Customer Reviews

C. S. Lewis & Francis Schaeffer: Lessons for a New Century from the Most Influential Apologists of Our Time

5 star:		(2)
4 star:		(3)
3 star:		(2)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

Burson and Walls have written an insightful, timely book here which draws upon the thoughts and ideas of two men, whom they rightly proclaim as the most influencial Christian apologists of our century. This book should be widely read by Christians everywhere, but it most likely won't be, because interest in theology and apologetics doesn't seem to be exactly thriving these days. Still, to those who feel that theology matters, this book is chock full of useful information. Schaeffer and Lewis are shown here to have held many different views towards issues such as predestination, the atonement, and divine revelation, but one thing they most certainly did agree upon: the absolute necessity for Christians to engage their culture with the liberating truths of their Master, Jesus. Burson and Walls make this clear, and glean some very practical lessons for the rest of us to take and ponder while continuing to "bear the Light" in the world as these two giants did. This book reveals the genius, passion and courage of both men, and I for one hope and pray that it will encourage believers everywhere to follow in their footsteps.

While presenting a generally concise and accurate summary of much of what Lewis and Schaeffer wrote and taught, the authors (Burson and Walls) seem to have a "hidden agenda" of damning Francis Schaeffer with "faint praise." The authors reject Schaeffer's Reformed views on Predestination (not surprising given that both are professors at a leading theological seminary with a decidedly Arminian tradition). They promote a view of human freedom that is quite consistent with a generally Arminian perspective on such matters. Moreover, the authors seem to leave the door open for the "Openness of God" and other such postmodernist and heterodox viewpoints of God's omniscience...

Burson and Walls also question Schaeffer's views on Inerrancy and reject his views affirming the substitutionary atonement. Instead, they seem to embrace a "limited errancy" view on the doctrine of the inspiration of scripture. They also emphatically embrace a view of salvation and eternal damnation that includes Purgatory and postmortem evangelism.

Overall, this book is worth reading to see how far the "Great Evangelical Disaster" has progressed since Francis Schaeffer's passing in 1984. These two leading evangelical professors can promote heterodoxy with little fear of confrontation or protest from the evangelical academic community. Schaeffer has long been despised by of the evangelical academic community because he exposed their accommodation to the twin idols of academic freedom and academic respectability. May God raise up a generation of Francis Schaeffer's who can bypass the evangelical academic backwaters for the fresh streams of Kingdom service--unencumbered by accommodation to modern idols...

I must admit that I found this book intriguing and valuable, however, only as a sense of somebody else's opinions on two influential apologists. Many of the authors' conclusions and critiques on Lewis and Schaeffer were well presented, except for one thing. One got the sense as the book was read, that the authors were very proficient and setting up straw men to knock down or using statements somewhat out of context to support their own theological views. While I have no problem using other's statements to support your own theological views, I do have a problem with writing a book under the guise of a critique of apologists in order to support and strengthen your own theological slant.

I can't say that their theological slant was that much different then my own. There are differences, but I found myself agreeing with the bulk of their presentation theologically. However, I do feel that they may have done Schaeffer and Lewis an injustice by oversimplifying their positions. The book is worth reading, but not for a completely accurate depiction of Lewis and Schaeffer's positions.

I selected this book to read after reading Hugh Hewett's "The Embarassed Believer". I wanted to get a better feel for what apologetics is about. What better place to go than to the two greatest apologists of the 20th century.

Burson and Walls certainly have a point of view, but I do not think that it detracts from their comparisons of Lewis and Schaeffer. I found that it pushed me to hold up my own beliefs to the same analyses they used on their subjects. I learned where I have strengths and where there are gaping holes in my understanding of the faith.

The territory covered is quite expansive, many of the areas of belief were outside of any regular theological discussions by lay leaders in my church experience. As a Christian called to lay ministry, I have found it important to carefully examine my own beliefs about the nature of the relationship between God and Man before trying to take the "good news" to those outside of the church.

