Michael Heiser’s Open Theism Heresy

This article examines an often-overlooked aspect of Michael S. Heiser’s theology: his doctrine of divine foreknowledge. A close reading of Heiser’s published works demonstrates that he held a position consistent with open theism, a theological framework in which the future is understood to be at least partially undetermined, even from the perspective of God. Within open theism, God does not possess exhaustive foreknowledge of all future contingencies but instead responds dynamically to unfolding historical events.

Heiser explicitly affirms this position. In the revised and expanded edition of The Unseen Realm, he states unambiguously, “From this I noted that the future is at least partially open.”¹⁾Michael Heiser, The Unseen Ream (Expanded Edition) Lexham Press (Bellingham, WA: 2025), p. 77. This admission leaves little room for ambiguity. Heiser plainly asserts that the future is not exhaustively settled, and thus the question is not whether he embraced a form of open theism, but how this conviction functioned within his broader theological system.

The significance of this doctrinal commitment cannot be understated. Open theism represents a fundamental departure from classical Christian theism, particularly with respect to God’s omniscience and sovereign foreknowledge. On this basis alone, Heiser’s theology warrants serious critical scrutiny. Moreover, his advocacy of the “divine council” worldview cannot be isolated from this broader theological framework. The logic of open theism is embedded within Heiser’s divine council paradigm, such that acceptance of the latter implicitly entails acceptance of the former. Consequently, the divine council model, as articulated by Heiser, carries with it theological commitments that many within historic Christian orthodoxy would find untenable.

A survey of Heiser’s own language further illustrates how his understanding of God diverges from classical formulations. He frequently portrays God as one who encounters unforeseen developments, whose plans are frustrated, and who must revise his strategies in response to rebellion—both human and supernatural. This depiction implies a deity who reacts to events rather than one who sovereignly ordains and foreknows them. In effect, God is presented as responding to evil because he did not fully anticipate the course of history or exercise comprehensive control over it.

Such a portrayal bears a striking resemblance to conceptions of deity found in pagan religious systems. In Greek mythology, for example, Zeus is at times described as possessing extensive knowledge, yet at other times as acting without full awareness or control, or as knowing more than other gods without knowing all things. While Greek myths are neither uniform nor systematic—having been composed by multiple authors across centuries—the comparison remains instructive. Heiser’s depiction of the God of the Bible aligns more closely with this fluctuating, reactive model than with the omniscient, immutable God of classical Christian theology.

This perspective is evident in Heiser’s own words. In Supernatural, he writes, “The story—God’s goal, its opposition by the powers of darkness, its failure, and its ultimate future success—is what this book is about, just as it’s what the Bible is about.”²⁾Michael Heiser, Supernatural: What the Bible Teaches about the Unseen World—and Why It Matters, Lexham Press (Bellingham, WA: 2015), p. 15. Here, God’s goal is described as having undergone “failure,” not as the outworking of a sovereign decree but as a plan that encountered unanticipated opposition and required subsequent correction.

Heiser elaborates further: “That plan was ruined by rebellion… Out of Abraham’s children would come the messiah, who would undo the failure in Eden.”³⁾Michael Heiser, Supernatural: What the Bible Teaches about the Unseen World—and Why It Matters, Lexham Press (Bellingham, WA: 2015), p. 75. In this formulation, God’s plan is explicitly said to have been “ruined,” necessitating a reactive strategy to remedy a prior failure.

Similarly, Heiser explains, “Until Babel, God wanted a relationship with all humanity. But the rebellion at Babel changed that. God decided to let members of his divine council govern the other nations…. So God decided to create a new nation… Israel.”⁴⁾Michael Heiser, Supernatural: What the Bible Teaches about the Unseen World—and Why It Matters, Lexham Press (Bellingham, WA: 2015), pp. 49-50. This narrative frames God’s decision to establish Israel not as part of an eternal purpose but as a contingent response to unforeseen human rebellion.

Heiser reiterates this theme when he writes, “The Tower of Babel incident was what gave rise to God’s decision to scatter the nations and put them under the authority of other gods (Deut. 4:19-20; 32:8-9).”⁵⁾Michael Heiser, Supernatural: What the Bible Teaches about the Unseen World—and Why It Matters, Lexham Press (Bellingham, WA: 2015), p. 129. The implication is clear: God’s plans evolve in response to historical developments rather than unfolding according to a single, comprehensive divine decree. If God possessed exhaustive foreknowledge, one would expect a unified plan that accounted for all rebellions across redemptive history without requiring successive revisions.

