What do you think?
Rate this book
The God Who is There
Francis A. Schaeffer shows how historic Christianity fearlessly challenges the competing philosophies of the modern world and ultimately meets the deepest needs of men and women.
191 pages, Paperback
First published September 1, 1968
307 people are currently reading
7718 people want to read
About the author
Francis A. Schaeffer
95 books804 followersFrancis 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: Edith Schaeffer
children: Susan Schaeffer Macaulay
Wife: Edith Schaeffer
children: Susan Schaeffer Macaulay
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 346 reviews
June 9, 2018
I first read this book in 2002 and it was the primer that got me into apologetics and philosophy. 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.
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."
Thesis: In giving up the hope of rationality, a rationality that is founded only in the revelation of God in Christ, man is plunged below the line of despair. This line of despair normally moves in the following historical pattern: philosophy → art → music → general culture → theology (Schaeffer 16). Above the line there is absolutes (whether they are sufficiently justified).
The Positive Case for Christian Theism
God is personal and in creating man in his own image, man is personal (87). Schaeffer proves this in the form of a disjunctive syllogism (A v B; ~B; therefore, A). “Either there is sa personal beginning to everything or one has what the impersonal throws up by chance out of the time sequence” (88).
God placed his revelation in history, and in doing so made it verifiable (92). God’s speaking in history is what makes unity possible between the upper and lower storeys, because God spoke to all areas.
The Nature of Proof (Epistemology)
(1) A theory must be non-contradictory and explain the phenomena in question.
(2) We have to be able to live consistently with our theory (109).
The Good Parts
It’s not hard to see why Schaeffer had the influence he did. The book was just “fun” to read. And he saw the current problems on transgenderism, transhumanism, and Cultural Marxism. His zeal for evangelism is contagious and he knew how important communication was (45).
While Schaeffer fundamentally misreads Hegel, he does get the dialectical methodology of Marx correct (46). While he doesn’t draw the specific connection, we now see that dialectical methodology is a tool the New Left uses today (and which most conservative culture warriors are unable to deal with).
He has some very good analyses of art history.
The Bad
Schaeffer had a tendency to make sweeping surveys on philosophy. Sometimes they were misleading. Other times they were just false. His most notorious example is Hegel, and here I can only summarize Greg Bahnsen’s critique of Schaeffer.
Schaeffer writes, “Before his (Hegel's) time truth was conceived on the basis of antithesis.... Truth, in the sense of antithesis, is related to the idea of cause and effect. Cause and effect produces a chain reaction which goes on in a horizontal line. With the coming of Hegel, all this changed.... (Hegel proposed) from now on let us think in this way; instead of thinking in terms of cause and effect, what we really have is a thesis, and opposite is an antithesis, and the answer to their relationship is not in the horizontal movement of cause and effect, but the answer is always synthesis.... (Thus) instead of antithesis we have, as modern man's approach to truth, synthesis”.
Hegel never denigrated logic. He simply pointed out that the antithesis must always arise from the thesis because of man’s finite take on truth. Further, one can only be astonished at Schaeffer’s claim that the Greeks valued truth and the logical antithesis. Plato and Aristotle might have, but one doubts that Heraclitus or the Sophists did. Indeed, Schaeffer’s misconstrual of Hegel in favor of the Greeks seems to let the Greeks off the hook!
This book is rightly considered a 20th century classic. Despite its intellectual gaffes, it did get evangelicals thinking about worldview issues. Schaeffer was key in rallying evangelicals to the pro-life cause. For that we are grateful. But the apologist cannot stop with Schaeffer. Metaphysics and epistemology, which Schaeffer left undeveloped, have advanced light years.
Unfortunately, the devil is in the details. Schaeffer fundamentally misrepresents every philosopher and group with whom he deals. There is no intellectual rigor whatsoever.
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."
Thesis: In giving up the hope of rationality, a rationality that is founded only in the revelation of God in Christ, man is plunged below the line of despair. This line of despair normally moves in the following historical pattern: philosophy → art → music → general culture → theology (Schaeffer 16). Above the line there is absolutes (whether they are sufficiently justified).
The Positive Case for Christian Theism
God is personal and in creating man in his own image, man is personal (87). Schaeffer proves this in the form of a disjunctive syllogism (A v B; ~B; therefore, A). “Either there is sa personal beginning to everything or one has what the impersonal throws up by chance out of the time sequence” (88).
God placed his revelation in history, and in doing so made it verifiable (92). God’s speaking in history is what makes unity possible between the upper and lower storeys, because God spoke to all areas.
The Nature of Proof (Epistemology)
(1) A theory must be non-contradictory and explain the phenomena in question.
(2) We have to be able to live consistently with our theory (109).
The Good Parts
It’s not hard to see why Schaeffer had the influence he did. The book was just “fun” to read. And he saw the current problems on transgenderism, transhumanism, and Cultural Marxism. His zeal for evangelism is contagious and he knew how important communication was (45).
