Time is measured by change. Change pertains to the creation. Ergo, time pertains to the creation.
QED
The eternal God is thy refuge, and underneath are the everlasting arms." (Deut. 33:27)
Scripture declares that God is eternal. In theological categories, eternity is treated as an attribute of God's essential nature. Defining and describing this attribute is not an easy task. In fact, any definition will fall short, for the simple reason that we have no way to understand what it means to be uncreated or to have no beginning. This does not mean, however, that any derived understanding will necessarily be inaccurate, only incomplete. But this of course is true with all theology.In defining eternity as it relates to God's existence, a good starting point is to acknowledge His uncreatedness. That is to say, God is self-existing, with neither beginning nor end. There was no cause that brought forth God's existence, but rather creation owes its existence to God. That something was selfexistent is the proof of the cosmological argument. "If anything does now exist, then something must be self-existent because from nothing, nothing comes."
The idea that God has no beginning or end is unexplainable but nevertheless conceivable. But to stop here with our description of eternity would be unsatisfactory. The next step is to ascertain the relationship between eternity and time. Does eternity transcend time? Are eternity and time mutually inclusive or exclusive? These questions form the essence of our inquiry. How one answers here, will effect the way one views other qualities of God's nature, such as immutability, omniscience, and transcendence. In other words, one's concept of eternity becomes a theological watershed to which other theological implications must flow. It is at this juncture that theologians are divided on the concept of eternity. Some have postulated that God is timeless, while others contend that time is essential to His nature.
Eternity as Timelessness
Eternity as timelessness means that God transcends or dwells outside the dimensions of time. Past, present, and future lose their distinctiveness as they merge into one eternally fixed moment. There is no succession or duration for God. These characteristics apply to the created order, but not to the Creator. He enjoys the whole scope of knowledge, experience, events, and relations in one eternal moment. Yesterday is not past. Tomorrow is not future. Both are eternally present. It would seem that this view of eternity is favored because it anchors such doctrines as immutability, omniscience, and transcendence. Time or succession implies change. If God can have an experience now that He did not have a moment ago, it could be said that He has changed in some way, though not necessarily in His essential Being. Timelessness adds permanence and security, two qualities which bring hope in a world of constant change and uncertainty. If God lives above time, He would have a perfect account of all knowledge. Nothing could be future and contingent for Him because He already inhabits the future. Just as we have a certainty of knowledge at the present, God has a certainty of knowledge of all the future, because the future for God coexists with the present. And if God is a timeless Being it would make Him qualitatively different from man in that He would not be bound by the restraints of time. It would make Him unique and Divinely otherly. This is the doctrine of transcendence.
Many argue, such as Ronald Nash, that the doctrine of Divine timelessness is a Greek concept originating in the philosophy of Plato, maturing in the system of Neoplatonism, and finding passage into Christian thought by way of Augustine, who he considers to be a Christian Platonist. In addition to Augustine, it was later held by Anselm, Aquinas, and the Reformers.
Eternity as Endless Time
Eternity as endless time means that there is no beginning or end to the process of time. Time stretches infinitely into the past and will endure infinitely into the future. The present for God is the same as the present for us. God does things sequentially, whether thinking, acting, or relating. Past, present, and future are clearly distinguishable to God. The past is gone. The future is yet to be. All that exists for now is the present. This view is favored for its simplicity and dynamism. It is easy to comprehend and it makes sense. Since we have left the past, enjoy the present, and move on to the future, it seems natural to us that God experiences the same. It also presents a God who is active and personal. He is an agent who continually transmits His energy to sustain the universe. He acts in the present world with no philosophical difficulties of how He does it. Temporal location is not a problem for a God who experiences time. Relationship with man is real and intimate. In addition, it would seem that a case for endless time would be more easily ascertained from scripture than would that of timelessness.
Samuel Clarke and Jonathan Edwards both held to the idea that God's eternal existence was everlastingness rather than timelessness.
Upon consulting a number of theology books in the 19th and 20th century, I discovered that neither position on God's eternity was only held by a hand full, rather each position had many advocates. In addition, neither view was strictly a Calvinistic or an Arminian doctrine. Both systems have had advocates of each view.
God's value and worth is beyond judgement! It is to be acknowledged and praised, not tried in the balance by men!
The fact that God is an uncreated eternal being and has all power does not give Him any praise worthiness or value.
This is garbage. If this were true, then God would not be self-sufficient. He is glorious in and of Himself. He needs no one and no thing to praise Him. He is glorious, whatever He does or does not do and does or does not create.
What if God chose to use His power for selfish reasons or in some inappropriate way? It is what God chooses to do with what He has that gives Him true value and praise.
Who, besides God, decides what is inappropriate? Is there some standard higher than God by which to judge inappropriateness? Will the pot stand in judgement of the potter?
No reason to continue any further with this piece of rubbish of an article.
This nonsense assumes God can only think like man. If that were true, he wouldn't be called "God." We need to quit with this simple minded notion that things must make sense to us (meaning, to man) or it is either untrue or has something wrong with it. After reading this, ask your computer to tell you how it was created. Then the coke can you just finished drinking. Then the chair you are sitting on.
When you get an answer, call me.