Chapter 15

The Contemporary Landscape

The State of the Debate Today

Introduction: A Debate That Has Come Alive

We have traveled a long road together. Starting with the ancient Greeks (Chapter 11), moving through the early Church Fathers (Chapter 12), the medieval period (Chapter 13), and the Reformation through the modern era (Chapter 14), we have traced how the question of God's relationship to time has been answered across nearly two and a half millennia of Western thought. For most of that long history, one answer dominated: God is timeless. He exists outside of time altogether, experiencing no succession, no before and after, no temporal flow. From Augustine to Aquinas, from Boethius to the Reformed scholastics, divine timelessness reigned virtually unchallenged as the standard Christian position.

But as we saw at the end of the previous chapter, that consensus began to crack in the modern era. Newton's concept of absolute time opened the door for imagining God within time. Schleiermacher reinterpreted divine eternity. Barth's complex vision of God's eternity as encompassing time pushed the conversation in new directions. And then, starting in the 1960s and 1970s, something remarkable happened. The door that had been cracked open was flung wide.

We now turn to the contemporary landscape — and it is a landscape that would have been unrecognizable to theologians just a few generations ago. The debate over God and time is today one of the most active, productive, and genuinely open areas of inquiry in analytic theology and philosophy of religion. More books and articles have been published on this topic in the last thirty to forty years than in the previous fifteen hundred years combined.¹ The old monopoly of divine timelessness has been broken. In its place, a rich, multi-sided conversation has emerged, with major thinkers defending divine timelessness, divine temporality, and creative hybrid positions that try to split the difference. The debate is not settled — far from it — but the direction of the conversation has shifted dramatically. The momentum, I believe, is clearly on the side of divine temporality.

The purpose of this chapter is to map that contemporary landscape as clearly and fairly as we can. Who holds what view today? What are the distinctive contributions of each major thinker? Where do the lines of agreement and disagreement run? And where is the debate heading? This is a chapter of orientation — a bird's-eye view of the terrain before we plunge into the biblical evidence (Part IV) and the detailed philosophical and systematic arguments (Part V) in the chapters to come.

The Turning of the Tide: How the Contemporary Debate Began

To appreciate the current state of the conversation, we need to understand how we got here. As recently as 1975, when the philosopher Nicholas Wolterstorff published his groundbreaking essay "God Everlasting," he could still describe the view that God exists outside of time as the dominant position in Christian philosophy and theology. "Only a small minority," Wolterstorff wrote, "have contended that God is everlasting, existing within time."² That observation reflected the reality of his day. The great majority of Christian philosophers and theologians — Catholic, Protestant, and Orthodox — held that God is timelessly eternal. The view was so deeply embedded in the tradition that many theologians never even questioned it. It was simply assumed.

But even as Wolterstorff was writing those words, the ground was shifting. Several developments converged to create the contemporary debate as we know it.

First, in 1970, Nelson Pike published God and Timelessness, an early and influential analytic treatment that argued that divine timelessness is not as clearly supported by the theological tradition as most people assumed.³ Pike's careful examination of the arguments for timelessness raised pointed questions about whether the doctrine could stand on its own merits, apart from the philosophical assumptions (especially from Plato and Plotinus) that had originally motivated it. Pike did not himself argue decisively for divine temporality, but his work opened a genuine space for serious reconsideration. He examined whether timelessness is a "value-making" or "great-making" property of God — the kind of property that a supremely perfect being would possess — and he expressed significant doubt that it is. Pike's analysis showed that timelessness had been accepted more on the basis of inherited philosophical assumptions than on clear theological reasoning.

Second, Wolterstorff's own 1975 essay, "God Everlasting," made a forceful biblical and philosophical case for divine temporality — the view that God exists through all of time, with no beginning and no end, rather than outside of time altogether.⁴ Wolterstorff argued that the Bible consistently portrays God as having a history — acting, speaking, responding, and unfolding a plan of redemption over time. He contended that Christian philosophers should take this biblical language at face value unless there are strong reasons not to, and that the burden of proof lies on those who claim all this temporal language is merely metaphorical or accommodative. This was a revolutionary claim in 1975, but it planted a seed that would grow dramatically in the decades to come.

Third, Richard Swinburne, one of the most important analytic philosophers of religion in the twentieth century, reversed his earlier defense of divine timelessness and argued in The Coherence of Theism (1977) and The Christian God (1994) that God is genuinely temporal.⁵ Swinburne proposed that God exists in an infinite, amorphous, undifferentiated time before creation — a kind of boundless temporal duration without any events to measure it. This was a dramatic move from one of the most respected philosophers in the field. When a thinker of Swinburne's stature and rigor switches sides on a major question, the entire scholarly community takes notice.

Fourth, the rise of open theism in the 1990s — associated with thinkers like Clark Pinnock, Gregory Boyd, William Hasker, and John Sanders — placed the question of God's relationship to time squarely at the center of evangelical theological debate.⁶ The open theists argued that God is temporal and that the future is genuinely open — God does not know future free choices in advance. While the author of this book firmly rejects open theism's denial of exhaustive foreknowledge (as argued in Chapter 9 and Chapter 32), the open theist movement had the salutary effect of forcing the broader evangelical community to think carefully about what it means for God to be related to time. The question could no longer be ignored or dismissed as merely academic.

Fifth, and perhaps most importantly for framing the contemporary debate, William Lane Craig published Time and Eternity: Exploring God's Relationship to Time in 2001, offering a sophisticated hybrid view that engaged both the philosophical and the biblical dimensions of the question with extraordinary rigor.⁷ Craig's book — along with the companion volume God and Time: Four Views, edited by Gregory Ganssle in the same year — brought the debate to a much wider audience and demonstrated that thoughtful, orthodox Christians could disagree significantly about God's relationship to time without abandoning the faith.⁸ The Four Views volume was especially valuable because it put the four major positions side by side — Paul Helm defending divine timelessness, Alan Padgett defending relative timelessness, Craig defending his hybrid view, and Wolterstorff defending unqualified divine temporality — and allowed them to respond to each other directly. This format made the disagreements vivid and the stakes clear.

By the early 2000s, then, the contemporary landscape had taken shape. Let us now survey its major features.

The Atemporalists: Defenders of Divine Timelessness

Despite the significant shift toward temporalism in recent decades, the view that God exists outside of time continues to be defended by a number of able philosophers and theologians. These defenders of divine timelessness — we can call them atemporalists — are a smaller group than they once were, but they include some of the most rigorous thinkers in the field. Their work deserves careful attention, because they are raising genuine concerns that any temporalist position must address. I want to present their views as fairly and charitably as I can, because I believe that honest engagement with the strongest opposition makes for a stronger argument in the end.

Paul Helm: The Most Comprehensive Defense

The most important contemporary defender of divine timelessness is the Reformed philosopher Paul Helm, whose book Eternal God: A Study of God without Time (first published in 1988, with a second edition in 2010) remains the most comprehensive defense of the atemporalist position in the literature.⁹ Helm's approach is deeply rooted in the Augustinian-Reformed tradition, and he brings together arguments from divine simplicity, immutability, and what he calls the "fullness" of God's life to build a cumulative case for timelessness.

