Re: Christianity has no future and is in decline

AN

Continuing from Re: Anthony Flew leaving Atheism ... more accurate to state "Victory of Deism". As before, your words

[Above (click to enlarge): "Why the Gods are not Winning," by Gregory Paul & Phil Zuckerman, Edge, 2007:

"Since 1900 Christians have made up about a third of the global population, and are edging downwards. ... Christianity has withered dramatically in Europe, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Japan. ... Churches are being converted into libraries, laundromats and pubs. ... the churches ... are in danger of dwindling past the demographic and organizational point of no return. Every time a nation becomes truly advanced in terms of democratic, egalitarian education and prosperity it loses the faith. ... Disbelief now rivals the great faiths in numbers and influence. Never before has religion faced such enormous levels of disbelief..."

This, paradoxically, is further evidence that Christianity is true, i.e. that we are in the Great Apostasy predicted by Jesus and the Apostles, which is a precursor of Jesus' imminent return. Indeed, such anti-Christian gloating over Christianity's demise is actually predicted in the Book of Revelation (see below). The gods are not winning but God is!]

are bold to distinguish them from mine.

3.One person stated about Christianity on your blog, that "it should be difficult to devote yourself to something that has no future". To that you replied, that "only under premices [sic] of Christianity there IS 'future' "(which is untrue, there is 'future' under Judaism as well).

What I actually wrote in a comment under my post, What I believe about Creation, Evolution and Design was:

As for me, for these past nearly 40 years a Christian, it has been a joy to devote my entire life to the only "something" that has a future!

Which as a consistent Christian, I stand by. Because since Jesus (who was God-see below) taught that only Christians will be saved, and all non-Christians, will be lost:

John 3:16,18 "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. ... Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son.

John 14:6 Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.

Acts 4:10,12 ... It is by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified but whom God raised from the dead... Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved."

therefore, only Christians have a future (i.e. a future to look forward to).

The reason is, as even non-Christian philosopher of religion John Hick pointed out, if "Traditional orthodoxy" was right that "Jesus of Nazareth was God incarnate ... It follows ... that Christianity, alone among the world religions, was founded by God in person" and so "Christianity alone is God's own religion" and "God must wish ... Christianity shall supersede all the other world faiths":

"Traditional orthodoxy says that Jesus of Nazareth was God incarnate ... It follows from this that Christianity, alone among the world religions, was founded by God in person. ... From this premise it seems obvious that God must wish all human beings to enter this stream of saved life, so that Christianity shall supersede all the other world faiths. ... Christianity alone is God's own religion.... It is therefore divinely intended for all men and women without exception. All this follows logically from the central dogma of the deity of Jesus." (Bowman & Komoszewski, 2007, "Putting Jesus In His Place,"pp.18-19).

But it seems that you just diverted the question. What person meant, it's not premices [sic] of Christianity, but the fact that Christianity has no future as wordly religion, and in decline, and that's true: http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/paul07/paul07_index.html

I did not divert the question, and in fact there was no question. All his anonymous comment stated was, "It must be tough to devote your entire life to something that has no future - only a past" and I responded directly to his claim that Christianity "has no future - only a past" with, it is in fact "only ... Christianity ... that has a future!"

Nor was there anything explicitly in his comment which claimed "Christianity [was] ... in decline." Christianity could be increasing in numbers and yet have no future (as in fact non-Christianity is). And if there had been anything explicitly in his comment that claimed Christianity was in decline, far from diverting it, I would have agreed with him! That is because it is in fact a prediction of Jesus that Christianity will decline in a "Great Apostasy" before He returns:

Mt 24:10-12 At that time many will turn away from the faith and will betray and hate each other, and many false prophets will appear and deceive many people. Because of the increase of wickedness, the love of most will grow cold

Lk 18:8 ... However, when the Son of Man comes, will he find faith on the earth?"

2Th 2:3: Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day [Jesus' Second Coming] shall not come, except there come a falling away [Gk. apostasia] first ...

Here are quotes from my commentaries on the above, i.e. "It is a sombre picture of a church in decline ... before 'the end' comes ...":

"[Mt 24:] 9-12. ... the persecution is to come from all nations ... an international involvement of the disciples is envisaged ... many will fall away ... It is a sombre picture of a church in decline. ... which must run its course before 'the end' comes ..." (France, 1985, "Matthew," pp.338-339).

"[Lk 18:]8. ... Jesus is speaking of the certainty of speedy action when the time comes. When He asks whether the Son of man will find faith on earth, he is not suggesting that there will be no believers. He is saying that the characteristic of the world's people at that time will not be faith." (Morris, 1974, "Luke," pp.263-264).

"[2Th 2:]3. ... While the coming of 'the day of the Lord' will be unexpected (1 Thes. 5:2-3), certain things will precede it. One is the rebellion. ... In classical Greek apostasia meant a political or military rebellion, but in LXX it is used of rebellion against God ... Paul is saying that in the last times there will be a great uprising of the powers of evil against God (cf. Mt. 24:10ff.; 1 Tim. 4:1-3; 2 Tim. 3:1-9; 4:3-4)." Morris, 1984, "Thessalonians," p.127).

And, as I have posted previously here on my CED blog, e.g. Re: Thoughts on your web page - Jesus' return #2 (21-Apr-07), as well as posts to my now-terminated Yahoo CED group: 23-May-03, 21-Apr-03 and 25-Feb-03 , I agree with the late great Bible commentator, William Hendriksen that we are in the period of the Great Apostasy, when just before Jesus returns, "the antichristian world ... shall battle against the Church and shall destroy it ," i.e. Christianity will appear to be totally defeated, as described in the Book of Revelation:

"Rev 11:3-14 ... The Church ... shall finish its testimony. ... the antichristian world ... shall battle against the Church and shall destroy it. This is the Battle of Harmagedon ... There are going to be believers on earth when Christ comes again, although they will be few in number ... But the Church itself ... will be destroyed. ... the Church ... has been silenced and smothered by the world ... in the midst of the world the Church is dead ... The world ... celebrates. ... Its joy is premature. ... In connection with Christ's second coming the Church is restored to life ... the world will become frozen with fear... the Church ascends to heaven in a cloud of glory" (Hendriksen, 1940, "More than Conquerors," pp.129-131).

