What do you think?
Rate this book
God of the Possible: A Biblical Introduction to the Open View of God
Through an examination of relevant biblical passages, this theologian-pastor presents an alternative "open view" to the classical doctrine on God's foreknowledge of the future.
176 pages, Paperback
First published May 1, 2000
89 people are currently reading
642 people want to read
About the author
Gregory A. Boyd
94 books350 followersGregory A. Boyd is the founder and senior pastor of Woodland Hills Church in St. Paul, Minn., and founder and president of ReKnew. He was a professor of theology at Bethel College (St. Paul, Minn.) for sixteen years where he continues to serve as an Adjunct Professor.
Greg is a graduate of the University of Minnesota (BA), Yale Divinity School (M.Div), and Princeton Theological Seminary (PhD). Greg is a national and international speaker at churches, colleges, conferences, and retreats, and has appeared on numerous radio and television shows. He has also authored and coauthored eighteen books prior to Present Perfect, including The Myth of a Christian Religion, The Myth of a Christian Nation, The Jesus Legend (with Paul Eddy), Seeing Is Believing, Repenting of Religion, and his international bestseller Letters from a Skeptic.
Greg is a graduate of the University of Minnesota (BA), Yale Divinity School (M.Div), and Princeton Theological Seminary (PhD). Greg is a national and international speaker at churches, colleges, conferences, and retreats, and has appeared on numerous radio and television shows. He has also authored and coauthored eighteen books prior to Present Perfect, including The Myth of a Christian Religion, The Myth of a Christian Nation, The Jesus Legend (with Paul Eddy), Seeing Is Believing, Repenting of Religion, and his international bestseller Letters from a Skeptic.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 101 reviews
February 21, 2011
God of the Possible by Dr. Gregory Boyd was a difficult read for me. It is a theological book that challenges the traditional view of God (mostly my ideas) and argues for the ‘open view of the future.’ It was difficult for me, not because the writing was poor or that the logic was faulty, but the exact opposite. This was an easy-to-understand book that took me awhile because I had to put it down so frequently to think about the ideas that were being presented. (Mainly because he launched an arsenal of WMD’s on my theology).
Boyd received his Ph. D. from Princeton Theological Seminary, his M.Div. from Yale Divinity School, and taught theology for 16 years at Bethel University in Minnesota. He is undoubtedly a smart dude. If I was being gut-level-honest, prior to reading this book I would have just assumed you called it, ‘an introduction to what bad theologians think.’ Pretty arrogant huh? But, lately the idea of the ‘open view of God’ or the ‘open view of the future’ has gained some traction with close friends. I wanted to investigate for myself what the theology was all about, honestly expecting to better refute the ideas once I learned them.
In a nutshell, the open view argues that the future is partly open – that means it includes BOTH possibilities and certainties. An open theist, in their opinion, is NOT arguing against God’s omniscience (this was my primary misunderstanding). They instead will argue about the nature of reality and the future, which is why the theology is also called ‘the open view of the future.’ This view says that God knows ‘all things that can be known’ but the nature of reality prohibits God from knowing the future exhaustively.
I know what you’re thinking, and believe me, I’m thinking it too: But God knows ALL THINGS past, present, and future!
Gregory Boyd argues that the ideas of God knowing all things exhaustively, God functioning outside of time, and being COMPLETELY unchanging, are ideas that have transferred over from classical Greek philosophy, namely Plato. Boyd refutes classical theological notions of God foreknowing all things and predetermining every outcome by pointing to the overwhelming amount of times that God relents, repents, changes His mind, and reacts to human behavior. These examples in the classical/traditional motif are described as ‘anthropomorphisms’ or the attribution of human characteristics to God. And for some reason that explanation has never quite jived with me… maybe in a couple of examples I can understand – but dozens and dozens of times seem too much to write it off as a human way of understanding what God is doing.
I’m not at all saying I’m buying into these ideas but it has certainly launched a search for me to investigate why I believe what I believe… are my beliefs rooted in scripture, or are they derivatives of teachings and hand-me-down notions of God that have been around for hundreds of years? Our view of God should always be drawn from the conclusions that we extract from the Word of God, as opposed to blindly believing what is said by people we respect (that is not to say these traditions are wrong). My opinion of people who adhere to the Open View has dramatically changed… It is not a dumb theology that ignores logic and scripture, nor is it based solely on emotional arguments. It really does raise a great deal of questions for me that I need to answer. And if anything, it helped me to see again that our disagreements with our brothers & sisters over doctrines and dogmas do nothing to either of our positions in the body of Christ. We are still family.
God of the Possible is a great read that utilizes powerful rhetoric. And despite what conclusions I may come to, it made me think about the nature of God all week, and then some – something I believe a 5 point Calvinist or an intense Open Theist would agree is a good thing (I hope). And for that reason, I would put it on the 4th bookshelf out 5.
check out my book review site: https://mephibosheth311.wordpress.com/
Boyd received his Ph. D. from Princeton Theological Seminary, his M.Div. from Yale Divinity School, and taught theology for 16 years at Bethel University in Minnesota. He is undoubtedly a smart dude. If I was being gut-level-honest, prior to reading this book I would have just assumed you called it, ‘an introduction to what bad theologians think.’ Pretty arrogant huh? But, lately the idea of the ‘open view of God’ or the ‘open view of the future’ has gained some traction with close friends. I wanted to investigate for myself what the theology was all about, honestly expecting to better refute the ideas once I learned them.
In a nutshell, the open view argues that the future is partly open – that means it includes BOTH possibilities and certainties. An open theist, in their opinion, is NOT arguing against God’s omniscience (this was my primary misunderstanding). They instead will argue about the nature of reality and the future, which is why the theology is also called ‘the open view of the future.’ This view says that God knows ‘all things that can be known’ but the nature of reality prohibits God from knowing the future exhaustively.
I know what you’re thinking, and believe me, I’m thinking it too: But God knows ALL THINGS past, present, and future!
Gregory Boyd argues that the ideas of God knowing all things exhaustively, God functioning outside of time, and being COMPLETELY unchanging, are ideas that have transferred over from classical Greek philosophy, namely Plato. Boyd refutes classical theological notions of God foreknowing all things and predetermining every outcome by pointing to the overwhelming amount of times that God relents, repents, changes His mind, and reacts to human behavior. These examples in the classical/traditional motif are described as ‘anthropomorphisms’ or the attribution of human characteristics to God. And for some reason that explanation has never quite jived with me… maybe in a couple of examples I can understand – but dozens and dozens of times seem too much to write it off as a human way of understanding what God is doing.
I’m not at all saying I’m buying into these ideas but it has certainly launched a search for me to investigate why I believe what I believe… are my beliefs rooted in scripture, or are they derivatives of teachings and hand-me-down notions of God that have been around for hundreds of years? Our view of God should always be drawn from the conclusions that we extract from the Word of God, as opposed to blindly believing what is said by people we respect (that is not to say these traditions are wrong). My opinion of people who adhere to the Open View has dramatically changed… It is not a dumb theology that ignores logic and scripture, nor is it based solely on emotional arguments. It really does raise a great deal of questions for me that I need to answer. And if anything, it helped me to see again that our disagreements with our brothers & sisters over doctrines and dogmas do nothing to either of our positions in the body of Christ. We are still family.
God of the Possible is a great read that utilizes powerful rhetoric. And despite what conclusions I may come to, it made me think about the nature of God all week, and then some – something I believe a 5 point Calvinist or an intense Open Theist would agree is a good thing (I hope). And for that reason, I would put it on the 4th bookshelf out 5.
check out my book review site: https://mephibosheth311.wordpress.com/
February 5, 2014
After reading an interesting interview with Greg Boyd online, I picked up this book and enjoyed it a lot. I'm not fully convinced of his case, but the book certainly convinced me that Open Theism is no heresy. It is, instead, a means of trying to reconcile God's sovereignty and man's free will in a satisfactory way. Having remained unconvinced by the attempts of Calvinism to deal with free will and the Arminian attempt to explain God's sovereignty, I found this to be an interesting suggestion for a third way that avoids the problems of both.
I've read most of the anti-Open Theist texts available, but I never bothered to read the other side, and this is usually a key problem. Most of these "refutations" never even got to the heart of Open Theism's question.
Open Theism's central question is, "Why do we take the texts talking about God's sovereignty as representing God as He is in Himself, but take passages that speak of God's emotions or of His changing His mind as figurative?" A number of these other books have talked about the doctrine of impassibility, but none of them ever really answered why it is they believe this. Scripturally speaking, using exegesis rather than philosophy, they have not done.
