Neither you nor
@Jordan understand what Open Theism is. You are arguing against something you have not taken the time to understand, but you have believed a strawman version of Open Theism that closed theist have invented to poison the well against their opposition.
Open theism simply asserts that God is free and has the power to do something different from what He originally intended to do, and therefore the future has not been settled from the beginning. Rather than this being a weak God who merely observes from the sidelines, this is a Powerful and wise God who is able to interact with the decisions of creatures to keep His ultimate goals viable no matter what creatures choose to do.
Closed Theism asserts that God has always known from the beginning of creation exactly what will happen at every point in history. That is what both exhaustive predeterminism (e.g Calvinism) and exhaustive foreknowledge or compatibilism (e.g. Molinism)) all assert. If anyone concedes that God can change the future from what He originally expected to happen, even in one point, they are an open theist. This version of God is weaker and less wise that the Open God, because He cannot have confidence that He id able to achieve His ultimate purposes without either controlling or knowing in advance absolutely every possible move of His creatures.
A quick search explains there are several options to Open and Closed theism:
The Major “Middle” Positions
1. Molinism (Middle Knowledge)
This is the most commonly cited middle position.
Core idea:
God knows:
What could happen (all possibilities)
- What would happen in any possible circumstance
- What will happen in the world He chooses to actualize
Why it’s a middle ground:
God has exhaustive foreknowledge
Humans still possess libertarian free will
God does not cause free choices but sovereignly orders the world knowing how people will freely act
Why many like it:
Preserves God’s omniscience
Avoids fatalism
Explains prophecy and providence without coercion
Common critique:
Relies on “counterfactuals of freedom,” which some say lack grounding
Simple Foreknowledge
Another widely held mediating view.
Core idea:
God knows the future exhaustively because it will happen, not because He determines it.
God’s knowledge does not cause events; it simply reflects them.
Why it’s a middle ground:
God knows all future free choices
God does not determine them
No denial of omniscience, unlike Open Theism
Common critique:
Hard to explain how foreknowledge doesn’t still imply necessity
Less philosophically developed than Molinism
Compatibilism (Soft Determinism)
Often associated with Reformed theology, but still distinct from strict determinism.
Core idea:
Human choices are free in the sense that we act according to our desires
God sovereignly ordains all events, including free choices
Why it’s sometimes seen as “between”:
Rejects Open Theism
Redefines freedom rather than eliminating it
Why some reject it:
Freedom feels redefined, not preserved
Libertarian freedom is denied
Classical Theism with Relational Language
A growing number of theologians maintain classical attributes but interpret biblical language carefully.
Core idea:
God is timeless and unchanging in essence
Scriptural depictions of God “changing His mind” are anthropomorphic or relational, not metaphysical
Why it feels like a middle path:
Takes biblical relational language seriously
Retains classical doctrine without Open Theism’s conclusions
Where Most Evangelicals Land Today
Among conservative evangelical scholars:
Colonist and Simple Foreknowledge are the most common bridging positions
- Open Theism remains a minority view
- Classical determinism is often softened to preserve moral responsibility
Bottom Line
Yes—there is not just one, but several accepted positions between Open and Closed Theism.
Most Christians who reject Open Theism still want to avoid a rigid determinism, and those positions exist precisely to do that.
