pcssion CU wil ead ether Betharnhinsall, the fone of trina, or Sid DISCUSSION a on The Mas 9 Eo, he wl dace a en FoF on peychclogal hedoniam, om which steps pete , ism. Br connenton wit Schaller‘ ethics tte x snstier point that he ee bie ompleins Ruegsegget, not one of his nine arguments against abortion is acl. Hie says ‘curiously enough’ (p. 252), and contrasts Schaeffer's theory ae tle, condmring the ite a evonelten." Yet tinct cena Tt as Ruegsegger almost sees. In opposing secular advocates of abortion and wees) pliant legitimate to use ad omizem srgoments, These argu 1s ae legitimate even in geometry. One tries to show inconsistencies in the mei cn Seaton. One ees fo port cut conclusions, logically denon fom ‘he P ortionst’s principles but which he either does not like or is afraid to admit res aeffer commits no inconsistency. Pe eatin, however, ee only a semidefense of Banc chaste et sitioing him T should first say that he snot a philoropher at al. To be TA he discuss eerain philosophical problems, but Re omits so much that he oes nt deserve the len ft rater guess hat heads hat es neta i .er, His great work lies in other fields, particularly the field of evange- Pee thee se others who ciseuss more of pilsophy than Ne does and SB omit rat deal Its ot enought state at the doce ofthe Tanty Ss the oeeny prob One mus ste wht he polon ad how int how te Tay snes Is no enh at he stories of tty ape in aaa e ava sepi. One define ners i, pov ta tere reared lementin the id aba hse Sin conned it percept, and hen develop concep wou asm ie et fact hat allmen have sensory age esis wih ne Sat tose tm among Pato’, tte and Kant ses fin tn raves a farther atemtive. Scheie sna the only one Who om thee extent elements ina philosophy Gndon H. Clark, now retired taught philosophy most recently a Co ant Callege, By Gordon H. Clark A semi-defense of Francis Schaeffer In the Chrstion Scholar's Review, Vol. X, No. 3 (1981) Dr. Ron Ruegsegge Giticizes Francis Schaeffer's philosophy. The article is well researched, Sol written, and well worth reading. Even so find some irrelevancies, one mignp prehension, and certain omissions. The inrelevancies come in the first half of the article. The first half is indeed - ood, in that it compares Schaeffer's historical and logical remarks with the “ews of philosophers he opposes. Bat the method does not seem just. Ruegseg. Ber opposes Schaefer's interpretation of (for example) Hegel and Kierkegaard onthe ground that some recent cites interpret these philosophers differently. The suggestion then is, modestly expressed, that Schaeffer's philosophy suffers therefrom. To argue cogently, however, Ruegsegger would have to show that Schaeffer's interpretation is wrong, and that a recent view is cortect. This he does not do. On page 249 Ruegsegger charges Schaeffer with a logical fallacy. He writes, ‘Schaeffer frequently defends what he calls the Christian presuppositions against its contradiciorss, but he seldom argues for it against its contri." On tis point itis the critic who commits the fallacy . ‘The contradictory of “All dogs have four legs is “Some dogs do not have four legs.” Its contrary logs have four legs."" Now, being a good Chris- tian presuppositionalist, I wish to defend the true Calvinist position that “All dogs have four legs.” To do so, I construct a fine argument in refutation of the thesis “Some dogs do not have four legs.” If this latter proposition is false, then the affirmative must be rue. But note that if this is what I do, it is not necessary to disprove the contrary also. If the contradictory is false, the contrary must also be false, Tris Ruegsegger who falls into the logical blunder with which he charges Schaeffer ‘Theres another point also. Iti similar to the preceding insofar asit charges Schaeffer with missing an alternate view. Schaetfer, when discussing ethics, states that if one abandons Christianity “there are three (and only three) alterna tives: hedonism, sociological law, and totalitarianism.” The cuit insists that there ae more than three: “utilitarian, intuitionistic, naturalistc,... and none of these ‘are [sic] reducible to either hedonism, sociological law, or totalitarianism,” If the 148 149DISCUSSION om Rucgeger noes at Nyt Cole le nes eorepmden {fom Chin scars ndapines ser tan psp she sok progres he hgh of Franc Scare By Ron Ruegsegger A reply to Gordon Clark ‘The first point Gordon Clark makes in his response to my article on Schaeffer's philosophy isto claim that instead of showing that Schaeffer's interpretations of Hegel and Kierkegaard are mistaken, I have mevely put forward alternative interpretations. In Hegel's case my reply is to deny the charge. First ofall, my contention was not that Schaeffer is mistaken when he claims that Hegel's lalectc is relativistic, Tt was instead that Schaeffer is mistaken when he claims that Hegel's dialectic is the source of relativism in modem thought. In other words, what Iwas putting forward was not a certain interpretation of Hegel, but rather an interpretation of the history of philosophy. Moreover, I argued for this reading of the history of philosophy. First, | pointed out that there was rela- fivism prior to Hegel and there has been absolutism since Hegel. Second, [ indicated two more