Helm's central intuition is that God's life must be possessed "all at once" — that the fullness and self-sufficiency of God require that no part of His life is ever "over and done with." For Helm, the idea that God exists in time means that God's past is irrecoverably gone, which is incompatible with divine perfection. As Helm has put it, the temporal view "flouts the basic theistic intuition that God's fullness is such that he possesses the whole of his life together."¹⁰ The idea that more and more of God's life is irretrievably past, in Helm's view, clashes with divine sovereignty, divine perfection, and the fullness of being that is essential to God.

I confess that I feel some of the pull of this argument. There is something lamentable about temporal passage — the way that our most sublime moments pass irrecoverably. But as DeWeese has pointed out, many of the richest experiences depend precisely upon temporal passage. What would it be like to enjoy a symphony without temporal extension? And if God is temporal, His perfect memory and perfect foreknowledge would greatly attenuate any sense of "loss" that temporal passage might otherwise entail.¹¹

Helm also argues that God's immutability entails timelessness. His main argument runs like this: action within time requires change, and a God who is immutable in the strong sense (He cannot change) must therefore be timelessly eternal. Any action in time presupposes a time before the act and a time when the act is completed, which presupposes real change.¹² But notice — and this is crucial — this argument depends on what we might call strong immutability: the view that it is impossible for God to undergo any kind of change whatsoever. If we adopt weak immutability instead (the view that God necessarily cannot change in His essential nature, but can change in His relational states and emotional responses), then Helm's argument does not go through. And as I argue at length in Chapter 30, weak immutability is both more biblical and more philosophically defensible than strong immutability.

Importantly, Helm has acknowledged that Scripture's language about God and time is "not sufficiently precise so as to provide a definitive resolution of the issue one way or the other," and that "it would be unwise for the eternalist to claim that divine timeless eternity is entailed by the language of Scripture."¹³ This is a significant admission from the leading defender of timelessness. It means the case for timelessness must rest primarily on philosophical and theological reasoning rather than direct biblical proof. For those of us who are committed to the authority of Scripture, this admission shifts the burden of proof considerably.

Helm has also engaged the question of the Incarnation, offering the striking claim that God the Son is "eternally incarnate" — there is no time in Christ's existence when He was not incarnate, because God does not exist in time at all. As Helm has put it, "there is no preexistent Christ with a life history independent of and prior to the incarnation."¹⁴ This is a bold claim, and it has generated significant criticism, as we shall see in Chapter 27. It raises the question of whether a consistently atemporalist Christology can preserve the full biblical witness about the pre-incarnate Son — the Word who "was with God" from the beginning (John 1:1) before He "became flesh" (John 1:14). If there is no "before" in God's experience, then the "becoming" of the Incarnation becomes deeply puzzling.

Brian Leftow: The Most Philosophically Sophisticated Defense

If Helm provides the most comprehensive defense of divine timelessness, Brian Leftow provides the most philosophically sophisticated one. Leftow's Time and Eternity (1991) is widely regarded as the most technically rigorous case for atemporalism in the contemporary literature.¹⁵ Leftow argues for what might be called a "timeless present" model — God exists in an eternal reference frame that is not part of the temporal series but is somehow present to every moment of that series. Leftow attempts to show that a timeless God can genuinely interact with a temporal world, that timeless existence is coherent, and that it best preserves divine perfection.

Leftow's work is deeply influenced by the philosophical resources of modal logic and the metaphysics of time. He draws on the B-theory of time (the tenseless, "block universe" view in which all moments are equally real) to support his case, arguing that if time is a static block rather than a dynamic flow, then divine timelessness becomes much easier to maintain. He wants to allow that temporal entities may be present in eternity, and he carefully defines an entity as "temporal" if it can have a location in a B-series, and as "timeless" if it can exist now but cannot be located in a B-series.¹⁶ This connection between the B-theory and timelessness is an important feature of the contemporary debate — as Craig has rightly noted, the choice between the A-theory and B-theory of time is a fundamental watershed for one's view of divine eternity (a point developed fully in Chapter 24).¹⁷

Leftow's work deserves respect for its rigor and ambition. However, as several critics have pointed out, his definitions and distinctions sometimes generate as many puzzles as they solve. If temporal things can "occur within an atemporal reference frame," what does the distinction between temporal and atemporal actually amount to? The challenge of explaining how a timeless God can interact with a temporal world remains one of the deepest puzzles facing the atemporalist program.

Eleonore Stump and Norman Kretzmann: ET-Simultaneity

No survey of the contemporary atemporalist landscape would be complete without mentioning the enormously influential 1981 article "Eternity" by Eleonore Stump and Norman Kretzmann, published in the Journal of Philosophy.¹⁸ Stump and Kretzmann developed the concept of "ET-simultaneity" (eternal-temporal simultaneity) — a technical relation designed to explain how a timeless God can relate to temporal events. On their model, every temporal event is simultaneously present to God in eternity, and God's eternal life is simultaneously present to every temporal event — though this "simultaneity" is not ordinary temporal simultaneity but a unique relation between the eternal and the temporal.

The ET-simultaneity model has been one of the most discussed proposals in the entire God-and-time literature. It has been cited, debated, and critiqued in virtually every major work on the subject. As discussed in Chapters 5 and 6, the model faces serious objections — particularly the charge that "ET-simultaneity" is either unintelligible (what does it actually mean for something to be "simultaneous" with eternity?) or collapses into ordinary temporal simultaneity (which would make God temporal after all). But its influence on the shape of the debate has been enormous. It showed that atemporalists were willing to develop sophisticated philosophical models to address the interaction problem, and it set the agenda for much of the subsequent discussion.

Katherin Rogers: Perfect Being Theology and the Fifth Dimension

Katherin Rogers has defended divine timelessness on the basis of perfect being theology — the idea that God is the greatest conceivable being, and that timelessness is a perfection that a greatest being would possess. Rogers has also developed what she calls a "four-dimensional" or even "fifth-dimensional" model of eternity, drawing on Anselm's thought to argue that God's eternity can be understood as a kind of additional dimension analogous to (but not identical with) the spatial and temporal dimensions.¹⁹ On this model, God's eternal life has a kind of "extension" (analogous to spatial extension) that allows it to be present to every moment of time without being identical with any temporal moment.

This is a creative proposal, and Rogers has developed it with considerable ingenuity. But it has been criticized on several grounds. First, the analogy with spatial dimensions is problematic — spatial extension is quite different from temporal extension, and it is not clear what a non-temporal, non-spatial "dimension" would actually be. Second, as several critics have noted, the model is difficult to distinguish from a B-theory block universe in which all moments of time are equally real — which would make the view vulnerable to the standard objections against the B-theory (see Chapter 24). Third, the model does not obviously solve the fundamental problem of how a timeless being can genuinely act at particular moments in history — which is what the Bible consistently portrays God as doing.

