[Thinker]

There are many philosophers and theologians who would go against the flow of mainstream theology in claiming that God is not eternal in the sense of being beyond time, but is everlasting - without beginning or end - and within time. The reasons are supported by the fact that God is one who acts and acts themselves are constituted in temporal reality, whereas God is claimed to be eternal. God is also said to be responsive, and thus it makes it that He changes - not His mind, but His actions. Such a theology is popular with process theologians, and seems to imply that God can have emotions. I would not agree with this theology completely, and here are two solutions that have been floating about in my head for some while:

1) The answer to eternity lies in the trinity: It is God the Father who is eternal - the one which we are designed to pray to, and from which " every good thing given and every perfect gift is from ... with whom there is no variation or shifting shadow." (Jas. 1:17), whereas it is God the Son who serves in creation - Hebrews 1, John 1 - and who, while on earth, served as mediator between God and man and is, in His glory, within time. Could it be that the Son is the God within time - which would imply that He too is spirit, or even if He were not, would it not fit? The Holy Spirit is the direct action of God - the actuality of the Godhead. He is the point of eternity (the Father) that touches upon the present - literally God at work. Another point would be in the fact of God doing certain events before time began - 2 Tim. 1:9 - and who created the aeons, that is, all the worlds - Hebrews 1:2 - which would include space, and thus time. If a being is not transcendent of its creation, it cannot create it, for it would be a literal and illogical creation from itself - such is illogical in our realm of understanding (though God being self-created is not, for His eternality is beyond our comprehension and would not be limited by the logic of this world). Perhaps it is Christ who is ruler of time, and the Father ruler of eternity, thus solving the problem of God's supposed everlasting state.

Would this theory hold?

2) Another is an ingenious view attributed by William Lane Craig: God would exist as a timeless being "prior" to creation (I use quotations because there is no prior to prior [such a word implies temporality, and there can be nothing before temporal reality]), thereafter extrinsically changing to fit within time in order to fit His status as a God who relates and is shown in scripture to change (thought not morally, or hyper-emotionally). Such is the classic argument for God's temporality:

1. God is creatively active in the temporal world.

2. If God is creatively active in the temporal world, God is really related to the temporal world.

3. If God is really related to the temporal world, God is temporal.

4. Therefore, God is temporal.

Ontologically, according to Craig, this would hold. However, he goes even further: "It seems to me, therefore, that it is not only coherent but also plausible that God existing changelessly alone without creation is timeless and that He enters time at the moment of creation in virtue of His real relation to the temporal universe. The image of God existing idly before creation is just that: a figment of the imagination. Given that time began to exist, the most plausible view of God's relationship to time is that He is timeless without creation and temporal subsequent to creation." God once existed 'beyond time', for the only way to create a world that is ruled by time is to be beyond time completely, or else God would literally be creating Himself within the same realm that naturalists claim material "popped" into existence; both cases are fallicious and illogical. The creator must be transcendant of His creation in order to create it. This view, presented by Craig, finds a median of agreement between those who hold God being everlasting, such as Wolterstorff, and those who hold God as eternal or timeless, such as Aquinas. Also, anthropomorphism seems to still be something that is not included in God's character given this term of God's existence. He would still be without sensitive appetite, for He is still within the omnipotent/omniscient status. There are instances of judgment in the Bible (such as the OT); however, these need not be seen in accordance with God's emotion, but with man's disobedience. For, as Giesler says, to be impassible does not mean you must be without feelings. This second theory (as well as the first, if it turns out the better) seems to clearly solve the problem of relationship and eternal/timeless problems that would be posed in accordance with God's existence, as well as putting to rest my poor brain.

I would also add that 'creation' is a term that we can associate with, because it happened within our realm of understanding. The first instance of creation would immediately follow with time. Every other instance may have been in accordance with different rules applied only by God, and not affecting this physical universe. God would not be in time because He created; He would start time when He created. The pattern had not by any means gone underway. By creating first, He started the pattern we know vaguely as time. Thus, He was not within it - the first instance is the instance of creation. Only after the creation did He permit Himself to time. This would not imply a limitation of His omnipotence; this would only imply the obedience to logic. Just as God cannot make round squares, so can He not be outside of time after He created it. That is, unless He destroys it. Such a thought is not too extreme in regards to triviality, but I wonder if it is indeed possible.

Now, I am not implying that God changes and has emotions - that He is anthropomorphic. He still has no need for emotion, regardless if He is eternal and timeless or if He is omnitemporal. Emotions imply a change for a better good not yet established. God, by definition, is omnipotent and omniscient. For Him, a change like this is futile and nothing different than the pagan gods that Christianity found freedom from. However, the fact that He does not have emotions does not mean that He does not have feelings. He hates sin; He loves righteousness; and He loves or hates those who practice such things. He does not hate in our idea, for hate in the realm of sin is from selfish gain; hate for God is because of the hate of the one who rejects Him. I agree completely that God has no need to change.

However, He still can 'change', not because He needs to in order to complete a task that is currently out of His capability, but because He does in response to us. He was the creator God when He made Adam; man soon fell, and He was a redeemer and a judge. He was none of these things to begin with. However, following our sin, He took action. He would still not need a greater change, or some new shred of wisdom. The problem with process theology is that it robs God of everything that makes Him God, and quite literally there is no good reason to worship Him, for our ideal sense is still bent on something greater.

Even more so, God would not be changing upon His creation of the world. It was simply His plan from all eternity to create. Looking at this and the fact that creation is a sign of aesthetic depth, it makes God seem that much more wonderous. It was His love and beauty that made Him create; He did not create to change something that already wasn't there - He is not the sort of God who limits His power for the sake of us. That is a God of limited power, and the idea of a Hell existing with such a God is quite honestly repugnant to me. It makes it seem that He cannot take care of business properly and we are left to suffer on His behalf.

thoughts?

blessings,

John