plausible sources of relativism in modern thought, namely Einstein's theory of relativity and the failure of authoritarian institutions and figures. So in Hegel's case I did argue that Schaeffer's interpretation is wrong, and that another interpretation is correct. Clark’s claim that merely put forward a different interpretation of Kierkegaard is closer to the truth. Here [ limited _myself to showing that there are other readings of Kierkegaard, and I concluded by saying that the growing support for these other readings of Kierkegaard ‘raises serious questions about Schaeffer's whole strategy. Nevertheless, I don't think that my discussion of Schaeffer's treatment of Kierkegaard. merely amounted to suggesting that Kierkegaard could be interpreted differently. One of the themes ofthe essay was that Schaeffer is often superficial, and his failure even to consider other interpretations of Kierkegeard, particularly since his analysis of Kierkegaard is s0 central to his whole enterprise, provides yet ‘nother example of Schaeffer's simplistic thinking. Indeed, had I tried to put forward a stronger conclusion I would have been guilty of the very thing I was objecting to in Schaoffor’s writing. In the article I also claimed that although Schaeffer defends himself against positions which contradic his, he fails to defend himself against those which are ‘contrary to his. I said that two propositions are contradictories if they cannot both be true and they cannot both be false, and I gave ‘The universe had a personal beginning” and “The universe had an impersonal beginning” as an example of propositions which are contradictories. And I said that two propo- 150 piseussion Biettnen one need ot show tha the conzary sae Because the fast ofthe ves efit to relate Clark's objection to what I sid because he appeals to eros etn ennt nP tapeeing ‘Touce of ety thee are thee, and oly thie, alternatives: hedonism, there ste ueitaansm, nttonam, naturalism, and prestipivsn, Car 151Christian Scholar's poe oer enercer ee or ane ‘e claims T said that it is inconsistent for Schaeffer : value. And if this is the only way, then even pointiny abortionist position is ruled out. In I altho other words, Inconsistencies in his opporents postion hich xcs ts wry posi. nthe lst paragraph of his response, Clark na response, Clark says that it he were ci Schacter his fest point would be tht Schaefer no a pega ne fed etic gestons Fukermor, sheng Cle coe a Sane ‘merit es in his workin the field of evangelism, itis noteworthy that of hs Ue Icom hang sal ean np homanism and Christan tthe" Isroy ths"T cannot see theefore, that Sete — on the Eronnd that he is not a philosopher. + at Schaefer canbe nconclsion! wan to hank Gurdon ee on co is response tomy article on Esher, Hee cd san ipo question an ar cones least one point ol fac,Tannot sce however that angel ern fete bvanly weaken my objections Wo Sducler's salah ile 152 Book Reviews Clemens Thoma, A Christian Theology of Judaism, trans. Helga Cromer, Stimulus ‘Books, New YorkdRamsey: Paulist Press, 1880, ax + 211 pp., $7.95 (paper), ISBN 0-8091-2310X. Reviewed by Richard R, De Ridder, Calvin Theological Seminary Clemens Thoma is a Roman Catholle theologian, professor of Biblical and Jewish studies at the Catholic Faculty of Theology in Lucerne, Switzerland. He is also co-editor of the Fraburg Rundbrdf an anal survey of the literature ofthe Jew-Chaistian dialogue, a8 well as a consultant on Christon-Jewish relations forthe Vatican Secretariat of Chistian Unity. The book demonstates the author's wide-ranging knowledge ofthe development of contemporary Jewish thought: iba, talmudic, medieval, and modem, Such historical Sensitivity is necessary if one isto avoid the twin dangers of overlooking the evs of the pastor passing over by misguided judgment the good tht is presently being accomplished Eneontemporary dalogue between Jews and Christians. "Not mony Christian students of Judaism have been able to combine theological evalu ation with historical understanding i the way Clemens Thoma has done. A Jewish rabbi, Joachim Prinz, observes concerning this book that “it isa well-documented and extraordi- narly interesting enterprise” and thatt "a new and totaly original attempt to make the encounter with Judaism not merely one of historic importance but an organic part of (Christian pict.” Excellent and appreciated help is afforded the reader by the inclusion at the front of the book of a comprehensive outline and a special synopsis of consecutively numbered paragraphs (229 inal), These take the place ofthe usual index. Extensive footnotes and Inbliography are sso very helpfl to the reader. In Thoma’s book a Jew, David Flusser 0! Hebrew University, Jerusalem, Ia the fist word. His extensive foreword, "Reflections ofa Jew on a Christian Theology of Judaism, {Sa valuable essay by itch. Flusser demonstrates the kind of spirit in response to Thoma that promotes meaningful dialogue between persons of both faiths. Although much could be said about Flusser’s essay, one thought could wel form a bass for dialogue: “Christin theologians ofJudaisin must accept tha, according to Jewish understanding, it was not a religion that was chosen, but a group of human beings, not the Jewish religion but Israel 153