Baptism in the Early Church – History, Theology and Liturgy in the First Five Centuries, Everett Ferguson

Baptism in the Early Church – History, Theology and Liturgy in the First Five Centuries, Everett Ferguson

A few years ago, the congregation where I was attending was looking for a reputable building contractor.  I offered to consult with the head of the construction department where I worked to see if he could make some recommendations.  His first question was “Are you a Baptist?”  I replied, “No, but why?”  He said “Because Baptists practice full body immersion, and I wanted to make sure you didn’t need a baptistery.”  I stated that while I was not a Baptist, we did follow the New Testament pattern of the early church pattern of full body immersion.  He made a very significant point that I wonder if many have given thought to.  He stated that congregations which practice full body immersion; i.e., baptism, seek to install a baptistery which is a building’s worst nightmare, since a constant presence of heated water is detrimental to a building’s integrity.  One wonders if people have given much thought to the “convenience factor” when studying whether or not “baptism” is by sprinkling, pouring or immersing?   Certainly one recognizes that either sprinkling or pouring is far more convenient than immersing!  What does the practice of the early church reveal about the mode of baptism?  Certainly if the matter was up to matters of convenience, then their practice would reflect such.

When considering the “convenience factor” I came across this information in brother Ferguson’s research:

The literary sources give two principal symbolisms for the baptismal font—the tomb of the death and resurrection and the womb of new birth. The former symbolism was reinforced by variations on a cross shape, which became fairly common in the fifth and sixth centuries. Both baptisteries and basins in the shape of a hexagon may have alluded to Jesus’ death on the sixth day of the week; the octagon to his resurrection on the eighth day or at any rate to the idea of resurrection and eternal life. The latter was explicit in the case of the octagonal baptismal font in Milan. Even the frequency of three steps for the entrance and three for the exit of pools may have had symbolic worth (three days in the tomb), and the practice of sinking the font below floor level may have enhanced the association with a tomb. The rectangle may have alluded to a tomb, and the circle may have alluded to the womb or to eternity; or they could have been merely utilitarian. Often symbolic considerations must finally remain in the realm of speculation. (pp. 819-820)

Clearly the early church practiced full body immersion and went to great lengths to construct baptisteries for their buildings.  This would be of no surprise to men such as Luther, Wesley, Calvin and the Catholic Church.  These authorities readily admit that immersion was the practice of the early church.  The salient question remains—who gave their followers the authority to substitute sprinkling or pouring for the New Testament teaching and early church practice?  Dr. Everett Ferguson provides a monumental amount of research on the subject of baptism in his work Baptism in the Early Church.  This volume will be a standard reference work on this subject for years to come.  He has rendered the church an invaluable service with this research.  Be sure to include this volume in your church library for researchers. 

Thinking-Living-Dying: Early Apologists Speak to the 21st Century, Everett Ferguson

Thinking-Living-Dying:  Early Apologists Speak to the 21^st Century, Everett Ferguson
When judges review prior court decisions when deciding their judgments, they are said to be looking for precedence or past pattern to guide their decision.  It should be obvious that clear and consistent teaching and practice formulates a strong precedence while inconsistencies in teaching, practice, or both weaken precedence.  

While the Bible is clear on God’s great love for mankind as demonstrated by sending His Son to redeem humanity (John 3:16), it is also plain that God has standards for acceptable moral behavior.  For example, God designed marriage to be one man and one woman for life (Genesis 1:24) and homosexuality is contrary to that design.  God codified this design in both the Law of Moses (Deuteronomy 20:7) and the New Testament (Matthew 19:4-5; Mark 10:6-7).  The Bible also documented His abhorrence for various sexual practices contrary to the design of marriage such as homosexuality, bestiality, et al. (Leviticus 18:22-23).  In addition, God has demonstrated His commitment to those standards by punishing those who flagrantly disregarded Him and His standards of morality; e.g. Sodom (Jude 1:7).  He has also promised to do so in the future (Revelation 21:7-8).  So, His design in creation, His laws across generations, His actions in the past and His promises in the future have been consistent in what constitutes moral rightness and immorality.  One should not overlook God’s precedence in these matters!