Thomas Weinandy and James Dolezal: Classical Theism's Strong Defenders

On the more traditional end of the spectrum, two figures deserve mention. Thomas Weinandy, a Catholic theologian, has defended divine timelessness as part of a broader defense of classical theism, including divine immutability and impassibility. Weinandy's Does God Suffer? (2000) argues that a properly understood divine perfection requires both timelessness and impassibility — God does not change, does not suffer, and does not exist in time.²⁰ Weinandy's position is deeply rooted in the Thomistic tradition, and it represents a vigorous reassertion of classical theism in the face of the contemporary challenges we have been surveying.

James Dolezal represents perhaps the strongest contemporary defense of classical theism in the Reformed tradition. His All That Is in God (2017) argues for a robust version of divine simplicity, immutability, and timelessness, pushing back against what he sees as a widespread drift toward "theistic mutualism" — the view that God and creatures mutually affect one another.²¹ Dolezal's work is vigorous and uncompromising. He sees any move toward divine temporality as a fundamental compromise of God's transcendence and self-sufficiency. For Dolezal, if God is affected by creaturely events — if He responds, grieves, or adjusts His course of action — then He is dependent on creation, which violates divine aseity (God's self-existence and independence).

While I respectfully disagree with Dolezal's conclusions (for reasons developed throughout this book, especially in Chapters 28 and 30), his work is a reminder that the classical position still has passionate and articulate defenders. And he raises a genuine concern that temporalists must address: how do we affirm that God is genuinely responsive to creaturely events without making God dependent on creation? The answer, I believe, lies in carefully distinguishing God's essential nature (which is unchanging) from His relational life (which genuinely responds to what His creatures do). God does not need creation in order to exist, to be perfect, or to be Triune. But He freely chooses to engage with creation, and that engagement involves genuine temporal response. This is not dependence — it is love.

The Temporalists: Defenders of Divine Temporality

On the other side of the debate — and it is the side that has grown dramatically in recent decades — stand the temporalists, those who argue that God genuinely experiences time. The temporalist camp is remarkably diverse. Its members disagree about many things: whether God existed in time before creation, what kind of time God experiences, whether the future is open or settled, and how God's temporal life relates to created, physical time. What they share is the conviction that God is not frozen in a timeless, changeless "eternal now," but is a living, dynamic, personal Being who experiences real sequence, succession, and temporal engagement with His creatures.

Let us survey the major temporalist voices in the contemporary debate.

Richard Swinburne: Infinite Amorphous Time Before Creation

Richard Swinburne is one of the towering figures of analytic philosophy of religion, and his arguments for divine temporality have been enormously influential. In The Coherence of Theism (1977) and The Christian God (1994), Swinburne argues that God is genuinely temporal — He experiences real succession in His mental life, one thought or intention following another.²²

Swinburne's most distinctive contribution is his proposal about God's life before creation. If God is temporal and existed before the created universe, then what was His temporal life like before there was anything to measure it? Swinburne's answer is that God existed in an infinite, amorphous, undifferentiated time — a kind of boundless temporal duration with no events to mark its passage, no metric to measure intervals, and no "ticking" of any clock. This amorphous time is not the same as the structured, measured time of the physical universe. It is purely metaphysical time — time as a feature of God's own mental life, with genuine succession but no measurable duration.

This proposal is elegant and has the advantage of taking God's pre-creation existence seriously as genuinely temporal. However, it has faced objections, particularly from William Lane Craig, who has argued that an infinite past (even an amorphous one) creates the same problems as an actual infinite — a concern rooted in Craig's defense of the kalam cosmological argument (discussed in detail in Chapter 8).²³ Craig contends that any temporal duration, even amorphous duration, can in principle be divided into intervals, and that an infinity of such intervals would constitute a problematic actual infinite.

Garrett DeWeese, however, has offered a careful defense of Swinburne's view against Craig's objections. DeWeese argues that the "points" and "intervals" in amorphous time are abstract rather than concrete, and that the principles of transfinite mathematics allow an infinite set to be put into one-to-one correspondence with a proper subset of itself (both sets having the same cardinality). Craig's claim that any interval in amorphous time must be larger than its proper subsets therefore fails, since this relies on assumptions about finite sets that do not apply to infinite ones.²⁴ Whether or not one finds DeWeese's defense fully convincing, it shows that Swinburne's proposal remains a live option in the debate.

Nicholas Wolterstorff: Unqualified Divine Temporality

Nicholas Wolterstorff's position is the one closest to my own, though I add a dimension of transcendent temporal access that Wolterstorff does not develop. Wolterstorff, who served as Noah Porter Professor of Philosophy at Yale Divinity School, is one of the most distinguished Christian philosophers of the last half century. His 1975 essay "God Everlasting" and his contribution to the God and Time: Four Views volume — titled "Unqualified Divine Temporality" — together constitute one of the foundational statements of the temporalist position.²⁵

Wolterstorff's approach is refreshingly direct. He begins with what the Bible actually says about God, and he argues that we should take that language seriously. The Bible portrays God as having a history — as performing certain actions before others, as responding to creaturely events in real time, and as unfolding a plan of redemption that develops over centuries. Wolterstorff insists that this history cannot be reduced to God timelessly bringing it about that certain effects occur in a temporal sequence. The sequence is in God's own life: God spoke first to Moses and then later to Jesus. God responded to Israel's cries for help. God responded to Nineveh's repentance. These are genuinely temporal acts on God's part — temporal sequences in God's own activity, not merely temporal effects of a single, timeless divine act.²⁶

Wolterstorff also makes an important philosophical argument based on the A-theory of time. If the A-theory is correct — if the present is objectively real, if temporal becoming is a genuine feature of reality — then God must know tensed facts (facts about what is happening now). But tensed knowledge changes as time passes: what is true "now" at one moment is no longer true "now" at the next. A timeless being cannot have changing knowledge. Therefore, if the A-theory is correct, God must be temporal.²⁷ This argument from tensed knowledge has become one of the standard arguments for divine temporality and has been developed further by Craig and others.

What makes Wolterstorff's position "unqualified" is that he does not hedge or qualify his temporalism. God is simply in time — existing through all time, with no beginning and no end. There is no "timeless phase" before creation, no special metaphysical time distinct from ordinary temporal succession. God is everlasting, period. As Wolterstorff has argued, the scriptural passages traditionally cited in support of divine timelessness — Psalm 90:1–4, 2 Peter 3:8, and John 8:58 — all employ temporal language and provide no support for a timeless God. These passages speak of God existing "before" the physical world and of His experiencing temporal duration differently from us — not of His existing outside of time altogether.²⁸

Wolterstorff's argument has been rightly praised for its strengths. As one commentator has noted, the strongest element of his argument is that it is centered on a reading of Scripture that does not require a complicated explanation for why the text seems to be saying the opposite of what is concluded from it. The atemporalist bears the burden of proof: an answer must be given as to why important passages describing God's temporal engagement with the world should require a symbolic or metaphorical interpretation.²⁹ I think Wolterstorff is exactly right about this. The natural reading of the Bible is temporalist. It takes special philosophical reasoning to arrive at atemporalism, and that reasoning — as we have seen and will continue to see — faces very serious difficulties.

