Anthony Flew was a very sick man, and theists preyed upon him in his vulnerability because that's what theists do. All you're doing bringing him up is revealing how corrupt you are.

(July 22, 2023 at 11:19 am)Nishant Xavier Wrote: Anthony Flew became a Deistic Theist after many years of discussions and debates, including with Dr. William Lane Craig, God Bless him for it.

Anthony Flew, seemingly at the very door of Christianity and Salvation also said: "The evidence for the Resurrection is better than for claimed miracles in any other religion. It's outstandingly different in quality and quantity.” Amen. Well said. And yet we do not know if he made the final leap of faith before the end of his life; I hope for his sake that he did, so that he could now be in Heaven, or at least in Purgatory, and destined for Heaven in its own due time.

But all this goes to show, evidence does matter, arguments do matter, and they help people, in due time, who want to know the Truth, come to be saved. I agree with Dr. Craig's approach on the subject generally, which is also very Augustino-Thomistic, and places Logic and Reason in its proper place.

Your church, the Roman Catholic Church, (unfortunately for you) puts the lie to this entire piece of complete nonsense. 

The Catechism of the Roman church says :
1260 - Every man who is ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and of his Church, but seeks the truth and does the will of God in accordance with his understanding of it, can be saved. It may be supposed that such persons would have desired Baptism explicitly if they had known its necessity.. It's always been known as "baptism of desire" which the Magisterium expanded relatively recently when they updated the Catechism.

Unfortunately for you, you do not know even THE MOST basic tenets of the Roman faith. 

Assuming that Flew was, before and after any change he may or may not have had, including as a very old man, (his lucidity some have questioned),  a man of "good faith" acting in according to the understandings he had at any given time, he was saved and would have been saved. He didn't have "to make a final step". 
I get you like to think your exclusive club is necessary, as you are a religious snob, but it's not what the church says.
It's people like you that are responsible for the fact that 10 % of Americans are ex-Catholics.

You really should enroll in Catholicism 101, or better yet Comparative World Religions. 

This is known as the \”baptism of desire\”, an extra-ordinary way of salvation that occurs outside of the sacramental system. The Catechism also says:
1281 All those who, without knowing of the Church but acting under the inspiration of grace, seek God sincerely and strive to fulfill his will, can be saved even if they have not been baptized.

Paul told you faith was a gift. YOUR scripture tells you :
"By grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not as a result of works, so that no one may boast.” Ephesians : 2: 8-9

You are saying faith is the work of human acceptance. That is heresy.

You could knock off the ad hominems, couldn'tcha? Atheists were happy to claim him as long as he professed Atheism. Yet, as soon he professes God, soon they'll attack him on every possible specious pretext, say he didn't know what he was doing etc. "However, in 2004 he changed his position, and stated that he now believed in the existence of an intelligent designer of the universe,[11] shocking colleagues and fellow atheists.[11]" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antony_Flew Christians care about advancing the Temporal and Spiritual Happiness of Men, and Women. Nothing corrupt about that at all, except in the minds of Anti-Religious Atheists. We don't debate just to have a good time or anything. We debate and discuss these weighty matters of God's Creation and Design, of Objective Morality, Christ's Resurrection, and Personal Religious Experience, because things of such great value are at stake.

Above was to Angrboda.

Lol, our Atheist Friends are Catechism Experts now, are they? You should know whoever wants to be saved must believe in Christ and be baptized. This is from Mark 16:16: "Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved. Whoever does not believe will be condemned" (Mark 16:16).

Bucky, you should read CCC 846 and 848, and try to understand what it says, not what you want it to say. Once you know of Christ and His Baptism, you are bound to be washed in that sacred fount for the washing away of sins, whether Original or Personal, Mortal or Venial. All sins are washed away in Holy Baptism. http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p123a9p3.htm#846 Quoting 2 paras from it below in the quote box.