This pattern persists in The Unseen Realm, where Heiser states, “As Israel reached the final stages of failure, God announced through the prophets that plans had changed.”⁶⁾Michael S. Heiser, The Unseen Realm: Recovering the supernatural worldview of the Bible, Lexham Press (Bellingham, WA: 2015), p. 216; Michael S. Heiser, The Unseen Realm (Exoanded Edition): Recovering the supernatural worldview of the Bible, Lexham Press (Bellingham, WA: 2025), p. 269. This is not an incidental turn of phrase but reflects a consistent theological conviction. Heiser reinforces the point elsewhere, writing, “The apostasy of his people and their subsequent exile prompted a change in Yahweh’s approach to restoring his rule on earth.”⁷⁾Michael S. Heiser, The Unseen Realm: Recovering the supernatural worldview of the Bible, Lexham Press (Bellingham, WA: 2015), p. 240; Michael S. Heiser, The Unseen Realm (Exoanded Edition): Recovering the supernatural worldview of the Bible, Lexham Press (Bellingham, WA: 2025), p. 297. In this framework, God must revise his approach because earlier plans did not adequately anticipate future developments.

Notably, these statements appear in both editions of The Unseen Realm, and Heiser did not retract or substantially revise this theological position despite sustained criticism. On the contrary, in the expanded edition he sought to clarify his stance, culminating in the explicit acknowledgment that “the future is at least partially open.” This continuity demonstrates that Heiser’s commitment to a form of open theism was neither accidental nor temporary, but a stable and defining feature of his theological system.

Furthermore, it must be understood that this theology is not confined to a single publication, nor does it appear merely as a passing suggestion. Rather, it is a consistent theological framework that runs throughout multiple works. To date, The Unseen Realm (both editions) and Supernatural have already been cited. In his book Angels, Heiser writes: “God’s original plan was to live among his human family on earth. We who were made lesser than the divine beings (Heb 2:6-7) were destined to become members of God’s household. At the fall, this goal was derailed. The rest of the Bible is about God’s effort to restore what was lost—to dwell among his people, transforming the earth into his kingdom.”⁸⁾Michael S. Heiser, Angels: What the Bible Really Says About God’s Heavenly Host, Lexham Press (Bellingham, WA: 2018), pp. 152-153. Heiser is portraying God’s original plan as a simple intention to dwell with humanity and the divine council on earth. According to this framework, that plan was subsequently derailed by a series of rebellions throughout history, requiring God to alter His plans repeatedly in order to accomplish His original goal of dwelling with humanity.

Heiser explicitly refers to Christ’s death and resurrection as “The ‘new plan’ of God’s”.⁹⁾Michael Heiser, Supernatural: What the Bible Teaches about the Unseen World—and Why It Matters, Lexham Press (Bellingham, WA: 2015), p. 101. This language is neither accidental nor merely careless phrasing. It accurately reflects what Heiser believed and consistently taught.

In The Unseen Realm, Heiser refers to God “taking risks” on at least nine occasions. Quoting from page 71 of the expanded edition—demonstrating that his position remained unchanged even after public criticism—Heiser uses this language four times in close succession: “God’s decision to create free imagers involved that risk…. But the only way in which there was no risk involved for God is if you define risk as the threat of harm…. God was willing to risk that to have humanity. …is risk the right word to use of God’s decision?”¹⁰⁾Michael S. Heiser, The Unseen Realm (Exoanded Edition): Recovering the supernatural worldview of the Bible, Lexham Press (Bellingham, WA: 2025), p. 71. Notably, Heiser explicitly questions whether “risk” is the appropriate term, which indicates that the word was deliberately chosen rather than inadvertently employed. He further clarifies that risk, properly defined, involves the potential for harm—harm which, in the surrounding context, he equates with God being “grieved.” Thus, according to Heiser, human sin genuinely grieves and harms God, yet God was willing to risk that harm in order to grant humanity free will. The free will of both humanity and the divine council is therefore central to Heiser’s theological system.

