God and Time: God is Not Eternal

God is Not Eternal

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/tonyjones/2014/02/12/god-is-not-eternal/#more-9825

by Tony Jones

[additional remarks by r.e. slater]

February 12, 2014

Writing a book on the atonement is like peeling the layers of an onion. Every theological dilemma you [think you] solve only brings up two more dilemmas. So it was that I needed to write a section in the book on God’s relationship to time, because it seemed to make no sense to talk about God’s relationship to Jesus’ crucifixion unless I could explain God’s relationship to time.

So a couple weeks back, I wrote a post arguing that God is not outside of time [that is, in the classic description of time. But that God is alongside of, or within time, in the process sense of time. - r.e. slater]. When reading that, Keith DeRose sent me Nicholas Wolterstorff‘s classic essay, “God Everlasting” (in Contemporary Philosophy of Religion, New York: Oxford, 1982).

In that essay, Wolterstorff argues that God is not eternal, God is everlasting.

His argument proceeds thusly:

1) The biblical narrative clearly tells of a God who changes, and any hermeneutic that denies this is tortured.

2) Any being who changes is necessarily, in part, temporal.

3) “Eternal” is a totalising characteristic. It is not possible for a thing to be partly temporal and partly eternal.

4) Therefore, God is not eternal.

Money quote:

What I shall argue is that if we are to accept this picture of God as acting for the renewal of human life, we must conceive of him as everlasting rather than eternal. God the Redeemer cannot be a God eternal. This is so because God the Redeemer is a God who changes. And any being which changes is a being among whose states there is temporal succession. Of course, there is an important sense in which God as presented in the Scriptures is changeless: he is steadfast in his redeeming intent and ever faithful to his children. Yet, ontologically, God cannot be a redeeming God without there being changeful variation among his states.

Some will argue that God could be eternal and still involved with time. Wolterstorff debunks that claim in a section that begins,

As with any argument, one can here choose to deny the premisses rather than to accept the conclusion. Instead of agreeing that God is fundamentally noneternal because he changes with respect to his knowledge, his memory, and his planning, one could try to save one’s conviction that God is eternal by denying that he knows what is or was or will be occurring; that he remembers what has occurred; and that he brings about what he has planned. It seems to me, however, that this is clearly to give up the notion of God as a redeeming God. And in turn, it seems to me that to give this up is to give up what is central to the biblical vision of God. To sustain this latter claim would of course require an extensive hermeneutical inquiry. But lest someone be tempted to go this route of trying to save God’s eternity by treating all the biblical language about God the redeemer as either false or misleadingly metaphorical, let me observe that if God were eternal he could not be the object of any human action whatsoever.

For me, in solving the enigma that is the crucifixion of Jesus, God’s relationship to time is essential, and Wolterstorff opened a new vista of understanding in this essay. It’s that last sentence that really seals it for me. I don’t see any logical way that an eternal being could be engaged in temporal human affairs, and surely not in the way that’s described in the Bible.

What do you think is God’s relationship to time?

- Tony

* * * * * * * * * *

God and Time:
The Mystery of the Incarnate God Eternal

"Ehyeh Asher Ehyeh" means "I will be that who I have yet to become."

- God (Ex 3.14)

An Eclectic Doctrine

Sometimes there are areas in Christian doctrine that you may properly be an eclecticist. I think the doctrine of God and time may be just one of those doctrines. I'm reminded of that every time we sing Troy Hatfield's song Matchless at Mars Hill where Troy unconsciously jumbles up the classical idea of God's unchangeableness with God's imputed changeableness.... "A God who was, and is, and will be, constantly unchanging, immutable, unspeakable, full of grace, the God-man who came." Who entered into our time and space and was. And there's the crux of it. "God was, and is, and will be."

A God who came into time and out of eternity. Into creation's experiences of time, and out of time's timelessness as the Greek Classicists and early Church Fathers had conceived of it. A God who became incarnate; Who lived with us and died for us. Who would renew all creation and mankind by His lived life and experiential death. Who was Himself, the timeless One, became the corruptible One - in the sense of bearing a dying body, and not bearing a sinful soul. Who became the changeable One at the time of His incarnation forward through to His death. Who now lives with all of creation's temporality as the eternally incarnated Redeemer of creation.

The Metaphysics of Becoming and Being

This ontological truth (ontology = speaking of God's being, attributes, and character) cannot be explained, understood, or imagined. It just must be accepted. A God who Himself had become and now is - mutable, changeable, temporal. Forever affected by the very creation He created within time and space. We cannot understand it. We cannot explain it. We can only state it and present it. The idea that a holy, eternal God can forever now be the Incarnated, holy, eternal God. No less divine but wholly glorified by His incarnation (which is what you would expect when finding anything touched by God's own presence). Who is both creature and Creator. Who is timeless Saviour become willful Redeemer. It is a paradox which is beyond our experience and metaphysical categories (metaphysics = simplistically, anything "spiritual." Something that is not physical but can be decribed meta-physically). We just know God is. Who once was and has become. Who, like us, was, is becoming, and will be, in the past, present, and future tense of our understanding.