There are religions claiming Christianity who have historically opposed homosexuality, but recently have not only tolerated this lifestyle but have promoted those who practice it into leadership ranks.  One wonders how faithful churches are going to hold to God’s standards of morality in our legal system with so many other religions compromising God’s standards?  I am convinced that one of the determining legal factors for churches who have consistently attempted to save those engaged in homosexuality by helping them cease the activity and become sanctified (1 Corinthians 6:8-10) will be the teaching and practice of churches across the centuries.  In other words, what will precedence reveal?  

This is where Thinking-Living-Dying becomes such an important study.  The study is a fascinating one, especially for those who appreciate both early church history and apologetics.  I was privileged to hear brother Ferguson deliver these lectures, and as I listened to him explain the early apologists’ debates with pagan philosophers on subjects such as celibacy, marriage, extra-marital sex, abortion, infanticide, and homosexuality, I was struck by how explicit and contextual these issues were in our society today.  For example, Celsus, who was a pagan philosopher, attacked Christians in his writing True Discourse (or True Reason or True Doctrine) around 178 AD.  Origen defended Christianity in his apologetic work Against Celsus around 248 AD.  Origen’s work was viewed to be one of the strongest apologies in early church history.  Interestingly, the attacks of Celsus were only preserved because of the extensive quotations and refutation by Origen.  Origen lost his father due to persecution under the reign of Septimius Severus.  Some fifty years later, Origen would also be imprisoned, persecuted and die in 253 AD at Tyre.  Origen answered the call both in his defense of Christianity in thinking, living and even dying.  What will our commitment be when we are put to the test?

Proclamation and Promise: Major Themes in the Minor Prophets, David L. Lipe, Editor

Proclamation and Promise: Major Themes in the Minor Prophets, David L. Lipe, Editor

This writer was enriched by attending the 75th Annual Bible Lectureship at Freed-Hardeman University in February 2011. The theme was on the Minor Prophets which is an enriching study that is very much needed in our day. I found this year’s lectureship especially good and commented to my father and others that I wish they would repeat the same program next year!

One of the nice things about this lectureship being so large is that several different approaches to the study of the theme are available. For example, I decided to attend a track (or series) that provided an overview of each of the Minor Prophets called “The-Prophets-At-A-Glance”. Unfortunately I missed the lecture on the book of Jonah so I could attend a session at the Bible School Workshop on “Teaching The Minor Prophets to Adults” conducted by Clyde M. Woods.

Other tracks included “The Prophets Proclaim” which included lessons on a few of the many statements made by the prophets that we would do well to meditate upon today. For example, David L. Lipe’s lecture on “Destroyed for Lack of Knowledge” is one I could not attend personally; however, the manuscript in the book is very good. Another theme of study at the lectureship I wished I had been able to attend was archaeology and the time periods of the Minor Prophets. I find it fascinating that archaeologists have found ivory panels on chairs and beds in the Kingdom of Israel which the prophet of Amos had condemned them for—abusing the poor as they pampered themselves (Amos 3:15; 6:4). There were also discussions about difficult texts and hard sayings relating to the Minor Prophets. Another nice feature of the lectureship is the variety of subject matter. For example, I was able to attend a Writer’s Workshop hosted by Gospel Advocate. There were also classes on counseling and other matters. One literally cannot attend every lecture because each hour had as many as seven different lectures available.

This year’s lectureship book is likewise outstanding. I wonder when E. Claude Gardner wrote the Foreword for the 1953 Lectureship Book if he had any idea just how widely known these lectureships would become. I am certain he would not realize that all volumes of these lectures are available in PDF format on a single CD at a price five dollars less than the hardbound book for 2011. I imagine he believed having the lectures on tape would be wonderful, but unfathomable that these are now on CD and available on iTunes. He certainly realized how important it would be to have printed copies that people could read, but could not have even imagined these would be on Kindle and readable on iPhones and iPads. I am sure he is thrilled to know that some of the lectures were streamed live on the Internet so that others could watch these sessions from anywhere in the world. We have so many resources available to us today than ever. How are we utilizing these?

