__________________
Photo taken in 1944 after a reading of Picasso’s play El deseo pillado por la cola: Standing from left to right: Jacques Lacan, Cécile Éluard, Pierre Reverdy, Louise Leiris, Pablo Picasso, Zanie de Campan, Valentine Hugo, Simone de Beauvoir, Brassaï. Sitting, from left to right: Jean-Paul Sartre, Albert Camus, Michel Leiris, Jean Aubier. Photo by Brassaï. –
Today we are going to look at the philosopher Jean Paul Sartre and will feature the work of the artist David Hooker.
Francis Schaeffer pictured below:
_________________________________
Sunday, November 24, 2013
A Star to Steer By – Revised!
 |
| The beautiful Portland Head Lighthouse on the Maine coast.
It was the flash from this lighthouse I could see from the
balcony of my hotel in Ogunquit, far to the south. |
No finite point has meaning without an infinite reference point.
I am the light of the world.
I stood outside on the deck of my hotel listening to the surf quietly lap the beach. It was a beautiful Maine evening, with stars blazing overhead and a gentle breeze blowing warm for early October. Out in the darkness my eyes traced a dim line of lights running along the shore of the peninsula that jutted far out to sea. Where the lights ended, I assumed, was lands end and where the open sea began. I was curious then, when I saw a light flash much farther out to sea. It didn’t take long to realize that the flash was from a lighthouse, which marked the true end of land. It was plain to me then how a lighthouse could make the difference between life and death to a ship sailing off the coast.
 |
| My friends and I had to laugh when we saw this sign in Beijing, China, north of the Forbidden City. It reminded us all about the perilous journey of life. |
A Point of Reference
As I thought about a ship sailing along the coast in rough waters without a reference point to warn it where it could run aground, it occurred to me how similar this is to navigating through life. Who could argue that life is not perilous? And how many lives have been shattered on the rocks of despair, meaninglessness, alcohol and drug addiction, bitterness, anxiety, etc.
How helpful it would be to have a point of reference to warn us of the dangers in life.
Even John-Paul Sartre (quoted above), a famous atheist existentialist, recognized that we finite human beings need an infinite reference point in order to have meaning. However, because Sartre didn’t believe there was an infinite reference point (God), he concluded that life is meaningless. “Man is absurd”, he said, “but he must grimly act as if he were not”. Sartre had worked through the implications of life without God, and his conclusion perfectly illustrates the hopelessness of the atheistic and secularist worldview.
The flash of the lighthouse interrupted my thoughts. Each time I saw it, I was amazed at how far out the shore really ran.
Worldview
All of us have worldviews that, consciously or unconsciously, guide us through life and affect our daily decisions…decisions that could move us closer to or farther away from dangers that could destroy our lives. Francis Schaeffer noted that our worldviews are based on “presuppositions” (1). For example, the presupposition that is championed at the secular university (and widely in our culture) today is the “uniformity of natural causes in a closed system”. Because, it is believed, the system is closed, then there can be nothing outside the system (i.e., God) and therefore, intervention from the outside (miracles or revelation from God) is impossible. With this presupposition, as Oxford mathematician John Lennox so eloquently stated, “we can’t even answer the simple questions of a child: Why am I here? What’s the meaning of life? And so on” (2). This is why Sartre, who believed in the closed system model, concluded that man is absurd.
If, on the other hand, you believe in the “uniformity of natural causes in an open system”, into which God can act, then revelation and miracles are entirely possible. We can receive answers to the simple questions of a child because there is a God who can speak into our system (such as through the Bible). He is our lighthouse.Then the statement by Jesus Christ that he is the light of the world (quoted above) makes sense.
 |
| View from my hotel balcony on the coast of Ogunquit, Maine. At night I could see the Portland Head Lighthouse flashing in the distance at the far right. |
A North Star
Francis Schaeffer went on to say that the Bible gives us an adequate reference point, a North Star for our lives in the infinite-personal God. God is infinite (and thus, provides us a needed infinite reference point), and at the same time personal. How was he personal? The apostle John wrote that God came into the world as a human, a person, whose name was Jesus Christ (3). Jesus reached out and touched the lepers (4), which everyone else was afraid to do because they didn’t want to catch leprosy! He restored the lame (5) and even brought the dead back to life (6). Its hard to imagine getting more personal than that. In fact, read the New Testament and you will learn of many broken lives that, when touched by him, were healed and restored. Truly his mission had profound implications for those whose lives had been shattered on the jagged rocks of life.