It is this God that is the God who has entered into creation's time and become a God who is in process like we are today (a simplistic description of "process theology"). Who is in Himself experiencing the eternal process of "becoming and being" as the incarnate, resurrected Saviour of man. Who is no less flesh and blood than we are today. Whose future is our future when we die. And like us (anthropomorphism = bearing man's image) has become us, even as we are like Him (theo-morphism = bearing God's image) and are, and will be, in both the past-present-and-future sense of the word. We each share the other's image because of God's incarnation through Christ Jesus our Saviour. It is a mystery but one we must be mindful not to forget less we make of God an idol untouchable. One too holy, too distant, too unfeeling, from our own experiences. But whom we do understand can be all this and more if it were not for His holy incarnation that bridges the gap between our humanity and His divinity.

What Do We Mean by "God Being in Process?"

Now the question. Actually two.... If we have a lover, spouse, or friend, who forever was fixed in time from the first day we had met him or her, would that be satisfying to us today? To know someone who never changes. Never grows old with us. Whose experience of time is forever fixed in what was once was? Would this be satisfying to us? Would that friend, lover, or spouse, be able to meet our needs? Or match our experiences? Or breach our understanding of time and death? In a limited sense, yes. And in another sense of providing to us the comfort of our past, yes. But it would be akin to something similar to our fond memories of past loved ones who had died but are no longer with us today. Who were but who are no longer present with us in the continuing experience of our flesh. It's trials and travails.

However, loved ones who are in the process of dying (there's that word again. It speaks of both life and death and life beyond).... Who are remembered - perhaps like my father's long illness or, as a beloved child we once remember from many years ago as a parent - they are forever fixed in time and space and no longer able to reach out to us in meaningful ways that our current timeful experiences of life will demand. We would share ourselves with them but find a gap, an emptiness, there. An experiential gap that is unbridgeable - unless they were able to move forward with us in time and space to appreciate our experiences in the now. The here. The present. This is what we call relationship. Relationships must be living, not dead. We cannot share with a dying parent or loved one as they let go of this mortal veil of flesh to push onwards. We cannot commune with a pleasant memory of a past childhood or family life that no longer lives with us except in the past. This things are mortal. They are past. They continue forward only in our minds and hearts and not as living present relationships.

Thus, if we only had the memory of a dead God and Saviour than it is only that. A dead memory and not a living relationship. For God to be a living God is to be a God who must continue in His relationship with us into our future tense. And not only with us but with all of His creation in its future tenses. If He had only died and remained in the grave than there would be no present tense "I-Thou" relationship which could continue. To do this God must be resurrected from the grave, and raised into glorification, as the divine, but incarnate (not re-incarnated), God of the universe. (Pauline sidetrack: in a sense God is re-incarnated in us even as our past is re-incarnated in us. But not ontologically. But existentially = as something that is "live out through our past experiences." That is, we are not God. Nor are we other people. However, our relationship with God, or with others, will reproduce their mind, their heart, their passion, in-and-through us. Just not themselves, excepting God's Spirit of course, who lives in us, and through us, and permeates all creation, infilling it with His presence). A God of the universe who would continue with us alongside our time-and-experience, even as He would continue alongside of our own past when having died to it and parted from it. Otherwise there is no now, no here, no future promise, no there, is, and will be. All would be nothingness and nothing. Without future, hope, or promise.

This God must be a living God. Not a dead God only beheld from the grave. And not a timeless God who had never known incarnated. Or walked this earth as a flesh-and-blood but very mortal human. This God must be a God who continues forward both within time and space, and without (or outside) of time and space. Even so, it is this latter part that we seem to mangle and confused. For it is the "within" part that we do seem to understand more readily than the "without" part... that we do now have a living Saviour who is with us, but who is apart from us as divine Spirit.

Hence the concept of process.... Process theology is a dynamic (and not static) concept of God that says that God continues to live though dead - and not impassionately apart from His creation (sic, deism, pelagianism, in all their gnostic forms). But passionately. Who continues to become and be through creation's experiences. Or our own. Or the church's experiences in this world. Which is part two of our question. How can a dead God remain with us? At Calvary's cross He did die. A place where He was forever affected by His humanity by His divine death. A death that became as a result of His incarnation. A death that He would meet - as we each will - simply because He lived even as we do now today live, and breath, hunger and thirst, know tiredness, suffering, aches, and pain of heart. In this mortal flesh we do know that every living thing dies. We see it everywhere about. We know of only one man that never died - Elijah. A prophet of God who was raised up as a living, non-dead, being. But it is through Elijah's story, and that of Lazarus'  miraculous "raising from the dead," that we would understand Jesus' resurrection. An "alive-but dead-but made alive again" resurrection into the heavens by the hand of God.