The Disciples' Prayer, Hugo McCord

The Disciples’ Payer, Hugo McCord


Recently, I was requested to present a series on prayer. As I assembled reference materials, I shopped at a local used bookstore and came across a popular book that stated it was the 10th anniversary edition, and I learned it has over 1 million copies sold. I purchased the volume to see if it had any insights or approaches that I might find of use. While the book had several positive points, it also had some negative ones too. I went to my shelf and started reading Hugo McCord’s The Disciples’ Prayer and thought “Now this is a book on the subject that should be in new and used bookstores in a celebrated 10th anniversary edition!” Sadly, many of the works published among churches of Christ do not have the marketing support as some of large publishing houses. I believe brother McCord’s book far exceeds the value of the one I purchased that day.


The late brother McCord wrote this book in 1954 as Vice President of Central Christian College (now Oklahoma Christian University). McCord’s scholarship was well known. He received degrees from Freed-Hardeman College (now University), University of Illinois, and a doctorate from Southern Baptist Seminary. Brother McCord’s dissertation was on the supposed “Synoptic Problem” which I find of interest since it is a theory of many modernists who attack the Bible. The “Synoptic Problem” claims there are discrepancies, even contradictions between Matthew, Mark and Luke. They even go so far as to suggest an imaginary author called “Q” that the gospel writers had to borrow from. Some suggest that Mark’s gospel was written first and Matthew had to borrow from it. Imagine that! Matthew, an apostle who was with Jesus during His ministry, had to borrow from Mark who was not an apostle. Difficult to believe? Indeed. Occasionally McCord writings point out how these critics overlook certain realities that contradict their theories. For example, McCord’s chapter on “Give Us This Day Our Daily Bread” discusses the word “daily” and how modernists have far missed the mark:

Many scholars have doubted that the word “daily,” epiousion, in this petition is a faithful translation. Actually, some great scholars have been unfamiliar with epiousion. Origen (c. 185-254) was bold to say that Matthew and Luke just made up the word. But Chrysostom, Gregory Nyssen, and Basil of Caesarea—all eminent Greek-speaking scholars—thought that epiousion really means “daily”… Centuries elapsed, and modern scholars, still unfamiliar with epiousion, refused to accept the translation “daily” (needful). However, thanks to penetrating scholarship (?), the stigma of coining the word was taken off Matthew and Luke, and laid on the broad shoulders of imaginary author “Q,” from whom Matthew and Luke copied (?). So said modernists Moulton and Milligan as late as 1919. But in 1925 Q was exonerated from coining the word, for lo it was found in an old Greek housekeeping book. (Page 62)

The Disciples’ Prayer discusses the model of prayer Jesus gave in the “Sermon on the Mount” in Matthew and later to a smaller group in Luke. These two accounts are not parallel in the chronological but topical sense since the Sermon on the Mount is five chapters before the model prayer of Luke 11. Also, the wording is not identical in these models which indicate it was never intended to be recited repetitively as some do—a practice Jesus warned about just prior in Matthew’s account. And churches of Christ are not the only ones to point this matter out! I found the words of Martin Luther of interest on this and more pungent:

Thus, as we see, it was carried on in monasteries, nunneries and the whole ecclesiastical crowd, that seem to have had nothing else to do in their calling than to weary themselves daily so many hours, and at night besides, with singing and reading their Horas; and the more of this they could do, the holier and greater worship they called it. And yet among them all there was not one that uttered a real prayer from his heart: but they were all filled with the heathenish notion that one must tire God and one’s self with crying and muttering, as if he neither could nor would otherwise hear; and they have thereby accomplished nothing else than to waste their time and punish themselves…with their praying.— Martin Luther, Commentary on the Sermon On The Mount, Philadelphia, PA: Lutheran Publication Society, 1892, pp. 240-269.

Brother McCord does a thoughtful and insightful analysis of what some commonly refer to as “The Lord’s Prayer” or “The Model Prayer”. McCord points out that it was never a prayer that the Lord actually prayed so to call it “The Lord’s Prayer” would be incorrect unless one is speaking of a pattern of prayer taught by the Lord. The study of prayer has been enriching and this small volume spoke volumes compared to other works I have examined of longer length.

