Divine Attributes

In contemporary philosophy of religion, the two most standard approaches to predicates of God are analogy and univocation. While analogy lacks precision and is best used in liturgical and sacred texts, univocal predicates are problematic because they seem to lead to ontological monism of sameness between God and creatures, which cannot be allowed within metaphysics of Absolute Being. In this article, I examine and contrast G. Frege’s approach to univocal predications and L. Wittgenstein’s notion of language-games, which allows us to (...) move away from univocation as a case of strong identity toward univocation as the extra-linguistic context of human activities. Indeed, that human context can be shared with ‘Goodness,’ ‘Wisdom,’ ‘Simplicity,’ ‘Love’ and many other predicates we attribute to God. I argue that our language of univocal predicates must reflect not the abstract concepts but that same context of divine and human activities in which names of God achieve univocal context. Key words: analogy, univocal predicates, G. Frege, L. Wittgenstein, contextual principle, language-games . (shrink)

The present article seeks to show, with reference to Thomas Aquinas and Richard Swinburne, that classical theism cannot reconcile the idea of divine perfection with the modern idea of a person. It then proposes a solution which consists in applying to the doctrine of God the model of complementarity which Niels Bohr first used in quantum physics in his attempt to explain (among other things) the duality between wave and particle. This model is then applied by juxtaposing the description of (...) God as a perfect being, established through the 'via negativa', and the description of God as a person, esablished through the 'via positiva' as two contradictory, albeit necessary, descriptions. (shrink)

In this paper, we elucidate an alternative conception of the “end of human life” that Germain Grisez considers but never develops. We then defend this conception against two key objections. We conclude by explaining a few ways that this alternative conception of the “end of human life” is particularly important both theologically and philosophically.

on calculating Apocalypse, awakening the Avatar, and related.

The practice of prayer for the dead has been criticized by some Christians on the grounds that it is useless (on the assumption that a postmortem change in spiritual state is impossible) and even sinful inasmuch as it wills a state of affairs contrary to that which God has already ordained. In this article, I challenge these arguments using a Boethian or Augustinian conception of God’s relationship to time. If prayers from all times are perceived by God in a tenseless (...) present, I argue that prayer for the dead becomes no more problematic than petitionary prayer about the future. (shrink)

The practice of prayer for the dead has been criticized by some Christians on the grounds that it is useless (on the assumption that a postmortem change in spiritual state is impossible) and even sinful inasmuch as it wills a state of affairs contrary to that which God has already ordained. In this article, I challenge these arguments using a Boethian or Augustinian conception of God’s relationship to time. If prayers from all times are perceived by God in a tenseless (...) present, I argue that prayer for the dead becomes no more problematic than petitionary prayer about the future. (shrink)

The recent trend among many philosophers of religion has been to interpret divine eternity as an everlasting temporality in which an omnitemporal God exists in and throughout the whole of time. This is in contrast to the classical account of divine eternity as atemporal, immutable existence. In this paper, Aquinas' use of Boethius's definition of eternity as “the whole, perfect, and simultaneous possession of endless life” is analyzed and explained in contradistinction to Aristotle's definition of time. This analysis is then (...) used to respond to Nicholas Wolterstroff's argument in "God Everlasting" that God's knowledge of temporal events infects God with temporality and mutability. The argument concludes by introducing an important distinction between absolute simultaneity and temporal simultaneity, which allows us to hold God is omniscient because he is absolutely simultaneous with all events but is not temporally simultaneous with any event. (shrink)

In this essay, I argue that the Incarnation of the Son of God, understood in a traditionally orthodox way, is incompatible with an atemporalist concept of God. First, I explain what I mean by atemporalism, namely the idea that God exists outside time. I also show the main corollaries of that doctrine, most notably that all of God’s life occurs eternally simultaneously. Second, based on New Testament teaching and widely accepted creeds, I spell out philosophically what I mean by the (...) Incarnation. In short, I take it to be the doctrine that the Second Person of the Trinity at some point in time took on a human body as part of a fully human nature. I then proceed to my central argument, which derives a contradiction from the definitions of the Incarnation and of atemporalism, respectively. In the last section, I shall treat some possible objections to my argument and show that they do not solve the problem satisfactorily. (shrink)

