I am having a discussion with someone who quite frankly is not a fan of Francis Schaeffer.
He is of the opinion that Dr. Francis Schaeffer despite his claims to be a Presuppositionist was more an evidentialist. He went onto say that Schaeffer did not believe the Scriptures were the ultimate authority.
My understanding of Schaeffer is that he was a modified Presupositionist. He did believe in the ultimate authority of Scripture, yet he also believed in more evidence than Vantil would be comfortable with.
Vantil of course was not adverse to using evidence; yet because people know the truth yet suppress the truth in unrighteousness; he argued from that basis.
I am not not sure I could describe Schaeffer's view especially in a format like this. If I tired I would probably butcher it.
I of course agree with Vantil, but I do not think it is fair to say that Schaeffer did not hold to the Scriptures being the ultimate authority.

I am not an expert on Schaeffer and don't pretend to be. I am also under no illusions that a discussion like this will change anyone's opinion. I also do not want to spend too much time on this matter, because there are more important issues to attend to. Yet, I want to be reasonably sure, I understand the issue.
If you know anything about this matter, that might be helpful, please say it.