Open Theism: God sovereignly created a world where the future is partly open. He knows all possibilities, responds in real time, and guides history without determining every choice. The future isnât fixedâitâs a dynamic story with a relational God. #OpenTheism #GodIsFree
Discussion
Doesn't Open Theism also say, though, that God doesn't know what will happen, only that He knows all of the potential outcomes?
Yes, Open Theism holds that God knows all possible outcomes and is perfectly wise in responding to them. However, this doesn't mean God is ignorant of the futureâit means the future is not exhaustively settled yet. Instead of seeing the future as a fixed script, Open Theism sees it as partly open, allowing for genuine human freedom and real relational interaction with God.
Godâs knowledge is not limited; rather, He knows reality exactly as it isâsome aspects are determined by His sovereign will, while others remain contingent on human choices. This allows for true love, dynamic relationships, and meaningful prayer, all while ensuring that Godâs ultimate purposes will be fulfilled.
#GodIsWise #RelationalTheology #OpenTheism
So on this view God doesn't know what WILL happen until a person does it, right?
God knew David would be delivered up to Saul. In 1 Samuel 23:10-13, David inquired of the Lord about whether the people of Keilah would hand him over if he stayed, and God said they would. Yet, David left, and the event never happened. This passage shows that Godâs knowledge includes not just what will happen but also what could happen based on human choices. Open Theism affirms that God knows all possibilities perfectly, and His wisdom allows Him to respond freely in real-time.
This does not mean God is ignorant of the future but that the future is partly open because free agents make real choices. If the future were exhaustively settled, God's statement about Keilahâs betrayal would be meaningless since it was never actualized. Instead, we see that Godâs knowledge includes contingent realitiesâwhat would happen given certain conditionsâwhile still allowing for human freedom. This makes God's foreknowledge dynamic, not limited.
I pretty much agree with what you have said here and I see it similarly because I also believe in free will. I take it you're not a Calvinist who believes that God has Himself pre-determined everything that will happen, because you allow for human freedom. Your description to me sounds more like what is called "middle knowledge" which refers to God's knowing all of the various choices a person could make and what would happen as a result.
Where Open Theism goes beyond middle knowledge, in my understanding (I haven't read anything on it, only heard it discussed), is that Open Theists view the ACTUAL future as unknown to God until it occurs; that God is learning and experiencing what happens almost like we do, except that He also knew all of the other possibilities of what could have happened. So in your example of David and Keilah from 1 Samuel 23, God knew all of the counterfactual possibilities of what could happen, according to whatever choice David would make, but He didn't exactly know which choice David would make until he actually did it. Once David made his choice, God then also did know by His foreknowledge what would result. But then what about all of the future choices that hadn't yet been made?
This differs from my more traditional, I believe, non-Open Theist view that God is omniscient, i.e., all-knowing, meaning that He not only knows all contingent realities of what could happen, but He also knows what choices we WILL freely make, while not determining them. God knew all of David's possible choices, and also what the people of Keilah would do if David chose a certain way, but God also knew in advance the choice David was actually going to make. But knowing what David would do in advance doesn't mean God decided it for him. Some people believe that God simply knowing what will happen determines the future, and I don't believe that is true out of necessity. I believe Calvinists view things this way (and Muslims, too, who also don't believe in free will), but there are numerous problems with that, including making God the author of evil!
I'm sure Open Theists don't want to deny God's omniscience, and so they would probably say that omniscience means that God knows everything there is to be known. He knows what actually can be known, but not what can't be known. Since the future hasn't actually happened until it occurs, God doesn't know something that is not yet actualized, that is, not real. To my mind, however, this views God too much like us humans; it ascribes our human limitations of knowledge (and time, as we experience it) to God. I believe God not only knows everything that could happen under various circumstances, but also what actually will happen, before our choices are made.
Judas Iscariot provides an example of this; it was God's plan to have Jesus betrayed and executed to atone for the sins of humanity. God knew that Judas would choose to betray Jesus, so Judas was the man for the job. But Jesus said it would have been better had Judas never even been born than to do what he did. So God knew in advance that Judas would betray Jesus, and that Judas would be wrong and punished for that, but Judas had the free will to choose differently, otherwise it would be unfair of God to punish him for something he had no choice in. God's middle knowledge and foreknowledge of what choice Judas would actually freely make is why God had Judas in that role. If God didn't actually know how Judas would choose, Judas possibly could have chosen to not betray Jesus, and God's plan would have not played out as He willed.
Sorry this got to be so lengthy. I didn't plan for it to be or know it would end up this long before I started writing! đ If you can point out how I may not be understanding Open Theism correctly, I'd be happy to hear it. I may need to do some reading on it!
I really appreciate your thoughtful response and your deep love for Godâitâs clear that you take these theological discussions seriously, and I respect that a lot! I can tell that youâre genuinely seeking to understand how God's sovereignty and human freedom fit together, which is something I wrestle with too.
