Does a “Plain Reading” of Scripture Deny God’s Foreknowledge? A Molinist Response

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 it.

Here’s how I responded—because I think this kind of claim deserves to be taken seriously, and answered clearly.

Does God Only “Declare the End” Once He’s Already Involved?

My Open Theist friend said:

“God declares the END of a matter in which he is involved, from the BEGINNING of His engagement in that matter…”

That’s just not true across the board. First, God got "involved" when He said, "Let there be . . ." Second, and more to the point, many of God’s declarations concern events that come long before the “matter” even begins—sometimes before the people involved even exist.

A great example is Isaiah 44–45, where God calls out Cyrus by name—more than a century before the man is born.<1> That’s not the “beginning of engagement.” That’s foreknowledge. And not vague or general-purpose knowledge either—it’s specific and personal.

Let’s think about that. Did God determine all of the acts of procreation—spanning over 150 years—that led to the birth of Cyrus? That includes his great-great-great grandparents on both sides meeting and reproducing, then their children doing the same, generation after generation, with every courtship, marriage, and midnight rendezvous in the chain. And what about all the contingent factors: chance meetings, wars avoided, diseases survived, family migrations, and rival suitors passed over? Did God necessitate each of those libertarian choices—including what his parents would name him—just to ensure that a child named “Cyrus” would be born at the right moment in history?<2> And that’s still before Cyrus developed the character, wisdom, and leadership skills God would later commend. Did God causally determine all of that too—including the evil Cyrus would be called to overcome nearly 200 years later? If so… why not just be a Calvinist?

There are so many libertarian free decisions that were made in the gap between the prophecy and the events the prophecy was about. Two things follow: (i) there are truth-values to future-tensed propositions involving libertarian agents, and (ii) God knows them. 

Watch this animated video about Cyrus the King of Persia (modern-day Iran) and how he freed the Jewish people and allowed them back to their homeland:

“

King Cyrus Bible Story: How God's Ability to Use Anyone Is Limitless

”

clearly shows Isaiah naming Cyrus—the Persian king—long before his birth, fulfilling a divine plan that echoes across centuries.

God’s Foreknowledge Is His Power and Wisdom

My friend continued:

“He’s trying to convince them by His power and wisdom, not His exhaustive foreknowledge.”

But why is that an either/or? In Scripture, God often uses foreknowledge to demonstrate His power and wisdom.

Isaiah 46:10 doesn’t say, “I convince you by my raw strength.” It says:

“I declare the end from the beginning, from ancient times things not yet done.”

That’s God’s calling card. He knows what’s coming, even when no one else does—not humans, not idols, not even supernatural enemies. From "ancient times" God knows what will happen in the future.

Why Persuade If You Know They’ll Reject You?

The Open Theist asked:

“Do you go to great lengths to persuade people when you know they’ll reject you?”

Actually… yes. Isn’t that the Gospel?

And by the way, this objection assumes universalism is false. But, although I do hold a "Great Divorce" view of eternal conscious separation from God, I am a hopeful universalist! I’ve even argued in the academic literature that Molinism gives universalism its best shot--and I hope it's true! So this objection may not apply to me at all.

But even if some people freely reject God into the eternal future, it doesn’t mean persuasion is pointless. Jesus knew many would freely reject Him, and yet He still wept over Jerusalem. He still preached, warned, and loved. Knowing someone will freely resist doesn’t make love meaningless. In fact, it often makes it more real.

This is especially evident when there is absolutely nothing deterministically preventing those God knows would reject Him from refraining from rejecting His love and grace.

Does God “Test” or “Look” Because He Lacks Knowledge?

He asked:

“Do you test to learn things you knew before you started a test?”

Here’s where that hermeneutic breaks down.

Yes—there are a small handful of passages in the Old Testament where God is said to “test,” “look,” or “change His mind.” But let’s practice good hermeneutics and recall that the Bible is full of anthropomorphisms—God described in human-like ways to help us humans understand Him.

If we take this language literally, then:

• God has a face, hands, nostrils, and a back (Exod. 33:23),

• He walks through gardens (Gen. 3:8),

• He gets tired (Exod. 31:17),

• And He has to “come down” to investigate Babel (Gen. 11:5).

