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