If, as demonstrated in our previous post ("The Witness of Scripture"), we cannot draw the concept of absolute divine timelessness from the Scriptures, how then did it become the prevailing view among classical Christian theists? Alan Padgett argues that “the history of the idea of eternity in Western thought shows that the originators of the concept of timeless eternity were Greek philosophers” (God, Eternity, and the Nature of Time, 38). Padgett sketches the historical development of the idea beginning with Parmenides and follows the baton of divine atemporality in philosophical thought as it is passed on to Plato, Aristotle, Plutarch, and Plotinus all the way to Alexandria in the second century. Padgett explains,

Alexandrian theology was a blend of Christian and Platonist thought. One of the greatest proponents of this type of theology was Origen (ca. 185-254). His book, On First Principles, is the earliest example of something like a ‘systematic theology’ in Christian history. In it he taught that God is beyond our conception of time, and our temporal language…. It is from the Platonism of Alexandrian theology, then, that the doctrine of divine timelessness first enters into Christian theology (42).

The concept continued to develop in the subsequent theologies of Christian thinkers such as Augustine, Boethius, and Anselm, reaching the apex of its expression in the thought of Thomas Aquinas.

Aquinas so refined and brilliantly expressed the idea of God’s eternal timelessness that his is arguably the most revered articulation of the notion in the history of Western thought. For Thomas, the basis for God’s timelessness is his “simplicity,” that is, “the property of not having any attributes separate from one’s being” (Padgett, 49). God’s essence is identical with his existence, and, therefore, he does not have attributes, but he is his attributes, and each of these attributes finds its highest form in God. Hence, God is not just eternal, but he himself is eternity, and since God is simple and cannot change, he is, therefore, timeless.

God is “pure act” and “sheer actuality.” Hence, “there is no potentiality in God, there is no motion or change. All that God does is done at once, timelessly and changelessly” (Padgett, 50). Padgett concludes that “Thomas understood this doctrine to include the idea that God knows and wills all things in a single, eternal ‘moment’ in which he lives all of his life” (Padgett, 50). This is the classic expression of the doctrine of divine timeless eternity, which is today still defended by contemporary thinkers like Wayne Grudem, Norman Geisler, and Paul Helm.

Now a notion about God not succinctly communicated in Scripture and having its roots in Greek philosophy is not necessarily false. Paul Helm points this out in his response to the objection that the concept of divine timeless eternity may have been influenced by Platonism. He contends that “the relevant question is, does the use of such ideas help us to summarize and epitomize the thoughts of the canonical writers in ways that, because of their situation, they were not able to do themselves?” (God and Time: Four Views, 32-33) Helm argues for an analogy between the formulation of the doctrine of divine timelessness and the formulation of the doctrine of the Trinity.

It is undeniable that the fully formulated doctrine of the Trinity that emerged in the late fourth century was couched in the intellectual language of the day and employed the philosophical notions inherent in this language to articulate the concept. However, the major difference between this venture and that of the formulation of the idea of divine timelessness is that the Nicene and post-Nicene fathers firmly believed that the data of the New Testament overwhelming supported the doctrine of the Trinity. This is not the case with the notion of divine timeless eternity. It appears that the language in which this doctrine is couched reflects, as Helm himself puts it, more of an “intuition” of “the idea of the divine fullness and self-sufficiency,” an “intuition that has had enormous appeal to many thinkers and still has to some” (Helm, 29).

There would seem to be a substantial disparity between language that articulates a reflective intuition about God and language that articulates Scriptural data. As we have seen, Helm has himself admitted that the data of Scripture underdetermines the doctrine of divine timelessness. I do not believe that the same can be said of the data for the Trinity, and so the analogy appears to break down. Yet, if we assume that Helm has a point, then we would expect the notion of divine timeless eternity to cohere well with essential Christian doctrines, particularly the doctrines of God’s cosmic creativity and his omniscience. It is to the task of assessing this connection that we turn in our next post. 

Blessings,

Arnie Gentile

                                          Visit the Christian Apologetics Bookshop.