There Is A God – How the World’s Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind, Antony Flew

There Is A God – How the World’s Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind, Antony Flew with Roy Abraham Varghese


There are a few things I would like to point out or suggest prior to discussing this book. First, one should read (also available on DVD) The Warren-Flew Debate and Thomas B. Warren’s book Have Atheists Proven There is no God? prior to reading this book. Garland Elkins, close friend and coworker with brother Warren reported:

Brother Warren told me that during his debate with Mr. Flew he walked over to his table and saw that Mr. Flew had a copy of brother Warren’s book entitled, Have Atheists Proved There Is No God? Brother Warren said that the book was very worn around the edges indicating that Mr. Flew had used it much in his studying. Mr. Flew’s change is a devastating blow to atheism. He is to be congratulated and commended for his change. He now needs to learn the identity of the God of the Bible, and obey Him and become a Christian. -- Garland Elkins, “A Renowned Atheist Renounces Atheism,” Yokefellow, Vol. 32, No. 1, January 2005, p. 2.

Second, one will not agree with everything written in Flew’s book, but it is very valuable as will be observed. Third, be aware that while Flew did change his mind about the existence of God, he remained unchanged about his rejection of an afterlife—also called a “mortalist”. Tragic as that is, this provides an important point—he did not make a “deathbed confession or conversion” as some of his atheist associates attempted to excuse or deflect his change with. Tragically, he ran out of time to either recognize or accept the truth on matters pertaining to the afterlife. Sadly, he remained a “mortalist” until April 8, 2010 when he passed away.

Interestingly, when Warren debated Flew, Flew had accepted a debate proposition that was unique among atheists—he affirmed (rather than just denied) that “I Know That God Does Not Exist.” This is far different than other debates with atheists who attempt to shift the burden of proof to the theist. Flew mentions the 1976 debate with Warren although briefly. Flew states Warren “wielded an impressive array of charts and slides.” Interestingly, according to Warren’s assistant Roy Deaver, Warren presented 75 charts during the debate, but he had prepared over 400 detailed charts for the debate. (David Lipe who helped create many of the charts has the total number at 500.)

There are several important matters Flew brings to light in this book that are worth reflecting on.

First, how many times has an atheist challenged theists to produce observable, empirical data or proof via the scientific method for the existence of God? Flew discusses this tactic which was called “logical positivism”. Flew points out that while he was an atheist, he had written a devastating refutation, “Theology and Falsification,” to the man credited with logical positivism, Alfred Ayer. In fact, Ayer himself renounced his work, Language, Truth and Logic, and stated: “Logical positivism died a long time ago. I don’t think much of Language, Truth and Logic is true. I think it is full of mistakes…I think it is full of mistakes which I spent the last fifty years correcting or trying to correct.” (Pages xiv-xv). Also, Albert Einstein’s statement on the demand for empirical data or positivism is intriguing:

I am not a positivist. Positivism states that what cannot be observed does not exist. This conception is scientifically indefensible, for it is impossible to make valid affirmations of what people ‘can’ or ‘cannot’ observe. One would have to say ‘only what we observe exists,’ which is obviously false.” Flew also counters the modern militant atheists of today who attempt to change the subject by pointing out the abuses of adherents of Christianity by stating “But the excesses and atrocities of organized religion have no bearing whatsoever on the existence of God, just as the threat of nuclear proliferation has no bearing on the question of whether E = mc2. (Page xxiv)

Second, Flew points out that some atheists attempt to claim that Einstein was an atheist. Flew records this important and powerful statement by Einstein to the contrary—

I'm not an atheist, and I don't think I can call myself a pantheist. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. It does not understand the language in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangement of the books but doesn't know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God. We see the universe marvelously arranged and obeying certain laws but only dimly understand these laws. Our limited minds grasp the mysterious force that moves constellations. (Page 99)

Also in the appendix is a critique of some of popular atheists of today by Roy Abraham Varghese who assisted Flew with the writing of this book.

Third, Flew was able to open his mind to omnipotence from the evidence gleamed in the field of science. He states:

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 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 or map. (Page 155)

Or as others have so argued—where there is design, there must be a designer that is at least equal to or greater than the design. This admission by Flew is interesting since in his debate with Warren he attempted to skirt arguments from biology pressed by Warren since he was not a biologist.