The God of Western religion is said to be eternal. But what does that mean? Is God somehow beyond time, living a life that does not involve one thing after another? Or is God's relationship to time much more like ours, so that God's eternality just consists in there being no time at which God doesn't exist? Even for non-believers, these issues have interesting implications for the relation between historical and scientific findings on the one hand, and religion on the (...) other. This Element introduces the reader to the requisite metaphysical background, and then examines reasons for and against thinking of God as timeless. (shrink)

In this essay I will try to convince you: (1) that the question of God’s relation to time is of practical relevance for every believer (2) that the idea of God being outside time is a philosophically untenable concept which creates major clashes with Christian doctrine and therefore that every Christian should adopt some temporalist view of God To do that, I will present four arguments against the “outside time” view of God. I then briefly treat the question where the (...) idea of God’s timelessness presumably came from and conclude with an outlook on problems that temporalist accounts of God must face. (shrink)

This entry provides an overview of some key positions on God and time and discusses arguments for and against divine timelessness. The final section outlines some other philosophical contexts in which the concept of eternity can play a role.

Is God a timeless God? One standard argument against the supposition that He is is that it appears to be incompatible with God’s posited omniscience. If God is timeless, He cannot know truths involving temporal indexicals, such as the one I express right now by ”I am sitting now”. In this article, I discuss this argument and consider some replies to it. I focus on the denial of the view according to which knowledge expressed with temporally indexical true statements is (...) relevantly different from knowledge expressed with corresponding statements without indexicals. (shrink)

God is thought to be eternal. Does this mean that he is timeless? Or is he, rather, omnitemporal? In this paper we want to show that God cannot be omnitemporal. Our starting point, which we take from Bernard Williams’ article on the Makropulos Case, is the intuition that it is inappropriate for persons not to become bored after a sufficiently long sequence of time has passed. If God were omnitemporal, he would suffer from boredom. But God is the greatest possible (...) being and therefore cannot be bored. God, hence, is not omnitemporal. After the presentation of our argument, we address several objections by examining possible differences between human and divine persons. (shrink)

In this paper, I shall focus on the semantic content of αἰὼν in Maximus the Confessor's works, particularly in the instances in which he employs it as a distinct form of temporality, i.e. not as simply meaning ‘eternity’. I focus on αἰὼν as a Maximian terminus technicus in spite of the diverse meanings that he himself ascribes to the word in certain cases. I will also engage with the status of time as humanity's slavery, as humanity's enemy in Maximus’ thought, (...) for this is integrally connected with the notion of the Aeon and especially with the need to transcend both time as χρóνος and temporality in the form of the Aeon in striving for ever well-being. The greater context of this investigation is the understanding of Maximus’ conception of temporality as a threefold one, consisting of time as χρóνος, the temporality of the sensible realm and the numbering of motion, αἰὼν i.e. the Aeon, a ‘time without movement’ and the temporality of the intelligible creation, and the transformed temporality of the ever-moving repose. (shrink)

Philosophy: the intersubjectivity of Sophos, the one and the real self, of the mystic, pure consciousness..

In this paper I shall consider an objection to divine temporality called “The Prisoner of Time” objection. I shall begin by distinguishing divine timelessness from divine temporality in order to clear up common misunderstandings and caricatures of divine temporality. From there I shall examine the prisoner of time objection and explain why the prisoner of time objection fails to be a problem for the Christian divine temporalist.

