A Biblical Challenge to Traditional Views.  

What one believes about the inspiration and truthfulness of all that the Bible affirms matters. 


Biblical Open Theism seeks to promote a consistent affirmation of the God of the Bible in the tradition of a historically conservative Arminian theology. 

About Us

Why Biblical Open Theism?  In 1994 a book was published entitled "The Openness of God: A Biblical Challenge to Traditional Understandings of God",  Ed. Clark Pinnock.  It was affirmed there, among other theological ideas that the future had no present existence in a concrete or settled way except where God had revealed He was going to bring His plan of Redemption to pass.  The future free-choices of moral beings created in the Image and Likeness of their Creator did not precede their actual occurrence and were not properly objects of certain knowledge before hand. 

After twenty years of circulation and a theological label garnered as "Open Theism" that ethos has frittered away a confession of a "High View" of the inspiration and inerrancy of the Bible and all that it affirms to one that is only partially inspired. 

Now, the 'kind" of Biblical challenge to traditional understandings of God that requires qualification.  Consequently, those of us who already believed "that the future for God is partially indeterminate," thought it was time to declare for a truly Biblical Open Theism 

It is not affiliated with any other social media group that may use that name or similar title. 

The importance of "proving your view from Scripture". 

Biblical Open Theism re-affirms the older Arminian legacy of the denial of  Divine Decrees, A necessitated will, and "eternal now" in a biblically Conservative tradition. 

After Arminius's denial of Predestination other's, most notably the Wesley's joined the Remonstrants against Calvinism based on the dictates of conscience and a "high-view" of the inspiration and inerrancy of Scripture.  While Arminius is credited with the beginning of the theological break away group of Arminianiam, successive influences recognized that Arminius' original opinions on grace, predestination and free will did not have a chance to mature through the logical conclusion of those ideas.  

In the writings of Richard Watson in particular his "Theological Institutes or A View of the Evidences, Doctrines, Morals, and Institutions of Christianity" (1851), he denied a "philosophical theory" of free will (compatabilist free will contra Edwards) he also denied God's timelessness, or the "eternal now theory" of God's eternity and the problems associated with God's interaction with creatures of free will. 

L. D. McCabe brought Arminianism very decidedly in the direction of a logically consistent conclusion of "conscience" based theology expressed in a "high-veiw" of Scripture in "Divine Nescience of Future Contingencies A Necessity" (1882) & "Foreknowledge and Cognate Themes" (1882). 

Gordon C. Olson, a twentieth century ordained Baptist minster trained at Grace Theological Seminary with a Masters in Engineering used the Engineering method of research to do a top down study of the Scriptures and independently concluded that God did not live in and "eternal now" and Omniscience neither needed or wanted the kind of foreknowledge that traditional theology imputed to Him in "The Foreknowledge of God" (1941) & "The Omniscience of the Godhead: An Inductive Approach to Biblical Revelation" (1972).  

So it can be said that "The Openness of God" was, in truth something of a 'johnny come lately" in the Arminian tradition.  While it claimed to be a "Biblical" challenge to traditional understandings of God, it has so far born no resemblance to the historically conservative (see high-veiw) Biblical tradition of an older Arminianism.  


What Really Matters