God of the Possible: A Biblical Introduction to the Open View of God

by. Gregory Boyd. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, , pages. Abstract This essay debunks the philosophy espoused by Gregory.
Table of contents

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.


  • .
  • No Account?;
  • Sensation - Piano?
  • Sonnets from the Portuguese and Other Poems.

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. Aug 10, JJ Vancil rated it it was amazing Shelves: 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 Greg Boyd is one of my favorite authors and this book helps the reader understand the driving principles of his theology.

Product Description

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.

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.

Refine your editions:

Feb 25, Carl rated it it was amazing. I read this after reading "Letters 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. Dec 07, Donovan Richards rated it liked it. 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.

But does Scripture point to this theological belief? 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. 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? 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. 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. 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.

If we have the power to make this decision, are we not more powerful than God? 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. 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. 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: Aug 08, Kate Austin rated it liked it.

The book and the content brought up great questions. May 07, Carl Jenkins rated it really liked it.

Greg Boyd - Q & A - What is Open Theism?

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 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 responsi This book asks a lot of good questions about the nature or depth of God's foreknowledge.

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.

Feb 04, Daphne Tan rated it really liked it. 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. Great introduction, Bible-ba Thankful for a work that common folk like me can read. Great introduction, Bible-based and compelling.


  • ?
  • ?
  • Smart Girls, Smart Choices: Avoiding the 10 Biggest Mistakes Young Women Make.

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.. Jul 20, Alan rated it it was ok Shelves: 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' 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. 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. May 12, Calvary Church rated it it was ok. 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. Jul 21, Thomas Kinsfather rated it really liked it. I loved Boyd's approach to the future and God's sovereignty in Scripture.

2 editions of this work

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. Jun 17, Bryan Neuschwander rated it really liked it. 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.

Mar 09, Brian Jones rated it it was amazing. Excellent overview of the "Openness of God. Jun 13, Tom rated it it was amazing. 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: 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. 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: 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. It never bothered me that God might allow limits to be placed on himself for a specific purpose like creating beings with free will.

In God of the Possible: The Open View of God states that the future is only partially known by God. 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. God does not know them because they are not facts that can be known as yet. 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.

Another analogy comes from quantum physics and statistics: 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. 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.

Particularly telling is Jeremiah 18 in which God literally asks the people of Israel to pray and try to change his mind.

God of the Possible: A Biblical Introduction to the Open View of God by Gregory A. Boyd

A God who takes risks is greater than a God who does not. In our perspective, to be totally sovereign is to have absolute control over everything.


  • .
  • Business Hours.
  • Lucy Unstrung.
  • Product Information?

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.

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. 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. 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: But Boyd has ready answers for all these arguments. 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.

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. View all 13 comments. And how can they truly change their mind if their mind is eternally made up?

However, I think the theologian can honestly interpret this text and yet continue to adhere to a classical view. Boyd claims that to do so, the classical theologian must state that Jeremiah was speaking anthropomorphically. I believe that throughout the pages of Scripture, God clearly responds and reacts to the situations and actions of His Creation. His Word provides us a detailed account of that which has pleased and displeased Him since Adam.

That is what took place in Jeremiah One can state with certainty that God is an emotive being and at times is either grieved or angry with His creation Genesis 6: However, emotions do not necessitate ignorance. God presents a statement to His people concerning their actions, not his knowledge of those actions.

Boyd argues that since God presented two possibilities, He must therefore be uncertain as to which would occur. I would assert that God is merely speaking as He does throughout all of Scripture and stating what is pleasing to Him and what is displeasing. If the people are disobedient, He is of course going to be displeased with those actions and present a consequence to that disobedience.

If those same people then repent of that action, God clearly would extend His grace. How does that in any way discredit His knowledge of their actions from the beginning to the end? It merely describes the grace of God and His willingness to promote repentance among His people. We then look to passages such as Ephesians 1, which we looked at prior to this, and wonder how a God unknowing of the actions of His creation would have established a salvific plan for that creation prior to its inception.

If we refuse to accept a traditional interpretation of the text, and maintain that Boyd presents a cogent argument, where does that leave the church today?

God of the Possible: A Biblical Introduction to the Open View of God

Simply stated, if God is not a wholly omniscient God, does it affect His people? I believe God speaks to this issue Himself in the book of Isaiah as He equates His power and glory with the ability to know what is to come. Tell us what the former things were, so that we may consider them and know their final outcome. Or declare to us the things to come, tell us what the future holds, so we may know that you are gods.

Do something, whether good or bad, so that we will be dismayed and filled with fear. But you are less than nothing and your works are utterly worthless; he who chooses you is detestable. Ignorant are those who carry about idols of wood, who pray to gods that cannot save. Declare what is to be, present it—let them take counsel together. Who foretold this long ago, who declared it from the distant past?

And there is no God apart from me, a righteous God and a Savior; there is none but me. God knows that there are none that are able to determine that which has not yet happened except for Himself. He alone has the ability to predict the future. He alone has the audacity to claim complete knowledge of that is and all that will be, and He places His pronouncement as the only true God on this test of foreknowledge. Another passage, and quite possibly the most powerful is also found in the book of Isaiah.

I make known the end from the beginning, from ancient times, what is still to come. My purpose will stand, and I will do all that I please. Boyd might argue that these statements by God merely predict His own actions, but the text does not make that distinction. These are merely some of the instances given that show the gospel writers belief that Jesus had an ability to determine what things were to occur.

Jesus had a clear vision of every event that was to occur on that night. From his betrayal by Judas, to the little girl that confronted Peter causing him to deny, there was certainty in the mind of Christ.