Divine temporality is all the rage in certain theological circles today. Some even suggesting that the doctrine of the Trinity entails divine temporality. While I find this claim a bit strong, I do think that divine temporality can be quite useful for developing a robust model of the Trinity. However, not everyone agrees with this. Paul Helm has offered an objection to the so-called Oxford school of divine temporality based on the Christian doctrine of the Trinity. He has argued that (...) this form of divine temporality entails Arianism. In other words, divine temporality suffers from an inadequate doctrine of the Trinity. In this paper I shall first articulate the so-called Oxford school of divine temporality. From there I shall develop some of the Oxford school’s theological benefits that help flesh out the doctrine of the Trinity, and assuage the charge of Arianism. Then I shall offer an examination and refutation of the Arian charge to divine temporality in order to show that the divine temporalist can maintain a robust Trinitarian theology. (shrink)

This paper models God and time in the framework of modern physics. God bridges and simultaneously exists in (1) a universe with infinite tenseless time and (2) a created parallel universe with tensed time and a point origin. The primary attributes of God are inexhaustible love, inexhaustible perception, and inexhaustible force. The model also incorporates modern physics theories that include relativity, the conservation of energy, quantum mechanics, and multiverse geometry. For example, creation out of nothing and divine intervention are subject (...) to physical processes and likewise nomological possibility. I will call this model semiclassical theism. (shrink)

God is the ‘high and lofty One who inhabits eternity’, declared the prophet Isaiah, but exactly how we are to understand the notion of eternity is not clear. Traditionally, the Christian church has taken it to mean ‘timeless’. But in his classic work on this subject, Oscar Cullmann has contended that the New Testament ‘does not make a philosophical, qualitative distinction between time and eternity. It knows linear time only…’ He maintains, ‘Primitive Christianity knows nothing of a timeless God. The (...) “eternal” God is he who was in the beginning, is now, and will be in all the future, “who is, who was, and who will be” .’ As a result, God's eternity, says Cullmann, must be expressed in terms of endless time. (shrink)

This essay attempts to make sense of Augustine's claim that time is a mental affection. He has been criticized, by Russell for instance, for advocating a subjective theory of time, thereby confusing the issue of what time is with the issue of what it is like to experience time. I defend Augustine from this criticism. His interest in time emerges out of confessional philosophy, and when this context is taken into account, his association of time with affection implies the converse (...) of what it has mostly been taken to imply: not that time is in his experience of time, but that his experience of time is discomfortingly timeless. (shrink)

As a personal agent, God's act of creation involves deliberation about His possible courses of action, a decision to act in a certain way, and the execution of that decision. In this paper, I argue that there is good reason to suppose that God's deliberation of the possible worlds cannot make Him temporal. Furthermore, whether we favour a deterministic and indeterministic version of freedom, a model can be constructed of how God timelessly decides to create this world and respond to (...) His creatures. Finally, I argue that the problem of how God executes His decision dissolves, if we adopt a pantheistic viewpoint. This rather unorthodox viewpoint is compatible with other important theistic doctrines. (shrink)

In this paper, I shall focus on the semantic content of αἰὼν in Maximus the Confessor's works, particularly in the instances in which he employs it as a distinct form of temporality, i.e. not as simply meaning ‘eternity’. I focus on αἰὼν as a Maximian terminus technicus in spite of the diverse meanings that he himself ascribes to the word in certain cases. I will also engage with the status of time as humanity's slavery, as humanity's enemy in Maximus’ thought, (...) for this is integrally connected with the notion of the Aeon and especially with the need to transcend both time as χρóνος and temporality in the form of the Aeon in striving for ever well-being. The greater context of this investigation is the understanding of Maximus’ conception of temporality as a threefold one, consisting of time as χρóνος, the temporality of the sensible realm and the numbering of motion, αἰὼν i.e. the Aeon, a ‘time without movement’ and the temporality of the intelligible creation, and the transformed temporality of the ever-moving repose. (shrink)

God’s temporality is still debated today by theologians and philosophers with whether God is temporal, atemporal, or some other form of temporality. The context of this paper is the topic of God’s timelessness with the idea of William Lane Craig’s idea of “omnitemporality.” The paper discusses a few of the major arguments for God’s temporality and also God’s timelessness. The paper then analyzes Craig’s article defending the omnitemporality of God declaring that God is non-temporal without creation and then becomes temporal (...) with creation. Though this idea may seem as a possible solution to the question of God’s temporality, it fails to follow with the Kalam argument and the relationship of time and change, for any possibility of change requires some duration of time. (shrink)

The End of the Timeless God considers two approaches to the philosophy of time, presentism and eternalism. It is often held that God cannot be timeless if presentism is true, but can be if eternalism is true. R. T. Mullins draws on recent work in the philosophy of time as well as the work of classical Christian thinkers such as Augustine, Anselm, and Aquinas to contend that the Christian God cannot be timeless in either case.

