Did Catholic theology cause Secular Humanism?

and
Frances Schaeffer's "How Then Shall We Live?"
Introduction
Catholics and Evangelicals agree that the Secular Humanism is one of the greatest threats to Christianity today. It has
paved the way for many of the social ills that we see today including abortion, same sex marriage, the sexual
revolution, the banishing of Christianity from our schools, courts, governments, institutions and more.
Unfortunately some Evangelicals want to lay the blame at the feet of the Catholic Church. This article is divided into
sections:

Part 1 - Intro to Secular Humanism (this page)

Part 2 - Side by side, Schaeffer's accusations with responses

Part 3 - Greek Philosophy in the Bible

Part 4 - Humanism in the Renaissance

Part 5 - Humanism in Modern day Christianity

Part 6 - The Pope's famous speech about "evil and inhuman" acts by Mohammed and about the relationship
between Reason and Faith and the De-Hellenization of Christianity

What is Secular Humanism?

Secular Humanism... can be defined as a religious world view based on atheism, naturalism, evolution, and ethical
relativism - the belief that no absolute moral code exists, and therefore man must adjust his ethical standards in each
situation according to his own judgment.[10] If God does not exist, then He cannot establish an absolute moral code.
Humanist Max Hocutt says that human beings "may, and do, make up their own rules... Morality is not discovered; it is
made."[1]
In the Evangelical world, perhaps the greatest force against human secularism is Francis Schaeffer, an orthodox
Presbyterian who died in 1984. In some ways Schaeffer was right on because he was calling Evangelicals to get
involved in politics (Dominionism). He advocated the protest of abortion, and the active promotion of moral
conservative values. In that respect that his ideas were totally awesome! We love him for that.
Unfortunately, this has gone seemingly unnoticed in the Evangelical world, and as a result no man's writings have
done more harm to Catholic relations with Evangelicals since Hislop. We wondered why so many Evangelical
Christians have values that we love, but hate the Catholic Church so much. Schaeffer is one of the greatest sources of
that anti-Catholicism. So The book "How Then Shall We Live?" needs a critical analysis to separate the wheat and the
chaff. An extensive of the book "How Then Shall We Live" is here.

Criticism of traditional theology

Francis Schaeffer's assertion that Evangelicals need to get active in politics and moral issues such as abortion was
good. He was also right in some of his criticism of the Catholic Church during the Renaissance. Most Catholic writers
also criticize that period of Church history. Human beings tend to get Spiritually lazy when things start going well for us
materially. Christianity seems to thrive when it is under persecution (which is why there are so many cool things
happening in China now) and things got a little too comfortable during the Renaissance. However, it is interesting how
the industrial revolution that grew out of the Renaissance put the brakes on Islam's invasion of Europe. So the
materialism was not all bad.

Schaeffer said Christianity should never have considered pre-Christian Greek writings. He said they were not Christian
and were rotten humanistic roots to our faith. He criticized Thomas Aquinas (1250AD) for reconciling Greek
philosophy with Christianity. Schaeffer criticized what he considered the "evolution" of theology. He was also angry at
Lutherans, Presbyterians and many other denominations that approached theology this way. Mr. Schaeffer believed
that traditional theology causes a subordination of the Jewish modes of thought of the Old Testament and gives
prominence of Greco-Roman forms of thought. He says this has paved the way to Secular Humanism. What Mr.
Schaeffer doesn't say is that the Apostles Paul and John both acknowledge the place of Greek philosophy in the plan
of God's Church and they are quick to make use of it in the Bible. You can't throw out Greek philosophy without
throwing away the New Testament. In this respect Mr. Schaeffer is very mistaken.
It is our division and complacency which has caused our present situation. Divided we fall. We need to roll up our
sleeves and work together.

The rest of this series of articles

There are parts of Francis Schaeffer's approach which are unfair, unhistorical, and unbiblical. That needs a critical
exploration. In the next few articles we will try to address those issues.
Thanks to Fr. Terry Donahue, Art Sippo, Fr. Camille Jacques and Mark Bonocore for their generous contribution of
ideas for this article.

Francis A. Schaeffer - How Then Should We Live? The Rise

and Decline of Western Thought and Culture
In the Evangelical world, perhaps the greatest force against human secularism is Francis Schaeffer, an orthodox
Presbyterian who died in 1984. In some ways Schaeffer was fantastic because he was calling Evangelicals to get
involved in politics (Dominionism). He advocated the protest of abortion, and the active promotion of moral
conservative values. In that respect that his ideas were totally awesome! We love that. His "reform of the Reform" is
awesome. When we look closely at his writings, he is actually asking for a return to a model very similar to the
Catholic Church. Here are some of the things that come to mind that are more "Catholic" in heritage than the
Presbyterian denomination he lived and worked in:
1. Schaeffer wanted Evangelicals to take back art (which is what Catholicism did during the middle ages)
2. He wanted to reinstate moral absolutes
3. He wanted Evangelicals to take back politics (he called this Dominionism, which is what Catholicism did after
Constantine)
4. He wanted Evangelicals to understand that the full use of the intellect is completely consistent with a life of
faith and that both the intellect and faith will arrive at the same Truth, because Truth is Truth (this is the
Catholic exegesis form of theological analysis). In fact the Pope's recent famous speech where he quoted a
14th century Byzantine Emperor who said Mohammed's deeds were "evil and inhuman" was actually about the
relationship of Faith and Reason.
When we read Schaeffer's book, "How Then Should We Live?" we were floored because it seemed like such a
Catholic solution to human secularism, yet the book takes a huge swipe at the Catholic Church when it blames us for
secular humanism. When we read it, it seemed apparent that he was deeply divided.
Schaeffer wrote the book in 1976. Although Mr. Schaeffer's correctly assessed society's ills such as abortion, rampant
sex, etc., his reasons for human secularism were not very accurate. It is clearthat he eventually saw the shortcomings
of his logic. This is evidenced by his reported movement towards the Catholic Church at the end of his life.
Unfortunately, we don't hear about his movement toward conversion in Evangelical circles. Instead he is held up as an
icon of anti-Catholicism. As a result, that no book has done greater harm to Catholic relations with Evangelicals since
Alexander Hislop's "Two Babylons." Hislop was the author who first accused the Catholic Church of being the Whore
of Babylon. He also said anyone who wears a cross has a pagan symbol of the devil around his neck, which is a pretty
plain example of the level of scholarship the book displays. Similarly, Mr. Schaeffer accused the Catholic Church of
paganism because it honoured some Aristotle philosophical concepts. He seems to ignore that the Bible itself uses
Greek philosophy, was written in Greek, and the apostles Paul and John both draw on Greek philosophy, in the Bible.
There are similarities between Alexander Hislop's "The Two Babylons" and Schaeffer's "How then Should We Live?"
They are both full of footnotes, dates, and references to give the impression of meticulous research and scholarship.
Mr. Schaeffer's book has many photos to help make his points. They are both radically anti-Catholic, and have
become classics in the Evangelical World. The thing that is striking about both these books is that they fall into pieces
the moment they are put under any serious academic scrutiny.

Schaeffer's accusations with responses

Mr. Schaeffer's attacks on the Catholic Church (before he began his walk towards the Catholic Church late in life) fall
into a few categories that he repeated frequently in the book "How then should we live?" The themes are:

1. Christians should never have let Greek philosophy into the faith.

2. The Church after Constantine is responsible for the introduction of Greek.

3. Aquinas should never have introduced Aristotle or "reason" into theology

4. The materialism of the renaissance Popes is a result of Aquinas' attention to "reason".
5. Humanism in the Renaissance was also because of that.
6. Modern Secular humanism is because of that.
The book tries to tie history up into a nice neat package with a bow, and lay all the blame at the feet of the Catholic
Church. It is part of the reason so many Evangelicals have problems with the Catholic Church. What is clear in a
careful reading of the book is that he actually advocates that Evangelicals approach the Christian faith much in the
same way that the Catholic Church approaches the faith. The first half of the book slams the Catholics. The book
completely turns on itself in the second half and advocates that Evangelicals do the very things that the book criticized
about the Catholic Church in the first half of the book.
Below is a list of quotes found in the book with my short responses and links to further information:
Criticisms of Catholicism
in Francis Schaeffer's book
"How Then Can We Live"

"That it was the Christians that were

able to resist religious mixtures,
syncretism, and the effects of the
weaknesses of culture speaks of the
strength of the Christian world view.
This strength rested on God being
infinite personal God"
(pg. 22)
They [earliest Christians] rejected all
forms of syncretismthey allowed
no mixture: all other Gods were seen
as false Gods
(pg. 26)
After Constantine the majority of
the people went on in their old ways.
( pg. 26)

My Responses

Greek was part of Christianity from the beginning. The earliest Christians
were the ones who welcomed the Hellenisation of Christianity. Greek
philosophy is in the Bible. Paul quotes Epimenides (500BC) and Aratus
(300 BC) in Acts 16:28. John opens up his Gospel with Greek philosophy
Logos. (Jn 1:1) Paul often talks to the Jews and Greeks in his midst. (Rom
10:12, Gal 3:28, Col 3:11)
The Dogma of the Trinity was defined after Constantine, which is accepted
by every Christian denomination. The Bible New Testament was given to
us after that in 397AD. It is incorrect to say that the quality of faith dropped
after Constantine. See also:

Greek Philosophy in the Bible

Constantine

Paganism

Timeline of the Catholic Church

Timeline of the Bible

The Pope's speech on the Dehellenization of Christianity

Christianity was made the official religion of the Roman Empire, so naturally
there were some Roman subjects who were Christian by name only and
were not "in the Spirit." However there is no evidence that Christianity lost
ground after Constantine. In fact, the legalization of Christianity allowed it to

flourish and mature so that it could be "shouted from the rooftops". There
are many saints from that time and Christianity spread faster than ever.

