OPEN THEISM BY JOHN SANDERS

[HansJansenRSA]

A very good summary of open theism. I debated for a long time with pastors on the problems with foreknowledge. Calvinism just seemed evil in terms of the character of God, but it was consistent within itself, and Arminianism had too many logic flaws, and it always thought that if foreknowledge is true Calvinism is the only logically consistent option. A well executed and concise summary of the position.

[godrulz]

Open Theism is a more robust, explanatory, less problematic, biblical, coherent free will relational theism than the alternative models of providence (Calvinism, Arminianism, Molinism, Process Thought).

Well done, Dr. Sanders. Theological (biblical) and philosophical (coherent).

[staza]

This is really interesting, but just one suggestion. Try not to end every sentence by whispering. You start every sentence with a normal volume, but then gradually end every sentence in s sort of whispering mumble. It makes it hard to listen to without constantly adjusting volume. Just trying to help you make better videos on the future. Love the topic.

[seanconnolly]

This is the most sound idea of monotheism, and I would probably be an open theist myself, if I were a monotheist and not a polytheist.

[andrewhodkinson]

I'm sure this has been explored, but I wasn't really hearing it here. Could open theism know the future in that God is able to bring about his desired outcomes through controlling the present where desired. Thus, born in Bethlehem, raised after 3 days ... this can all be believed in as certain because of God's ability to control the present to bring certain prophesies to come about?

[magepunk]

This is the most biblically and philosophically consistent position.

[TheCrusaderRabbits]

I'm just waiting for the Calvanists to arrive. 🍿 🍿 🍿

[emanuelkournianos]

"The Lord opened Lydia's heart to respond to Paul's message!"
Acts 16:14

When did God decide to open Lydia's heart!

From all eternity!

Why does God open some hearts and not others so they will respond to the gospel?

Nobody knows but God is not arbitrary.

"First to those in Damascus, then to those in Jerusalem and in all Judea, and then to the Gentiles, I preached that they should repent and turn to God and demonstrate their repentance by their deeds!"
Acts 26:20

[NikoFinn]

This really denies God's foreknowledge of future. Calvinism is on one false end, then is open theism. How on earth can you take prophecy seriously in this belief? If God is merely making educated guesses about most future events, that undermines biblical truth of God knowing everything in the future. Everyone needs to understand that God's foreknowledge is not causative. God does respond and react with human beings but He can also know what will happen for certain, 100% accuracy.
I do know folks have answered this before but Jesus said Peter WILL deny Him. There is no way open theism is true

[bobbyadkins]

WOW. What an incredible way of making God sound so much less than what He is. The Bible teaches He is able to do exceedingly abundantly above all that we ask or think. Maybe this guy should go back and read all the prophecies of the Bible for a start and sincerely pray for understanding.

[mjack]

So when Jesus says so that scripture may be fulfilled. He was just guessing?

[bobbyadkins]

Nothing catches God off guard. Nothing takes God by surprise.

[brianwagner]

Here's some scriptural support.
Verses - future is not completely set in God's foreknowledge.

Genesis 2:19 NKJV — Out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the air, and brought them to Adam 👉to see👈 what he would call them. And whatever Adam called each living creature, that was its name.

Exodus 33:5 NKJV — For the LORD had said to Moses, “Say to the children of Israel, ‘You are a stiff-necked people. I could come up into your midst in one moment and consume you. Now therefore, take off your ornaments, 👉that I may know👈 what to do to you.’ ”

Jeremiah 18:11 NKJV — “Now therefore, speak to the men of Judah and to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, saying, ‘Thus says the LORD: “Behold, I am fashioning a disaster and 👉devising a plan👈 against you. Return now every one from his evil way, and make your ways and your doings good.” ’ ”

Matthew 24:20 NKJV — “And 👉pray that your flight may not be in winter👈 or on the Sabbath."

Matthew 26:39 NKJV — He went a little farther and fell on His face, and prayed, saying, “O My Father, 👉if it is possible👈, let this cup pass from Me; nevertheless, not as I will, but as You will.”

God's mind conforms univocally with what He has revealed in His Word. It's not locked in right now to seeing everything as "will be" or "is". God’s foreknowledge is dynamic and includes also the truth about what “might be” or “might not be”. This is called - dynamic omniscience.

1. Was God waiting to see what Adam would call the animals, to know what they would be called?

2. Was God waiting to see if Israel would take off their ornaments to know what He would do next?

3. Was God saying He was devising a plan which means making decisions in His mind not made before about the future.

4. Did Jesus affirm the disciples' prayer could effect the setting of the date of Jerusalem's fall, indicating Jesus' believed it might not yet be set?

