God, Time, and Eternity Part III

Boethius- According to Feinberg Boethius had far different motives for advocating timeless eternity. In Consolation of Philosophy Boethius is trying to solve the delima of human freewill and God's foreknowledge. If God knows and foresees all that is to come, how can I make free choices? For example if God knows when I am going to stop typing this how could I stop at another time? If I could then God didn't really know, but if I do stop when God knew I would then how am I free to choose differently? Boethius felt that timeless eternity answered the problem.
Anselm- Anselm is famous for the Ontological argument for God's existence, which insists that God is the greatest conceivable being in ALL facets. One of the the greatest attributes God would posses is eternity. Anselm never seems to elaborate on why he believes this would be a necessary quality of God. This was posited in his book Proslogium. In a later tome entitled Monologium Anselm reiterates this attribute of God while emphasizing his simplicity in relation to time. What does it mean that God is simple? Essentially it means that he does not have divisible parts, he is one. So he must be one at all times. If God could exist as a whole at different intervals then he is in time and composite. Because God is outside of time he exists as one whole all at once not at different moments, BECAUSE he possesses eternity as an attribute. Anselm is trying to stay within his logical framework.
Thomas Aquinas- Eternity should be understood as one whole instead of successive moments. It has no beginning or end. Time itself is imperfect due to its successive nature and each interval has a beginning and end. Eternity is one instance rather than successive moments with no begging or end. Since eternity is one perfect whole this is the way God exists. Aquinas is borrowing heavily from Boethius and is accepting his definition of perfect. After much argumentation Aquinas affirms God's immutability (unchanging nature) and due to God's immutability he exists as perfect timeless eternity.

Arguments for Timeless Eternity
Timelessness a Logical Derivation from Other Doctrines
Feinberg Chooses Anselm's doctrine to spearhead into this issue because his position is as clear as anyone else's. Anselm never seems to explain why the most perfect being must be eternal, he just pontificates that it comes from his perfect nature. It will be from the doctrine of simplicity (not possessing multiple parts) that we find a clearer argument for God's eternal nature. Why should one believe that God must be simple?
1) Something that possesses goodness from another source can not be good in and of its self. This is classically known as contingency. A being is contingent on something else is similar to saying, "The amount of money I get paid for my job is contingent (or depends) on how many hours I work." My whole being is contingent on someone else, I did not produce myself nor do I sustain myself. This is a very basic principle in evangelical theology commonly misunderstood by many. This classic misunderstanding is why many think questioning where God came from, or asking who created God supplies some brilliant argument against God's existence. All it really does is show an ignorance of the subject. For a more well though out critique of this element of our theology one should read Bertrand Russell's Why I am Not A Christian, his argument ultimately fails but it is outside of the scope of this treatment to address this issue now.
2) Does God participate in justice or is he the embodiment of justice? If God participates in justice than there is something outside of him requiring him to be just or justice is part of who God is. Therefore, God must be where justice "come from" so to speak and therefore he is how we know what justice is. Even unbelievers understand this basic principle when they digress in their minds that God will sort things out or imagine Hitler standing before God for his crimes. But most importantly for our discussion is that God is simple and justice is not part of what he is it is what he is. We are the ones who label it separately then turn around and apply to God what he already is.
Feinberg asks a good question, "What is this notion of depending for one's existence only upon one's self?... this is aseity!" (pg386) What is aseity? it is depending on nothing else for existence. I'm not advocating a tautology (furthering an argument without progression) I am just defining the word. So, it is not from perfection that God is simple, according to Anselm, but from perfection to aseity, then from aseity to simplicity, then from simplicity to eternity.
Feinberg uses William Mann to clear up the point concerning simplicity and its relationship to time. Mann essentially states that God has no body. God's simplicity is motivated by his perfection which implies his independence of all other things to be the being he is. By independent, what Mann is trying to say is that God is a necessary being, he relies on nothing else for sustenance or even his existence. He is the explanation for his own existence. All of our lives we struggle because so many things are dependent or contingent on something else. How will I eat tomorrow? If I have enough money. How will I have enough money? If I have a job. How will I have a job? That is contingent on... x and so on. God has no such restraints. So, God is sovereign over all things. If he is sovereign over all things then what does he rely on? Nothing but himself, he is contingent on nothing. Now consider this, if God were composed of multiple parts, like a physical object, then he would have parts that make him up and each part would be contingent on the other to make up the whole of who God is. If God were missing a part he would no longer be God, he would need every part of himself. Needing multiple parts is being contingent on multiple parts. The parts would define who God is as opposed to the parts relying on God for their definition. So, God would be dichotomously contingent the parts would be contingent upon each other to be God and God would need the parts to be defined. This is not the case because of the the doctrine of divine simplicity.
Mann continues to unfold his argument. God does not have temporal stages of existence. God has complete possession all at once. If God does not change (immutability) and he is eternal and he is not composed of parts (simple) then he can not go through stages. There is nothing distinguishably different including a different moment for that would imply a part or a change. What Feinberg is focused on for the purpose of this chapter of No One Like Him is that Mann demonstrates that one can follow simplicity to timelessness and from timelessness to immutability.
This is quite a brain teaser and fortunately for us Feinberg simplifies it in a summery. To be simple one must have no parts, but to have successive stages in one's life is to have parts. A timeless being has no stages in this sense thus a simple being must be timeless. Furthermore, God is always identical with himself, he never changes, so he is immutable. Feinberg goes over some ways to combat this understanding of God as timeless and hold to essential doctrines, but he covers covers arguments for God within time later and so will we.