Augustine (354-430) strongly

emphasized a true biblical
Christianity Later in the Church
there was an increasing distortion
away from the biblical teaching
[incorporating Greek] (pg. 30)

Although the book criticizes the use of Greek philosophy we see that Mr.
Schaeffer had an affinity for Augustine who incorporated Greek philosophy
in much of his work. Augustine loved the Greek philosophy of Plato and
Aristotle, and true biblical Christianity uses elements of Greek Philosophy.
Paul quotes Epimenides (500BC) and Aratus (300 BC) in Acts 16:28. John
opens up his Gospel with Greek philosophy Logos. (Jn 1:1) He also fails to
mention Martin Luther was a strong supporter of Greek philosophy as a
basis for theology.
The Catholic Encyclopedia says: "[In Augustine] we seem to have found
united and combined the powerful and penetrating logic of Plato, the deep
scientific conceptions of Aristotle, the knowledge and intellectual
suppleness of Origen, the grace and eloquence of Basil and Christendom
Whether we consider him as philosopher, as theologian, or as
exegetist...he still appears admirable the unquestioned Master of all the
centuries." Philip Schaff (op. cit., p. 97) admires above all "such a rare
union of the speculative talent of the Greek and of the practical spirit of the
Latin Church as he alone possessed."
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02091a.htm

Increasingly, the authority of the

church took precedence over their
teaching of the Bible
(pg. 32)

There was no Bible in the early Church. Just a bunch of letters and the
Septuagint Old Testament the early Church was run on the authority of
the bishops and the patriarchs in Rome, Alexandria and Antioch. The
Catholic Church was given stewardship and authority over the Scriptures. It
was they who decided on what goes and stays. In 397AD they decided on
the New Testament that all Churches and all denominations use today.
History of the Bible

Much of Christianity up until the

sixteenth century was either reaction
against or reaffirmation of these
distortions of the original Christian,
biblical teaching
(pg. 32)

Again, original Christians had no New testament back then. So naturally the
authority didnt come from the Bible, it came from the bishops (Patriarchs of
Rome, Antioch and Alexandria) who were given stewardship over Scripture.
And they came together and decided on the Bible. The Bible uses Greek
philosophy. You can't throw away Greek philosophy without throwing out
the Bible.

That is a misrepresentation of Aquinas. It is notable that although "How

then Should we Live" has a bibliography of over 300 books, there is nothing
Aquinas has already begun in
by Aquinas. Nor is there any book in his bibliography by the Early Church
difference to Aristotle (384-322BC), to fathers, who completely support the concept of Greek philosophical
open the door to placing revelation
elements in Christianity.
and human reason on an equal
Aquinas' position was simply that the intellect is part of the discernment
footing
process. Pope Benedict has a great speech about that which has now
(pg. 43)
become famous because it is where he quoted the 14th century Byzantine
emperor who said Mohammed did "evil and human" things. It is here.

Aquinas thought that the Fall did not

affect man as a whole but only in
part. In his view the will was fallen or
corrupted but the intellect was not
affected. Thus peopled could rely on
their own human wisdom, and this
meant that people were free to mix
teaching of the Bible with the
teachings of non-Christian
philosophers.
(pg. 52)
to Thomas Aquinas the will was
fallen after man had revolted but the
mind was not.
(pg. 81)

as a result philosophy was

gradually separated from revelation
from the Bible and philosophers
began to act in an increasingly
independent autonomous manner.
(pg. 52)

Aquinas never said that the intellect was "unaffected" by original sin. He
simply said that original sin was primarily an act of will so the will was
subject to a greater compromise in the original fall of man. He said the
intellect is greater than the will (not faith) only when taken by itself. But
when the two are compared to their objects, the will is greater.
All of the Jewish prophets were non-Christian philosophers also. Mr.
Schaeffer talks a lot about non Christians before the time of Christ. As
obvious as this seems, everyone was non-Christian before Christ, including
the Jews. There were no Christians before Christ. There were only a few
Prophets (Jewish and non-Jewish) who had a rough idea about Christ's
coming.
If the Jews were so turned off by the Greeks, it would seem strange that
Greek became the popular language of the Jews. The Jews translated the
Hebrew Scriptures into Greek, with all the nuances of Greek philosophy.
On page 133 he says "God is a reasonable God, as the Bible says he was."
This is also what Aquinas was saying, "Don't throw out reason!"
Actually, this is the exact opposite of what Aquinas did. He incorporated
philosophy into revelation. Again the book shows a lack of understanding
of Aquinas, an understanding that is recognized by most scholars. Aquinas
philosophical positions were integral to his faith.

It is interesting that the book would rely on the words of a Pope to defend
its position.
In 1263 Pope Urban IV had forbidden
the study of Aristotle in the
universities. Aquinas managed to
have Aristotle accepted, so the
ancient non-Christian philosophy
was re enthroned.
(pg. 52)

Actually, the Papal Bull went out in 1261 and it was primarily put out
because people were attributing to Aristotle things that Aristotle did not
write. And it was causing doctrinal errors among the youth of the University
in Paris. What Mr. Schaeffer doesn't say here is that the Pope temporarily
forbid the study of *ALL* Physics and Metaphysics. The prohibition just
applied to Paris and it was temporary until they sorted out the problems.
Aquinas sorted out the problems. The genius of Aquinas was his ability to
purify the truth found in Aristotle's work. Much like someone looking for gold
among stones.
More here: http://www2.nd.edu/Departments//Maritain/etext/aatcc08.htm

Two things laid the foundation for

what was to follow: first the gradually
awakened cultural thought and
awakened piety [he thinks this is
bad] of the Middle Ages; and second,
an increasing distortion of the
teaching of the Bible and the early
church. Humanist elements had
entered. For example, the authority of

There is no doubt that at the end of the Middle ages there were abuses.
Every Catholic scholar knows that. However that is distinct from the book's
accusations about the authority of the Church which Mr. Schaeffer came to
respect later in life.
The Church did not "take" precedence over the teaching of the Bible. The
Church always had stewardship and authority. We know that sounds like a
strong statement but it is an observable fact from history. The Bible itself
says that the Church was given the authority by Jesus in Mat 16:18 though

the church took precedence over the

teaching of the Bible; Fallen man was
considered able to return to God by
meriting the merit of Christ; and
there was a mixture of Christian and
ancient non-Christian thought (as
Aquinass emphasis on Aristotle).
This opened the way for people to
think of themselves as autonomous
and the center of all things.
(then he sets Wycliffe and Huss
against that)
(pg. 56)

Peter and his successors.

There were some abuses of indulgences, absolutely, trying to raise
money...much like today's Evangelical pastors who say "Dig deep into
those pockets, it will be a blessing to you." Human greed is always around.
The theology of the Church stayed solid as far as Dogma is concerned.
See also Faith vs. Works
Our current Pope, Benedict XVI gave a famous speech in Germany (where
he quoted about the "evil and human" things of Islam). In this speech he
said that "In all honesty, one must observe that in the late Middle Ages we
find trends in theology which would sunder this synthesis between the
Greek ... and the Christian spirit. In contrast with the so-called
intellectualism of Augustine and Thomas, there arose with Duns Scotus a
voluntarism ..."
Pope John Paul II also apologized. More about indulgences here.
On one hand Mr. Schaeffer criticizes the Church for not letting people think
for themselves. Then he accuses the Church of paving the way to people
thinking for themselves.
Martin Luther said "Just me with a Bible is necessary for all understanding"
This is more "autonomous" than the Catholic Church of the Middle ages.

Prior to this time [Renaissance], Mary

was considered very high and holy.
Earlier she was considered so much
above normal people that she was
painted as a symbol. When in the
Renaissance Mary was painted as a
real person, but now not only was
the kings mistress painted as Mary
with all of the holiness removed, but
the meaning, too was being
destroyed.
(pg. 71)

Huss returned to the teachings of the

Bible and of the early church and
stressed that the Bible is the only
source of final authority and that
salvation comes only through Christ
and his work.
(pg. 80)

Mr. Schaeffer speaks against his own logic. He says the Church
worshipped Mary in the Renaissance, yet he says, Catholics painted her as
a real person. He says we degraded her by making her bourgeois in Art,
and says we worshipped by making her too Holy in Art.

The Book's use of the word "returned" here is not correct. Huss picked up
on Wycliffe's propositions. Wycliffe was the first to propose the final
authority of Scripture. It has given birth to over 33,000 denominations who
don't agree on what Scripture is saying but who all claim it is the only
authority...
It is also incorrect to say the early Christians considered the Bible the only
source of authority. They didn't even have a "Bible". See also:

Timeline of the Bible

Are Catholics into the Bible

The Early Church claimed that the Eucharist was the true Body of our Lord.
Wycliffe and Huss taught agaiFnst that. Whether you agree that the

Eucharist is the Body of Christ or not, it is clear that the early Church taught
unanimously that it was the true presence of Christ.
Wycliffe and Huss were not returning to the "good old days" of Christianity.
They were making a radical departure from the Christian beliefs that trace
back to the time of Christ. They are departing from the words of Paul and
all the early Church and Jesus himself about the Eucharist. That's why the
Church tried to stop them. What does the Bible and the early Church say
about the Eucharist?
The Reformers turned not to man as
beginning only from himself, but to
the original Christianity of the Bible
and the Early Church. Gradually they
came to see that the church founded
by Christ had since been marred by
distortions. ... Rather they took
seriously the Bibles own claim for
itself-that it is the only final
authoritythe Reformers accepted
the Bible as the Word of God in all
that it teachesit was Sola Sciptura,
the Scriptures only. This stood in
contrast to the humanism that had
infiltrated the church after the first
centuries of Christianity.
(pg. 81-82)

Mr. Schaeffer says something very powerful here. He said that the Church
that was founded by Christ was "marred by many distortions." Since his
whole critique in the early part of the book is about the Catholic Church,

At its core, therefore, the

Reformation was the removing of the
humanistic distortions which had
entered the Church.
(pg. 82)

A very good argument can be made that exactly the opposite is true. More
here.