You made a great point about how God knowing the future doesnât necessarily mean He determines it. But that raises an interesting question: If God infallibly knows what will happen, and humans cannot do otherwise, who or what determined that God would be helpless to watch events unfold?
If we break it down, there are really only a few possibilities:
1. God Himself determined itâbut that would mean He actually did predestine all things, which would lead back to a deterministic view, contradicting free will.
2. The future exists as a fixed reality apart from Godâbut that would mean God is subject to fate rather than truly sovereign.
3. God knows all possibilities but not a fixed, settled futureâthis would allow Him to remain sovereign and engaged while still granting us true freedom.
Open Theism takes this third approach, not as a way of limiting God, but as a way of elevating His sovereigntyânot as a passive observer of history, but as an active participant, dynamically engaging with His creation in real time. Itâs not that God canât know the future, but rather that the future isnât a thing yetâit hasnât happened. God knows everything that can be known, but He is not bound by a future that doesnât yet exist.
I love that you're open to discussing this, and I truly appreciate your willingness to explore different views. At the end of the day, we both agree on the most important thing: God is good, wise, and worthy of all our love and trust.
Blessings, brother!
I appreciate your gracious response, brother, and I'll keep this brief for now. I think I will have to read some things by open theists to examine it more critically. There are things I don't understand how they could work, such as prophecy, which would seem to require God to know the future; that there had to be an actual future that would exist.
Don't feel obligated to explain that to me right now, but you can if you would like to. I have to be going at the moment. Blessings to you!
I appreciate your willingness to explore this, brother! Just to start, it's important to know that Open Theism isn't monolithicâthere's a range of views within it. But at its core, Open Theism is about the freedom of God. If God is/was ever free to choose, then the future couldn't be entirely settled because He would have had the ability to do otherwise.
As Psalm 115:3 says, "Our God is in the heavens; He does all that He pleases." This illustrates God's freedom and sovereignty, highlighting that His actions are not predetermined but are chosen according to His will.
Regarding prophecy, Open Theism doesn't require God to see a fixed future. Instead, God knows every possible outcome and is powerful enough to bring about what He promises. Think of it like a master chess player who doesn't need to see the future to guarantee victory. He knows every possible move his opponent could make and has a strategy for each one. Similarly, God knows every possibility and works through the free actions of people to accomplish His purposes.
One of the most interesting aspects of Open Theism is how it explains what some might see as âfailed prophecy.â In this view, prophecy isn't about God seeing a fixed future but about Him declaring intentions that are conditional on human response. This is seen in places like Jonah and Nineveh: God declared that Nineveh would be destroyed, but when they repented, God relented. The prophecy wasnât false; it was conditional.
Open Theism acknowledges that because God honors human freedom, some prophecies are warnings or invitations to change course. This highlights God's relational nature and His willingness to adapt His plans in response to human choicesâwithout compromising His ultimate purposes.
This perspective actually emphasizes God's sovereignty and creativity even more! I'm happy to chat more about this when you have time. Blessings to you as well!
I'm exploring the topic more than I have previously, though I remain unconvinced it's correct. An intellectual much smarter than I whose scholarship I respect, Dr. William Lane Craig, rejects Open Theism, and so I have been looking at some of his work trying to understand why:
https://www.reasonablefaith.org/media/reasonable-faith-podcast/four-views-on-divine-providence #OpenTheism
I think molinism as described by Craig answers the justifiable questions open theists have. Not gunna type out details on this phone but I would second that Craig has a plausible theory that isnât deterministic like Calvinism.
I see why Molinism appealsâit avoids Calvinistic determinism while keeping foreknowledge. But Open Theists argue it still fixes the future since God selects a world where all choices are pre-known. Instead, Open Theism holds that some aspects of the future remain truly open, allowing for real-time divine action and genuine freedom.
I'm glad to see you're taking the time to explore Open Theism more thoroughly! Dr. Craig is certainly a brilliant thinker, and I respect his scholarship as well. His critiques of Open Theism tend to stem from his commitment to classical foreknowledge models and his philosophical views on God's relationship to time. While he presents his case well, I believe Open Theism provides a more coherent understanding of God's freedom and the dynamic nature of creation.
One of the key issues I see in Craigâs perspective is that his middle knowledge view, or Molinism, still locks in all possible futures before God even acts. This essentially means that while God chooses among various possible worlds, He is still bound to a framework in which every outcome is predetermined in some sense. In contrast, Open Theism maintains that the future is truly open, allowing for real relational engagement between God and humanity, as well as genuine human freedom.
Another point worth considering is that Open Theism aligns more naturally with the biblical witness of God's interactions with people. The numerous passages where God expresses regret, changes His mind, or responds dynamically to human choices make more sense within an open view of the future. If the future were exhaustively settled, these interactions would appear either disingenuous or merely anthropomorphic, raising theological concerns about the sincerity of God's engagement with creation.
