TIME: What is time and when did time start?

Biblical Theology ^ | Biblical Theology

[xzins]

This is not especially well-written in my opinion (some grammar/spelling errors).

Also, I found myself reacting negatively AGAINST some of the ideas in here.

However, it is a contrarian view, and as such, it is worthy of discussion.

REad through it and mark those things that make you react. Priortize them. PUt up your numbers 1-3.

[The Grammarian]

Sounds fairly open theistic to me. On the one hand, I've thought myself that perhaps time is a natural attribute of God; on the other hand, the writer makes many of these statements axiomatically (he states them as though they were axioms) and without any explanation. Ultimately, I am still up in the air. I cannot imagine eternity as 'outside of time' so much as 'age-during' (as the Young's Literal Translation translates "aionion") or ever-lasting--an everlasting succesion of events, if only because it would make heaven a blur. I think I agree with Joshua Harris' dad when he said that "God created time so that everything wouldn't happen at once."

The author also makes the logical leap that for God to foreknow an event before it happened would be for God to cause it, which I would dispute.

And last, he almost sounds like he's denying total depravity in one of those paragraphs ("God did not create sin nor did Adam's fall create sin in every born baby").

[Warlord David]

Very interesting. But I believe God is enternal he stand at the being of time and delcares the end of time. He also stand at the end of time and declare the being. And that time is a fuction of this universe, not eternity. And that God has created a new heaven(universe) and a new earth. And that this old heaven and earth will pass away, including all the natural laws, including time. God has no boundaries when it comes to creating. He is omni-present in all thing eternal and in this universe, past present and future at the same moment. We are finite and he is infinite, so it hard to understand it, and grasp it, but it is so never the less.

[xzins]

Yes. The first on my list is the one you picked -- his jump to the axiom that "time is an attribute of God." I would have welcomed scripture on that one.

[Dajjal]

Time is measured by change. God is unchanging. Ergo, God is beyond time.

Time is measured by change. Change pertains to the creation. Ergo, time pertains to the creation.

QED

[Vernon]

Interesting. You asked for the order of things that strike me so here goes.

1. To say that time is a natural attribute of God is certainly something new to me. My understanding is and has been that God transcends time, therefore, since there is no where God is not, everywhere is not part of God. The same is true with time. This sounds very pantheistic to me.

2. The concept of time as being linear is a very modern concept. I'm not sure this will square with what we know about time in physics, which as I understand it seems to think time is curved. If it is curved, then in the sense of infinity, it must be circular, which takes us back to an understanding before the modern era. (I don't have a clue what I'm talking about!!!!!)

3. "His thoughts are really his own creation. God is part of an endless and continuous sequence of thoughts, ideas and actions. Once God thinks a thought it becomes forever embedded in the essence of time." Once again, this seems very pantheistic to me

[winstonchurchill]

Sounds fairly open theistic to me.

I would certainly agree that is one of its effects. Two specifics jumped out at me:

(1) That God knows all which is knowable; and

(2) That God acts (and thinks) "linearly" or sequentially.

Both of these concepts are key insights to the open theism view. The first causes the reader to focus upon the epistemological question of the limits of knowledge. The second takes us away from misleading questions of the 'measurement' of time to the more important sequential/linear question where some facts are dependent of other, earlier facts.

Your phrase ("...an everlasting succesion of events...") catches the concept well. Perhaps that is why the author posits (at least that aspect of) 'time' as a 'natural attribute' of God.

I do not think one can tell from what is said whether the author is an open theist, but he is at least conversant with the issues raised by open theism.

[Vernon]

I goofed... I said, "... therefore, since there is no where God is not, everywhere is not part of God." What I tried to say was: Though there is no where God is not, and you can find God everywhere, this does not mean that God himself is the essense of everywhere itself. He inhabits eternity and is eternal, but is not eternity itself. This writer sounds very pantheistic to me.

[Vernon]

Is there a relationship between Open Theism and Pantheism? Seems to me like there are similarities.

[connectthedots]

I have not read the article, but maybe you could answer a question for me.

What is the purpose of discussing time as it relates to God? Doesn't the Bible start with "In the beginning" and isn't God eternal and "from everlasting to everlasting"? And isn't Jesus Christ the focal point of all of human history? This all seems so obvious to me that there really isn't much, if anything, to add that is worthwhile stating; or am I missing something?

