> "What [Open Theist Greg] Boyd has to say is that God is so smart that he has contingency plans for everything that happens. So he's like a sort of chess master who's playing a game against a novice and the chess master is so skilled that he knows whatever he will do in response to the novice's move. Now, he doesn't know what the novice will do – the novice may do things that are unexpected – but he knows that whatever move the novice makes he knows how he will respond to that. Now, what's odd about that is that ascribes to God a kind of divine middle knowledge of his own decisions, that God would know whatever the novice does this is how I would react. And that actually destroys divine freedom because it would make God have middle knowledge of his own actions prior to God's divine creative decree of a world. And on the Molinist view what God has middle knowledge of is statements about what creatures would freely do in any circumstances. But God doesn't know the truth of statements about what he would do in any circumstances prior to the divine creative decree—that would remove or annihilate human freedom. Rather what God knows by his middle knowledge is what any creature would freely do in any circumstances, and then God chooses to actualize one of those worlds involving those circumstances and, at the same time, simultaneously declares what he would do in any of these circumstances. So on Boyd's view, if he thinks that God has this pre-volitional middle knowledge of his own decisions that's actually going to destroy divine freedom, paradoxically. So I think Greg's view is not carefully thought out..."

https://www.reasonablefaith.org/media/reasonable-faith-podcast/four-views-on-divine-providence/#:~:text=What%20Boyd%20has,carefully%20thought%20out

That's an interesting question, and I appreciate the opportunity to discuss Open Theism! Let’s dive into the key points you raised.

Future Contingent Propositions & Open Theism

Dr. Craig argues that there are true future contingent propositions—statements about the future that are already true or false, even before the events happen. Open Theists reject this because it assumes a settled future rather than an open one, which would trap God in fate. However, Molinism provides God with more freedom than simple foreknowledge because there was a point when God chose to create.

The key issue is whether truth exists for things that haven’t happened yet. If future contingent propositions (like “Person X will choose Christ”) are already true or false, then the future is determined in some way—either by necessity (Calvinism), middle knowledge (Molinism), or simple foreknowledge (Classical Arminianism). But if the future is truly open, then such propositions do not yet have a truth value. Instead of saying, “God knows X will happen,” Open Theism says, “God knows X might happen, and He knows all possible futures.”

This view is fully consistent with God’s omniscience—He knows all that can be known. But if the future is not fully determined, then it cannot be “known” in the way Craig suggests because there is nothing definite yet to know.

Isaiah 46:10 & "God Knows the End from the Beginning"

You mentioned the biblical phrase, “God knows the end from the beginning.” This comes from Isaiah 46:10, where God says:

"Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times things not yet done, saying, ‘My counsel shall stand, and I will accomplish all my purpose.’”

This is often used to argue that God foreknows all future events as settled. However, if you read the context, God is contrasting Himself with idols, showing His sovereignty and power to bring about His plans (not necessarily foreknowing every detail of the future). In Isaiah, God is appealing to His people, who have a history with Him. They know that He would declare a thing and was faithful to do that thing. The phrase doesn’t mean every event is already fixed; rather, it highlights God’s ability to accomplish what He has decreed. Open Theists fully affirm this! God does declare some things and ensures they happen (e.g., Christ’s return), but that doesn’t mean every choice is already settled.

Molinism vs. Open Theism

Molinism, as you mentioned, seeks to solve problems with Calvinism by introducing middle knowledge—the idea that God knows not only what will happen but also what would happen under different circumstances. The challenge is that Molinism still assumes a settled future in God’s actualized world. Open Theism, by contrast, argues that the future is partly determined and partly open. God knows all possibilities, but He has left room for genuine freedom.

One of the main issues Open Theists raise with Molinism is that middle knowledge still results in determinism by selection. If God knows what every free creature would do in every situation and then actualizes the one where things play out the way He wants, how is that real freedom? Open Theists argue that if humans are truly free, then some aspects of the future cannot be definitively known because they haven’t been determined yet.

Is This an Essential Doctrine?

I really respect your attitude here. You’re right—this isn’t an issue of who we worship. We both affirm that God is the sovereign Creator, Jesus is Lord, and salvation is by grace through faith. Open Theists and Classical Theists agree on these fundamentals but differ on how God relates to time and the future.

In my view, Open Theism actually makes God more free, rather than less. If God has total freedom to act in the present, rather than simply executing a pre-known script, then He is even more dynamic and relational than traditionally understood. But I completely agree that this is an area where believers can disagree while still being brothers and sisters in Christ.

Thanks for engaging in the discussion thoughtfully! Let me know if you’d like more resources on the history of Open Theism or its biblical basis.