God, Time, and Eternity Part II

Now we turn our attention to Temporal Eternity, which is the notion that God is everlasting within time. This has also been called sempiternity. Another way to understand this is that God exists at all times, he has no beginning or end. God's existence extends endlessly backwards and forwards. God has a past present and future just like his creatures. I am curious if Feinberg will deal with actual infinites or not which I will explain in a later post. Feinberg admits that two of God's primary attributes seem risky to postulate if we explain God's relationship to time in this way. God's simplicity (he is absolutely one without multiple parts, he is indivisible) and immutability (unchanging) are things that we know have to be true about God and are directly supported by the Bible. Feinberg asks an important question: How do we define time according to God? Is it a human measurement? Was there time before creation?

Two important questions must be examined: What does the Bible say? How did atemporal eternity (God outside of time) make its way into Christian theology? These are always important questions to ask when it comes to our assumptions and understanding of God.

The biblical authors never reflect directly on the nature of time and eternity. Feinberg seems to feel that there is enough data to warrant speculation, he turns to the history of the doctrine as he feels that would be more fruitful.

How did our current understanding of atemporal duration come into our theology? Why is this understanding necessary? Atemporal duration actually predates Christian theology and finds its origins in: Parmenides, Plato, Plotinus, and the Pythagoreans. The theologians who are responsible for bringing this doctrine into Christian theology are: Augustine, Boetheus, Anselm, and Thomas Aquinas. Why were these theologians committed to atemporal duration? Feinberg offers a brief overview:
(I would like to say from the outset that it is always dangerous to develop a theology out of an apologetic. A good example would be Mormonism where Joseph Smith had an apologetic for God being active in the Americas during biblical times, but does that make Smith right?)
Augustine- Book XI of confessions, many were asking Augustine what God was doing before he created the world. Apparently, God has no reason to create. If he is at rest why not rest eternally? Why begin to create? If creation was always the plan why wait? Additionally, why not an eternal creation? If God begins to create then he changes when he begins to create (immutability), if he created the universe eternal this problem would be solved. If God made a decision to create at a certain point in time then there is a change in his will which is a change in his essence or character, which means he is not prefect. Augustine responds with atemporal duration. These question have their foundations in the assumption that terms like "before" apply to God. We as humans might use them to describe God within our limited reasoning capacity which is reflective in our limited language (anthropomorphisms).
Next time we will finish Feinberg's catalog of the history of this position and delve into some of the arguments for timeless eternity.

