Open theism is a theological belief which teaches that God’s knowledge is not exhaustive, but rather it is dynamic based upon human behavior and actions. Open Theists believe that God doesn’t fully know the future because human choices haven’t yet occurred. This creates an imperfect God who is contingent upon His creation to provide Him with knowledge. This view also redefines omniscience in a way that contradicts Scripture, undermines prophecy, separates from the historic teaching of the Church, and introduces serious logical problems. Most notably, it results in an epistemological nightmare: if God’s knowledge is constantly changing, then there’s no fixed foundation for truth. Without something unchanging to ground it, knowledge becomes arbitrary and belief loses its justification. In the end, Open Theism doesn’t just redefine God—it removes the very possibility of knowing anything with certainty.
Photo from Unsplash
According to the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy [1], they define Open Theism as the following:
<aside> 🗒️
“Open Theism is the thesis that, because God loves us and desires that we freely choose to reciprocate His love, He has made His knowledge of, and plans for, the future conditional upon our actions. Though omniscient, God does not know what we will freely do in the future (emphasis added).”
</aside>
To briefly summarize, Open Theism holds that God knows everything, but the future is partly open because free choices haven’t been made yet.
Though most within the Open Theism circle would agree that there is little to no difference between Dynamic Omniscience and Open Theism, there are slight enough differences that warrants at least a callout between the two. Whereas Open Theism is the mother, Dynamic Omniscience would be like a son or daughter—more of a subtype of Open Theism. And, according to Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy [2], when defining Open Theism, they have this to say:
<aside> 🗒️
“God possesses ‘dynamic omniscience’ in which God has exhaustive knowledge of the past and present and understands what we call ‘the future’ as the possibilities which could occur along with any events God has determined to occur. Divine omniscience is dynamic in that God constantly acquires knowledge of which possible future actions creatures select to actualize (emphasis added).”
</aside>
This aligns more with proponents of Dynamic Omniscience and can be summarized as the belief that God is still fully omniscient, but omniscience also includes knowing what can be known—and as the future unfolds, more becomes knowable, thus God’s omniscience is “dynamic” and in a constant state of flux.
Open Theism carries metaphorical baggage in many forms which completely undermine Divine Revelation—in the form of prophecy, the Scriptures itself, and the Church—History, God’s Omniscience, and Philosophy (namely epistemology).
Prophecy:
Quite simply, if God can’t see into the future, then what does that mean regarding prophecies? How can prophecy be trusted if God’s knowledge is changing or incomplete? I want to speak briefly on some of the text that was emphasized in the two quotes above:
There’s an obvious dilemma with this way of presenting God’s omniscience (which really isn’t omniscience, but we’ll get into that later) because if God does not know something, specifically how that relates to prophecy, how can a prophecy (1) even be given, or (2) be trusted? If God has to constantly acquire new knowledge, on what basis can His current knowledge be trusted that it will remain consistent? What if the knowledge God newly acquired contradicts previous knowledge for prophecies that He already gave through the mouths of His prophets? He Himself would fall victim to His own words in Deuteronomy 18:22:
<aside> 📔
Deuteronomy 18:22
22 when a prophet speaks in the name of the Lord, if the thing does not happen or come to pass, that is the thing which the Lord has not spoken; the prophet has spoken it presumptuously; you shall not be afraid of him.
</aside>
Scriptures:
But, it’s not just prophecy that Open Theism contradicts, it introduces a whole set of mental gymnastics to Scripture which completely changes the character and nature of God. For example, Hebrews 13:8 tells us that “Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever.” God’s words are “yes and amen” (2 Corinthians 1:20), not “eh, well, depending on how people act.”
The Triune God that Christians worship is not one who “becomes”, “adapts”, or “learns.” God is the unchanging “I AM” (Exodus 3:14) who declares the end from the beginning (Isaiah 46:10) and knows all things (1 John 3:20). And through this foreknowledge, He is able to link the plan of salvation and other predetermined events (Romans 8:29, 1 Peter 1:2, Acts 2:23, and Ephesians 1:4) for the betterment of His creation. This is a self-refuting position for the Open Theist since, if Open Theists claim God acts conditionally upon our actions, how can events be predetermined when our actions haven’t been committed as Scripture alludes to?
Now, I am well aware that proponents of Open Theism read and interpret the Scriptures in a much different way that other Christians do. And there is a plethora of videos out there which have compelling interpretations attempting to prove how Open Theism is taught in the Bible. And, that’s precisely my main critique in this section.
Without having to address every verse that an Open Theist might use to give credence to their position, we can easily reduce the argument down to one thing: interpretations. Open Theism is essentially a means of interpreting certain Scripture passages that seem to suggest God acquires new knowledge, or might not have exhaustive knowledge of all things.
This is an extremely important point, so let’s examine it at a different angle: most Christians would attest to the divinity of Christ and claim that those who do not believe this doctrine are heretics—such as Muslims, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Unitarians, etc. But in reality, every heretic is doing nothing different than an Open Theist. They’re using the Scriptures and choosing their own interpretation of those Scriptures over what has been established through divine revelation. In other words, by the very definition of heresy (i.e., αἵρεσις in the Greek), they are a heretic.
<aside> 📖
αἵρεσις (”heresy” in English)
Source: Strong’s G139 hairesis (transliteration) entry (emphasis added)
</aside>
So, this then begs the obvious question: How do we know which interpretation is correct and that we’re not falling into heresy?
The Church:
Let’s start by saying that Christ established a Church (Matthew 16:18) and this Church is the “pillar and ground of truth (1 Timothy 3:15).” Instead of trusting our own personal interpretation of Scripture, the binding authority that is higher than our own fallible reasoning just so happens to be the same authority that Christ Himself established and said the “gates of Hades” will not prevail against: the Church. To draw an example from Scripture, consider the Jerusalem Council. If the Church dogmatically decides that circumcision and the keeping of the Law of Moses is not required for salvation (Acts 15:1-31), yet there were (and still are today) some that choose to follow “one’s chosen opinion” that is “varying from the true exposition of the Christian faith” then this is heresy. Plain and simple.
Otherwise, are we to believe that Christ left us with Scriptures and an every-man-for-himself means of interpreting them? Or did He leave us a normative authority in which we can trust for interpretive disparities just like these?
For the Open Theist, they are trusting in their individual interpretation of Scripture passages that they’re convinced say one thing, when the ancient understanding of the Church says another—the exact thing that all heretics do, have done, and will continue to do: choosing their opinion over what’s already established. Maybe a better question to the Open Theist would be: why trust a theological novelty born in reactionary circles of modern Protestantism over the tested wisdom of the saints who shed their blood to uphold the truth of the Church that was passed on from the apostles?
Continuing from that last point, the Church fathers had no concept of Open Theism. According to Greg Boyd, arguably the biggest proponent of Open Theism in our modern day and age, states that Calcidius, a 4th century philosopher, is possibly the first “Open Theist [3].”