A DISCUSSION BETWEEN
SETTLED THEIST JAMES HILSTON
AND OPEN THEIST CLETE PFEIFFER
Introduction. The following discussion took place on Sunday, Oct. 9, 2005, between 8:43 p.m. and 11:43 p.m. EST, between James Hilston and Clete Pfeiffer. The dialogue contains a total of 363 entries, 150 by Hilston and 213 by Pfeiffer. The subject regards the importance of the influence of pagan philosophy on one's theology. Opening greetings, witty repartee, and personal complaints about lots of Sunday driving have been deleted to mercifully spare the reader.
Mini-biography. James Hilston is a loud-mouth, good-for-nothing, so-and-so who runs this website with all the gusto and vigor he can muster when he's not busy poking cats with pointed sticks. He also believes that God has decreed, determined in advance, and settled the future, including the aforementioned poking of cats. He is a so-called Settled Theist, espousing the so-called Settled View. Clete Pfeiffer is an Open Theist who espouses the Open View of Openness Theology, a belief that teaches the future is open, not exhaustively predetermined, and not settled.
Preface. For those familiar with the Enyart-Lamerson debate, the following dialogue makes voluminous reference to that debate, particularly in the area of pagan Greek philosophy and its influence on the respective theologies held by the debate's participants. For those not familiar with the aforementioned debate, this may not interest you, unless you're interested in a shoddy demonstration of Socratic Irony, which may actually be instructive, now that I think about it. I tried to fix spelling errors. Grammatical errors are harder to find quickly. At least twice, Hilston's connection dropped ("death to dial-up -- after I can afford cable or DSL"), which is indicated in the dialogue by interminable strings of cuss words and unmentionable profanity. Not really. It's PG-rated, so no worries.
With the exception of caught spelling errors and the stuff already mentioned, the dialogue is shown below in its entirety. Nothing pertinent to the discussion topic has been deleted or edited for content. And now, on with the show:
Hilston (8:43:41) Question for you.
Clete (8:44:17) okay
Hilston (8:44:50) Do you believe something is wrong if the pagan Greeks believed it?
Clete (8:45:08) as asked.
Clete (8:45:09) no
Clete (8:45:29) hoolahoops work really well
Clete (8:45:42) chewing gum was a good idea too
Clete (8:45:48) as were bricks
Clete (8:46:33) brb ["be right back"]
Hilston (8:46:56) Do you believe that coinciding pagan Greek beliefs have anything to do with whether or not something is true?
Clete (8:48:22) not necessarily
Hilston (8:48:51) Is that a no?
Clete (8:49:56) although the Greeks were pagan and if we find Christian doctrine that has demonstrable historical ties to such paganism, while that by itself is not even close to proof that it is wrong, it is reason to reexamine the doctrine in light of Scripture.
Hilston (8:50:55) Why?
Clete (8:51:13) to ensure that our doctrine is based in Scripture and not paganism
Clete (8:52:37) do these answers surprise you?
Clete (8:53:18) brb ["be right back"]
Hilston (8:56:28) Do you agree with this statement: Although evolutionists are godless, if we find Christian doctrine that has demonstrable historical ties to evolutionism, while that by itself is not even close to proof that it is wrong, it is reason to reexamine the doctrine in light of Scripture.
Clete (8:57:14) yes
Clete (8:57:28) all doctrine must be Biblical
Hilston (8:57:58) How about this one: Although the codifying of arithmetic was done by pagans and if we find Christian doctrine that has demonstrable historical ties to such paganism, while that by itself is not even close to proof that it is wrong, it is reason to reexamine the doctrine in light of Scripture.
Clete (8:58:36) arithmetic is not doctrinal in nature
Hilston (8:58:49) Of course it is.
Clete (8:58:49) arithmetic [corrected misspelling] that is
Clete (8:59:19) to whatever extent it is doctrinal then it must be Biblical
Hilston (8:59:26) God uses numbers, sums, products, arithmetic symbolism, etc. throughout scripture. The number pi is found in scripture as well.
Clete (8:59:56) then it would seem that arithmetic [corrected misspelling] is not unbiblical then.