While Schaeffer fundamentally misreads Hegel, he does get the dialectical methodology of Marx correct (46). While he doesn’t draw the specific connection, we now see that dialectical methodology is a tool the New Left uses today (and which most conservative culture warriors are unable to deal with).
He has some very good analyses of art history.
The Bad
Schaeffer had a tendency to make sweeping surveys on philosophy. Sometimes they were misleading. Other times they were just false. His most notorious example is Hegel, and here I can only summarize Greg Bahnsen’s critique of Schaeffer.
Schaeffer writes, “Before his (Hegel's) time truth was conceived on the basis of antithesis.... Truth, in the sense of antithesis, is related to the idea of cause and effect. Cause and effect produces a chain reaction which goes on in a horizontal line. With the coming of Hegel, all this changed.... (Hegel proposed) from now on let us think in this way; instead of thinking in terms of cause and effect, what we really have is a thesis, and opposite is an antithesis, and the answer to their relationship is not in the horizontal movement of cause and effect, but the answer is always synthesis.... (Thus) instead of antithesis we have, as modern man's approach to truth, synthesis”.
Hegel never denigrated logic. He simply pointed out that the antithesis must always arise from the thesis because of man’s finite take on truth. Further, one can only be astonished at Schaeffer’s claim that the Greeks valued truth and the logical antithesis. Plato and Aristotle might have, but one doubts that Heraclitus or the Sophists did. Indeed, Schaeffer’s misconstrual of Hegel in favor of the Greeks seems to let the Greeks off the hook!
This book is rightly considered a 20th century classic. Despite its intellectual gaffes, it did get evangelicals thinking about worldview issues. Schaeffer was key in rallying evangelicals to the pro-life cause. For that we are grateful. But the apologist cannot stop with Schaeffer. Metaphysics and epistemology, which Schaeffer left undeveloped, have advanced light years.
November 20, 2022
Between Modernism and Postmodernism
What to think of Francis Schaeffer today? It was 40+ years ago that I first read The God Who is There. In fact I formally studied Schaeffer under the (now) president of the Francis A. Schaeffer Foundation—who has endorsed my own work. Like so many people, I met Schaeffer himself. He was eating Smarties by the handful. “Dr. Schaeffer,” I said, “may I ask you a question?” He said aggressively, “Let me finish my Smarties!”
Schaeffer appeared on the scene in the late 1960s, with a book that revealed extraordinary scope. His book surveyed the entrance of despair into philosophy, art, culture, religion, and a post-Romanticist era. Perhaps, today, he would have called it the postmodern era. Above all, he wrote, people had denied the “personality” of man, and replaced it with chaos—a chaos rooted in the emptiness of philosophical materialism.
It apparently went unnoticed at the time: Schaeffer clearly borrowed the idea of “personality” from the British philosopher CEM Joad (1891-1953)—who abandoned atheism and became an apologist for the faith. Curiously, Schaeffer makes no mention of Joad. Joad wrote that the creeds of a single, materialist, physical order of reality are “palpably inadequate”. “Personality” seemed the only solution to the problem of man.
“Personality or a Devilish Din,” wrote Schaeffer—yet in so framing the subject, he did something which is typically modern. He chose a central idea, a binding element for his work, which served as the basis of “the unfolding of a single thought”, to use a phrase of the philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860). His whole book refers back to the concept of “personality”.
Today, central ideas are everywhere considered suspect, partial, and inadequate. Does this apply to Schaeffer? Probably, yes. While in his day, there was distress over the loss of personality as society shifted towards the postmodern, today that all seems rather passé. “Personality? What of it?” people might say. Perhaps now, nothing less than the glory of God will do as an antidote to the world, as the one theme which still seems beyond all possible reductions such as “personality”.
Schaeffer fired up people’s imaginations with his repeated references to the “leap of faith”—a term which he borrowed from Søren Kierkegaard (1813-1855). With the loss of personality, people were pursuing meaning by taking desperate leaps into pseudo-meanings.
Yet some have noted that Schaeffer’s own book would seem to be dichotomous: Sections I-II cover the loss of personality; Sections III-VI seem only distantly related to Sections I-II. They begin: “How Historic Christianity Differs ...” It seems close to a complete break in the book. In Sections III-VI, Schaeffer simply posits another way. He himself does the Kierkegaardian leap. Or does he?
Here, Schaeffer has an interesting approach to faith. He considers that “from the viewpoint of the Scriptures themselves there is a unity over the whole field of knowledge”. This appears to echo another thinker of his time: Reinhold Niebuhr (1892-1971), who proposed that “the truth of faith is correlated with all truths”—although Schaeffer rejected Niebuhr. As I read Schaeffer, the dependability of Scripture is proved through a holistic outlook.