But Michelangelo, on the ceiling of

the Sistine Chapel in the Vatican,
also combined biblical teaching and
non-Christian pagan thought; he
made the pagan prophetesses equal
to the Old Testament prophets.
(pg. 82)

The Reformers wanted to go back to

Schaeffer is saying here that the Church that Christ founded is the Catholic
Church.
According to Schaeffer's son, he accepted this near his death and was on
his way to becoming Catholic. Listen to his son speak about it here. The
history of the Church is here.
He says that the Bible claims that it's the only authority. We would
challenge him to
find one place in Scripture where it says that the Bible is the only authority.
It doesn't say that. It says that the Church is the only authority. (Mat 16:18)
Catholics and the Bible

Along the tops of the walls of the Sistine Chapel are people who envisioned
Christ before he came. Christ was for all people. Scripture says the Truth is
written on all our hearts, Jew and Gentile, Greek and Roman. (Rom 10:12,
Gal 3:28, Col 3:11) In the Bible, Ruth was not Jewish but she was
welcomed into the Jewish people because of her holiness.
The non-Jewish visionaries on the wall of the Sistine Chapel are people
caught the vibe and envisioned the coming of Christ before he came. That
is what won them a place on the wall of the Sistine Chapel alongside of the
Ancient Jewish prophets. Mr. Schaeffer is not of the Hebrew bloodline, yet
he claims Christ. We don't understand why he would have a problem with
the acknowledgment of non-Hebrews before the time of Christ prophesying
that Jesus the Messiah would come.
Here is his recurring theme, and the recurring answer is that there was no

the church as it originally was, with

the authority being the Bible only...
(pg. 82)

New Testament in the Early Church. The early Church put the Eucharist at
the centre of the community. More here.
On pg. 113, the book says that the Reformer Calvin only celebrated the
Lord's supper every 3 months. The early Christians had the Eucharist each
time they met. They believed in the real presence of Jesus in the Eucharist,
unlike Calvin. The Reformers also abandoned praying for the dead which
began with the first Christians.

Photo: Latin writing in the catacomb of Priscilla that says:

"I implore you, brothers, to pray whenever you come here and invoke the
Father and Son in all your prayers so that they might save Agape (the
person in the tomb) forever"
The Reformers were not returning to the "good old days" of Christianity,
they were going in a new direction that had never been tried before. For the
early Christians, unity was everything and it was obtained through the
Eucharist and the hierarchy. It is 500 years since the Reform and there is
no denomination that looks anything like the reformers vision of the Church.
There are currently 33,000 variations.
they [Reformers] indeed had many
and serious weaknesses, in to regard
to religious and secular
humanism...they did not mix
humanism with their position.
(pg. 82)

Here he is completely contradicting himself within one paragraph.

...the Bible gives unity to the

universal and the particulars.
(pg. 82 theme on pg. 86)

I totally agree and it is exactly the Greek language influence and Greek
philosophical concepts found in Scripture that unites the universals and the
particulars. (i.e., Logos)

The individual person, they

[Reformers] taught, could come to
God directly by faith through the
finished work of Christ.
(pg. 87)

Individualism is one of the defining traits of humanism which is what he

condemns in the book but he praises it when it applies to reformers. And
yet he condemns the Catholics for allowing people to be individuals. (pg.
56).

To men and women of the time, these

were images of worship. The men of
the Reformation saw that the Bible
stressed there is only one mediator
between Toe and man, Christ Jesus.

That is a stretch of the truth. Catholics don't worship statues...they were

teaching tools, because people couldn't read...
Statues in Church
That is like saying Evangelicals worship the music that they use in worship

(pg. 88)

services today. which is not true.

This rested on the fact that the Bible

gives unity to the universal and the
particulars, and therefore the
particulars have meaning. ...variety
and diversity without chaos. There is
variety yet resolution...
(pg. 92)

I totally agree. And it is exactly the Greek language influence and Greek
Philosophical concepts found in Scripture (i.e., Logos) that unites the
universals and the particulars. It is the Augustine and Aquinas influences of
scriptural interpretations that make this great unifying factor.

We must of course, remember

Handel ...Handel followed the Bible's
teaching exactly ...
(pg. 92)

The book doesn't mention that Handel used to rewrite his soprano parts for
his various mistresses... The book is claiming that Protestant artisans
(composers, artists, etc) were more holy than Catholic ones. No reputable
historian would agree with that. Rembrandt was messed up too. Honestly,
most artists, Catholic or Protestant are messed up in some way... We can
say that because I'm a composer. He shouldn't do the "our artists are better
than your artists" thing.

Anyone...who reads Martin Luther's

books, can see how his teaching is
so clear and transparent when he
sets for the holy gospel
(pg. 97)

Martin Luther left the books of James and Revelation out of his Bible. We
don't think this is "clear" and "transparent" Biblical teaching. He called the
Book of James the "Epistle of Straw."

Salvation didn't come through the

addition of man's works but through
Christ and his work only...
(pg. 97)

What happened to "Christ working through me.. " ?

It is not only Christians who can

paint with beauty, nor for that matter
only Christians who can love or who
have creative stirrings. Even though
the image is now contorted, people
are made in the image of God. This is
who people are, whether or not they
know or acknowledge it. God is the
great Creator, and part of the unique
mannishness of man, as made i9n
God's image, is creativity. Thus man
as man paints, sows creativity in
science and engineering and so on.
Such activity does not require a
special impulse from God, and it
does not mean that people are not
alienated from God .
(pg. 97)

This comment confuses us because the book has now completely jumped
on the other side of the argument. He says that God's work can shine
though in people who don't know him, because God made everything. That
is what he spent 50 pages condemning in the Catholic Church's approach
to pre-Christian philosophers.
Aristotle and other Greek philosophers stumbled on timeless truths about
the nature of Truth. Even though they did not know that the source of this
wisdom was God, they nevertheless found some Truth that Paul, John and
other apostles understood and used in the Bible.

Here the book bounces over to advocate for Humanism. Galileo was a
supreme Humanist. Yet Schaeffer is advocating for Galileo. The reason for
that is because in this case Galileo was mostly right. He found the Truth
about the round spinning Earth. Even though he was a Humanist.

In 1609 Galileo began to use the

newly invented telescope ...Aristotle
had been mistaken in his
pronouncements about the makeup
of the universe.
(pg. 132)

The reason Galileo got an inquisition is because his thesis was against the
all Christian understanding about the Immovable world spoken about in
Scripture. Both Protestant and Catholic theologians interpreted scriptural
references to the world being "immovable" to reject the idea that the world
is spinning. (i.e., 1 Chronicles 16:30, Judges 50:31, Ecles 1:5, James
1:11a, Psalm 93:1, Psalm 96:10, and Psalm 104:5).
It was the Church's love of Scripture that caused them to try to stop the
Humanist Galileo.
It should also be noted that Galileo actually taught that the sun was at the
center of the universe, not just the solar system; later evidence showed that
the sun also orbits the center of the Milky Way galaxy; it thus would have
been bad if the Church had given an unqualified endorsement to Galileo's
theory, for his specific form of the theory turned out to be false.
Just as Galileo built on Aristotle and found errors, modern science has
found errors in Galileo.
More about Galileo here

These creative stirrings are rooted in

the fact that people are made in the
image of God, the great Creator,
whether or not an individual knows
or acknowledges it
(pg. 132)

This is a complete turn of 180 degrees. It is saying that we can create godly
things without knowing God, which is exactly what Aristotle did. And it is
why Christianity accepted the aspects of Greek philosophy which were true.
Mr. Schaeffer is arguing against himself here.

...it is not only a Christian who can

paint beauty or who ha creative
stirrings in the area of science. These
creative stirrings are rooted in the
fact that people are made in the
image of God, the great Creator,
whether or not an individual knows
or acknowledges it, and even though
the image of God in people is now
contorted. This creativeness-whether
in are, science, or engineering - is a
part of the unique mannishness of
man as made in the image of God.
(pg. 133)

In the second half of his book, after the reformation, it is like a different guy
is writing the book.

Non-Christian philosophers from the

time of the Greeks ...assumed that
man...can gather enough particulars

I would say they were trying to discover universals, not make them up...

Here he is saying you don't have to be a card carry Christian to create

beauty or see Truth. Because the Truth and the search for it are written on
the hearts of all men.
Based on Schaeffer's own logic in the second half of the book, there is
nothing wrong with Aristotle finding the Truth about some fundamental
things before Christ, and for us to recognize that. But in the first half of the
book he says that non-Christians couldn't have any Truth.

to make his own universals.

(pg. 145)
Existentialism...[tries] to find an
answer in something totally
separated from reason.
(pg. 169)

Here he is criticizing Existentialism for its absence of reason. He

advocating for the use of reason, which is exactly what Aquinas was doing.
The book's logic has shifted 180 degrees and the last half of the book
argues in favour of the things that the first half of the book argues against.

The book shows a man who was very divided over the issues, and he was working his way through them. "How then
should we live" is not very convincing to those with an understanding of history. His inner struggles that led him toward
the Catholic Church, are already evident.
All through history people have tried to soil the Church. Certainly the Church is not perfect, it never was. Judas was
the first bad Christian and there have been many since that time. There are always various Judas's around and it easy
to point at bad Catholics and say "That is the cause for all the ills of the world." But history is showing that the
Reformation has brought on a whole nest of other problems. Frances A. Schaeffer realized this as he was
approaching death. He was making very loud criticisms of the Evangelical Church in his last book "The Great
Evangelical Disaster," as he moved towards a conversion to Catholicism.