Clete (9:00:14) sorry about the double negative there
Clete (9:00:30) do you not agree with these answers?
Hilston (9:01:29) I don't go through life wondering whether or not other peoples, languages, cultures or worldviews happened to have beliefs that coincide with mine.
Clete (9:01:57) that isn't the point is it?
Hilston (9:01:58) I don't go through life reexamining my beliefs simply because some pagan 2,000 years ago happened to believe the same thing.
Hilston (9:02:12) What would the point be?
Clete (9:02:35) to correct potential error
Clete (9:02:43) what else would the point be?
Hilston (9:03:12) But I already do that every time I crack open the book. Don't you?
Clete (9:03:49) perhaps you'll find you were right and your faith will be strengthened, or if you find you were in error your faith is strengthened anyway if the error is removed and so where is the down side?
Clete (9:03:58) not necessarily.
Clete (9:05:07) we are all human and we get side tracked and deceived by various things and it seems prudent to me that we should always be checking and rechecking our doctrine any time a good reason comes along
Clete (9:05:13) to do so
Hilston (9:06:00) What do you consider a good reason?
Clete (9:06:37) there are thousands of reasons. Almost any reason is a good reason.
Clete (9:06:54) whatever reason provokes you to do so is a good enough reason
Hilston (9:07:39) Do you find Greek pagan similarity to be a good reason to reexamine your current beliefs?
Clete (9:08:59) If you, by your own study of the Word has come to the conclusion that we have free will and you come across a conflicting doctrine then one might be prompted to investigate the history of that doctrine and if you find that you can draw lines that directly link some doctrine historically to outright paganism then that would qualify, I'd say
Clete (9:09:39) yes
Clete (9:09:44) of course
Clete (9:10:01) actually no
Clete (9:10:15) parallels and historical ties are not the same thing
Clete (9:10:32) it would need to be something more substantive than a simple parallel belief
Hilston (9:11:32) Are you revising your statement above then?
Clete (9:11:41) no
Hilston (9:12:01) Would you agree with this then: ...
Clete (9:13:08) I guess I should ask, which statement you are referring too
Hilston (9:13:19) This one: If you, by your own study of the Word has come to the conclusion that we have free will and you come across a conflicting doctrine then one might be prompted to investigate the history of that doctrine and if you find that you can draw lines that directly link some doctrine historically to outright paganism then that would qualify, I'd say
Clete (9:14:18) no I would not revise that statement. If there is historical linkage then the belief should be verified via Scripture
Clete (9:14:23) verified
Hilston (9:14:45) Do you acknowledge the historical link between Open Theism and Greek paganism?
Clete (9:14:52) no
Clete (9:15:04) parallels perhaps but not linkage
Hilston (9:15:12) What constitutes a linkage?
Hilston (9:15:31) I see links all over the place.
Clete (9:16:06) this guy believed this and he taught it to this guy who modified it to one degree or another and it became this and then his student passed in because of this particular movement and then it caught on and whammo we have open theism
Clete (9:16:32) no such historical linkage exists
Clete (9:16:50) Immutability, however, does
Clete (9:17:10) that is, it does have such linkage
"Clete" is back at the computer as of 9:18:44 PM.
Hilston (9:21:12) Would you say agree that there is a lot of linkage between Open Theism and Greek paganism?
Clete (9:21:39) nope
Clete (9:21:44) none that I know of
Hilston (9:22:14) Have you investigated it yourself, or are you going on what others have told you?
Clete (9:22:37) neither
Clete (9:22:56) No one has ever presented any evidence of such linkage.
Clete (9:23:11) to me
Hilston (9:23:37) Who would you say is the most influential historical figure in the history of the Settled View?
Clete (9:23:49) modern open theism is less than 100 years old. It's history is pretty easily known and not a secret.
Clete (9:24:12) yes. So what?
Clete (9:24:23) oh wait
Clete (9:24:35) I misunderstood the question
Hilston (9:24:37) Are you trying to confuse me?