No One Like Him: God, Time, & Eternity Part 1

Feinberg starts this section reminding his readers that the eternal nature of God is both vital and comforting. It is good to remember that God is the same always and that this has never changed. That word never is pesky though. What does it say about God's relationship with time that he never . Never implies eternity and the nature of eternity is the question we need to answer. "Is eternity timelessness, or is it never ending existence within time?" (375) Either way one attempts to answer this question problems and limitations in our understanding begin to arise. Another way of asking this question is to ask whether God exists within time or outside of time.
Feinberg offers a definition for consideration: Temporal Location- Something that must exist before or after a particular moment. This is an important point, because even to exists at all points of time implies interaction with time.
The first position considered is God's existence outside of time. Feinberg uses a classic resource in his understanding of this definition in the person of Boetheus. The quote used is from Consolation of Philosophy book 5, prose 6, "Eternity then, is the complete possession all at once of illimitable life." (376) An essay written on Boetheus's definition by two scholars, Stump and Kretzmann, is considered by Feinberg. The definition consists of four concomitant components:

1) Sentience- Feeling as distinguished from perception or thought or simply consciousness.
2) Illimitability- Sentience can not be limited by time.
3) Duration- sentience must endure through time.
-Now if your like me and several scholars who first encountered this definition a question must penetrate your mind immediately; how can it endure through time if it is timeless? As it turns out this question yields component number four.
4) Atemporality- To possess one's essence all at once.

Atemporality is an area that we should focus attention on. All finite beings exist sequentially or "before" and "after" a given moment. For example: "Before I met Jason Sturkie I thought I was good looking after I met Jason I felt I was very good looking." (This was not the example used in Feinberg but I'm sure he would agree with my conclusions in regards to how good looking I am) God has no such limitations, he did not need to gain knowledge because he is omniscient (all knowing) if he had to gain knowledge it would imply a denial of his immutability (unchanging). God can not change, but more to the point, if he gained knowledge it would also imply a time in which he did not possess knowledge thereby foisting him into a sequential order thus limiting him by time. (I'm not entirely sure Feinberg would agree with me that this is by necessity a limitation, but we will see) An atemporal being must possess its essence all at once.
You may be thinking that the term "all at once" is very time-laden. It's important to remember that we are talking about God's interaction with a temporal universe and that he is not limited by time when he interacts with it. Here is another pesky term though, when. We are truly limited in our abilities to fully comprehend and discuss God. I am a being in time so when I say when I don't mean to imply there is a time when God does not interact or sustain creation, rather when one is choosing a specific moment to identify the status of God or activity of God we are forced to use language that is limited by the scope of time.
The next issue Feinberg tackles is atemporal duration. Is this an oxymoron? You may have to decide for yourself. We must remember that time moves in one direction in a series of finite moments and within those moments we have a duration. That moment will not come again and we will be different at every successive moment or we will have a different duration at each successive moment. I think an illustration would be very helpful here.
Suppose you are looking at a picture of yourself when you were a kid. You existed in that state at that moment. Or you possessed that duration at that interval within the successive time line. Perhaps the sun was in your face and you were squinting. You can not say as you look at the picture that you were not squinting at that moment in your childhood, maybe before the picture was taken or after the picture was taken you were not squinting but at that moment you were. Let me ask a question, what was God's duration at that moment in time? Was it different than it is now? Obviously the answer is no. Time has changed and so have you, but God has not changed he was 100% who he is and was unaffected by time even though he was interactive with time at the moment that picture was taken. If you are having a hard time wrapping your mind around this whole issue your in good company, Feinberg himself said he is not sure this makes sense to him either. In short God has a duration that is not limited by time, thus atemporal duration. No succession of moments are required for God to be who he is.
We will look at Feinberg's definition of God within eternal time at the next posting.