Quote:

---

CCC 846: "Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.336"

848 "Although in ways known to himself God can lead those who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel, to that faith without which it is impossible to please him, the Church still has the obligation and also the sacred right to evangelize all men."338

---

(July 22, 2023 at 11:56 am)Nishant Xavier Wrote: Above was to Angrboda.

Lol, our Atheist Friends are Catechism Experts now, are they? You should know whoever wants to be saved must believe in Christ and be baptized. This is from Mark 16:16: "Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved. Whoever does not believe will be condemned" (Mark 16:16).

Bucky, you should read CCC 846 and 848, and try to understand what it says, not what you want it to say. Once you know of Christ and His Baptism, you are bound to be washed in that sacred fount for the washing away of sins, whether Original or Personal, Mortal or Venial. All sins are washed away in Holy Baptism. http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p123a9p3.htm#846 Quoting 2 paras from it below in the quote box.

Quote:CCC 846: "Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.336"

848 "Although in ways known to himself God can lead those who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel, to that faith without which it is impossible to please him, the Church still has the obligation and also the sacred right to evangelize all men."338

So now you deny the truth of the Catechism ? 
Your church says it reserves the right to interpret scripture, therefore the Catechism takes priority for YOU. 
We are not talking about washing away sins. Baptism of Desire is just as valid as any other baptism. It washes away all sin in your cult. 
But nice try at changing the subject.

Flew did not have to formally be baptized at ANY time, as long as he followed his conscience.
We get you like to pretend that your exclusive club is necessary, and your evil deity would exclude someone who "just missed" being baptized by water ... you have a very strange idea of a god.

You really are a Catholic ignoramus.

(July 22, 2023 at 11:51 am)Nishant Xavier Wrote: You could knock off the ad hominems, couldn'tcha? Atheists were happy to claim him as long as he professed Atheism. Yet, as soon he professes God, soon they'll attack him on every possible specious pretext, say he didn't know what he was doing etc. "However, in 2004 he changed his position, and stated that he now believed in the existence of an intelligent designer of the universe,[11] shocking colleagues and fellow atheists.[11]" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antony_Flew Christians care about advancing the Temporal and Spiritual Happiness of Men, and Women. Nothing corrupt about that at all, except in the minds of Anti-Religious Atheists. We don't debate just to have a good time or anything. We debate and discuss these weighty matters of God's Creation and Design, of Objective Morality, Christ's Resurrection, and Personal Religious Experience, because things of such great value are at stake.

Yes we know you feel all "weighty" and important. 
LMAO

I could care less about Flew. I never attacked him. 
He lived just about his entire life as an atheist.
You love to pretend you're being persecuted. 
Boo hoo.

BTW, Craig exposed himself. He doesn't in the end, debate about anything in good faith. He admitted it.

Lol, I just quoted the Catechism. I obviously don't deny its Truth. Yes, Baptism of Desire exists, and Baptism of Desire, as St. Thomas explains, means an act of faith in Christ, and an act of contrition for our sins. St. Thomas also explains the one saved by Baptism of Desire will go to Purgatory. It has some of the effects of Sacramental Baptism but not all. Sacramental Baptism takes a soul to Heaven even without Purgatory, provided he dies shortly thereafter without committing any sin. Bottom line: those who have heard of Christ at least are bound to accept Him as Lord and Savior, and be contrite for their former sins.

Christ said: "Unless a man be born again of Water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter the Kingdom of God" (John 3:5)

In these words, He sufficiently taught that once we know Baptism to be necessary, we must receive this Re-Birth/Regeneration in Water and in Spirit, to enter the Kingdom of God. This is what also all the Church's Missionaries like St. Francis Xavier and St. Patrick, the Apostle of Ireland, knew very well.

You're wrong Xavi.