Amazingly, the good news for us is that Jesus is still at work, healing and restoring life to all who accept him! (7)
The lighthouse flashed again. Its no accident that Jesus described himself as the light of the world, or that John called him “the true light that gives light to everyone” (8).
It was getting late and I was growing tired. But I went back into my hotel room with a supernatural assurance that God was with me. As John wrote about Jesus: “The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.” (9)
Footnotes:
(1) He is There He is not Silent, by Francis Schaeffer
(2) An interview with John Lennox, Professor Lennox discusses Christianity, atheism, and science
(3) John 1:1,14,17.
(4) Matthew 8:1-3.
(5) Mark 3:1-6.
(6) Mark 5:21-43; John 11:1-44.
(7) Romans 8:10-11.
(8) John 1:9.
(9) John 1:5.
Francis Schaeffer has written extensively on art and culture spanning the last 2000 years and here are some posts I have done on this subject before : Francis Schaeffer’s “How should we then live?” Video and outline of episode 10 “Final Choices” , episode 9 “The Age of Personal Peace and Affluence”, episode 8 “The Age of Fragmentation”, episode 7 “The Age of Non-Reason” , episode 6 “The Scientific Age” , episode 5 “The Revolutionary Age” , episode 4 “The Reformation”, episode 3 “The Renaissance”, episode 2 “The Middle Ages,”, and episode 1 “The Roman Age,” . My favorite episodes are number 7 and 8 since they deal with modern art and culture primarily.(Joe Carter rightly noted, “Schaeffer—who always claimed to be an evangelist and not a philosopher—was often criticized for the way his work oversimplified intellectual history and philosophy.” To those critics I say take a chill pill because Schaeffer was introducing millions into the fields of art and culture!!!! !!! More people need to read his works and blog about them because they show how people’s worldviews affect their lives!
J.I.PACKER WROTE OF SCHAEFFER, “His communicative style was not that of a cautious academic who labors for exhaustive coverage and dispassionate objectivity. It was rather that of an impassioned thinker who paints his vision of eternal truth in bold strokes and stark contrasts.Yet it is a fact that MANY YOUNG THINKERS AND ARTISTS…HAVE FOUND SCHAEFFER’S ANALYSES A LIFELINE TO SANITY WITHOUT WHICH THEY COULD NOT HAVE GONE ON LIVING.”
Francis Schaeffer’s works are the basis for a large portion of my blog posts and they have stood the test of time. In fact, many people would say that many of the things he wrote in the 1960’s were right on in the sense he saw where our western society was heading and he knew that abortion, infanticide and youth enthansia were moral boundaries we would be crossing in the coming decades because of humanism and these are the discussions we are having now!)
There is evidence that points to the fact that the Bible is historically true as Schaeffer pointed out in episode 5 of WHATEVER HAPPENED TO THE HUMAN RACE? There is a basis then for faith in Christ alone for our eternal hope. This link shows how to do that.
Francis Schaeffer in Art and the Bible noted, “Many modern artists, it seems to me, have forgotten the value that art has in itself. Much modern art is far too intellectual to be great art. Many modern artists seem not to see the distinction between man and non-man, and it is a part of the lostness of modern man that they no longer see value in the work of art as a work of art.”
Sartre’s worldview is discussed in the film series “How should we then live?” by Francis Schaeffer below.
Transcript from “How Should we then live?”:
Humanist man beginning only from himself has concluded that he is only a machine. Humanist man has no place for a personal God, but there is also no place for man’s significance as man and no place for love, no place for freedom.
Man is only a machine, but the men who hold this position could not and can not live like machines. If they could then modern man would not have his tensions either in his intellectual position or in his life, but he can’t. So they leap away from reason to try to find something that gives meaning to their lives, to life itself, even though to do so they deny their reason.
