Neotheism: A Biblical and Rational Examination of Its Claims and Errors

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

$5.00

Introduction: Defining Neotheism and Its Core Propositions

Neotheism, often referred to as “Openness Theology” or “Open Theism,” represents a contemporary theological perspective that challenges the historic, classical doctrine of God upheld by evangelical Christianity. Emerging predominantly in the late 20th century, neotheism posits that God does not possess exhaustive foreknowledge of future free will decisions. Its proponents argue that in order for human freedom to be genuine, the future must remain partly undetermined—even to God Himself.

The foundational assertion of neotheism is that while God is omniscient concerning all that is knowable, the future free actions of moral agents are not knowable because they do not yet exist as facts. Therefore, God learns or responds in time to human choices as history unfolds. This view is claimed by its advocates to preserve the authenticity of relational dynamics between God and humanity. Key neotheistic thinkers include Clark Pinnock, John Sanders, Gregory Boyd, and William Hasker.

This article will provide a thorough examination of neotheism from the standpoint of biblical theology, systematic theology, and logical analysis, affirming the orthodox biblical view of God’s omniscience, immutability, and sovereignty as consistent with Scripture and sound reason.

The Classical Biblical View of Divine Omniscience

The Bible presents God as omniscient—that is, possessing complete and exhaustive knowledge of all things, past, present, and future. This understanding of God’s knowledge is not partial or probabilistic but absolute and total.

Psalm 147:5 affirms, “Our Lord is great, vast in power; his understanding is infinite.” Isaiah 46:9-10 declares, “Remember what happened long ago, for I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and no one is like me. I declare the end from the beginning, and from long ago what is not yet done, saying: my plan will take place, and I will do all my will.” These statements underscore Jehovah’s unique prerogative of knowing and declaring future events with certainty.

God’s perfect knowledge extends even to the choices of individuals. In Matthew 11:21-23, Jesus reveals that had the people of Tyre, Sidon, and Sodom been exposed to the same miracles as Chorazin, Bethsaida, and Capernaum, they would have repented. This demonstrates that God not only knows what will occur but also knows what would occur under different circumstances (known as counterfactual knowledge).

The exhaustive foreknowledge of God is further demonstrated in prophetic statements and fulfillments throughout Scripture. Predictive prophecy assumes that God knows precisely what will happen, including the free decisions of human beings. For example, the prophecy of Cyrus in Isaiah 44:28 and 45:1, named specifically over 150 years before his reign and actions (539 B.C.E.), evidences God’s perfect foreknowledge.

Neotheism’s Redefinition of Divine Omniscience

Neotheists redefine omniscience by claiming that while God knows everything that can be known, the future free choices of individuals are not “knowable facts” because they have not yet occurred. According to this view, omniscience is limited to the present and the past, with the future being “open” and contingent upon human choices.

Clark Pinnock writes, “Decisions not yet made do not exist anywhere to be known even by God. They are potentialities which may or may not come to pass.” Gregory Boyd similarly argues that “the future is partly composed of possibilities, not actualities.”

This position implies that God’s knowledge is dynamic, subject to increase as events unfold. Neotheists frequently appeal to biblical narratives where God appears to express regret or to change His course of action (e.g., Genesis 6:6; Exodus 32:14; Jonah 3:10) as support for their claim that the future is not fully settled.

However, these interpretations fail to account for the anthropopathic (human-like) language often employed in Scripture to communicate divine action in ways comprehensible to human experience. Such language does not imply actual ignorance or mutability in God but reflects His relational engagement with His creation within time while still being sovereign over time itself.

The Logical Incoherence of Limited Foreknowledge

The assertion that God does not know future free choices leads to significant logical contradictions when examined carefully. First, this view undermines the very concept of biblical prophecy, which often depends on human decisions. If future choices are unknowable, then God’s ability to make detailed and accurate prophecies would be impossible.

Consider Judas Iscariot’s betrayal of Jesus. In John 13:18-19, Jesus quotes Psalm 41:9 and says, “I am telling you now before it happens, so that when it does happen you will believe that I am he.” The betrayal was predicted long before it occurred, with precise knowledge of the actor involved. Such prophecy depends on God’s foreknowledge of human free choices.

