The Superiority of Open Theism Over Both Calvinism and Arminianism

[Clete]

The following essay is the result of an experiment I performed with a very specific sort of prompt that I used in ChatGPT. I wanted an essay that could serve as a primer for those interested in understanding how Open Theism differs from the "Settled View" and why those who hold to it consider it to be significantly superior. I was so impressed with the result that I felt compelled to share it here on TOL! It is, by the way, just a primer in that it does not attempt to fully establish each point but only does so in a brief and somewhat cursory way. To fully establish each point would turn into a book length project.

Please feel free to present any critiques and suggested improvements that you like!

The Logical Superiority of Open Theism Over Both Calvinism and Arminianism​

Defining the Core Positions​

Open Theism asserts that God, as an omniscient being, knows all possibilities but does not possess exhaustive foreknowledge of a determined future. This allows for genuine libertarian free will, meaning human choices are not merely preordained events but real decisions with open-ended outcomes. Open Theism maintains that God is sovereign, yet dynamically engaged with creation in a responsive manner.

Calvinism holds to exhaustive divine determinism, teaching that God has decreed all that comes to pass. This framework upholds meticulous providence, where human choices are ultimately the outworking of God’s predetermined plan. Consequently, free will, in the libertarian sense, is illusory, as every action is necessitated by divine causation.

Arminianism upholds God’s exhaustive foreknowledge but rejects determinism, arguing that God foreknows the future without causally determining it. While Arminianism affirms libertarian free will, it posits a paradox wherein human choices are fixed from eternity, raising questions about the coherence of genuine freedom within such a framework.

Establishing Logical Criteria​

A robust theological system must satisfy the following criteria:

1. Internal Consistency – The claims within the system must not contradict each other.
2. Explanatory Power – The framework should adequately address theological and philosophical issues such as moral responsibility, the problem of evil, and divine-human interaction.
3. Biblical Fidelity – It must align with scriptural teachings regarding God’s knowledge, sovereignty, and human responsibility.
4. Philosophical Coherence – The view must avoid logical paradoxes, such as affirming both exhaustive foreknowledge and libertarian free will simultaneously.

Critiquing Calvinism​

Calvinism’s commitment to exhaustive divine determinism presents significant logical and theological problems:

1. The Problem of Moral Responsibility – If God unchangeably ordains all human actions, then moral accountability collapses. Under Calvinism, sin and evil occur necessarily, making it incoherent to hold humans genuinely responsible for their actions.
2. The Problem of Evil – Calvinism requires that God decrees all evil events for His purposes. This raises an insurmountable difficulty: how can God be truly good if He causally determines atrocities?
3. Divine Relationality – The biblical depiction of God engaging with human decisions (e.g., Genesis 6:6, Exodus 32:14) contradicts the idea that all events are predetermined. Calvinism’s rigid determinism undermines the genuine responsiveness of God seen throughout Scripture.

Open Theism resolves these problems by affirming that God does not causally determine human choices but sovereignly interacts within an open-ended future, preserving both divine authority and human responsibility.

Critiquing Arminianism​

Arminianism, while affirming libertarian free will, faces a critical issue: the problem of simple foreknowledge. This issue arises because:

1. Foreknowledge and Providence – If God infallibly knows future events, He cannot change them. This means that, in practice, Arminianism functions as a form of theological determinism, negating true libertarian freedom.
2. The Static Future – If the future is eternally settled in God’s knowledge, then human decisions are predetermined in some sense, creating a contradiction within the Arminian framework.
3. Lack of Providential Control – Unlike Open Theism, which allows God to actively respond to unfolding events, Arminianism struggles to explain how God can meaningfully interact with a fixed future.

Open Theism provides a more coherent alternative by affirming divine omniscience of possibilities rather than a settled, unalterable future, allowing for genuine human freedom and divine providence.

Biblical Support​

Open Theism aligns with numerous biblical passages that depict God as engaging in dynamic interactions with creation:

• Genesis 6:6 – "And the Lord was sorry that He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved in His heart." This verse implies genuine regret, incompatible with exhaustive foreknowledge.
• Exodus 32:14 – "So the Lord relented from the harm which He said He would do to His people." If the future were fixed, divine relenting would be illusory.
• Jeremiah 18:7-10 – God explicitly conditions future outcomes on human response, demonstrating an open future rather than a predetermined one.

Conversely, proof texts used by Calvinists and Arminians (e.g., Isaiah 46:10) do not necessitate exhaustive foreknowledge but rather affirm God’s ability to accomplish His purposes amidst an open future.

Philosophical Superiority​

Open Theism surpasses both Calvinism and Arminianism by providing a coherent account of:

1. Genuine Human Freedom – By rejecting determinism and affirming an open future, Open Theism upholds true libertarian free will.
2. Divine Relationality – God’s interactions with creation are meaningful rather than scripted.
3. Theodicy – Open Theism offers a stronger defense against the problem of evil by affirming that not all events are divinely willed but occur within a world of genuine contingency.

Addressing Objections​

1. Does Open Theism Undermine Divine Sovereignty? No. Sovereignty does not require exhaustive determinism. Open Theism maintains that God, as the highest authority, governs creation while allowing for human agency.
2. Does Open Theism Undermine Prophecy? No. Predictive prophecy often involves conditional statements (Jeremiah 18:7-10). Fulfilled prophecies concerning Christ are based on divine intent, not exhaustive foreknowledge.
3. Does Open Theism Limit God’s Omniscience? No. Omniscience means knowing all that can be known. If the future is not yet determined, then God’s knowledge of all possibilities remains exhaustive.

Conclusion​

In comparison to Calvinism and Arminianism, Open Theism emerges as the most logically and theologically sound position. It avoids the fatalism of Calvinism and the paradoxes of Arminianism while offering a biblically faithful, philosophically robust framework. By affirming divine omniscience, genuine human freedom, and a dynamic relationship between God and creation, Open Theism presents the most coherent model of divine providence.