It is, at any rate, an abrupt and radical shearing of the second half of the book from the first half. “Personality is central,” Schaeffer writes in the second half. While that does reference the first half, one has the sense that he simply flips a switch—from the despair of man on the one hand, to “God’s answer to man’s dilemma” on the other. Personally, this dichotomy of Schaeffer’s deeply influenced my own work, insofar as I worked hard to bridge the gap.
In my estimation, the greatest value of Francis Schaeffer’s book lies in his emphasis on presuppositions and a holistic worldview. These are vital insights which continue to be relevant both to the church and the world today. Where do our thoughts lead us? How do they relate to the whole? Over the years, this book has been embraced and rejected, praised and vilified. I see the points on both sides. But it is just too well written, too monumental in its thought, to give it less than 5/5.
What to think of Francis Schaeffer today? It was 40+ years ago that I first read The God Who is There. In fact I formally studied Schaeffer under the (now) president of the Francis A. Schaeffer Foundation—who has endorsed my own work. Like so many people, I met Schaeffer himself. He was eating Smarties by the handful. “Dr. Schaeffer,” I said, “may I ask you a question?” He said aggressively, “Let me finish my Smarties!”
Schaeffer appeared on the scene in the late 1960s, with a book that revealed extraordinary scope. His book surveyed the entrance of despair into philosophy, art, culture, religion, and a post-Romanticist era. Perhaps, today, he would have called it the postmodern era. Above all, he wrote, people had denied the “personality” of man, and replaced it with chaos—a chaos rooted in the emptiness of philosophical materialism.
It apparently went unnoticed at the time: Schaeffer clearly borrowed the idea of “personality” from the British philosopher CEM Joad (1891-1953)—who abandoned atheism and became an apologist for the faith. Curiously, Schaeffer makes no mention of Joad. Joad wrote that the creeds of a single, materialist, physical order of reality are “palpably inadequate”. “Personality” seemed the only solution to the problem of man.
“Personality or a Devilish Din,” wrote Schaeffer—yet in so framing the subject, he did something which is typically modern. He chose a central idea, a binding element for his work, which served as the basis of “the unfolding of a single thought”, to use a phrase of the philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860). His whole book refers back to the concept of “personality”.
Today, central ideas are everywhere considered suspect, partial, and inadequate. Does this apply to Schaeffer? Probably, yes. While in his day, there was distress over the loss of personality as society shifted towards the postmodern, today that all seems rather passé. “Personality? What of it?” people might say. Perhaps now, nothing less than the glory of God will do as an antidote to the world, as the one theme which still seems beyond all possible reductions such as “personality”.
Schaeffer fired up people’s imaginations with his repeated references to the “leap of faith”—a term which he borrowed from Søren Kierkegaard (1813-1855). With the loss of personality, people were pursuing meaning by taking desperate leaps into pseudo-meanings.
Yet some have noted that Schaeffer’s own book would seem to be dichotomous: Sections I-II cover the loss of personality; Sections III-VI seem only distantly related to Sections I-II. They begin: “How Historic Christianity Differs ...” It seems close to a complete break in the book. In Sections III-VI, Schaeffer simply posits another way. He himself does the Kierkegaardian leap. Or does he?
Here, Schaeffer has an interesting approach to faith. He considers that “from the viewpoint of the Scriptures themselves there is a unity over the whole field of knowledge”. This appears to echo another thinker of his time: Reinhold Niebuhr (1892-1971), who proposed that “the truth of faith is correlated with all truths”—although Schaeffer rejected Niebuhr. As I read Schaeffer, the dependability of Scripture is proved through a holistic outlook.
It is, at any rate, an abrupt and radical shearing of the second half of the book from the first half. “Personality is central,” Schaeffer writes in the second half. While that does reference the first half, one has the sense that he simply flips a switch—from the despair of man on the one hand, to “God’s answer to man’s dilemma” on the other. Personally, this dichotomy of Schaeffer’s deeply influenced my own work, insofar as I worked hard to bridge the gap.
In my estimation, the greatest value of Francis Schaeffer’s book lies in his emphasis on presuppositions and a holistic worldview. These are vital insights which continue to be relevant both to the church and the world today. Where do our thoughts lead us? How do they relate to the whole? Over the years, this book has been embraced and rejected, praised and vilified. I see the points on both sides. But it is just too well written, too monumental in its thought, to give it less than 5/5.
November 11, 2013
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.
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.
September 10, 2010
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.
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.
February 3, 2025
4.2 Stars
Francis Schaeffer's "The God Who Is There" is an excellent work of Christian philosophy and apologetics. Schaeffer's book is about how 20th-century thinking has rejected God and any absolute truth and thus has descended into despair. He also critiques the "new theology" which is secular thinking dressed up in Christian clothes. Schaeffer argues that the only answer to modern man's despair is the truth of Christianity, which is essentially the truth that "God is there."