Hilston (9:24:41) 8-)
Clete (9:24:44) ::-P
Clete (9:24:53) Augustine
Hilston (9:25:48) Augustine has a well documented history that goes way back. Therefore we easily trace his development and show the pagan similarities and influence on his beliefs, right?
Clete (9:26:31) it's very easy to see the influence of the Classics on his theology if that's what you mean
Hilston (9:26:39) Yes. That's what I mean.
Hilston (9:27:23) Why do you suppose it's not so easy to find similar influence of the pagan Greeks on similarly influential figures in the history of Open Theism?
Clete (9:27:44) because the links do not exist
Hilston (9:28:05) Is there another possibility?
Clete (9:28:32) only if you accept arguments from silence
Hilston (9:28:46) I'm not proving anything, so it's not an argument.
Hilston (9:28:55) Is there another possibility?
Clete (9:29:15) brb ["be right back"]
Clete (9:30:39) there are lots of other "possibilities". What are you suggesting?
Hilston (9:31:15) I'm interested in knowing which, of any, possibilities you're willing to acknowledge.
Clete (9:31:22) I know! A cover up - right?
Clete (9:31:25) ;-)
Hilston (9:31:39) Nothing that sophisticated or conspiratorial.
Clete (9:32:56) remember my statement above...
"... if we find Christian doctrine that has demonstrable historical ties to such paganism, while that by itself is not even close to proof that it is wrong, it is reason to reexamine the doctrine in light of Scripture.
Hilston (9:33:58) All I'm asking is if you see any other possibilities. Are you willing to acknowledge some other possible reason for the lack of demonstrable historical ties?
Clete (9:34:51) like what?
Hilston (9:35:13) You're the one who said: "there are lots of other "possibilities"."
Hilston (9:35:23) So you stole my question: Like what?
Hilston (9:37:53) Of the "lots of other possibilities," could you offer one that comes to mind?
Clete (9:38:39) maybe someone found a lot of historical ties to Plato and decided the world would be better off without such historical insights and decided to burn it
Clete (9:39:45) I've got two conversations going at once here so if I don't respond immediately don't think I went away.
Hilston (9:39:53) That's one possibility, although not likely, since Platonic philosophy rejected the Heraclitean thesis. Any other more likely possibilities that come to mind?
Hilston (9:40:23) So do I, so I can relate.
Clete (9:43:08) no
Clete (9:43:21) at least none that are plausible
Clete (9:45:27) If the history was there we could find it. If it isn't there to see then why should we believe it must be there anyway?
Clete (9:46:09) Not that history doesn't ever get lost but if the tie isn't demonstrable why bother with pretending it's there
Hilston (9:46:40) You wrote this: "modern open theism is less than 100 years old. It's history is pretty easily known and not a secret."
Clete (9:46:55) yeah so?
Hilston (9:47:48) Do you agree with this statement?: The 100-year history of modern Open Theism is pretty easily known and not a secret.
Clete (9:48:36) if there is even 100 years of it, yes
Clete (9:50:09) Open theism began to be widely discussed in 1994 with the publication by Inter-Varsity Press of The Openness of God
Hilston (9:50:35) I'm sure you would agree with this statement: The reason it is not so easy to find demonstrable historical ties between the pagan Greeks and Open Theism is because the links do not exist.
Hilston (9:50:38) Correct?
Clete (9:50:59) yes
Clete (9:51:19) I think I said that already
Hilston (9:51:31) Do you see a curious relation between that statement and this one?: The 100-year history of modern Open Theism is pretty easily known and not a secret.
Clete (9:51:54) Make your point Jim
Hilston (9:52:20) I thought the point was made. And obvious.
Clete (9:52:33) spell it out for me
Clete (9:52:37) please
Hilston (9:53:34) My point is: There is a curious relation between this claim: "The reason it is not so easy to find demonstrable historical ties between the pagan Greeks and Open Theism is because the links do not exist," and this one: "The 100-year history of modern Open Theism is pretty easily known and not a secret."
Clete (9:54:49) Okay so we agree! There is no historical tie between ancient Greek pagan philosophy and open theism.
Hilston (9:55:22) Did you deliberately leave out the word "demonstrable," or are you amending your statement?