So anyway. You learn all kinds of nifty things here, for example, that Boyd doesn't deny God's providence or that God will ultimately accomplish His purposes. They don't deny God any knowledge, either, they simply argue that classical theism has actually limited God to the actual, rather than the plurality of possibilities. That is, God knows all possible options and ends for every possible choice every single atom in the universe can make, and so like a GPS, no matter what turn is taken, He can reroute everything so that every single aspect of His will and purposes are accomplished in the world. Boyd uses the example of a master chess player, who knows the consequences of every move his opponent can make and is ready to respond to anything they can do.
The book challenged me and forced me to wrestle with Scripture again. I don't begrudge any book that, in fact, that's the best thing any book can really do. As I say, I am not fully convinced their thesis works, but I found aspects of it compelling, for example, the idea of the vulnerable God, and their criticism of a theology of God that begins and ends with authority, power, control, and will, rather than love, which is how Scripture defines God in His being.
I've read most of the anti-Open Theist texts available, but I never bothered to read the other side, and this is usually a key problem. Most of these "refutations" never even got to the heart of Open Theism's question.
Open Theism's central question is, "Why do we take the texts talking about God's sovereignty as representing God as He is in Himself, but take passages that speak of God's emotions or of His changing His mind as figurative?" A number of these other books have talked about the doctrine of impassibility, but none of them ever really answered why it is they believe this. Scripturally speaking, using exegesis rather than philosophy, they have not done.
So anyway. You learn all kinds of nifty things here, for example, that Boyd doesn't deny God's providence or that God will ultimately accomplish His purposes. They don't deny God any knowledge, either, they simply argue that classical theism has actually limited God to the actual, rather than the plurality of possibilities. That is, God knows all possible options and ends for every possible choice every single atom in the universe can make, and so like a GPS, no matter what turn is taken, He can reroute everything so that every single aspect of His will and purposes are accomplished in the world. Boyd uses the example of a master chess player, who knows the consequences of every move his opponent can make and is ready to respond to anything they can do.
The book challenged me and forced me to wrestle with Scripture again. I don't begrudge any book that, in fact, that's the best thing any book can really do. As I say, I am not fully convinced their thesis works, but I found aspects of it compelling, for example, the idea of the vulnerable God, and their criticism of a theology of God that begins and ends with authority, power, control, and will, rather than love, which is how Scripture defines God in His being.
November 12, 2023
Love it! Eine schöne Mischung aus biblischen und pastoralen Perspektiven. Boyd kann zu dem „Open-View-of-God“-Lager gezählt werden, dass auf einen zu starren (Neo-)Calvinismus („Young, Restless, Reformed“) in den Staaten reagiert. Ich bewundere ihn dafür, dass er so ausgewogen bleibt und darauf verzichtet, Namen von den reformierten Vertretern (sind meist Männer) zu nennen, die er kritisiert. Wenn ich alte Schule wäre, würde ich sagen: „Ein richtiger Gentleman“. Meine Vermutung war, sein Buch wäre stärker einseitig, da es aus einem reaktionärem Anliegen heraus entstanden ist. Well done!
Ausbaubedarf gibt es sicherlich bei der Exegese. Wie schnell manche Verse überflogen werden, wird sicherlich nicht denen gefallen, die grundsätzlich skeptisch an diese Open-View-These herangehen. Auch könnte ein weiteres Kapitel mit den philosophischen Grundannahmen und Problemen eines streng deterministischen Gottesbildes aufschlussreich sein.
Ausbaubedarf gibt es sicherlich bei der Exegese. Wie schnell manche Verse überflogen werden, wird sicherlich nicht denen gefallen, die grundsätzlich skeptisch an diese Open-View-These herangehen. Auch könnte ein weiteres Kapitel mit den philosophischen Grundannahmen und Problemen eines streng deterministischen Gottesbildes aufschlussreich sein.
July 2, 2025
4.5 ⭐️
5 stars for an introductory book, but personally 4 stars because it wasn’t a fuller treatment. Unfair scale, I know, but this is my show.
5 stars for an introductory book, but personally 4 stars because it wasn’t a fuller treatment. Unfair scale, I know, but this is my show.
January 30, 2013
Greg Boyd is one of my favorite authors and this book helps the reader understand the driving principles of his theology. I happen to understand God through the open lens and see it lining up with the whole counsel of Scripture. I appreciate Boyd's heart and the depth in which he uses Scripture. People are free to disagree with him, but they can't accuse him of not teaching the Word. I believe that the open view, as espoused in this book, paints the most accurate picture of God and after reading this book, I want to know God more. I love him more, trust him more and want to follow him more. That, to me, makes a good theology book. The book is 'heady' and, at times, very philosophical. I was able to track with his arguments and found myself nodding agreement. If you are interested in being challenged and exposed to a new (and very accurate) way of looking at God, this is a must read.
October 15, 2025
A really great intro to the 'open view' of God's foreknowledge (the idea that God does not determine or know the entire future, but instead, to retain true free will, there is a part of the future where he 'only' knows all possible choices and permutations and their outcomes). Boyd spends much of the book refuting the classical Calvinist view of God's perfect foreknowledge by explaining how scripture clearly shows God changing his mind on various occasions. Boyd also takes time to show how saying (as he does) that the future is partially open, it does not actually decrease God's sovereignty or omniscience, it increases it.
This is really accessible to someone like me who's never formally studied theology. It's given me a lot to think about and puzzle through.
This is really accessible to someone like me who's never formally studied theology. It's given me a lot to think about and puzzle through.
May 12, 2008
Controversial! The future is partially open to God. Boyd places an emphasis on the Biblical texts that speak of God changing his mind, or being grieved, or giving people options – and constructs a new theology of God – referred to as Open Theism or Neothism. In all fairness, Boyd does not give up God’s sovereignty, but redefines it. His views have created a flurry of evangelical scholarship defending the traditional/classical view of God, even suggesting that Boyd’s views fall outside of the pale of orthodoxy. While I remain unconvinced by Boyd’s arguments, I find his emphasis on a God who seriously “interacts” (or “dances,” to use one of his terms) stimulating.
June 17, 2013
There is not a lot not to love about this book, unless you are a determinist. It is well written, concise, effective, and what is likely the best introduction to the idea of 'Open Theism' that I can imagine. It remains quite disconcerting that there are aspects of the future that God possibly does not know, but Boyd fills in the blanks quite nicely. Whether or not you accept Open Theism after reading this one, you most likely will have to admit it makes way more sense than Determinism.
February 26, 2013
I read this after reading "Letters..." because I had questions about Boyd's Open View as presented to his father. Never having been completely comfortable with the classical arguments presented by Calvin or Arminius, I am intrigued by Boyd's presentation and by the evidence he brings from Scripture. Those who want to label him a blasphemer or heretic go too far.
January 8, 2012
When Bible Study Becomes Scary
When I was young, my parents hosted a couples’ Bible study on Sunday nights. While my parents studied in the community of believers, I listened to music and played video games in the office.
One Sunday evening, I remember my mother visibly shaken after a study. During the Bible study, one member shared with the group his personal study on the actions God cannot perform. The very thought, to my mother, seemed heretical. God is God right? God can do anything!
But the personal study held certain amounts of truth. God promised that he would never destroy the earth by flood again; the Bible tells us that God cannot lie. In both instances, God intentionally limits himself.
Despite general agreement amongst the Evangelical church about God’s limits, many Christians believe that the all-powerful God knows the future comprehensively. But does Scripture point to this theological belief?
In God of the Possible, theologian and pastor Gregory Boyd argues for the open view of God: a perspective that suggests God does not conclusively know the future.
The Classical View of Foreknowledge
Classically, Christianity echoes platonic sentiments which espouse a philosophy of an unchanging and limitless God. From these principles, Christians argue that God is omnipotent, omniscient, and omni-present. But Boyd questions,
“If the future is indeed exhaustively settled in God’s mind, as the classical view holds, why does the Bible repeatedly describe God changing his mind? Why does the Bible say that God frequently alters his plans, cancels prophecies in the light of changing circumstances, and speaks about the future as a ‘maybe,’ a ‘perhaps,’ or a ‘possibility’? Why does it describe God as expressing uncertainty about the future, being disappointed in the way things turn out, and even occasionally regretting the outcome of his own decisions? If the Bible is always true—and I, for one, assume that it is—how can we reconcile this way of talking about God with the notion that the future is exhaustively settled in his mind” (11)?
