Al Mohler has a good article on the life and thought of Antony Flew, one of the foremost atheists of the 20th century. In 2004, Flew shocked many people with his rejection of atheism based on recent studies on the complexities of DNA. He posited that evolution’s theory of origins could not possibly explain such complexities and that human life could not have been formed from simple matter. Flew believed that an intelligent First Cause was necessary to explain the existence of human beings. However, it is important to note that Flew never became a Christian.

He rejected the possibility of divine revelation and flatly rejected the idea of divine judgment and hell. He told The Sunday Telegraph [London] that the God he had come to believe “probably” existed is “most emphatically not the eternally rewarding and eternally torturing God of either Christianity or Islam,” but only God as First Cause of the universe. In other words, Anthony Flew embraced a form of Deism (the belief in a God who creates but then removed himself from creation), rather than theism (the belief in a communicating, ruling, and judging deity).

Mohler ends the article by pointing out a few important observations and lessons from the life of Antony Flew. In my opinion, the most important lesson is this:

Third, the conclusion of Antony Flew’s life must affirm for us the fact that the rejection of atheism does not always lead to an embrace of Christianity. Salvation comes only to those who come to belief and faith in the Lord Jesus Christ — not to those who merely embrace the existence of a divine First Cause. Rejecting atheism is not enough.

Mohler’s comments would certainly be relevant to the rejection of any philosophy or religion. Unbelief in a false deity, system, or worldview does not automatically make a person right with the Triune God of the universe. Jesus says that repentance and belief is necessary to enter of the kingdom of God. Repentance is not only turning away from false religion but turning toward God in faith and belief. It is a reminder that it is not enough to simply refute the arguments of atheism or any other worldview. In the end, the goal should be to win the man behind the arguments.

What Do You Think?