[winstonchurchill]

Is there a relationship between Open Theism and Pantheism? Seems to me like there are similarities.

Not to my knowledge. Pantheism equates God with the laws and forces of the universe, in effect 'de-personalizing' God.

Open theism is a construct of biblical data which emphasizes the extent of 'knowability' of contingent events, particularly those where the contingency involves a free will decision of man.

[xzins]

I agree with the 6 axiomatic statements at the beginning of the article. I agree that God cannot violate his own attributes.

I'll nod to this: The fact that God is an uncreated eternal being and has all power does not give Him any praise worthiness or value. A big mountain is worthy of comment just for it's beauty, but I get the author's point.

Then he makes the axiomatic statement that "time is a natural attribute of God."

I want scripture for that before I buy it, and I can't come up with any.

[winstonchurchill]

What is the purpose of discussing time as it relates to God? Doesn't the Bible start with "In the beginning" and isn't God eternal and "from everlasting to everlasting"? And isn't Jesus Christ the focal point of all of human history? This all seems so obvious to me that there really isn't much, if anything, to add that is worthwhile stating; or am I missing something?

I concur in part and dissent in part. I concur that discussions of the 'measurement' or 'quantum' of time or differences in the relative perspective of such measurement between God and man is a waste. However, I think that the importance of the biblical account emphasizing the sequencing of God's thoughts has important consequences discussed elsewhere in this thread.

In summary, the very progression of 'time' as it applies to God is a very important distinction. If, contrary to the biblical account, God does not think and act sequentially (in that sense, within 'time'), then the determinist idea of a once-for-all-time instanteous script of 'history' makes more sense. If, to the contrary, He does think and act, sequentially, (and, IF the biblical account shows that God has chosen to respect decisions of His creatures), then the determinist model is problematic.

[Vernon]

Who is the author or did I miss it?

[xzins]

1. It's good to know all that God reveals seems axiomatic to me. So, if His word reveals things about time, then that information will help to understand something else somewhere else.

2. It's an integral piece of the "God's Foreknowledge" discussion.

[winstonchurchill]

Then he makes the axiomatic statement that "time is a natural attribute of God." I want scripture for that before I buy it, and I can't come up with any.

As I have indicated somewhat summarily here, I think the author foreshortens his argument in this way: (i)God acts and thinks sequentially as a 'natural attribute', (ii) the idea of sequentialization presupposes what we call 'time', (iii) therefore, what we call 'time' is a natural attribute of God. The major premise, I believe is amply demonstrated from biblical authority cited in the article, the minor primise is definitional.

I find that fairly strong. Our determinist friends probably won't 'come out to play' (because they see where this simple observation can lead) but I think even they would find it difficult to deny the sequentialization of God's thoughts and actions. [Of course, they could probably just label it an 'anthropomorphism' and move on with their preferred construct.]

[Vernon]

What does this do to the idea of foreknowledge?

[winstonchurchill]

What does this do to the idea of foreknowledge?

Because, as the article suggests, "There is nothing knowable that He does not know," the question comes "What is unknowable?" The answer seems to be, only those future things which are contingent on matters not within His control. From the standpoint of open theists, the only things not within His control are (i)the free will decisions of His creatures (to which God has, in a self-limited way, agreed to respect) and (ii) matters which are generated by other free agents, i.e. Satan.

It is not unusual that open theists (like Boyd) give a large swath to Satan. This accounts for the presence and persistence of evil (both 'personal' and 'natural') without in any way seeing God as the source of it. [In fact, Boyd refers to his theology as a "Trinitarian warfare theodicy."]

Thus, in sum, to the extent that these future decisions are truly independent of God, they are not knowable until they are made (and thus become 'facts' capable of being known) and therefore cannot be known -- even by God. It is this attribution of evil to the free agency of Satan and man that partially limits God's foreknowledge within the open theist view.

It is "partial" because God, of course, knows His own actions and, even as to those things which He does not 'know' (because they don't yet exist), He would probably have probability estimates based upon present knowledge of the decision-makers.

So, you can see how important this matter of (i) the sequentiality of God and (ii) the free agency of Satan and man can be to foreknowledge in the open theist view.

[Warlord David]

Why does both idea of God thinking in time or eternal contradict each other? For the determinist idea for a once and for all time instanteous script of history in God thinking does not limit his ability to think and act sequentially either. Both ideas provide how unlimited Gods ability are.