The Open View of God
Given these questions, Boyd proposes the open view of God: the idea that God, as illustrated in Scripture, is capable of changing his mind regarding future events. Instead of a God so set in determined actions as a micromanager, Boyd argues that God is personable, capable of being swayed, and a kind ruler. Yet despite a belief in an open future, Boyd points toward a God who remains all-powerful. He argues,
“Open theists, rather, maintain that God can and does predetermine and foreknow whatever he wants to about the future. Indeed, God is so confident in his sovereignty, we hold, he does not need to micromanage everything. He could if he wanted to, but this would demean his sovereignty. So he chooses to leave some of the future open to possibilities, allowing them to be resolved by the decisions of free agents. It takes a greater God to steer a world populated with free agents than it does to steer a world of pre-programmed automatons” (31).
In other words, Boyd maintains that God manages a world of choices within parameters that God has set in his infinite power. As an analogy, if I plan to travel to New York City, I must make choices regarding my travel plans in order to ensure successful transportation. Yet, my decisions only make sense given the assumption that New York City exists.
At its core, God of the Possible contends that Christians must rethink the way they interpret the Bible. Currently, the seemingly contradictory passages about free will and determinism are often interpreted in such a way that one set is read literally and the other figuratively. Boyd believes, however, that an open theism allows for a literal reading of both free will and deterministic passages.
A Mischaracterization of the Classical View
Although Boyd offers compelling arguments, I believe he misunderstands the central reasons for belief in an all-powerful, all-knowing, and ever-present God. While many critics believe that such a God limits free will and arbitrarily chooses those who are saved and those who are condemned, Christians who believe in determinism possess such ideas because they do not feel like humanity is capable of understanding spiritual truths by their own power.
Put differently, deterministic Christians ask, “Who are we to choose salvation? If we have the power to make this decision, are we not more powerful than God?” God must reveal himself to a Christian before a response. Wouldn’t this God know those who choose him and those who do not?
Foreknowledge: Having Your Cake and Eating It Too
Additionally, I think God of the Possible rejects determinism in order to side with free will. Despite the attempt to accept both conflicting ideas, Boyd leans toward free will. I suggest, however, that both free will and determinism can exist with an all-powerful God.
Imagine you must make a choice between two options. Supposing God is all-powerful, all-knowing, and ever-present, God would know the causal chain behind either of the choices you could make. Thus, God not only knows how the future will unfold given the choice you make, he also know the course of events from the choice you didn’t make. Expanding this principle to every choice from every person, and you have a God who knows everything that everyone will ever do while we at the same time maintain free will.
While complicated, I suggest that such an idea better describes the seemingly contradictory statements as seen in the Bible. Are there things God can’t do? Perhaps. Scripture certainly hints at ways in which God limits himself. Nevertheless, self-limitation does not mean that God is not all-powerful, all-knowing, and ever-present. With God of the Possible, Gregory Boyd asks some interesting questions. Yet, I find his arguments inconclusive. God of the Possible is worth a read, but do so with a critical eye.
Originally published at http://wherepenmeetspaper.blogspot.com
When I was young, my parents hosted a couples’ Bible study on Sunday nights. While my parents studied in the community of believers, I listened to music and played video games in the office.
One Sunday evening, I remember my mother visibly shaken after a study. During the Bible study, one member shared with the group his personal study on the actions God cannot perform. The very thought, to my mother, seemed heretical. God is God right? God can do anything!
But the personal study held certain amounts of truth. God promised that he would never destroy the earth by flood again; the Bible tells us that God cannot lie. In both instances, God intentionally limits himself.
Despite general agreement amongst the Evangelical church about God’s limits, many Christians believe that the all-powerful God knows the future comprehensively. But does Scripture point to this theological belief?
In God of the Possible, theologian and pastor Gregory Boyd argues for the open view of God: a perspective that suggests God does not conclusively know the future.
The Classical View of Foreknowledge
Classically, Christianity echoes platonic sentiments which espouse a philosophy of an unchanging and limitless God. From these principles, Christians argue that God is omnipotent, omniscient, and omni-present. But Boyd questions,
“If the future is indeed exhaustively settled in God’s mind, as the classical view holds, why does the Bible repeatedly describe God changing his mind? Why does the Bible say that God frequently alters his plans, cancels prophecies in the light of changing circumstances, and speaks about the future as a ‘maybe,’ a ‘perhaps,’ or a ‘possibility’? Why does it describe God as expressing uncertainty about the future, being disappointed in the way things turn out, and even occasionally regretting the outcome of his own decisions? If the Bible is always true—and I, for one, assume that it is—how can we reconcile this way of talking about God with the notion that the future is exhaustively settled in his mind” (11)?
The Open View of God
Given these questions, Boyd proposes the open view of God: the idea that God, as illustrated in Scripture, is capable of changing his mind regarding future events. Instead of a God so set in determined actions as a micromanager, Boyd argues that God is personable, capable of being swayed, and a kind ruler. Yet despite a belief in an open future, Boyd points toward a God who remains all-powerful. He argues,
“Open theists, rather, maintain that God can and does predetermine and foreknow whatever he wants to about the future. Indeed, God is so confident in his sovereignty, we hold, he does not need to micromanage everything. He could if he wanted to, but this would demean his sovereignty. So he chooses to leave some of the future open to possibilities, allowing them to be resolved by the decisions of free agents. It takes a greater God to steer a world populated with free agents than it does to steer a world of pre-programmed automatons” (31).
In other words, Boyd maintains that God manages a world of choices within parameters that God has set in his infinite power. As an analogy, if I plan to travel to New York City, I must make choices regarding my travel plans in order to ensure successful transportation. Yet, my decisions only make sense given the assumption that New York City exists.
At its core, God of the Possible contends that Christians must rethink the way they interpret the Bible. Currently, the seemingly contradictory passages about free will and determinism are often interpreted in such a way that one set is read literally and the other figuratively. Boyd believes, however, that an open theism allows for a literal reading of both free will and deterministic passages.
A Mischaracterization of the Classical View
Although Boyd offers compelling arguments, I believe he misunderstands the central reasons for belief in an all-powerful, all-knowing, and ever-present God. While many critics believe that such a God limits free will and arbitrarily chooses those who are saved and those who are condemned, Christians who believe in determinism possess such ideas because they do not feel like humanity is capable of understanding spiritual truths by their own power.
Put differently, deterministic Christians ask, “Who are we to choose salvation? If we have the power to make this decision, are we not more powerful than God?” God must reveal himself to a Christian before a response. Wouldn’t this God know those who choose him and those who do not?
Foreknowledge: Having Your Cake and Eating It Too
Additionally, I think God of the Possible rejects determinism in order to side with free will. Despite the attempt to accept both conflicting ideas, Boyd leans toward free will. I suggest, however, that both free will and determinism can exist with an all-powerful God.
Imagine you must make a choice between two options. Supposing God is all-powerful, all-knowing, and ever-present, God would know the causal chain behind either of the choices you could make. Thus, God not only knows how the future will unfold given the choice you make, he also know the course of events from the choice you didn’t make. Expanding this principle to every choice from every person, and you have a God who knows everything that everyone will ever do while we at the same time maintain free will.
While complicated, I suggest that such an idea better describes the seemingly contradictory statements as seen in the Bible. Are there things God can’t do? Perhaps. Scripture certainly hints at ways in which God limits himself. Nevertheless, self-limitation does not mean that God is not all-powerful, all-knowing, and ever-present. With God of the Possible, Gregory Boyd asks some interesting questions. Yet, I find his arguments inconclusive. God of the Possible is worth a read, but do so with a critical eye.
Originally published at http://wherepenmeetspaper.blogspot.com
February 7, 2024
Great overview of the open view from a biblical perspective. This book is not as comprehensive but that is on purpose. Boyd's intent is to clarify the open view's stance on God's foreknowledge as not denying omniscience, but denying what can be known about the future. Boyd's position is very strongly in line with Molinism. Contrary to other open theists, Boyd believes (in this book) that God perfectly knows all possible future events as well as perfectly knowing the content of every individual's character. This allows God to place where he needs them to bring about his providence. While not all open theists would describe foreknowledge of providence in this way - Boyd does a great job making his case. Agree with him or not, he has at least made a thorough attempt at making sense of the vast scriptures on the topic.
June 24, 2023
Awful. Read for school paper.
May 22, 2025
3 because it wasn't as clear until he got to the Q&A part at the end.
4 because it has given me a lot to think about.
Taking a look at the other side next.
4 because it has given me a lot to think about.
Taking a look at the other side next.
July 25, 2021
Changed my perspective on God and prayer!!
