God, Time, and Knowledge
Introduction
Within the confines of these pages will be the
attempt at explicating a personal construal of how God relates to time.
Subsequently, there must be an understanding of how this relationship to time
will affect God’s knowledge. Before delving into the meat of the topic, it
should be noted that there are far too many avenues, potential objections, and
other areas on which this paper will not focus. The goal is to delineate areas
where a conclusion is accepted without providing an extremely evidential case
for why it is accepted. The intent is not to construct an evidentially weak
view of God, time, and knowledge. However, it would be an impossible task to
cover every bit of ground in short prose such as this. Therefore, just a few
assumptions will be listed here (which may be defended to varying degrees
throughout): (1) time is assumed to be dynamic, (2) God possesses ALL possible
knowledge (approach defined later), (3) even if there are difficulties in the
view constructed here, it is taken based on having fewer difficulties than
other views, and (4) the view of God’s relationship to reality is one of a
conceptualist, the view that all of reality was designed, developed, completed,
and is sustained as a divine concept in the mind of God (i.e., however, this
view does not suggest an anti-realist view of reality and is tempered within
the recognition of physical objects being “real”). Due to the overwhelming
amount of material in various areas that can and do affect God’s relationship
to these areas, only what this author views as extremely pertinent will be
expounded upon. The likelihood that a short discourse such as this will break new
ground in these various area’s is quite low. So, what will be discussed below
will expound only on what is perceived to be vitally important. Information
will be footnoted where further research can be done to investigate these
area’s more deeply which are not covered exhaustively here.
Understanding God’s Relationship to Time
Time alone, in and
of itself, is a difficult topic to cover. However, when one adds in relating it
to God or vice versa, it complicates the matter further. It should be noted though,
how one views God’s relationship to time inevitably shapes how they view God
(i.e., in his essential being and operations). “On the one hand it would seem
that if God created time, he himself must somehow transcend time. On the other
hand, it would seem impossible for a God outside of time to interact with his
creation at moments of time.”[1] Herein lies the problem,
if one suggests that God is completely outside of time (i.e., Timeless) then
what do they do about God’s interacting with human beings who are in fact
within time? Within the same vein, how can a God who created time also be bound
within that time? These are very good questions and ones which humans may never
know the answers too. Fundamentally, if humans are to know anything about God
there are three places which we must look: (1) nature (because if God is
creator then the creation should say something about the creator, even if
minimally so), (2) Scripture (because it claims to be the word of God to men),
and (3) Jesus Christ (because he claimed to be God in the flesh and seemed to
have this claim vindicated by his resurrection). These three places all hold
information regarding how one should view God and time.
Interestingly, even though each one
of these may not be conclusive in one’s personal determination of how God
relates to time, each should provide a small (or varying sizes) nugget which
points towards the truth. Also, if God created the universe, we should expect
to have some order within it. If that is the case, then any information which
we receive from these three places should not contradict the other. If there is
a contradiction, the error is more than likely within the interpretation and
not the data. When formulating a position of God or how God relates to
something (especially physical reality) one should construct such a position on
its coherence and congruence. This is the approach that will be sought below
and throughout this discourse.
Biblical Data
First, a well-known verse may
provide some insight into God and time, 2 Peter 3:8, “But do not overlook this
one fact, beloved, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a
thousand years as one day.” Contextually, the author of this passage is talking
about the day of the Lord. The author talks of the “day” of the Lord. Within
this passage, there is a great deal of temporal language, and the language is
applied to God or to a time God will bring something about. There is even a
small explication on creation being brought about at a certain time. Now, it is
clear by the language used that it is understood God has some relation to time.
Another aspect that is clear is there is a difference between how mankind
experiences time and how God experiences time. One author takes this passage a
little differently, “yet in the account of God, who inhabits eternity, in which
there is no succession, there is no difference; for all things past, present,
and future, are ever before him.”[2] As one can see, Henry
takes God to be timelessly eternal. But can one gather from this passage (or
context) that there is no succession in God, or he lacks the experience of the
moments of time. What seems to be the only thing one can glean from this passage
is that God experiences time differently than does man. One could say that this
passage is not definitive one way or the other (regarding temporality or
timelessness).