Hilston (9:55:53) That was a joke. Did you deliberately leave out the word "demonstrable" or did you just forget to include it?
Clete (9:56:01) There is no evidence of any tie at all demonstrable or otherwise
Clete (9:56:21) it seems redundant at this point
Clete (9:58:09) what screen name for me do you see?
Clete (9:58:25) C71469?
Hilston (9:58:36) Yes.
Clete (9:58:39) thanks'
Hilston (9:58:56) Do you agree that it would be quite a magnanimous feat to show demonstrable historic ties between the modern antibiotics and pagan Greek philosophy?
Clete (9:59:50) sure, so what?
Hilston (10:00:23) Why would that be such a difficult feat, do you think?
Hilston (10:02:20) Sorry about that.
Clete (10:02:26) that okay
Hilston (10:02:37) This will be a better approach I think.
Clete (10:02:57) historical ties to something are not a test for truth
Clete (10:03:17) unless that thing is the Bible, of course
Hilston (10:03:30) Do you agree that there are no demonstrable historic ties between the mid-Acts view and the extrabiblical teachings of the early church?
Clete (10:03:56) no
Hilston (10:04:13) Can you point me to some?
Clete (10:05:07) not off the top of my head, no
Hilston (10:05:21) Do you recall where you read them?
Clete (10:05:42) the first thing that came to mind was Pilgrim's Progress by John Bunyan but that isn't old enough to count
Hilston (10:06:06) I'm talking first century, during the lifetime of Paul, but not included in the Bible.
Hilston (10:06:18) Or just after his death.
Clete (10:06:35) C.R. Stam made reference to some really old things that suggested an understanding of Paul's distinctive ministry and message but I do not recall what they were
Hilston (10:08:53) Silly dial-up [Connection dropped]
Clete (10:09:11) what was the last thing you saw?
Hilston (10:09:12) Are you sure you didn't dream it? Do you believe you trace the historical connection from your current mid-Acts belief all the way back to the early church?
Hilston (10:09:22) Your reference to C.R. Stam.
Clete (10:09:34) (21:10:55) Clete: either way, I think it is irrelevant
(21:11:38) Clete: Historical ties or lack thereof are not a test for truth aside from ties from Scripture which we know to go way, way back
(21:11:52) Clete: to Scripture not from
Hilston (10:10:28) How can you say it's irrelevant?
Hilston (10:10:59) Are you saying it doesn't matter that Heraclitus was an Open Theist?
Clete (10:11:57) no I'm saying it doesn't prove anything one way or the other. It's is evidence but not proof. The proof must come from Scripture
Hilston (10:13:08) Do you then agree with this statement: It doesn't prove anything one way or the other that Augustine was influenced by Platonic philosophy. It is evidence but not proof. The proof must come from Scripture
Clete (10:14:50) YES
Clete (10:15:13) It is cause to reexamine Augustinian theology but it is not proof that it is wrong
Hilston (10:16:49) Would you agree with this statement?: The similarity between Greek pagan Heraclitean philosophy and Open Theism is a cause to reexamine Openness Theology, but it is not proof that it is wrong.
Clete (10:18:00) no
Clete (10:18:26) Open theist believe in the use of bricks as well
Hilston (10:18:33) How would you amend it?
Clete (10:19:29) It is entirely incorrect. For there to be sufficient cause based on such a similarity one would need to demonstrate historical ties between the two teachings
Clete (10:20:12) If you find a broken clock that happens to be showing the current time, that isn't cause to reexamine the workings of your watch
Clete (10:21:01) I think it was Polycarp, by the way
Clete (10:21:28) 2nd century Christian that seemed to understand the personal importance of the apostle Paul
Hilston (10:22:40) Do you think it might be difficult to show historical ties between a man who lived in the 5th century, BC, and a theology that has only been around 100 years?
Clete (10:24:59) If none can be shown then one doesn't need to worry about that particular issue
Clete (10:25:42) The issue of historical ties to pagan philosophy, that is
Hilston (10:26:32) Do you agree with this statement: If no historical tie can be shown between a modern theology that has only existed for 100 years and a pagan philosophy that existed 2,500 years ago, then it does not exist.
