The Bible clearly teaches that God is sovereign over all creation, even the decisions of men. Scripture presents a God who not only foreknows but also ordains events according to His sovereign purpose. Open Theism, which asserts that God does not know all future events because human free will keeps the future "open," runs contrary to the biblical portrayal of God as all-knowing and all-powerful. This article explores how Scripture refutes the tenets of Open Theism, affirming that God’s omniscience and sovereignty extend over all things—including the future. The God of the Bible does not "discover" or "learn". Rather, He decrees all things by His infinitely wise counsel. To suggest otherwise is to ignore His omniscience and omnipotence, as affirmed in the following Scriptures:
“Behold, the former things are come to pass, and new things do I declare: before they spring forth I tell you of them” (Is 42:9).
"Who, as I, shall call, and shall declare it, and set it in order for me, since I appointed the ancient people? and the things that are coming, and shall come, let them shew unto them" (Is 44:7).
"Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure... I have spoken it, I will also bring it to pass; I have purposed it, I will also do it" (Is 46:10-11).
"I have declared the former things from the beginning; and they went forth out of my mouth, and I shewed them; I did them suddenly, and they came to pass. I have even from the beginning declared it to thee; before it came to pass I shewed it thee: lest thou shouldest say, Mine idol hath done them, and my graven image, and my molten image, hath commanded them" (Is 48:3, 5).
"Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations" (Jer 1:5).
"In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will" (Eph 1:11).
God’s Omniscience in Prophecy
The very nature of Bible prophecy demonstrates God’s ability to know and control the future with absolute certainty. Jesus knew Judas would betray Him (Jn 6:70-71), and God allowed His prophets to foresee events with perfect precision. When the apostle John was called up to heaven in Revelation, he was told:
"Come up hither, and I will shew thee things which must be hereafter." (Rev 4:1)
Open Theism implies that the future is inherently unknowable, even to God. However, the fact that God declares "the end from the beginning" (Is 46:10) and speaks authoritatively about future events shows that He knows the future fully.
The Limits of Human Free Will
Open Theism places undue emphasis on human free will, suggesting that God cannot intervene in human affairs without compromising it. However, Scripture teaches that while humans have free agency, it is limited and ultimately subject to God’s sovereign will. Proverbs says:
"Man's goings are of the Lord; how can a man then understand his own way?... The king's heart is in the hand of the Lord, as the rivers of water: he turneth it whithersoever he will." (Prov 20:24; 21:1)
God, in His sovereignty, can even direct human hearts and choices, as He did with Pharaoh when He hardened his heart (Ex 7:3).
Genesis 4:7 and Free Will
When God warned Cain that "sin lieth at the door," He was giving Cain the choice to resist sin. The fact that Cain failed does not imply unrestricted free will; rather, God’s prevenient grace enabled Cain to choose rightly, even though he ultimately did not.
"If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? And if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door. And unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him." (Gen 4:7)
God’s Nature and the Dangers of Open Theism
One of the most concerning aspects of Open Theism is its attempt to define God through human limitations. Open Theists argue that God cannot know the future because it does not yet "exist," as if the future is something God cannot envision or create before it materializes. In the same vein of logic, we can similarly insist that God cannot be everywhere all at once, or see all things simultaneously; nor have unlimited power over the universe, since such powers are unknown to man. By limiting any of God's divine attributes, we distort the biblical view of God, reducing Him to something less than sovereign.
Furthermore, altering God's attributes leads to idolatry, as we are effectively creating a new "god" distinct from the one revealed in Scripture. The Bible describes God as "all good," "all loving," "all knowing," "all just," and "all powerful." Altering any of these attributes turns God into something less than divine, and therefore, no longer supernatural.
Conditional Prophecies and Promises
Some biblical prophecies are indeed conditional, particularly those directed contemporaneously to the prophet’s living audience, such as the warning to Nineveh (Jonah 3:4-10) or King Hezekiah (2 King 20:1-11). However, the prophecies that declare future events relating to nations or people beyond the prophet's lifetime are absolute and not subject to alteration. Examples of this include the Great Tribulation, the rise of the antichrist, the Second Coming of Christ, and God's promises of a new eternal Kingdom. All such prophecies remain fixed and certain. This distinction undermines the Open Theist claim that God’s future declarations are conditional based on human response.