(July 22, 2023 at 11:51 am)Nishant Xavier Wrote: You could knock off the ad hominems, couldn'tcha? Atheists were happy to claim him as long as he professed Atheism. Yet, as soon he professes God, soon they'll attack him on every possible specious pretext, say he didn't know what he was doing etc. "However, in 2004 he changed his position, and stated that he now believed in the existence of an intelligent designer of the universe,[11] shocking colleagues and fellow atheists.[11]" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antony_Flew Christians care about advancing the Temporal and Spiritual Happiness of Men, and Women. Nothing corrupt about that at all, except in the minds of Anti-Religious Atheists. We don't debate just to have a good time or anything. We debate and discuss these weighty matters of God's Creation and Design, of Objective Morality, Christ's Resurrection, and Personal Religious Experience, because things of such great value are at stake.

Doesn't matter. He died rejecting Christ. He made it very clear he was a deist and not a Christian. The deist God and the Christian God are only superficially alike. At the core, there are a lot of dissimilarities between the two.

And no, he clearly said in his interview with Habermas that he didn't believe the Resurrection was a historical fact. This is what he actually said:

HABERMAS: You and I have had three dialogues on the resurrection of
Jesus. Are you any closer to thinking that the resurrection could have been a
historical fact?
FLEW: No, I don't think so. The evidence for the resurrection is better
than for claimed miracles in any other religion. It's outstandingly different
in quality and quantity, I think, from the evidence offered for the occurrence
of most other supposedly miraculous events. But you must remember that I
approached it after considerable reading of reports of psychical research and
its criticisms. This showed me how quickly evidence of remarkable and sup-
posedly miraculous events can be discredited.
What the psychical researcher looks for is evidence from witnesses, of
the supposedly paranormal events, recorded as soon as possible after their
occurrence. What we do not have is evidence from anyone who was in
Jerusalem at the time, who witnessed one of the allegedly miraculous events,
and recorded his or her testimony immediately after the occurrence of that
allegedly miraculous event. In the 1950s and 1960s I heard several sugges-
tions from hard-bitten young Australian and American philosophers of con-
ceivable miracles the actual occurrence of which, it was contended, no one
could have overlooked or denied. Why, they asked, if God wanted to be rec-
ognized and worshipped, did God not produce a miracle of this unignorable
and undeniable kind?
HABERMAS: So you think that, for a miracle, the evidence for Jesus' res-
urrection is better than other miracle claims?
FLEW: Oh yes, I think so. It's much better, for example, than that for
most if not all of the, so to speak, run-of-the-mill Roman Catholic miracles.
On this see, for instance, D. J. West.

https://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/cgi/v...s_fac_pubs

(July 22, 2023 at 12:10 pm)Nishant Xavier Wrote: Lol, I just quoted the Catechism. I obviously don't deny its Truth. Yes, Baptism of Desire exists, and Baptism of Desire, as St. Thomas explains, means an act of faith in Christ, and an act of contrition for our sins. St. Thomas also explains the one saved by Baptism of Desire will go to Purgatory. It has some of the effects of Sacramental Baptism but not all. Sacramental Baptism takes a soul to Heaven even without Purgatory, provided he dies shortly thereafter without committing any sin. Bottom line: those who have heard of Christ at least are bound to accept Him as Lord and Savior, and be contrite for their former sins.

Christ said: "Unless a man be born again of Water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter the Kingdom of God" (John 3:5)

In these words, He sufficiently taught that once we know Baptism to be necessary, we must receive this Re-Birth/Regeneration in Water and in Spirit, to enter the Kingdom of God. This is what also all the Church's Missionaries like St. Francis Xavier and St. Patrick, the Apostle of Ireland, knew very well.

You deny the part I quoted, obviously. 
YOU don't get to interpret scripture. Only your church does, and they accept Baptism of Desire, and always have. 
You obviously deny Baptism of Desire, but thanks for pointing out your church does not care about what is in John's Gospel. 

You can knock off your pathetic ignorant preaching. 

I know your authority is Thomas Aquinas. He was censured by the Archbishop of Paris for a number of things. 
Aquinas is not the Catechism. The Catechism says they are "saved". Flew would have been saved baptism or not.
Salvation as "staying in Purgatory" is beyond ridiculous. 
The Church does not ever (proclaim as dogma) say that the consequence of Baptism of Desire results in Purgatory.
The Catechism says they are saved.