Classical theism is often associated with strong forms of divine sovereignty whereby God has complete control over all human and non-human events in the world. Divine omniscience, according to classical theism, includes exhaustive foreknowledge of future contingents. Classical theism includes all of the divine attributes considered necessary for a maximally perfect being. But, so its critics claim, classical theism also affirms the worst of gods: the God of classical theism is distant, unmoved by human suffering, hyper-controlling (thusly diminishing human freedom) and unresponsive to prayer. What classical theists see as necessary has been rejected by so-called open theists as too Greek. Open theists attribute classical theism more to the influence of Plato, Aristotle and the neoplatonists than to Biblical revelation. According the open theists, on the most natural reading of the Bible Yahweh changes, does not know future contingents, cannot do certain things, and is dependent on creatures (for emotional states and will). God suffers with us, that is, upon the occasion of the suffering of his children. In this essay, I argue that both classical and open theism offer plausible accounts of the Biblical data. However, I argue that neither has any special (conclusive or demonstrable) claim to being the best interpretation of Holy writ. Considering the judgments that both the open and classical theists make when interpreting the Bible, I show some of the many extra-Biblical assumptions that are required to make those judgments and the effect of making such assumptions on the probability of their interpretation. Finally, I discuss the nature of believing a hypothesis (interpretation) on the basis of the evidence (Scripture), focusing on the consequences of the underdetermination of theory by data for biblical theology. If this discussions is right, then theology sola scriptura, the foundation of evangelical theology, is impossible.