Enter Radical Theology's "God is Dead"

It is this kind of Process Theology that can better inform us of God's continued presence with us which a Radical Theology will then acknowledge as an event described as the "Death of God" when reflecting on this momentous event. Which is quite unlike the movie depiction of the "God is Dead" movement that serializes a Hollywood charicature of the "Death of God" movement. In reality, a true theology will take this event's implications very seriously. That God did die and that we must now know what it means for our present tense society, humanity, creation, church, Christianity, and future expectations. But we've strayed off topic again and must return to the topic at hand....

A Process Theology can better handle God's death when coupled with His resurrection, and not apart from it. Even as we can best understand God's death when beheld in the light of His resurrection. But it is the "without" part of God dwelling "outside of" time and space that we may have the greatest struggle with. And in fact, we must now admit into our definitions and classical ideas of "eternality" that God is no longer the unaffected eternal God. But the affected eternal God who must now dwell within all time and space. Who no longer is separate from it - if He ever really was. That perhaps classicism itself is to blame for making this God we worship so timelessly eternal that we see Him too far away from ourselves. If we say that God is love than how do we know that this God can love?

The very idea of God's "love and grace" seems meaningless without its actual experience of love and grace (whether before God's Incarnation or after it). Have you noticed that platonic love is seldom written about or moanfully sung?. But romantic love - deeply entangled love - is. It fills all the music industry with its messiness and frailty. Its crucible of a heaven-and-hell painfully experienced deeply within the souls of our being. Our anger and frustrations. It affects everything we say and do - our passions, drives, and nature. However, divine love cannot be meaningful if it dies in the grave, or never lived at all. It must somehow live in the present and future tenses of its expectations of being and becoming.

And yes, spirits, even divine Spirits, must admit some form of eternality because spirits by our very definition and ideas are seemingly "unaffected" by timeful events.... Or so we think. However, it is that very idealised human idea of "spirit" that must change from its classical sense to its process sense. We can no longer think of God as Spirit without thinking of God as an affected and affecting Spirit. It would be both biblical and right to aver that God ever loved in eternity even as He will ever love throughout eternity everlasting. But even more so, as our Incarnate, glorified God, He now is one with His creation. This divine love has been made plain to us through Jesus God's Son and very Self come among men.

Otherwise how can a dead God continue to love if we are to take the "Death of God" seriously? How can a dead God be alive and present with us now? How can His grace and mercy, peace and justice, hope and force of life, be our present guide and salvation? Nay, this God who is dead must somehow live. And live both within and without eternity as both divine Spirit and incarnated God. He must be resurrected from the grave. From hell. From the separation of Himself from Himself even as the Son was forsaken by the Father. He must be a God who is glorified on the basis of His incarnation and defeat of death, grave, and hell, by penalty and resurrection. Even as the believing son or daughter of God must even so live beyond death. He must be a God who lives with us in this life even as He will live with us in the next life to come. In eternity everlasting.

Which doesn't mean that our dead loved ones might commune with us now in this life as they once had.... But for the Christian, there is the strong knowledge that those dead loved ones will be communed with again on the other side of the grave. And until then they rest in God. They remain in Him even as we shall someday rest in God. And know that by the saving work of Christ our Saviour - based upon His own death and resurrection - that we will likewise rise with Jesus into the fellowship of God everlasting. Who in Himself was, and is, and ever will be, the Prince of Life. Our Prince of Life. Our Promise and Keep. Our strong fortress that prevails over death, the grave, and even hell itself.

The Incarnate God Who Died and Lives Again

Which brings us back to thought number two... how does a God who died now live? We have answered it on a Spirit level (or metaphysical), but we must also answer it on an existential level (an experiential, knowledge level, on the plane of our being). The short answer is that God is dead and we must acknowledge His death (back to Radical Theology again). This too is a paradox which forces us to admit that the Eternal, Unchanging One is no longer eternal and unchanging. That He has died and no longer lives as He once was apart from Calvary's Cross. And this is the part we will struggle with so firm our convictions that He walks with us "in the garden alone" as the old hymn says. That His Spirit does ever live and is with us by His eternal presence. And yes, this is true. But it is also true that His discourse with man is not like it once was in the Old Testament. And here is the tricky part then. Just what is it now since the days of the New Testament? Since the days of His death and resurrection?

