Please Help Us Keep These Thousands of Blog Posts Growing and Free for All

$5.00

The Rise of Open Theism and Its Core Claims

Open theism, sometimes called openness theology or free will theism, proposes that God created humankind with genuine freedom in a libertarian sense and that God’s own knowledge of the future remains “open” rather than exhaustively fixed. Many open theists believe God exists in time and interacts dynamically with his creatures, responding as they respond to him. While some might see open theism as a modern phenomenon, its advocates trace earlier roots in Christian history, arguing that it stands closer to a biblical view unencumbered by certain influences they believe came from Greek philosophy.

In highlighting God’s relational nature, open theists state that God experiences authentic give-and-take with humans, that his guidance can depend on human decisions, and that he sometimes changes his mind in response to changing circumstances. They appeal to verses such as Genesis 6:6, Jonah 3:10, and Exodus 32:14, where the text indicates that Jehovah “regretted” or “relented” concerning an announced outcome. Open theism emphasizes that God loves with perfect devotion and that this trait underlies his willingness to engage in a genuine relationship with humanity.

Defenders of open theism also emphasize their commitment to Scripture, which they say depicts God as deeply involved, reactive, and emotionally stirred by events in history. They claim that a wholly unchanging divine plan, in which all events are predetermined, is difficult to reconcile with passages describing Jehovah as shifting from one course of action to another.

Classical Theism and Its Understanding of God’s Knowledge

Traditional Christian theology commonly teaches that God’s foreknowledge is exhaustive and infallible. This stems from passages like Isaiah 46:10, where God declares that he tells “the end from the beginning.” Many interpreters conclude that if God can declare the future from ancient times, his knowledge of all events must be complete. Texts such as Psalm 139:1–4 stress that God knows every word before it is on a person’s tongue, suggesting an unbounded awareness, extending to what humans have not yet spoken.

Within the classical approach, many affirm that although humans make free choices, God can still know in advance what those free choices will be. The future, from God’s perspective, is not uncertain or open. This conviction appears in accounts of prophecy fulfilled centuries after pronouncement, as in Isaiah’s mention of Cyrus (Isaiah 44:28–45:1) long before the Persian king came to power. Traditional theists argue that open theism cannot fully account for prophecies that name specific individuals or describe free human acts if the future is only a realm of possibilities.

Calvinists in particular maintain that God’s absolute sovereignty involves meticulously ordaining all that comes to pass, though they differ on how that coordination occurs. Others who emphasize human freedom, sometimes called traditional Arminians, still hold that God knows the future exhaustively even though he allows for genuine free will. Hence classical theists, whether Calvinist or Arminian, usually view God’s foreknowledge as complete, including the choices made by free agents.

Key Biblical Passages Cited by Open Theists

Open theists often appeal to texts that present God as changing a previously announced intention. Exodus 32:7–14 is a prominent example, where God initially threatens to destroy Israel for idolatry and then appears to relent at Moses’ intercession. Jonah 3:4–10 records how Jonah proclaimed that Nineveh would be overturned in forty days, only to see God withhold judgment when the people repented. Genesis 6:6 speaks of Jehovah’s feeling regret that he made humanity, showing deep sorrow at their wickedness. Isaiah 38:1–5 recounts a warning to King Hezekiah that he would die, followed by a divine extension of his life by fifteen years in response to his prayer and contrition.

Open theists contend that these accounts do not merely use figures of speech or anthropomorphisms. They see them as revealing God’s willingness to alter his course of action based on human behavior. They argue that the immediate sense of these narratives supports a relational dynamic in which the divine will adjusts when people respond with obedience, disobedience, repentance, or rebellion.

Responses from Traditional Theists

Critics of open theism assert that these passages must be interpreted in the broader light of Scripture, which consistently portrays God as sovereign and all-knowing. They often propose that expressions like “God changed his mind” are anthropopathisms or anthropomorphisms, meaning that Scripture uses human-like language to describe divine actions in a way that finite minds can grasp. Traditional interpreters remind readers of texts such as Numbers 23:19 and 1 Samuel 15:29, where the Bible states that God is not a man who changes his mind or goes back on his promises.

