Sam Shamoun ADMITS the Bible Teaches Open Theism (But STILL Won’t Believe It)

The Confession That Changes Everything

Catholic apologist Sam Shamoun recently made one of the most refreshingly honest admissions I’ve heard from a traditional theist in years. During what appeared to be a casual conversation, Shamoun stated flatly that “if you follow sola scriptura, tota scriptura, you cannot refute open theism.”

This wasn’t a momentary slip or taken out of context. Shamoun doubled down, explaining that open theists “will appeal to grammar” and “syntax” and “look at context, historical context, cultural context” while traditional theologians resort to “explaining passages away as simply anthropomorphic.”

But here’s where it gets really interesting: despite acknowledging that Scripture clearly teaches open theism, Shamoun maintains that Catholics shouldn’t believe it. Why? Because the Catholic Church has erected what he calls “fences” and “walls” – institutional boundaries that prevent believers from following biblical interpretation wherever it might lead.

What Open Theism Actually Teaches

Before diving deeper into Shamoun’s admission, let’s clarify what open theism actually proposes:

Core Tenets of Open Theism

• God experiences genuine relationship with creation, not predetermined outcomes
• The future remains genuinely open until choices are made
• Prayer and intercession can genuinely change God’s mind and course of action
• God’s knowledge is perfect but includes knowledge of possibilities rather than fixed certainties
• Scripture should be interpreted naturally without explaining away relational language

Biblical Evidence Open Theists Cite

Open theists point to numerous passages where:

1. God changes His mind (Exodus 32:14, Genesis 6:6-7, 1 Samuel 15:11)
2. God tests people to learn outcomes (Deuteronomy 8:2, Genesis 22:12)
3. Prophecies are conditional (Jeremiah 18:7-10, Jonah 3:4-10)
4. God expresses genuine emotions in response to human actions
5. Intercession actually influences divine decisions (Abraham pleading for Sodom, Moses interceding for Israel)

The Devastating Honesty of Shamoun’s Admission

What He Actually Said

Shamoun’s comments reveal several stunning acknowledgments:

• “You cannot refute open theism scripturally” when using proper grammatical-historical interpretation
• Open theists have “powerful arguments” because they engage the text directly
• Traditional theists must “explain away” clear biblical passages as mere anthropomorphisms
• Catholics must stay within institutional “fences” that prevent following Scripture wherever it leads

The Implications Are Staggering

Think about what Shamoun is actually saying:

1. The Bible clearly teaches open theism when interpreted properly
2. Church tradition trumps biblical teaching in Catholic methodology
3. Institutional boundaries matter more than scriptural clarity
4. Honest exegesis leads to conclusions the church rejects

Why This Matters for Every Bible-Believing Christian

The Authority Question

Shamoun’s admission forces us to confront a fundamental question: When clear biblical interpretation conflicts with traditional doctrine, which authority wins?

For those committed to sola scriptura, the answer should be obvious. If Scripture clearly teaches something through proper grammatical, historical, and contextual interpretation, shouldn’t that settle the matter?

The Anthropomorphism Problem

Traditional theists often dismiss challenging passages as “anthropomorphic” – God merely speaking as if He were human. But consider the problems with this approach:

When Everything Becomes Anthropomorphic

• God’s emotions become mere appearances
• Divine-human dialogue loses genuine meaning
• Prayer and intercession become elaborate charades
• Conditional prophecies make no real sense
• Biblical narrative loses relational authenticity

The Consistency Challenge

If we can explain away any uncomfortable passage as anthropomorphic, what prevents us from doing the same with:

• God’s love and mercy?
• Divine justice and wrath?
• The incarnation itself?
• Resurrection accounts?

The Exegetical Evidence

Let’s examine some of the “knockout” passages Shamoun referenced:

Genesis 6:6-7 – Divine Regret

“The Lord regretted that he had made human beings on the earth, and his heart was deeply troubled. So the Lord said, ‘I will wipe from the face of the earth the human race I have created.'”

Traditional interpretation: God doesn’t actually regret anything; this is just anthropomorphic language.

Open theist response: The Hebrew word nacham genuinely indicates emotional change and regret. Why would Scripture use such specific emotional language if it means nothing?

Hezekiah’s Healing – A Changed Divine Decision

When God told Hezekiah to prepare for death, then granted him fifteen additional years after his prayer, we see:

1. Clear divine pronouncement of impending death
2. Human intercession and petition
3. Explicit divine mind-change in response
4. Concrete evidence through miraculous sign

How do we explain this away as mere anthropomorphism when the historical consequences were so real?

The Judas Problem

Jesus promised the twelve disciples they would sit on twelve thrones judging Israel. Yet Judas betrayed Christ and never occupied such a throne. This suggests:

• Divine predictions can be conditional on human response
• Future outcomes aren’t always fixed in advance
• Even divine foreknowledge may involve possibilities rather than certainties

The Catholic Dilemma: Fences vs. Scripture

Institutional Boundaries

Shamoun describes Catholic theology as having “fences” and “walls” – institutional boundaries that keep believers from pursuing biblical interpretation too far. He argues this allows for vigorous debate within prescribed limits while preventing “heretical” conclusions.

