Schaeeffer's son-im=law Udo Middleman gave me a list of books to study to
    bring my geology and theology together. None other than Henry Morris and
    other stuff. As I wasnt meek and mild then I told Udo that they were
    rubbish and started a lively 4 weeks at L'abri. It took me most of a day to
    crack Morris and find his fatal flaws. I became disillusioned with Schaeffer
    who struck has sitting on the fence and leaning to YEC. I became more
    disliiusioned when I actually read Barth and other wirters and found S
    incapable of extracting the good in many writers. I agree with Dave that S
    tells evangs what they want to here rather than wrestle with fellow
    Christians who struggled against their upbring ing (fundi or modernist) to
    give intellectual bite to their faith. I also found that S relied more on
    pop summaries of thinkers such as Barth, Marcuse etc rather than actuaaly
    reading the writer's work.
    This was a great loss as S had many good things to say but never left his
    fundamentalism which flawed his work. He simpluy had to claim that others
    were wrong.
    I was lucky at L'Abri as a Wheaton couple guided me in a formative stage and
    pointed me to writers such as Warfield and Orr etc.

    Looking back S was a great help to me but I had to leave his narrow outlook

    Incidentally at a history of science conference in Shrewsbury last month
    another speaker was the son of Hans Rookmaker.


    > >I have to concur with Graham from a philosophical viewpoint. He is
    > >popular, not scholarly. A number of years ago I was asked to teach a
    > >Sunday school course with one of Schaffer's books as the text. I turned
    > >it down because his "philosophy" begins where a legitimate study should
    > >end. But, because he tells evangelicals what they wanted to hear, I knew
    > >that such a suggestion would produce heat rather than light in the group,
    > >for he was their champion. I have noted that one becomes a best-selling
    > >author by not making people really think. Telling them what they want to
    > >hear is, however, very effective.
    > Dave, could you elaborate on this? In what way does Shaeffer begin at the
    > Keith
    > Keith B. Miller
    > Department of Geology
    > Kansas State University
    > Manhattan, KS 66506

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue May 07 2002 - 17:56:21 EDT