Posted on 12/26/2004 2:12:39 PM PST by protest1
Atheist's turn toward God was a 4-year process, friend says Dec 22, 2004 By David Roach
NASHVILLE, Tenn. (BP)--Christian apologist Gary Habermas had just finished debating noted British atheist Antony Flew about the existence of God and the resurrection of Jesus Christ.
The two friends rode an elevator together as they left the Californian university where the debate was held in January 2002. As Habermas exited the elevator, he extended his hand through the open door. "Tony," he said, "this is it for now. I enjoyed talking with you. When you become a Christian, I want to be the first one to know."
Flew laughed and responded, "I think you deserve that right."
The doors closed.
Most observers of the debate never thought that Flew would take steps toward Christianity. The former professor at Oxford, Aberdeen, Keele and Reading universities in Britain had argued against the existence of God for more than 50 years, publishing such books as "Atheistic Humanism" and "Darwinian Evolution."
But in December 2004 the unexpected happened when Flew took a step toward Christianity, announcing that scientific evidence led him to a belief in God.
Habermas was among the first people he told.
Habermas, chairman of the department of philosophy and theology at Liberty University in Lynchburg, Va., had known that Flew was reconsidering his position since the fall of 2000 when Flew sent Habermas a letter in which the atheist acknowledged the strength of arguments for theism and Christianity.
"In September 2000, that's about the earliest indication that I had that he was changing," Habermas said in an interview with Baptist Press. "He wrote me a long letter, quite an incredible letter, where at several points he conceded the evidence for [theism and Christianity]."
When Habermas received the letter, he knew something was happening in Flew's life.
"I distinctly remember reading that letter when it came in the mail and thinking, 'Wow, something huge is happening with this guy,'" Habermas said.
Over a period of three years the two scholars corresponded about God. By January 2003 Flew began considering arguments from the "intelligent design" movement and was on the verge of belief in God.
Intelligent design is a theory arguing that some features of the natural world are best explained as the products of an intelligent cause rather than naturalistic evolution.
"He told me he was really rethinking theism and had corresponded with [naturalistic scientist Richard] Dawkins and was putting the ID arguments up against what Dawkins was saying and trying to compare the arguments," Habermas said. "And he was going back and forth as to whether he should be a theist or not."
By early 2004, Flew completed his transition to theism and indicated his change of mind to Habermas in a telephone conversation.
When media reports revealed Flew's belief in God in December 2004, some skeptics argued that the former atheist had changed his mind suddenly. But Habermas said such allegations are clearly incorrect in light of the four-year dialogue he had with Flew.
"The implications that he's just recently arrived at theism ... and that he hasn't had time to think through this aren't correct," Habermas said. "The first sign that I've seen of him changing goes back to the fall of 2000. So he's been thinking about these things for four years."
Flew currently holds a position known as deism -- the belief that God created the universe but is not actively involved in people's lives today, Habermas said. Because deism is traditionally a "tenuous" position, Flew could move closer to traditional Christianity in the days ahead, he said.
"Deism is a very tenuous position, and deistic belief is a short-lived movement in the history of philosophy over the last few centuries," Habermas said. "One reason deism is a troubled position is that it usually moves one way or the other."
Flew could revert back to atheism, Habermas noted. "Still, he has made a number of statements to me indicating that he is open, even to revelation," Habermas said.
"Three weeks ago I received a letter from him where he said that he was rereading my arguments for the resurrection and was very impressed with them,'" he said.
Despite his interest in the resurrection, however, Flew remains far from belief in Christianity, Habermas said.
"He's told me on many occasions that he was impressed with the arguments for the resurrection ... and he says it's the best miracle claim in the history of religions," Habermas recounted. "So he's impressed with them. Enough to believe? I don't think so, certainly not right now."
The dialogue with Flew highlights the need for Christians to engage non-believers in meaningful, caring friendships, Habermas said. Christian scholars in particular should bear in mind the need to build relationships with non-believing scholars, he said.
There are "benefits of carrying on a genuine friendship with people who do not agree with you on things," Habermas said. "I mean a genuine friendship where you're there for them in season and out of season. You're there for them when they're having bad days. You can tell them things that are on your mind. ... It's not connected to whether the people convert or not."
Christians should rejoice that Flew has adopted a belief in God but remember that mere belief in God falls short of the belief in Jesus Christ that Scripture requires for eternal life, Habermas said.
"His deism provides no relief for dying because he doesn't believe in life after death," he said. "It's not ... an 81-year-old who is embracing God so that he can come out on the good side when he dies. If you said that to him, he would say, 'I'm just going where the evidence leads.'"
An interview conducted by Habermas exploring Flew's conversion to belief in God will be published in the winter 2004 issue of Philosophia Christi, the journal of the Evangelical Philosophical Society.
> This direct quote from Antony Flew should clear things up.
It does indeed. It points out that it is faith, not science, that is leading this man to God.
Which questions?
I read the Flew interview a while back but thanks for the link. Curious enough he is impressed with Schroeders work. Who'da thunk it?
Go argue the point with Flew. I'm unimpressed with the standard balogna. I prefer roast beef.
Your post is illucid.
Only to a blind man.
Merry Christmas Andrew.
TASMANIANRED ADDED: "Liver failure is not a good way to go. He was in a coma, bleeding from the eyes, nose, lungs, in his urine..."