Note that Hendriksen wrote that in 1940 - nearly seventy years ago! Subsequent world events have only further confirmed his insight.

In fact, the Protestant reformer John Calvin in 1540, nearly four hundred and seventy years ago, confirmed the Bible taught that before "The day of Christ" the "world [would have] fallen into apostasy" and "The Church must be reduced to a ... state of ruin":

"[2Th 2:]3. ... The day of Christ, he says, will not come until the world has fallen into apostasy ...the term apostasy to mean a treacherous rebellion from God. This would ... spread far and wide ... apostates ... those who have previously enlisted in the service of Christ .... Paul, then, is predicting a general defection on the part of the visible Church... `The Church must be reduced to a ghastly and horrifying state of ruin, before its full restoration is achieved.' ...it might have seemed ... [it] could not have been the work of God, had Paul not warned them long before that this would take place. " (Calvin, 1540, "Thessalonians," pp.398-399).

Here also are quotes from two other leading Christian theologians, confirming that the Bible teaches there will be "a final apostasy which will occur just before the Parousia" (Second coming of Christ):

"There is ... a ... New Testament passage which points ... to a final apostasy which will occur just before the Parousia ...for that day will not come, unless the rebellion [or apostasy; Greek, apostasia] comes first ... apostasia is preceded by a definite article: the apostasy or the rebellion. ... what is predicted here is a final, climactic apostasy just before the end-time. .... The fact that this sign is called a `falling away' or `apostasy' implies that this will be a rebellion against the Christian faith ... those who fall away will be at least outwardly associated with the people of God. The apostasy will occur within the ranks of the members of the visible church." (Hoekema, 1979, "The Bible and the Future," p.153).

that " before the Lord returns. ... there must be a rebellion (apostasy). ... a falling away from the faith ... a rebellion against God ... an apostasy... on the part of ... professing Christians":

"In 2 Thessalonians 2:3-4, Paul indicates ... Two things must occur before the Lord returns. First, there must be a rebellion (apostasy). Second, there must be a revelation of the Man of Lawlessness [Antichrist]. ... As for the rebellion (apostasia), the word Paul uses here is used ... to speak of a religious crisis of some sort facing God's people-a falling away from the faith ... The word means a rebellion against God; specifically an apostasy (a falling away from the truth) on the part of God's people. Thus professing Christians ... must be the ones who fall away. " (Riddlebarger, 2006, "The Man of Sin," pp.124-125).

So we have a win-win situation. You, an "agnostic-deist" (see below), win by being able to gloat "that Christianity has no future as wordly religion, and [is] in decline" and I, a Christian, win by knowing that is in fact what the Bible teaches!

But the win-win is only apparent because it will, at Jesus unexpected return, suddenly and irrevocably turn into a loss-win, i.e. an infinite loss for non-Christians and an infinite win for Christians. So unless you (and any other non-Christian) changes sides before the "Battle of Harmagedon", i.e. to the side of the apparent loser, Christianity, you will remain on the side of the final loser, "the antichristian world"!

You see, we Christians have read, "the end of the book and

[Right: Album Michael W. Smith 2 by Michael W. Smith, which contains the song "End Of The Book" with the following lyrics:

When things get bad and you can't stand to look
It's time to read to the end of the book
Don't put it down 'til you get to the end
When Jesus come and His Kingdom begins
'Til He comes
God the Son
Teaches us to use the sword
And every fight
Has a light
When you know we win the war]

WE WIN!!!:

Rev 21:3-4; 22:1-5. And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, "Now the dwelling of God is with men, and he will live with them. They will be his people, and GOD HIMSELF WILL BE WITH THEM and be their God. He will WIPE EVERY TEAR FROM THEIR EYES. There will be NO MORE DEATH OR MOURNING OR CRYING OR PAIN, for the old order of things has passed away." ...Then the angel showed me the river of the water of life, as clear as crystal, flowing from the throne of God and of the Lamb down the middle of the great street of the city. On each side of the river stood the tree of life, bearing twelve crops of fruit, yielding its fruit every month. And the leaves of the tree are for the healing of the nations. No longer will there be any curse. The throne of God and of the Lamb will be in the city, and his servants will serve him. THEY WILL SEE HIS FACE, and his name will be on their foreheads. There will be no more night. They will not need the light of a lamp or the light of the sun, for the Lord God will give them light. And THEY WILL REIGN FOR EVER AND EVER.

4. It seems that you by yourself, after accepting Christianity 40 years ago ,are not sure %100 that Christianity is true,you still seem to struggle and convince yourself . It follows from some of your posts, where you state that "it can not be provable", and your post about Daniel doesn't seem convincing, sorry.

Sorry to disappoint you, but I am fully convinced by the evidence that Christianity is true, and have been the entire 41 years of my Christian life. The only difference is that I am even more convinced by the evidence that Christianity is true than I was when I became a Christian in 1967. Far from having to struggle to convince myself that Christianity is true, I would have to struggle to convince myself that Christianity is not true!

I would like to get your response on "CreationEvolutionDesign", or even in private mail.

Sorry, but I do not get involved in extended private email discussions on topics that are covered by my blogs. You now have this my response via my blog CED.

Best regards,
AN (agnostic-deist)

Thanks. But there is no such position as "agnostic-deist". It is self-contradictory, since an "agnostic" is "a person who believes that nothing can be known concerning the existence of God:

"agnostic ... noun a person who believes that nothing can be known concerning the existence of God. adjective relating to agnostics. - DERIVATIVES agnosticism noun." ("Compact Oxford English Dictionary," Oxford University Press: Oxford UK, 2008)

and a "deist" is a person who believes in the existence of God but He "does not intervene in the universe":

"deism ... noun belief in the existence of a supreme being, specifically of a creator who does not intervene in the universe. Compare with THEISM. - DERIVATIVES deist noun deistic adjective" ("Compact Oxford English Dictionary," Oxford University Press: Oxford UK, 2008).