Alan Padgett: Relative Timelessness

Alan Padgett occupies an interesting mediating position in the contemporary debate. In his book God, Eternity, and the Nature of Time (1992) and his contribution to the Four Views volume — "Eternity as Relative Timelessness" — Padgett argues that God transcends measured, physical time but is not absolutely atemporal.³⁰ God exists in a form of "metaphysical time" that is qualitatively different from our clock-time. In this metaphysical time, God experiences genuine succession — one divine thought after another, one divine act following upon another — but this succession is not bound by the regular metric of created, physical time.

Padgett calls his position "relative timelessness" because God is timeless relative to our measured time — He is not subject to the ticking of any physical clock — but He is not absolutely timeless in the classical sense. There is genuine succession in God's life, genuine before and after. This means Padgett is, at bottom, a temporalist, though one who insists on an important qualitative distinction between God's time and creaturely time.³¹ The label "relative timelessness" can be a bit misleading, since it might suggest that God is timeless in some strong sense. But Padgett is quite clear: God experiences temporal succession. He simply does so in a way that transcends the measured time of the physical universe.

I find Padgett's instinct here exactly right. The God of the Bible is clearly temporal — He acts, responds, and engages with His creatures in the flow of history — but He is not a creature trapped in the present moment. God's temporal experience is qualitatively different from ours. Padgett captures this insight well, even if I would develop it differently (emphasizing God's transcendent access to all of created time, as argued in Chapter 7 and Chapter 25).

Garrett DeWeese: Omnitemporality via Causal Theory

Garrett DeWeese's God and the Nature of Time (2004) is one of the most thorough and philosophically rigorous treatments of divine temporality in the literature, and it is a work I find highly congenial to my own position.³² DeWeese defends what he calls "omnitemporality" — the view that God is genuinely temporal, present at every moment of time, and experiencing real succession in His mental and relational life.

What makes DeWeese's contribution distinctive is his grounding of divine temporality in a causal theory of time. On DeWeese's view, time is not a container or a background stage (as in Newton's absolute time) but a relation grounded in causation. Wherever there are causal relations — one event producing or influencing another — there is temporal order. And since the intra-Trinitarian life of God involves genuine relational activity — the dynamic, perichoretic (mutually indwelling) life of Father, Son, and Spirit — there is genuine temporality in God's own being, even apart from creation.³³

This means that God's temporality is not dependent on the created world. It is grounded in who God is — in the dynamic, relational life of the Trinity. I find this insight profoundly important, and it is developed at length in Chapter 26. If time is a relational feature grounded in causal activity, and if the life of the Trinity involves genuine relational dynamism, then God was temporal long before He created anything. Created, physical, measurable time began at creation. But time itself — as a feature of God's own life — did not begin. It is as eternal as God Himself.

DeWeese also develops a compelling model of how God relates to the created order. God is "omnitemporal" — present at every moment of created time, knowing all events at all times, and acting at every point in history. But His temporal experience is not identical to ours. He is not locked into the present moment the way we are. His divine time is richer, fuller, and more expansive than creaturely time. This is remarkably similar to what I have been calling "transcendent temporal access."

DeWeese offers a careful critique of Craig's hybrid view as well, arguing that the conjunction "God is (tenselessly) timeless AND God is (present tense) temporal" appears to be a contradiction. If God is tenselessly timeless, then it is true now that God is timeless — contradicting the claim that God is now temporal.³⁴ DeWeese concludes that the temporalist position is simpler, more coherent, and more faithful to the biblical portrait of God than any atemporalist or hybrid alternative.

R. T. Mullins: The Most Sustained and Rigorous Case

I have saved the most important contemporary temporalist for last — not because his work is an afterthought, but because it represents the culmination of the temporalist tradition to date. R. T. Mullins has produced what I believe to be the most sustained, most rigorous, and most comprehensive case for divine temporality in the entire history of the debate. His two books — The End of the Timeless God (2016) and From Divine Timemaker to Divine Watchmaker (2025) — together constitute a landmark achievement in analytic theology.³⁵

What makes Mullins's contribution unique is that he does far more than simply argue against divine timelessness (though he does that with devastating effectiveness). He also provides a comprehensive positive account of what divine temporality actually means and how it relates to the central doctrines of the Christian faith. No previous thinker has combined the negative critique and the positive construction with such thoroughness and rigor. Let me summarize his key contributions.

First, the negative case: dismantling the timelessness research program. In The End of the Timeless God, Mullins systematically tests the doctrine of divine timelessness against core Christian commitments — creation ex nihilo, omniscience, the Incarnation — and argues that timelessness fails on its own terms. He does not simply assert that timelessness is wrong; he shows, with painstaking logical analysis, that the various models of timelessness (from Helm to Leftow to Stump and Kretzmann) generate internal contradictions when combined with doctrines that all orthodox Christians affirm.³⁶

His strategy here is important and worth highlighting. Rather than arguing that timelessness is wrong because presentism is true (which would make his case depend on a contested metaphysical position about the nature of time), Mullins argues that timelessness is problematic on both accounts of time — both presentism and eternalism. As Mullins himself has written, "While I am a presentist, I do not seek to make my rejection of divine timelessness rest solely on this ontological commitment."³⁷ This makes his critique far more robust than earlier arguments that rested solely on A-theory assumptions. Even if you are an eternalist — even if you believe all moments of time are equally real — Mullins argues that you still cannot make divine timelessness work.

Second, the positive case: time as an attribute of God. In From Divine Timemaker to Divine Watchmaker, Mullins takes on five fundamental questions: What is time? How is God responsible for time's existence? What does divine temporality mean? What structure might God give to a time series? And what are the implications of divine temporality for the Trinity, creation, providence, and the afterlife?³⁸ The result is the most comprehensive treatment of divine temporality ever produced.

Mullins argues that time is an attribute of God's own being — not merely a feature of the created order that God happens to inhabit. Time is rooted in who God is as a living, dynamic, Trinitarian Being. The perichoretic (mutually indwelling) relations of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit generate a form of temporality that exists as part of God's own nature, prior to and independent of creation. This is not created time — it is divine time, the temporal life of the Trinity itself.

Third, the Trinitarian argument. In a bold and important move, Mullins engages the relationship between divine temporality and the doctrine of the Trinity. He addresses Paul Helm's charge that divine temporality, combined with the doctrine of the eternal processions, entails Arianism (the heresy that the Son is a lesser, created being). Mullins responds that the real problem is not with divine temporality but with the traditional doctrine of the eternal processions itself. He argues that the doctrine of divine processions is inconsistent with the homoousios (same substance) doctrine affirmed at the Council of Nicaea, offering two arguments for this conclusion.³⁹ This is a provocative claim, and not all temporalists will follow Mullins here. But it illustrates the depth and seriousness of his engagement with the tradition and his willingness to follow the argument wherever it leads.