Moreover, Perfect Being theology, which underlies much of classical theism, has its roots in pagan philosophy. Concepts such as immutability, impassibility, and timelessness were heavily influenced by Greek metaphysical ideas, particularly from Plato and Aristotle. While these ideas were later incorporated into Christian theology by thinkers like Augustine and Aquinas, they often present a more static and abstract view of Godâone that seems distant from the living, relational God revealed in Scripture. Open Theism challenges this framework, seeking to restore a biblical understanding of a God who genuinely interacts with creation in real time.
I've watched this video before. Iâd be curiousâdo any of Craigâs arguments against Open Theism stand out to you so far?
P.S. Thereâs a great Unbelievable? episode where he and Dr. James White discuss related topics. It's a fascinating conversation.
An argument of Craig's that stands out to me is that there are true future contingent propositions, some things that WILL happen in the future, and that God knows they will happen. In the transcript of the Reasonable Faith podcast episode I linked to above Craig states: "There's no argument given as to why there cannot be future contingently true and false propositions." It is often said "God knows the end from the beginning," and Scripture and history bear that out. How does Open Theism deal with that?
I'll look for the episode of Unbelievable?, a great podcast, by the way. I may have heard it before, but I thought it had more to do with Calvinism. Incidentally, I've been privileged to meet both Drs. Craig and White.
I'll continue to try to expand my understanding of Open Theism, especially since I don't know how it got started, and why. It seems to me that it may have tried to solve problems with Calvinist doctrines, but I think they were already adequately solved with Molinism.
While I do think these issues seriously impact our view of God, I don't think disagreement on them means we both worship different a God! I'm inclined to believe this is one of those non-essential issues we should give each other liberty in.
> "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 â the novice may do things that are unexpected â 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 decreeâthat 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..."
Craigâs critique assumes a Molinist framework, but Open Theists reject middle knowledge altogetherâboth for creatures and for God. Boydâs analogy of a chess master doesnât mean God has pre-volitional middle knowledge of His own actions; rather, it highlights Godâs perfect wisdom and ability to respond freely in real time.
Craig worries this removes divine freedom, but Open Theism actually enhances it. God isnât locked into a predetermined set of responses; He makes genuine, dynamic choices. His knowledge isnât about pre-set counterfactuals but about His character, wisdom, and ongoing relationship with creation. This makes God more free, not less.
Ultimately, the debate isnât just about knowledge but about how God interacts with the worldâis He executing a pre-scripted plan, or engaging in a living, relational way? Open Theism affirms the latter.
That's an interesting question, and I appreciate the opportunity to discuss Open Theism! Letâs dive into the key points you raised.
Future Contingent Propositions & Open Theism
Dr. Craig argues that there are true future contingent propositionsâstatements 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 havenât happened yet. If future contingent propositions (like âPerson X will choose Christâ) are already true or false, then the future is determined in some wayâeither 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, âGod knows X will happen,â Open Theism says, âGod knows X might happen, and He knows all possible futures.â
This view is fully consistent with Godâs omniscienceâHe knows all that can be known. But if the future is not fully determined, then it cannot be âknownâ 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, âGod knows the end from the beginning.â This comes from Isaiah 46:10, where God says:
"Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times things not yet done, saying, âMy counsel shall stand, and I will accomplish all my purpose.ââ
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 doesnât mean every event is already fixed; rather, it highlights Godâs ability to accomplish what He has decreed. Open Theists fully affirm this! God does declare some things and ensures they happen (e.g., Christâs return), but that doesnât mean every choice is already settled.
Molinism vs. Open Theism
Molinism, as you mentioned, seeks to solve problems with Calvinism by introducing middle knowledgeâthe 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 Godâs 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 havenât been determined yet.
Is This an Essential Doctrine?
I really respect your attitude here. Youâre rightâthis isnât 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 youâd like more resources on the history of Open Theism or its biblical basis.
Thank you for your well-thought out and articulate explanations of Open Theism. I'll continue to chew on this, and I'd be happy to receive any information you have on the history of Open Theism. I appreciate that we both seek to honor God with our minds and understanding of Him as best we can. It's possible that this is one of those questions that can only be settled for certain when we can ask Him face to face. Only God knows if we'll have that opportunity. ...Or does He? đ¤
No, because Calvinism asserts that God has exhaustive, definite foreknowledge of all future events, which are part of His sovereign plan, not contingent on human choices.
You're right that Calvinism does assert those things, but they are not found in this 1 Samuel text. In fact, this passage presents a scenario where God declares what would happen if Saul remained, yet Saul does not remain, meaning the future was not exhaustively settled. This directly challenges the idea of exhaustive, definite foreknowledge as understood in Calvinism. If God's knowledge of the future were entirely fixed, He would not state a conditional outcome that never comes to pass. Instead, this passage fits naturally within an Open Theist framework, where God knows all possibilities and responds dynamically.
---
Would you like to add anything else to emphasize your point?
Open Theism, as illustrated by the 1 Samuel text, suggests that God's knowledge includes contingent outcomes based on human choices, challenging Calvinism's view of exhaustive, definite foreknowledge.