All Posts

Every now and then, a golden nugget glints from an unexpected corner of Scripture—one that speaks directly to today’s theological debates. I was recently informed of one such gem that is buried in the Greek Septuagint (LXX) version of Psalm 139:16 (numbered as Psalm 138:16 in the LXX): “Thine eyes saw my unwrought substance, and all men shall be written in thy book; they shall be formed by day, though there should for a time be no one among them. ” —Psalm 138:16, LXX (Bren

Why Knowing Isn’t Necessitating, and Freedom Still Stands It seems obvious to me that if God creates a world in which nothing—neither the laws of nature nor any supernatural force— causally determines my mental or physical actions, then I possess genuine, libertarian freedom. Not only am I the source of my actions, but I can truly do otherwise—even if (in fact) I won’t. Let’s make it concrete. Imagine I choose to wear a red shirt today. Suppose it’s a fact that I won’t wear

Open Theists often argue that the future is not fully knowable because it consists of undetermined possibilities. They say God is omniscient—but only of what can be known. Since free choices haven’t happened yet, and aren’t “fixed,” they claim those choices have no truth-values until they occur. But this view runs headfirst into the very opening of Jeremiah. “Before I formed you in the womb, I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you; I appointed you a prophet to

In my last post, I argued that future-tensed propositions involving libertarian agents can have truth-values. That knocked over the first domino in a logical sequence refuting the assertions of many in the Dynamic Omniscience and Open Theism (DO/OT) camp. Now it’s time for domino number two: the claim that counterfactuals of creaturely freedom (CCFs) also have truth-values . This is where things heat up. Dr. Alan Rhoda, a leading Open Theist philosopher, claims that “there i

The core claim of compatibilism—that moral responsibility is compatible with determinism—is crushed under the pressure of a simple but inescapable argument. If a person is morally responsible, then it must be the case that the person could have  chosen  otherwise. This is the essence of the Principle of Alternative Possibilities (PAP). But if exhaustive divine determinism is true, no one ever could have chosen otherwise, for every choice would be the inevitable result of divi

As a Mere Molinist, I've always considered Open Theists to be my theological allies in the battle against exhaustive divine determinism (EDD). Of course, I knew why I wasn't an Open Theist and knew the problems with the view, but I had no desire to fight my friends in public. This is the case because I sincerely believe that EDD is far more dangerous than Open Theism. But then my Open Theist friends, such as Warren McGrew and Pat Patel, started coming after Molinism in genera

A friend of mine recently challenged the idea that God has exhaustive foreknowledge, arguing that the plain reading of Scripture favors Open Theism—that is, the view that God doesn’t (and can’t) know what libertarianly free creatures will do in the future. He suggested that when Isaiah says God declares the end from the beginning, it doesn’t really mean what it sounds like. Instead, God is just predicting outcomes on a short enough timeline that observers can see He’s behind

Recently, a Calvinist philosopher attempted something rather surprising: he came to the defense of Open Theism after I published several articles critiquing the view . This was unexpected, given his usual opposition to any view that affirms libertarian freedom. But in this case, it seems his disdain for Molinism made Open Theism look like the lesser evil. The context was a discussion of Jesus’ famous prophecy about Peter : “Truly I tell you,” Jesus answered, “this very night

One of the most compelling episodes in the Gospels is Jesus’ famous prediction of Peter’s denial: “I tell you, Peter, the rooster will not crow today until you have denied three times that you know me.” (Luke 22:34) It’s the kind of moment that punches you in the gut—Jesus, calmly foretelling the failure of His closest friend. The scene is striking—not only because of the personal betrayal, but because of the startling precision and quiet confidence with which Jesus delivers

Open Theists often argue that God does not know future free decisions—not due to any lack of power or intelligence, but because, on their view, there is simply nothing there to be known. On this model (especially in its “Dynamic Omniscience” form), God knows all truths—but future-tensed propositions about libertarianly free choices are simply not true yet. They don't exist. As a result, God doesn’t have beliefs about them and can’t be wrong. But here’s the dilemma: Scripture

