Question: Francis Schaeffer contends that Rome fell because it had no sufficient inward base. Do you agree or disagree with this statement? Clarify your answer. If you disagree, state why you believe that Rome fell. Can you see any illustrations in the world today?
Replies: Reply to at least 2 classmates, identifying at least 1 strength and 1 weakness in their reasoning.
REPLY TO NICK
In Frances Schaeffer's book How Should We Then Live, Schaeffer makes a statement that says "Rome fell because it had no sufficient inward base." (Schaeffer, 1976) I agree with this statement for a few reasons. The first is because Rome was always changing with the times. Second Rome was always self-centered and worshiped false gods which caused a free for all attitude and no structure.
The first reasoning I agree with Schaeffer, is because Rome was always changing with the times. What I mean by that is when a new invention was thought of whether it was from Rome or by another country, the focus of the city became that invention and improvement. We can look at examples such as the aqueducts. Rome had brilliant inventors who were able to build structures to flow water from a fresh water spring all the way to the city that was miles away. However, because of these great inventions, Rome dedicated everything to completing this task until the next great idea came along which was then fully devoted.
The next reason is because Rome was always self-centered. This can go along with my third point of why many false gods were made. Rome had a long history of worshiping many gods that they thought would help them in there every day life. Since Roman individuals thought that making a god for their circumstance would help them, gods such as the god of war for in times of battle, and the sun god who would help bring crops to the fields, these gods were thought to be the way of life if one wanted to live peacefully. This way of life made the Romans self-centered in the way that in order to have what they wanted all they had to do was please the gods and they would get whatever they wanted.
Rome may have been a great city, but because of not having a foundation to build off of Rome fell due to their own selfishness and desire to have the best of everything, even if the idea brought destruction.
REPLY TO DOMINIC
I also believe like Francis Schaeffer that Rome fell because they had no inward base. I think the first problem was that their belief in manmade gods that in themselves were not immortal. That the gods were not perfect, that they had human issues, but to a greater level. According to Schaffer (2005) "As one example among thousands, we can think of the statue of Hercules, standing inebriated and urinating. The gods were amplified humanity, not divinity." (p.21) The gods depended on the sustainment of the people, and their society. The rise of Julius Caesar, and the authoritarian system that kept Caesar at the center, to maintain control over the entire empire. The sole responsibility to one man, that too was mortal. The rise of Julius Caesar's grandnephew Caesar Augustus, via adoption from Julius. Augustus put in place that emperors ruled as the gods did. This is still flawed because of the mortality of man. The inward base was resting on the mortality of man and the man made gods. The phrase "Absolute power, corrupts absolutely." Is very evident when man is at the center of his so-called reign. If we look at other dictatorships today or in recent history the results are the same. A quick rise to power, and great expansion and rule, but to be ultimately killed or disposed of. Adolf Hitler, Saddam Hussein and Muammar Gaddafi all wanted to be the people's god, but they could never compare to the God who created them. They chose to reject the infinitely personal triune God. The only time that absolute power does not corrupt absolutely is when God is seated on the throne of our personal lives and the throne of a given society.