Worth noting if Henry is correct
then it seems difficult to make sense of the passage. If God were absolutely
timeless it is hard to see how God could be referenced to having a “day of the
Lord” or how and what sort of time could be related to him at all. Padgett
states it this way, “Our measured time words, then, like ‘day’ or ‘one thousand
years ago’ could not truly apply to that which is timeless in this weaker
sense.”[3] Padgett is noticing an
interesting point here, if God is timeless, it makes no sense to refer or apply
any sort of time to him. With that said, this passage does not seem to indicate
God’s relationship to time in any definitive sense.
What can be learned from Mark 1:15,
“and saying, ‘the time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent
and believe in the gospel.’” These are the words of Jesus. He is proclaiming
the kingdom of God (which was his mission). If we look deeply at the passage it
connects Gods kingdom to time. By using the word “near,” Jesus is suggesting
that God’s kingdom (and presumably God himself) has some sort of connection to
time because it is drawing near or is approaching. How can something or someone
approach a certain time when it stands outside of time? This seems to be a
contradiction (at least for the timeless view). Henry does not provide the same
kind of thoughts as in the previous passage, here he simply states that God
“observes” time, and his time will “punctually happen.”[4] Here is a way in which one
can maintain God as timeless. But the question still remains, if there is a
time approaching when God’s kingdom will be initiated, how will this be the
case if God is timeless, and time is a fact of the created world? The passage
here does not seem to be completely definitive on whether God is timeless or
temporal. But again, there does seem to be some indicators as to a good position
to take. From a purely scriptural perspective one is not quite able to pinpoint
exactly where God falls in relation to time. It seems as if God could be both
outside of time but interacting within it. Obviously, an exhaustive list of
scriptural content has not been presented but the bulk of passages that deal
with God and his relationship to time are equally as open to either possibility
(it would seem). This area of time seems to be one of those theological grey
areas that we do not fully understand and may have some leeway in how we
formulate our doctrine. This is where philosophical inquiry can come in. If we
can find a way through the use of our natural reason, working in conjunction
with our scriptural data, there might be a breakthrough in our building a
stronger case for understanding God’s relationship to time.
Some Philosophical Thoughts
Within this section, there are
several things that must be considered if one is to come to a solid basis for
understanding God and time. Since those who hold that God is timeless also hold
to a strict immutability and strict simplicity in God that seems a good place
to start. Is God strictly immutable and simple? This is one question that will
hopefully be answered below.
There is a common distinction when
one talks about God’s immutability, it is between real changes and mere
Cambridge changes. “Genuine changes (etc.) are changes like gaining a pound or
turning bright red, changes in which something ‘really happens’ to something.
Mere Cambridge changes are changes like Joan’s becoming shorter than John
solely because John grows in inch.”[5] But one has to ask if the
God of the Bible stands within these distinctions. By this, does God only go
through “mere Cambridge” changes as the Timelessness proponents believe? Even
just a cursory perusal of Scripture should leave one wondering because there appear
instances where God, in fact, relents or repents of intended actions. Does
someone relenting (regardless of his knowing how things would turn out for now)
constitute a real change? It appears that if a person were to relent/ repent
from some intended action that that would count as a real change in that
person.
The primary reason for suggesting
that God does experience real change is because Scripture indicates to the
reader that He does. If God were to simply portray that He was going to relent
or He said He was going to bring about some sort of judgement on a group but intended
to not bring that thing about, would this not make God a deceiver? It seems
that if God told humanity one thing but, in His mind, intended something
completely different He would at best be mischievous and at worst a liar. One
thing that is clearly stated in Scripture is that God is not a liar. He
possesses perfect character and will not and does not trick humanity but treats
mankind with perfect compassion, justice, and grace.
Of course, God does change in mere
Cambridge ways because He will change in reference to an imperfectly changing
creation. However, because God experiences menial changes does not lead one to
conclude that he does not experience real change either. The two are not
mutually exclusive. One could assert that “the Bible teaches that God is
immutable in the sense that He does not change in His essence, character, plan
or purposes.”[6]
When we look at what can be known about God one can realize that there is a
coherence and consistency to God. Nature is a prime example of this consistency
and science in some ways depends on that consistency in order to come to
grounded conclusions. As it were, this seems to imply that God (at least from a
naturally known way) does not change in His essential being. Aquinas said that
“God is pure act, without any potentiality.”[7] But if this is true about
God, how does God have intentions? It appears for someone to have or possess
intentions that have to also possess potential. Intentions are by their very
definition possess the idea of a process.[8] So, God from the beginning
intended to bring a way for all mankind to have the opportunity for salvation.