Once this is done any type of thing could be put there. Because in the area of nonreason, reason gives no basis for a choice. This is the hallmark of modern man. How did it happen? It happened because proud humanist man, though he was finite, insisted in beginning only from himself and only from what he could learn and not from other knowledge, he did not succeed. Perhaps the best known of existentialist philosophers was Jean Paul Sartre. He used to spend much of his time here in Paris at the Les Deux Magots.
Sartre’s position is in the area of reason everything is absurd, but one can authenticate himself, that is give validity to his existence by an act of the will. In Sartre’s position one could equally help an old woman across the street or run her down.
Reason was not involved, and there was nothing to show the direction this authentication by an act of the will should take. But Sartre himself could live consistantly with his own position. At a certain point he signed the Algerian Manifesto which declared that the Algerian war was a dirty war. This action meant that man could use his reason to decide that some things were right and some things were wrong and so he destroyed his own system.
How Should We then Live Episode 7 small (Age of Nonreason)
#02 How Should We Then Live? (Promo Clip) Dr. Francis Schaeffer
Francis Schaeffer Whatever Happened to the Human Race (Episode 1) ABORTION
Francis Schaeffer “BASIS FOR HUMAN DIGNITY” Whatever…HTTHR
T h e AGE OF NON-REASON
I. Optimism Of Older Humanist Philosophers:
The unity and true knowledge of reality defined as starting from Man alone.
II. Shift in Modern Philosophy
A. Eighteenth century as the vital watershed.
B. Rousseau: ideas and influence.
1. Rousseau and autonomous freedom.
2. Personal freedom and social necessity clash in Rousseau.
3. Rousseau’s influence.
a) Robespierre and the ideology of the Terror.
b) Gauguin, natural freedom, and disillusionment.
C. DeSade: If nature is the absolute, cruelty equals non-cruelty.
D. Impossible tension between autonomous freedom and autonomous reasons conclusion that the universe and people are a part of the total cosmic machine.
E. Kant, Hegel, and Kierkegaard and their followers sought for a unity but they did not solve the problem.
1. After these men and their followers, there came an absolute break between the area of meaning and values, and the area of reason.
2. Now humanistic philosophy sees reason as always leading to pessimism; any hope of optimism lies in non-reason.
III. Existentialism and Non-Reason
A. French existentialism.
1. Total separation of reason and will: Sartre.
2. Not possible to live consistently with this position.
B. German existentialism.
1. Jaspers and the “final experience.”
2. Heidegger and angst.
C. Influence of existentialism.
1. As a formal philosophy it is declining.
2. As a generalized attitude it dominates modern thought.
IV. Forms of Popularization of Nonrational Experience
A. Drug experience.
1. Aldous Huxley and “truth inside one’s head.”
2. Influence of rock groups in spreading the drug culture; psychedelic rock.
B. Eastern religious experience: from the drug trip to the Eastern religious trip.
C. The occult as a basis for “hope” in the area of non-reason.
V. Theological Liberalism and Existentialism
A. Preparation for theological existentialism.
1. Renaissance’s attempt to “synthesize” Greek philosophers and Christianity; religious liberals’ attempt to “synthesize” Enlightenment and Christianity.
2. Religious liberals denied supernatural but accepted reason.
3. Schweitzer’s demolition of liberal aim to separate the natural from the supernatural in the New Testament.
B. Theological existentialism.
1. Intellectual failure of rationalist theology opened door to theological existentialism.
2. Barth brought the existential methodology into theology.
a) Barth’s teaching led to theologians who said that the Bible is not true in the areas of science and history, but they nevertheless look for a religious experience from it.
b) For many adherents of this theology, the Bible does not give absolutes in regard to what is right or wrong in human behavior.
3. Theological existentialism as a cul-de-sac.
a) If Bible is divorced from its teaching concerning the cosmos and history, its values can’t be applied to a historic situation in either morals or law; theological pronouncements
about morals or law are arbitrary.
b) No way to explain evil or distinguish good from evil. Therefore, these theologians are in same position as Hindu philosophers (as illustrated by Kali).
c) Tillich, prayer as reflection, and the deadness of “god.”
d) Religious words used for manipulation of society.