I might offer one suggestion. That God continues today with His church (and with all of mankind) through His infilling Spirit of Pentecost. That is, it is through God's very Spirit that He communes with man today (though I suspect that even in the Old Testament He did so when speaking to the saints and priests of old, and beholding their commune with God). For this old world to see God means that it must see God through us, His church, His body and bride. How? By His own wounded hands and feet which act through us by His living miracles of healing, prophesying, evangelizing, of doing good works through us. We are His tongue and words (logos). His presence (spiritos). His feeling and composure (pathos). His nurture and grace (agapos). Truths which will place a lot of responsiblity upon our shoulders when we think of it in this way. Which doesn't mean that God by His Spirit can do nothing alone apart from us. But that, like with the Patriarch's and Israel's spiritual responsibility in their day, even so the church must now bear the love and grace of God, and the burden of the Lord Jesus Christ, through us, His living church.

Henceforth, and forever now, do we know that the God who lived, and who has died, must now live again in the resurrected sense of His living church. Who is a God who still reaches out through His Spirit to infill, transform, and conform, our very lives so that they may reach out to friend and family, foe and enemy, in the love and grace and divine power of His Almighty, Holy Spirit. We are not alone. We have a living God who is not dead. But a God who did die and lives again. Who is our pattern for both life and eternity. Who is in Himself the unexplainable One. Our mystery and paradox. Our enigma and riddle. But One whom we trust, and know, and desire to live and serve though all our mortal-immortal life. Even so dear Lord come. Come into our lives and help us die to sin's deaths and live to graces sustaining affects. In all our weakness. In all our frailty. By your strength and help and Spirit. Amen.

R.E. Slater

March 19, 2014

video may be found here -

Aaron Niequist live at Willow Creek Church singing Matchless -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RGF-Q-6EmbM

Matchless
by Troy Hatfield
Mars Hill Church, Grand Rapids, MI

Long before
Our time began
Long before I was

Heaven rang--creation rang
The matchlessness of God

Majesty unspeakable
We boldly bless Your name

In awe of love--in awe of grace
The God, the man who came

Praise to the constantly unchanging

You were
You are
And You will be

You were
You are
And You will be

God even though immutable
Revealing still today

The story moves--our parts still prove
Significant in ways

We praise the constantly unchanging

You were
You are
And You will be

You were
You are
And You will be

Beauty, glory
Just and holy
Righteousness and truth
Faithful leader, gentle healer
Matchless God are You

Beauty, glory
Just and holy
Righteousness and truth
Faithful leader, gentle healer
Matchless God are You

You were
You are
And You will be

You were
You are
And You will be

Hallelujah
Hallelujah
Hallelujah
Hallelujah
Hallelujah
Hallelujah
Hallelujah
Hallelujah

©2003 zonkeydonkeytunes




continue subtopic and discussion
under "God and Time" here -

Index to past articles on "Particle Physics, Quantum Science, and the Universe"

Christianity 21 - A Celebration of Church

God Has Died... And He Has a Wonderful Plan for Your Life

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/tonyjones/2014/01/10/god-has-died-and-he-has-a-wonderful-plan-for-your-life/

by Tony Jones

January 10, 2014

Comments

Engaging great content at Christianity21. (Courtney Perry)

I’m at Christianity21 this week, a gathering produced by Doug Pagitt, Sarah Cunningham, and Your Favorite Blogger. We’re one day in, and it’s been awesome. One of the great things about this event is that there’s no theme, and there are 21 gifted speakers, so we never really know what magic will happen in the chemistry between the talks.

They don’t all agree, but they do tend to dovetail with one another. Yesterday, Jonathan Merritt led off the opening session with a challenge to follow God’s call and listen to the unlikely ways that God speaks. Paul Raushenbush went next with a call for conservatives and liberals to rediscover the social gospel. Noel Castellanos told us five things we can do to engage with people and the gospel. And Nadia Bolz-Weber told us ten things she’s learned about being a pastor and church planter.

In the next session, Kent Dobson gave an amazing reflection on the absence of God, Sarah Lefton challenged us to engage Christians in biblical literacy in the way that she has challenged Jews, Mike Foster reminded us how everyone needs to be loved, and Romal Tune told us that the church needs to compete with gangs for the youth of LA.

In between, we had a couple dozen 7-minute talks by attendees from around the country. Today more talks. And tomorrow, even more, including my call to recover apocalyptic language for the church. Check back here for updates.

* * * * * * * *

The JoPa Group

Christianity21 is a ground-breaking gathering of leaders who want to fashion

the future of the Christian faith. 21 Talks, 21 Big Ideas, 21 Minutes Each.

Plus, over forty 7-21 Talks by amazing people just like you.

Join us in Denver, Colorado, January 9-11.

FAQS

Q: Are all the presenters for Christianity 21 women?

A: No. One of the first years, we did present an all women roster, which was a great success. But this year, both male and female presenters will join us.

Q: Does Christianity 21 have specific themes? Will everyone be presenting on the same topic?