Greek Philosophy in the Bible

There is a strong current in the Evangelical Churches to "dehellenize" Christianity. Which means to strip it of its Greek
influence and the "reasoned" approach that was incorporated into the faith. Leading this charge in the last century was
Francis A. Schaeffer.
It is a mistake to criticize traditional theology that takes into consideration the Greek context into which Christianity
was born. Both Paul and John specifically quote Greek philosophy in Scripture. The New Testament is interweaved
with Greek philosophical concepts (more about that below). It was written in Greek and 80% of the references Jesus
makes to the Old Testament are from the Greek Septuagint translation. To consider the Bible in a vacuum devoid of
Greek philosophy is impossible.
Let's examine Paul's dialogue with the Greek philosophers.
In Athens ...[Paul] reasoned in the synagogue with the Jews and the God-fearing Greeks, ...A group of Epicurean
and Stoic [Greek] philosophers began to dispute with him ... brought him to a meeting of the Areopagus where they
said to him, "May we know what this new teaching is that you are presenting? You are bringing some strange ideas to
our ears, and we want to know what they mean."(Acts 17:18-20)
Here we see the the Bible talking about "the God-fearing Greeks." God is capitalized to make it clear which God the
Bible passage is talking about. The location where he meets the Greeks is important. It was the hub of Greek
Philosophy and is often mentioned in Greek tragedies. These were great thinkers, and they were open to what Paul
had to say. The Bible said he "reasoned" with them. He didn't do spectacular healings like in other regions, he used
his intellect and helped them use their intellect. Intellect is not a bad thing. Notice how the Bible acknowledges the
open and honest searching questions of the Greek Philosophers. So Paul answered them.
..."Men of Athens! I see that in every way you are very religious. For as I walked around and looked carefully at your
objects of worship, I even found an altar with this inscription: TO AN UNKNOWN GOD. Now what you worship as
something unknown I am going to proclaim to you...From one man he made every nation of men, that they should
inhabit the whole earth; and he determined the times set for them and the exact places where they should live. God
did this so that men would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from each one
of us. (Acts 17:22-28)
Here Paul is honouring their search for Truth and telling them that their search has been completed and purified in
Jesus. Paul did not say only Jewish people would seek him, he said that all people would seek him. He didn't say
"your search was wrong ." He is saying that the "unknown God" that they have sought in their philosophy is the God of
the Bible who is the Creator of everything. Here we see Paul laying down a framework for what Augustine and
Aquinas did hundreds of years later. He is completing and purifying Greek philosophy, he is not telling them to
abandon their philosophy. Certainly, he is displeased that some Greeks had built idols. Certainly the idols were
inadequate and they knew it, that's why in the midst of them they had built an altar TO AN UNKNOWN GOD.
Paul also sees the brilliance in much of their quest, and he is quick to acknowledge when they talk about "AN
UNKNOWN GOD". The Greek philosophers were honestly seeking before the time of Christ and were not guilty of any
spiritual wrongdoing. This was not rebellion, it was honest seeking. They had never been told about the transcendent
God, yet they had come to some amazingly accurate conclusions about the nature of God simply by witnessing the
world around them in which God was reflected.
"...'for in him we live and move and have our being.'
As some of your own poets have said, 'We are his offspring.' "
(Acts 16:28)
Here Paul quotes the Greek poet Epimenides (500BC) and Aratus (300 BC)
Yes, Greek philosophy is found in the Bible!

Paul quotes the Greek Philosopher Aratus in Titus 1:12. He says "Cretans are always liars, evil brutes, lazy gluttons."
Many Greek philosophers were counter cultural in the best sense of the word and Paul acknowledges that. Socrates
was put to death for not caving into the moral degradation of the day. Aristotle rejected the multi Gods. Plato went
against the moral degradation of his day and spoke about moral absolutes. Paul often talks to the Jews and Greeks in
his midst together. (Rom 10:12, Gal 3:28, Col 3:11)
In his famous speech where he spoke critically about the Muslims, Pope Benedict's says:
The vision of Saint Paul, who saw the roads to Asia barred and in a dream saw a Macedonian man plead with him:
"Come over to Macedonia and help us!" (cf. Acts 16:6-10) - this vision can be interpreted as a "distillation" of the
intrinsic necessity of a rapprochement between Biblical faith and Greek inquiry.

Why did Christian theology pay attention to Greek Philosophy? Why not just draw everything from God's
people, the Jews?
We must consider the time in history which Jesus came to earth. The Bible says:
...When the fullness of time had come, God sent his Son... (Gal 4:4)
Jesus chose to come to humanity soon after the the peak of Greek philosophy. In Acts 16: 26 Paul says "[God]
determined the times set for them and the exact places where they should live." This is the historical context into
which Jesus chose to enter the world. We dont think that it is an accident. Here are a few of the characteristics of this
"fullness of time."

The history of the Jewish people had come to a head

The philosophy of the Greeks had matured

The civilization of the Romans had advanced technically and politically

In this "fullness of time" there were 3 prominent cities; Jerusalem, Athens (Greece), and Rome. From Jerusalem we
have the story of salvation history. We get the Old Testament, we learn about the family of God. In Greece, humanity
learned to ask the most penetrating questions about the most important issues such as: What is just? Does might
make right? How do we know what something is? How can we know the truth? From Greece we also are provided
with our Christian vocabulary, i.e., Logos (Jn. 1:1). From Rome we get the social structure through which all of this
flows into our own time. It is the basis of secular law and even the organization of our Church from its earliest
beginnings with the apostles.
Likewise, science is purified in this context. From Jerusalem we understand that man is created to have dominion over
all the earth, to know and understand the created order. In Greece we find the beginning of science and the
organization of philosophy into various disciplines. From Rome we find the application of that knowledge in public
works for public law, with limits codified in law. With all of these in combination, faith and reason find there
complimenting balance and we become fit citizens of the new Jerusalem.
In this "fullness of time" everything ties together. If Jesus had come earlier simply to the Jewish people without the
context of Rome and Greece, Christianity may have been a failure. All of these conditions (among others) were
necessary for Christianity to succeed.
The New Testament and the Septuagint (Old Testament) were written in Greek
The New Testament of the Bible was written in Greek, the Greek Septuagint had been translated from the Hebrew OT
just before the time of Christ. The Greek Old Testament was Jesus' choice when he referred to the Old Testament.
Greek was the language of choice for the new Christians. Any linguist will quickly point out that language and the
philosophy behind that language are inseparably linked. It was preciously the richness of the Greek language which
was infused with a wealth of deep philosophical overtones that made it the language of choice. The Greeks were light
years ahead of the rest of humanity in these matters and this brilliance was a gift from God.

We should be quick to see God's plan in all of this. It in no way subordinates the Jews who are the original chosen
people of God. In the New Testament we learn for the first time that God has a plan of salvation for all people, he is
not locked into the closed Jewish system. The New Testament would have been a failure if it did not incorporate
Greek concepts. That's why Paul, John and other writers draw upon Greek philosophy in the Bible. Many things in the
emerging Christianity would have to be done differently and thought of differently in the New Testament, and part of
that includes influences from the rich wealth of Greek philosophic concepts that are not well defined in the Jewish
writings. For instance let us consider one of the most famous Scripture verses.
In the beginning was the word (Logos) and the word (Logos) was with God. (John 1:1)
His use of the word Logos in Greek, introduces an explosion of meaning and depth. Any Greek philosopher of the day
would have known about the Logos. The Stoics (Greek Philosophers) saw the Logos as the cause which shapes
orders and directs the entire universe and the lives of those who inhabit it. For them, the Logos is the reason for
everything that exists, the ultimate principle imminent in things. John was not at all worried that the word Logos had
been associated with Pantheistic concepts. He simply claimed it and overcame their concept of the imminence of
God, and fulfilled it with the transcendence of God. In other words, he said "Although God created the box (this
universe), God is outside the box." In Verse 14 when John says "the Logos became flesh" it was amazing. It was a
completion of the Greek Philosophy, not a rejection of it. This laid another piece in the framework for Augustine and
Aquinas who further took up this approach to theology in later centuries.

The Box model

Below is a view of the Ancient Greek view versus the Christian view of Creation. Francis Schaeffer and also most
Catholic theologians would accept these diagrams.