Stephen E. Jones, BSc. (Biology).
My other blogs: TheShroudofTurin & Jesus is Jehovah!

---

"One scholar put his finger on the problem when he explained that belief in the deity of Jesus-his unique status among human beings as God in the flesh-implies that Jesus is the only way for people to be properly related to God:

Traditional orthodoxy says that Jesus of Nazareth was God incarnate ... who became man to die for the sins of the world and who founded the church to proclaim this to the ends of the earth, so that all who sincerely take Jesus as their Lord and Savior are justified by his atoning death and will inherit eternal life. It follows from this that Christianity, alone among the world religions, was founded by God in person. God came down from heaven to earth and launched the salvific movement that came to be known as Christianity. From this premise it seems obvious that God must wish all human beings to enter this stream of saved life, so that Christianity shall supersede all the other world faiths. They may perhaps have some good in them and be able to function to some extent as a preparation for the gospel, but nevertheless Christianity alone is God's own religion.... It is therefore divinely intended for all men and women without exception. All this follows logically from the central dogma of the deity of Jesus.' [Hick J., "A Pluralist View," in Okholm, D.L. & Phillips, T.R., 1995, "Four Views on Salvation in a Pluralistic World," Zondervan: Grand Rapids MI, pp.51-52]

It is remarkable, however, that the person who made this observation doesn't believe in the deity of Jesus. He is, in fact, a well-known opponent of that doctrine." (Bowman, R.M., Jr. & Komoszewski, J.E., 2007, "Putting Jesus In His Place," Kregel: Grand Rapids MI, pp.18-19).

"[2Th 2:]3. Let no man beguile you. In order to keep from vainly promising themselves the glad day of redemption within so short a period, he gives them a gloomy prediction concerning the future dispersion of the Church. This discourse corresponds in every respect to that which was addressed by Christ to His disciples when they had asked Him about the end of the world. [Mt 24:3-14] ... The day of Christ, he says, will not come until the world has fallen into apostasy, and the rule of Antichrist has held sway in the Church. ... Paul, therefore, uses the term apostasy to mean a treacherous rebellion from God. This would not be confined to a single individual or even a few, but would spread far and wide among a considerably large number of persons. When the word apostasy is used without any addition it cannot be confined to a few individuals. Now the word apostates can be understood only of those who have previously enlisted in the service of Christ and His Gospel. Paul, then, is predicting a general defection on the part of the visible Church, as if he were saying, `The Church must be reduced to a ghastly and horrifying state of ruin, before its full restoration is achieved.' From this we may at once conclude how useful this prediction of Paul's is. For it might have seemed that a building which was suddenly destroyed, and which lay for so long in ruins, could not have been the work of God, had Paul not warned them long before that this would take place. " (Calvin, J., 1540, "The Epistles of Paul to the Romans and Thessalonians," Mackenzie, R., transl., Eerdmans: Grand Rapids MI, 1960, Reprinted, 1980, pp.398-399).

"[Mt 24:] 9-12. These verses similarly speak in general terms of the sufferings to come, not now in relation to the world at large, but more with reference to Jesus' disciples. They will, as he has predicted already, be persecuted and hated. (Cf. 10:17-22, a passage closely related to this, and closer in wording to the parallel passage in Mk. 13:9-13. It is interesting that here, in contrast to both 10:17-22 and Mk. 13:9-23, the persecution is to come from all nations, not just from the Jews; in ch. 10 a mission to Jews only was in view (10:5-6, 23), but now an international involvement of the disciples is envisaged, as 28:18-19 will spell out.) This persecution will take its toll, in that many will fall away ('be tripped up', the same verb as in 5:29-30; 13:21; 18:6-9; etc.; here it echoes particularly Dn. 11:41), and the disciple group itself will be the scene of betrayal, hatred, false prophecy and wickedness (lit. 'lawlessness'). And lawlessness will lead to the cooling off of love, a connection to be noted. Most men's love is literally 'the love of the many', which could mean disciples' love for 'the many' outside; but the sequence of thought in these verses, where it is the disciple group itself which is under pressure, suggests that it means that 'the majority' (of the disciples) will cool off in their love, whether for God or for their fellow-men. It is a sombre picture of a church in decline. All this, the context indicates, is part of the history which must run its course before 'the end' comes; but there is no indication as to the temporal relation between such a situation and 'the end'." (France, R.T., 1985, "Matthew: An Introduction and Commentary," The Tyndale New Testament commentaries, Inter-Varsity Press: Leicester UK, pp.338-339).

"The two witnesses ([Rev.] 11:3-14) ... This gospel age is, however, going to come to an end (cf. Mt. 24:14). The Church, as a mighty missionary organization, shall finish its testimony. The beast that comes up out of the abyss, that is, the antichristian world, urged on by hell, shall battle against the Church and shall destroy it. This is the Battle of Harmagedon. The beast will not kill every believer. There are going to be believers on earth when Christ comes again, although they will be few in number (Lk. 18:8). But the Church itself, as a mighty organization for the dissemination of the gospel and regular ministry of the Word, will be destroyed. ... Thus, just before the second coming, the corpse of the Church, whose public and official testimony has been silenced and smothered by the world, lies on the great city's High Street. ... So when we read that the corpse of the Church is lying on the broad avenues of the great city, this simply means that in the midst of the world the Church is dead: it no longer exists as an influential and powerful missionary institution! Its leaders have been slaughtered; its voice has been silenced. This condition lasts three days and a half, which is a very brief time. (Mt. 24:22; cf. Rev. 20:7-9.) The world does not even allow the dead bodies of the witnesses to be buried. In the High Street lie these corpses, exposed to insects, birds, and dogs. The world has a grand picnic: it celebrates. People send each other presents and gloat over these witnesses ... Their word will not torment them any more. Foolish world! Its joy is premature. The corpse suddenly begins to stir; the breath of life from God has entered into it; the witnesses stand upon their feet. In connection with Christ's second coming the Church is restored to life, to honour, to power, to influence. For the world the hour of opportunity is gone, and gone for ever. On the day of judgment when the world shall see the Church restored to honour and glory, the world will become frozen with fear. The Church still under the symbolism of the two witnesses-now hears a voice, 'Come up hither'. Thereupon the Church ascends to heaven in a cloud of glory. 'And their enemies beheld them.' This is no secret rapture!" (Hendriksen, W., "More than Conquerors: An Interpretation of the Book of Revelation," [1940], Tyndale Press: London, Reprinted, 1966, pp.129-131).