One of Schaeffer's strongest points is that 20th-century thinking (secular humanism) has divided science from the truth. That what can be known is only discoverable in "science,” but that knowledge has no relation to metaphysical realities like truth, goodness, or beauty. This has brought man below the "line of despair" when man must make a "leap of faith" to genuinely live a life of meaning. Christianity is the only worldview that bridges the gap between science and truth because God's revelation encompasses both scientific knowledge and metaphysical knowledge (truth, goodness, beauty).
The strength of Schaeffer’s books is not merely it is argumentation, but Schaeffer’s compassion for the lost. Schaeffer not only encourages readers to argue faithfully in the defense of Christianity but with a love for the lost as well. Schaeffer’s compassion and wisdom shine in his pleadings to use apologetics for the sake of saving souls, rather than for self-righteous self-aggrandizement.
Overall, this is a great book, for those who are unfamiliar with philosophical and cultural terms this book can be daunting. Schaeffer often skims over complex philosophical terms without explaining to them so it can be confusing at times, but this is a beneficial work. It is a terrific book for believers and unbelievers to gain a grasp of what has gone wrong with man in the 20th-21st centuries and how the gospel truth that "God is here" is good and glorious.
Francis Schaeffer's "The God Who Is There" is an excellent work of Christian philosophy and apologetics. Schaeffer's book is about how 20th-century thinking has rejected God and any absolute truth and thus has descended into despair. He also critiques the "new theology" which is secular thinking dressed up in Christian clothes. Schaeffer argues that the only answer to modern man's despair is the truth of Christianity, which is essentially the truth that "God is there."
One of Schaeffer's strongest points is that 20th-century thinking (secular humanism) has divided science from the truth. That what can be known is only discoverable in "science,” but that knowledge has no relation to metaphysical realities like truth, goodness, or beauty. This has brought man below the "line of despair" when man must make a "leap of faith" to genuinely live a life of meaning. Christianity is the only worldview that bridges the gap between science and truth because God's revelation encompasses both scientific knowledge and metaphysical knowledge (truth, goodness, beauty).
The strength of Schaeffer’s books is not merely it is argumentation, but Schaeffer’s compassion for the lost. Schaeffer not only encourages readers to argue faithfully in the defense of Christianity but with a love for the lost as well. Schaeffer’s compassion and wisdom shine in his pleadings to use apologetics for the sake of saving souls, rather than for self-righteous self-aggrandizement.
Overall, this is a great book, for those who are unfamiliar with philosophical and cultural terms this book can be daunting. Schaeffer often skims over complex philosophical terms without explaining to them so it can be confusing at times, but this is a beneficial work. It is a terrific book for believers and unbelievers to gain a grasp of what has gone wrong with man in the 20th-21st centuries and how the gospel truth that "God is here" is good and glorious.
August 3, 2023
Jumps all over the place and lacks a through-line. Needed more specific examples, analogies, and anecdotes to illustrate the big cultural ideas. Not my favorite Schaeffer. Instead I would recommend How Should We Then Live? The Rise and Decline of Western Thought and Culture.
April 2, 2021
This book aged really well.
April 23, 2025
4.5 stars.
I rushed through this a little, so please don't blame me for not having a more concrete opinion on it.
I rushed through this a little, so please don't blame me for not having a more concrete opinion on it.
March 28, 2021
I love and hate the writings of Schaeffer, I think this is my third book and I see a pattern: he makes such great points, but he takes them too far. I really wished I liked him more, because he is so respected among my friends and his influence on current American evangelical trends is still visible.
He is smart, he is articulate, his knowledge is vast, his theology is solid. I wish I could write and lecture like he did. But he is unfortunately so sure of his ideas that he barges ahead without seeing the obvious holes.
Here's my conclusion: He is right about the dangers of liberal theology, and the way it shape-shifts over the years and sneaks into churches that like to be conservative. He is right about how existentialist philosophy more than anything changed the world into what we see now (even though some of his examples from music and general culture are so obscure they are almost irrelevant). He is very right that unless we as Christians base our thinking on some unmovable truths (such as God's existence in a real sense of the word, an actual person "who is there") we have nothing left to talk about.
But he doesn't see how some of the most important tenets of the faith actually go against his prized antithesis principle, where if you affirm something you are automatically negating its opposite. Sounds nice. Sure, God exists by opposition to non-existence, and you can't affirm that he exists for you but he doesn't exist for me. But can you affirm Jesus was 100% man and also not only man? Can you affirm God is one but also not just one? Can you call people to make a decision for their salvation and affirm on the corner of your mouth that God really makes the decision, not them? I am not criticizing any of these principles, I am only showing that Christianity is full of these apparent dichotomies (of course they can be explained, but not easily, that's why they caused some of the biggest division in the history of the church). They might be non-issue by now for anyone who was raised in them, but that's definitely not the case for an outsider. They simply come across as pure contradictions to many. So it's disingenuous to pretend everything about historical theology is very logical and to scoff at the idea of dialectic epistemology, since these are some of the biggest debates in history, and I would venture to say the statements the historical creeds make on these issues are the result of some of the most fruitful and important dialectic processes that ever happened, before anyone ever said the word "dialektik".