Francis A. Schaeffer would say that the Greeks couldn't come to any Truth about the nature of Creation or of God
because their world view was confined to the box. On the other hand, for 2000 years theologians have said it is
possible to come to some understanding of Truth from within the box because the box was made by God. By looking
at the box you can understand something about its maker. For instance, even if someone doesn't know me (Hugh)

personally, they can get some understanding about me by listening to the songs I write. The Reformer Martin Luther
would agree with this.
Schaeffer would say that because the ancient Greeks did not know Christ they could not understand anything about
the True God. But in 300-500 BC Jews didn't know Christ either. Scripture says:
"From one man he made every nation of men .. so that men would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find
him (Acts 17:22-28)
There has been a desire to seek God within every human being from the dawn of Creation. This includes the Ancient
Greek philosophers. There are many times before Christ where God showed some aspect of the Truth to non-Jews.
(i.e. Ruth was a Gentile, Nebuchadnezzar was king of Babylon)
Then Nebuchadnezzar said, "Praise be to the God of Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego...for no other god can save
in this way." (Daniel 3:28)
The word theology comes from the Greek word theologou derived from Greek philosophy. John uses it in the title of
the Book of Revelation, apokalupsis ioannou tou theologou, "the revelation of John the theoLogos".
It hardy seems like God has a problem with using Greek philosophy as a context for Christianity. Greek philosophy is
in Scripture and is part of God's plan for his Church.
Martin Luther, who said:
"Next after theology, I give to music the highest place and the greatest honor."
Martin Luther, quoted in Martin Marty, Martin Luther, 2004, p. 114.
The father of the Reformation, Martin Luther maintained a deep reverence for Augustine his entire life. Francis A.
Schaeffer's criticism of theology is also a criticism of the founder of the Reform of which he speaks so highly. He is
contradicting himself on this. Theology is "faith seeking understanding (fides quaerens intellectum)." - Anselm of
Canterbury.
Isn't Jesus all about the Heart - Isn't the Intellect Useless?
I often hear from Evangelicals that a personal relationship with Jesus as "all about the heart" and has nothing to do
with the intellect and that the Catholic CHurch should never have paid any attention to the usefulness of the intellect.
Let us think about the most influential "born again" Christian in history. The Apostle Paul was authentically "born
again" on the road to Damascus. Jesus could have chosen anybody. He chose a supreme intellect. Even secular
scholars would agree that Paul was one of the greatest intellects in the history of mankind.
Paul did not throw out his intellect after his encounter with Jesus. He used it. He went to Athens to dispute with the
Greeks in Greek. He went to Rome and argued with the Romans in Latin as a Roman citizen. He always spoke with
groups in the context of their socio/political framework. He used his intellect to win souls. He used his supreme
knowledge of the law. We don't believe it was "all about the heart" for him. He used his powers of reasoning to convert
pagans and to lay down the foundation of our Faith, God's Holy Word, the Bible.
It is true that Paul let Jesus speak through him. But Jesus chose one of the greatest intellects of all time through which
to speak. God is not at all afraid of the intellect. The Bible is full of powerful demonstrations of how God uses human
intellect to win souls. The Catholic Church places value on human reasoning that was given to us by God. God
invented the intellect. It plays a role in our surrender to God. There are many circumstances where an intellectual
argument is presented to a non-believer. Their intellectual defenses drop and they surrender to Jesus. Paul used
human intellect to help build the kingdom. Let's not throw theological scholarship away. We don't think Paul would
want us to do that, nor does God. The use of reason is a powerful part of the faith.

Did early Christians practice Syncretism?

Well that depends on how you define syncretism. It is interesting that Schaeffer is using a Greek word (Synkretizein).
It means "combine" and it comes from the federation of Cretan communities. (Kres. Cretos). It infers that the two or
more philosophies or religions are equal. Schaeffer's accusation is that the Catholic Church (which was the only
Church at that time) practiced syncretism with the pagan religions. Martin Luther turned barroom popular pagan songs
about love, sex and humanity, into glorious hymns to God. What he did was take the beauty that belonged to God and
he claimed it for God.
Augustine and Aquinas's purification of Greek philosophy
Augustine and Thomas Aquinas held that whatever there was of Truth in the writings of Greek philosophers should be
taken from them, as from "unjust possessors", and adapted to the teaching of the true religion (Summa I:84:5). Their
genius was the ability to pick out the Truth found in Aristotle's writings, like sifting for gold, and throw away the
garbage.
Nothing that Augustine and Aquinas gleaned from Aristotle is at odds with Scripture. It illuminated it in the Tradition of
the Apostles John and Paul who used Greek philosophy.
In 397AD when the books of the New Testament were being decided upon, Augustine had a voice those decisions
which all Christians accept today. These guys were totally into the Bible. Some Evangelical writers accuse Augustine
of mixing neo-Platonism which was a deviation from ancient Christianity, with his theology. But these criticisms to not
survive a reading of his texts.
The Humanists of the Renaissance rejected Aquinas. We have trouble understanding how Mr. Schaeffer can say
Aquinas created humanism.
As an analogy we might compare the Greek philosophers discovery of universal truths to the discovery of the Grand
Canyon. If the Grand Canyon was discovered by a non-Christian we would not say the Grand Canyon is not of God. It
would still be a beautiful creation of God even if it was discovered by a non-Christian.
Another analogy would be that a 12 year old Muslim boy discovered the Dead Sea Scrolls in 1947. We dont say, The
Dead Sea Scrolls are Islamic writings because a Muslim found them. That would be ridiculous logic. Likewise the
rejection of all Greek philosophy because non Christians stumbled on these Truths before the time of Christ would be
ridiculous. A Truth can only be discovered once and these Truths happened to be discovered by Greeks before the
time of Christ. The only alternative would be to plagiarize the concepts and say they were originally Christian, which
would be lying. God revealed aspects of himself before the time of Christ. This is not unbiblical. He had done it before
with Ruth and also Nebuchadnezzar (Dan 3:28)
Aristotle caught the drift. Good for him. Lets not throw him out just because he hadnt met Christ. It was no fault of his
that he didn't know Christ. Jesus had not yet been born. The same could be said about the Jewish people.
Naturally, there are limits of philosophy because it lacks the transcendent characteristics of God and of course it is not
informed by a knowledge of Christ because it predates him. If the Greek philosophers are considered in isolation,
outside of the context of the Church's filtering through the message of Christs salvation, then Schaeffer would be right
in his criticism.
Secular Humanists came along centuries later. They picked up Greek writings and mixed the garbage back in with the
gems of Truth. Then they went off the deep end into full blown paganism, materialism, and rejection of Jesus. In the
Renaissance humanists disdained Aquinas.
Where Mr. Schaeffer at odds with his own words, is when he says that nothing good could come from Greek
philosophers because they didnt know Jesus. This is contrary to his own words that Plato discovered the Truth that
morals cannot exist without absolutes. Therefore Schaeffer acknowledges that something good did come from
these philosophers.

In ancient Greece people got married. They did this before Christ existed. But we wouldn't say let's abolish marriage
because it was practiced by ancient Greece. Of course not. What we do is we claim it. That is what Jesus did.
Marriage is a Truth from God even though it predates Christianity. The same is true about some fundamentals of
Greek philosophy.
I found a great article by The Family Research Council in the US, which is a non-denominational conservative think
tank. Here is an excerpt:
One noteworthy difference between the two works (Francis Schaeffer and Russell Kirk) is their divergent assessments
of specific episodes in the history of the West. Their judgments about the Middle Ages and the Reformation differ
since Schaeffer was Presbyterian and Kirk was a Roman Catholic-leaning defender of religion until the later years of
his life, when he entered the Catholic Church. One of the points on which Schaeffer hammered away throughout his
writings was the unfortunate separation of nature and grace in Thomas Aquinas's thought, a point that has caused
some to question Schaeffer's understanding of Aquinas. A dominant theme in Schaeffer's argument was the rise of
human autonomy in the West and its destructive consequences for philosophy, art, and social order. He believed that
Aquinas' formulation of the difference between nature and grace tended to make particular things autonomous and so
lose their reference to God, a relationship that alone could supply those particulars with meaning. Schaeffer believed
that Renaissance humanism and, later, the Enlightenment, did far more to sever the connections between human
flourishing and divine purpose. Even so, he argued that Aquinas planted the seeds of secular humanism's stress upon
man's autonomy, which inevitably led to licentiousness and worse. Conversely, the Reformation recovered a true
perspective on the philosophical problem of the one and the many and placed human autonomy in its proper context.
Schaeffer wrote:
As the Reformation returned to biblical teaching, it gained two riches at once: It had no particulars-versus-universals
(or meaning) problem, and yet at the same time science and art were set free to operate upon the basis of that which
God had set forth in Scripture. The Christianity of the Reformation, therefore, stood in rich contrast to the basic
weakness and final poverty of the humanism which existed in that day and the humanism which has existed since.[13]
Kirk's judgment of medieval philosophy and the Reformation differed from Schaeffer's in part because his concerns
were, as the title to his book indicated, with social order in America. Unlike Schaeffer, who was trying to account for
the breakdown of Christian culture, Kirk was attempting to lay claim to various developments in the West that would
vindicate American political ideals and inspire their maintenance and defense. Even so, Kirk's judgments make for a
lively contrast to Schaeffer's. For instance, unlike Schaeffer, who saw Aquinas introducing an unhealthy dichotomy in
Christian reflection on the meaning of things, Kirk asserted that, for Aquinas, "There was no wall of separation
between theology and philosophy: those studies differed merely in method."[14] Kirk said that Aquinas "perceived that
the universe was ordered by divine wisdom and love," thus supplying the created order with regularity and stability.[15]
For Kirk, the real villain of medieval philosophy was William of Occam, who divorced philosophy from theology. When
Kirk turned to the Reformation, his interests in social (as opposed to philosophical) questions are apparent. He
highlighted the Protestant character, which encouraged self-reliance and "godly endeavor in the secular realm"[16] as
well as the Reformation's tendency toward democracy. These features of Protestantism led Kirk to speculate on its
particular contribution to American political order, asking whether the Protestant spirit in fact "created" American
civilization. He hypothesized that a set of Irish-Catholic colonies might have also produced similar results, though
slower to develop the economy and without the pronounced republican politics of New England's Protestants. Still, the
social circumstances of the New World, combined with a Christian--as opposed to a Protestant--spirit helped
contribute to America's political and cultural order.
12. Francis A. Schaeffer, How Should We Then Live? The Rise and Decline of Western Thought and Culture (Old
Tappan, N.J.: F. H. Revell, Co., 1976) 19.
13. Ibid., 86.
14. Russell Kirk, The Roots of American Order (1974; Wilmington, Del.: ISI Books, 2003) 211.
15. Ibid., 207.

