Flew's Old Book (God and Philosophy)

[Adam]

In the thread "Flew's New Book" I posted #57 about my preliminary thoughts on the old and the new Flew. That was Dec. 29th, no reply, so I'll take my further analysis to this new thread.
Yes, God and Philosophy (1966) is a well-thought-out, well reasoned book. As I stated in Post #57, it objects to Christian theism specifically, throws in some distaste for Monotheism of the Book as well (Judaism and Islam), and grants some lee-way to Eastern religions. Thus Flew's arguments against God are tempered by an inapplicability to a God not bound to Christian orthodoxy.
Later in the book Flew turns against the specific claims of Christian testimony, epistemology, doctrine, and the non-viability of any extant Christian system. Let me move in against the latter.
For Flew the bete noire is Roman Catholicism, both because it claims so much in theology and in (im)practical morality. The very witnesses to it are suspect because none of these come from outside the fold. RC asserts so much that is so dubious.
My contribution here is that none of Flew's arguments pertain against me because my version of Origenism is proof against the Problem of Evil and in that I assert no superfluous doctrines. My view is that Jesus is the Christ and the authority for what we can accept of the Bible, plus what we can accept beyond the Bible derives from Jesus's promise, "When the Spirit of truth comes he will lead you to complete truth...."(John 16:13). This would not be deferred for centuries of stumbling in the dark, but would presumably guide them as apostles and their successors. Nowhere is the truth accumulated in the early Church preserved than in the Mass, still recited daily around the world. This truth was not declared for Flew to know about, so his argument does not apply to this version of Christian theism.
So the proposition to be argued is that my version of Christian theism holds against Flew's general and specific arguments against the Christian God and Christian belief. I have presented in this post much of my specifics, but suffice it to say that it includes all the tenets of Christianity shared by Roman Catholics, Orthodox, and Protestants and eschews all the accretions by any of same.
Adam

[FreezBee]

My contribution here is that none of Flew's arguments pertain against me because my version of Origenism is proof against the Problem of Evil and in that I assert no superfluous doctrines. My view is that Jesus is the Christ and the authority for what we can accept of the Bible, plus what we can accept beyond the Bible derives from Jesus's promise, "When the Spirit of truth comes he will lead you to complete truth...."(John 16:13). This would not be deferred for centuries of stumbling in the dark, but would presumably guide them as apostles and their successors. Nowhere is the truth accumulated in the early Church preserved than in the Mass, still recited daily around the world. This truth was not declared for Flew to know about, so his argument does not apply to this version of Christian theism.
So the proposition to be argued is that my version of Christian theism holds against Flew's general and specific arguments against the Christian God and Christian belief. I have presented in this post much of my specifics, but suffice it to say that it includes all the tenets of Christianity shared by Roman Catholics, Orthodox, and Protestants and eschews all the accretions by any of same.

Ok, so you stop at the Nicean Creed?

- FreezBee

[Adam]

Ok, so you stop at the Nicean Creed?
- FreezBee

Basically, yes.
I am Lutheran now, and I like the Augsburg Confession (and Apology as well), however, and it was intended as a restatement of what Roman Catholicism always had or should have taught. But I can't insist on it as it includes anathemas, against the Anabaptists most notably. Top ELCA scholars are in the process of reconciling with present-day Anabaptists (like Mennonites), so I'm in good company to respect the Augsburg Confession except where it goes off the beam. I specifically reject the Athanasian Creed as abominable, but I have never heard it read in my over three years attending ELCA services every week. Plus I never liked (and still don't like) Luther. Other than that, I'm your standard ELCA member, but not quite as blond.
Adam

[FreezBee]

Basically, yes.
I am Lutheran now, and I like the Augsburg Confession (and Apology as well), however, and it was intended as a restatement of what Roman Catholicism always had or should have taught. But I can't insist on it as it includes anathemas, against the Anabaptists most notably. Top ELCA scholars are in the process of reconciling with present-day Anabaptists (like Mennonites), so I'm in good company to respect the Augsburg Confession except where it goes off the beam. I specifically reject the Athanasian Creed as abominable, but I have never heard it read in my over three years attending ELCA services every week. Plus I never liked (and still don't like) Luther. Other than that, I'm your standard ELCA member, but not quite as blond.

Ummm, Confessio Augustana would be needed for any Lutheran, and that would strictly speaking also go for the Athanasian Creed, though I am not sure it is considered all that vital. I can't off my head remember, where it is different from the Niceak Creed.

Luther was no friend of the Anabaptists -- rather the opposite -- so it's very interesting that there is a process of reconciliation. Luther's critique against them was that it is not possible to make a Christian society, because less than one out of thousand are true Christians. It would be like letter wolves lose among the sheep. But maybe the world has changed during the past almost 500 years?


- FreezBee