Clete (10:27:54) The fact that you don't know of any such tie doesn't prove that it doesn't exist but without such ties I don't believe you have sufficient cause to reexamine one's doctrine unless you just feel like it.
Hilston (10:28:17) So do you agree with the statement?
Clete (10:28:33) asked and answered
Hilston (10:28:54) Are you familiar with the maxim?: The winners get to write history.
Clete (10:29:16) I've heard it, yes
Hilston (10:29:24) Do you think it's true?
Clete (10:29:34) to one degree or another it is
Hilston (10:29:49) Have you ever heard of Heraclitus?
Clete (10:29:56) no
Clete (10:30:03) not that I recall
Hilston (10:31:16) The winners do their best to eradicate the writings of the opposition. Of course, fragments and evidence typically survive even the best efforts.
Hilston (10:31:25) Heraclitus was the loser.
Hilston (10:31:39) Those who followed him did not last.
Clete (10:32:07) So was Paul in some respects
Clete (10:33:06) s
Clete (10:33:09) oops
Hilston (10:33:11) Yeah, but God preserved the history of Paul. The Parmenidean view overshadowed the Heraclitean view. Plato comes from the Parmenidean philosophical line.
Clete (10:33:25) So what?
Hilston (10:33:40) Heraclitus was like Betamax. Parmenides was like VHS.
Hilston (10:34:11) The people favored the Parmenidean view. The Open Theists were outnumbered, defeated and eradicated.
Hilston (10:34:17) At least their teachings.
Clete (10:34:48) Sounds like as good a reason to think Heraclitus had it right as any I can think of off the top of my head
Clete (10:35:01) the majority are usually wrong
Hilston (10:35:44) Sure. But Parmenides had logic on his side, which is why Plato and Aristotle were so successful. The masses recognized the truths of codified logic.
Clete (10:36:02) so what?
Clete (10:36:25) perhaps they were both wrong
Clete (10:36:46) Aristotle definitely was about why God must be immutable
Clete (10:36:55) logically and Biblically
Hilston (10:37:24) Would you agree with this statement: There is a lack of history concerning Heraclitean philosophy.
Clete (10:37:37) sure
Clete (10:37:57) how is that relevant?
Hilston (10:38:12) And of course you would agree with this statement: The 100-year history of modern Open Theism is pretty easily known and not a secret.
Clete (10:38:28) yes
Clete (10:38:32) so what?
Hilston (10:39:19) Would you then agree with this statement: There exists the possibility that the lack of demonstrable historical ties between ancient pagan Greek philosophy and the Open View is the fact that there is a lack of history by which to tie them together.
Clete (10:39:38) sure
Clete (10:39:42) sow what?
Clete (10:39:55) um leave out the "w"
Hilston (10:40:56) Would you also agree with this statement: The fact that historical ties can be shown between Parmenidean philosophy and the Settled View AND the fact that historical ties are lacking between Heraclitean philosophy and the Open View, does not prove one is more correct than the other.
Clete (10:41:35) sure! That's been my position since we started
Hilston (10:41:55) Would you then agree with this: The fact that historical ties can be shown between Parmenidean philosophy and the Settled View AND the fact that historical ties are lacking between Heraclitean philosophy and the Open View, does not warrant any more reexamination of one view than the other.
Clete (10:42:30) no
Hilston (10:42:40) I figured. Thanks for your time.
Clete (10:43:02) because while such ties are not proof, they are evidence. Such evidence needs to be investigated
Hilston (10:43:18) Really? Have you investigated the pagan origins of Open Theism?
Clete (10:43:31) There is no such origin
Hilston (10:43:56) Do you make that claim based on your own authority? Or on that of someone else?
Clete (10:44:02) you cannot show me any such tie between open theism and any pagan belief system.
Hilston (10:44:13) So they must not exist, right?
Hilston (10:44:31) Ever heard this term?: Argument from silence.