But this raises profound questions:

The Authority Hierarchy

1. Scripture (God’s revealed word)
2. Church tradition (human interpretation over time)
3. Institutional authority (current church leadership)

Question: Should human tradition and institutional authority override clear scriptural teaching?

The Development Problem

If church tradition can legitimately restrict biblical interpretation, how do we account for:

• Doctrinal developments over time that contradict earlier tradition?
• Disagreements between Orthodox, Catholic, and Protestant traditions?
• Internal Catholic debates on numerous theological issues?
• Historical errors in church teaching later corrected?

The Protestant Response

For Protestant Christians committed to sola scriptura, Shamoun’s admission actually strengthens the case for biblical authority:

• If Scripture clearly teaches something through proper interpretation
• And church tradition contradicts that teaching
• Then Scripture must take precedence over tradition

This doesn’t mean tradition has no value, but it cannot override clear biblical teaching.

Practical Implications for Faith and Practice

For Biblical Interpretation

Shamoun’s honesty suggests we should:

1. Take Scripture seriously in its natural sense
2. Avoid explaining away difficult passages too quickly
3. Consider grammatical and contextual evidence carefully
4. Allow Scripture to shape our theology rather than forcing theology onto Scripture

For Understanding God

If open theism accurately reflects biblical teaching, it suggests:

• God genuinely desires relationship rather than predetermined control
• Prayer and intercession matter because they can influence outcomes
• Human choices carry real weight in God’s unfolding purposes
• Divine love involves genuine risk and vulnerability

For Christian Living

An open theistic understanding might encourage:

• More earnest prayer knowing it can genuinely influence God
• Greater sense of responsibility for our choices and their consequences
• Deeper appreciation for God’s relational nature
• Less fatalism about predetermined outcomes

The Broader Theological Landscape

Where Open Theism Fits

Open theism occupies unique theological space:

Compared to Calvinism

• Rejects divine determinism while maintaining divine sovereignty
• Affirms genuine human freedom within God’s purposes
• Sees prayer as influential rather than merely submissive

Compared to Arminianism

• Questions exhaustive foreknowledge while maintaining divine wisdom
• Emphasizes genuine openness in divine-human relationship
• Focuses more on relational than transactional dynamics

Compared to Process Theology

• Maintains classical divine attributes like omnipotence and omniscience
• Affirms creation ex nihilo and divine transcendence
• Preserves biblical authority rather than subordinating it to philosophy

The Growing Movement

Open theism continues gaining attention because it addresses real biblical and theological concerns:

• Scriptural fidelity in interpretation
• Coherent explanation of prayer and intercession
• Meaningful understanding of divine-human relationship
• Honest engagement with difficult passages

Responding to Common Objections

“Open Theism Limits God”

Objection: Open theism makes God less than omniscient.

Response: Open theists maintain God knows all that can be known, including every possibility and probability. Perfect knowledge of an open future is different from perfect knowledge of a closed future.

“It Undermines Biblical Prophecy”

Objection: If the future is open, how can prophecy be reliable?

Response: Biblical prophecy often contains conditional elements. God can fulfill prophecies through His sovereign ability to work within and through human choices, not despite them.

“It Creates Uncertainty”

Objection: Open theism makes the future uncertain and threatens assurance.

Response: Our security rests in God’s character and commitment, not His control of every detail. A God who chooses to love and remain faithful despite uncertainty demonstrates greater love than one who controls everything.

What This Means Moving Forward

For Individual Believers

Shamoun’s admission challenges every Christian to consider:

1. How seriously do we take Scripture when it conflicts with tradition?
2. What does honest biblical interpretation require of us?
3. Are we willing to follow where careful exegesis leads?
4. How do we balance respect for tradition with biblical fidelity?

For Church Communities

This conversation raises important questions about:

• Teaching and preaching that honestly engages difficult texts
• Creating space for theological dialogue and disagreement
• Balancing tradition with ongoing biblical study
• Preparing people to think carefully about Scripture

For Theological Education

Seminaries and Bible colleges might need to:

• Present open theism as a legitimate biblical option
• Teach students to engage rather than dismiss challenging interpretations
• Develop skills in careful grammatical-historical exegesis
• Foster environments where difficult questions receive honest attention

Conclusion: The Call to Biblical Honesty

Sam Shamoun’s remarkable admission deserves serious consideration from all Christians committed to biblical authority. His honesty about Scripture’s clarity regarding open theism, combined with his appeal to institutional boundaries, perfectly illustrates the tension many believers face.

The question becomes: Will we have the courage to follow biblical interpretation wherever it leads, even when it challenges our theological comfort zones?

This conversation goes to the heart of biblical authority and honest interpretation. Whether you ultimately embrace open theism or not, Shamoun’s admission demands we wrestle seriously with what Scripture actually teaches about God’s relationship with time, prayer, and human choices.

The stakes are high. Our understanding of prayer, divine sovereignty, human responsibility, and the nature of God Himself all hang in the balance.

Watch the full response video to see how this plays out and what it means for anyone committed to biblical authority!