Just finished Alan Padgett's chapter in Ganssle's edited work, God and Time. The book describes four different views on this relationship, with contributions from Paul Helm (Augustinian), William Lane Craig, Alan Padgett, and Nicholas Wolterstorff. I bought the book largely for Nicholas Wolterstorff's chapter on "Unqualified Divine Temporality." Wolterstorff defends what is, largely, my view on God and time. His chapter was good, no doubt. For the most part, I related to what he was saying the best. However, it was Padgett's chapter that, I think, really went the furthest in attacking a strictly atemporal view of God.
Padgett really makes the distinction between two extremes: everlasting eternity (temporal eternity), and timeless eternity (atemporal). With a very short section on what he sees as the weaknesses of the former, he spends many pages taking apart the latter. At the center of his complaints about atemporality are its problems with coherence. It is not, to Padgett, that the atemporal model is, in itself, a completely incoherent view. "The main objection [Padgett has] to the timeless model is simply stated: It is true only if the stasis theory of time is true. Since the stasis theory of time is false, we should reject the timeless view because we should, whenever possible, bring coherence to theology." (GT, 95)
Padgett goes on to make a very good argument for the "process" view of time over the stasis view. According to process theories,"temporal passage is a real part of the physical universe" while stasis theories "deny the reality of temporal passage."(96) He insist that "even a timeless God must await the present moment to act on really existing (present) things, if the process theory of time is true."(97) In fact, Padgett even seems to admit the concept of real change in the person of God, something classical theology works very hard to deny--yet clearly contradicts scripture.
Overall, I like Padgett's approach to atemporality. However, I found him a little frustrating, and here's why: he insists that atemporality is necessary for a coherent theology, but still tries to bring stasis theory into theology in the back door. In his section "Eternity as Relative Timelessness," having argued brilliantly against atemporality, he turns around and affirms a "God outside of time" mentality. Distinguishing between "pure duration" and temporality within created space-time ("measured time"). His reasoning, God has created space-time and so, must transcend it. His transcendence over time must be such that even his own time (God's time--pre-created space-time) must be ontologically dependent on him. But my question is, "why?"
It seems to me that we are sometimes too worked up about the transcendence of God. The notion that God created or is necessary to his own temporal (or atemporal) existence seems silly to me. What is wrong with stating that God has a nature, whether it is temporal or eternal? Is there something wrong with God if he doesn't transcend his own nature?
Scripture speaks of God's inability to lie. Does this mean he doesn't transcend truth? He cannot be tempted, either. There is nothing wrong with stating that God has a nature. I happen to think his nature is temporal, so that his temporality is not something he must transcend. It simply is what he is.
Just a short note on Padgett's chapter. Overall, it is good, but in the end he moves to atemporality in order to protect God's "Lordship over time." But I think this is unnecessary.
8.30.2007
The Goal of Relative Timelessness: Have My Cake--Eat It Too
Posted by Jason at 3:25 PM
Labels: God, God and time, nature of time, time
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Interesting, however, I'm not all too sure if this really matters.
Well, I can see how it might not seem especially relevant if one is not already thinking along these lines. It may not seem immediately practical. However, if one moves beyond the surface of things, the whole discussion is really at the heart of theism today. The nature of time and God's relationship to it are two of the hottest issues in metaphysics and theology today.
Many hundreds of years ago, Augustine developed a theology in which God was hyper-transcendent--so much so that God must pre-destine every event in order to be transcendent. Most of the classical theologians have largely accepted his ideas. God doesn't move or change (as in Aquinas), he eternally knows all events (even future ones). While most people don't realize Augustine's role in the development of that theology, or even the ins and outs of classical theology, it has largely influenced how most people think about God. Unfortunately, I think if one takes that view seriously, one develops a deistic view of God. I think a lot of classical theology is really more influenced by Greek philosophy and constitiutes a denial of a Biblical view of God.
I think the Bible reveals a living, moving God. He is one who experiences change (on some level) and interacts with creation. His relationship to time has a huge bearing on this notion.
You might find it interesting that my views on classical theology have very much changed how I approach Christianity everyday. For instance, I have abandoned classical dualism (or tri-ism) for a more wholistic approach. This has changed how I view the concepts of salvation and even kingdom concepts right now. It has even prepared me to be more environmentally conscious (yes, me!).
Thanks for reading!
Post a Comment