In a series of recent papers John Martin Fischer argues that the Molinist solution to the problem of reconciling divine omniscience with human freedom does not offer such a solution at all. Instead, he maintains, Molina simply presupposes theological compatibilism. However, Fischer construes the problem in terms of sempiternalist omniscience, whereas classical Molinism adopts atemporalism. I argue that, moreover, an atemporalist reformulation of Fischer’s argument designed to show that Molinism is not even consistent is unsuccessful as well, since it employs (...) a transfer principle about causal inaccessibility that Molina rightfully rejects. (shrink)

This book explains the classical Christian doctrine of God's timelessness and defends it against contemporary philosophical criticism. The historical background and discussion of this concept is reviewed from Parmenides to the present, and particular note is made that the doctrine cannot be detached from the various metaphysical systems in which it is embedded.

Available from UMI in association with The British Library. Requires signed TDF. ;I examine the doctrine of the timelessness of God, and develop a new concept of eternity, which I call "relative timelessness." I argue that the traditional notion of eternity, viz. that God is absolutely timeless and immutable, can only be true if the stasis theory of time is true . This argument assumes that God is active in our history, in particular that God directly sustains the universe at (...) each moment of time. But the stasis theory of time should not be accepted, as I argue on both scientific and philosophical grounds. So the doctrine of absolute divine timelessness cannot be true, if God sustains the universe. Since divine sustaining is so central to theism, we should reject the traditional doctrine of divine timelessness if we wish to retain a coherent theology. Yet arguments that God cannot be in measurable time still hold force. So I develop a revised understanding of divine timelessness which separates it from absolute immutability. A relatively timeless God can change in relationship to his creation. God is not in any Measured Time system, nor is he subject to time: but he is temporal, even though his time is infinite and immeasurable. Thus God is both temporal in some sense, and timeless in some sense, yet still able to sustain the universe of time and change. We are in God's time, which is eternity. (shrink)

The purpose of this dissertation was to examine whether divine timelessness solves the foreknowledge-free will dilemma. In chapter 1, I proposed that for divine timelessness to defeat the argument for the incompatibility of foreknowledge and freedom, divine timelessness must be an intelligible concept, must be coherent with key elements of the traditional Christian doctrine of God, and must not entail determinism. ;In chapter 2, I examined classical models of divine timeless-eternity. In chapter 3, I examined the nature of time, contending (...) that relativity theory allows that actualizations of events are relative to spatial-temporal frames of reference. ;In chapter 4, I examined contemporary models of divine timelessness. I rejected Eleonore Stump's/Norman Kretzmann's and John Yates' Boethian-like models. I endorsed Brian Leftow's Anselmian-like model with its affirmation that creaturely events are both in time and in timeless-eternity. This view avoids the charge that all events of time are now actualized in time on the grounds that relativity theory allows one to assert that while all events may be actual in eternity, they need not be actual in time. ;In chapter 5, I concluded that a timeless being could be conscious, act in time, intentionally act, and be factually omniscient. I noted, however, that classical theism's commitment to divine impassibility makes it impossible for God to genuinely personally interact with creatures. ;In chapter 6, I rejected the charges that divine timelessness leads to logical fatalism, accidental determinism, or causal determinism. I claimed, however, that for causal determinism to be avoided, God's impassibility must be denied. I endorsed William Alston's notion that God is epistemically affected by creatures in timeless-eternity. Thus, God can know creaturely actions without causing them and God can interact with creatures. ;In chapter 7, I concluded that divine timelessness is intelligible, is compatible with divine personhood, and with creaturely freedom, and that such a model solves the foreknowledge-free will debate. (shrink)