The plan was put into place but had not come about until the time of Jesus.
Aquinas seems to be mistaken in his idea that God is simply pure act without
any potential in Him. This idea of God being pure act does not seem to be in
Scripture as well and this is one of the three main ways in which mankind can
know anything about God (one could even say the primary way).
What does it mean for one to say
that God is simple (or for Timeless proponents, strictly simple)? To understand
this idea just look above at Aquinas (God is pure act). God as a simple being
does not possess any parts or ontological constituents. “There is no real
distinction between God as subject of his attributes and his attributes. God is
thus in some sense identical to each of his attributes, which implies that each
attribute is identical to every other one.”[9] If one is thoughtful about
this definition of simplicity than it should be apparent there are some
difficulties. If every attribute of God is identical with the others, how is
God as a being to make sense? This idea of simplicity suggests that God’s
omnipotence is identical with his omni-benevolence or omniscience is identical
with his omnipresence. If there are no distinctions between these attributes it
seems one could say that God does not have those attributes. By definition,
each attribute is descriptive of a certain quality within God. However, if they
are identical but definitionally each attribute is different, then we have a
contradiction in terms. The contradiction lies in the fact that omnipotence
describes a being who is all-powerful, and this is very different than being
present everywhere. To say that these qualities are the same (because that is
what identical means), then the person is guilty of confusing these qualities.
What does a person gain from
suggesting that God is strictly simple? The only thing gained is it adheres
well with a Timeless view of God. However, if one is trying to be true to
reality and logic than one must dismiss the idea of strict simplicity. Rather,
one should take up a view of simplicity (simpliciter).[10] One does not have to
adhere to an idea of a complex God, one composed of parts and metaphysical
constituents. A person can hold to a doctrine of divine simplicity by not
adding the difficult aspects of all God’s attributes are identical. God is
simple with respect that He is not composed of parts.
Since simplicity is discussing what
God is (or is not), speaking about ontology seems par for the course. Above, it
was noted that a constituent-based ontology notes no distinctions in God, which
thereby leads to a strict form of simplicity (and by default, timelessness).
There is a differing kind of ontology which is called relational ontology. A
simple way of delineating this idea is “substances are concrete entities that
exemplify properties, which are abstract entities…God is a substance; he is a
property bearer.”[11] But is it proper to speak
of God as a substance? Well, a substance is a thing which is composed of other
certain things, or it is a composition of things. It would be a difficult thing
to show that God is made up of or is a composite object since he lacks all or
at least most of things people tend to ascribe to a composite object. However,
God does seem to have a relational aspect about his essential being. If God is
a trinity he has stood in a fundamental relation in his being for all eternity.
So, it stands to reason that he would stand in relation to other things as
well. This could be off base but if God is a necessary being and he has created
contingent beings, does this not make Him stand in a meaningful relation with
respect to His being? It seems that the answer would be in the affirmative.
However, in a negative form, a relational ontology seems to complicate God
unnecessarily. It would appear that the best approach would be to find a middle
ground between a constituent and relational ontology. Since God is not
synonymous with his properties (thereby all attributes are identical) and he
does not seem to be a composite object which has many parts, maybe a new
ontology should be developed (far beyond the scope of this discourse). However,
one could suggest an essential ontology where God essentially possesses the
attributes he has based solely on his nature or being. This seems oddly
circular, however. What has been shown is that this area of thought is
extremely difficult, but it does appear to be an incoherent position to suggest
that God is strictly simple.