I think traditional evangelical Christians can learn a thing or two from the upper story / lower story dichotomy of the existentialists, simply because not everything we experience in our walk with God can be explained. Aristotelian logic only takes you so far, and that's not far enough.
Schaeffer is willing to let the Christian experience go beyond rational thinking but only as far as it can be verbalized (for the purpose of being compared with scripture supposedly). Which is important to highlight, because I think it's tragic, since everything that can't be explained theologically is invalidated. I agree we can't meet God properly without a solid biblical foundation, but I am not ready to restrict the ways God chooses to reveal himself to only what is expected of him.
I will however heed his advice to make sure I clearly define the terms when I talk to someone about spiritual matters, since words such as "God", "Jesus", "sin", "guilt" mean so many different things to people, and we often forget that. But I think the idea of pushing someone who doesn't believe in a personal God to "the logical conclusion of their presuppositions" (nihilism) as a means to bring them to despair and finally to the gospel is not the Jesus way of attracting someone to himself. And I'd be surprised to hear it really works well in practice, beyond the few anecdotal examples.
Bottom line is this: Schaeffer drives a hard wedge between faith based on evidence, and faith as a leap. He makes you believe they are so different they must be exclusive. But if we as Christians are honest, we will admit reality is a bit more complex. We don't always walk by evidence, and we didn't come to Christ based only on evidence. It is most of the time evidence, and we walk sure-footed, but once in a while there is a crevasse we have to jump over. Not in the dark, we can see the other side, but there is no bridge and we have to jump. Otherwise we're not getting anywhere.
He is smart, he is articulate, his knowledge is vast, his theology is solid. I wish I could write and lecture like he did. But he is unfortunately so sure of his ideas that he barges ahead without seeing the obvious holes.
Here's my conclusion: He is right about the dangers of liberal theology, and the way it shape-shifts over the years and sneaks into churches that like to be conservative. He is right about how existentialist philosophy more than anything changed the world into what we see now (even though some of his examples from music and general culture are so obscure they are almost irrelevant). He is very right that unless we as Christians base our thinking on some unmovable truths (such as God's existence in a real sense of the word, an actual person "who is there") we have nothing left to talk about.
But he doesn't see how some of the most important tenets of the faith actually go against his prized antithesis principle, where if you affirm something you are automatically negating its opposite. Sounds nice. Sure, God exists by opposition to non-existence, and you can't affirm that he exists for you but he doesn't exist for me. But can you affirm Jesus was 100% man and also not only man? Can you affirm God is one but also not just one? Can you call people to make a decision for their salvation and affirm on the corner of your mouth that God really makes the decision, not them? I am not criticizing any of these principles, I am only showing that Christianity is full of these apparent dichotomies (of course they can be explained, but not easily, that's why they caused some of the biggest division in the history of the church). They might be non-issue by now for anyone who was raised in them, but that's definitely not the case for an outsider. They simply come across as pure contradictions to many. So it's disingenuous to pretend everything about historical theology is very logical and to scoff at the idea of dialectic epistemology, since these are some of the biggest debates in history, and I would venture to say the statements the historical creeds make on these issues are the result of some of the most fruitful and important dialectic processes that ever happened, before anyone ever said the word "dialektik".
I think traditional evangelical Christians can learn a thing or two from the upper story / lower story dichotomy of the existentialists, simply because not everything we experience in our walk with God can be explained. Aristotelian logic only takes you so far, and that's not far enough.
Schaeffer is willing to let the Christian experience go beyond rational thinking but only as far as it can be verbalized (for the purpose of being compared with scripture supposedly). Which is important to highlight, because I think it's tragic, since everything that can't be explained theologically is invalidated. I agree we can't meet God properly without a solid biblical foundation, but I am not ready to restrict the ways God chooses to reveal himself to only what is expected of him.
I will however heed his advice to make sure I clearly define the terms when I talk to someone about spiritual matters, since words such as "God", "Jesus", "sin", "guilt" mean so many different things to people, and we often forget that. But I think the idea of pushing someone who doesn't believe in a personal God to "the logical conclusion of their presuppositions" (nihilism) as a means to bring them to despair and finally to the gospel is not the Jesus way of attracting someone to himself. And I'd be surprised to hear it really works well in practice, beyond the few anecdotal examples.