16. Ibid., 236.

Plato
It should be noted that Catholic theologians would agree with Francis Schaeffer's criticisms of Plato. Catholics would
agree that dualism (body bad, spirit good) is not a Christian ideal. However, Plato was right about some things and
Frances Schaeffer acknowledges that in DEATH IN THE CITY.
They [The Jews the time of Jeremiah] turned to false gods, but at least they still knew something was there. In a
similar way the Greeks built their culture. Of course their gods were inadequate, so that, for example, Plato never
found what to do with his absolutes because his gods were not big enough. Plato was entirely right when he held
that unless you have absolutes, morals do not exist. Here is the complete answer to Plato's dilemma; he spent his
time trying to find a place to root his absolutes, but he was never able to do so because his gods were not big enough.
And the Greek writers did not know what to do with the Fates because the gods were not great enough always to
control them. But at least they knew something was there. It is only our foolish generation that lives in a universe
which is purely material, everything being reduced to mass, energy and motion.)
Plato only saw the partial Truth, but what he saw was valuable because he said that Truth is absolute, which was
different from his pagan peers. Plato said that our life was like being in a cave and seeing a shadow on the wall
(Theory of Forms). This world is a shadow of something greater. And naturally, because Christ was not born yet, Plato
did not know what the something greater was.
However, Plato has little to contribute to Catholicism, and Augustine moved away from Platonic influences in his later
life. (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05573a.htm) Plato's main contribution was that he spawned Aristotle who did
have quite a bit to contribute, through the discerning spirits of Augustine and Aquinas.

Aristotle
Aristotle's huge contribution to philosophy was inductive reasoning, observing as many examples as possible and
then working out the underlying principles. Aristotle was the first major thinker to base his thought and science entirely
on the idea that everything that moves or changes is caused to move or change by some other thing. The
implications of this are huge in the realm of God. Therefore, the big bang theory would not have worked for Aristotle
unless it was caused by something. We Christians know what that cause of creation was -it was God.
Aristotle integrated the spiritual and physical realms much better than Plato. Augustine and Aquinas and looked to
Aristotle rather than Plato for the bulk of their examination of Greek philosophy. Aristotle had an astonishingly acute
concept of God, given that he was
It should also be mentioned that Aristotle rejected all pagan Gods and looked at Truth simply by what he observed. It
is an unfair association to link Aristotle to modern materialism and Mr. Schaeffer acknowledges that above in this
quote where he says it is only our generation that lives in a universe which is purely material. His philosophy were
based on simply observable facts. Since all of the facts of the world were created by God, it is simply an examination
of God's handiwork, as manifested in the world and human relations. This is not a bad departure point for Philosophy.
God created everything, therefore everything in creation is a reflection of him and reveals something about
his nature. Aristotle observed that.
Here is part of the summary of Lesson 2 of the Truth Project, a Focus on the Family production.
Philosophy, according to Dr. R. C. Sproul, is "a scientific quest to discover ultimate reality." This would seem to
indicate that philosophical ideas about Truth are closely aligned with the biblical definition given in Lesson 1: Truth =
reality. In this connection, it's worth noting that the 1828 edition of Webster's Dictionary included the following

affirmation: "true religion and true philosophy must ultimately arrive at the same principle." Significantly, Webster's
original definition of the word also asserted that philosophy aims "to enlarge our understanding of God."
This is right on. Truth cannot be inconsistent with God. Aristotle was not about materialism which is the pursuit of
money, physical pleasure and wealth. He was about looking at the physical world as manifestation of Truth. Mr.
Schaeffer says only our foolish generation that lives in a universe which is purely material We would say this is
evidence that deep down Schaeffer knew that Aristotles practical approach to philosophy which approached the
absolute by looking at the material world was not the same as modern day people chasing the material things. On one
hand Schaeffer criticized Plato for his disdain of the material world and on the other hand he criticized Aristotle for his
observance of the material world.
As for Socrates, he was executed by the state because he would not cave into their moral depravity. Not a bad
example for a non-Christian.
In many respects Francis Schaeffer's "Reform of the Reformation" is a return to a Catholic approach
1. He wanted to reinstate moral absolutes (which he acknowledges to be articulated by Plato)
2. Schaeffer wanted Evangelicals to take back art (which is what Catholicism did during the middle ages)
3. He wanted Evangelicals to take back politics (he called this Dominionism, which is what Catholicism did after
Constantine)
4. He wanted Evangelicals to understand that the full use of the intellect is completely consistent with a life of
faith and that both the intellect and faith will arrive at the same Truth, because Truth is Truth. (this is the
Catholic exegesis form of theological analysis)
So naturally we are in favour of these proposed reforms to the Reform. But where we differ from Mr. Schaeffer is that
we don't think the Catholic Church is to blame for the problem of Secular Humanism.
Conclusion
In summary, we say to Evangelicals, by all means listen to Schaeffer's call to action, and join us in our assertion that
morals are absolute values that are defined by God and articulated in the Holy Bible. Join us and lets get involved in
politics together. Evangelicals and faithful Catholics alike voted against John Kerry who wanted to gut marriage and
legalize human cloning experimentation. Join us in our fight against abortion and euthanasia.
Lets fight together against secular humanism and stop pointing fingers at each other as to its roots. I say "join us in
taking back art into the Christian realm." And we also say let us embrace together the roots of Christian theology
which are found in the apostle John's writings in the book of Revelation, which was embraced by the earliest
Christians and which was embraced by the Protestant and reformers and Catholics alike, who unanimously revered
Augustine and Aquinas as the greatest pillars in Christian thought. If anything has laid a foundation for the current rise
of Human Secularism, it is the lack of unity and resolve found among Christians of all denominations to work together
in the name of Christ. So let's come together and fight this thing.

The Middle Ages and the Renaissance

From an artistic and cultural position the Renaissance was a triumph. However, from a spiritual and moral perspective,
which is really the only thing that matters in the eyes of God, it was a total disaster. Francis Schaeffer was right that
the Renaissance was a mess and that there were tons of problems with Christianity during that time. Catholics admit
it. It fueled the Reformation. There were some bad Popes. Thankfully, no doctrinal changes were made by bad Popes.
God kept them quiet on doctrine.
Francis A. Schaeffer was wrong when he said that humanism is a result of the Church's acceptance of Aquinas. The
Renaissance movement disdained Aquinas. Aquinas's theology didn't facilitate the Renaissance. Leaders of the
Renaissance ignored Aquinas' purification of Aristotle. They went back to the Greek philosophy and took off in a
completely different direction. A non-Christian direction.
Pope Benedict said:
In all honesty, one must observe that in the late Middle Ages we find trends in theology which would sunder this
synthesis between the Greek ... and ... Christian spirit. In contrast with the so-called intellectualism of Augustine and
Thomas, there arose with Duns Scotus a voluntarism which, in its later developments, led to the claim that we can
only know God's voluntas ordinata.
The Catholic Encyclopedia of 1905 says this about the Renaissance:
But the Renaissance had indulged its "pride of state, of knowledge, and of system" with disastrous consequences to
our Christian inheritance. It trampled on the Middle Ages and failed to understand that in them which was truly original.
The Latin of Cicero which urban VIII cultivated, the metres of Horace, did grievous wrong to the prose and verse of our
church offices, so far as they were altered. The showy architecture now designed, though sometimes magnificent, was
not inspired by religion; before long it sank to the rococo and the grotesque; and it filled the churches with pagan
monuments to disedifying celebrities. In painting we descend from the heaven of Fra Angelico to the "corregiosity" of
Corregio, may, lower still, for Venus too often masquerades as the Madonna. Christian art became a thing of the past
when the Gothic cathedral was looked upon as barbarous even by such champions of the Faith as Bossuet and
Fenelon. Never did a poet inspired by Renaissance models...rise to the sublimity of the "Dies Irae" .... the
Renaissance... was not large or liberal enough to absorb the Middle Ages. Hence its failure at the beginning as a
philosophic movement, its lack of the deepest human motives, its superficiality and its pedantries; hence, afterwards,
its fall into the commonplace, and the extinction of art in vulgarity, of literature in empty rhetoric. Hence, finally, the
need of a French Revolution to teach it that life was something more serious than a "Carneval de Venise", and of
Romanticism to discover, among the ruined choirs and in the neglected shrines which men had scornfully passed by,
tokens of that mighty medieval genius,... misunderstanding of which was the folly, and the spoiling of its achievements
the crime, that we must charge upon the Renaissance in the day of its power. "It remained for a later age", says one
who glorified it, "to conceive the true method of effecting a scientific reconciliation of Christian sentiment with the
imagery, the legends, the theories about the world, of pagan poetry and philosophy" (Pater, "Renaissance", 49). Not
less did it become the task of Goethe, Scott, Chateaubriand, Ruskin, of Friedrich Schlegel and the best German
critics, to show that European culture, divorced from the Middle Ages, would have been a pale reflection of dead
antiquity.
But there were some bright lights. Wikipedia says:
The scholarship of Erasmus, given to the world in a lively Latin, was universal and often profound. It was also honestly
Christian; to make Holy Scripture known and understood was the supreme purpose he kept in view. And thus the
"prince of humanists" could remain Catholic, while looking for a moral restoration, during the whirlwind of Luther's
revolt. In him the Renaissance had cast away its paganism ...
St. Ignatius, who began his order in Paris, who walked the same streets with Erasmus, Calvin, and Rabelais, did the
most astonishing feat recorded in modern history. He reformed the Church ... when the papacy sunk to its lowest ebb.