Mullins also argues that appeals to the doctrine of the Trinity to settle the God-and-time debate in either direction should be made with great care. Some theologians have claimed that the Trinity entails temporality; others have claimed it entails timelessness. Mullins contends that neither claim is as straightforward as its proponents assume, and that the question of God's temporal status should be settled by examining God's relationship to the created universe rather than by deducing conclusions from the inner-Trinitarian relations alone.⁴⁰

Fourth, the implications for other doctrines. In the later chapters of From Divine Timemaker to Divine Watchmaker, Mullins explores what divine temporality means for creation ex nihilo, for the problem of evil, for salvation and the afterlife, and for various metaphysical theories of time (presentism, growing block, eternalism). He argues that several rival temporal ontologies — particularly eternalism — create severe problems for core Christian doctrines. On eternalism, creation ex nihilo is undermined, the problem of evil is exacerbated, and salvation from death and suffering becomes deeply unjust, since the suffering continues eternally in its spacetime location even after it has been "overcome."⁴¹ These are powerful arguments that have not yet been adequately addressed by defenders of those rival ontologies.

I regard Mullins's two books as the most important works on God and time published in the last quarter century — perhaps the most important in the history of the debate. My own position builds on the foundation that Mullins has laid, while adding a dimension of transcendent temporal access (the idea that God can access all moments of created time — past, present, and future — through a unique divine capacity) that Mullins does not develop. But the core insight — that God is genuinely temporal, that time is an attribute of God's own being, and that divine timelessness is untenable — is one I share fully with Mullins.

The Hybrid View: William Lane Craig

Between the atemporalists and the temporalists stands the most creative and influential hybrid position in the contemporary debate — the view of William Lane Craig. Craig argues that God is timeless without creation and temporal with creation.⁴² This "two-phase" model attempts to have the best of both worlds: preserving the classical intuition that God, in His essential being apart from the world, is not subject to temporal passage, while also acknowledging that once God creates a temporal world, He enters into genuine temporal relations with it.

Craig's reasoning runs like this. He accepts the kalam cosmological argument, which holds that the past cannot be actually infinite (an actual infinite cannot be formed by successive addition). If God had always been temporal, then an infinite number of moments would have elapsed before the present — which the kalam argument says is impossible. On the other hand, Craig agrees with the temporalists that once God creates a temporal world, He must be temporal, because He enters into real relations with temporal creatures and must know tensed facts about what is happening now.⁴³ The solution, Craig proposes, is that God existed in a timeless, changeless state "before" creation (though "before" here is not a temporal term — the timeless state has no temporal properties), and then became temporal at the first moment of creation.

Craig also makes a critically important contribution to the broader debate through his work on the philosophy of time. He has argued persuasively that the A-theory of time (the dynamic, tensed view) is both philosophically and theologically superior to the B-theory (the static, tenseless view). Craig states plainly: "I am convinced that the decision between an A- or a B-theory of time constitutes a fundamental watershed for our conception of divine eternity. For if we adopt a B-theory of time, most of the typical arguments against divine timelessness... are doomed to failure.... By contrast, on the A-theory of time, the concept of a timeless God who is really related to the world does seem incoherent."⁴⁴ This is exactly right, and it underscores why the A-theory/B-theory question is so important for the God-and-time debate. Craig's defense of the A-theory, combined with his neo-Lorentzian interpretation of special relativity (which preserves absolute simultaneity against the Einsteinian interpretation that seems to favor the B-theory), has been enormously important for making the case for divine temporality on philosophically rigorous grounds. These issues are explored in detail in Chapter 31.

Craig's hybrid view has been enormously influential, and it deserves credit for taking both the atemporalist and temporalist concerns seriously. However, as argued at length in Chapter 8, I believe the hybrid view faces fatal difficulties. The most penetrating critique comes from Mullins, who asks: how are the "two phases" of God's life related? They cannot be related temporally (the timeless phase has no temporal properties, so it cannot be "before" the temporal phase). They cannot be related logically (logical priority requires compatible properties, and timelessness and temporality are incompatible). Craig says they are related "causally" — the timeless state causally gives rise to the temporal state. But then Craig admits that the timeless phase exercises no causal power — God's causal activity begins at creation (the first temporal event). So what work is the timeless phase doing? If it has no temporal properties and exercises no causal power, it is an idle wheel in the system — it does nothing.⁴⁵

DeWeese raises a related concern: the conjunction "God is (tenselessly) timeless AND God is (present tense) temporal" appears to be a straightforward contradiction. If God is tenselessly timeless, then it is true NOW that God is timeless — contradicting the claim that God is NOW temporal.⁴⁶ Despite these significant problems, Craig's work remains one of the most important contributions to the contemporary debate, and any serious treatment of the topic must engage with it — as this book does throughout.

The Open Theists: Temporality Without Foreknowledge

A distinct group of temporalists requires separate treatment, because they combine divine temporality with a denial of exhaustive divine foreknowledge. These are the open theists — including Clark Pinnock (Most Moved Mover), Gregory Boyd (God of the Possible), William Hasker (God, Time, and Knowledge), and John Sanders (The God Who Risks).⁴⁷

The open theists share the temporalist conviction that God exists in time, experiences genuine succession, and interacts dynamically with His creatures. Where they part company with the other temporalists we have surveyed — and with the position defended in this book — is on the question of foreknowledge. Open theists argue that if the future is genuinely open (if creatures have libertarian free will and the future is not yet determined), then there are no "future facts" for God to know. God knows everything that can be known, but future free choices are not knowable in advance because they do not yet exist as determinate realities. God is therefore temporally limited in the same way we are — He waits for the future to unfold, learns what creatures choose, and adjusts His plans accordingly.

I agree with the open theists that God is temporal and that creatures have genuine libertarian free will. But I firmly reject their denial of exhaustive foreknowledge. The biblical evidence for God's knowledge of the future is overwhelming — from the detailed prophetic predictions of Isaiah (discussed in Chapter 20) to the New Testament's affirmation that God knows all things (1 John 3:20). As argued in Chapter 32, the open theist position does not do justice to the specificity and detail of biblical prophecy. The God of Isaiah does not merely predict general trends; He announces specific events before they happen, challenges false gods to do the same, and stakes His divine identity on His ability to declare "the end from the beginning" (Isaiah 46:9–10).

The position defended in this book — dynamic divine temporality with transcendent access — solves the apparent tension between temporality and foreknowledge: God knows the future not because He determines it (as in Calvinism) and not because the future is a static block already laid out (as in eternalism), but because He has a unique capacity to access all of created time, including the future, without being locked into the creaturely present. This model is developed fully in Chapter 25.

The open theist movement, for all its problems, made an important contribution to the contemporary debate. It forced evangelicals to take the question of God's relationship to time seriously and to recognize that the classical timelessness position comes with its own set of difficulties. Many evangelicals who would never embrace open theism have nonetheless moved toward some form of divine temporality as a result of the conversations that open theism provoked. In that sense, the open theists served as an important catalyst, even if their own conclusions go too far.

Process Theology: Temporality Without Orthodoxy

At the far end of the temporalist spectrum lies process theology, rooted in the philosophy of Alfred North Whitehead and developed by theologians like Charles Hartshorne and John Cobb. Process theologians are thoroughgoing temporalists — they affirm that God is genuinely temporal, that He experiences real succession, and that He is affected by and responsive to the events of the world.⁴⁸

But process theology goes far beyond merely affirming divine temporality. It rejects creation ex nihilo, holding instead that God and the world are co-eternal — the world has always existed in some form, and God has always been in relation to it. It rejects classical omnipotence, arguing that God cannot unilaterally determine any event but can only persuade and lure creatures toward the good. It rejects the Creator-creature distinction that lies at the heart of Christian theology. In process thought, God and the world are mutually dependent — God needs the world as much as the world needs God. This is panentheism, not classical theism.