With all of that said, since God
does not seem to be strictly simple, we can move forward with him relating to
time. At the very least, one can feel comfortable with coming to a conclusion
that God is not essentially timeless. However, it seems somewhat
counterintuitive to suggest that God is also bound by time, the very thing that
he created. Potentially, the best position to take in this debate is that God
is omnitemporal. “An omnitemporal entity is wholly present ‘now,’ but is not
located in physical time by a temporal boundary. Thus it is strictly improper
to speak absolutely of God’s essence in anything but the present tense.”[12] If time is a measure of
the motion of physical bodies, it appears that time can (and is) different
depending on ones location. Since God is not located at one specific location
it seems that he would experience time differently because he is not physically
located but (possible?) inter-dimensionally located.[13] However, since God is
immanent and interacts with his creation he must be “present” within our time
to some degree, hence omnitemporal. God is located within our time but is not
measured by it or bounded by it. His presence is understood in our language or
present.
Understanding God’s Knowledge
The next thing to
tackle here is understanding God’s knowledge in light of Scripture, nature, and
Jesus Christ. The goal here is simply to look at, evaluate, and establish a
position of God’s knowledge and then bring together a unity between God’s
relationship to time and His knowledge in the next section. First, the biblical
data will be evaluated to see if there is a Scriptural basis or baseline for
understanding what kind of knowledge God has. Some philosophical thoughts will
be given on the matter to assist in formulating a well-rounded approach to this
area. One last thing, there is an assumption behind the approach, and it comes
from Saint Anselm’s perfect being theology. What is being assumed throughout is
what Anselm described as “something than which nothing greater can be thought.”[14] Now, this assumption is
based on the idea that if God were to exist then we would expect this being to
be the epitome of supreme beings. If God exists and has composed a world, such
as the one that is real, one should expect God to be of the utmost. The goal is
not to put together a weak form or a man shaped God. Rather, the goal is to
assemble an accurate portrayal of what God (if he were to exist and I believe
he does) would actually be like or what humanity should expect a God to be
like. The reason for this assumption is it seems intuitive to think of God as a
supreme being and not like the gods of mythology/ paganism. Also, the goal is
to paint a strong view of God that is both intuitive and consistent with the
picture of God as painted in the Judeo-Christian tradition. With that said, the
biblical data can now be evaluated to see what Scripture has to say regarding
the knowledge of God.
Biblical Data
First, Romans 11:33 states, “Oh, how
great are God’s riches and wisdom and knowledge! How impossible
it is for us to understand his decisions and his ways! (Emphasis added)”
MacArthur says that Paul “has nothing more to add” when talking about God
except “praise for the depth” of God.[15] Dr. MacArthur adds,
“further description and explanation are completely beyond the realm of human
expression and comprehension.”[16] It appears that Paul is
expressing the idea that human beings are so inept that very little can be said
about the extent of God’s wisdom and knowledge. God’s knowing is beyond human
ability to truly grasp in any meaningful sense. It stands to reason that if
God’s knowledge is that far above humanity, then one should expect God to have
comprehensive and even exhaustive knowledge.
Proverbs 15:3 states that God sees
all things, both good and evil. What this conveys to mankind is that God has
present knowledge of all things going on within creation. So, it seems obvious
that God has exhaustive knowledge of what is happening “now.” Matthew 10:30,
God has complete knowledge of his created order. This can be inferred because
he knows all of the “hairs on your head.” This is a picturesque description of
what God knows about his creation. It is not that he only knows the number of
hairs on your head but that he knows each thing that He has created in the most
detailed manner.
What about Isaiah 46:10, “declaring
the end from the beginning and from ancient times things not yet done, saying,
‘My counsel shall stand, and I will accomplish all my purpose.’” It appears
that Isaiah is giving the idea that God has comprehensive knowledge of the past
(i.e., beginning) and of the future (i.e., not yet done). Not only does he
possess this kind of knowledge, but he has instituted a plan which will be
accomplished. Based on the reading above, one can infer that God has knowledge
of what was, is, and will be. One could even make an argument that God knows
what would have been the case. The argument for God having this “would” type of
knowledge comes from his in-depth knowledge of his created order (this includes
nature, animals, and human life). If God knows, intimately, human beings then
it does not seem absurd to assume or infer that he has (at the very least) a
good idea of how people would act/ choose if they were to be in any given
situation. For example, a parent may be dealing with their young child who is
asking to go do some activity. However, the parent tells their young child that
it would not be a good idea (i.e., because they know they may not possess the
skills to do this activity). It is reasonable to assume that if the parent
allows their young child to conduct the activity that they (the parent) will
know the end result. This does not mean the parent can see the future. Rather,
it suggests, based on the parents’ intimate knowledge of their child they know
(to a reasonably high degree) what will result from the child taking part in
the activity. If this is the case with imperfect and fallible human parents how
much more would this be the case with a perfect and infallible parent in
heaven?
