Page 3

foreknowledge?" seriously. Has sufficient careful consideration been given to what
implications follow from this specific denial? It seems to me that before we can think
responsibly about whether open theism should rightly be conceived as within or without the
bounds of evangelicalism, we must ponder as carefully and fully as we can just what open
theism's distinctive doctrine (i.e., its denial of exhaustive divine foreknowledge) leaves us with
theologically and practically. After all, open theism is nothing without this doctrine. So, if it
turns out that this specific doctrinal departure has innocuous or acceptable theological and
practical implications, then open theism as a model cannot be discredited on the grounds of this,
its distinctive doctrinal tenet. However, if it is demonstrable that the openness denial of
exhaustive divine foreknowledge has seriously unacceptable theological and practical
implications, then open theism as a model must likewise be deemed unacceptable.

In what follows, then, we shall consider at some length implications that follow from

open theism's distinctive tenet, viz., that God cannot know the future free choices and actions of
moral creatures, and hence, God does not have exhaustive foreknowledge. We will examine
these implications within four broad headings, both theological and practical. Following this
examination, the paper will conclude with an assessment of open theism on the boundary
question.

Implications of the Openness Denial of Exhaustive Divine Foreknowledge

No doubt there are more. But, I have given long and hard consideration to the question

of what implications follow, both for our theology and for the life of faith, when one affirms that
God does not know the future free choices and actions of moral creatures. I believe that the
implications are both numerous and weighty. Consider with me implications under four broad
headings: 1) God his character, purposes, and work; 2) revelation and Scripture their
accuracy and surety; 3) the gospel of salvation its design and truthfulness; and 4) the Christian
life its faith and hope in God.

Bear two things in mind as I present these implications: 1) Clearly, while some are

weightier than others, all are important, and my endeavor is to be truthful and honest with each.
So, consider the validity of each point, the importance of each (some greater than others), but
also bear in mind both the interconnectedness of many of these points and their overall
cumulative force. 2) For many points made, thoroughness would require engaging possible
openness responses, followed by counter-responses. I can seldom afford to do this due to time
constraints. On some of the most crucial points, I will. But if I don't, please don't assume either
that I am unaware of what openness proponents might say or of what answers might be given.
So now, to our question: What theological and practical implications follow from the openness
denial of exhaustive divine foreknowledge?

God His Character, Purposes, and Work

Open theism's denial of exhaustive divine foreknowledge entails God's ignorance not
only of the entirety of future creaturely free decisions and actions themselves but also of