In 1981 Eleonore Stump and Norman Kretzmann published a landmark article aimed at exploring the classical concept of divine eternity. 1 Taking Boethius as the primary spokesman for the traditional view, they analyse God's eternity as timeless yet as possessing duration. More recently Brian Leftow has seconded Stump and Kretzmann's interpretation of the medieval position and attempted to defend the notion of a durational eternity as a useful way of expressing the sort of life God leads. 2 However, there are (...) good reasons to reject the idea that divine timelessness should be thought of as having duration. The medievals probably did not accept it, as it contradicts a principle of classical metaphysics even more fundamental than the atemporality of the divine. In any case, it is not possible to express the notion of durational eternity in even a minimally coherent way, and the attempt to salvage the concept by appealing to the Thomistic doctrine of analogy is unsuccessful. The best analogy for God's eternity is still the one proposed by Augustine at the end of the fourth century. God lives in a timeless ‘present’, unextended like our temporal present, but immutable and encompassing all time. (shrink)

I am grateful to Dr William L. Craig for his reply to an earlier article of mine in this journal, on the relationship between God and time. Craig and I agree on most points with respect to the relationship between God and time. What then is there for us to disagree about? The point Craig argues for is, eternity is ‘coincident’ with our history, i.e. the duration of our space–time is simultaneous with some duration of eternity. But I already agree (...) to this point. In fact, I argued that if God sustains the universe, and if the universe and God are temporal, then God's time must be related to our time. We are in God's time, and God's time is our time, when by time we mean ‘ontological time’ or what I call duration, rather than Measured Time. If this is so, where is our disagreement? Our disagreement turns on this question: does history measure eternity? Does the ‘cosmic time’ of our universe give a proper measure to the same duration of God's time in eternity? I say it does not, while Craig says that it does. (shrink)

In this essay I wish to defend the intuition that God transcends time, of which he is the Creator. To do this, I will develop a new understanding of the term ‘timeless eternity’ as it applies to God. This assumes the inadequacy of the traditional notion of divine eternity, as it is found in Boethius, Anselm and Aquinas. Very briefly, the reasons for this inadequacy are as follows. God sustains the universe, which means in part that he is responsible for (...) the fundamental ontological status of things. Because the universe is an everchanging reality, things do change in their fundamental ontological status at different times – a change we must ascribe to God, and cannot ascribe to the objects themselves, since this has to do with their very existence. God himself, therefore, does different things at different times. This implies change in God. Whenever a change occurs, a duration occurs. Therefore, God is in time. But I do not think it is proper to say that God is in our time. God transcends time, and he is the Creator of our space-time. It is theologically more proper to say that we are in God's time, and I will adopt this language here. (shrink)

There seems to be a growing consensus amongst both theologians and philosophers that the classical doctrine of God as a simple, eternal being is untenable. Worries are expressed about the very notion of atemporal existence and when the examples of numbers and universals are offered, attention is drawn to the uncertain ontological status of such entities. Further, some of the traditional expressions of divine eternity are strictly speaking incoherent, bearing in mind that eternity means having neither temporal location nor duration. (...) For example, it is clearly self-contradictory to assert that atemporal deity enjoys the ‘Eternal Now’ since this would entail temporal location, and similarly Boethius' famous definition of eternity as ‘unending life existing as a complete whole all at once’ is suspect, for it suggests that God has both infinite duration and also no duration . Of course, the traditionalist will hasten to point out that God's magnum mysterium is forcing him to employ language analogically, but the critics suspect they are rather in the presence of the fog of unknowing and just plain woolly thinking. (shrink)

Theists believe that God is eternal, but they differ as to just what God's eternality means . The traditional, historic view of most Christian philosophers is that eternality means that God is timeless. He is ‘outside’ of time and not subject to any kind of temporal change. Indeed, God is the creator of time. Lets call this view divine timelessness.

In Christian tradition there have been three broadly different ways in which eternity 1 has been connected with time We find a moral view: eternal life is the ‘due reward’, the ‘prize’ owed to certain states of consciousness and types of behaviour which have occurred in this life; a voluntarist theory: eternal life is the unowed and thus gratuitous gift given subsequent to the occurrence of certain conscious states and behaviour patterns; and the ‘ontological’ approach: eternal life is the final, (...) culminating phase or development of those conscious states and patterns of action. All three of these views co-exist in Christian literature from the New Testament era on. (shrink)