VI. Conclusion
With what Christ and the Bible teach, Man can have life instead of death—in having knowledge that is more than finite Man can have from himself.
______________________________________
Les Deux Magots (French pronunciation: [le dø maɡo]) is a famous[1] café in the Saint-Germain-des-Prés area of Paris, France. It once had a reputation as the rendezvous of the literary and intellectual élite of the city. It is now a popular tourist destination. Its historical reputation is derived from the patronage of Surrealist artists, intellectuals such as Simone de Beauvoir and Jean-Paul Sartre, and young writers, such as Ernest Hemingway. Other patrons included Albert Camus and Pablo Picasso.
The Deux Magots literary prize has been awarded to a French novel every year since 1933.
The name originally belonged to a fabric and novelty shop at nearby 23 Rue de Buci. The shop sold silk lingerie and took its name from a popular play of the moment (1800s) entitled Les Deux Magots de la Chine (Two Figurines from China.)[2] In 1873 the business transferred to its current location in the Place Saint-Germain-des-Prés. In 1884 the business changed to a café and liquoriste, keeping the name.
Auguste Boulay bought the business in 1914, when it was on the brink of bankruptcy, for 400,000 francs (anciens). The present manager, Catherine Mathivat, is his great-great-granddaughter.
_________________________________
Francis Schaeffer with his son Franky pictured below. Francis and Edith (who passed away in 2013) opened L’ Abri in 1955 in Switzerland.
________________________
JEAN PAUL SARTRE: ATHEIST OR BELIEVER?
Jean Paul Sartre was a militant atheist most of his life. In fact he and his lover, Simone de Beauvoir, became two of the 20th century’s foremost atheists. Though de Beauvoir remained an atheist until the very end, Sartre appears to have come to the realization that he had been wrong — to the shock and dismay of all his followers and admirers.
The one who revealed Sartre’s astonishing change was his friend and ex-Maoist, Pierre Victor (A.k.a. Benny Levy), who spent much of his time with the dying Sartre and interviewed him on several of his views. According to Victor, Sartre had a drastic change of mind about the existence of God and started gravitating toward Messianic Judaism. This is Sartre’s before-death profession, according to Pierre Victor: “I do not feel that I am the product of chance, a speck of dust in the universe, but someone who was expected, prepared, prefigured. In short, a being whom only a Creator could put here; and this idea of a creating hand refers to God.”[i]
This statement effectively closes Sartre’s existential phase to the consternation of his followers and his lover, Simone de Beauvoir, in particular. During Sartre’s funeral, De Beauvoir reportedly behaved like a bereaved widow, but later became quite critical of Sartre in her “Cérémonie Des Adieux.” Later on, she revealed her anger at his change of mind by stating, “How should one explain this senile act of a turncoat? All my friends, all the Sartreans, and the editorial team of Les Temps Modernes supported me in my consternation.”[ii]
Further evidence that supports Sartre’s move toward belief in God is found in an unlikely source, “theinfidels.org.” This fanatical atheist web site, tells us that in 1980, about a month before Sartre’s death, he was interviewed by one of his assistants, Benny Lévy, and within these interviews he expressed interest in Messianic Judaism. The web site again adds that Sartre was only interested in the “metaphysical” aspects of Judaism, but that he continued to reject the idea of an existing God.[iii]
In the next paragraph they admit that in a 1974, in an interview with Simone de Beauvoir, Sartre said that at times he saw himself “as a being that could, it seems, only come from a creator.” However, they point out, he added that “this is not a clear, exact idea…” As expected, they then proceed to assure us that before and after these statements Sartre makes clear that he was and remained an atheist. [iv]
Finally they admit that Sartre’s supporters were upset about Sartre’s acceptance of “something” in Judaism, which was a clear rejection of Marxism, a philosophy which had been a huge and central part of his philosophical thoughts. Unfortunately for them, Sartre confirmed that Levy’s interviews were authentic. [v]
One cannot but smile at the reticence on the part of these atheists to admit that the evidence betrays that something “major” was happening in Sartre’s thinking. By putting two and two together it appears that Sartre did not have a last minute conversion at all, but that over several years there was a gradual transformation in his thinking that he “hesitantly” admitted to in 1974, probably so as not to upset De Beauvoir and his followers, and that he finally appears to have fully confessed his transformation to his dear friend Victor before his death. The fact that he confirmed that Victor’s interviews were genuine adds plenty of support to this conclusion. Thus, the fanatical atheist, Jean Paul Sartre, appears to have seen the light toward the last years of his life — unfortunately after having influenced many around the world into accepting the philosophy of Atheism.