Furthermore, limited foreknowledge compromises divine sovereignty. Scripture teaches that God works “all things according to the purpose of his will” (Ephesians 1:11). This includes contingent and free choices. If God is unaware of future decisions, He cannot guarantee the accomplishment of His purposes.

Neotheism also introduces an unstable view of divine providence. A God who learns as events happen cannot providentially govern history with certainty. This makes prayer problematic, as believers would be appealing to a God whose knowledge of the future is as limited as theirs, undermining trust in His guidance.

Misinterpretation of Anthropomorphic Language

A key argument used by neotheists involves texts where God appears to “change His mind” or “regret” actions. Genesis 6:6 states, “Jehovah regretted that he had made man on the earth, and he was deeply grieved.” Exodus 32:14 notes, “So Jehovah relented concerning the disaster he said he would bring on his people.”

The historical-grammatical approach to these passages recognizes that such descriptions are phenomenological and anthropopathic, intended to convey God’s interactions in human terms, not to suggest deficiency in His knowledge or change in His nature.

1 Samuel 15:29 is particularly instructive: “Furthermore, the Eternal One of Israel does not lie or change his mind, for he is not a man who changes his mind.” This clearly affirms God’s immutability and distinguishes divine regret or relenting from human vacillation or ignorance.

Passages expressing divine “regret” or “relenting” emphasize God’s relational engagement, not a lack of foreknowledge. They reflect His just and holy response to human sin, not an actual revision of His eternal purposes.

Divine Foreknowledge and Human Freedom: No Contradiction

A central claim of neotheism is that exhaustive foreknowledge negates human free will. However, this is a category mistake. Knowledge does not cause an event. Knowing what a person will freely choose is not the same as causing that choice.

Consider the example of an astronomer predicting a solar eclipse. The astronomer’s knowledge does not cause the eclipse; it simply reflects accurate understanding. In the same way, God’s knowledge of human decisions does not negate their freedom.

Scripture supports both divine foreknowledge and human responsibility without conflict. Acts 2:23 states of Jesus, “Though he was delivered up according to God’s determined plan and foreknowledge, you used lawless people to nail him to a cross and kill him.” The divine plan and human accountability coexist without contradiction.

The biblical presentation of God’s middle knowledge (foreknowledge of what free creatures would do under any circumstance) is consistent with this understanding. This is exemplified in Matthew 11:21-23 and 1 Samuel 23:9-13, where God demonstrates knowledge of potential outcomes based on human decisions.

The Philosophical and Theological Consequences of Neotheism

Neotheism introduces severe theological consequences that undermine the character of God as revealed in Scripture. A God who does not fully know the future cannot be trusted to fulfill His promises. The certainty of biblical hope depends on the certainty of God’s knowledge and power.

This uncertainty spills over into soteriology, eschatology, and providence. If God is unaware of future choices, then election, predestination, and ultimate victory over evil become conditional and potentially defeatable. This is antithetical to the consistent teaching of Scripture regarding God’s sovereign rule and the assurance believers have in His redemptive purposes.

Additionally, if God learns new information, this implies a deficiency in His nature, contradicting the biblical affirmation of His perfection and aseity (self-existence and independence). Malachi 3:6 explicitly states, “Because I, Jehovah, have not changed, you descendants of Jacob have not been destroyed.” The unchanging nature of God is foundational to the reliability of His promises and the stability of the created order.

Conclusion: Upholding the Biblical Doctrine of God Against Neotheistic Errors

Neotheism, despite its professed desire to enhance the relational understanding of God, ultimately diminishes the biblical portrayal of God’s omniscience, immutability, and sovereignty. It presents a diminished deity who is subject to time, discovery, and change—qualities incompatible with the self-revealed nature of Jehovah in Scripture.

The biblical witness affirms without ambiguity that God’s knowledge is exhaustive and includes all future contingencies, free choices, and necessary events. Attempts to reinterpret omniscience to fit human philosophical constructs of libertarian freedom result in serious theological errors that compromise essential Christian doctrine.

Faithful biblical theology requires adherence to the clear scriptural teaching of God’s perfect foreknowledge, unchangeable nature, and sovereign providence over all creation.

You May Also Enjoy

Neopaganism: A Biblical and Rational Examination of Modern Pagan Spirituality

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).