A: No. We have presented Christianity 21 as a theme-specific event in the past, but have come to appreciate the flexibility and diversity produced when influencers are given free reign to share their biggest and best ideas, regardless of subject. We’re asking presenters to share one big idea this year, which will result in 21 big ideas.

Q: Are there opportunities to share ideas too?

A: Yes, you can go here to suggest yourself or someone else as a presenter or discussion leader.

We will be accepting suggestions until October 1st with a goal of responding with the team’s selections by October 15th. We appreciate your patience until then.

Q: Can I make changes to my tickets?

A: We try to be flexible so some changes are possible. For example, up until 7 days prior to the event, you can transfer your registration to another person, or you can bank your registration fee for a future JoPa Group event. In order to keep all of our events and conferences affordable, The JoPa Group works efficiently. We have a small staff, and we try to keep overhead (like credit card transaction fees) to a minimum. For that reason, we cannot offer refunds for canceled registrations.

History

Birthed in 2009, Christianity21 invites attenders to live a 21st century Christianity with 21 speakers who deliver 21 big ideas in 21 minutes each.

It’s difficult to describe the atmosphere that is created when energized people from across the Christian spectrum come together to imagine a healthier, better faith for the future. But if you didn’t have the chance to join us for the original event, we hope this highlights video produced by Don Heatley will help you get a taste of what happens in this sort of “come together” event.

---

---

21 Voices…Plus Yours.

We work hard to fill the stage with some of the sharpest and most unique voices of the Christian faith.  But this event isn’t just about their voices. It’s about yours as well.

Whether it’s sharing ideas with those seated in your row, around the dinner table, or in your social networks, there are plenty of ways to share your perspective on the content presented. If you’re comfortable facilitating a small group discussion on a favorite topic or getting up in front of people to present a good idea of your own, please feel free to submit yourself as a possible discussion leader or presenter. We’re trying to make room for as many voices as possible!

2014 Presenters

http://thejopagroup.com/

... for information on coming events,
retreats, conferences, and workshops
go to this link here.

God and Time: What Is Time? And How Does Time Relate to God?

"Has God no attraction for what is new? Has he no capacity of the delightful

experiences of wonder and surprise and variety? We ought never to lose

sight of what God has explicitly revealed of himself when he declares

that we are made in his image and likeness."

- An 1882 quote by Lorenzo Dow McCabe, a Methodist who was one of the

first well-known advocates of Open theology to insist God experiences

time in a way analogous to how we experience time.

Today's article on "God and Time" should be considered a standard introduction written from both a theological, and philosophical, perspective as you would any premier to the subject. But not as a scientific one. It will introduce the novice reader to the several ideas of the church in consideration to those presented in Greek philosophy; and later, to the ideas of early, rudimentary, science as it was initially being laid out during the 17th century enlightenment period. As such, I would consider today's presentation as a series of "classic Christian arguments" on the subject itself.

Herein, does the author present a step-wise case for the topic at hand, but even as he did so I found myself asking more questions than were being answered. Moreover, as each conclusion was being made, even so were they understated and jumbled together in a tumbleweed of observations. Hence, my regard for this piece as an introduction to the topic on hand, and a beginning loci for discussion centered around the "classic" mindset of Christian theology. However, the newer, more postmodern discussions occurring in science, theology, and philosophy, are not addressed.

For additional help, I would suggest referring to the index at the bottom of this article under the subtitles of "The Origin of Time and Space," and "Discussions Ex Nihilo," along with reviewing the many articles found in the sidebars of this website, perhaps under the wider themes of "God, creation, sovereignty, sin, science, philosophy," and so forth. Thank you.

R.E. Slater
November 20, 2013

Today's entry was written by Ryan Mullins. Please note the views expressed here

are those of the author, not necessarily of The BioLogos Foundation. You can

read more about what we believe here.

*Of note, I have arranged Mullins article topically to help make it a bit more

comprehensible while interjecting a thought or two as I think it relates to other parts

of the theological discussions we have held here on this website. Where this is done

you will observe [brackets]. Thank you. - RE Slater

From Time Back to Eternity, Part I

http://biologos.org/blog/questions-on-time-and-eternity-part-1

What is time? What is eternity? Will humans always be asking these questions? Reflection on time and eternity has brought up all sorts of philosophical and theological conundrums. For instance, there is the ancient question, “What was God doing before he created the world?” There were two popular answers in the past. First, God was creating hell for people who ask such questions. This was usually seen as a joke response, though in some instances it was not. The second response was that God was creating time itself. As such, there is no "before creation". Whether or not this is a good response is something I will set aside for the moment.