i. National Review, June 11, 1982, p. 677. Cited in McDowell, J. Stewart, D. Handbook of Today’s Religions – Existentialism.http://www.greatcom.org/resources/handbook_of_todays_religions/04chap04/default.htm (viewed December 27, 2007)
ii. Ibid.
iii. Theinfidels.org, Sartre, Jean Paul, http://www.theinfidels.org/zunb-jeanpaulsartre.htm (Viewed December 27, 2007)
This statement effectively closes Sartre’s existential phase to the consternation of his followers and his lover, Simone de Beauvoir, in particular. During Sartre’s funeral, De Beauvoir reportedly behaved like a bereaved widow, but later became quite critical of Sartre in her “Cérémonie Des Adieux.” Later on, she revealed her anger at his change of mind by stating, “How should one explain this senile act of a turncoat? All my friends, all the Sartreans, and the editorial team of Les Temps Modernes supported me in my consternation.”[ii]
Further evidence that supports Sartre’s move toward belief in God is found in an unlikely source, “theinfidels.org.” This fanatical atheist web site, tells us that in 1980, about a month before Sartre’s death, he was interviewed by one of his assistants, Benny Lévy, and within these interviews he expressed interest in Messianic Judaism. The web site again adds that Sartre was only interested in the “metaphysical” aspects of Judaism, but that he continued to reject the idea of an existing God.[iii]
In the next paragraph they admit that in a 1974, in an interview with Simone de Beauvoir, Sartre said that at times he saw himself “as a being that could, it seems, only come from a creator.” However, they point out, he added that “this is not a clear, exact idea…” As expected, they then proceed to assure us that before and after these statements Sartre makes clear that he was and remained an atheist. [iv]
Finally they admit that Sartre’s supporters were upset about Sartre’s acceptance of “something” in Judaism, which was a clear rejection of Marxism, a philosophy which had been a huge and central part of his philosophical thoughts. Unfortunately for them, Sartre confirmed that Levy’s interviews were authentic. [v]
One cannot but smile at the reticence on the part of these atheists to admit that the evidence betrays that something “major” was happening in Sartre’s thinking. By putting two and two together it appears that Sartre did not have a last minute conversion at all, but that over several years there was a gradual transformation in his thinking that he “hesitantly” admitted to in 1974, probably so as not to upset De Beauvoir and his followers, and that he finally appears to have fully confessed his transformation to his dear friend Victor before his death. The fact that he confirmed that Victor’s interviews were genuine adds plenty of support to this conclusion. Thus, the fanatical atheist, Jean Paul Sartre, appears to have seen the light toward the last years of his life — unfortunately after having influenced many around the world into accepting the philosophy of Atheism.
i. National Review, June 11, 1982, p. 677. Cited in McDowell, J. Stewart, D. Handbook of Today’s Religions – Existentialism.http://www.greatcom.org/resources/handbook_of_todays_religions/04chap04/default.htm (viewed December 27, 2007)
ii. Ibid.
iii. Theinfidels.org, Sartre, Jean Paul, http://www.theinfidels.org/zunb-jeanpaulsartre.htm (Viewed December 27, 2007)
____________
Death, resurrection and dust at Wheaton College
Published on Mar 13, 2013
David J.P.Hooker, Wheaton College assoc. professor of art, works in his studio on his sculpture he calls “Corpus,” on Feb. 25, 2013. He is covering the five-foot-tall plaster corpus with vacuumed dust collected by the college’s custodial staff. (Chuck Berman, Chicago Tribune)
For more video, visit http://chicagotribune.com/video, subscribe to this channel, or follow us @TribVideo
___________________
Today our featured artist is the sculptor David Hooker of Chicago where he is associate professor of art at Wheaton College. I learned about Wheaton back around 1975 when my Bible teacher Mark Brink told me that he graduated there. Mr. Brink is the one who introduced me in a big way to the works of Francis Schaeffer.
