if it's true that traditional Calvinism holds this view of God's timelessness, then I suspect that this may be a legitimate concern. If traditional Calvinism holds to a timeless view of God, then it looks reasonable to me to wonder if this timelessness was imported into Christian theology from Greco-Romans, because it appears to me that the God of the pre-Christian Hebrews was, and is, a "highly relational personal being". I don't doubt that you're right in indicating that Tiessen's "middle knowledge" doesn't do justice to the sovereignty of God. I'm trying to figure out if he has an inadequate solution to a legitimate problem.
I suppose we'd have to ask Mr. Tiessen for clarification as to what he means when he indicates that the doctrine of God's timelessness may not do justice to God's nature as a personal being. It's not clear to me why or how the timelessness of God would impinge upon His personal nature or His ability to engage in personal relationships with His creatures—except that Mr. Tiessen seems to suppose that it is not possible for God to "respond" to His creatures without first "learning" about them.
But then it is a question of God's self-sufficiency (what would an omniscient God need to learn, and from whom?), and so ultimately a question of God's sovereignty—for if God has sovereignly decreed whatsoever comes to pass (and it cannot be doubted that this is the biblical picture), then He necessarily knows all events before they occur. As Pilgrim has indicated, God's foresight flows from his foreordination.
I've encountered several people, influenced in large part by "process/openness theology" (also "Open Theism"), who criticize the doctrine of God's timelessness as a Greco-Roman import into Christian thought, an idea supposedly unknown to the ancient Hebrews. In my opinion, one need only read through Job to dismiss such claptrap.
If we reflect on God's omnipotence, His Lordship (i.e., sovereignty) over all, we must conclude that He is also Lord of Time. If He is not timeless, then He is
in time, therefore
subject to it. In such a case it is
impossible that He should know what the future holds, much less that He should ever have decreed it. Instead, He is "growing," "evolving," and "learning" as time goes by. He is reduced to an exalted weatherman, predicting the future but never quite knowing how exactly it will work out. This is not the God of Scripture, who says of Himself, "Remember the former things long past, for I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is no one like Me, declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times things which have not been done, saying, 'My purpose will be established, and I will accomplish all My good pleasure'" (Isa. 46:9–10).
In short, Mr. Tiessen's concern is illegitimate, and his proposed solution inconsistent.