Clete (10:45:15) whether they do or not, if you cannot show them to me, you cannot use them as cause to reexamine Open theism. If you could, then open theism should be scrutinized in the same what as Augustinianism has been by open theists
Hilston (10:45:51) But you claimed there is no such tie. Do you make that claim based on your own authority? Or on that of someone else?
Clete (10:45:54) You might find some other cause but if you attempt to use unfounded historical ties based on simple parallels then you are arguing from silence
Hilston (10:46:15) It's not my belief. So I don't have to examine it.
Clete (10:46:25) I make it based on the lack of any evidence for such
Hilston (10:46:39) Therefore, it doesn't exist, right?
Clete (10:46:51) I have no reason to believe that it does
Hilston (10:47:06) Except that the winners write history.
Clete (10:47:27) that is an argument from silence Jim.
Hilston (10:47:37) It's not my argument, Clete.
Hilston (10:47:45) You're the one making it, remember?
Clete (10:47:49) no
Hilston (10:48:28) You made the claim: No historical tie exists between Openness Theology and ancient pagan philosophy. The claim is based on an argument from silence.
Clete (10:48:45) I can demonstrate direct historical ties between Augustinian theology and paganism.
Hilston (10:48:55) I don't deny that one bit.
Hilston (10:48:59) I embrace it, Clete.
Hilston (10:49:23) I also embrace the historical ties between Greek mythology and Genesis 6.
Clete (10:49:35) I understand that, and all I am saying is that such direct historical ties are good cause to reexamine the doctrine.
Hilston (10:49:42) It doesn't make the Greeks right, and it doesn't make Genesis 6 wrong.
Clete (10:49:50) exactly
Clete (10:50:25) I never said otherwise
Hilston (10:50:27) Does the lack of direct historical ties give you a pass on reexamining your doctrine in light of ancient pagan philosophy?
Clete (10:52:30) There may be some who find such a parallel to be sufficient cause for them to reexamine the doctrine but I would say it is an extreme reaction if there is no linkage that can be found between the two apart from the apparent similarity in belief. Like I said finding a broken clock that happens to be reading the correct time isn't cause to check the workings of your watch.
Hilston (10:53:37) Do you, by any chance, know who was the first Open Theist?
Hilston (10:53:47) In the modern movement, I mean.
Clete (10:54:04) it was five guys together I think, wasn't it?
Hilston (10:54:16) I don't know. I was hoping you knew.
Clete (10:54:28) yeah, hang on
Clete (10:54:56) Open theism began to be widely discussed in 1994 with the publication by Inter-Varsity Press of The Openness of God, a readable and authoritative volume by five men. Richard Rice, an Adventist, presented a biblical case for open theism. John Sanders, who was then teaching at Huntington College which is associated with the United Church of the Brethren, presented a historical case. Clark Pinnock, who last year retired from McMaster Divinity School in Canada and was formerly a Southern Baptist, presented a theological case. William Hasker, who has retired from the Huntington faculty, presented a philosophical case. David Basinger, who teaches at a Wesleyan college in New York, described the pastoral and practical implications of open theism.
Clete (10:55:06) http://www.mercer.edu/baptiststudies/conferences/humphreys2005/opentheism.htm
Hilston (10:55:31) Would it matter to you if any of them studied in the Heraclitean school of philosophy?
Clete (10:57:19) that depends on whether such studies could be shown to be a direct influence on Open Theism. The difficulty in showing such a relationship would be in that these men wrote a book called The Openness of God where the theology is laid out Biblically not philosophically
Clete (10:57:56) That is to say that they made a Biblical argument not a philosophical one.
Clete (10:58:05) as Augustine did
Hilston (10:58:45) What about this? "William Hasker, who has retired from the Huntington faculty, presented a philosophical case."
Hilston (10:59:21) Suppose it could be shown that Wm Hasker was influenced by the Heraclitean school of philosophy. Would that concern you?
Clete (10:59:33) in conjunction with the Biblical one. The point being that Augustine openly started from Plato and interpreted the Bible in light of his teachings, not the other way around
Clete (10:59:46) Sure it could be of concern
Clete (11:00:19) it depends on how much of an influence it had on Open Theism as a whole.