One last Scripture before moving
onto some philosophical thoughts. Job 37:16, “Do you know about the layers of
the thick clouds, the wonders of one perfect in knowledge.” Here, Elihu (one of
Jobs friends) explains to Job that God is perfect in knowledge. There could be
some arguments for differing position on what exactly being perfect in
knowledge means. However, it should be agreed that this type of knowledge is
far beyond what human beings have or can even understand. This writer
understands perfect knowledge to mean that God has exhaustive, absolute,
complete, as good as can be possibly possessed, type of knowledge. If it is
perfect, it must be the highest kind of some-thing. In this case, it is the
best of all possible knowledge. If there is one thing that mankind cannot fully
understand it would be this kind of absolute knowledge.
Some Philosophical Thoughts
So, if God has exhaustive, complete,
and the best of all possible knowledge, what does this mean in a logical sense?
If God has this kind of knowledge, then it seems reasonable to assume that he
has perfect knowledge of the past (perfect memory), has detailed knowledge of
the now (perfect present knowledge), absolute knowledge of the future (perfect
coming knowledge), and complete comprehensive knowledge of what would have been
(perfect counter-factual knowledge).
First, it might prove beneficial to
delineate some differentiation between types of knowledge God would possess
that are facets of Divine Knowledge as a whole. It seems highly likely that if
God were to have the kind of perfect knowledge described above that he would
possess knowledge of necessary truths or what Molina describes as “natural
knowledge.”[17]
Now, this knowledge would be the kind of knowledge that is innate in God, and
it would be used in such a way as to guide his decision but is not by his
decision. This type of knowledge could be described as coming forth from the
nature of God and it can be seen in nature (i.e., the structure and regularity
of nature). With this knowledge, it would be “prevolitional” in its content,
meaning that, again, it is innate in God.[18]
Flint goes on to describe another
facet of God’s knowledge which is “postvolitional” and would be as Molina
describes, God’s free knowledge.[19] This kind of knowledge is
the kind that we ascribe to human beings, freedom of the will. If humanity were
made in the image of God (Imago Dei) then it seems a safe
assumption that God would possess knowledge like ours or rather our knowledge
would be like his but to a lesser degree (or in reference to God, the utmost
degree). This knowledge is also knowledge of contingent facts because it could
have been the case that God chose to do something different. So, in this
instance of knowledge, God exhibits his freedom of the will and does so in
conjunction with his innate/ natural knowledge.
What has been covered thus far is
what was described above as God’s perfect memory (based on necessary truth
which is what the past is, unchangeable happenings) and God’s perfect present
knowledge (based on he knows his creation and is omnipresent, to see current
goings-on). What needs to be described is God’s perfect coming knowledge and
perfect counter-factual knowledge. Now, a more thorough argument will be laid
out in the next section dealing with this counter-factual knowledge and time,
but a simpler version will be given here to provide a basis for this kind of
knowledge. God, as taken in this discourse, is viewed as the perfect being
(perfect being theology). This implies that God’s mind works perfectly and
could contain within it an infinite amount and breadth of knowledge. This also
means that God, by His very nature, would know all possible things. So, before
creation if God has this infinite mind that can conceptualize anything, it
seems reasonable to assume that God could know every possible thing that could
ever exist to the utmost degree. This assumption works regardless of one’s view
of time, so this is being presented as an all things being equal kind of
situation. With that said, prior to God enacting his free knowledge, God
conceptualized every possible world that could have existed had he created it.
This also means that God has knowledge of things that may not exist, might
exist, and (at some point) exist.
To make this user friendly how about
an example. Think of a carpenter or a trades person who has a project that
needs to be completed. Before entering the workspace and starting to demolish
anything that exists, there needs to be a planning stage (where the project is
conceptualized). The contractor begins by thinking (in his mind) of how the
project should go, where things might be located, how those things would be
located in that place, what potential problems may rise, an approximate cost,
what color patterns would work, etc. (to quite a detailed degree). Some
contractors may also think of multiple ways in which the project could be done
to provide more options for the customer. In a sense, this is an example of
human counter-factual knowledge. How? Well, the contractor as he conceptualizes
the project is thinking, “if I ‘were’ to do this then this room would be like
x.” Now, if human beings can have this type of detailed conceptualization
skills and some form of counter-factual knowledge, it seems reasonable to
assume that God would possess this type of skill/ attribute as well (but to the
utmost degree).