"There is, however, a specific New Testament passage which points unambiguously to a final apostasy which will occur just before the Parousia [Second coming of Christ]. We turn now to Paul's second epistle to the Thessalonians: `Now concerning the coming (parousia) of our Lord Jesus Christ and our assembling to meet him, we beg you, brethren, not to be quickly shaken in mind or excited, either by spirit or by word, or by letter purporting to be from us, to the effect that the day of the Lord has come. Let no one deceive you in any way; for that day will not come, unless the rebellion [or apostasy; Greek, apostasia] comes first, and the man of lawlessness [Antichrist] is revealed.. ." ([2Th ]2:1-3). ... The word apostasia is derived from the verb aphistemi which when it is used intransitively means `to fall away' or `to become apostate.' As used in II Thessalonians 2:3, apostasia is preceded by a definite article: the apostasy or the rebellion. Both the definite article and the statement that this happening must precede the Parousia indicate that what is predicted here is a final, climactic apostasy just before the end-time. It should be noted, however, that this apostasy will be an intensification and culmination of a rebellion which has already begun, since in verse 7 Paul says, `For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work.' We may see a parallel, therefore, between this sign and the sign of tribulation: both are evident throughout the present age but come to a climactic and final form just before Christ returns. The fact that this sign is called a `falling away' or `apostasy' implies that this will be a rebellion against the Christian faith as it has been heard or professed. We may therefore assume that those who fall away will be at least outwardly associated with the people of God. The apostasy will occur within the ranks of the members of the visible church. Those who are true believers will not fall away (John 10:27-29; I Pet. 1:3-5); but many who have made an outward profession of the faith will do so." (Hoekema, A.A., 1979, "The Bible and the Future," [1978], Paternoster Press: Exeter UK, p.153).

"[Lk 18:]8. Vindication will be done speedily, but we should understand this in terms of God's time (in which one day is as a thousand years and a thousand years as one day, 2 Pet. 3:8). Jesus is speaking of the certainty of speedy action when the time comes. When He asks whether the Son of man will find faith on earth, he is not suggesting that there will be no believers. He is saying that the characteristic of the world's people at that time will not be faith. Men of the world never recognize the ways of God and they will not see His vindication of His elect." (Morris, L.L., 1974, "The Gospel According to Luke: An Introduction and Commentary," Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, Inter-Varsity Press Leicester UK, Reprinted, 1986, pp.263-264).

"[2Th 2:]3. The Thessalonians must not be deceived in any way, whether by the things listed in verse 2 or by anything else whatever. The construction is broken in the following clause, but NIV is surely right in supplying the words that day will not come. While the coming of 'the day of the Lord' will be unexpected (1 Thes. 5:2-3), certain things will precede it. One is the rebellion. The definite article shows that the rebellion was well known to the readers; evidently it had formed part of Paul's previous teaching. Our difficulty is that we do not know what he had told them. In classical Greek apostasia meant a political or military rebellion, but in LXX it is used of rebellion against God (e.g. Jos. 22:22), and this became the accepted biblical usage. Paul is saying that in the last times there will be a great uprising of the powers of evil against God (cf. Mt. 24:10ff.; 1 Tim. 4:1-3; 2 Tim. 3:1-9; 4:3-4). It is as though Satan were throwing all his forces into one last despairing effort." (Morris, L.L., 1984, "The Epistles of Paul to the Thessalonians: An Introduction and Commentary," [1956], Inter-Varsity Press: Leicester UK, Second edition, p.127).

"In 2 Thessalonians 2:3-4, Paul indicates that the reason people are not to be startled is that two signs must be fulfilled before the Lord returns. `Don't let anyone deceive you in any way, for that day will not come until the rebellion occurs and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the man doomed to destruction. He will oppose and will exalt himself over everything that is called God or is worshiped, so that he sets himself up in God's temple, proclaiming himself to be God.' Paul is crystal clear. Two things must occur before the Lord returns. First, there must be a rebellion (apostasy). Second, there must be a revelation of the Man of Lawlessness. ... As for the rebellion (apostasia), the word Paul uses here is used throughout the Septuagint (LXX) and elsewhere in the New Testament to speak of a religious crisis of some sort facing God's people-a falling away from the faith in some sense. As Beale points out, `Such a meaning is apparent because of the immediate context of false teaching (vv. 1-2 and vv. 9-12) and the clear allusions to Daniel's prediction of an end-time opponent who will bring about a large-scale compromise of faith among God's people. ' [Beale, G.K., "The Temple and the Church's Mission," IVP: Downers Grove IL, 2004, pp.271-272] This seems to connect Paul's comments to both John's and our Lord's warnings about false teachers and people who claim to be believers but who fall away and take a number of followers with them (see Matt. 24:10-12, 23-24; 1 John 2:18-19). ... The word means a rebellion against God; specifically an apostasy (a falling away from the truth) on the part of God's people. Thus professing Christians ... must be the ones who fall away. [Beale, G. K., "1-2 Thessalonians," IVP: Downers Grove IL, 2003, pp.207-209] While there were some apostates in the apostolic church just as there are in ours, God restrains false teachers and antichrists from gaining the upper hand until the appointed time. Because the final apostasy has not yet taken place, the Thessalonians can be assured that the Lord has not yet returned, nor has the day of the Lord already occurred." (Riddlebarger, K. , 2006, "The Man of Sin: Uncovering the Truth About the Antichrist," Baker: Grand Rapids MI, pp.124-125).