Sadly, Flew ran out of time to completely “follow the evidence wherever it leads”, but he did provide a hint to where the evidence was leading him at the writing of his book. He places in the appendix of his book a defense by Anglican N. T. Wright of the revelation of God in the person of Jesus Christ. Flew states of Christianity—

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! (Page 157)

Hopefully this work will save some atheists or agnostic from wasting time to get their “thinking straight” (a title of another book on logic by Antony Flew—which, perhaps ironically, Thomas B. Warren recommended.) Flew stated he tried to do what Socrates advised--“follow the evidence to wherever it leads”. This work provides an excellent piece of evidence for parents to share with their children. The lesson is obvious—if Flew, a son of a Methodist minister, can go so far away from Christianity as to affirm in public discourse that there is no God, make an academic career as a philosophical atheist, but be turned to theism based on evidence, then the case for God is far stronger than many may have considered. Perhaps it will save some from the thought expressed in the hymn—“’Almost persuaded’ now to believe…’Almost’—but lost!’”

20th Anniversary Interview with Thomas B. Warren, Weylan Deaver

20th Anniversary Interview with Thomas B. Warren, Weylan Deaver

In addition to watching the DVD of the Warren-Flew Debate, I did some additional research on events relating to the debate. I became more interested in the The Warren-Flew Debate from a presentation by David Lipe at the Friends of the Restoration Luncheon at Freed-Hardeman University Bible Lectureship in 2008. Lipe spoke on “The Debates of Thomas B. Warren” and how he helped Warren prepare hundreds of charts (in excess of 500 charts on transparencies were made by both Warren and Lipe for the discussion with Flew). Brother Lipe showed how he made charts with handwriting so similar to Warren’s that even Lipe’s wife had difficulty discerning between the two. When flying to Texas for the debate, brother Warren was understandably anxious and kept checking on the charts in Lipe’s care on the flight. It was the first and only time that Lipe flew First Class--one seat for Lipe & the other seat for the briefcases of charts! To hear brother Lipe’s presentation on the Warren’s debates, please see here. 

World Video Bible School fortunately interviewed Thomas Warren as he reflected on the debate 20 years later (1996) with Roy Deaver’s grandson, Weylan Deaver. There were several observations made by brother Warren as he reflected on this monumental debate that we should consider. (The debate can be ordered here.)

Brother Warren previously had a career as a commercial artist which helped in drawing charts which he used effectively in his debates. Warren’s charts were very effective and impressed Flew as well. This shows that experiences we may feel of no present or future value may actually work for the furtherance of the gospel.

Flew acknowledges that this was one of the two most well attended debates he conducted. In the interview, Warren reports that the operators of the North Texas State University Coliseum calculated the average attendance was 6,500 with the highest attendance being 7,000. Flew was greatly impressed by the interest in the discussion and even wrote of such in his final book. Imagine how this would have gone if Christians found other things of more interest? How many people will someday read The Warren-Flew Debate based on what Flew wrote about such interest in his last book renouncing atheism? Our attendance tells others where our loyalties truly are.

During the interview, Warren provides some insight on just how he met Flew. The Philosophical Association’s annual meeting was held at a major university in Los Angeles, and Flew was to be a special speaker. Warren decided to attend. When he arrived he found the several in the audience distressed because Flew was chastising theists vehemently. Warren was in attendance with a university president of the Los Angeles area, and the president prodded Warren to get into it before it got ugly. Warren said that the president, not he, should do so; but the president said there was no way he was going to argue with that man! When Flew paused to take questions, he recognized Warren to ask a question. Flew‘s annoyance at Warren’s questions quickly turned to near rage when Warren accused him of being “shifty” in his argumentation. Warren demonstrated how Flew was using “shifting” tactics of argumentation in an attempt to prove his points. Flew was so outraged at the attack of being “shifty” that he inadvertently knocked over the lectern when pounding on it. Afterwards, many praised Warren for his apologia. Sometime later, the church sought to have a debate over the existence of God, and selected Warren to represent them. They asked brother Warren to recommend a disputant to debate, and Warren picked Flew, and Flew agreed. Warren says he did not know if Flew recognized him from the earlier encounter or not. At the debate, Flew acknowledged the hospitality of the hosts and some believe this certainly contributed to him listening more intently. Brother Warren states publically that he considered Flew one of the most intelligent men he had ever met, just mistaken. One should take a lesson from this…if we win the argument but lose the soul then what have we gained? That is not to say that we will always convince our challengers, but we can certainly drive them further away or build sympathy for them (and thus their positions) in others by having an ugly disposition.

