How does open theism address the issue of divine knowledge of the future, and what are the objections of classical theists against it?

Open theism is a contemporary philosophical-theological movement that emerged in the 1980s, offering a new conception of the relationship between God and time, particularly regarding God's knowledge of the future. This movement provokes deep controversy in contemporary philosophy of religion and deserves precise understanding of its arguments and the objections of its opponents.

Inadequate Responses to Avoid

From some defenders of open theism:

"God knows everything that can be known, and the free future cannot be known." This is a reductive oversimplification. This formulation ignores the philosophical complexities regarding the nature of divine knowledge and the nature of time itself. It also assumes that "the free future" is a clear, unproblematic concept, which is incorrect.

"Open theism solves the problem of evil." This is an exaggerated claim. Even if it solves some aspects of the problem, it creates other theological problems that may be more difficult, as we shall see.

From some classical theists:

"Open theism is outright heresy that denies God's perfection." This is a hasty accusation. Proponents of open theism believe in God's perfection, but they redefine what "perfection" means in the context of divine knowledge. The discussion should be about the validity of this redefinition, not about intentions.

"Denying comprehensive foreknowledge means denying prophecies." This confuses different levels. Open theism does not deny the possibility of prophecies but offers a different interpretation of them (God's knowledge of what He will do, or of very high probabilities).

Why These Responses Are Inadequate

They share in failing to deal with real philosophical complexities. Open theism is not merely a "heresy" or "magical solution," but a serious philosophical attempt with strengths and weaknesses that deserve systematic analysis.

What Is Open Theism?

Open Theism is a movement that emerged from within evangelical Protestantism, with key pioneers: Clark Pinnock, John Sanders, Gregory Boyd, William Hasker, and David Basinger. The central idea: God truly interacts with the world in time, and the future is truly "open," not completely determined.

Basic theses of open theism:

1. God in time: God is not completely "outside time" but experiences temporal succession in some way.

2. Dynamic divine knowledge: God's knowledge grows with the development of events. What was an undetermined future becomes a determined present.

3. Genuine libertarian freedom: Humans possess genuine freedom incompatible with determinism (libertarian free will), and their free decisions are not predetermined.

4. Divine knowledge limited to the possible: God knows everything that can be known. But future events that depend on free decisions do not yet exist, so they cannot be known with certainty.

Philosophical Arguments for Open Theism

The argument from genuine freedom:
If God knows with absolute certainty that you will choose X tomorrow, how can you be truly free to choose Y? Comprehensive foreknowledge seems incompatible with libertarian freedom. Open theism solves this by saying that God knows all possibilities and everything that is determined, but does not know with certainty what you will freely choose.

The argument from genuine relationship:
Religious texts describe God as one who "regrets" or "changes His mind" or "responds" to prayer. If God knows everything beforehand, these expressions become empty metaphors. Open theism takes them seriously: God truly interacts with human decisions.

The argument from the nature of time:
If the A-theory of time is correct (the future does not yet exist), how can one know what does not exist? Knowledge requires an object, and the future in A-theory is not an existing object.

Objections from Classical Theists

The objection from divine perfection:
If God does not know the future in detail, He is deficient in knowledge. And deficiency is unworthy of God. Response from open theism: God has perfect knowledge, knowing everything that can be known. Not knowing what cannot be known is not a deficiency, just as God's inability to create a square circle is not a deficiency in power.

The objection from prophecies:
Sacred scriptures are full of detailed prophecies that were fulfilled. How is this possible if God does not know the future? Response: Prophecies are either (1) about God's own actions that He decided to perform, or (2) about very high probabilities that God knows through His wisdom, or (3) fulfilled through special divine intervention.

The objection from divine providence:
If God does not know the future, how can He care for creation and guide it toward its purposes? God's plan might fail! Response: God is wise and powerful enough to deal with any contingency. Divine providence is dynamic, not a rigid plan.

The metaphysical objection from divine simplicity:
In classical theology, God is simple (non-composite). If God's knowledge changes, then God changes, and this contradicts divine simplicity and immutability. This is a deep objection that strikes at the foundation of classical metaphysics.

Evaluating Arguments and Objections

Strengths of open theism:

- Takes human freedom with utmost seriousness
- Interprets interactive language in religious texts in a straightforward manner
- Aligns with A-theory of time preferred by many contemporary philosophers
- Offers a partial solution to the problem of evil (God did not know beforehand all detailed evils)

Its weaknesses:

- Conflicts with centuries of classical theology (Islamic, Christian, Jewish)
- Creates new theological problems (can we trust God's promises if He does not completely control the future?)
- The proposed solution for prophecies seems forced in some cases
- Requires radical rethinking of classical divine attributes

Middle Alternatives

Molinism: God knows not only what will happen, but what would happen in any possible circumstance (middle knowledge). This preserves both comprehensive foreknowledge and freedom.

Theological compatibilism: Human freedom is compatible with divine foreknowledge, because knowledge does not cause events. God's knowledge that you will choose X does not force you to choose X.

Modified divine timelessness: God is outside time, seeing all events "at once" from an eternal perspective, but interacts with creatures from within their temporal experience.

Where We Stand in This Discussion Today

Open theism remains a minority position, but it has influenced contemporary theological discussion in important ways:

1. Forced classical theologians to refine their arguments and clarify their positions
2. Opened serious discussion about the relationship between metaphysics of time and theology
3. Highlighted genuine tensions between freedom and foreknowledge

The prevailing academic position: Most philosophers of religion reject open theism, but they acknowledge that it raises legitimate questions that deserve better answers from classical theology.

A Deeper Philosophical Point

The discussion about open theism reveals a fundamental tension in philosophy of religion: between preserving divine mystery/transcendence (classical theists) and making God "understandable" and "close" (open theism). This tension is as old as theology itself, and open theism is merely a contemporary formulation of it.

For Advanced Reading

- Advanced level: Middle knowledge (scientia media) in Molina as a middle solution
- Advanced level: William Craig's critique of open theism from a Molinist perspective
- Clark Pinnock et al., The Openness of God (IVP, 1994)
- John Sanders, The God Who Risks (IVP, 2007)
- Paul Helm, Eternal God: A Study of God without Time (Oxford, 2010)
- William Lane Craig, The Only Wise God (Wipf & Stock, 1999)