Re: Anthony Flew leaving Atheism ... more accurate to state "Victory of Deism"

AN

Continuing from my Re: what would happen if I lived to 2037 and Jesus has not come? with your next question:

[Left: Former atheist philosopher Antony Flew's book, "There Is a God: How the World's Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind" (2007).]

2. Regarding Anthony Flew leaving Atheism. You stated : "Victory of Theism". I think it's more accurate to state "Victory of Deism", since Flew didn't subscribe to any particular religion.

I never claimed that Flew did subscribe to any particular religion. And I maintain an up-to-date copy of every blog post I have made, and a search of those does not find where I stated that Antony Flew's conversion from atheism to deism was a "victory of theism."

Although since atheism, "the belief that God does not exist," is the negation of theism:"

atheism ... noun the belief that God does not exist. - DERIVATIVES atheist noun atheistic adjective atheistical adjective. - ORIGIN from Greek a- ‘without’ + theos `god'." ("Compact Oxford English Dictionary," Oxford University Press: Oxford UK, 2008),

then "leaving Atheism" by Flew, who was one of the world's leading atheists, was in that sense a "victory of theism."

And even if I had stated that Flew's leaving atheism was a "victory of theism," since deism is a form of theism, because theism in the broadest sense is the view that there is a God:

"theism Belief in the existence of God." (Blackburn, 1994, "The Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy," p.375).

"theism ... is the view that there is such a thing as GOD." (Vesey & Foulkes, 1990, "Collins Dictionary of Philosophy," p.283).

"theism ... the belief that there is one God, a personal being with every perfection ... existing entirely separately from the world ... the view that God interacts with the world is rejected by deism, which ascribes to God a decisive role in originating the world, but none in keeping the world going ..." (Mautner, 2000, "The Penguin Dictionary of Philosophy," p.561).

and deism also affirms there is a God, but denies that God is concerned with human affairs and/or intervenes in His creation, including in giving special revelation like the Bible:

"deism Historically, a term referring to the doctrine of `natural religion' ... according to which while reason ... assures us that there is a God, additional revelation, dogma, or supernatural commerce with the deity are all excluded. ... God may only be thought of as an 'absentee landlord'." (Blackburn, 1994, Ibid., p.110).

"deism ... belief in God as a perfect personal being; differs from THEISM by not accepting doctrines that require belief in revelation. ... there is one supreme God; .... True religion is identified with Christianity-but a reinterpreted `rational' Christianity which has no place for any special revelation." (Mautner, 2000, Ibid., pp.126-127).

"deism ... a line of rationalistic religious thought that affirms that there is a GOD but denies that he should be understood in any mystical way. The antecedents of deism go back to ARISTOTLE'S First Mover, who ...is otherwise unconcerned with human affairs." (Vesey & Foulkes, Ibid., 1990, p.76).

But even if theism is defined in a narrower sense of "belief in the existence of ... a creator who intervenes in the universe":

"theism ... noun belief in the existence of a god or gods, specifically of a creator who intervenes in the universe. Compare with DEISM. - DERIVATIVES theist noun theistic ... adjective. - ORIGIN from Greek theos `god'." ("Compact Oxford English Dictionary," 2008).

and deism is then defined in the sense of "belief in the existence of ... a creator who does not intervene in the universe":

"deism ... noun belief in the existence of a supreme being, specifically of a creator who does not intervene in the universe. Compare with THEISM. - DERIVATIVES deist noun deistic adjective" ("Compact Oxford English Dictionary," 2008)

then Flew's position is not deism but theism, because he believes that there is a God who intervened in the Universe to create the first living organism (see below).

Flew had claimed his version of deism affirmed that "God was not actively involved in people's lives":

"A British philosophy professor who has been a leading champion of atheism for more than a half-century ... now believes in God ... Flew said he's best labeled a deist like Thomas Jefferson, whose God was not actively involved in people's lives." (Ostling, 2004, "Atheist Philosopher, 81, Now Believes in God," Livescience).

and he later defined his God as "not the God of revelation":

"... Deists believe in the existence of a God but not the God of revelation." (Flew, 2008, "The Atheist Delusion Of Richard Dawkins," pp.48-49).

But Flew also affirms that God intervened supernaturally in the already existing Universe to create the first life:

"Antony Flew has concluded that some sort of intelligence or first cause must have created the universe. A super-intelligence is the only good explanation for the origin of life and the complexity of nature, Flew said ... biologists' investigation of DNA `has shown, by the almost unbelievable complexity of the arrangements which are needed to produce (life), that intelligence must have been involved,' Flew says ... `It has become inordinately difficult even to begin to think about constructing a naturalistic theory of the evolution of that first reproducing organism,' he wrote." (Ostling, 2004, Ibid.)

"... when asked if recent work on the origin of life pointed to the activity of a creative Intelligence, I said: `Yes ... because ... the DNA material has ... shown, by the almost unbelievable complexity of the arrangements which are needed to produce (life), that intelligence must have been involved in getting these extraordinarily diverse elements to work together. It's the enormous complexity of the number of elements and the enormous subtlety of the ways they work together. The meeting of these two parts at the right time by chance is simply minute. It is all a matter of the enormous complexity by which the results were achieved, which looked to me like the work of intelligence.'" (Flew, 2007, "There Is a God," pp.74-75).

Therefore, according to the Oxford Dictionary above, Flew's position is actually "theism ... belief in the existence of ... a creator who intervenes in the universe".