I mention process theology here only for completeness. While the process theologians are right that God is temporal (they got that part right), their entire metaphysical framework is incompatible with orthodox Christian theology, as argued in Chapter 10. God is the sovereign Creator who made everything out of nothing. He does not need the world. He is not limited in His power. He is not a fellow traveler with creation, hoping for the best but unable to guarantee the outcome. Process theology's God is too small — and too dependent — to be the God of the Bible. The lesson here is important: divine temporality does not require us to adopt the full process package. We can affirm that God is temporal without abandoning creation ex nihilo, omnipotence, or any other core orthodox commitment.

The Author's Position in Context

Where does the position defended in this book fit on the map we have just drawn? My view — which I call dynamic divine temporality with transcendent access, or more simply, dynamic omnitemporality — is closest to the positions of Wolterstorff and Mullins. Like Wolterstorff, I hold that God is unqualifiedly temporal — He experiences genuine succession, genuine before and after, in His own life. Like Mullins, I hold that time is an attribute of God's own being, rooted in the perichoretic life of the Trinity, and that God was never timeless — not even "before" creation.⁴⁹

But I add a dimension that neither Wolterstorff nor Mullins develops: transcendent temporal access. This is the idea that while God is genuinely temporal (He experiences real sequence), He is not locked into the creaturely present the way we are. God can access, see, and interact with all moments of created time — past, present, and future. He is not limited to experiencing only the present moment and then "waiting" for the future to arrive. God can experience events sequentially and access all of time at once, as the situation requires. This is what I mean by "transcendent access" — God's unique capacity to transcend the limitations of creaturely time while still genuinely experiencing temporal succession in His own life.

An imperfect but suggestive analogy comes from near-death experience research (developed at length in Chapter 33). NDEers often report that time operates very differently during their experiences — events can be experienced both sequentially and simultaneously, time can be compressed or extended, and the normal "flow" of clock-time no longer applies. I do not claim that NDEs prove anything about divine time. But they illustrate the conceptual possibility that temporal experience can be qualitatively different from ordinary clock-time while still involving genuine sequence. If human beings can experience temporal anomalies during extraordinary states of consciousness, it should not surprise us that God — the infinite, transcendent Creator — experiences time in a mode that surpasses our ordinary temporal limitations while still involving genuine succession.

This position is emphatically not open theism. I affirm exhaustive definite foreknowledge — God knows every event, thought, and choice that will ever occur, with absolute certainty. But this foreknowledge does not arise from God determining every event (as in Calvinism), from middle knowledge (as in Molinism), or from the future being a static block that God surveys from outside of time (as in the B-theory eternalism that typically accompanies atemporalism). It arises from God's unique transcendent access to all of created time — a capacity that belongs to God alone. This model is developed fully in Chapter 25.

My position is also emphatically not process theology. I affirm creation ex nihilo, classical omnipotence (properly understood), and the full Creator-creature distinction. God does not need the world. He freely chose to create out of the overflow of His Trinitarian love. He is sovereign over all of history, and His purposes will ultimately be accomplished.

And my position is not Craig's hybrid view. I do not hold that God was timeless before creation and became temporal at creation. I hold, with Mullins and DeWeese, that the dynamic relations of the Trinity generate temporality even apart from creation, and that God has always been temporal.⁵⁰

Important Contributions from the Continental Tradition

The contemporary debate has been conducted primarily in the analytic philosophical tradition — the tradition of Swinburne, Wolterstorff, Craig, Helm, Leftow, Mullins, and DeWeese. But we should note several important contributions from the continental theological tradition as well, because they have shaped the broader intellectual environment in which the debate takes place.

Karl Barth

As discussed in Chapter 14, Karl Barth's treatment of divine eternity in Church Dogmatics II/1 offered a complex revision of the classical position. Barth argued that God's eternity is not mere timelessness but contains what he called pre-temporality, supra-temporality, and post-temporality. God's eternity is "the source of time" — it embraces time rather than excluding it.⁵¹ Barth's view is difficult to classify neatly as either atemporalist or temporalist. It preserves the language of divine transcendence over time while insisting that God's eternity is richly temporal in some sense. Barth's influence on the broader theological conversation has been immense, even though analytic philosophers of religion have sometimes found his terminology imprecise.

Wolfhart Pannenberg

Wolfhart Pannenberg's Systematic Theology offers a distinctive and influential treatment of God and time. Pannenberg argues that the future has ontological priority — the future is more real, in a sense, than the past or present, because it is the locus of God's coming Kingdom. God's eternity, for Pannenberg, encompasses time — it is not the absence of time but the fullness of time, the totality of all temporal moments held together in God's eternal embrace.⁵² This is a creative and suggestive position, though it raises the question of whether Pannenberg's view is closer to a B-theory block universe (in which all moments are equally real) or to a genuinely dynamic temporalism. Pannenberg's emphasis on the eschatological future — God's Kingdom that is coming but has not yet arrived — does, however, push in a temporalist direction. A God whose plan is still being realized, whose Kingdom is still arriving, is a God who has a genuine future ahead of Him — and a God with a genuine future is a temporal God.

Jürgen Moltmann

Jürgen Moltmann, in works like The Coming of God and The Trinity and the Kingdom, offers the most radically temporalist position within mainstream continental theology. Moltmann argues that God has a genuine future — that God is not only the source of time but a participant in it, moving toward the eschatological consummation alongside His creation.⁵³ Moltmann's emphasis on divine suffering (his "crucified God" theology) and on the Trinity as a dynamic, relational community of Persons naturally leads to a temporalist view of God. However, Moltmann sometimes moves uncomfortably close to process categories — particularly in his emphasis on the mutual dependence of God and creation and in his flirtation with panentheism. While I appreciate Moltmann's instincts about divine temporality and passibility, I would want to ground those instincts more firmly in classical Christian commitments (creation ex nihilo, divine aseity, and omnipotence) than Moltmann himself sometimes does.

Robert Jenson

Robert Jenson's Systematic Theology represents perhaps the most radical temporalism in recent theology. For Jenson, God is His own future — the identity of the Trinitarian God is constituted by His narrative, His history, His movement from promise to fulfillment. The Trinity is not a timeless structure but a temporal drama. This is breathtaking in its ambition and creativity, but it pushes well beyond what I believe orthodox Trinitarian theology can sustain. If God's identity is constituted by His history, then it seems that God is in some sense dependent on that history — which threatens divine aseity (self-existence) and sovereignty.⁵⁴ Jenson's work is a reminder that the temporalist impulse can be taken too far, and that the challenge for orthodox temporalists is to affirm genuine divine temporality while preserving the full range of divine perfections.