As most comparisons of human-beings are, there are flaws. We are all flawed, but we all have something to say about who and what God is and does in the world. This book gives us a framework to build and articulate our own understanding of what faith in Jesus represents in the millenium ahead.

This book gives a detailed and equitable treatment to the published work of Lewis & Schaeffer. Lewis & Schaeffer's many fans will get a great deal more out of their reading if they will give this book their attention beforehand. I offer 4 stars, not because of a quality problem, but rather because I think that the book would have benefitted from more of the personal thoughts and views of the authors. For each point of theology and apologetics that they critique Lewis & Schaeffer, the authors offer us a view that seems to be a combination of the best that Lewis & Schaeffer had to offer. I would like to read an apologetic work by these authors that specifically espouses their own thoughts, while giving attention to the obvious impact that Lewis & Schaeffer have had on them.

These authors set out to compare and contrast (more contrast) between two of the most arguably influential apologists of the 20th Century. They begin with a bio-sketch of these two men. While many other reviews, probably coretly note a more favorable presentation of Lewis, in this chapter, Schaeffer is presented very favorably. The next chapter, correctly presents the views on salvation these two held - commonalities and of course, the differences. Schaeffer did hold to a very forenisic atoning theory (Anselmian idea of atonement as a legal act also known as the penal substitutionary view)), while Lewis, I would assert does not discard that view, but sees and postulates a rooted, traditional Christian approach, that one is transformed into a Christlike person.

The authors do show a little bias in favoring Lewis here, but then again, at least Walls is not a Calvinist and show the legal act in viewing salvation is just not as important to him. But they are kind to Schaeffer here.

They also discuss the different apologetic approaches of these individuals and they evaluate their positions for Christiain accuracy. Yes, the authors do lean much more toward Lewis' ideas and thgeological positions, but I think they correctly review, explain and critique Schaeffer. Schaeffer is also given much credit for establishing La'Bri and in his desire to help otehrs wrestle with Christian truth.

Of course, these types of books have weaknesses, but overall, these authros do a good job and show the views of these two Christian gaints fairly.

This book is deep, dealing with a pair of great apologists. It is not perfect, but it still is a great book, though I'm not in the majority. I'm reviewer #9 of this book, and the majority ruling is four stars (I'm only the second five star), with a pair of three star reviews and one each of two and one stars. So you might want to read the other reviews rather than rely on mine alone.

A friend of mine gave me this book because a) she thought I would enjoy it and b) it was too deep for her. It is a deep book -- it took me six months to work through it (though I've also read . . . and reviewed . . . other books during that time).

I started this book with some knowledge of both Lewis and Schaeffer, having read some of their writings, but not being very familiar. In reading this book, I found a common soul in Francis Schaeffer. However, this book leans toward Lewis. In every area where Lewis and Schaeffer disagreed, the authors sided with Lewis consistently while I just as consistently sided with Schaeffer. This should not be surprising, though, because both authors teach at Asbury which is closer to Lewis than Schaeffer in theology and both have written on Lewis. Thus, the book has a bias, but not an agenda. The authors, for example, pointed out that Schaeffer is the one with theological education.

Personally, I think one thing the authors should have done was to not comment. This book would have been stronger if they left their point of view out of it and let the reader make up his own mind after seeing the contrast of the two apologists.

The final chapter is useful in taking the insights of these two men and taking the lessons to the modern time.

One side comment that I need to make. About a year ago, I never heard of Molina and his view of middle knowledge. In a year, I've read three books referring to his views including this one. The first one was written by a compatabilist, while this book takes the opposite view. (The third was "The Apologetics Study Bible", where one of the writers was promoting Molina.)

This book is an example of how not to write a fair evaluation of two great thinkers. The authors worship Lewis as if he were the apologist who could think no wrong, while they condemn Schaeffer as an ignorant fundamentalist who was just about always wrong in some shape or form. I enjoy reading the works of both Lewis and Schaeffer. I have never found their views to be mutually exclusive as Burson and Walls lead their readers to believe.

If I could summarize this book in one word it would be "biased." Burson and Walls have obvious Armenian tendencies, which might have led them to cling so firmly to Lewis' backside.