Open Theism Proof Texts & the Anthropomorphic Explanation
Open Theists frequently point to verses where God seems to be “learning” something new or “changing His mind” in order to support their view. But these passages make complete sense when understood as anthropomorphisms—expressions where God uses human language to help us grasp His actions. Anthropomorphism is a rhetorical device that doesn’t limit God or compromise His omniscience. Instead, it’s a way for Him to communicate His actions in human terms we can understand, making Him more personal, familiar, and relational. Here are some of the primary verses they reference and an explanation through the lens of anthropomorphism:
Genesis 6:6: "And it repented the Lord that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart."
Open theists argue that this verse suggests God regretted creating humanity due to unforeseen evil. However, this verse is better understood as an anthropomorphism, where God expresses His grief in human terms to convey the gravity of humanity’s sin. While “repentance” might imply change in humans, it reflects God’s sorrow in a way we can relate to without suggesting He was unaware of humanity's future rebellion. God’s use of human emotions shows His closeness to creation, allowing His people to understand His moral response to sin.
Exodus 32:14: "And the Lord repented of the evil which he thought to do unto his people."
Here, God "repenting" after Moses' intercession is another anthropomorphic expression. The relational and dynamic nature of intercession with God showcases His desire for a partnership with humans while emphasizing that His ultimate will was not altered. Just as God sought out Adam in the Garden, asking, "Adam, where art thou?" (Genesis 3:9), He invites Moses into a dialogue—expressing His righteous anger, yet ultimately revealing His mercy in response to Moses' plea. This anthropomorphic language encourages Believers to approach God with confidence, knowing that He values their petitions while remaining ultimately sovereign.
Isaiah 5:3-7: “And now, O inhabitants of Jerusalem, and men of Judah, judge, I pray you, betwixt me and my vineyard. What could have been done more to my vineyard, that I have not done in it? wherefore, when I looked that it should bring forth grapes, brought it forth wild grapes? And now go to; I will tell you what I will do to my vineyard: I will take away the hedge thereof, and it shall be eaten up; and break down the wall thereof, and it shall be trodden down.”
In these verses, open theists claim that God appears surprised and disappointed that His “vineyard” (Israel) produced “wild grapes” (representing sin and rebellion) instead of good fruit, suggesting He expected different results. However, this can be seen as another instance of anthropomorphic language. God presents Himself as a caring gardener who expresses sorrow over Israel’s disobedience to illustrate the seriousness of their rebellion and make His response relatable. The rhetorical question, “What could have been done more to my vineyard, that I have not done in it?” does not imply genuine ignorance or unmet expectations but communicates to the people of Israel how patient, generous, and protective He has been, thus underscoring their guilt in abandoning Him. His words are a call for self-examination, inviting Israel to “judge” His actions and realize the full extent of their moral failure.
God’s use of metaphor and emotion in this passage serves to emphasize His deep care for Israel and the grievous nature of their sins. Through this anthropomorphic language, God connects with human emotions, highlighting His moral displeasure while maintaining His omniscient understanding of Israel’s future disobedience.
Jeremiah 3:6-7: “The Lord said also unto me in the days of Josiah the king, Hast thou seen that which backsliding Israel hath done? she is gone up upon every high mountain and under every green tree, and there hath played the harlot. And I said after she had done all these things, Turn thou unto me. But she returned not. And her treacherous sister Judah saw it.”
Open theists argue that this verse depicts God as surprised by Israel’s persistent idolatry, expecting them to repent when they did not. However, the anthropomorphic reading helps clarify this passage as well. By using relatable expressions like “I said…Turn thou unto me,” God engages with His people’s perspective, speaking as if He hoped for repentance. This rhetorical approach is a way of emphasizing Israel’s hardened heart and their refusal to return to God despite His appeals. It does not mean that God was genuinely caught off guard by Israel’s rebellion, but rather that He is attempting to communicate to His people their need for repentance and His deep sorrow over their unfaithfulness. Much like a parent expressing disappointment in a child who disregards repeated advice, God’s words here convey both His hope and grief without suggesting that He was unaware of Israel’s actions. The statement, “Turn thou unto me,” serves as a powerful invitation and demonstrates His compassionate nature, not a limitation in His knowledge.