The Natalja Deng Overview: Framing the Issues with Precision

Before we assess where the debate is heading, we should note one more important contribution to the contemporary landscape. Natalja Deng's God and Time (2019), published in the Cambridge Elements in the Philosophy of Religion series, provides perhaps the most concise and philosophically rigorous overview of the current state of the debate.⁵⁵ Deng carefully maps the logical space of positions, noting that the question of God and time actually involves at least two distinct issues: (1) whether God is located in our physical spacetime — the spacetime investigated by modern physics; and (2) whether God is timeless or temporal, in the sense of either having or not having a life that is marked by temporal succession.

Deng's distinction is important because it helps clarify what is really at stake in the debate. The question is not primarily about whether God is "in" the spacetime of modern physics. It is about whether God's life involves genuine temporal succession — whether there is a real "before" and "after" in God's experience. Virtually all temporalists agree that God is not located in physical spacetime in the way that physical objects are. God does not have spatial location. But He does, they argue, experience genuine succession in His life — one divine thought, one divine act, following upon another. That is the core claim of divine temporality, and it is the claim defended in this book.

Deng also notes that the two issues she identifies are logically independent. God could be temporal (experiencing genuine succession) without being located in our physical spacetime. Conversely, God could theoretically be located at every spacetime point without experiencing succession in His own life. This logical independence is often overlooked in the debate, and Deng's clarification helps avoid some common confusions. The question is not about spatial location but about temporal experience — about whether the life of God involves genuine succession, genuine before-and-after, genuine temporal becoming. That is the question this book seeks to answer.

The Cross-Disciplinary Nature of the Contemporary Debate

One of the most exciting features of the contemporary debate is the way it reaches across traditional disciplinary boundaries. The question of God's relationship to time cannot be answered from within a single discipline. It requires the resources of biblical studies (what does the Bible actually say about God and time?), historical theology (how has the church understood this question?), systematic theology (how does God's relationship to time connect with other doctrines like the Trinity, the Incarnation, providence, and prayer?), analytic philosophy (what are the logical possibilities and what are the entailments of each position?), philosophy of science (what does physics tell us about the nature of time?), and even empirical research (what do NDE accounts suggest about the nature of temporal experience?).

The best contemporary work on God and time reflects this cross-disciplinary character. Craig draws on physics, philosophy of time, biblical scholarship, and systematic theology. Mullins draws on analytic philosophy, historical theology, systematic theology, and the philosophy of science. DeWeese draws on the philosophy of causation, Trinitarian theology, and the philosophy of science. Helm draws on historical theology, analytic philosophy, and Reformed systematics. The richness of the contemporary debate is due in large part to the willingness of these thinkers to work across disciplinary boundaries, bringing the full range of human knowledge to bear on one of the most profound questions in all of theology.

This book attempts to follow their example. In the chapters that follow, we will examine the biblical evidence (Part IV), the philosophical and systematic arguments (Part V), and special topics including NDEs, the intermediate state, and pastoral applications (Part VI). Each of these contributes something essential to the overall case for divine temporality. The biblical evidence provides the foundation — for an evangelical Christian committed to the authority of Scripture, this is where the argument must ultimately stand or fall. The philosophical arguments provide the logical framework, showing that divine temporality is coherent, well-grounded, and superior to the alternatives. And the special topics provide suggestive illustrations and practical applications that bring the argument to life, showing that the question of God's relationship to time is not merely academic but profoundly relevant to how we pray, how we suffer, how we hope, and how we understand our own temporal existence.

Where Is the Debate Heading?

Having surveyed the contemporary landscape, what can we say about the direction of the debate? Where is it heading? Let me offer my honest assessment.

I believe the momentum has shifted clearly and decisively toward divine temporality. When Wolterstorff wrote in 1975 that those who held God to be everlasting (temporal) were a "small minority," he was describing a reality that no longer exists. Today, a substantial and growing number of philosophers and theologians — from across the Christian tradition — hold some form of divine temporality. As Helm himself has acknowledged in the opening of his contribution to God and Time: Four Views, the eternalist (atemporalist) position is now "very much the minority view among contemporary theologians and philosophers of religion."⁵⁶ When the leading defender of timelessness acknowledges that his position is in the minority, that tells us something important about the direction of the scholarly conversation.

Several factors account for this shift.

First, the philosophical difficulties of divine timelessness have been exposed with unprecedented clarity. The work of Mullins, in particular, has demonstrated that the timelessness research program fails on its own terms — it cannot accommodate core Christian doctrines like creation ex nihilo, the Incarnation, and genuine omniscience without generating internal contradictions. This is not a minor objection that can be patched up with a clever model. It is a structural failure. The various rescue strategies proposed by atemporalists (ET-simultaneity, the "two standpoints" model, the eternal Incarnation thesis) have each been shown to face their own serious problems, as documented in Chapters 5, 6, and 27 of this volume.

Second, the biblical case for divine temporality has been made with increasing force. As the following chapters of this book will demonstrate (Chapters 16–23), the Bible overwhelmingly portrays God as a temporal agent — acting in sequence, responding to events, unfolding a plan of redemption over centuries, and personally entering human history in the Incarnation. The atemporalist must treat virtually all of this temporal language as metaphorical or accommodative, which, as we shall argue, empties Scripture's God-talk of real content. The temporalist can take the Bible's own language about God at face value — which is precisely what an evangelical hermeneutic calls us to do.

Third, the philosophical resources available to temporalists have grown enormously. The A-theory of time has been vigorously defended by philosophers like Craig, Prior, Zimmerman, and Lucas. The causal theory of time developed by DeWeese provides a powerful grounding for divine temporality in the life of the Trinity. Mullins's comprehensive positive account of divine temporality offers a fully worked-out alternative to the timelessness tradition. And the NDE research literature (discussed in Chapter 33) provides suggestive analogies for understanding how temporal experience can be qualitatively different from ordinary clock-time while still involving genuine succession.

Fourth, related developments in theology have reinforced the temporalist case. The growing acceptance of divine passibility (the view that God genuinely feels and responds emotionally to creaturely events) naturally supports divine temporality, since genuine emotional response requires temporal sequence. As Mullins has argued in his important work God and Emotion, if God timelessly and immutably has wrath toward sinners, then God is wrathful toward them before they sin — which is unjust. Genuine emotional response requires a "before" (when the event has not yet happened) and an "after" (when God responds to it).⁵⁷ If God truly grieves over sin, rejoices over repentance, and is moved by suffering (as argued in the companion volume, The Heart of God), then He must experience these responses in temporal succession.

Fifth, the renewed emphasis on Trinitarian theology as relational and dynamic has naturally pushed the conversation toward temporalism. If the life of the Trinity involves genuine interpersonal relations — the Father loving the Son, the Son glorifying the Father, the Spirit proceeding and testifying — then there is genuine dynamic activity in God's own being. And genuine dynamic activity implies some form of temporal sequence. The classical claim that all of this happens "timelessly" or "simultaneously" strains credulity when we try to make sense of what it would actually mean for love, glorification, and procession to occur without any succession whatsoever.

None of this means that divine timelessness is dead. It is not. The atemporalist camp still includes formidable thinkers — Helm, Leftow, Rogers, Dolezal — and their arguments are serious and demanding. Any responsible temporalist must engage those arguments carefully and demonstrate that temporality provides a better account of the full range of evidence. That is precisely what the remaining chapters of this book aim to do.