Warren warned us that we need to get busy with serious study to defend Christianity against the attacks of atheism and agnosticism. He pointed to a student of the Bible for 10-15 years being shaken by just one confrontation with an atheist because he was unprepared. As Warren points out “Prove all things” does not mean just to assert facts. One must be able to use facts to formulate valid arguments with true premises that prove the conclusions to be true. Logic is a tool for those who want to be rational and New Testament and Christianity is rational. Warren pleads for churches to stop “dilly dallying around” and read and study seriously! We should help train able men to get their doctorates and seek out opportunities to meet atheists and agnostics on the public polemic platform. An interesting observation comes from Winford Claiborne who knew and greatly admired brother Warren. Claiborne shared with us that at first he thought Warren’s dwelling on logic and rationality was a bit overdone, but now with the threats posed by the post modernists and their emergents he knows that Warren was right! Brother Warren had equipped and prepared himself to debate several of the day’s top atheists and foes of Christianity. Unfortunately, he had a heart condition which prevented his personal goal of confronting a list of top atheists and agnostics of his day from being fulfilled, but thankfully he was able to live longer to prepare and write several materials of assistance to us today. Brother Warren passed way on August 8, 2000.

The Warren-Flew Debate, Thomas B. Warren & Antony G. N. Flew

The Warren-Flew Debate, Thomas B. Warren & Antony G. N. Flew



This debate occurred in Denton, TX at North Texas State University on September 20-23, 1976. Both Warren and Flew possessed doctorates and were trained in philosophy and the utilization of logic. The exchange is monumental for several reasons, but for one it meets the assertion that Christianity does not make logical or rational sense. In this debate, Thomas Warren uses the same tools of logic and rationality employed by atheists and agnostics to respond to and defeat their attacks against Christianity.


It would be good for one to know that Flew had signed a debate proposition that was unique among atheists which reflected his atheism and his conviction for it. Flew affirmed in the debate that “I Know That God Does Not Exist”. This is different than other atheist debates who attempt to shift the burden of proof to those who are theist—they must prove God exists or atheists win by default. In the debate, they both were supposed to argue their points of view in the affirmative; i.e., in the second half of the debate Warren affirmed “I Know That God Does Exist” and Flew denied in the negative.


Prior to reading the debate, I failed to notice that Warren’s book Have Atheists Proved There Is No God? was available to Flew prior to the debate. Had Flew read the book where Warren answers the best attack atheist can muster and outlines the case for biblical theism? Yes, he had…thoroughly it appears. Brother Garland Elkins, longtime friend of Warren, testifies:

Brother Warren told me that during his debate with Mr. Flew he walked over to his table and saw that Mr. Flew had a copy of brother Warren’s book entitled, Have Atheists Proved There Is No God? (See the book review written for this book prior.) Brother Warren said that the book was very worn around the edges indicating that Mr. Flew had used it much in his studying.--Garland Elkins, “A Renowned Atheist Renounces Atheism,” Yokefellow, Vol. 32, No. 1, January 2005, p. 2.

One wonders how much Warren impacted Flew. Brother Roy Deaver, who assisted brother Warren at the debate, makes an interesting observation about the shock Flew may have experienced when confronting true New Testament Christianity (as opposed to Catholicism or Denominationalism) being similar to what the skeptic Robert Owen had experienced when he encountered the same with Alexander Campbell. Deaver observed:

So far as he [Flew] was concerned ‘Christianity’ meant Catholicism and denominationalism. He had never before encountered simple New Testament Christianity. And, he had never before encountered an opponent of Dr. Warren’s caliber. Dr. Flew, son of a Methodist minister, knows full-well that truth cannot be established upon the basis of feelings (emotionalism, subjective experiences). It must have been quite a shock to him when brother Warren said: “Dr. Flew, we fight that kind of thing just as much as you do. On that point you are just speaking to the wrong crowd.”--Roy Deaver, “The Warren-Flew Debate,” Biblical Notes, December 1976.