Jeremiah 18:7-10: "At what instant I shall speak concerning a nation, and concerning a kingdom, to pluck up, and to pull down, and to destroy it; If that nation, against whom I have pronounced, turn from their evil, I will repent of the evil that I thought to do unto them."
This passage seems to illustrate God’s adaptability based on human choices, a central tenet for open theists. However, it can also be viewed as God speaking in conditional terms to invite repentance. His “repentance” here does not imply He lacks foreknowledge but instead shows that His judgments are influenced by humanity’s response. God knows in advance how humanity will respond to His warnings of judgement, but He still invites us to participate in the process of events. God’s words to Jeremiah reveal His merciful nature, using relatable language to emphasize that He’s attentive to human repentance. Yet, this does not compromise His omniscient awareness of every possibility.
In all of these verses, God uses relatable human expressions to communicate His engagement with creation and His compassionate desire for Israel’s obedience in terms that people can understand. This rhetorical approach enhances His message of love, justice, and sorrow over sin without implying that He lacks foreknowledge or control. Thus, God’s expressions in these verses are not signs of surprise or ignorance but rather a way to connect with humanity, calling them to understand the weight of their rebellion and His call for repentance.
Counterpoints Against Open Theism
God's Perfection and Immutability
God’s Perfect Knowledge: Scripture states that God's understanding is infinite (Ps 147:5). If God’s knowledge grows or changes, He would lack the perfection of absolute knowledge and therefore wouldn’t be God.
Immutable Nature: Open Theism implies that God "learns" or "reacts," which contradicts the doctrine of immutability—God’s unchanging nature. Malachi 3:6 states, “For I the Lord do not change.”
Self-Sufficient Perfection: If God were capable of learning, He would need something external to add to His perfection, which would contradict His complete and self-sufficient nature.
God's Sovereignty and Foreordination
Predetermined and Inevitable Plan: “Forever, O Lord, thy word is settled in heaven” (Ps 119:89). God's plans are not subject to contingency. Open Theism risks turning the cross—a foreordained part of God’s redemptive plan (1 Pet 1:20)—into a mere contingency rather than the central act of salvation.
Eternal Purpose of Salvation: Key scriptures like Ephesians 1:3-14 and 2 Timothy 1:9 state that salvation was planned “before the foundation of the world,” revealing God’s knowledge of all events, including humanity’s fall.
God’s Foreknowledge and Biblical Prophecy
Exhaustive Foreknowledge: God’s prophecies reveal His knowledge of future events in detail, such as in Isaiah 42:9 and Isaiah 48:3-5. If God did not know all future acts, prophecy would be unreliable.
Trust in God's Word: Numbers 23:19 asserts that “God is not a man, that He should lie; neither the son of man, that He should repent.” Open Theism’s view that God can change or be surprised undermines the Bible's reliability and the Believer’s trust in God’s promises.
God’s Infallibility and Wisdom
God is Not Influenced by Man: Open Theism portrays figures like Moses as stopping God from being "impulsive," which suggests God might err without human intervention. This reduces God’s perfect wisdom and implies He might act less than righteously.
Infallible Plans: “Known unto God are all His works from the beginning of the world” (Acts 15:18). God’s plans, including Christ’s crucifixion, are not subject to change based on new circumstances, preserving the inerrancy and infallibility of His Word.
Relational Analogies and Human Limitations
Human Limitations Cannot Instruct God: Like a child who cannot "counsel" a parent, we cannot instruct or enlighten God (Is 40:13-14). To suggest otherwise, as Open Theism does, diminishes the vast gap between Creator and creation.
Isaiah 48:5 and Idolatry Warnings: God declares events before they happen “lest [we] should say, Mine idol hath done them.” This preemptive knowledge points to His sovereignty, distinct from any human predictability.
Issues of Free Will and Evil
God’s Control Over Evil: Open Theism asserts God only reacts to evil, limiting His sovereignty. However, Scripture shows that God can restrain evil, as seen when He set boundaries in Job’s trials. Thus, God allows evil within His purposes, not out of helplessness.
Purpose in Potentiality of Evil: If God created a world with the potential for evil but with no foreknowledge or purpose in it, it contradicts His wisdom. Open Theism portrays God as "surprised" by evil, which poses questions as to why He wouldn't then stop it if it caught Him off guard.