This provides a sort of framework
where this idea has more plausibility for the human inquirer. Prior to creation
(much like the contractor) God conceptualizes His project and which way to best
execute it. Remember, that God possess His attributes to the utmost degree and
things he creates He knows intimately. So, as God conceptualizes each possible
world in which He can instantiate, he knows all beings and aspects of that
world to the utmost degree. Once He instantiates a chosen world some of the
conceptualization becomes actual and necessary (i.e., physical laws, animal
behavioral traits, human traits both physical and mental, each individual and
how they act, think, and choose in certain circumstances because he created
them and knows them intimately).
This shows that counter-factual
knowledge is possible, and it seems to be the case that God’s perfect coming
knowledge is implied by this. For example, because God knows his creation to
the utmost degree and some of His conceptualization becomes actual/ necessary
upon creation that he would know what will happen at any given time. This is
primarily because of his innate knowledge of the actual (i.e., necessary
truths) world that holds based on his creating it and the fact that he knows
all of his created order to the highest possible degree. So, knowledge of
future events is not impossible, even if those actions are free (because again,
having infinite and intimate knowledge implies that God knows what the case for
each individual thing would be no matter the choice made). To explain a little
further, since God in his conceptualization phase knows all the possible free
choices due to his intimate knowledge of each aspect of creation, he would know
the future based on the sets of certain circumstances that hold in the actual
world. This is to say that based on how God conceptualizes His creative project
determines (based on free agents’ choices and necessary truths) what the
outcome will be. This is what Scripture means when it says His purpose will not
fail to come about.
A Unity Between Time and Knowledge
Up to this point it may not be
precisely clear on the position this author takes regarding time and God’s
knowledge. Well, it should be clear that the A-theory of time is taken as what
reality conveys to humanity. What this means is that temporal becoming is a
real thing and it appears that time is moving in a direction. This movement is
somewhat based on physical bodies moving about in space.[20] Descartes believes that
our experience of time is based on the physical motion of bodies within the
physical universe. This tends to be the position of this author because time
will be “felt” differently in different parts of the universe. So, it stands to
reason that if there is a physical time that governs the physical world there
would be a corresponding metaphysical time (upon creation).
Stated plainly, prior to creation
God existed timelessly and eternally. That means, if God would have never
created anything at all He would have continued to exist as a timeless being
forever. However, once God decided to create a physical universe he stepped
into time. With that said, God does not necessarily exist within our
Earth-located time per se. Since time is different depending on one’s location
to suggest that exists strictly within Earth time would seem to imply that God
is strictly located within Earth space. So, it is the position of this paper
that God does exist in time (to have meaningful interaction with the created
order) but he does so within the governing metaphysical time which pervades the
physical universe. God can and does experience time in the sense that he is
within it but is not strictly bound by any physical parameters that would
dictate the type of time that he experiences (i.e., any specific physical time
like that of Neptune or Earth, specifically).
Since God experiences time (but in
perfect degree) he does experience some changes. Some of those changes are real
changes, such as changing his intended actions within a given situation.
However, this is not to suggest that God will change in His essential
character. All things being equal, God will be the same God forever, not
growing in infinitude or perfection but changes with reference to His creation.
Also, an objection may arise here because if God knew beforehand the
circumstances, he did not really change his mind. It is true that after God
conceptualized all of His worlds and then chose the one to instantiate, that he
had perfect coming knowledge of the world. However, simply possessing the knowledge
of the vast circumstances that would be found in this world does not mean that
God did not change his mind because had another world been instantiated, he
would have chosen differently and thus would have had a change of mind. All
this means, is that comparatively to other possible worlds, God’s mind would
have been different in those given circumstances. For example, if a person had
prayed differently, God would have acted differently and thus would have had a
differing world had it been actualized. This means that if we pray, it makes a
real difference because based on God’s conception of how each world would have
worked, that prayer could have been a determining factor in the actual world
becoming actual.