“He enlists our input, not because he needs it, but because he desires to have an authentic, dynamic relationship with us as real, empowered people.”
“He is not a unilaterally controlling God; he is a graciously flexible God.”
Only gave it 3 stars because it was written more light a thesis paper.
“He enlists our input, not because he needs it, but because he desires to have an authentic, dynamic relationship with us as real, empowered people.”
“He is not a unilaterally controlling God; he is a graciously flexible God.”
Only gave it 3 stars because it was written more light a thesis paper.
September 7, 2019
God is not a solitary metaphysical monad, He is relational, living, dynamic, creative, and responsive. The open view of God allows us to think more Biblically about God and His nature, to entertain ideas delineated in scripture, and take the Bible seriously when it describes how God interacts with time. God’s knowledge is complete, but there are aspects of the future that are determined by the free choices of human beings.
Greg does a great job laying out the Biblical case for the openness of God, as well as responding to many common objections all in one compact, succinct volume. Pro or con, this book will drive you to consider what the scriptures reveal to us about the nature of God and his relationship to the future.
Greg does a great job laying out the Biblical case for the openness of God, as well as responding to many common objections all in one compact, succinct volume. Pro or con, this book will drive you to consider what the scriptures reveal to us about the nature of God and his relationship to the future.
May 8, 2015
This book asks a lot of good questions about the nature or depth of God's foreknowledge. Boyd's position is that God is indeed all knowing, but that, for the most part, God leaves the future "open" or "unsettled." That is to say that the future isn't eternally settled, and God doesn't know all of the exact decisions you will make. That leaves God also open to be able to change his mind on issues, such as giving Hezekiah 15 more years to live. The position of "Open Theism" puts much more responsibility in our hands though, as it gives us the ability to work with God to create the future.
One thing that I didn't really see as a strong argument was Boyd's questions about why God makes people who won't be saved. I'm not a believer that God personally creates everyone that exists. It might have been a stronger argument if he were to ask why God didn't providentially intervene so those who were going to be lost eternally never made it to an age where they would be accountable for their sins, but he didn't.
Like always, Boyd is a little bit outside of the box, but it really does well to read his material. This book will challenge you to think about how you view God. What the understanding of God that you have leads to in your actions. It will make you question how active of a roll you believe you have in future events, and challenge you regardless to actually be more active in prayer and works.
One thing that I didn't really see as a strong argument was Boyd's questions about why God makes people who won't be saved. I'm not a believer that God personally creates everyone that exists. It might have been a stronger argument if he were to ask why God didn't providentially intervene so those who were going to be lost eternally never made it to an age where they would be accountable for their sins, but he didn't.
Like always, Boyd is a little bit outside of the box, but it really does well to read his material. This book will challenge you to think about how you view God. What the understanding of God that you have leads to in your actions. It will make you question how active of a roll you believe you have in future events, and challenge you regardless to actually be more active in prayer and works.
January 24, 2012
Thankful for a work that common folk like me can read. Greg is candid that people should not be divided over this issue in the unity Christ has set up with his own flesh and blood, nor should they pretend to be ignorant about differences people have towards such issues. To paraphrase John Stott, not using our mind to think for ourselves on this issue (Calvinism/Arminianism/Open Theism/Molinism etc) is an insult to our Creator who designed us to use our minds to think.
Great introduction, Bible-based and compelling. Opened my eyes to interpret the second motif of openness about the future in a rigorous and non-escapist light. Also helped me unearth some of the inconsistencies I had in my vague beliefs about God in this aspect..
Great introduction, Bible-based and compelling. Opened my eyes to interpret the second motif of openness about the future in a rigorous and non-escapist light. Also helped me unearth some of the inconsistencies I had in my vague beliefs about God in this aspect..
August 31, 2014
While I'm sure Greg Boyd is a very nice man, I feel his understanding and explanation of divine sovereignty and foreknowledge is theologically shallow and wrong-headed. Bruce Ware has written multiple books that address the exegetical shortcomings of open theism that I would highly recommend if you are looking for a solid response to Boyd's articulation of open theism. Personally, I was borderline annoyed at his constant accusations towards classical theists of misinterpreting 'straight forward' scripture ONLY when it suited their cause BUT completely avoided or creatively reinterpreted 'straight forward' scripture that didn't portray open theism in a positive light. In my opinion, I didn't feel is was a fair and honest approach to the matter of open theism.
April 27, 2022
A quick read. Achieves its purpose of being highly accessible while presenting a persuasive case for the open view of the future. In fact, I think even the simplified version of the rationale for open theism given here is irrefutable; I'm sure people determined to believe that God has always foreknown that they will believe that he has always foreknown that they will believe that he has always foreknown that they will believe…think they have good arguments against it, but they are mistaken. And if I'm the one here who's wrong, well, I had no say in the matter, so it's useless to try to convince me otherwise.
As you can see, I am convinced that open theism is the only way we can have free will, and since I am convinced that we have free will (you might say, I have no choice but to believe in free will), I believe in open theism.
Now, if you want to save yourself the trouble of reading the book, what's the quick summary of the main claims that leaves out all the supporting details? The Bible depicts God as determining and therefore foreknowing with certainty some things about reality while leaving others up to the decisions of created free agents, implying that the future at any given moment consists in part of genuine possibilities that God knows as such. This accords better with our experience and intuitions, as well as with modern science (as of the turn of the millennium), than the classical view wherein God possesses exhaustive definite foreknowledge, and also encourages us to take an active role in shaping the future and helps us know God as truly perfectly good, since he never in any sense wills specific evils (he created out of chaos/darkness/evil and is in the process of ordering/illuminating/redeeming his whole creation, but sometimes that primordial (did I use that word correctly?) state still manifests itself). This makes better sense of hell, but that idea ultimately remains incoherent, as Boyd inadvertently suggests himself by stating on page 46 that "if it were up to God alone, he would save everyone" and then turning around and affirming on page 51 that "he will ultimately achieve his objectives for creation." Of course, since writing this book, he has moved from infernalism to annihilationism (which he floated as a possibility in Letters from a Skeptic: A Son Wrestles with His Father's Questions about Christianity, and which troubled me when I encountered it therein in late 2016 because I was sure it was heresy) and now to hopeful universalism, and I think deep down he believes in universalism, but he can't fully embrace it until he retires because if he embraced it he would feel obligated to preach it, and that would cause trouble. Anyway, I guess I'm forced to conclude that Matthew 26:24, which he cites on pages 11 and 73, is hyperbole expressing Jesus' genuine sorrow and not a solemn, literal proclamation of precisely how things really are.
Continuing this theme, here are some other things in the book that universalism tidies up. On pages 137 and 138, he has to play the typical word games with "works" to maintain that "we are saved totally by God's grace"; Calvinists are right to object to this mighty thin argument. But if we simply deny that "some people are saved and other people are not," we can maintain that salvation truly is purely an act of God while also upholding "Scripture's teaching that God's love is universal and impartial and that he wants everyone to be saved." Also, on page 140, it is true that "we are misinterpreting [Romans 9] if we think it teaches that God's will is decisive in determining who will be saved and who will be damned"…UNLESS (see The Lorax) all are saved, in which case we don't even have to worry about whether the passage concerns individual destinies. It's kind of funny how clearly universalism lets one see the gaping holes in both Calvinist and Arminian interpretations of scripture (for the record, the holes are probably larger in the latter case). It just makes sense of everything.
So. Any open-minded person (so, not a Calvinist) who reads this book will emerge at the very least entertaining the possibility [;)] of open theism, but it's not perfect, given its repeated invocation of hell to prove its point. Think about it: is risking any ultimate evil worth it? Presumably God at one point existed alone, implying that there was no evil anywhere in existence. Then he created, and evil appeared (I'm not sure what terminology to use; you can't really say that "evil came into being," because evil has no real existence, but, like, the extension of the unary predicate "evil" was empty, and then it became nonempty, or something like that). If any of that evil persists forever, then the act of creating results in no increase in goodness (because God is already infinite goodness) while resulting in a positive increase in evil. I think we would like to avoid that conclusion. I'm sure people have rebutted this argument many times before, but I've never seen such a rebuttal, unless you count Jerry Walls's idea that God's love is displayed in hell in its ability to be rejected…but that just sidesteps the real issue without addressing it.
(Wed 27 Apr 2022 06:04:59 AM CDT)
As you can see, I am convinced that open theism is the only way we can have free will, and since I am convinced that we have free will (you might say, I have no choice but to believe in free will), I believe in open theism.