The Gospel and the Heart of the Christian Faith
Christ's Foreordained Sacrifice: If God did not foreknow each sin personally, He could not have “died for me.” This knowledge is central to the Gospel, revealing a love that planned for redemption in full awareness of human sin (Rom 5:8).
Trust in the Gospel’s Consistency: If God’s knowledge of events could shift, Believers have no assurance that the Gospel message will remain constant. This lack of trust undermines the security of salvation promised in Scripture.
Logical Inconsistencies of Open Theism
Single Foreknown Action: If God foreknows any single future free act, then He logically has the capacity to know all. Denying this limits His omniscience and contradicts the notion of an all-knowing Creator.
Rhetorical Weakness: A belief that cannot withstand direct questioning without evasion is often rooted in bias rather than rationality. Open Theism’s reliance on isolated verses misses the holistic message of Scripture and avoids difficult theological implications.
The Intercession of Moses & Open Theism
After the Israelites sinned by worshipping the golden calf, God tells Moses He’s ready to destroy them and start over with Moses' descendants. Moses pleads with God, reminding Him of His promises to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and ultimately, God relents (Ex 32:9-14). According to Open Theism, Moses had to step in and stop God from making an impulsive, rash decision. The idea that God needed a human to calm Him down sounds less like the God of the Bible and more like a misunderstanding of His character.
If we take Open Theism's interpretation, it sounds like Moses is "saving" God from making a hasty, emotional decision—as if God was on the verge of acting unjustly, and Moses talked Him out of it. Thank you, Moses, for supposedly keeping God from making a mistake or, worse, doing something that could be called a sin, right? No. If Moses had to “save” God from an outburst, what does that say about God’s nature? It would mean that God’s actions could fall short of perfection, relying on flawed humans to keep Him on track. But that’s not who God is. This perspective misses the point entirely and flips the biblical narrative on its head, making it sound like the all-knowing, all-wise Creator needed advice from a human being to act rightly.
Instead, the story actually demonstrates how God, who is perfect in knowledge and justice, uses moments of human intercession to reveal His compassion and the power of prayer, not that He’s swayed like a human with changing moods. So, God already knew the outcome, but allowed Moses to intercede in order to show His character, emphasizing His mercy and faithfulness to His covenant.
Open Theism Destroys Trust in God's Sovereign Foreknowledge and the Certainty of Prophecy
If God didn’t possess perfect knowledge of the future, it would raise profound issues with our ability to trust His promises and the reliability of Bible prophecy. Open theism implies a “flexible” future. But such flexibility would suggest that God could be surprised by future events, creating potential shifts in His plans that could affect the outcome of crucial events, such as the Second Coming of Christ or the ultimate judgement of the wicked.
If God were not certain of the future, His promises could only be as reliable as the knowledge available at any given moment. This would mean that unforeseen circumstances could prevent God from fulfilling His promises to His people, jeopardizing the very foundation of trust in Him. For example, passages like Isaiah 46:10, “Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure”, affirm God’s sovereign foresight and assurance that His plans will come to pass, providing confidence that His promises are unchangeable.
Biblical prophecy often presents specific events that God declares will happen. If God did not know the future, prophecies would be vulnerable to human choices and might turn out differently than declared. This could suggest that prophecy would need constant adjustments to align with unforeseen circumstances, which runs contrary to biblical passages such as Numbers 23:19, “God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?”. God’s omniscient nature ensures that His prophetic word is not tentative but final and reliable.
Believers find peace in the assurance that God’s plans are unchanging and that He is not blindsided by events, even those that may trouble or surprise us. For instance, the fulfillment of Christ’s death and resurrection, prophesied from ancient times (Isaiah 53), demonstrates God’s precise foreknowledge and unalterable purpose. God’s unchanging knowledge and plan provide an anchor for trust, knowing that His will is both good and beyond the reach of any unforeseen disruption.
Conclusion
In summary, open theism’s view of a God uncertain of the future fails to address the need for Believers to trust Him entirely. God’s anthropomorphic expressions are His way of relating to us without suggesting that His nature includes limited knowledge. Instead, these expressions draw us closer, revealing God’s willingness to meet us in terms we can grasp, while His omniscience assures us that His promises and purposes remain steadfast.
Comentarios