Bottom line is this: Schaeffer drives a hard wedge between faith based on evidence, and faith as a leap. He makes you believe they are so different they must be exclusive. But if we as Christians are honest, we will admit reality is a bit more complex. We don't always walk by evidence, and we didn't come to Christ based only on evidence. It is most of the time evidence, and we walk sure-footed, but once in a while there is a crevasse we have to jump over. Not in the dark, we can see the other side, but there is no bridge and we have to jump. Otherwise we're not getting anywhere.
September 20, 2022
Great book exploring the philosophical consequences of non biblical worldviews!
January 27, 2020
This time reading through the trilogy, TGWIT was by far my favorite. Previously, it had been HITAHINS, but not this time. In the past, I had thought the first 80 pages or so of this book, all the philosophical history, were too boring or just-to-get-through. This time I found them fascinating step by step. I thought Schaeffer’s reasoning was solid and his argumentation persuasive in these chapters. It sets the stage well for the section on how Christianity offers the real answer (which evidently is why he organized his book this way)
That being said, I still think the second half of the book is more helpful than the first. The first can be summed up with the ideas of 1) the line of despair (with naturalism and the “mannishness” of man), and 2) the tension, therefore, in modern man. But the second half is full of biblical, theological, and practical insights about Christianity’s truthfulness.
As a result, I recommend even more than before that people read the book. It is primarily apologetics, and not a devotional, yet Schaeffer is so clear and persuasive on Christianity’s truthfulness (especially in a world in despair) that it will lead you to worship our truth-speaking, purpose-giving God.
One final note would be to mention that the book was written in the late 60’s, and so some of it is of course dated. (For example, I think now we’re so below the line of despair and used to leaping that the tension and despair is partly gone; people take for granted both naturalism and the upper story (such as love) that they don’t even think about any sort of tension or despair.) But the truths still apply, they’re only further down the road now. (Oh how I wish Schaeffer was still alive here on earth!).
I’d recommend to anyone. A fascinating read.
That being said, I still think the second half of the book is more helpful than the first. The first can be summed up with the ideas of 1) the line of despair (with naturalism and the “mannishness” of man), and 2) the tension, therefore, in modern man. But the second half is full of biblical, theological, and practical insights about Christianity’s truthfulness.
As a result, I recommend even more than before that people read the book. It is primarily apologetics, and not a devotional, yet Schaeffer is so clear and persuasive on Christianity’s truthfulness (especially in a world in despair) that it will lead you to worship our truth-speaking, purpose-giving God.
One final note would be to mention that the book was written in the late 60’s, and so some of it is of course dated. (For example, I think now we’re so below the line of despair and used to leaping that the tension and despair is partly gone; people take for granted both naturalism and the upper story (such as love) that they don’t even think about any sort of tension or despair.) But the truths still apply, they’re only further down the road now. (Oh how I wish Schaeffer was still alive here on earth!).
I’d recommend to anyone. A fascinating read.
October 15, 2021
I first read this work ~25 years ago. Then, it helped me understand some about the postmodernism that was still only known in pockets of our culture. Reading it today, I'm shocked by how forward-thinking Francis Schaeffer was in the 1960s and 70s.
The first half of the book identifies a trend of controlling movements in Western thinking and how these have moved through philosophy, art, theology, and literature. Schaeffer sees this movement leading humanity to live 'below the line of despair.' The second half begins by showing how Christianity offers a solution that embraces our personality and our finitude in connection with the personal-infinite God who has created us. This latter half ends which some suggestions for the church at the end of the 20th century to learn how to communicate afresh the message of Christianity to the world.
"To say that I am only a machine is one thing; to live consistently as if this were true is quite another."
Living below the line of despair leads to 3 options:"(1) simple nihilism; (2) acceptance of the absolute dichotomy [life is based on random happenings or driven by chemical reaction, but my choices and relationships matter, e.g. Kai Nielsen's Noble Lie]; (3) a semantic mysticism based on connotation words [using metaphysical words that actually have no real meaning]."
The first half of the book identifies a trend of controlling movements in Western thinking and how these have moved through philosophy, art, theology, and literature. Schaeffer sees this movement leading humanity to live 'below the line of despair.' The second half begins by showing how Christianity offers a solution that embraces our personality and our finitude in connection with the personal-infinite God who has created us. This latter half ends which some suggestions for the church at the end of the 20th century to learn how to communicate afresh the message of Christianity to the world.
"To say that I am only a machine is one thing; to live consistently as if this were true is quite another."
Living below the line of despair leads to 3 options:"(1) simple nihilism; (2) acceptance of the absolute dichotomy [life is based on random happenings or driven by chemical reaction, but my choices and relationships matter, e.g. Kai Nielsen's Noble Lie]; (3) a semantic mysticism based on connotation words [using metaphysical words that actually have no real meaning]."