While affirming, along with the majority of Christians throughout history, that humanity possesses free will, this does not entail that an omniscient God was taken by surprise, forced to return “to the drawing board,” or compelled to revise His purposes because an initial plan failed. Nevertheless, this is precisely what Heiser’s model entails.

In Supernatural, Heiser writes: “God’s kingdom rule—his plan for a restored Eden—went down in flames.”¹¹⁾Michael Heiser, Supernatural: What the Bible Teaches about the Unseen World—and Why It Matters, Lexham Press (Bellingham, WA: 2015), p. 95. He further asserts, ““God had been trying to revive his original goal for Eden[.]”¹²⁾Michael Heiser, Supernatural: What the Bible Teaches about the Unseen World—and Why It Matters, Lexham Press (Bellingham, WA: 2015), p. 97. Such language implies struggle and difficulty in the divine will, suggesting that the omnipotent God “had been trying” to accomplish something without immediate success. Heiser later states that God decided, “It was time for a new approach to the old problem of sin and failure.”¹³⁾Michael Heiser, Supernatural: What the Bible Teaches about the Unseen World—and Why It Matters, Lexham Press (Bellingham, WA: 2015), p. 96. Here, sin is explicitly identified as the cause of the failure of God’s plan. The failure, however, is not merely human; it is the failure of Heiser’s theological conception of God to account for divine omniscience and sovereignty. This theme recurs repeatedly: “Failure again…. This, too, was a failure. So was the next attempt… Israel failed.”¹⁴⁾Michael Heiser, Supernatural: What the Bible Teaches about the Unseen World—and Why It Matters, Lexham Press (Bellingham, WA: 2015), p. 98. Within this framework, God repeatedly fails to accomplish His purposes as originally intended.

Heiser attempts to explain these failures in The Unseen Realm by stating: “God may foreknow an event and predestine that event, but such predestination does not necessarily include decisions that lead up to that event. In other words, God may know and predestine the end—that something is ultimately going to happen—without predestining the mean to that end…. The end is sovereignly ordained; the means to that end may or may not be.”¹⁵⁾Michael S. Heiser, The Unseen Realm: Recovering the supernatural worldview of the Bible, Lexham Press (Bellingham, WA: 2015), p. 65; Michael S. Heiser, The Unseen Realm (Exoanded Edition): Recovering the supernatural worldview of the Bible, Lexham Press (Bellingham, WA: 2025), p. 77 This quotation appears in both editions of the work.

In essence, Heiser argues that God predestines some events but not all, and that He foreknows the end without ordaining the means that lead to it. This results in a form of partial open theism, wherein God does not fully know the means by which events unfold toward their conclusions. Consequently, God is portrayed as making plans that fail, revising those plans repeatedly, and taking risks with uncertain outcomes. It is within this theological framework that the concept of the divine council functions. Therefore, those who claim to reject Heiser’s open theism while retaining the divine council must reckon with how these ideas operate together as a unified system rather than as separable components.

Heiser further explains that while God decrees the outcome of events, He does not decree the means by which those outcomes are achieved. Instead, the means are left to be determined by the divine council. In The Unseen Realm, Heiser writes: “God had decreed Ahab was going to die at Ramoth-Gilead, but the means of his death was not decreed. The council debated the matter until one of the spiritual beings came forward with a proposition[.]”¹⁶⁾Michael S. Heiser, The Unseen Realm (Exoanded Edition): Recovering the supernatural worldview of the Bible, Lexham Press (Bellingham, WA: 2025), p. 64. Elsewhere in The Unseen Realm, Heiser claims that the divine council likewise decreed the destruction of the fourth beast in Daniel 7.¹⁷⁾Michael S. Heiser, The Unseen Realm (Exoanded Edition): Recovering the supernatural worldview of the Bible, Lexham Press (Bellingham, WA: 2025), p. 64. He reiterates this framework: “God may foreknow an event and predestine that event, but such predestination does not necessarily include decisions that lead up to that event.”¹⁸⁾Michael S. Heiser, The Unseen Realm (Exoanded Edition): Recovering the supernatural worldview of the Bible, Lexham Press (Bellingham, WA: 2025), p. 77. According to this model, the decisions leading to the fulfillment of God’s decrees are entrusted to the divine council. These undecided means constitute a gap in God’s knowledge, which is precisely where Heiser’s partial open theism resides.

