background image
14
charged with entailing, on openness grounds, that the crucifixion of Christ, as predetermined by
God, constituted the most egregious act of divine coercion perpetrated in the history of the
universe? Furthermore, if the event of the crucifixion was predestined, does this not require that
every act of Christ's earthly obedience was also constrained, since what was predestined was
(obviously) an efficacious crucifixion, i.e., the crucifixion of a truly sinless atoning sacrifice?
But, if his life of obedience and crucifixion were constrained, are they not, then, morally
vacuous, and is not the cross, then, worthless? And further yet, if the event of the crucifixion
was predestined `before the foundation of the world,' does this not entail God's foreknowledge
of sin? ­ i.e., how could God predestine a crucifixion to save from sin if sin is not certain? But,
what then of human freedom and moral responsibility in choosing originally to rebel against
God? My own view is that consistent open theism will follow Sanders, not Boyd, on this point.
In any event, I will proceed unfolding implications assuming Sanders' view.

7.
Open theism's denial of exhaustive divine foreknowledge renders uncertain, by extension
of the uncertainty of Christ's crucifixion, the resurrection of Jesus by which alone do
believers in Christ have hope (1 Cor. 15:17).

Are the predictions of Jesus' future resurrection in Psalm 16 and by Jesus himself (e.g.,
Matt. 16:21) probabilistic, or conditional in nature? Does Peter understand these predictions this
way in Acts 2:24-32 as he quotes Psalm 16? Surely not. In Acts 2:31, Peter states, "[David]
looked ahead and spoke of the resurrection of the Christ, that He was neither abandoned to
Hades, nor did His flesh suffer decay." But if the resurrection was not in question, then neither
was the crucifixion merely probabilistic or conditional. Rather, both were set, fixed, certain, sure
and absolutely foreknown by God.

8.
Open theism's denial of exhaustive divine foreknowledge jeopardizes the legitimacy of
God's justification of OT saints by faith (e.g., Gen 15:6).
Recall that in Rom 3:25-26 we are told that God passed over sins previously committed
for the demonstration of his righteousness at the present time. So, what grounds the legitimacy
of God's justification of OT believers is, not their sacrifices, not their faith per se, but the future
payment of Christ's death on the cross, by which God demonstrates now, in Christ, that he is
righteous in having forgiven those he did (as well as forgiving others yet future). But consider:
For God to extend justification to OT saints, apart from knowing their sin would be paid by a
subsequent death for sin, would be to extend what was in fact a groundless and unjustified
justification.

9.
[Parallel to the previous point:] Open theism's denial of exhaustive divine foreknowledge
renders illusory the salvific value of OT atoning sacrifices for the forgiveness of sin.

The type/antitype reality in the OT sacrificial system requires the certainty of the future
death of Christ, i.e., the "lamb of God which takes away the sin of the world". But, of course,
since God cannot have known whether his Son would freely offer himself as the once-for-all
atonement for sin, God's institution of the sacrificial system was, strictly, a legal fiction. There
was then no basis in the Old Testament period itself by which God could forgive sins through