January 26, 2021
It’s like Packer’s “Knowing God” but for Worldview formation - it’s extremely comprehensive and even better on multiple readings, even if it at times spider webs in so many directions that it’s hard to understand as a cohesive whole. Each chapter you could write an entire book on that subject. It still amazes me how Schaeffer was an intellectual that had a heart to reach the common man where they were at, and not where he wanted to talk to them from. I think both intellectuals and Christendom would do well to read both the words he wrote and the exemplified life he lived.
February 24, 2022
Never has a book given me such confidence in the contradictions of a secular worldview and the completely comprehensive outline of reality that the Christian gospel provides.
July 6, 2025
The first half was a bit tough to get through, as it was mostly focused on setting up the historical and cultural context by which the second half could be understood. But man! The second half! Schaffer emphasizes the importance of a personal God and how knowing that God should color our lives: our personal relationships, our affinity for reason, our perception of art, and our love for evangelism.
March 4, 2021
Ohhh myyyyy for en bok. Full av innsikt og visdom. Holdt på å bli skuffet på slutten da det virket ut som at Schaeffer antydet en slags reformert pres-up holdning til apologetikk (som jeg ikke akkurat er veldig begeistret for), men jeg misforstod poenget, som simpelthen var veldig godt. Første jeg har lest av Schaeffer, men hopper rett videre på neste. Les les les!
February 8, 2025
Having visited L’Abri I am jealous of the generations of students who visited and sought Biblical wisdom amidst the Alps.
In this book Francis provides great exposure to modern thinkers and how they inevitability fall below the “line of despair”, without knowing the real God who has acted throughout history and clearly revealed himself through his word and the created world.
In this book Francis provides great exposure to modern thinkers and how they inevitability fall below the “line of despair”, without knowing the real God who has acted throughout history and clearly revealed himself through his word and the created world.
March 30, 2017
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,..." (2Pet 1:3). 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.
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,..." (2Pet 1:3). 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.
November 19, 2020
Schaeffer has been one of my favorite reads in 2020 and this book is no different. Here he walks through the fall of culture and the declining recognition that God is there. This book differs from others of his as he closes with calls for Christians to be proclaimers of the Gospel in the midst of a culture that is opposed to truth and the Word of God.
November 3, 2021
I really enjoyed my first reading of a philosophical theology book. I will definitely be checking out more of Schaeffer’s books. There was a lot I felt was “above my head” but I pray the information stuck my mind somewhere. It was all very interesting and thought provoking.
April 21, 2022
Lite förenklande på vissa ställen, annars mycket bra och klokt
December 19, 2025
I really enjoyed this book, though I am not smart enough to understand a lot of it.
Essentially, the Christian Faith is grounded in reality because God IS (reality).
“If there is a thesis, there is an antithesis. If there is that which is true truth, there is that which is error. If there is true Christian salvation, there is lostness.”
“The God who is there is of such a nature that he can be loved, and I am of such a nature that I can love; and thus this first commandment, or basic purpose of man, is the very opposite of a nonsense statement. I know what man is, and I know who I am.”
When the world rejects absolutes, specifically the Ultimate Absolute (God), they must come up with their own presuppositions for explaining the world in which they live. And any explanation outside of reality (God) when fully realized will lead to an illogical conclusion. But the contemplation will usually stop before reaching that conclusion. The best way for man to realize his faulty logic is to show where his logic leads, and then when he sees the issue, the Christian solution can be given.
“We ought not to try first to move a man away from the logical conclusion of his position but towards it.
We should try to move him in the natural direction his presuppositions take him. We are pushing him towards the place where he ought to be, had he not stopped short.”
And finally, I appreciated this summary of the end of a conversation he had with another pastor which, to me, should be the goal of any theological discussion:
"’Thank you for opening these doors to me; now I can worship God better.’ … If this is not our own response first of all, and then the response of those whom we try to help, we have made a mistake somewhere.”
Essentially, the Christian Faith is grounded in reality because God IS (reality).
“If there is a thesis, there is an antithesis. If there is that which is true truth, there is that which is error. If there is true Christian salvation, there is lostness.”
“The God who is there is of such a nature that he can be loved, and I am of such a nature that I can love; and thus this first commandment, or basic purpose of man, is the very opposite of a nonsense statement. I know what man is, and I know who I am.”
When the world rejects absolutes, specifically the Ultimate Absolute (God), they must come up with their own presuppositions for explaining the world in which they live. And any explanation outside of reality (God) when fully realized will lead to an illogical conclusion. But the contemplation will usually stop before reaching that conclusion. The best way for man to realize his faulty logic is to show where his logic leads, and then when he sees the issue, the Christian solution can be given.
“We ought not to try first to move a man away from the logical conclusion of his position but towards it.
We should try to move him in the natural direction his presuppositions take him. We are pushing him towards the place where he ought to be, had he not stopped short.”
And finally, I appreciated this summary of the end of a conversation he had with another pastor which, to me, should be the goal of any theological discussion:
"’Thank you for opening these doors to me; now I can worship God better.’ … If this is not our own response first of all, and then the response of those whom we try to help, we have made a mistake somewhere.”