To say that these topics are bedeviling would be an understatement. Time is such a fundamental feature of reality and human experience. We are constantly thinking about time in various ways and have multiple metaphors for capturing some of its more comprehensible aspects. We wear time on our wrists and use it to decorate our rooms. We experience the ebb and flow of time’s passage every conscious moment of our existence. We thank God for time when a horrible event ends, or when an anticipated event arrives. We mourn when great moments in our lives pass us by or cease to be. Time is a fundamental feature of our lives and we can’t help but think about it.

But perhaps we could think about time and eternity more clearly than we presently do. In this post I will introduce you to some of the types of questions that need to be asked in order to understand the nature of time and God’s eternity. In the process of discussing these questions, some possible answers will begin to emerge. The hope is that we can begin to think more clearly about time and eternity.

The Fundamental Questions

I’ll begin by sorting out some of the questions that people typically ask about time and the types of responses that are often given. Once a better understanding of these questions and responses are grasped, one can begin to understand the nature of eternity. What types of questions will help us achieve this understanding?

There are two types of fundamental questions about time. How one answers these questions will shape how s/he answers questions about the nature of eternity. The first question is the metaphysical question. The second is the ontological question:

I - The Metaphysics of Time

Metaphysics is the branch of philosophy that studies the basic fundamental features of reality. The metaphysical question is asking about the fundamental nature of time. What is time?

Time As Relational

Historically, there have been two broad answers. The first is sometimes called the “relational theory of time.” It can also be called the “reductive theory of time.” On this position, time is change. If there is a change, there is a time. If there is no change, there is no time. This is because change creates a before and after relationship.

For example: previously, you were not reading this blog post. Then you began to read this blog post. You changed from the state of not reading, to a state of reading. You have a before and an after in your life.

Imagine a somewhat different scenario. Imagine that the universe never existed. Perhaps after reading this blog post you wished that the universe never existed, but don’t think about it in that way. Instead, ask yourself a different question. If there were no universe, would time exist? Someone who holds to the relational theory would most likely say no. There needs to be something that exists that undergoes change in order to generate time.

Time As Non-Relational (or, Absolute)

Perhaps your gut is telling you something different. Maybe you think that time could exist even if the universe does not exist. If you feel this way, you are not alone, because there are thinkers who reject the relational theory of time. This brings us to the second position, which is called the “absolute theory of time.” It can also be called Platonism or substantivalism.

In this understanding of time, time can exist without change. This is because time is duration, or the possibility of change. When changes take place, time takes place, but time could exist without change.

During the 17th century, this view became quite popular. Along with its rise in popularity was a move away from the claim that God is timeless. Instead, various philosophers, theologians, and scientists came to equate time with God’s eternity. The idea was that time exists because God exists. Time necessarily flows from the divine nature. God has the perfect capacity to bring about any changes he so desires, and this capacity is all that is needed to generate time.

The claim from thinkers within this camp is that God exists regardless of whether or not he decides to create anything. Further, since time necessarily flows from the nature of God, time exists regardless of the contingent things that exist within it. So time would exist even if God did not create a universe.

Comparing Relational Time with Non-Relational Time

Of course, Christian theology claims that God has created this universe, and possibly others as well. To get a better grasp on the differences between the relational and absolute theory of time, focus your attention on our universe. Imagine that one day God paused the movements of the planets and everything else such that nothing within the universe continued to move until God unpaused it. Would time exist during this pause? The absolute theorist would say yes because time can exist without change. S/he might say that we could not measure the amount of time that passed during this pause, but s/he would still maintain that there was time during this pause. There was the moment when God paused the universe, then the pause, then the moment when God unpaused the universe. The relational theorist will most likely have none of this. If God pauses the universe such that there is no movement or change at all, she will say that there is no time occurring until God unpauses everything.

II - The Ontology of Time

To recap, these two possibilities—relational versus absolute time—respond to the first fundamental question on time: the metaphysical question. The second fundamental question is called the ontological question. Ontology is the branch of philosophy that studies existence [(or, composition)].

Time as Presentism

The ontological question on time asks about what moments of time exist. There are three basic positions one can take. The first is called presentism. This is often said to be the “common sense view,” and it has been the most widespread view throughout history. In presentism, only the present moment of time exists. The past no longer exists, and the future does not yet exist.

Time as Both Past and Present, but Not Future

The second position is called the “growing block view.” It holds that the past and present both exist. Time is like an ever-growing block where the leading edge is the present moment.

Time as Past, Present, and Future (or, Eternalism)

The third position is called “eternalism” and it says that the past, present, and future all exist.

In order to get a better grasp on the ontological question, consider another thought experiment. Imagine that you are sitting in your living room watching TV. All of a sudden a blue police box appears in your room, and a man in a sharp suit and wild hair bursts out of it calling himself “the Doctor.” With mad gestures and unnerving but exciting facial expressions, the Doctor tells you that he has a machine. If you come with him in this machine, he says that he can take you anywhere in space and to any “when” in time. All you have to do is say when and where, and he will take you there. Say you want to go back to the 17th century to hear Samuel Clarke and G.W. Leibniz debate the absolute and relational theory of time. Or maybe you want to go back and chat up Caroline, the Princess of Wales, whilst the debate is going on. Is this possible? That depends on several things, one of which is the ontology of time.