Many classical interpreters say that God’s relenting in these episodes is already foreseen in his eternal plan, that God announces judgment conditional upon the people’s continued wickedness, and that when they repent, God fulfills his promise of mercy instead of condemnation. This approach sees no genuine departure from an eternal decree but rather the outworking of God’s unchanging will, which includes conditional pronouncements and warnings. The relenting, they argue, is entirely consistent with a plan that factorizes human free agency, prayer, and repentance. Such interpreters also cite Jeremiah 18:7–10, which explicitly states that if a nation condemned by God turns back from evil, Jehovah will hold back the announced calamity. Rather than read this as a limit on God’s foreknowledge, they say it is evidence of a conditional prophecy that arises from his comprehensive knowledge of all possibilities.

The Debate Over Divine Sovereignty and Human Freedom

Open theism places a high value on libertarian free will, meaning humans have the genuine capacity to choose between alternatives. If God foreknows with certainty every future event, open theists claim that any sense of such unbounded free will is compromised. Their critics, including many Reformed thinkers, retort that certainty of foreknowledge does not necessarily nullify freedom, as knowing what someone will do does not by itself force them to do it.

A deeper disagreement arises about whether God ordains or predetermines all events. Classical theologians often distinguish between God’s sovereign will of decree and his moral will, arguing that while people remain responsible for their choices, nothing lies beyond God’s ultimate governance. Passages such as Proverbs 16:33, which states that “the lot is cast into the lap, but its every decision is from Jehovah,” are used to demonstrate his control even over seemingly random occurrences. Open theists hold that comprehensive predetermination erases genuine love and free choice, portraying humans as mere puppets, and they say Scripture repeatedly shows human decisions that truly affect how God proceeds.

Whether God Dwells Outside Time or Experiences Time Sequentially

Open theists usually regard God as experiencing a real sequence of events. They see in Scripture a God who acts and then reacts, who says “now I know” (Genesis 22:12) or who expresses regret over previous acts, suggesting that God is in genuine relationship to the unfolding of time. The open view is that God is not locked into an unalterable vantage point outside all temporal progression.

Critics of open theism counter that the biblical references to “before the foundation of the world” (Ephesians 1:4) and other texts indicate that God’s perspective transcends temporal succession. They argue that while God can act within time, he is not bound by it. Traditional formulations often propose that God’s eternal knowledge includes all time in a single vision, making it unthinkable that he would be surprised by anything. In this understanding, divine references to “repentance” or “regret” communicate God’s moral consistency and relational engagement, not literal ignorance of future events.

Scriptural Examples Often Cited by Both Sides

Many interpreters mention Moses’ intercession in Exodus 32 as a prime text for exploring how divine pronouncements of judgment and subsequent relenting are best understood. Moses pleads with Jehovah to spare the Israelites after the golden-calf apostasy, and Scripture says: “Jehovah changed his mind about the harm which he said he would do to his people” (Exodus 32:14, UASV). Open theists present this as a compelling instance of God responding to new developments. Traditional theists hold that it fits a pattern where God’s warnings are intended to provoke repentance, thus fulfilling his overall plan of mercy.

Likewise, Jonah 3:10 records: “When God saw their deeds, that they turned from their wicked way, then God relented concerning the calamity which he had declared he would do to them, and he did not do it.” Open theists say it underscores an open future, since Nineveh’s response was not determined in advance. The classical view is that God’s plan all along was to spare any nation that humbles itself, and the text simply dramatizes the interplay of conditional prophecy.

A similar point arises in 1 Samuel 15, where the text asserts that God regretted making Saul king (15:11) but also says in verse 29 that “the Glory of Israel will not lie or have regret, for he is not a man, that he should have regret.” Open theism uses verse 11 to show God lamenting a previous decision. The classical view interprets verse 29 in immediate connection with the stability of God’s overall intention, affirming that God’s sovereign plan stands unshaken. God’s regret, in that view, is an expression of disapproval of Saul’s sin, not an alteration of the overarching decree regarding how events would unfold.

The Question of Theodicy and Suffering

Open theists often argue that their position alleviates the problem of evil by removing the implication that God intentionally ordains every calamity. If human beings and even spirit creatures possess genuine freedom, then moral and natural evils can arise that God, while permitting them, never scripted in absolute detail. God maintains sovereignty in the sense of guiding history to his desired end, but he does not orchestrate all tragedies. They believe that only a degree of openness in the future preserves both divine goodness and human responsibility.