May 10, 2023
The 'new' modernistic theology of the West profoundly differs from historic Christianity: this is the underlying thesis of Schaeffer's masterpiece, The God Who is There. Following the trend of twentieth-century philosophy, art, theatre, cinematography, and music, modern theology has crossed the 'line of dispair' by giving up on the idea of the absolute. Although Schaeffer emphasises the fundamental difference between these antithetical movements, he does not leave us in the dark: he helps evangelicals to engage with our culture and to share the gospel with our communities.
Schaeffer's discussion of semantics was particularly helpful. Although liberal Christianity shares a similar vocabulary with historic Christianity (i.e. god, Jesus, cross, resurrection), these words mean profoundly different things. For example, 'God' is not the personal-infinite triune God of the Bible but is often just a pantheistic notion of the universe being divine. This is why it is so important to define our terms when doing theology.
This is a great book and has helped me to think about how to reach twenty-first-century people with the gospel. The only downside is that Schaeffer is prone to generalisation. Liberal and modernistic Christianity is problematic but it is also complex; it's difficult to paint the whole movement with one broad brushstroke.
Schaeffer's discussion of semantics was particularly helpful. Although liberal Christianity shares a similar vocabulary with historic Christianity (i.e. god, Jesus, cross, resurrection), these words mean profoundly different things. For example, 'God' is not the personal-infinite triune God of the Bible but is often just a pantheistic notion of the universe being divine. This is why it is so important to define our terms when doing theology.
This is a great book and has helped me to think about how to reach twenty-first-century people with the gospel. The only downside is that Schaeffer is prone to generalisation. Liberal and modernistic Christianity is problematic but it is also complex; it's difficult to paint the whole movement with one broad brushstroke.
January 28, 2022
To be honest, I don't know where to begin with this book! I listened to it on audible and now know that I need to buy myself a copy, and get some extra highlighters in anticipation.
Schaeffer writes in response to modern theologians who had "crossed the line of despair" as they claim that there is no absolute truth. Francis travels through the world of philosophy, art, literature and music chasing down the logical conclusions of such a dangerous statement. At the same time, Francis points to the absolute & concrete historical truth, which is God made flesh.
There is so much going on in this book. As I read it, not only was I challenged personally, but it brought to mind half a dozen others who I'd love to send a copy to.
A wonderful read!
Schaeffer writes in response to modern theologians who had "crossed the line of despair" as they claim that there is no absolute truth. Francis travels through the world of philosophy, art, literature and music chasing down the logical conclusions of such a dangerous statement. At the same time, Francis points to the absolute & concrete historical truth, which is God made flesh.
There is so much going on in this book. As I read it, not only was I challenged personally, but it brought to mind half a dozen others who I'd love to send a copy to.
A wonderful read!
July 23, 2022
This book is proof that $3 used book store purchases can lead to a goldmine.
I can only think of a handful of times a book as made me say, “This might be one of the best books I’ve ever read” - with The God Who Is There, I had that thought chapter after chapter.
I can only think of a handful of times a book as made me say, “This might be one of the best books I’ve ever read” - with The God Who Is There, I had that thought chapter after chapter.
April 16, 2025
That was excellent! Just don’t ask me to explain it to you! He’s approachable and easy to read. It is however one of those works where you’re reading and feel like you’re tracking, but then you try to explain a point to someone and it comes out incoherently. I think to really grasp his significance fully I’d need another couple reads. It did leave me convinced that much of modern evangelism and also education has it all wrong.
It’s been fascinating to read this along side of essays by David Foster Wallace. Even an ardent atheist turns up his nose and finally declares the events in “Big Red Son” as revolting and just wrong. Even though the ending of Wallace’s life is extremely tragic, it does make sense after living a life of such philosophical tension.
It’s been fascinating to read this along side of essays by David Foster Wallace. Even an ardent atheist turns up his nose and finally declares the events in “Big Red Son” as revolting and just wrong. Even though the ending of Wallace’s life is extremely tragic, it does make sense after living a life of such philosophical tension.
July 28, 2017
“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.
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.
May 18, 2023
Francis Schaffer is a Genius. Can't believe that this was published in 1968, because it breaks down the societal condition and human condition so accurately. This revelatory masterpiece deserves a close look and made me think deeply about society and my own life. This is evidence for faith to the skeptic and the cynic alike. Most importantly it led me to repentance and greater reliance on our God.
December 31, 2022
The philosophy is hard to work through if you aren't familiar with the subject. Pushing forward to the later sections on apologetic applications was well worth the mental work though. This is going onto the "want to read again and reference" list for sure.
August 5, 2025
I recommend this book for anyone who desires to communicate the Gospel in the manner needed for our time.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 346 reviews