Page 12

of limited and unlimited atonement differ over those for whom Christ died, all agree that when
he died, he died in the place of sinners, i.e., actual sinful people whose deaths and payments for
sin, he took upon himself. Hence, the substitutionary nature of the atonement can only obtain if
God knows not only those prior to Christ's death, but also those yet future, for whom Christ died.

4.

[Parallel point:] Open theism's denial of exhaustive divine foreknowledge jeopardizes
Christ's actually bearing "our sins in his body on the cross" (1 Pet 2:24).

At the point in human history when Christ was crucified, not only would it be impossible

for God to know whether and who would come to exist in the future (so he could not actually
substitute for them in his death), in addition, God would also be clueless regarding what sin(s)
would be committed in the future. Therefore, there could be no actual imputation of our sin to
Christ (á la Isa. 53:4-6, ". . . the Lord has caused the iniquity of us all to fall on Him"; 1 Cor.
15:3, "Christ died for our sins"; 2 Cor. 5:21, God made Christ "who knew no sin to be sin . . ."; 1
Pet. 2:24, "He Himself bore our sins in His body on the cross" ). Since no future sin yet existed,
on openness grounds, God could not know any of that future sin for which Christ's atonement
was meant to pay. The effect of this and the previous point is to see the crucifixion, as it relates
to people conceived after Christ's death, as an impersonal and abstract sort of substitution and
payment. He cannot really have died personally in their place nor for their very own sin. In fact,
Christ would have had reason to wonder, as he hung on that cross, whether for any, or for how
many, and for what sins, he was now giving his life. The sin paid for could only be sin, in
principle, and not sin by imputation, and the people died for was a blurry, impersonal, faceless,
nameless, and numberless potential grouping.

5.

Open theism's denial of exhaustive divine foreknowledge renders unsure God's own
covenant promise to bring blessing and salvation to the nations through the seed of
Abraham.

Open theists take the test of Abraham in Genesis 22 as a real test, presumably one

Abraham could fail thus disqualifying him from being the covenant partner through whom God
would bring blessing to the world.

Concerning this test, Sanders writes, "God needs to know if

Abraham is the sort of person on whom God can count for collaboration toward the fulfillment of
the divine project. Will he be faithful? Or must God find someone else through whom to
achieve his purpose?"

But if so, how shall we understand God's promise to Abraham in Gen.

12:2-3: "I will make you a great nation, and I will bless you, and make your name great; and so
you shall be a blessing, . . . and in you all the families of the earth will be blessed"? If this
covenant could be fulfilled through another, then what does God's word mean? Furthermore, if
Abraham fails this test, what assurances can we have that another, and then another, and then
another, might not also fail?

6.

Open theism's denial of exhaustive divine foreknowledge renders uncertain the execution
of God's plan of salvation through the delivering up of his Son by crucifixion on the
cross; or, if God foreknows and predestines the death of Christ, then, by openness
standards of freedom and morality, it renders Christ's obedience and offering himself up

Ibid., 52-53; and Boyd, God of the Possible, 64.

Ibid., (italics added).