Another consideration is that Islam was coming in strong against Christian Europe. The Turks were taking over
everything in sight. Most secular historians would say that the largest factor in the arrest of Islam's encroachment of
Europe was Europe's rapid development of culture, industrialization, and materialism. Which coincidentally, was the
result of decadent humanism. Of course the Renaissance was an affront to Christianity, but it was a greater affront to
the Turks, which it stopped dead in its tracks. God was able to use evil of the Renaissance to arrest a greater evil.
The Jesuits were also a bright light during that time. But they could not stave off the punishments that would inevitably
fall upon the Renaissance movement which had taken our Lord and Saviour for granted. In Italy, the Renaissance
ended in 1527 with the sack of Rome by the Germans. Cardinal Cajetan said "it was a just judgment on the Romans."
The pagan Renaissance fell, stricken to death. In France, the Renaissance ended with the French Revolution, and in
Germany it ended with the Reformation.
There was a long period of strife, peasant wars and hardship which followed for both Catholics and Reformers.
Erasmus was a key humanist who had a great influence on Martin Luther. They were in close contact for many years,
until Erasmus refused to join the Reform. In some respects Erasmus was the father of the reform even though he
remained a Catholic. He saw the need for reform. In fact all holy people of the period saw a need for reform.
Unfortunately, we had a string of lousy Popes and they dropped the ball.

Bad Popes
Historians would say there have been about 12 morally corrupt Popes out of 266 Popes that start from the time of
Christ. Probably the worst Pope was Alexander VI (1492-1503). He had several illegitimate children before and during
his reign as Pope. He was into bribery, deceit, debauchery and anything else you could imagine. This is right when
Martin Luther was on the scene. Pope Innocent VII (1484-1492) and Pope Leo X (1513-1521) were from the Borgia
and Medici families which were kind of like the Sopranos of the middle ages. These three Popes contributed
significantly to the unrest that led to the Reformation. Nicholas V didn't help with his lavishness. Paul II and Sixtus IV
were also not great.

Erasmus, the best known humanist in history, was a key influence on Luther's Reform
Its a bummer that Pope Alexander VI was being a jerk right when he should have been listening to Erasmus and
reforming the Church. This lack of attention to Erasmus contributed hugely to the Protestant Reformation. Also the
Black Plague had wiped out most of the good priests and the quality of priests dropped. There was the schism where
the Pope moved to Avignon France for most of the 1300's. There was the anti Pope and a few other things made the
time ripe for an explosion. However, during that time there were some fantastic Catholic Saints like Catherine of
Sienna who told the Pope to leave France and return to Rome...and he did!
Some will point to the bad Popes as proof that God did not institute the Papacy with Peter. The Catholic Church claims
that its teaching is infallible, but it does not claim that its people are not indefectible. Even Jesus chose a bad
disciple, Judas. We don't say "Hey Jesus can't be the Saviour, he had a bad disciple." Ten of the disciples deserted
him. What is really amazing regarding the bad Popes is that they stayed silent of issues of faith and morals. They
could have defined all kinds of crazy doctrines in the name of their teaching authority, but they didn't. Catholics think
this is a testimony in favor of the Papacy. These bad Popes did not define any doctrines. Catholics think this is part of
God's infallibility promise. Not only will God direct Popes in their teaching, but He'll also shut them up about dumb
(heretical) teaching too. Catholics believe God protected his Church during those periods when there were bad Popes.
We believe He meant what He said:
...you are Peter and upon this rock I will build my Church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will
give you the keys of the kingdom of Heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in Heaven and whatever
you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven. (Mat 16:18)

It should be noted that 78 Popes are Canonized Saints and 10 more are beatified, which means they were awesome
Popes. Certainly, Catholicism had its share of humanists who went too far. But this is true of any denomination.
Protestant countries after the Reformation had just as many humanists who went too far.
The Catholic Church has cleaned up its act tremendously between the Reformation and now. We still have a long way
to go. Cardinal Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict said "the Church of the future may very well be quite a lot smaller, and
more faithful." I'm OK with that.

Music of the Middle Ages

An Evangelical friend of mine said that Catholic music of the Renaissance was about nature and Humanism. He cited
the Catholic Vivaldi's Four Seasons. He said it was not at all as holy as Bach who was Lutheran. Catholics do not
count Vivaldi as a religious composer. His "Four Seasons" was a secular work, and so to pit Vivaldi against Bach is
not really fair. The Catholic Church always produced great liturgical music (on par with Bach) which communicated the
Truths of the Apostolic Faith. The medieval rites of the Catholic Church show this. Compare Bach to Schubert and the
other Catholic composers of his time. All drew from the same Baroque tradition and, if anything, Bach (though a
Lutheran) mirrored Catholic forms ...which is why several of his patrons who were Calvinists refused to use Bach for
church services, claiming that his music was "too Catholic."

Not all of the Humanism of the Middle Ages was bad

There were many demonstrations of holiness and greatness in Art during the middle ages. (Michelangelo's Pieta, Da
Vinci's Last Supper, Mozart's Requiem etc.) It is true that these people were often times not into the life of Faith but it
is pretty hard to deny the God given inspiration found in these classic and Godly works. All artists are a bit messed up,
Catholic, Protestants and even me.
Petrarch (1300's AD) and others are a demonstration that music, art and poetry that glorifies God can also revere his
creation. As long as it worships the Creator and not the Creator.
Secular Humanism worships creation, not the Creator
The Devil always mocks holiness.
The devil always mocks purity. Secular humanism distorts a true reverence for nature. It is kind of the same way that
same sex marriage mocks and distorts the beauty of a marriage between man and woman. But we should not abolish
God's institution of marriage just because the devil is mocking it. If we did we would be empowering the devil. Neither
should we abolish the truths from God that were revealed to ancient Greece before the time of Jesus. The clich is
"don't throw the baby out with the bath water" and This is what Francis Schaeffer did when he proposed an historical
witch hunt for Christians who love nature.
Schaeffer criticizes the post Reform world and non-Catholic Christians just as much as he criticizes early Catholics. So
obviously the Reform did not solve the problem. Perhaps, because it was not addressing the right problem.

The Reform's contribution to humanism

Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, et al were in many ways children of medieval humanism. They liberalized divorce and
remarriage, which had been very strict in Catholicism. They shunned the Catholic Church which also meant the
rejection of learning and so philosophy was eclipsed for 200 years before they realized that they were losing ground to
the secularist pagans of the Renaissance. Then they developed Protestant scholasticism to revive the intellectual life.
It can be said that Protestant desire to read original texts in the original languages (because all the Catholic
accumulated intervening learning of the past was considered to be corruption) actually laid the foundation of the

revival of paganism in the Renaissance. Some Catholic theologians have said that Luther hatched the egg that
Erasmus laid and the basilisk Voltaire crawled out. The Reformers created a climate in which all religion was personal,
and only the state represented the community. The King or Prince became the supreme authority in whatever "church"
structure survived, but even that became oppressive so in many places, Protestants became independent of the "state
religion." Secular values replaced religious ones in the public life and God was banished from public square which led
to the "separation of Church and State" which both Catholics and Protestants understand to be a disaster. To combat
these problems Francis Schaeffer is calling for "a reform of the Reform."
The Reformation did not escape many of the same kinds of corruptions that it was accusing Catholic courts of
practicing. Martin Luther was disgusted with the conduct of many of fellow Protestants who had authority. Church
historian John Laux writes:
...in his own Wittenberg, where Protestant Princes confiscated the wealthiest bishopbrics and monasteries for their
own usewhile the preachers often suffered the direst want. Irreligiousness, immortality and vices of all sorts
flourished...
In a 1545 letter to his wife Martin Luther writes about the Reform...
Let us get out of this Sodom. I prefer to wander about homeless and to beg my bread from door to door than to poison
my poor last days by the spectacle of all these disorders. We experience it daily that the people are seven times worse
today than ever before under the Papacy; they are more avaricious, more unchaste, more envious, more intemperate,
more dishonest... [John Laux, CHURCH HISTORY, p.431]
I found a great article by The Family Research Council in the US, which is a non-denominational conservative think
tank. Here is an excerpt:
[Russel Kirk]... highlighted the Protestant character, which encouraged self-reliance and "godly endeavor in the
secular realm"[16] as well as the Reformation's tendency toward democracy. These features of Protestantism led Kirk
to speculate on its particular contribution to American political order, asking whether the Protestant spirit in fact
"created" American [secular] civilization.
16. Russell Kirk, The Roots of American Order (1974; Wilmington, Del.: ISI Books, 2003) 236.
In many respects Francis Schaeffer's "Reform of the Reformation" is a return to a Catholic approach
1. He wanted to reinstate moral absolutes (which he acknowledges to be articulated by Greek Philosophy)
2. Schaeffer wanted Evangelicals to take back art (which is what Catholicism did during the middle ages)
3. He wanted Evangelicals to take back politics (he called this Dominionism, which is what Catholicism did after
Constantine)
4. He wanted Evangelicals to understand that the full use of the intellect is completely consistent with a life of
faith and that both the intellect and faith will arrive at the same Truth, because Truth is Truth. (this is the
Catholic exegesis form of theological analysis)
So naturally we are in favor of these proposed reforms to the Reformation. But where we differ from Mr. Schaeffer is
that we don't think the Catholic Church is to blame for the problem of Secular Humanism. It is not a surprise that
Schaeffer's son says that his father (Francis A. Schaeffer) got closer and closer to becoming Catholic as he finished
his life, and that he would have become Catholic if he had lived longer.
Conclusion
In summary, we say to Evangelicals, by all means listen to Schaeffer's call to action, and join us in our assertion that
morals are absolute values that are defined by God and articulated in the Holy Bible. Join us and lets get involved in

politics together. Evangelicals and faithful Catholics alike voted against John Kerry who wanted to gut marriage and
legalize human cloning experimentation. Join us in our fight against abortion and euthanasia.
Lets fight together against secular humanism and stop pointing fingers at each other as to its roots. I say "join us in
taking back art into the Christian realm". And we also say let us embrace together the roots of Christian theology
which are found in the apostle John's writings in the book of Revelation, which was embraced by the earliest
Christians and which was embraced by the Protestant and reformers and Catholics alike, who unanimously revered
Augustine and Aquinas as the greatest pillars in Christian thought. If anything has laid a foundation for the current rise
of Human Secularism, it is the lack of unity and resolve found among Christians of all denominations to work together
in the name of Christ. So let's come together and fight this thing.
In many respects Francis Schaeffer's "Reform of the Reformation" is a return to a Catholic approach
1. He wanted Evangelicals to take back politics (he called this Dominionism, which is what Catholicism did after
Constantine)
2. He wanted to reinstate moral absolutes (which he acknowledges to be articulated in Greek philosophy)
3. Schaeffer wanted Evangelicals to take back art (which is what Catholicism did during the middle ages)
4. He wanted Evangelicals to understand that the full use of the intellect is completely consistent with a life of
faith and that both the intellect and faith will arrive at the same Truth, because Truth is Truth (this is the
Catholic exegesis form of theological analysis)
So naturally we are in favor of these proposed reforms to the Reform. But where we differ from Mr. Schaeffer's
writings is that we don't think the Catholic Church is to blame for the problem of Secular Humanism. This does not
surprise us because Francis Schaeffer's call to Evangelicals was very Catholic in its approach, despite his antiCatholicism.