Now, if you want to save yourself the trouble of reading the book, what's the quick summary of the main claims that leaves out all the supporting details? The Bible depicts God as determining and therefore foreknowing with certainty some things about reality while leaving others up to the decisions of created free agents, implying that the future at any given moment consists in part of genuine possibilities that God knows as such. This accords better with our experience and intuitions, as well as with modern science (as of the turn of the millennium), than the classical view wherein God possesses exhaustive definite foreknowledge, and also encourages us to take an active role in shaping the future and helps us know God as truly perfectly good, since he never in any sense wills specific evils (he created out of chaos/darkness/evil and is in the process of ordering/illuminating/redeeming his whole creation, but sometimes that primordial (did I use that word correctly?) state still manifests itself). This makes better sense of hell, but that idea ultimately remains incoherent, as Boyd inadvertently suggests himself by stating on page 46 that "if it were up to God alone, he would save everyone" and then turning around and affirming on page 51 that "he will ultimately achieve his objectives for creation." Of course, since writing this book, he has moved from infernalism to annihilationism (which he floated as a possibility in Letters from a Skeptic: A Son Wrestles with His Father's Questions about Christianity, and which troubled me when I encountered it therein in late 2016 because I was sure it was heresy) and now to hopeful universalism, and I think deep down he believes in universalism, but he can't fully embrace it until he retires because if he embraced it he would feel obligated to preach it, and that would cause trouble. Anyway, I guess I'm forced to conclude that Matthew 26:24, which he cites on pages 11 and 73, is hyperbole expressing Jesus' genuine sorrow and not a solemn, literal proclamation of precisely how things really are.
Continuing this theme, here are some other things in the book that universalism tidies up. On pages 137 and 138, he has to play the typical word games with "works" to maintain that "we are saved totally by God's grace"; Calvinists are right to object to this mighty thin argument. But if we simply deny that "some people are saved and other people are not," we can maintain that salvation truly is purely an act of God while also upholding "Scripture's teaching that God's love is universal and impartial and that he wants everyone to be saved." Also, on page 140, it is true that "we are misinterpreting [Romans 9] if we think it teaches that God's will is decisive in determining who will be saved and who will be damned"…UNLESS (see The Lorax) all are saved, in which case we don't even have to worry about whether the passage concerns individual destinies. It's kind of funny how clearly universalism lets one see the gaping holes in both Calvinist and Arminian interpretations of scripture (for the record, the holes are probably larger in the latter case). It just makes sense of everything.
So. Any open-minded person (so, not a Calvinist) who reads this book will emerge at the very least entertaining the possibility [;)] of open theism, but it's not perfect, given its repeated invocation of hell to prove its point. Think about it: is risking any ultimate evil worth it? Presumably God at one point existed alone, implying that there was no evil anywhere in existence. Then he created, and evil appeared (I'm not sure what terminology to use; you can't really say that "evil came into being," because evil has no real existence, but, like, the extension of the unary predicate "evil" was empty, and then it became nonempty, or something like that). If any of that evil persists forever, then the act of creating results in no increase in goodness (because God is already infinite goodness) while resulting in a positive increase in evil. I think we would like to avoid that conclusion. I'm sure people have rebutted this argument many times before, but I've never seen such a rebuttal, unless you count Jerry Walls's idea that God's love is displayed in hell in its ability to be rejected…but that just sidesteps the real issue without addressing it.
(Wed 27 Apr 2022 06:04:59 AM CDT)
July 22, 2010
I loved Boyd's approach to the future and God's sovereignty in Scripture. Boyd voiced a philosophy I have held for years, but never been able to put in words. That is, that the future hasn't happened, that it is partially settled and partially open. Well written with an overload of Scriptural support.
June 17, 2014
Boyd argues clearly and fairly. Not everyone will find him convincing, but his astute reflections and calm analysis may serve to shift certain deterministic presuppositions and to combat a kind of folk Christian fatalism that simply accepts whatever happens with the bland "God is in control" cliche.
March 9, 2014
Excellent overview of the "Openness of God." A much needed corrective to the Reformed fad sweeping through evangelical circles.
May 28, 2022
“This means that even on a quantum level the future is partly open and partly settled. It seems that the balance between openness and settledness permeates reality. The world at every level seems to be constituted as a marvelous dance that exemplifies both form and freedom. There is structure and spontaneity, predictably and unpredictability everywhere we look . . . God is an eternal triune dance of love who eternally displays structure and freedom. His creation, which He invites to join his dance, manifests the same balance of structure and freedom. The freedom within structure that characterizes our lives manifests it.”
The God of the Possible hit me over the head with a sobering dose of “how did I never realize or consider this?” I had never understood Open Theism before reading this book and had always thought of the system as using a few obscure texts in order to override an entire scriptural motif. But in this work, Gregory Boyd explains that Open Theists do not believe that the future is entirely open. Indeed, Boyd insists that God does foreknow aspects of the future—in some cases because He gets involved in order to ensure that His ultimate purposes get carried out and in some cases because He simply knows humankind or individuals well enough to see their choices with relative certitude. Thus, Boyd claims that the future is partly open and partly settled. Now my worldview has been challenged. Which can be a bit unsettling, but it is also exciting. I must say that I do find open theism to be a very inspiring view; maybe my future might be up to me to determine in a more profound way than I ever realized!
I appreciate that this book is driven by scripture primarily and only touches on philosophy secondarily. Gregory Boyd came to view the future as partly open not due to philosophical questions, but due to questions that he wrestled with that came from scripture itself. He does an excellent job in this work at illustrating how at least the old testament authors clearly seemed to view the future as partly open. And, while I still feel that some examples in scripture of God being portrayed as changing His mind can be understood in an apomorphic manner, I am no longer convinced that this can be necessarily sustained exegetically in every case—especially seeing that sometimes the whole point of the passages in question seems to be that God indeed changes His mind. *I am looking at you, Jeremiah 18*
Ultimately, The God of the Possible makes for an excellent work that should at least challenge anyone with an open mind and open heart.
The God of the Possible hit me over the head with a sobering dose of “how did I never realize or consider this?” I had never understood Open Theism before reading this book and had always thought of the system as using a few obscure texts in order to override an entire scriptural motif. But in this work, Gregory Boyd explains that Open Theists do not believe that the future is entirely open. Indeed, Boyd insists that God does foreknow aspects of the future—in some cases because He gets involved in order to ensure that His ultimate purposes get carried out and in some cases because He simply knows humankind or individuals well enough to see their choices with relative certitude. Thus, Boyd claims that the future is partly open and partly settled. Now my worldview has been challenged. Which can be a bit unsettling, but it is also exciting. I must say that I do find open theism to be a very inspiring view; maybe my future might be up to me to determine in a more profound way than I ever realized!
I appreciate that this book is driven by scripture primarily and only touches on philosophy secondarily. Gregory Boyd came to view the future as partly open not due to philosophical questions, but due to questions that he wrestled with that came from scripture itself. He does an excellent job in this work at illustrating how at least the old testament authors clearly seemed to view the future as partly open. And, while I still feel that some examples in scripture of God being portrayed as changing His mind can be understood in an apomorphic manner, I am no longer convinced that this can be necessarily sustained exegetically in every case—especially seeing that sometimes the whole point of the passages in question seems to be that God indeed changes His mind. *I am looking at you, Jeremiah 18*
Ultimately, The God of the Possible makes for an excellent work that should at least challenge anyone with an open mind and open heart.
July 18, 2024
A VERY CONTROVERSIAL---YET VERY THOUGHT-PROVOKING BOOK
Gregory A. Boyd (born 1957) is a Christian theologian, Senior Pastor of the Woodland Hills Church, and President of Christus Victor Ministries. He has also written a number of other books such as 'Letters from a Skeptic: A Son Wrestles with His Father's Questions about Christianity,' 'Satan & the Problem of Evil: Constructing a Trinitarian Warfare Theodicy,' etc.