Moreover, Flew's version of deism (which is actually theism) cannot logically deny that God could also intervene in the Universe at strategic points in life's history, as my Progressive Creation position maintains:

"Progressive creationism accepts much of the scientific picture of the development of the universe, assuming that for the most part it developed according to natural laws. However, especially with regard to life on earth, PCs hold that God intervened supernaturally at strategic points along the way. On their view, Creation was not a single six-day event but occurred in stages over millions of years..." (Pennock, R.T. , 1999, "Tower of Babel: The Evidence Against the New Creationism," MIT Press: Cambridge MA, Fourth printing, pp.26-27).

And therefore neither could Flew logically claim that "God was not actively involved in people's lives", because a God who can and did intervene supernaturally in the Universe to produce "that first reproducing organism," could also be "actively involved in people's lives" (as uncountable millions of people - including me - have claimed down through the ages and still claim today).

And in fact Flew's position is that the God he believes in is "a self-existent, immutable, immaterial, omnipotent, and omniscient Being":

"I have followed the argument where it has led me. And it has led me to accept the existence of a self-existent, immutable, immaterial, omnipotent, and omniscient Being." (Flew, Ibid., 2007, p.155).

who he admits is God:

"The last of my public debates, a symposium at New York University, occurred in May 2004. .... To the surprise of all concerned, I announced at the start that I now accepted the existence of a God." (Flew, 2007, "There Is a God," pp.74-75).

But "self-existent, immutable, immaterial, omnipotent, and omniscient" are attributes of the Christian God who "intervenes in the universe" and is "the God of revelation." And Flew admits that "You cannot limit the possibilities of omnipotence ... Everything else is open to omnipotence":

"... the question of whether the Divine has revealed itself in human history remains a valid topic of discussion. You cannot limit the possibilities of omnipotence except to produce the logically impossible. Everything else is open to omnipotence." (Flew, 2007, Ibid, p.157).

Is it possible that there has been or can be divine revelation? As I said, you cannot limit the possibilities of omnipotence except to produce the logically impossible. Everything else is open to omnipotence." (Flew, 2007, Ibid., p.213).

which means that the "omnipotent, and omniscient" God that Flew believes in, could have supernaturally intervened in His Universe, in progressive creation, special revelation and "in people's lives."

In fact, while Flew has in the past has "taken issue with many of the claims of divine revelation or intervention" his "current position ... is more open to at least certain of these claims."

"In both my antitheological books and various debates, I have taken issue with many of the claims of divine revelation or intervention. My current position, however, is more open to at least certain of these claims." (Flew, 2007, Ibid, p.185).

Moreover, Flew regards Christianity, among all "other religions" as "the one to beat":

"As I have said more than once, no other religion enjoys anything like the combination of a charismatic figure like Jesus and a first-class intellectual like St. Paul. If you're wanting omnipotence to set up a religion, it seems to me that this is the one to beat!" (Flew, 2007, Ibid, p.157)

"... I think that the Christian religion is the one religion that most clearly deserves to be honored and respected whether or not its claim to be a divine revelation is true. ... If you're wanting Omnipotence to set up a religion, this is the one to beat." (Flew, 2007, Ibid., pp.185-186)

In particular, Flew admits that, "the claim concerning the resurrection [of Christ] is more impressive than any by the religious competition":

"... I addressed the claims of Christianity to some extent. ... Today, I would say the claim concerning the resurrection is more impressive than any by the religious competition." (Flew, 2007, Ibid, p.187).

Indeed, Flew has not ruled out the possibility of him becoming a Christian, and he even suggests the problem of unbelief in Christianity is on his side, i.e. he has not "made contact with this Mind. ...yet" but "Someday I might hear a Voice that says, `Can you hear me now?'":

"The discovery of phenomena like the [fine-tuned] laws of nature ... has led scientists, philosophers, and others to accept the existence of an infinitely intelligent Mind. Some claim to have made contact with this Mind. I have not-yet. But who knows what could happen next? Someday I might hear a Voice that says, `Can you hear me now?'" (Flew, 2007, Ibid, pp.157-158).

As I have previously pointed out, Flew is actually more theistic than most theistic evolutionists I have debated, because most of them, even though they claimed to be Christians, denied that God supernaturally intervened even to produce the first life:

I pointed out in my debates with atheists on my (now terminated) list CED that Antony Flew, although now he calls himself a "deist", is more theistic than most of the "theistic evolutionists" I have encountered, in that few of them would concede that God supernaturally intervened, even at the origin of life. ("Roman Catholic Church's `wedge'", July 15, 2005).

So although Flew claims he is a "deist" his position actually is already theism (in that he accepts that there is a God who has intervened supernaturally in the Universe to bring about the origin of life) and he is moving towards Christian theism!

Continued in "Re: Christianity has no future and is in decline."

Stephen E. Jones, BSc. (Biology).
My other blogs: , TheShroudofTurin & Jesus is Jehovah!

---

"deism Historically, a term referring to the doctrine of `natural religion' emerging in England and France in the late 17th and early 18th centuries, according to which while reason (particularly the argument to design) assures us that there is a God, additional revelation, dogma, or supernatural commerce with the deity are all excluded. Supplication and prayer in particular are fruitless: God may only be thought of as an 'absentee landlord'. Leading deists included Herbert, John Toland (1670-1722), whose Christianity not Mysterious (1696) was an influence on Berkeley, and Anthony Collins (1676-1729) as well as Shaftesbury and, arguably, Locke. The belief that remains is abstract to vanishing point, as witnessed in Diderot's remark that a deist is someone who has not lived long enough to become an atheist." (Blackburn, S., 1994, "The Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy," Oxford University Press: Oxford UK, Reprinted, 1996, p.110).

"theism Belief in the existence of God. Theism is also a morbid condition brought on by excessive tea-drinking, but this is a different sense of the word, or an instance of homonymy. See also deism, monotheism, polytheism, and different topics within the philosophy of religion." (Blackburn, 1994, p.375).