Hilston (11:00:25) Suppose it could be shown that Hasker secretly started from the Heraclitean school of philosophy and interpreted the Bible in light of his teachings. Would that concern you?
Clete (11:00:36) yes
Hilston (11:00:38) If it did, what would you do about it?
Clete (11:01:40) I would reexamine the theology with any influence he had removed, as much as that is possible. In short I would attempt to remove all such philosophical influence and see if it lined up with Scripture
Hilston (11:03:57) OK, let's say that is precisely the case. You've got pagan-influenced Hasker, and I've got pagan-influenced Augustine. You reexamine your beliefs minus any apparent pagan influence. I reexamine my beliefs minus any apparent pagan influence. What do you suppose the outcome will be?
Hilston (11:07:50) What a pain!
Hilston (11:07:56) Dial-up sucks canal water.
Clete (11:08:05) :-P
Hilston (11:08:06) But I can't justify the price of cable or DSL.
Hilston (11:08:11) What did I miss?
Clete (11:08:11) I was wondering what happen to you
Hilston (11:08:23) Last thing I said was: OK, let's say that is precisely the case. You've got pagan-influenced Hasker, and I've got pagan-influenced Augustine. You reexamine your beliefs minus any apparent pagan influence. I reexamine my beliefs minus any apparent pagan influence. What do you suppose the outcome will be?
Clete (11:08:43) (22:04:12) Jim Hilston: If it did, what would you do about it?
(22:05:14) Clete: I would reexamine the theology with any influence he had removed, as much as that is possible. In short I would attempt to remove all such philosophical influence and see if it lined up with Scripture
Hilston (11:09:03) I saw that.
Clete (11:09:27) the outcome if your reexamination is done well, is that you will become an open theist.
Clete (11:09:42) 8-)
Hilston (11:09:52) And you would become a Settled Theist. No, what do you REALLY think would happen?
Clete (11:09:56) Based on what?
Clete (11:09:58) The Bible
Hilston (11:10:40) Based on who you are, based on who I am, our views, our beliefs, our presuppositions. What do you suppose, given our experiences individually and with each other, would be the outcome?
Clete (11:10:44) I really do think that if you take the Bible for what it plainly says, that the settled view cannot be defended
Hilston (11:11:04) And I really do think that if you take the Bible for what it plainly says, that the open view cannot be defended.
Hilston (11:11:12) What do you suppose would be the outcome?
Clete (11:11:13) ignore the "based on what?" thing. It was me trying to be funny
Clete (11:11:38) it would become a battle over hermeneutics
Clete (11:12:19) at least that it one major possibility, anyway
Hilston (11:12:21) I mean, what would be the outcome in our own individual beliefs? Would your view change if you found connections between Hasker and Heraclitus?
Clete (11:12:36) I don't know
Clete (11:12:51) At this point, I doubt it
Hilston (11:12:58) What do you suppose could change your view?
Clete (11:13:37) A superior Biblical argument to those which I have been exposed to for Open Theism
Hilston (11:14:01) What happened to Heraclitus?
Clete (11:14:26) I don't care about Heraclitus
Hilston (11:14:34) Why?
Clete (11:14:48) Because he didn't write any of the Bible
Hilston (11:14:59) But you hypothetically found a connection between him and Hasker.
Clete (11:16:14) Which would hypothetically enough cause to reevaluate Hasker's contribution to Open Theism but not proof that Hasker was wrong. The test for that would come from Scripture and plain reason.
Hilston (11:18:05) What if I made a mondo huge deal out of the fact that one of the "fathers" of modern Openness Theology was hugely influenced by Heraclitean philosophy. Do you suppose that would be a good argument to advance against Open Theism?
Clete (11:18:32) Sure
Hilston (11:18:46) You crack me up.
Clete (11:18:57) How so?
Hilston (11:19:13) What advantage would it present for the Settled Theists?
Clete (11:19:57) It would be a valid argument. It wouldn't be proof, by itself, but the historical origins of a belief are relevant to the issue
Clete (11:20:38) especially if those origins can be shown to be something other than Biblical
Hilston (11:20:42) But you said you didn't care about Heraclitus.