He wrote in the Preface to this 2000 book, "In this book I'd like to explain... how a Bible-believing Christian could come to believe... that the future is not exhaustively settled." He begins the book by posing a number of difficult questions, such as that if the destiny of every person who will eventually end up in hell is settled before they are born, why does God continue to try to get them to accept his grace throughout their lives? (Pg. 10-11)
After asserting that God does NOT foreknow future actions, he explains that this is because there is, in this view, "nothing definite for God to know!" In short, God has a "lack of definite foreknowledge of future free actions" of humans. (Pg. 16) He elaborates that although it was certain that Jesus would be crucified, "it was not certain from eternity that Pilot (sic), Herod, or Caiphas would play the roles they played" in the crucifixion, since they participated in Christ's death from their own free will. (Pg. 45)
He argues that Jesus' prayer in Gethsemane "presupposes" that divine plans and possible future events are, in principle, alterable. (Pg. 71) More controversially, he argues that it was not foreknown with a certainly when God created Hitler what his later actions would be. (Pg. 98) He strongly asks why, if God eternally foreknew that certain individuals would not be saved, why would he go ahead and create such individiuals? (Pg. 100)
He suggests that Christians do not pray as passionately as they might, because they don't see how it could make any significant difference. (Pg. 95)
No one is "forced" to accept Boyd's arguments and conclusions---which, obviously, contradict centuries of Christian creeds (he admits that the Open view "has been relatively rare in church history"; pg. 115). Still, he doesn't shy away from asking the "tough questions," and this book can definitely stretch one's theological mental "muscles."
Gregory A. Boyd (born 1957) is a Christian theologian, Senior Pastor of the Woodland Hills Church, and President of Christus Victor Ministries. He has also written a number of other books such as 'Letters from a Skeptic: A Son Wrestles with His Father's Questions about Christianity,' 'Satan & the Problem of Evil: Constructing a Trinitarian Warfare Theodicy,' etc.
He wrote in the Preface to this 2000 book, "In this book I'd like to explain... how a Bible-believing Christian could come to believe... that the future is not exhaustively settled." He begins the book by posing a number of difficult questions, such as that if the destiny of every person who will eventually end up in hell is settled before they are born, why does God continue to try to get them to accept his grace throughout their lives? (Pg. 10-11)
After asserting that God does NOT foreknow future actions, he explains that this is because there is, in this view, "nothing definite for God to know!" In short, God has a "lack of definite foreknowledge of future free actions" of humans. (Pg. 16) He elaborates that although it was certain that Jesus would be crucified, "it was not certain from eternity that Pilot (sic), Herod, or Caiphas would play the roles they played" in the crucifixion, since they participated in Christ's death from their own free will. (Pg. 45)
He argues that Jesus' prayer in Gethsemane "presupposes" that divine plans and possible future events are, in principle, alterable. (Pg. 71) More controversially, he argues that it was not foreknown with a certainly when God created Hitler what his later actions would be. (Pg. 98) He strongly asks why, if God eternally foreknew that certain individuals would not be saved, why would he go ahead and create such individiuals? (Pg. 100)
He suggests that Christians do not pray as passionately as they might, because they don't see how it could make any significant difference. (Pg. 95)
No one is "forced" to accept Boyd's arguments and conclusions---which, obviously, contradict centuries of Christian creeds (he admits that the Open view "has been relatively rare in church history"; pg. 115). Still, he doesn't shy away from asking the "tough questions," and this book can definitely stretch one's theological mental "muscles."
May 2, 2025
I figured since I am 10 books deep at this point into Gregory Boyd‘s collection, I should probably read his introduction to open theism. 🤷🏼♀️
To be honest, I have never been super interested in the debate around God‘s sovereignty vs. our free will. I’m not a philosopher and most of the debates around this subject have been boring at best and extremely divisive at their worst. But there are questions I have that a better rounded theory on this issue would certainly help resolve, so I read this book with some skeptical optimism.
I can’t say I exhaustively understand open theism after this short introduction, and I’m sure it is not a perfect theory. Whilst working at a bookstore that carried literature on open theism, I saw a handful of people want those titles taken off the shelves because they deemed them as heresy (which made me all the more curious). 🧐 However, after reading an introduction to open theism, I really don’t understand why the strong reaction.
From what I understand, holding an open view of God resolves a number of issues regarding the problem of evil, the urgency of prayer, and reconciling passages in the Bible that seem to contradict themselves, all well maintaining the highest view of both God and Scripture possible.
I appreciate that Boyd opens his book with the statement that, “Next to the central doctrine of the Christian faith, the issue of whether the future is exhaustively settled or partially open is relatively unimportant.” The way this conversation has divided family and friends is deeply unappealing to me, and it seems to often take us away from the Great Commission.
However… after reading this book, I must agree with Boyd when he says: “I have to confess that the perspective I came to embrace has had a rather profound impact on my life. Among other things, I have found that parts of the Bible in certain aspects of life make much more sense to me now than they did before. I’ve discovered a new appreciation and excitement regarding my own responsibility and bringing about the future. The passion and urgency with which I pray has increased immensely. And, and because of this position, I no longer struggle with the problem of evil the way I used to.”
10 out of 10 recommend 🥇
To be honest, I have never been super interested in the debate around God‘s sovereignty vs. our free will. I’m not a philosopher and most of the debates around this subject have been boring at best and extremely divisive at their worst. But there are questions I have that a better rounded theory on this issue would certainly help resolve, so I read this book with some skeptical optimism.
I can’t say I exhaustively understand open theism after this short introduction, and I’m sure it is not a perfect theory. Whilst working at a bookstore that carried literature on open theism, I saw a handful of people want those titles taken off the shelves because they deemed them as heresy (which made me all the more curious). 🧐 However, after reading an introduction to open theism, I really don’t understand why the strong reaction.
From what I understand, holding an open view of God resolves a number of issues regarding the problem of evil, the urgency of prayer, and reconciling passages in the Bible that seem to contradict themselves, all well maintaining the highest view of both God and Scripture possible.
I appreciate that Boyd opens his book with the statement that, “Next to the central doctrine of the Christian faith, the issue of whether the future is exhaustively settled or partially open is relatively unimportant.” The way this conversation has divided family and friends is deeply unappealing to me, and it seems to often take us away from the Great Commission.
However… after reading this book, I must agree with Boyd when he says: “I have to confess that the perspective I came to embrace has had a rather profound impact on my life. Among other things, I have found that parts of the Bible in certain aspects of life make much more sense to me now than they did before. I’ve discovered a new appreciation and excitement regarding my own responsibility and bringing about the future. The passion and urgency with which I pray has increased immensely. And, and because of this position, I no longer struggle with the problem of evil the way I used to.”
10 out of 10 recommend 🥇
October 16, 2012
Does God know in advance all of history, including the future, down to the last detail? Or does God experience the future as we do: as an array of possibilities that are not yet decided?
My cousin and her husband gave this book to me while I was visiting them. I told them I wanted some good theology and they literally pressed it into my hands. I had no idea what it was about.
It turns out to be a very thorough theological argument for what is known as the ‘Open View’ of God. In the ‘Classical View’ of God, he ‘knows the future exhaustively’. Since God is unchanging and outside of time, the Classical View reasons, he knows everything that will happen ever. He knows the outcomes to all events (so these events cannot be changed) and he knows every decision human agents will make in advance (so these decisions cannot be changed).
You can probably see the troubling implications of the Classical View already: if God has predetermined history, isn’t he responsible for all the evil in it? If he has predestined everyone, doesn’t that mean he is intentionally condemning people to Hell?
Personally, this view of God has never sat well with me. I never really articulated it, but it seemed to me that if God really made humans as agents with free will that he would have be to some degree limited by our decisions. Most people who believe in God don’t like the idea of limits on him. Isn’t he supposed to be all powerful? Wouldn’t any limit on God diminish his sovereignty?
Maybe. It never bothered me that God might allow limits to be placed on himself for a specific purpose (like creating beings with free will). But again, I didn’t really articulate that or follow the argument any further.
In God of the Possible: A Biblical Introduction to the Open View of God, Gregory Boyd does just that.
The Open View of God states that the future is only partially known by God. Actually, that’s not accurate. In the Open View of God, God knows all of the future that there is to know, but some parts of the future simply do not exist yet. They are undecided. God does not know them because they are not facts that can be known as yet.
This probably seems counter-intuitive, but in fact we live with a ‘partially known’ future every day. There are certain things that you can count on when you are making plans for tomorrow, like the fact that the sun will rise or the fact that the grocery store will be still be where it was yesterday. But you can’t count on whether the clerk at the grocery store will be nice to you, or if you boss will give them the raise you asked for.
Another analogy comes from quantum physics and statistics: while at the sub-atomic level particles are unpredictable and their motions indeterminate, over trillions of particles this unpredictability averages out to the point where you can, say, throw a ball and know that it will predictably obey Newton’s laws of motion and not go shooting up into space or curving around you.
In the Open View of God, he knows certain things that will definitely happen and he can, in his vast knowledge, see the broad strokes of history. But he doesn’t necessarily know every individual event or decision that will occur.