Now, below there will be a syllogism
provided which argues for a conceptualist version of God’s knowledge and its
functioning within time.
(1)
Whatever
God conceptualizes, he does so to the utmost degree
(2)
God
conceptualized every conceivable world prior to creation
(3)
So,
God knows every possible world to the utmost degree
(3’) Utmost means God knows every plant, animal, and
person perfectly and completely, from beginning to end, no matter the duration
of that created thing
(4)
God
instantiated one of those conceptualized worlds
(4’) That instantiated world is the actual world
(5)
Therefore,
God knows to the utmost degree every aspect of this world, beginning to end
What this
syllogism is seeking to ascertain is that God possess complete, exhaustive, and
perfect knowledge of the actual world. This knowledge is based on the free
choices of created (and contingent) persons. It is not the fact that God is
outside of time. It is based on the fact that God has perfect conceptualization
skills and has the utmost knowledge of His created world. So, it would be wrong
to talk of God thinking of a certain concept for a certain duration prior to
creating anything, since time did not exist at that time (for lack of a better
term). However, once the physical world (and metaphysical time) was created by
God his conceptualization became actual and now functions differently than
simply an idea. What is interesting is that this conceptualization goes
further. It was not that God simply thought about creation prior to, made it,
and then stopped thinking about creation. Quite the contrary, once creation was
made from this divine concept, it continues in its very existence because God
continues to think about it. From this conceptualist perspective, it is the
mind of God (through the use of His attributes) that continues to maintain the
universe in its very existence.
Even though God’s knowledge prior to
creation was a timeless endeavor. Since creation, his knowledge continues forth
in time with perfect understanding of what will be, what is, and what has been.
God through the use of His perfect mind construed the universe in such a way
that freedom of the will is maintained but divine purpose hold true when they
must happen. This is due to His project being thought through to the utmost
degree prior to anything becoming actual. God’s knowledge and time work
perfectly together in this case and it maintains God as a perfect being.
Conclusion
There has been a great deal of
information which has been presented throughout this discourse. One should
understand that when thinking about God and the way he might be like, there is
a disconnect between the supreme and the subordinate. It should equally be
understood that the Biblical God is one that is in some sense beyond mankind’s
ken. However, God has decided to reveal himself in some degree within nature,
Scripture, and Jesus Christ. Though Christ was not the focal point within this
discourse, it should be noted that Christ represents many of the most important
details for understanding God and his plan. What was talked about above was how
God may have come to know that plan and when that plan may have been construed
or come to completion (i.e., not the actual time but an understanding of how it
correlates to our understanding of God’s nature).
God has been shown to have differing
components to his knowledge (natural, free, and middle knowledge). Not only
does God possess these forms of knowledge He has them to the utmost degree.
Prior to creation, God used His perfect and infinite mind to conceptualize all
possible worlds that could exist and decided on one to make actual. Because God
has an infinite mind and knowledge, He knows all of His created order to the
highest possible degree. It should also be clear that this paper holds that
prior to creation God existed in a timeless state. But once creation became
actual, God purposefully stepped into time. God’s time is not necessarily what
physical time is on Earth because Earth time is not the same and some other
time in the universe. The time that God operates in would be what would see as
metaphysical time, or an overarching time which governs physical reality. All
these things considered are part of an endeavor to formulate the highest view
of God possible while maintaining the most coherence and plausibility as well.
If God exists, He would have to be the greatest conceivable being imaginable.
This conclusion can be reached partially by the fact that nature functions as
if it was created by a thoughtful creator. Any other version of God that does
not maintain the highest possible view of Him is one that should be looked at
with suspicion. Hopefully, one is gleaned from this discourse is that God,
time, and knowledge can be formulated in such a way that is glorifying to God
and acceptable for human beings to understand and revere. May God bless our
feeble human attempts at trying to understand His majesty and may we glorify
Him in the process.
Bibliography
Anselm. Proslogion. Trans. by Jasper Hopkins
and Herbert Richardson (Minneapolis: Arthur J. Banning Press, 2000). https://jasper-hopkins.info/proslogion.pdf.
Campbell, Ronnie. “The Eternality of the Immutable God
in the Thought of Paul Helm: A Critical Analysis.” MA Thesis, Liberty
University, Lynchburg, 2008. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global.