Traditional theists respond that Scripture portrays God as fully in control even of events humans classify as disasters. Isaiah 45:7 depicts Jehovah as forming light and creating darkness, producing well-being and calamity. While biblical authors do not say Jehovah instigates moral evil, they emphasize that no adversity occurs outside God’s ultimate governance. Traditionalists argue that God’s wise providence can permit evil or suffering without rendering him morally culpable for it. They often distinguish between divine permission and direct causation, while still teaching that God foresees evil and can bring eventual good out of it.

Conditional Prophecy and Changes in Divine Decrees

One of the strongest arguments made by open theists is the claim that certain prophetic utterances are evidently conditional, as shown in texts such as Jeremiah 18:7–10. That passage records Jehovah’s policy that if he announces destruction upon a nation but they turn from evil, he will relent. Critics note that affirming conditions in prophecy does not prove that God’s foreknowledge is limited. The classical position is that God can communicate warnings designed to change human behavior while fully knowing whether or not people will respond.

Many who resist open theism say that from God’s eternal perspective, prophecies are part of a coherent plan. Though humans see that plan unfold in a sequence, God’s foreknowledge cannot be undone by unexpected human decisions. Traditional theists see no evidence that a change in human conduct catches God by surprise or undermines his mastery of events.

Understanding God’s Relenting Through Historical Examples

The prophet Micah warned that Zion would be plowed as a field, Jerusalem would become a ruin, and the temple mount would be left desolate (Micah 3:12). A century later, Jeremiah cited Micah’s words, indicating that Hezekiah and his people had repented, so Jehovah initially held back the threatened judgment (Jeremiah 26:18–19). Although the immediate disaster was averted, later generations returned to idolatry, and Jerusalem eventually fell in 587 B.C.E. The open-theist perspective is that God truly suspended one course of action in response to changed human behavior. Traditional interpreters likewise hold that the prophecy was inherently conditional on Hezekiah’s response, and since the repentance was later reversed, the destruction ultimately occurred. The event does not demand a restricted divine foreknowledge but shows how God consistently fulfills both warnings and promises.

Does God Ever Change His Character?

Scripture states that God is consistent in his moral attributes. James 1:17 says there is no “variation or shifting shadow” in him, and Malachi 3:6 affirms that Jehovah does not change. Therefore, God’s standards of love and justice remain constant. This doctrinal truth is not discarded by open theists, who agree that God’s nature is unchanging. The disagreement concerns whether his actions in time reflect modifications of purpose based on human responsiveness or whether those changes are only perceived from a finite angle while God’s eternal plan remains unaltered.

Because humans are free moral agents, God’s unchanging righteousness demands that he respond differently to disobedience than to obedience. Thus, from the vantage of believers on earth, it can appear that God modifies his course of action. Classical thinkers typically say that such changes were included in his plan from all eternity. Open theists maintain that the future itself holds multiple possibilities, so God’s knowledge includes every possibility and every path of action, though certain outcomes are not definite until human decisions move events forward.

The Question of God’s Eternal Purpose

Ephesians 3:11 refers to the “eternal purpose” of God, indicating that he has a plan that spans human history. Classical theology commonly identifies this eternal plan with the entire scope of creation, redemption, and the consummation of history. This perspective sees nothing that can thwart God’s sovereign design. Open theists do not deny God’s ultimate triumph but emphasize that God may incorporate human decisions into his larger goal in ways that are not strictly predetermined. In their view, God sets boundaries and ensures that his ultimate objective will succeed, but the path to that objective involves genuine contingency.

Some open theists propose that God’s full knowledge of possibilities enables him to be prepared for any choice humans might make, guaranteeing that his ultimate promises—such as the future Kingdom blessings—remain certain. Critics find this portrayal inadequate, arguing that the biblical witness portrays God’s foreknowledge of the future as absolute, not merely a knowledge of all potential scenarios.

Understanding the Language of Regret and Repentance

Many believers wonder how to harmonize texts declaring that God regrets making humanity (Genesis 6:6–7) or that he relented from destroying a people (Jeremiah 26:19) with statements that he “does not repent as man does” (1 Samuel 15:29). A common explanation is that the passages describing regret show God’s grief over sin and the necessary change in how he treats the unrepentant, whereas the passages stating that God never changes express his unwavering faithfulness and holiness. Open theists affirm that God’s changes of mind are genuine shifts in how he deals with people. Traditional theologians say the biblical authors use language of sorrow or regret to convey God’s condemnation of evil in a way humans can grasp, without implying any deficiency in God’s omniscience.