It would be difficult to summarize all of Boyd’s points and keep this review concise, but there are three main thrusts to his argument that God has an ‘open view’ of the future:
1. Scriptural support.
There are many, many passages in scripture that speak of God changing his mind, speaking in conditional terms, getting frustrated and even regretting things he has done because they turned out badly. If God knows the future exhaustively, none of this makes any sense. You could call it a metaphor, but if it is it’s one God uses a lot throughout scripture, and with no hints that he is not speaking literally. Particularly telling is Jeremiah 18 in which God literally asks the people of Israel to pray and try to change his mind.
2. A God who takes risks is greater than a God who does not.
To those who feel that the Open View of God challenges God’s sovereignty, Boyd points out that we’re looking at God’s sovereignty from a human perspective. In our perspective, to be totally sovereign is to have absolute control over everything. But is that really true? Is a God who controls his creation like puppets on a string more impressive than a God who takes risks and allows people to go their own way, even knowing they might not do what he wants them to do? A God who is flexible, adaptive and able to take into account the myriad possibilities of the future certainly seems more impressive to me than an unchanging puppeteer who risks nothing.
3. Free will requires an open future.
If God knows all our decisions in advance we can have only the illusion of free will, not free will itself. If God knows our decisions in advance he is also responsible for those decisions, because he created the conditions necessary for us to make them. Our free will is meaningless.
One of Gregory Boyd’s most compelling arguments is that the Classical View of God is not really Biblical at all - it comes from Plato’s philosophy, in which ideals were perfect and unchanging. But to apply this view to God, you have to take hundreds of verses across all of scripture as metaphors.
In fact, you have to believe that God is being downright misleading in places. God states outright in scripture that he changes his mind, that he is surprised by things that happen, and even that he does not know a person’s character until he tests them. If God wanted to tell us that the future is open, not set and unchangeable, how much clearer could he get?
Of course there are objections: God prophesies about the end times, says that he is unchanging and that he ‘knows the beginning from the end’. But Boyd has ready answers for all these arguments. For example, it’s easy for God to know the end times without knowing the future exhaustively, since he clearly plans to step in and take control of things at that point! God knows his own mind, and his character is unchanging.
And he knows everything about the future that there is to know. But because of his grace in giving us free will, he genuinely does not know in advance what decisions individual persons will make. Rather, he is so sovereign and powerful that he is able to adapt his perfect plans to our failings.
That, in a nutshell, is Gregory Boyd’s argument in The God of the Possible.
I think he may possibly be right.
I have greatly compressed and simplified many of Boyd's arguments in this review. If you disagree or are intrigued, I urge you to read the entire book. It's not too long and Boyd lays out in terms a layman can understand the Open View of God.
My cousin and her husband gave this book to me while I was visiting them. I told them I wanted some good theology and they literally pressed it into my hands. I had no idea what it was about.
It turns out to be a very thorough theological argument for what is known as the ‘Open View’ of God. In the ‘Classical View’ of God, he ‘knows the future exhaustively’. Since God is unchanging and outside of time, the Classical View reasons, he knows everything that will happen ever. He knows the outcomes to all events (so these events cannot be changed) and he knows every decision human agents will make in advance (so these decisions cannot be changed).
You can probably see the troubling implications of the Classical View already: if God has predetermined history, isn’t he responsible for all the evil in it? If he has predestined everyone, doesn’t that mean he is intentionally condemning people to Hell?
Personally, this view of God has never sat well with me. I never really articulated it, but it seemed to me that if God really made humans as agents with free will that he would have be to some degree limited by our decisions. Most people who believe in God don’t like the idea of limits on him. Isn’t he supposed to be all powerful? Wouldn’t any limit on God diminish his sovereignty?
Maybe. It never bothered me that God might allow limits to be placed on himself for a specific purpose (like creating beings with free will). But again, I didn’t really articulate that or follow the argument any further.
In God of the Possible: A Biblical Introduction to the Open View of God, Gregory Boyd does just that.
The Open View of God states that the future is only partially known by God. Actually, that’s not accurate. In the Open View of God, God knows all of the future that there is to know, but some parts of the future simply do not exist yet. They are undecided. God does not know them because they are not facts that can be known as yet.
This probably seems counter-intuitive, but in fact we live with a ‘partially known’ future every day. There are certain things that you can count on when you are making plans for tomorrow, like the fact that the sun will rise or the fact that the grocery store will be still be where it was yesterday. But you can’t count on whether the clerk at the grocery store will be nice to you, or if you boss will give them the raise you asked for.
Another analogy comes from quantum physics and statistics: while at the sub-atomic level particles are unpredictable and their motions indeterminate, over trillions of particles this unpredictability averages out to the point where you can, say, throw a ball and know that it will predictably obey Newton’s laws of motion and not go shooting up into space or curving around you.
In the Open View of God, he knows certain things that will definitely happen and he can, in his vast knowledge, see the broad strokes of history. But he doesn’t necessarily know every individual event or decision that will occur.
It would be difficult to summarize all of Boyd’s points and keep this review concise, but there are three main thrusts to his argument that God has an ‘open view’ of the future:
1. Scriptural support.
There are many, many passages in scripture that speak of God changing his mind, speaking in conditional terms, getting frustrated and even regretting things he has done because they turned out badly. If God knows the future exhaustively, none of this makes any sense. You could call it a metaphor, but if it is it’s one God uses a lot throughout scripture, and with no hints that he is not speaking literally. Particularly telling is Jeremiah 18 in which God literally asks the people of Israel to pray and try to change his mind.
2. A God who takes risks is greater than a God who does not.
To those who feel that the Open View of God challenges God’s sovereignty, Boyd points out that we’re looking at God’s sovereignty from a human perspective. In our perspective, to be totally sovereign is to have absolute control over everything. But is that really true? Is a God who controls his creation like puppets on a string more impressive than a God who takes risks and allows people to go their own way, even knowing they might not do what he wants them to do? A God who is flexible, adaptive and able to take into account the myriad possibilities of the future certainly seems more impressive to me than an unchanging puppeteer who risks nothing.
3. Free will requires an open future.
If God knows all our decisions in advance we can have only the illusion of free will, not free will itself. If God knows our decisions in advance he is also responsible for those decisions, because he created the conditions necessary for us to make them. Our free will is meaningless.
One of Gregory Boyd’s most compelling arguments is that the Classical View of God is not really Biblical at all - it comes from Plato’s philosophy, in which ideals were perfect and unchanging. But to apply this view to God, you have to take hundreds of verses across all of scripture as metaphors.
In fact, you have to believe that God is being downright misleading in places. God states outright in scripture that he changes his mind, that he is surprised by things that happen, and even that he does not know a person’s character until he tests them. If God wanted to tell us that the future is open, not set and unchangeable, how much clearer could he get?
Of course there are objections: God prophesies about the end times, says that he is unchanging and that he ‘knows the beginning from the end’. But Boyd has ready answers for all these arguments. For example, it’s easy for God to know the end times without knowing the future exhaustively, since he clearly plans to step in and take control of things at that point! God knows his own mind, and his character is unchanging.
And he knows everything about the future that there is to know. But because of his grace in giving us free will, he genuinely does not know in advance what decisions individual persons will make. Rather, he is so sovereign and powerful that he is able to adapt his perfect plans to our failings.
That, in a nutshell, is Gregory Boyd’s argument in The God of the Possible.
I think he may possibly be right.
I have greatly compressed and simplified many of Boyd's arguments in this review. If you disagree or are intrigued, I urge you to read the entire book. It's not too long and Boyd lays out in terms a layman can understand the Open View of God.
November 30, 2024
I decided to read this book as I was interested in learning about “Open Theism”. What better way to learn about a topic than from a book that claims to be an introduction?
Boyd first started to consider things about God’s foreknowledge when he read 2 Kings 20 one day, where God grants 15 years to Hezekiah’s life after stating beforehand he would die soon.
Boyd states that believing the future is open made him pray harder and relish in his responsibility. Being responsible is undoubtedly a good thing, but do we really want the efficacy of a prayer for salvation to be dependent on us?
Boyd argues that if God knew Hitler would do what he did and created him anyway, he’d be morally responsible. This doesn’t escape of problem of a God who could have stopped Hitler once he was doing it, however. (p.11-12)
Boyd believes God determines part of the future and leaves part of it open. (p.13) Boyd rejects the condescension explanation of classical theists and instead proposes that we accept that God knows the future and God changes his mind and work from there. (p.19)
Boyd believes the way to reconcile God changing his mind and saying he doesn’t change his mind is to view both changing his mind as an authority, rather than a contradiction or figurative language. (p.91)
He lists out a lot of verses and gives the plain meaning literal stance as supporting his view, while explaining away things like Romans 9 through a lot of creative interpretive dancing around the text. You’ll see that often he will say “it CAN’T mean X because we already discussed Y and Y is true” He also blames classical theology on Plato and his influence.