David Hooker pictured below:
Featured Artist: David Hooker
– 10/05/2013Posted in: Featured Artist, Sculptors
‘Corpus’. 2013.
David Hooker is a ceramicist and sculptor living in the Chicago area where he is associate professor of art at Wheaton College. He grew up on South Carolina, and he received an MFA in Ceramics from Kent State. He blogs at Hooker’s Ramblings, and you can view much of his work at his website.
Hooker writes:
My artistic practice explores my fascination with objects, places, history and memory through ritual actions, looking for ways in which ritual can have a positive influence in our understanding of our environments and ourselves.
This description is particularly appropriate for his recent project Corpus (see above). Currently on display in the Bible and Theology Department of Wheaton College, Corpus is an antique body of Christ that Hooker found and then covered with dust. Hooker acquired the dust from the vacuum bags of Wheaton College’s custodial staff. The work draws our attention to numerous rituals: the regularly cleaning of the college, the rhythmic flux of students that moves dirt and dust into the college, the Eucharist, and Hooker’s own process of layering the dust over Jesus’ body. By drawing attention to these rituals, Corpus also draws the community together. As Hooker points out in a Chicago Tribune article, ”Literally, this dirt contains skin cells from the community. The idea is that our bodies are now connected to the body of Christ. At first, some might find it disgusting, or even sacrilegious, but I hope people can get past that and see the meaning behind it.”
Rituals are constructs, ways of ordering and structuring our lives, that shape the way we see and understand the world. This constructed, and mediated, way of encountering the world is reflected in much of Hooker’s work. For example, in Pilgrim Construction with Zepplin (see below), objects from the “real” world are lifted out of their normal contexts and placed within a new construction. Doing so asks us to relate the objects to each other in new ways, and it also questions whether the way we see these objects in “real life” is natural or cultural.
One significant social construct that Hooker’s work explores is race. His most recent project, The Sweep Project, aims to explore the history and memory of racial tension in Will County, Illinois. By literally sweeping along known Underground Railroad routes and to known Underground Railroad destinations, Hooker will retrieve and uncover, if only ephemerally, the memory of a courageous and desperate ritual that marks a moment in America’s troubled past of slavery and the struggle for civil rights. In addition to sweeping many miles himself, Hooker plans to incorporate the help of the wider community by, for example, working with local high school students to build a 1.2 mile trail of sugar cubes from the Lincolnway Central High School to the Old Brick Tavern marker. If you are interested in learning more about the project and supporting it financially, please look at Hooker’s kickstarter campaign. For a very small donation, you can receive an original Cyanotype print made from elements found during the project.
For more information about Hooker’s work, pleas visit his website. I have copied some images of his work below:
‘Corpus’ (Detail). 2013.
Example of Cyanotype for ‘The Sweep Project’.
‘Sheep and Goats.’
‘Pilgrim Construction with Zepplin’.
______________
David Hooker on why he’s excited about JUSTart
Published on May 22, 2013
I’m really looking forward to the exhibitions! We’re working to make Adams Hall itself, our art building, a kind of art explosion.