Comparing the Three Ontologies of Time

If presentism is true, the good Doctor may be able to take you anywhere, but he cannot take you to any when. In presentism, this is impossible since the past no longer exists. There is no moment in the past to go back to in order to flirt with the Princess of Wales.

However, if the growing block theory is true, the Doctor could take you there, since the past does exist in this theory. But perhaps you decide you want to see the future instead of chatting up some 17th Century Welsh princess. Say you want to know who will win the 2016 United States presidential election. If presentism or the growing block theory is true, the Doctor cannot take you to the future because the future does not exist in either theory.

But if eternalism is true, he can, since the past, present, and future all exist. (Of course, this is assuming that time travel is even a possibility. Many philosophers argue that time travel is not logically possible since it always involves a paradox of some sort, but that issue will have to wait for another day.)

Conclusion

Throughout this first post, I have alluded to the fact that how one answers these fundamental questions will shape how one understands God’s relation to time. In the next post, I’ll discuss how these questions of time come to bear on God’s eternal nature and his relationship with our temporal universe.

From Time Back to Eternity, Part II

http://biologos.org/blog/questions-on-time-and-eternity-part-2

Now that we have a somewhat better understanding of the different positions on the fundamental nature of time, we can ask about the fundamental nature of eternity [(sic, from time to eternity)]. Theologians and religious philosophers in the past have made a distinction between God’s eternity, and the eternal life that God has granted humans. Historically, most theologians have said that God’s eternity is timeless whereas the eternal life that is granted to humans is not. To say that humans will have eternal life is to say that they will enjoy blissful lives without end.

How Is God Eternal?

Beginning in the 17th century, theologians and philosophers began to reject the claim that God’s eternity is timeless. Instead, they said God’s eternity is temporal. Today, there is a serious debate over the nature of God’s eternity [sic, Process vs. Classical Thought - RE Slater)]. All of this brings up a very important set of questions. What is timeless eternity? What is temporal eternity? How one answers these questions will depend upon how she answered the above questions on time.

Time as a Timeless Eternity

When it comes to the task of articulating divine timelessness, theologians and philosophers have historically supported both presentism and the relational theory. To say that God is timeless is to say that God exists without beginning, without end, and without succession.

God lacks succession because he does not undergo any changes of any sort. Since time is change in the relational theory, and God does not change, God does not exist in time. Further, God exists in a timeless present that lacks a before and after.

Our present is fleeting in that it has a before, and after. Humans endure through time by existing in the present, but they have moments of their lives that no longer exist and other anticipated moments that do not yet exist.

These theologians would say that, unlike humans, God does not lose moments of his life, nor does he have moments that do not yet exist.

Time as Temporal Eternity

Other theologians and religious philosophers reject timeless eternity and instead hold to a temporal eternity. To say that God’s eternity is temporal is to say that God exists without beginning and without end. Yet they will say that God does have succession in his life.

1 - First Reason

One reason for rejecting timeless eternity is that a timeless God cannot create a temporal universe. A standard claim among believers of monotheistic religions is that God created the universe ex nihilo—out of nothing. The universe has not always existed because God was not always creating it. The universe is not co-eternal with God [because it was created by God at some point in time]. [The process theologian will additionally say that the God is continually creating (or, re-creating) the cosmos. - re slater].

So the picture we have of creation is one where God exists without the universe, and then God creates and exists with the universe. Creation marks a new moment in the life of God. God was not always the creator, but became the creator.

2 - Second Reason

A second reason for rejecting divine timelessness is from the doctrine of divine sustaining. Once God has created the universe, he sustains it in existence moment by moment. The universe would not exist at any given moment without God actively sustaining it in existence.

Given presentism, God would sustain one moment of time, and then cease to sustain it in existence as he sustains the next moment. Since the present is constantly moving forward, God would be continually sustaining new moments of time in existence and ceasing to sustain previous moments of time. As such, God’s life would involve succession and change as he sustains the universe in existence and providentially guides history to his desired goal.

Comparison of Time as Timeless or Temporal

Contemporary defenders of divine timelessness (view 1) have a reply to these objections. The objections assume presentism. However, as noted above, presentism is not the only position one could hold.

Today, most defenders of divine timelessness hold to eternalism whereby the past, present, and future all equally exist. In this picture of time, God is creating and sustaining all of time at once. There is a sense in which the universe is co-eternal with God because God never exists without the universe [(the idea of "pan-en-theism," which is part of process thought - re slater)]. So the problem of God beginning to create a universe does not arise because God never exists without the universe. God is eternally the creator.