5. Did Jesus pray about possible changes that could be made in God's will because He knew such changes were indeed possible?

The answer is an obvious "yes" to all those questions which are based on the clear meaning of those texts. If anyone thinks those texts don't clearly show those self evident implications it must be because they are biased against the idea of the future being able to work out more than one way.


The underlying issue in foreknowledge is if one is willing to believe that there are truly changes taking place in God's mind in His knowing a "before" that then becomes known as an "after" and a "might be" that then becomes known as either a "will be" or a "could have been".

Calvinism rejects that such change in God's mind exists before or after creation. Arminianism rejects that the idea of "before" creation means "before" and illogically accepts that changes in God's mind exist and don't exist at the same time. Molinism believes logically that some kind of change existed in God's mind before creation but which cannot happen now after creation.

Only Dynamic Omniscience offers the idea that God's mind corresponds with the truth and sequence revealed in His Word univocally. An event declared as "will be" was known only as "will be" in His mind. Once it happened, it became known as "fulfilled". Those declared as "might be" are only known as "might be". He will freely choose to cause or permit one "might be" to change in His mind to a "will be" and another "might be" into a "won't be/could have been".

The idea the future is limited to and locked in to working out only one way is a falsehood... or that changes happening in God's mind is imperfection is also a falsehood. God's Word counters clearly those falsehoods. And God's mind cannot believe falsehoods as truths.

Why would God say "Perhaps" if He wasn't confirming future possibilities do exist in His mind and that He was thereby denying that all is predestined? He would be lying to say "perhaps" if He already knew the outcome was opposite.

per·haps /pərˈ(h)aps/ adverb:
"used to express uncertainty or possibility."

4 Divine "Perhaps" in Scripture - Hebrew: אוּלַי֙ (see position of this word in brackets)

Jeremiah 26:3 NKJV — ‘Perhaps everyone will listen and turn from his evil way, that I may relent concerning the calamity which I purpose to bring on them because of the evil of their doings.’

Jeremiah 36:3 NKJV — “It may be [Perhaps] that the house of Judah will hear all the adversities which I purpose to bring upon them, that everyone may turn from his evil way, that I may forgive their iniquity and their sin.”

Ezekiel 12:3 NKJV — “Therefore, son of man, prepare your belongings for captivity, and go into captivity by day in their sight. You shall go from your place into captivity to another place in their sight. It may be [Perhaps] that they will consider, though they are a rebellious house.

Hosea 8:7 NKJV — “They sow the wind, And reap the whirlwind. The stalk has no bud; It shall never produce meal. If [Perhaps] it should produce, Aliens would swallow it up."

Was God uncertain? Yes, otherwise He is lying if He already knows what the outcome will be.

If I told you, “Perhaps my son will go to your church on Sunday”, while knowing for certain he and I will be going fishing, I would be lying to you. Right?

I believe the mind of God corresponds exactly and truthfully with His Word. His Word teaches clearly a future with some things set already to work out one way and many other things possible for Him and man to exercise free will concerning. His mind knows both the set things and the possible things as they presently are... and He knows them perfectly, set or not yet settled.

The thoughts in His mind also conform exactly to reality. The things once known as future by His predetermination now are known as past, after they happen. And the things once known as possible and undetermined now, after they happen, are now known as events that did happen or as counterfactuals that could have happened.

And God is certain that all the future possibilities are still possible. 😉

[jjohnston]

What a deterministic denial of determinism. 😂

[garyh]

My position is that God is always free, but if the future is settled and He knows all His future thoughts and choices He is unable to do otherwise, meaning that He’s not free.

[pikehightower]

Open Theism, and I am very new to this, appeals to me because God becomes active. His benevolence, love and hesed are not pre-fixed. He participates in the affairs of humans, both as provider and director. This falls right in line with how he is characterized in the Bible...engaging, responding, revealing, withholding...even out-witting the rebels who would throw it all in disarray.

Lord, bless this humble journey towards you and may we never assume to understand your ways that are not ours.

[DerKirchenhocker]

My greatest problem isn’t with the reasonableness of this perspective, but rather the ostracism it would get me if I proclaimed it too openly.

[josephalvinalmedatv]

There is only one omniscience in scripture. Why would you want God to know some and not some. Its all things.

[highlandbackrub]

The obvious barrier to this theology being truthr is Prophets, true prophesy (Isaiah, etc) and Revelation. If the Bible is inerrant, Open Theology is just speculation based on an idealistic version of God. Try proving OT with the Bible… it just doesn’t work.

[DerKirchenhocker]

Does God know all the future possibilities exhaustively? I guess you’re saying yes.