When I’ve been to CIVA conferences, I usually come back overwhelmed and energized…
___________
Francis Schaeffer’s “How should we then live?” Video and outline of episode 10 “Final Choices” (Schaeffer Sundays)
E P I S O D E 1 0 Dr. Francis Schaeffer – Episode X – Final Choices 27 min FINAL CHOICES I. Authoritarianism the Only Humanistic Social Option One man or an elite giving authoritative arbitrary absolutes. A. Society is sole absolute in absence of other absolutes. B. But society has to be […]
Francis Schaeffer’s “How should we then live?” Video and outline of episode 9 “The Age of Personal Peace and Affluence” (Schaeffer Sundays)
E P I S O D E 9 Dr. Francis Schaeffer – Episode IX – The Age of Personal Peace and Affluence 27 min T h e Age of Personal Peace and Afflunce I. By the Early 1960s People Were Bombarded From Every Side by Modern Man’s Humanistic Thought II. Modern Form of Humanistic Thought Leads […]
Francis Schaeffer’s “How should we then live?” Video and outline of episode 8 “The Age of Fragmentation” (Schaeffer Sundays)
E P I S O D E 8 Dr. Francis Schaeffer – Episode VIII – The Age of Fragmentation 27 min I saw this film series in 1979 and it had a major impact on me. T h e Age of FRAGMENTATION I. Art As a Vehicle Of Modern Thought A. Impressionism (Monet, Renoir, Pissarro, Sisley, […]
Francis Schaeffer’s “How should we then live?” Video and outline of episode 7 “The Age of Non-Reason” (Schaeffer Sundays)
E P I S O D E 7 Dr. Francis Schaeffer – Episode VII – The Age of Non Reason I am thrilled to get this film series with you. I saw it first in 1979 and it had such a big impact on me. Today’s episode is where we see modern humanist man act […]
Francis Schaeffer’s “How should we then live?” Video and outline of episode 6 “The Scientific Age” (Schaeffer Sundays)
E P I S O D E 6 How Should We Then Live 6#1 Uploaded by NoMirrorHDDHrorriMoN on Oct 3, 2011 How Should We Then Live? Episode 6 of 12 ________ I am sharing with you a film series that I saw in 1979. In this film Francis Schaeffer asserted that was a shift in […]
Francis Schaeffer’s “How should we then live?” Video and outline of episode 5 “The Revolutionary Age” (Schaeffer Sundays)
E P I S O D E 5 How Should We Then Live? Episode 5: The Revolutionary Age I was impacted by this film series by Francis Schaeffer back in the 1970′s and I wanted to share it with you. Francis Schaeffer noted, “Reformation Did Not Bring Perfection. But gradually on basis of biblical teaching there […]
Francis Schaeffer’s “How should we then live?” Video and outline of episode 4 “The Reformation” (Schaeffer Sundays)
Dr. Francis Schaeffer – Episode IV – The Reformation 27 min I was impacted by this film series by Francis Schaeffer back in the 1970′s and I wanted to share it with you. Schaeffer makes three key points concerning the Reformation: “1. Erasmian Christian humanism rejected by Farel. 2. Bible gives needed answers not only as to […]
“Schaeffer Sundays” Francis Schaeffer’s “How should we then live?” Video and outline of episode 3 “The Renaissance”
Francis Schaeffer’s “How should we then live?” Video and outline of episode 3 “The Renaissance” Francis Schaeffer: “How Should We Then Live?” (Episode 3) THE RENAISSANCE I was impacted by this film series by Francis Schaeffer back in the 1970′s and I wanted to share it with you. Schaeffer really shows why we have so […]
Francis Schaeffer’s “How should we then live?” Video and outline of episode 2 “The Middle Ages” (Schaeffer Sundays)
Francis Schaeffer: “How Should We Then Live?” (Episode 2) THE MIDDLE AGES I was impacted by this film series by Francis Schaeffer back in the 1970′s and I wanted to share it with you. Schaeffer points out that during this time period unfortunately we have the “Church’s deviation from early church’s teaching in regard […]
Francis Schaeffer’s “How should we then live?” Video and outline of episode 1 “The Roman Age” (Schaeffer Sundays)
Francis Schaeffer: “How Should We Then Live?” (Episode 1) THE ROMAN AGE Today I am starting a series that really had a big impact on my life back in the 1970′s when I first saw it. There are ten parts and today is the first. Francis Schaeffer takes a look at Rome and why […]
By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Francis Schaeffer | Edit | Comments (0)
____________
___________
The Daily Hatch 