Comments on: Calminianism and Open Theism

By: Jim Swindle

Jim Swindle — Fri, 24 Jul 2009 09:51:47 +0000

I don’t see how open theism could possibly fit with Psalm 139:16–Your eyes saw my unformed substance; in your book were written, every one of them, the days that were formed for me, when as yet there was none of them.

By: Paul

Paul — Wed, 22 Jul 2009 04:59:54 +0000

I cannot recommend highly enough Tiessen's book mentioned by Dr. Blomberg. It's an outstanding read, although I understand Tiessen may have abandoned the need for middle knowledge (see here). Coincidentally, I just finished drafting a 3-part series on providence and prayer from which I draw heavily from Tiessen and Helm. I will be posting on my blog in a few days, if interested.

By: ElShaddai Edwards

ElShaddai Edwards — Tue, 21 Jul 2009 16:30:35 +0000

Thank you for your kind response, Mr. Blomberg. I did not mean any offense by using “slyly” – I simply thought it was a clever amalgamation of two terms such that I had not seen before.

Abandoning open theism for a moment, the concept of middle knowledge as God foreknowing “what all possibly created beings would choose in all possible situations in all possible worlds in the future” has a remarkable echo of quantum mechanics (which a commenter on your original post also noted) – especially in the exploration of mathematics and philosophy by authors such as Neal Stephenson in his recent novel, Anathem. The possibility of multiple realities (or states of consciousness) that are influenced by the quantum triggers of actions and decisions in other states creates a mind boggling cascade of cause and effect throughout history, but not one too large for our God to foreknow completely.

Thank you for the recommendation on the Tiessen book – to date, I’ve subscribed to the ideas that Garry Friesen outlined in his book on the will of God – I’ll be sure to take a look at this as well.

By: Craig Blomberg

Craig Blomberg — Tue, 21 Jul 2009 15:44:12 +0000

Thanks for all your thoughtful comments. I wasn’t aware of doing anything slyly. While not in the theological dictionaries, Calminian is a term many people have used for a long time. Yes, there is only one letter difference between would and could but what a world of difference that makes. Middle knowledge and open theism, as I see it, are at two opposite ends of a spectrum regarding God’s omniscience. Traditional Calvinists and Arminians alike hold that God foreknows all that ever will happen. Open theism denies that by saying that he cannot foreknow what truly free creatures will choose in the future. Middle knowledge affirms not only that he does foreknow what truly free creatures will choose in the future but what all possibly created beings would choose in all possible situations in all possible worlds in the future. It’s hard for me to imagine two positions more opposite than that. The question rightly comes back as to whether middle knowledge is logically incoherent with libertarian free will. I’m not sure that it is incoherent, but I understand why some think it is. But my approach would be to combine middle knowledge with compatibilist freedom, which is the only kind I think the Bible ever teaches that we have. So I’d come down very close to where Terry Tiessen does in his wonderful book on Providence and Prayer.

By: My definition of a “Calminian” | Scripture Zealot

My definition of a “Calminian” | Scripture Zealot — Tue, 21 Jul 2009 04:45:36 +0000

[...] Calminianism and Open Theism [...]

By: tc robinson

tc robinson — Mon, 20 Jul 2009 17:55:10 +0000

“In the sense of choosing which puppets are on stage?” I think that is all based on conjecture. It’s like trying to figure out what best possible world God could have created.

By: ElShaddai Edwards

ElShaddai Edwards — Mon, 20 Jul 2009 17:00:53 +0000

Puppet master in the sense of controlling the actions of the puppets, or in the sense of choosing which puppets are on stage?

By: tc robinson

tc robinson — Mon, 20 Jul 2009 16:55:59 +0000

Because God creates only a finite number of persons between the beginning of the universe and Christ’s return, his sovereign choice is preserved, because he must choose to create some beings and not others.

This pegs God as a puppet master. Is this the best way to frame things? I don’t think so.

By: Tim Worley

Tim Worley — Mon, 20 Jul 2009 15:36:49 +0000

Interesting observations, El Shaddai. I do think that some form of middle knowledge may be instrumental in tempering a number of divisive issues in the Church today. It’s interesting that, on your argument, with a little tweaking Greg Boyd could hold this view, while a staunch Calvinist and anti-Open Theist like Bruce Ware also advocates a version of middle knowledge. I don’t claim to understand all the implications and nuances of the middle knowledge view, but I’m sympathetic to Blomberg’s assessment.