Should we believe God has a body? Needs to stretch His legs? Gets winded?

If Open Theists were consistent in their hermeneutics, they’d likely be young-earth creationists or hold to a physical view of God like Mormonism teaches. But they’re typically not—because they know how genre and metaphor work. So why treat “God looked to see” as literal, but not “God’s arm” or “God’s eyes”?

Especially when you have around 1,800 prophecies in the Bible, many (most?) of which involve future actions by libertarian agents?

You don’t toss out all that foreknowledge because a few poetic verses in the Old Testament describe God in human-sounding ways.

What About Logic?

My friend added:

“You insist on things like the Principle of Bivalence…”

Yes. I do.

Because I believe the laws of logic matter—and that Scripture assumes them.

The principle of bivalence holds that every proposition is either true or false, while the law of excluded middle states that for any proposition P, either P or not-P must be true. That includes future-tensed propositions like “Tim will deny Christ tomorrow.” That statement is either true or false—even if no one has said it.

If you say it’s neither, then we’re outside the bounds of logic. And once we reject logic, all bets are off. Scripture loses meaning because we’ve just given up the framework that makes understanding possible. After all, as I often say, if one rejects the laws of logic prior to reading Scripture, there's nothing preventing one from reading the Bible and concluding that Jesus was an atheist.

I discuss this in Chapter One of my book Human Freedom, Divine Knowledge, and Mere Molinism. Ironically, it’s usually Calvinists who ditch logic to protect determinism. But here we see Open Theists doing the same to avoid affirming God’s middle knowledge or foreknowledge.

So What’s the Takeaway?

If we’re going to take the Bible seriously, we need a view of God that:

• Preserves genuine human freedom, and

• Lets God speak truthfully about the future

That’s exactly what Molinism offers. It’s the primary reason I hold it, defend it, and advance it. And it’s why I think attempts to build a doctrine of theological ignorance out of a handful of poetic or anthropomorphic texts collapse under the enormous weight of biblical theology as a whole.

Thanks for reading—and to my Open Theist friends: thanks for engaging. Iron sharpens iron. Even when we strongly disagree, these conversations sharpen our minds and deepen our faith. I'm honored to stand side by side in our fight against exhaustive divine determinism together.

Stay reasonable (Isaiah 1:18),

Dr. Tim Stratton

Notes

<1> The prophet Isaiah specifically names Cyrus and describes his future role in remarkable detail about 150 years before Cyrus was born. The most direct reference is found in Isaiah 44:28 – 45:1:

“Who says of Cyrus, ‘He is my shepherd, and he shall fulfill all my purpose’; saying of Jerusalem, ‘She shall be built,’ and of the temple, ‘Your foundation shall be laid.’”

“Thus says the Lord to his anointed, to Cyrus, whose right hand I have grasped, to subdue nations before him…” 

(Isaiah 44:28 – 45:1, ESV)

Key points:

• Cyrus is explicitly named.

• Isaiah writes this prophecy roughly 150 years (or more) before Cyrus conquered Babylon in 539 BC and issued a decree allowing the Jews to return to Jerusalem and rebuild the temple.

• Isaiah describes Cyrus’s role: he will subdue nations, open gates before him, and allow Jerusalem and the temple to be rebuilt—even though at the time of Isaiah, the temple had not yet been destroyed (that would happen about a century later by the Babylonians in 586 BC).

Historical Significance:

This prophecy is so precise that some skeptical scholars argue (without solid evidence) that this section of Isaiah must have been written later, during or after Cyrus’s reign. However, traditionally and according to internal biblical evidence, it is accepted that Isaiah wrote it in the 8th century BC, long before Cyrus’s birth. Simply amazing . . . and evidence against Open Theism and for Mere Molinism. Bottom line:

Cyrus is a virus

for Open Theism—and a data point that even God’s critics can’t explain away.

<2>

The minimalist

Mere Molinist

position doesn’t require God to micromanage every detail between creation and the endgame. But it does affirm that God can know every detail—if He chooses to.