I first became aware of Brandan Robertson through TikTok. Brandan has over 250,000 followers on the platform and often goes viral for his takes on progressive theology. His following on Instagram (17+ thousand) and X (22+ thousand) is modest in comparison, but his influence on progressive theology is only increasing. Queer and Christian: Reclaiming the Bible, Our Faith, and Our Place at the Table is currently the #1 new release on Amazon in the category of “Gender and Sexua

Can God really know the future, or does He just make really good predictions? Some Open Theists claim God “knows” the future—not because He sees it as it truly is, but because He exhaustively understands all possibilities, necessities, and creaturely tendencies. That might sound impressive, but is it really knowledge—or is it just a glorified divine guess? That question was insightfully raised by Taylor, a commenter on my recent blog. He wrote: "When I think of God ‘knowing’

Introduction: The Future in Question Can God know the future? Not just what could or might happen—or even what’s likely to happen—but what will happen? This question cuts to the heart of theology and metaphysics. It impacts how we think about God’s sovereignty, omniscience, providence, and trustworthiness. It’s also a central dividing line between Calvinism, Molinism, and Open Theism. In a recent article critiquing certain forms of Open Theism , I argued that a God who doesn

Many are drawn to Open Theism because they believe it helps with the problem of evil. After all, if God doesn’t know what free creatures will do in the future, then He cannot be blamed for their choices—right? If God didn’t foresee the horrors that awaited, then perhaps He’s off the moral hook. At first glance, this seems like a promising solution. It paints a picture of a well-meaning deity doing His best in a dangerous world filled with free creatures. But upon closer exami

See video here: https://youtu.be/hSRt1Tt0OZk FTMonthly is back with a special episode. This month Josh explores what theological label would best describe Dr.  @JordanBPeterson  's beliefs based on his own writings and public statements. Would one consider Peterson a Christian? Find out here. Join the team and support us: https://freethinkingministries.com/donate/ Note: Each video used in this podcast is subject to fair use laws as we are providing commentary on each secti

See full podcast on YouTube: https://youtu.be/Q4xXW290rtU Ever thought of what Heaven might be like? Josh Klein and Thomas Moller jump into a bit "what if" in this episode. Josh and Thomas posit that heaven might be more like Sci-Fi than we think.... Joint the team in support! https://freethinkingministries.com/donate/ Heaven and Science Fiction: https://freethinkingministries.com/heaven-and-science-fiction/ ➡️ SOCIALS ⬅️ Website: https://freethinkingministries.com Faceb

Philippians 2:6-11 is a well-known hymn in the New Testament, clearly affirming Christ’s divine nature. The hymn tells the story of the descent of Christ from heaven to earth, followed by his death, resurrection, and exaltation back into the heavens. What is Paul’s purpose behind it? When read on its own, one may think it is to argue for Christ’s divinity and his dual nature. Reading the passage apart from its literary context, however, misses Paul's broader point. From the s

A raised eyebrow. A scratching of the head. A looking down the nose. A stare. That is what I often get from Christians in the American church. Sure, I know it’s weird to have five degrees (especially a PhD in philosophy) and serve as a pastor, but I evidently underestimated the respect and honor that such weirdness required. “Why do you need those degrees? The apostles didn’t have any, and in fact, they never went to school. They were dumb fishermen.” So goes the lullaby as

The Book of Job has challenged generations of Christians with one of the most difficult questions in life. Why is there suffering in the world? Why do good people go through hardship? The Book of Job is unique for its approach to these questions, as compared to the rest of the Wisdom books—Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and Song of Songs. Unlike the rest of the wisdom literature, which mostly present a black and white view of good and evil, the Book of Job presents an often

The internet has been buzzing with a hypothetical: Could 100 men defeat a fully grown gorilla in a fight? As a former MMA fighter and coach, I’ve seen the limits of human strength—and the power of teamwork. I’ve trained with Olympic medalist wrestlers and UFC champions. Based on that experience, I’m convinced that 20 heavyweight, Olympic-caliber wrestlers or UFC champions could bring down a gorilla. Not because they’re stronger pound-for-pound, but because they’re strong eno