The portion of Jeremiah 18:7–10 is pivotal for clarifying that divine judgments can be reversed if people reverse course. Far from seeing this as a sign of limited knowledge in God, many Christians consider it a demonstration of how a righteous God consistently responds to contrition. At the same time, the unconditional elements of prophecy—such as God’s promise to bless all nations through Abraham’s seed—remain fixed. The open-theist perspective highlights the interplay of conditions and possibilities, where God’s intentions can be frustrated by obstinate rebellion, only for him to find alternative routes to fulfill his promises.

The Ongoing Controversy Among Evangelicals

Debates about open theism among conservative Christians often turn on questions of biblical interpretation and theological tradition. Some who advocate open theism claim that classical Christianity has overly relied on philosophical notions of immutability or timelessness foreign to the biblical portrayal. Others insist that open theism improperly diminishes God’s transcendent majesty and leads to a God who is uncertain or incomplete in knowledge.

Though these disagreements have remained lively, both sides endeavor to uphold God’s holiness, the trustworthiness of his revealed word, and the importance of believers living by faith in his unchanging promises. Each side also urges careful study of all relevant Scripture. The discussion ultimately revolves around whether references to God’s relenting point to a genuinely open future or simply reflect how humans perceive God’s outworking of a fully formed eternal design.

Reconciling Foreknowledge and Relationship

Christians who defend open theism are keen to emphasize a God who is personally involved, loves genuinely, and even suffers as he sees humanity’s misuse of free will. They argue that a vibrant relationship necessitates real interaction rather than a predetermined script. Traditional theologians respond that God’s omniscience does not eliminate personal interaction. They believe God’s complete knowledge includes all that will freely come to pass, so prayer and human obedience remain significant and uncoerced. Each view attempts to uphold the central biblical truth that God is a personal being who cares about his creation. The difference is whether the future is fully known as a single path or known as many possible paths that gradually become settled.

How God’s Character Remains Steadfast

Despite the dispute over how God relates to time or foresees events, both open theists and classical theists maintain that Scripture portrays a God of righteousness, love, and justice. Malachi 3:6 declares, “For I, Jehovah, do not change.” This statement guards against any notion that God wavers in moral purity or divine goodness. James 1:17 underlines the same quality in Jehovah, with “no variation or shifting shadow.” Repeatedly, the Bible affirms that God’s love and justice are unalterable. In open theism, the changes described pertain to God’s actions toward repentant or unrepentant people, not to his eternal attributes. Classical theists see these texts as reinforcing the truth that God’s ultimate plan stands unshaken, that his nature is without variation, though he can appear to change from the human angle.

Concluding Thoughts on Open Theism and the Biblical Witness

Open theism raises probing questions about divine sovereignty, human freedom, and the nature of the future. Proponents claim it accounts for biblical texts that depict God’s dynamic dealings with people, while its critics see it as a deviation from Scripture’s emphasis on God’s exhaustive foreknowledge and supreme control of history. Passages that speak of God’s “repentance” or “regret” can be read either as literal shifts in the divine plan due to human actions or as expressions of a profoundly relational God whose unalterable moral nature remains consistent even as he interacts with a changing world.

Both open theists and classical theists agree that God’s character stands firm, that he shows compassion to the humble, and that his eventual restoration of creation is assured. They differ in how they interpret the manner by which God brings about his purposes and how much of the future God has settled. Ultimately, believers from both perspectives affirm that they are guided by the spirit-inspired word (2 Timothy 3:16) and that salvation rests in Jesus Christ, who fully revealed God’s holiness and mercy. While the debate can be intense, earnest followers of Scripture seek to resolve these questions by prayerful reflection on texts showing Jehovah’s sovereignty, unchanging moral excellence, and engagement with human decisions.

You May Also Enjoy

What Is the Role of Jesus Christ as the Mediator of Salvation?

About the Author

EDWARD D. ANDREWS (AS in Criminal Justice, BS in Religion, MA in Biblical Studies, and MDiv in Theology) is CEO and President of Christian Publishing House. He has authored over 220+ books. In addition, Andrews is the Chief Translator of the Updated American Standard Version (UASV).