Within this framework, decisive authority is attributed to the council. Heiser states: “The scriptural pattern is that, when God prepares to act in strategic ways that propel his kingdom forward, the divine council is part of that decision making. The council is the vehicle through which God issues his decrees.”¹⁹⁾Michael S. Heiser, The Unseen Realm (Exoanded Edition): Recovering the supernatural worldview of the Bible, Lexham Press (Bellingham, WA: 2025), p. 424. In The Unseen Realm, Heiser even depicts the prophets of Israel as meeting with the divine council in order to know what they were to proclaim.²⁰⁾Michael S. Heiser, The Unseen Realm (Exoanded Edition): Recovering the supernatural worldview of the Bible, Lexham Press (Bellingham, WA: 2025), p. 284 This is presented as the means by which prophets could discern how history would unfold. Since God ordains only the end and not the means, the council supplies prophetic insight into the mechanisms by which those ends would be realized, enabling the prophets to warn their contemporaries of imminent or future events.

By relegating the determination of means to the divine council, God is portrayed as lacking knowledge of how events will unfold. Heiser explicitly acknowledges that this position aligns with open theism. He writes: “What is perhaps less clear is that the way God’s will is carried out and accomplished is open—imagers can make free decisions to accomplish God’s will. God decrees the end, but the means can be (and apparently are at times) left up to the imagers.”²¹⁾Michael S. Heiser, The Unseen Realm (Exoanded Edition): Recovering the supernatural worldview of the Bible, Lexham Press (Bellingham, WA: 2025), p. 65. Here, Heiser openly concedes that his view entails a form of partial open theism.

Consequently, the divine council is not a peripheral or optional feature of Heiser’s theology; it is an intrinsic component of his open theistic framework. If God’s foreknowledge were exhaustive and without openness, there would be no theological necessity for a council at all. Scripture explicitly denies that God requires counsel from any source: “Who hath directed the Spirit of the LORD, or being his counsellor hath taught him? With whom took he counsel, and who instructed him, and taught him in the path of judgment, and taught him knowledge, and shewed to him the way of understanding?” (Isaiah 40:13–14). If God truly takes counsel from a divine council, then Scripture’s affirmation of God’s complete self-sufficiency is contradicted, thereby implying an openness in divine knowledge that Scripture itself rejects.

At this point, it is instructive to compare Heiser’s language with that of Clark Pinnock, one of the most prominent proponents of open theism. Pinnock writes: “God has the power and ability to be…an ‘ad hoc’ God, one who responds and adapts to surprises and to the unexpected. God sets goals for creation and redemption and realizes them ‘ad hoc’ in history. If Plan A fails, God is ready with Plan B.”²²⁾Clark Pinnock, “Systematic Theology,” in The Openness of God: A Biblical Challenge to the Traditional Understanding of God, InterVarsity (Downers Grove, IL: 1994), p. 113. The striking similarity between Pinnock’s articulation and Heiser’s repeated references to failed plans, revised strategies, and divine risk-taking should be immediately apparent.

This issue is aptly summarized by Thomas Howe in The Unseemly Realm (p. 296), where he writes:

By setting the Bible in the context of his own interpretation of the ANE mythology, Heiser was inevitably led to the position that God is a temporal being who employs a council in His decision-making process. By depicting God as changing His mind and employing discursive reasoning, Heiser denies God’s immutability. By depicting God’s plans as having failed, been derailed, changing directions, or having a ‘do-over’ due to God’s reaction to events, Heiser denies God’s sovereignty and providence. By depicting God as being involved in a decision-making process, he has denied God’s eternality. In spite of his protest to the contrary, Heiser’s god is the god of ANE myth; not the God of orthodox Christian theology.²³⁾Thomas Howe, The Unseemly Realm: A Critical Analysis of the Writings of Michael S. Heiser, (2004), p. 296.

In conclusion, Heiser’s open theism is inseparably bound to his synthesis of biblical theology with pagan mythological categories. By denying or redefining the attributes of divine omniscience, immutability, sovereignty, and eternality, Heiser presents a conception of God that is fundamentally incompatible with the God of Scripture. His theology is therefore not merely erroneous in isolated points but structurally heretical in its core affirmations. For these reasons, Heiser’s theological system, including the divine council framework upon which it rests, should be rejected in its entirety.