Crisp, Oliver D. “A Parsimonious Model of Divine
Simplicity.” Modern Theology 35, no. 3 (July 2019): 558-573. https://onlinelibrary-wiley-com.ezproxy.liberty.edu/doi/epdf/10.1111/moth.12520
DeWeese, Garret. “God and The Nature of Time” PhD
diss., University of Colorado, Boulder, 1994. ProQuest Dissertations &
Theses Global.
Flint, Thomas P. Divine
Providence. London: Cornell University Press, 1998.
Gorham, Geoffrey. “Descartes on God’s Relation to Time.”
Religious Studies 44, (2008): 413-431. Doi:10.1017/S003441250800961X
Henry, Matthew. Commentary on the Whole Bible,
vol. 5. Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers, 1991.
Henry, Matthew. Commentary on the Whole Bible.
vol. 6. Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers, 1991.
Leftow, Brian. Time
and Eternity. London: Cornell University Press, 1991.
MacArthur, John. The MacArthur New Testament
Commentary: Romans 9-16. Chicago: Moody Bible Institute, 1994.
Padgett, Alan. “God and Time: Toward a New Doctrine of
Divine Timeless Eternity.” Religious Studies 25, no. 2 (June 1989): 209-215.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/20019340
St. Thomas Aquinas’ Summa Theologica, I, q. 3, a. 2,
ad. 3.
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. “Divine
Simplicity.” Accessed July 16, 2021. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/divine-simplicity/.
[1] Garret
DeWeese, “God and The Nature of Time” (PhD diss., University of Colorado,
Boulder, 1994), 2, ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. Note: this is
how DeWeese lists out the problem that people are attempting to resolve.
[2]
Matthew Henry, Commentary on the Whole Bible, vol. 6 (Peabody:
Hendrickson Publishers, 1991), 850.
[3]
Alan Padgett, “God and Time: Toward a New Doctrine of Divine Timeless
Eternity,” Religious Studies 25, no. 2 (June 1989): 210.
[4]
Matthew Henry, Commentary on the Whole Bible, vol. 5 (Peabody: Hendrickson
Publishers, 1991), 367.
[5]
Brian Leftow, Time and Eternity (London: Cornell University Press,
1991), 309.
[6]
Ronnie Campbell, “The Eternality of the Immutable God in the Thought of Paul
Helm: A Critical Analysis,” (MA Thesis, Liberty University, Lynchburg, 2008),
31, ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global.
[7] St. Thomas Aquinas’ Summa
Theologica, I, q. 3, a. 2, ad. 3.
[8] By
process, it means that one desires to bring about a certain state of affairs
but has not done so yet. The act of intending something means that the result
is reserved for later instantiation.
[9]
“Divine Simplicity,” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, accessed July 16,
2021, https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/divine-simplicity/.
[10] Simpliciter
is being used here to negate the “strict” qualifier typically assumed by the
Thomistic construal of simplicity.
[11]
Oliver D. Crisp, “A Parsimonious Model of Divine Simplicity,” Modern
Theology 35, no. 3 (July 2019): 565
[12]
DeWeese, “Nature of Time,” 305.
[13]
Inter-dimensionally means here something akin to 2D, 3D or 4D. Simply, since
God is not a physical being and is located at all points then he may be located
in a spiritual dimension or exists across dimensions.
[14]
Anselm, Proslogion, trans. by Jasper Hopkins and Herbert Richardson
(Minneapolis: Arthur J. Banning Press, 2000), 93, https://jasper-hopkins.info/proslogion.pdf.
[15]
John MacArthur, The MacArthur New Testament Commentary: Romans 9-16 (Chicago:
Moody Bible Institute, 1994), 135.
[16]
Ibid.
[17]
Thomas P. Flint, Divine Providence (London: Cornell University Press,
1998), 37-38. Flint uses Molina to describe how he separated out the different
types of knowledge to find a unity between human freedom and Divine
Foreknowledge and Providence.
[18]
Ibid.
[19]
Ibid, 38.
[20]
Geoffrey Gorham, “Descartes on God’s Relation to Time,” Religious Studies 44,
(2008): 414-415.
Comments
Post a Comment