Humanism as found in Modern day Evangelical's return to "nature art"

In almost every Evangelical church I've been to, there are abundant framed photos of waterfalls, green fields, sunset
skies, butterflies and birds. Evangelicals love God's creation. Francis Schaeffer is calling Evangelicals to return to art.
He is saying that it should not be "religious art" because God is in everything. This leads to tons of pictures of nature
which in some ways is humanistic, it is honouring God's creation as it can be perceived through the senses. Which
doesn't bother us in the least. Consider this statement by Makoto Fujimora of the Truth Project.
The [Evangelical] Church may have left the arts, God did not. Biblically speaking the Church needs to be a source of
creativity. Because we left culture to people who do not know christ, We left it empty and the vacuum [that is] there we
are paying for right now. Christians need to be seen as a creative force that the world sees as "Hey, if I want to be an
artist, I'll go to church because that's where creativity thrives." Makoto Fujimora, Focus on the Family, The Truth
Project. (Visual artist.)
This is based on Schaeffer's position that Christianity should take whatever is good in art from the secular realm and
use it for the Kingdom because that is where it came from in the first place. This is also what some of art did in the
Catholic Church did during the Middle Ages. (Naturally imperfectly) Its practicality and scientific approach stamped out
much of the superstition that was found among the common people of the middle ages who could not explain this
world any other way.
Modern Evangelicals embrace worships songs about nature,
and big beautiful photographs of nature. This is a kind of humanism which is fine.
Consider these popular Evangelical praise and worship songs:

God of Wonders
by Third Day

Lord of all Creation

of heaven, earth and sky
The world's your tabernacle

I Could Sing of Your Love

Forever
by Martin Smith

Over the mountains and the sea

Your Spirit runs with love for me

The River is Here

by Andy Parks

Down the mountain the river flows

and it brings refreshing wherever it goes
Through the valley's and over the fields
the river is rushing the river is here

Lord Reign in Me
Written by Brenton Brown

Over all the earth you reign on high

Every mountain stream every sunset sky

Can you feel the mountains

tremble
Written by Martin Smith
1995 Curious? Music UK

Can you feel the mountains tremble

Did you hear the oceans roar?

Creation Calls
by Brian Doerksen
Based on Psalm 96

I have felt the wind blow; whispering your name.

I have seen your tears fall; when I watch the rain.
How could I say there is no God? When all around creation
calls!
A singing bird, a mighty tree, the vast expanse of open seas.
Gazing at a bird in flight; soaring through the air.
Lying down beneath the stars; I feel your presence there.
I love to stand at ocean shore and feel the thundering
breakers roar.
To walk through golden fields of grain with endless bloom
horizons fray.
Listening to a river run; watering the Earth.
Fragrance of a rose in bloom, a newborns cry at birth.

Here is our King

From wherever spring arrives to heal the ground

...the ocean is growing the tide is coming in hear it is
Here is our King...
and what was said to the rose to make it unfold
was saidhere in my chest

How Great Thou Art

by Carl G. Boberg and R.J.
Hughes

O Lord my God, When I in awesome wonder,

Consider all the worlds Thy Hands have made;
I see the stars, I hear the rolling thunder,
Thy power throughout the universe displayed...
When through the woods, and forest glades I wander,
And hear the birds sing sweetly in the trees.
When I look down, from lofty mountain grandeur
And see the brook, and feel the gentle breeze.

These are just a few of the great worship Evangelical songs that came off the top of my head, that I've played in
Evangelical (and Catholic) Churches. A quick look at the top 100 worship songs will yield an abundance of songs

about the mountains, streams, rivers, stars, flowers and other humanistic themes. Evangelicals love nature. This is the
same kind of thing that the Catholic theologian Erasmus was doing when he fathered religious humanism and inspired
Martin Luther. There is nothing whatever the matter with saying that we can discover some of the characteristics of
God by looking at his creation. This is what humanism was about. It needs to be distinguished from secular humanism
which mocks God.
I (Hugh) was brought to tears in the little town of Cerbre, in the south of France when I witnessed a gorgeous sunrise.

It was the beauty of God's creation. I took this photo and was in tears at the beauty of God that I witnessed. The world
is God's artwork and it is beautiful. And he made it beautiful for exactly that reason, as a gift to us.

Science is not evil although sometimes evil people try to claim it

Science is not a bad thing. The middle ages provided a basis for scientific inquiry that was not considered earlier,
where there was much superstition among the peasants. Most certainly some of the humanists went too far, and
Catholicism produced its fair share of humanists. But it is easy to find these same excesses among Protestant
countries after the Reformation. I was baptized Presbyterian, but I did not know God until I had a personal encounter
with him at 28 years old. So I dont think it would be fair to blame the Presbyterian denomination for my sins before I
knew Christ. The same is true for some bad Catholics during the Renaissance.
If we take the position that is proposed by Catholic and many Evangelicals we get a purifying context to Science.

From Jerusalem we understand that man is created to have dominion over all the earth, to know and understand the
created order. In Greece we find the beginning of science and the organization of philosophy into various disciplines.
From Rome we find the application of that knowledge in public works for public law, with limits codified in law. With all
of these in combination, faith and reason find there complimenting balance and we become fit citizens of the new
Jerusalem.
Pope John Paul II said " Science can purify religion, and religion can purify science."
The Church was very hard on humanistic teachings that they believed went against the Bible. Hence, they rejected
Galileo because the Psalms said the Earth was immovable. At that time they could not reconcile Galileos assertion
that the world was moving with Scripture saying that the Earth was immovable. At the very least This shows that the
Church was not jumping on the humanistic bandwagon. The Church always considered Scripture to be superior to
human scientific inquiry. Obviously in this case they had to eat humble pie, and science did purify religion. But the
important thing was that they gave prominence to Scripture (the Word of God) over humanistic science (the assertions
of mans observations). More about Galileo here. It should be noted that Martin Luther and all the other reformers also
rejected Copernicus.
The progressive development of Theology
Francis Schaeffer criticized the development of theology, the "evolution" of theology. He thinks there should have
been no intellectual systematic approach to Christianity. If there was no development of theology, Christianity would
be almost non-existent. Let us consider two simple facts.

The concept of the Trinity (Father, Son and Holy Ghost) was not fully defined until the 4th century

The books of the New Testament were not decided upon until 397AD.

These are just two of hundreds of aspects of our faith which are reliant on the Holy spirit working through God's
people. Those who think that there should be no development of Christianity in a systematic, theological framework,
might as well throw out their Bibles, because that is how the Bible came to us.
The Bible didn't drop out of the sky spiral bound with an NIV sticker on it.
It was a not a product of the Holy Spirit working alone in a vacuum. The decisions as to what books to include were
the product of the Holy Spirit working through the brightest and most faithful Catholic theologians of the time. The
Bible that we have today is the product of those theological decisions.
Praise and worship music with drums and guitar is part of the development of Christianity. They never had that kind of
music in the first centuries. Amplifiers, Bible studies, English Bibles, youth rallies, Christian rock concerts, the use of
media and a gazillion other great things are all part of the development of Christianity. The Reformation itself, which is
a recurring theme in Mr. Schaeffer's works, is part of the evolution of theology. It introduced concepts such as sola
Scriptura, that were never before con sided by Christianity. The Church Fathers of the first centuries didn't even have
the Bible as we know it.
To say that there should be no development of Christianity would mean we would have to throw out the Bible, the
trinity, praise and worship music, and a bunch of other stuff that has been of service to Jesus.

Conclusion
In summary, we say to Evangelicals, by all means listen to Schaeffer's call to action, and join us in our assertion that
morals are absolute values that are defined by God and articulated in the Holy Bible. Join us and lets get involved in
politics together. Evangelicals and faithful Catholics alike voted against John Kerry who wanted to gut marriage and
legalize human cloning experimentation. Join us in our fight against abortion and euthanasia.
Lets fight together against secular humanism and stop pointing fingers at each other as to its roots. I say "join us in
taking back art into the Christian realm". And we also say let us embrace together the roots of Christian theology
which are found in the apostle John's writings in the book of Revelation, which was embraced by the earliest
Christians and which was embraced by the Protestant and reformers and Catholics alike, who unanimously revered
Augustine and Aquinas as the greatest pillars in Christian thought. If anything has laid a foundation for the current rise
of Human Secularism, it is the lack of unity and resolve found among Christians of all denominations to work together
in the name of Christ. So let's come together and fight this thing.