TASMANIANRED ADDED: "He hadn't even blinked voluntarily in several days. When his heart flipped into a lethal rhythm, He sat up, opened his eyes and stared. "
TASMANIANRED ADDED: "It is the one and only time I saw anybody sit up to die. It may have only been an oddity but I still can't explain it and haven't talked to any one that could."
Two of the sweetest Christian women I have ever known, who used to take care of me when my parents were out of town, died a few years ago. They were elderly, childless sisters, 7 years apart in age.
The younger sister suddenly died at home first and was found by the older sister, laying back across the bed with her feet on the floor and her arms outstretched. She looked as if she had been sitting on the bed, with her arms outstretched, then fell backwards as she died.
The older sister died in a hospital and, as I understand, had been "out of it" and not moving or opening her eyes for several days. Immediately before she died, she suddenly sat up in bed, opened her eyes, and with her arms outstretched up and out in front of her, said "I love you!" as if she was seeing the LORD, then fell back and died.
I always looked at the event as a positive indication that she DID see the LORD. It made me think that a much as the LORD is love and wants us to love each other, that maybe He gives people that literal last second of life to decide to believe in Him and go with Him as you die.
That said, I doubt that celebration is the reason that people bring this up here. I stand by the point of MY post, which is that faith needs no celebrity endorsement, and any posting to that effect is converting folks who are not going to be long with one religion, anyway.
"Look, Jessica Simpson's Christian! I think I'll start going to prayer meetings again!"
I just don't see it. If I want to welcome Flew to the flock, I'll buy him a frosty one. Trumpeting it to the secular world reeks of cola wars.
The questions:
Did I misconstrue the point of your post above, where you said Flew was led to theism by science and followed the science? What was your intended message, exactly, if it was not that? I said "Gotcha," because I didn't know why you were so stuck on this Flew person being a theist, then I THOUGHT you'd explained it. However, now I'm not sure I understand the whoop-de-do, since your point evidently ISN'T that science proves theism.
Schroeder is interesting but I am not sure a literalist view of the Bible can be reconciled with his perception of the 6 days of Creation.
Have a blessed new year.
FLEW: Absolutely. It seems to me that Richard Dawkins constantly overlooks the fact that Darwin himself, in the fourteenth chapter of The Origin of Species, pointed out that his whole argument began with a being which already possessed reproductive powers. This is the creature the evolution of which a truly comprehensive theory of evolution must give some account. Darwin himself was well aware that he had not produced such an account. It now seems to me that the findings of more than fifty years of DNA research have provided materials for a new and enormously powerful argument to design.
Looks like an opinion using "science"(DNA research) as an argument to a conclusion of design which ultimately leads to a designer. Some might say space aliens others might say God.
"Look, Jessica Simpson's Christian! I think I'll start going to prayer meetings again!"
Leave Bill Clinton's religion out of this!
Trumpeting it to the secular world reeks of cola wars.
Is this because you are holding Christendom to a higher standard?
Do you hold secularists to the same standard, when they trumpet a list of intellectuals and/or celebrities who markedly do not endorse Christ, in order to reject Christianity out of hand?
Consider the quotes of St. Paul, about "...consider bretheren, how you were called--not many wise, not many successful" (my paraphrase), or about "becoming all things to all men, that I may by all means save some."
Just food for thought, no flames intended.
Cheers!
it's interesting and important from a society or cultural point of view. Not a personal one.
There is a battle going on between science and religion in many spheres.
You said -- "I fail to see the importance of any one person becoming Christian, or atheist, or Hindu, or whatever."
Well, for one thing, Jesus made the claim of being the only one who "saves" (as the Messiah of Israel and of the whole human race, from beginning to end) -- a totally exclusive claim. There is no room for other "ways" according to Jesus.
In John 14:6 --
Jesus said to him, "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me."
This is what Jesus says, it's what God says, it's what the Bible says, it's what the Apostles and leaders of the Jerusalem Church said (i.e., the first church), and it's what current-day Christians say.
There is no room in God's way of offering salvation to the world -- of any other way or method. God doesn't allow it; Jesus makes it perfectly clear there is no other way except through Him.
You're on the wrong side of Jesus on this one.
Regards,
Star Traveler
You said -- "Trumpeting it to the secular world reeks of cola wars."
One no less than Jesus said the following --
Matthew 28:18-20
18 And Jesus came and spoke to them, saying, "All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth.
19 Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,
20 teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age." Amen.
And talking about others who have moved in their position from atheism to the direction of Christianity (although not there yet), is part of that very process that Jesus talks about above.
To do less is simply to disobey Jesus Christ.
Regards,
Star Traveler
I'll go with God's Word over Stalin's words anyday.....
You too are only one person.
AHhhhhhhh....
I see!
That's nice. But when people start declaring that anyone who does not toe a party line is by definition insane... it's time to worry.
Concerned, Thank you for sharing that touching story with me.
Wow, you got me there. Just can't get past a sharp guy like you.
Rumours of my infallibility are greatly exaggerated.
As it happens, I am in fact infallible. In order to prevent others (I hope that you recognize yourself therein) from feeling hopelessly inferior, I will sometimes deliberately make mistakes. Feeling better now?
If you are going to use scientific methodology, do so.
I do not understand what you are suggesting. IMHO the proposition "God exists" (or "An Intelligent Designer exists") cannot be tested using a scientific method, though it is accessible through reason and logic. Please do not challenge me to do so. I find futile and tiresome the quest for gods, Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy or an Invisible Pink Unicorn.
FWIW I do believe there is sufficient historical evidence to emonstrate that Jesus existed as a human person.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.