I found Dr. Warren’s exchange with Flew about personal “religious experience” intriguing. Keep in mind that Flew is the one who brought up various religious people claiming a vision or some other experience as proof for Christianity or God, not Warren, who rejected such “experiences”. To me, it seems as if Flew’s own past experiences were wrapped in this argument (as some religious do seek to establish their credability on emotionalism.) After Flew launched into this, when he was supposed to be in the negative criticizing arguments affirmed by Warren, brother Warren replied:

Dr. Flew spent a great deal of his time about religious experience. Did you hear me say anything about “religious experience”? Did I make any argument thus and so that “someone has had a religious experience and therefore God exists?” I said nothing at all about that. Dr. Flew, I fight that as well as you do. There are people all over this country who claim “Oh a miracle occurred, a miracle occurred here and there.” “Well, let’s see one.” “No, it happened over yonder. Somebody else knows how and where it happened.”


It’s just like every evolutionist knows somebody else who knows how to prove it. Dr. Flew can’t prove it. “There is somebody over in some other university.” Now if you go over to that university, he’ll point you to some other university. “There is some learned man in Munich or Austria.” Or “there is somebody in New Zealand or Australia.” Or “there is somebody in California or Harvard that knows how to do it.” But when you get there, they don’t know how to do it. “There is somebody in the last century.” “Darwin did it.” Well, Darwin didn’t think he did. Dr. Flew sometimes argues as if Darwin gave a deductive argument, but that won’t stand.


No, I did not make the argument on “religious experience” Dr. Flew. You are talking to the wrong crowd of people when you are talking about that. And I suggest that you stay with the affirmative arguments. I am at a complete loss to know why you ignore the arguments I do make and invent other arguments and reply to them! It is sort of like Jones says “x is false”, but Jones says “Ah, that is not right, y is true.” When there is no connection between “x” and “y”.

One should take note that Antony Flew was not unqualified for the debate. If one does much reading among respected philosophers, Flew’s name readily comes to the surface. Roy Deaver commented on Flew’s credentials and evident failure in the debate, and it is interesting reading since Deaver’s role was to read Flew’s books to assist brother Warren in reply:

Dr. Flew knows full-well what a sound argument is. He knows that argumentation is not assertion and is not insinuation. He constantly chides and ridicules religious people for refusing to make a sound argument. He constantly calls upon them to face up to the task of proving their position. The “Law of Rationality” holds that “We ought to justify our conclusions by adequate evidence.” Dr. Flew respects this law. Dr. Flew (of all people) did not refuse to make a sound argument because he did not know what a sound argument is!


Literally hundreds of people have expressed to me their disappointment because Dr. Flew refused to make an argument. He raised questions. He chided. He insinuated. He indicated that he would eventually get around to actual argumentation. But, he never did. He did a lot of talking and philosophizing, but he never did get down to the task of trying to prove his point. (Dr. James Bales observed: “A philosopher often spends his time throwing dust into the air, and then complains because he cannot see.”) One person said: “Dr. Flew would approach the microphone as if he were really going to do something this time, and then…just fizzle.”


It seems to me that the weak and disappointing efforts upon the part of Dr. Flew really show the force, the power, and the value of the debate. If Dr. Flew COULD have made a sound argument the conclusion of which would have been “I know that God does not exist” Dr. Flew WOULD have done so. The fact that Dr. Flew DID NOT proves that he COULD NOT, and that HE KNEW THAT HE COULD NOT! Dr. Flew’s failure to make an argument also indicated his profound respect for Dr. Warren. He knew that every word he said would be carefully and thoroughly examined by brother Warren, and that no error would be allowed to pass unnoticed. Dr. Flew could not make an argument which would stand up under the light of logical examination. -- Roy Deaver, “The Warren-Flew Debate,” Biblical Notes, December 1976.

In preparing for this review, I did additional research by watching the DVD of the Warren-Flew Debate plus an interview of Thomas Warren reflecting on the debate 20 years later. Both videos are available from World Video Bible School.  


Brother Warren passed way on August 8, 2000. I am sure he would have been pleased but saddened, that Antony G. N. Flew finally acknowledged that God existed but failed to follow through on the implications of an intelligent God before he (Flew) passed away. For more information about Flew’s renouncement of atheism, see his final book There Is A God: How the World’s Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind which will be the subject of a future book review.