Clete (11:21:07) I don't! Not when it comes to determining what true doctrine is.
Clete (11:21:40) I don't look to Heraclitus to find out what the true interpretation of the Bible is.
Clete (11:21:57) I couldn't care less if the Bible lined up with what he taught or not.
Hilston (11:22:36) So let me get this straight. It would be a valid argument to show Heraclitean influence on the father of modern Openness Theology, but it is irrelevant what Heraclitus believed?
Clete (11:22:59) you are mixing two different issues.
Hilston (11:23:05) Should I care that whether or not the Bible lines up with Plato?
Clete (11:25:04) If you wanted to make an argument that Open Theism was false and you could demonstrate historical ties between Open Theism and Heraclitus then you would have scored an important point in your case. But one does not look to Heraclitus to make sure you disagree with him in order to make sure your theology is right. The single point of an agreement with a Greek is not sufficient to use as a test for truth.
Clete (11:25:36) At best it would be a foundational point.
Hilston (11:25:54) What would be the importance of the point scored?
Clete (11:26:44) If your argument that open theism was not Biblical but was instead based on Greek philosophy then it would be a needed point
Clete (11:26:55) note the two points in the case
Clete (11:27:02) NOT Biblical
Clete (11:27:19) and based on Greek philosophy
Hilston (11:27:35) How would you defend the charge?
Clete (11:28:09) I would insist that any such claim be established with historical evidence
Clete (11:28:18) so me the linkage
Hilston (11:28:36) We already hypothesized that as a given. How then would you defend your view?
Clete (11:29:01) Are you asking me to give you the Biblical arguments?
Hilston (11:29:12) No, that answers my question.
Hilston (11:29:29) If indeed you would then offer biblical arguments.
Clete (11:29:43) yes
Clete (11:30:02) that's the point. All doctrine must be Biblical and of sound reason
Hilston (11:30:06) Would you perhaps use this phrase: Even a broken clock is right twice a day.
Clete (11:30:27) I already have twice in this conversation (a variant of it)
Hilston (11:31:38) I know. It was a rhetorical question. Would you say, hypothetically speaking, that Heraclitean influence on Hasker would be a bad thing?
Clete (11:32:04) Not necessarily, no.
Clete (11:32:22) a red flag perhaps but not necessarily bad
Clete (11:32:51) Just as Platonic influence isn't necessarily bad
Hilston (11:32:54) Would it be important, in your view, to deny Heraclitean influence on Open Theism?
Clete (11:33:32) any such influence that could not be shown as Biblical, yes.
Clete (11:34:10) again, all doctrine must be Biblical
Hilston (11:34:25) Would it be important, in your view, to deny Heraclitean influence on Hasker?
Clete (11:34:48) same answer
Hilston (11:35:35) What if Hasker held to some Heraclitean views that could not be shown as biblical. How would you deal with that?
Clete (11:35:39) do you mean to deny it's existence or deny acceptance of such influence?
Clete (11:36:15) I would reject those influences in so far as my doctrine was concerned
Clete (11:36:47) as well as all influence Hasker had along such unbiblical lines
Hilston (11:37:07) Thanks very much, Clete. You've been a great sport.
Clete (11:37:21) did I convince you of anything?
Clete (11:37:37) any surprises at all?
Hilston (11:38:19) Just the directness in some responses. I expected you to squirm a bit more with some questions. But you did very well.
Clete (11:38:34) 8-)
Hilston (11:39:23) Question: Would you give me permission to post this exchange on my website, as long as I don't delete or edit any of its content?
Clete (11:40:04) By all means! Please feel free to edit grammar and spelling errors though.
Clete (11:40:21) I was thinking of asking you if I could post it on TOL.
Hilston (11:40:34) Sure, that would be fine.
Clete (11:40:48) Cool!
Clete (11:41:08) I think it interesting that we both want to post this conversation
Hilston (11:41:23) Quite.
Clete (11:41:57) Well, goodnight! I'm off to bed.
Hilston (11:42:22) Roger. Have a good rest. Thanks for the dialogue.
"Clete" signed off at 11:43:25 PM.