"The last of my public debates, a symposium at New York University, occurred in May 2004. The other participants were the Israeli scientist Gerald Schroeder, author of best sellers on science and religion, notably The Science of God, and the Scottish philosopher John Haldane, whose Theism and Atheism was a debate on God's existence with my friend Jack Smart. To the surprise of all concerned, I announced at the start that I now accepted the existence of a God. What might have been an intense exchange of opposing views ended up as a joint exploration of the developments in modern science that seemed to point to a higher Intelligence. In the video of the symposium, the announcer suggested that of all the great discoveries of modern science, the greatest was God. In this symposium, when asked if recent work on the origin of life pointed to the activity of a creative Intelligence, I said: `Yes, I now think it does ... almost entirely because of the DNA investigations. What I think the DNA material has done is that it has shown, by the almost unbelievable complexity of the arrangements which are needed to produce (life), that intelligence must have been involved in getting these extraordinarily diverse elements to work together. It's the enormous complexity of the number of elements and the enormous subtlety of the ways they work together. The meeting of these two parts at the right time by chance is simply minute. It is all a matter of the enormous complexity by which the results were achieved, which looked to me like the work of intelligence.' This statement represented a major change of course for me, but it was nevertheless consistent with the principle I have embraced since the beginning of my philosophical life-of following the argument no matter where it leads." (Flew, A.G.N., 2007, "There Is a God: How the World's Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind," HarperCollins: New York NY, pp.74-75).

"Science qua science cannot furnish an argument for God's existence. But the three items of evidence we have considered in this volume-the laws of nature, life with its teleological organization, and the existence of the universe--can only be explained in the light of an Intelligence that explains both its own existence and that of the world. Such a discovery of the Divine does not come through experiments and equations, but through an understanding of the structures they unveil and map. Now, all this might sound abstract and impersonal. How, it might be asked, do I as a person respond to the discovery of an Ultimate Reality that is an omnipresent and omniscient Spirit? I must say again that the journey to my discovery of the Divine has thus far been a pilgrimage of reason. I have followed the argument where it has led me. And it has led meto accept the existence of a self-existent, immutable, immaterial, omnipotent, and omniscient Being." (Flew, 2007, p.155).

"Where do I go from here? In the first place, I am entirely open to learning more about the divine Reality, especially in the light of what we know about the history of nature. Second, the question of whether the Divine has revealed itself in human history remains a valid topic of discussion. You cannot limit the possibilities of omnipotence except to produce the logically impossible. Everything else is open to omnipotence .... As I have said more than once, no other religion enjoys anything like the combination of a charismatic figure like Jesus and a first-class intellectual like St. Paul. If you're wanting omnipotence to set up a religion, it seems to me that this is the one to beat!" (Flew, 2007, p.157).

"The discovery of phenomena like the [fine-tuned] laws of nature-the communications network of the parable-has led scientists, philosophers, and others to accept the existence of an infinitely intelligent Mind. Some claim to have made contact with this Mind. I have not-yet. But who knows what could happen next? Someday I might hear a Voice that says, `Can you hear me now?'" (Flew, 2007, p.158).

"Up to this point I have discussed the data that led me to accept the existence of a divine Mind. Those who hear these arguments almost inevitably ask what I think about the claims of divine revelation. In both my antitheological books and various debates, I have taken issue with many of the claims of divine revelation or intervention. My current position, however, is more open to at least certain of these claims. In point of fact, I think that the Christian religion is the one religion that most clearly deserves to be honored and respected whether or not its claim to be a divine revelation is true. There is nothing like the combination of a charismatic figure like Jesus and a first-class intellectual like St. Paul. Virtually all the argument about the content of the religion was produced by St. Paul, who had a brilliant philosophical mind and could both speak and write-in all the relevant languages. If you're wanting Omnipotence to set up a religion, this is the one to beat." (Flew, 2007, pp.185-186).

"Today, I would say the claim concerning the resurrection is more impressive than any by the religious competition. I still believe that when historians professionally are looking at the evidence, they surely need much more than what is available. They need evidence of a different kind. I think the claim that God was incarnate in Jesus Christ is unique. It is difficult, I think, to realize how you are going to judge this other than by believing or not believing. I cannot quite see that there are general principles to guide you in this." (Flew, 2007, p.187).

"I am very much impressed with Bishop Wright's approach, which is absolutely fresh. He presents the case for Christianity as something new for the first time. This is enormously important, especially in the United Kingdom, where the Christian religion has virtually disappeared. It is absolutely wonderful, absolutely radical, and very powerful. Is it possible that there has been or can be divine revelation? As I said, you cannot limit the possibilities of omnipotence except to produce the logically impossible. Everything else is open to omnipotence." (Flew, 2007, p.213).

"A less important point which needs to be made in this piece is that although the index of The God Delusion notes six references to Deism it provides no definition of the word deism. This enables Dawkins in his reference to Deism to suggest that Deists are a miscellany of believers in this and that. The truth, which Dawkins ought to have learnt before his book went to the printers, is that Deists believe in the existence of a God but not the God of revelation. In fact, the first notable public appearance of the notion of Deism was the American Revolution. The young man who drafted the Declaration of Independence and who later became President Jefferson was a Deist, as were several of the other founding fathers of that abidingly important institution, the United States." (Flew, A.G.N., 2008, "The Atheist Delusion Of Richard Dawkins," Quadrant, October, pp.48-49).