Further, the contemporary defender will say that the problem of God sustaining the universe goes away too. The picture of God sustaining a moment of time in existence, and then ceasing to sustain it, does not arise on eternalism, for all moments of time are co-eternal with God.

What Time Is It? What Eternity Is It?

At this point, one might wonder which understanding of God and time is correct. Unfortunately, such an answer would make this blog post far too long. I can, however, note some of the issues that arise from each picture of God and time.

Comparison of View 1

First, consider the view that God is timeless and that eternalism is the right understanding of time [(sic, the classical position - re slater)]. All moments of time are co-eternal with God. One worry that this raises is with regard to the problem of evil and suffering. If all moments of time equally exist, and are co-eternal with God, then evil and suffering are co-eternal with God.

Think of yesterday morning when you got up in the middle of the night to use the bathroom. Recall how you stubbed your toe while stumbling through the dark corridors of your home. In that moment of pain you cursed God with a loud voice of anguish. As the pain subsided, you might have thought it rather silly to have been so upset. Perhaps you asked for forgiveness for your swearing, or maybe you offered up praise thanking God that the moment of pain had now passed.

On eternalism, that moment of time when you stubbed your toe exists. The you that exists at this moment is not experiencing that pain because you are experiencing the bliss of reading this blogpost. However, the you of yesterday morning is experiencing that pain because the you of yesterday exists just as much as the current you does, albeit at a different moment of time. The suffering you and the blissfully blog-reading you are both co-eternal with God.

For some Christians, it might be difficult to believe that God and suffering are co-eternal in this way. Instead, some Christians might ask how this view of God and time can be reconciled with the promise that one day God will remove all suffering from the universe (Revelation 21:4). If the moments of suffering never cease to exist because they are co-eternal with God, how can God truly rid the world of evil?

Comparison of View 2

Now consider the other view on which God is in time and presentism is the correct understanding of time. The temporal God is constantly changing as new moments of time come into existence. Consider again your unfortunate toe-stubbing incident from the night before. On presentism, that moment did not always exist, but it began to exist, then ceased to exist. God began to perceive that you were stubbing your toe. Then God began to perceive that you were cursing his name. Once you calmed down and asked for forgiveness, God began to forgive you.

This certainly fits with certain biblical themes about God’s responsiveness to human prayer, his interaction with history, and the claim that God was not always incarnate but became incarnate at one point in history for the sake of salvation.

However, some Christians might worry that this does not fit with the biblical theme of God’s [divine] immutability. Certain biblical passages seem to suggest that God is immutable or unchanging (e.g. Numbers 23:19; Malachi 3:6; James 1:17). As such, Christians might wonder how a temporal understanding of God can be reconciled with God’s immutability. How can a God who is constantly changing as he interacts with creatures truly be immutable?

Conclusion

Each position on God and time has its own answers to these worries, as well as other concerns that arise from the respective pictures of God and time. What those answers look like, and whether or not those answers are satisfying, will have to wait for another day. This is just the beginning of the discussion on God, time, and eternity. Hopefully, having a better sense of the fundamental questions will help us think more clearly about the God we worship, and help us come to appreciate his gift of eternal life.

continue to -

Index to past articles on "Particle Physics, Quantum Science, and the Universe"






* * * * * * *

God Is Not Outside of Time
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/tonyjones/2014/01/23/god-is-not-outside-of-time/

by Tony Jones
January 23, 2014
Comments

One of the things I hear assumed by Christians all the time is that God is outside of time. It’s odd, I think, to make this assumption, because it’s not biblical, it’s Platonic. There’s a verse in 2 Peter that often gets cited — “But do not ignore this one fact, beloved, that with the Lord one day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like one day.” — but that is a reflection on God’s experience of time, not God’s independence from time.

As human beings, we are hedged in on all sides by time, completely circumscribed by it. Our impending deaths remind us daily of this reality. Try as we might, we simply cannot conceive of being free from time.

That’s not to say that time isn’t fluid. In the 20th century, we became aware that time can be slightly bent, and in the 21st century, we’re starting to hear that maybe time can take place more complexly than we’ve previously known.

Nevertheless, time is a condition of our existence, and it’s inescapable.

In the book I’m currently writing, the questions I’m trying to answer have to do with where was God on Good Friday? What is God’s relationship to the cross? And what is God’s culpability in the death of Jesus? God’s relationship to time is implicated in all of these questions. And I’m coming to rest with the idea that God is voluntarily bound to time. That part of God’s longstanding story of humility and self-limitation is that God abdicated timelessness in order to have an authentic relationship with timebound beings. Because if God were outside of time, relationship [as we know and experience it] with those of us inside of time would be impossible.