But the trajectory is clear. The old consensus has been shattered, and a new vision of God's relationship to time is emerging — a vision of a God who is genuinely temporal, genuinely dynamic, genuinely responsive, and genuinely present with His creatures in the flow of history, while also transcending the limitations that confine us to the present moment. It is a vision, I believe, that is more faithful to Scripture, more philosophically coherent, and more pastorally powerful than the timelessness tradition it is gradually replacing.

Conclusion

The contemporary debate over God's relationship to time is flourishing as never before. What was once a settled question — God is timelessly eternal, full stop — has become a vibrant, multi-sided conversation involving some of the finest minds in philosophy and theology. The atemporalist position, defended most comprehensively by Paul Helm and most sophisticatedly by Brian Leftow, remains a serious and intellectually demanding view that any temporalist must engage. But the temporalist camp has grown dramatically in recent decades, producing a wealth of rigorous and compelling arguments — from Swinburne's infinite amorphous time, to Wolterstorff's unqualified temporality, to Padgett's relative timelessness, to DeWeese's omnitemporality via causal theory, to Mullins's landmark two-volume case for time as an attribute of God's own being. Craig's hybrid view occupies a creative middle ground but faces serious philosophical objections. Open theism and process theology represent temporalist positions that go too far in different directions, sacrificing exhaustive foreknowledge or core orthodox commitments.

The position defended in this book — dynamic divine temporality with transcendent access — stands firmly within the orthodox temporalist camp. It agrees with Wolterstorff and Mullins that God is genuinely, unqualifiedly temporal. It agrees with Mullins that time is an attribute of God's own being, grounded in the perichoretic life of the Trinity. And it adds a dimension of transcendent temporal access — God's unique capacity to see and interact with all of created time — that grounds exhaustive foreknowledge without appealing to determinism, middle knowledge, or a timeless "eternal now."

The momentum of the debate is clearly on the side of divine temporality. The philosophical difficulties of timelessness have been exposed with unprecedented clarity. The biblical case for temporality grows stronger with each new study. And the positive theological resources available to temporalists — Trinitarian theology, the Incarnation, divine passibility, and the A-theory of time — have been developed with a sophistication and rigor that earlier generations of temporalists could only dream of.

This chapter has been a map — an orientation to the contemporary terrain. We have surveyed the major positions, identified the key thinkers, noted the major points of agreement and disagreement, and assessed the direction of the debate. As we leave Part III (the historical survey) and enter Part IV (the biblical evidence), we carry with us a deep appreciation for the richness and complexity of this conversation — and a conviction that the question of God's relationship to time is not merely academic but profoundly important for how we understand God, how we read Scripture, how we pray, and how we live. We turn now to the heart of the matter: what does the Bible itself say about God and time?

Bibliography

Barth, Karl. Church Dogmatics. Vol. II/1. Edited by G. W. Bromiley and T. F. Torrance. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1957.

Boyd, Gregory. God of the Possible: A Biblical Introduction to the Open View of God. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2000.

Cobb, John B., Jr., and David Ray Griffin. Process Theology: An Introductory Exposition. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1976.

Craig, William Lane. "God and Real Time." Religious Studies 26 (1990): 335–47.

———. The Kalām Cosmological Argument. London: Macmillan, 1979.

———. Time and Eternity: Exploring God's Relationship to Time. Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2001.

———. "Timelessness, Creation, and God's Real Relation to the World." In God and Time: Four Views, edited by Gregory E. Ganssle, 129–52. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2001.

Deng, Natalja. God and Time. Elements in the Philosophy of Religion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2019.

DeWeese, Garrett J. God and the Nature of Time. Routledge Philosophy of Religion Series. London: Routledge, 2004.

Dolezal, James E. All That Is in God: Evangelical Theology and the Challenge of Classical Christian Theism. Grand Rapids, MI: Reformation Heritage Books, 2017.

Ganssle, Gregory E., ed. God and Time: Four Views. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2001.

Hartshorne, Charles. The Divine Relativity: A Social Conception of God. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1948.

Hasker, William. God, Time, and Knowledge. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1989.

Helm, Paul. "Divine Timeless Eternity." In God and Time: Four Views, edited by Gregory E. Ganssle, 28–60. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2001.

———. "Eternal Creation." Tyndale Bulletin 45 (1994): 321–38.

———. Eternal God: A Study of God without Time. 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010.

Jenson, Robert W. Systematic Theology. 2 vols. New York: Oxford University Press, 1997–1999.

Leftow, Brian. Time and Eternity. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1991.

Moltmann, Jürgen. The Coming of God: Christian Eschatology. Translated by Margaret Kohl. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1996.

———. The Trinity and the Kingdom. Translated by Margaret Kohl. San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1981.

Mullins, R. T. The End of the Timeless God. Oxford Studies in Analytic Theology. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016.

———. From Divine Timemaker to Divine Watchmaker. Routledge Studies in Analytic and Systematic Theology. London: Routledge, 2025.

———. God and Emotion. Elements in the Philosophy of Religion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2020.

Mullins, Ryan. God, Time, and the Incarnation. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan, 2021.

Padgett, Alan. "Eternity as Relative Timelessness." In God and Time: Four Views, edited by Gregory E. Ganssle, 92–110. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2001.

———. God, Eternity, and the Nature of Time. New York: St. Martin's Press, 1992.

Pannenberg, Wolfhart. Systematic Theology. Translated by Geoffrey W. Bromiley. 3 vols. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1991–1998.

Pike, Nelson. God and Timelessness. New York: Schocken, 1970.

Pinnock, Clark. Most Moved Mover: A Theology of God's Openness. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2001.

Prior, A. N. "Thank Goodness That's Over." Philosophy 34 (1959): 12–17.

Rogers, Katherin A. "Anselm on Eternity as the Fifth Dimension." The Saint Anselm Journal 3, no. 2 (2006): 1–8.

———. "Anselmian Eternalism: The Presence of a Timeless God." Faith and Philosophy 24 (2007): 3–27.

———. Perfect Being Theology. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2000.

Sanders, John. The God Who Risks: A Theology of Divine Providence. 2nd ed. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2007.

Stump, Eleonore, and Norman Kretzmann. "Eternity." Journal of Philosophy 78, no. 8 (1981): 429–58.

Swinburne, Richard. The Christian God. Oxford: Clarendon, 1994.

———. The Coherence of Theism. Oxford: Clarendon, 1977.

———. "The Timelessness of God, I." The Heythrop Journal 6 (1965): 323–37.

———. "The Timelessness of God, II." The Heythrop Journal 7 (1966): 472–86.

Weinandy, Thomas G. Does God Suffer? Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 2000.

Whitehead, Alfred North. Process and Reality. 2nd ed. Edited by David Ray Griffin and Donald W. Sherburne. New York: Macmillan, 1978.

Wolterstorff, Nicholas. "God Everlasting." In God and the Good: Essays in Honor of Henry Stob, edited by Clifton J. Orlebeke and Lewis B. Smedes, 77–98. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1975.

———. "Unqualified Divine Temporality." In God and Time: Four Views, edited by Gregory E. Ganssle, 187–213. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2001.