"deism... (Lat. deus god) n. belief in God as a perfect personal being; differs from THEISM by not accepting doctrines that require belief in revelation. Post-Reformation religious conflicts led many thinkers to attempt systems of NATURAL RELIGION which would be based on rational insight, independently of any revelation, and therefore universally acceptable. They were also driven in this direction by the difficulties arising from the attempts to reconcile reason and religion. The word deism, which can be traced back to French writings in the 1560s, was used for many of these systems. (So was the word theism: its modern sense is quite recent.) Herbert of Cherbury is commonly regarded as the first English thinker to have provided a formulation of deism, in the 1620s. He held that there are five basic tenets or common notions of natural religion: (1) there is one supreme God; (2) God ought to be worshipped; (3) worship consists in virtue and piety; (4) wrongdoing should be repented; (5) there are divine rewards and punishments in this life and the next. These tenets are rationally knowable and constitute the basis for a true universal religion. The main thrust of deism comes to expression in the titles of works like John Toland's (1670-1722) Christianity not mysterious: or a treatise showing that there is nothing in the Gospel contrary to reason, nor above it: and that no Christian doctrine can be properly called a mystery 1696, and Mathew Tindal's (c. 1657-1733) Christianity as old as the creation: or, the Gospel the republication of the religion of nature 1730. True religion is identified with Christianity-but a reinterpreted `rational' Christianity which has no place for any special revelation. A classical formulation of a deistic view is Rousseau's `The profession of faith of the Savoyard vicar' in Book 4 of his Emile 1762." (Mautner, T., ed., 2000, "The Penguin Dictionary of Philosophy," [1996], Penguin: London, Revised, p.126-127).

"theism ... (Gr. theos god) n. the belief that there is one God, a personal being with every perfection (perfect power, perfect knowledge, perfect goodness, perfect justice, etc.); creator of the world, manifested in the world, interacting with the world, but nevertheless existing entirely separately from the world; a being that is the one and only proper object of worship and obedience. Theism is common to Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Theism can be contrasted with a variety of views: (1) the view that there is one God is rejected by polytheism, which claims that there are many gods; in contrast, traditional Western religions are also said to be monotheistic; (2) the view that God is a personal being is rejected as anthropomorphic in some philosophical systems, which rather conceive of God as an absolute, nonpersonal being; (3) the view that God is distinct from the world is rejected by pantheism, which identifies God and the world; (4) the view that God interacts with the world is rejected by deism, which ascribes to God a decisive role in originating the world, but none in keeping the world going; (5) the denial of the existence of any divine being is called atheism; (6) the suspension of judgement on the question whether theism is true is called agnosticism. Many of the teleological, cosmological, ontological, moral, etc. arguments for the existence of God are intended to establish theism." (Mautner, 2000, p.561).

"A British philosophy professor who has been a leading champion of atheism for more than a half-century has changed his mind. He now believes in God -more or less -- based on scientific evidence, and says so on a video released Thursday. At age 81, after decades of insisting belief is a mistake, Antony Flew has concluded that some sort of intelligence or first cause must have created the universe. A super-intelligence is the only good explanation for the origin of life and the complexity of nature, Flew said in a telephone interview from England. Flew said he's best labeled a deist like Thomas Jefferson, whose God was not actively involved in people's lives. ... Over the years, Flew proclaimed the lack of evidence for God while teaching at Oxford, Aberdeen, Keele, and Reading universities in Britain, in visits to numerous U.S. and Canadian campuses and in books, articles, lectures and debates. There was no one moment of change but a gradual conclusion over recent months for Flew, a spry man who still does not believe in an afterlife. Yet biologists' investigation of DNA `has shown, by the almost unbelievable complexity of the arrangements which are needed to produce (life), that intelligence must have been involved,' Flew says in the new video, `Has Science Discovered God? .... The first hint of Flew's turn was a letter to the August-September issue of Britain's Philosophy Now magazine. `It has become inordinately difficult even to begin to think about constructing a naturalistic theory of the evolution of that first reproducing organism,' he wrote." (Ostling, R.N., "Atheist Philosopher, 81, Now Believes in God," Livescience/Associated Press, 10 December 2004).

"deism, n. (from Latin deus god) a line of rationalistic religious thought that affirms that there is a GOD but denies that he should be understood in any mystical way. The antecedents of deism go back to ARISTOTLE'S First Mover, who moved `the first heaven' at the circumference of the universe but is otherwise unconcerned with human affairs. Deism proper arose with the RENAISSANCE and particularly the ENLIGHTENMENT. It is not a school in any sense, but rather typifies a general approach to religion: individualistic, non-mystical, non-institutional and often anti-clerical. To mention only two great philosophical figures, both LOCKE and KANT took a deist position. As an anti-authoritarian way of thinking, deism in modern times is one of the results of the Protestant REFORMATION. Insofar as it implies a general spirit of tolerance (witness Frederick the Great's dictum that in his realm everyone could save his soul in his own fashion), deism remains in effect a living force today. Besides, toleration in religious matters tends to spread to other human concerns, particularly social and political." (Vesey, G. & Foulkes, P., 1990, "Collins Dictionary of Philosophy," HarperCollins: Glasgow, Reprinted, 1999, p.76).

"theism, n. (from Greek theos god) is the view that there is such a thing as GOD. Depending on how many of them one takes there to be, we have monotheism (one god), polytheism (many gods) and appropriate compound terms for numbers in between. Theistic views may be based either on simple faith, or on attempts at accounting for what happens in the world. For the latter case, a whole range of arguments for the existence of god has been considered by philosophers over the ages. All of these proofs have been rejected by some philosophers, but the question remains controversial in that some others may accept them. Much here depends on what the god in question is taken to be like, and what his existence must account for: some regard god as the creator of the universe, as a giver of moral laws, as a source of universal benevolence, as an ultimate judge, or as several of these at once. Whether the proofs carry weight depends on whether one accepts the premisses. Where the only ground for admitting the existence of a god is unexamined belief, argument is of course ineffective either way. Some arguments have been conclusively refuted. Thus, the notion that there could be no morality without a god has been quite undermined by PLATO in the Euthyphro. That the thought of a powerful being who can put things to right offers comfort to many, is indubitable. VOLTAIRE, with tongue in cheek, says that if God did not exist one would have to invent him." (Vesey & Foulkes, 1990, p.283).