Overall, I think Boyd did a fine job introducing this topic to me. However, I was disappointed in his dismissiveness of classical theology, though I suppose I can’t expect exegetical arguments from a book that says it’s an Introduction.
Boyd first started to consider things about God’s foreknowledge when he read 2 Kings 20 one day, where God grants 15 years to Hezekiah’s life after stating beforehand he would die soon.
Boyd states that believing the future is open made him pray harder and relish in his responsibility. Being responsible is undoubtedly a good thing, but do we really want the efficacy of a prayer for salvation to be dependent on us?
Boyd argues that if God knew Hitler would do what he did and created him anyway, he’d be morally responsible. This doesn’t escape of problem of a God who could have stopped Hitler once he was doing it, however. (p.11-12)
Boyd believes God determines part of the future and leaves part of it open. (p.13) Boyd rejects the condescension explanation of classical theists and instead proposes that we accept that God knows the future and God changes his mind and work from there. (p.19)
Boyd believes the way to reconcile God changing his mind and saying he doesn’t change his mind is to view both changing his mind as an authority, rather than a contradiction or figurative language. (p.91)
He lists out a lot of verses and gives the plain meaning literal stance as supporting his view, while explaining away things like Romans 9 through a lot of creative interpretive dancing around the text. You’ll see that often he will say “it CAN’T mean X because we already discussed Y and Y is true” He also blames classical theology on Plato and his influence.
Overall, I think Boyd did a fine job introducing this topic to me. However, I was disappointed in his dismissiveness of classical theology, though I suppose I can’t expect exegetical arguments from a book that says it’s an Introduction.
December 6, 2017
I'll start with the premise, that I think I probably agree with Boyd theologically here. I think his position makes sense, even if it separates itself from Orthodoxy in some pretty substantial ways.
My disconnect with this book is that it serves as sort of a proof text that allows the reader to have ammo against the more standard theological position, but the problem is, the ammo isn't good enough. While I appreciate the thought exercise as to how various scriptures could mean that god has parts of the future he doesn't know, and while I appreciate his thorough approach to analyzing the scripture, and while I appreciate his attempt to lay out his position as thoroughly scriptural, the problem is that he glosses over the problem
This book is missing the key problem in this entire debate, which is the inclusion of Platonic/Greek thought at the baseline of so much classical Christian theology. And that is a SERIOUS problem with so much classical Christian theology. Boyd is right in pointing it out, but really, that should be central discussion here. Ways of interpreting the Bible aren't actually the issue at play in this debate - the issue at play is the philosophical underpinnings of those interpretive schemes. And it seems like THAT just gets glossed over here. That, I think, is the topic that more Christians need to be actively discussing if we're going to get to good theological ground.
So it's not so much a problem with the position Boyd takes; the problem is that if one agree with Body's premise about the Greek philosophical underpinnings (which gets a couple page mention early), then the rest of the book is a given.
My disconnect with this book is that it serves as sort of a proof text that allows the reader to have ammo against the more standard theological position, but the problem is, the ammo isn't good enough. While I appreciate the thought exercise as to how various scriptures could mean that god has parts of the future he doesn't know, and while I appreciate his thorough approach to analyzing the scripture, and while I appreciate his attempt to lay out his position as thoroughly scriptural, the problem is that he glosses over the problem
This book is missing the key problem in this entire debate, which is the inclusion of Platonic/Greek thought at the baseline of so much classical Christian theology. And that is a SERIOUS problem with so much classical Christian theology. Boyd is right in pointing it out, but really, that should be central discussion here. Ways of interpreting the Bible aren't actually the issue at play in this debate - the issue at play is the philosophical underpinnings of those interpretive schemes. And it seems like THAT just gets glossed over here. That, I think, is the topic that more Christians need to be actively discussing if we're going to get to good theological ground.
So it's not so much a problem with the position Boyd takes; the problem is that if one agree with Body's premise about the Greek philosophical underpinnings (which gets a couple page mention early), then the rest of the book is a given.
May 11, 2020
How much does God know? Is He more powerful if He knows everything that is going to happen? Or is He more powerful if He knows all the possibilities and how to react?
I started to question God’s “total control” during Hurricane Harvey. As various people said “this is all part of God’s plan” and saw people’s homes ruined, I wondered--how is this part of God’s plan? Did God really orchestrate this and why? Having watched several Greg Boyd’s sermons and read Cross Vision, God at War, and Seeing is Believing; I was curious about Boyd’s view of God’s knowledge of the future.
I was not disappointed. Boyd does a great job of explaining scriptural evidence, possible rebuttals, and real life comparisons. I do have more questions regarding prophecy, but not because Boyd did a sub-par job of explaining.
I highlighted many points. For me, Greg Boyd’s explanations show me a God who is even more all-powerful. My favorite quote is “God’s decision wasn’t the only variable in this matter.” Those who insist everything is part of God’s plan seem to imply that God controls everything so He would have to micromanage. No one likes to be micromanaged, so why would anyone want to give this attribute to God? As Boyd says in the intro, considering an open view has changed my reading of the Bible, my view of God, and my view of possibilities the future holds.
If you’ve only heard about an open view of God from those who are against it, read this book. The majority of people I have heard disagree with the open view do not fully understand it and cannot explain it properly.
I bought this book and this is my honest and unbiased review.
I started to question God’s “total control” during Hurricane Harvey. As various people said “this is all part of God’s plan” and saw people’s homes ruined, I wondered--how is this part of God’s plan? Did God really orchestrate this and why? Having watched several Greg Boyd’s sermons and read Cross Vision, God at War, and Seeing is Believing; I was curious about Boyd’s view of God’s knowledge of the future.
I was not disappointed. Boyd does a great job of explaining scriptural evidence, possible rebuttals, and real life comparisons. I do have more questions regarding prophecy, but not because Boyd did a sub-par job of explaining.
I highlighted many points. For me, Greg Boyd’s explanations show me a God who is even more all-powerful. My favorite quote is “God’s decision wasn’t the only variable in this matter.” Those who insist everything is part of God’s plan seem to imply that God controls everything so He would have to micromanage. No one likes to be micromanaged, so why would anyone want to give this attribute to God? As Boyd says in the intro, considering an open view has changed my reading of the Bible, my view of God, and my view of possibilities the future holds.
If you’ve only heard about an open view of God from those who are against it, read this book. The majority of people I have heard disagree with the open view do not fully understand it and cannot explain it properly.
I bought this book and this is my honest and unbiased review.
July 20, 2022
The book addresses some of scriptures hardest questions...
Does God foreknow the outcome of every decision we will ever make?
If he does know of our eternal destiny, why would he create someone for hell?
Does God change his mind?
The book tackles the hard subject of free will vs. Calvinism/predestination and challenges fundamentalists into critical thinking. It is a challenge to those who use the cliche "God is in control" to understand "God is in control" may not mean God controls everything. After all, Jesus example of prayer teaches us to pray "Your will be done on earth as it is in Heaven." If God's will was perfectly orchestrated on this earth in every decisions why would Jesus tell us to pray this way?
Favorite quotes:
"Jesus' prayer (Matt 26:39) evidences the truth that the future is at least partly open, even if his own fate was not."
"A person's mental picture of God is the most important feature of his or her belief system. The picture determines how we relate to God, for better or for worse."
"Reflect for a moment on how unimaginably intelligent a God who faces a partly open future would have to be."
Does God foreknow the outcome of every decision we will ever make?
If he does know of our eternal destiny, why would he create someone for hell?
Does God change his mind?
The book tackles the hard subject of free will vs. Calvinism/predestination and challenges fundamentalists into critical thinking. It is a challenge to those who use the cliche "God is in control" to understand "God is in control" may not mean God controls everything. After all, Jesus example of prayer teaches us to pray "Your will be done on earth as it is in Heaven." If God's will was perfectly orchestrated on this earth in every decisions why would Jesus tell us to pray this way?
Favorite quotes:
"Jesus' prayer (Matt 26:39) evidences the truth that the future is at least partly open, even if his own fate was not."
"A person's mental picture of God is the most important feature of his or her belief system. The picture determines how we relate to God, for better or for worse."
"Reflect for a moment on how unimaginably intelligent a God who faces a partly open future would have to be."
Displaying 1 - 30 of 101 reviews