Are there different Times?

Status
Not open for further replies.

JMC

Puritan Board Freshman
I have been pondering about the existence of time and how it functions lately and was wondering if someone could explain to me the reformed perspective on several things because right now it's not making much sense.

1) Were we created before the world? For instance maybe our spirits were created and just not yet placed in our bodies. I'm struggling with how we were elected if we had not existed yet.

2) Are there different timelines? not in the sense of different alternate versions of earth, but in the sense that there are different "Times" or timelines. For instance, It's always said God is outside of time, but frankly it's not making sense to me because if God is outside of time then how could he make a decision, such as election, or perform an action, such as the Son taking on flesh. When I think about it, there must have been a period of time when Jesus was not in the eternal realm (Right? or is that blasphemy?). So I'm wondering if there exists separate dimensions of time. For instance maybe we exist in Time A and God exists in Time B. i know this is very unorthodox and blasphemy because it essentially make God bound by Time, and therefore Time god. I am not advocating for this view, but am struggling with seeing another way for God to be outside of Time yet still making decisions and actions. I could understand (more like accept, not fully understand with my finite brain) if decisions were never not made, like they were always decided. But, I can't get over the period in which the Son was on earth and not in Heaven. it begs the view that God does exist in a cause and effect realm where time exists (but just maybe not how our time exists for instance it could have a different rate or not be running parallel to ours).

Thanks for your help
 
God is outside of time because, as I understand it, time is simply the measure of change. That is, everything temporal is constantly changing from one state of being to another. Therefore, God's immutabilty is inextricably linked to His eternity. Paging @RamistThomist
 
1) Were we created before the world? For instance maybe our spirits were created and just not yet placed in our bodies. I'm struggling with how we were elected if we had not existed yet.

No. That's called Origenism. I hold to traducianism, which means our souls aren't instantaneously created when the sperm fertilizes the egg, but the form of our souls, for lack of a better phrase, is passed down from our parents.
It's always said God is outside of time, but frankly it's not making sense to me because if God is outside of time then how could he make a decision, such as election, or perform an action, such as the Son taking on flesh.

Those are logically ordered actions, not chronologically ordered.
When I think about it, there must have been a period of time when Jesus was not in the eternal realm (Right? or is that blasphemy?).

That is Arianism.

When we say God makes a decision, we are using the term analogically. Otherwise, as you intuited, God would be *in* and therefore bound by some sort of time. That would make Time "god." And then you would have to start the process over again.
 
The first question sounds like the start of a presentation I heard from a Mormon years ago. "Who were you before you were born?"
 
God is outside of time because, as I understand it, time is simply the measure of change. That is, everything temporal is constantly changing from one state of being to another. Therefore, God's immutabilty is inextricably linked to His eternity.

Will there be anything like time in the eternal state? In other words,-Will we do a thing, then do another thing? If there is no time, will we engage in speech? For, does not speech transfer information in a linear (time-based) manner? Or will we "know, even as we are known?" (I Corinthians 13-12) I.e., God knows us all at once and from and to always. Or, do we just not know the answer?
 
I have been pondering about the existence of time and how it functions lately and was wondering if someone could explain to me the reformed perspective on several things because right now it's not making much sense.
Help from a Reformed perspective: what's looming here is the creator/creature distinction. As creatures, we are limited in not only being time and space bound, but also only being able to conceptualize things from that POV. This might sound Kantian, but, for example, when we think of a thing that exists, we think of it extended in a spacial dimension. It's hard to even think of pure spirit without somehow conceiving of it spatially. Likewise, we are time-bound creatures and can't help but categorize our phenomenological experience and concepts under our creaturely time-ness. But to take our creaturely understanding and apply it to the creator or all of creation would be an unwarranted move.
1) Were we created before the world? For instance maybe our spirits were created and just not yet placed in our bodies. I'm struggling with how we were elected if we had not existed yet.
This has echo's of Plato. Pre-existence is not a required presupposition for election though. The decree of God does not necessitate an already existing ontology of the thing. For example, if God decreed that tomorrow at noon the mailman will drop off my mail, the following does not have to exist before creation for it to be decreed: noon, mailman, drop off, mail. Similarly, we don't need to be in existence for the eternal decree of election to be real.
2) Are there different timelines? not in the sense of different alternate versions of earth, but in the sense that there are different "Times" or timelines. For instance, It's always said God is outside of time, but frankly it's not making sense to me because if God is outside of time then how could he make a decision, such as election, or perform an action, such as the Son taking on flesh. When I think about it, there must have been a period of time when Jesus was not in the eternal realm (Right? or is that blasphemy?). So I'm wondering if there exists separate dimensions of time. For instance maybe we exist in Time A and God exists in Time B. i know this is very unorthodox and blasphemy because it essentially make God bound by Time, and therefore Time god. I am not advocating for this view, but am struggling with seeing another way for God to be outside of Time yet still making decisions and actions. I could understand (more like accept, not fully understand with my finite brain) if decisions were never not made, like they were always decided. But, I can't get over the period in which the Son was on earth and not in Heaven. it begs the view that God does exist in a cause and effect realm where time exists (but just maybe not how our time exists for instance it could have a different rate or not be running parallel to ours).

Thanks for your help
A and B theories of time don't help as much as we would like. The reason, again, is due to our creaturely understanding of metaphysics not necessarily accurately representing God or all of creation. This is not to deny that we can do metaphysics or even come to a proper knowledge of it, but that outside of divine revelation, we are limited in our proper understanding of it, and even with divine revelation, we are limited in our breadth of understanding as finite creatures.

As with many metaphysical concepts, it can be easier to begin with - and continue in - the fence posts or limitations instead of outright taxonomical precision that may have a cleaner formula but might not do justice to the biblical data. This is how I see the church developing its creeds and confessions.
 
Last edited:
I have been pondering about the existence of time and how it functions lately and was wondering if someone could explain to me the reformed perspective on several things because right now it's not making much sense.

1) Were we created before the world? For instance maybe our spirits were created and just not yet placed in our bodies. I'm struggling with how we were elected if we had not existed yet.

2) Are there different timelines? not in the sense of different alternate versions of earth, but in the sense that there are different "Times" or timelines. For instance, It's always said God is outside of time, but frankly it's not making sense to me because if God is outside of time then how could he make a decision, such as election, or perform an action, such as the Son taking on flesh. When I think about it, there must have been a period of time when Jesus was not in the eternal realm (Right? or is that blasphemy?). So I'm wondering if there exists separate dimensions of time. For instance maybe we exist in Time A and God exists in Time B. i know this is very unorthodox and blasphemy because it essentially make God bound by Time, and therefore Time god. I am not advocating for this view, but am struggling with seeing another way for God to be outside of Time yet still making decisions and actions. I could understand (more like accept, not fully understand with my finite brain) if decisions were never not made, like they were always decided. But, I can't get over the period in which the Son was on earth and not in Heaven. it begs the view that God does exist in a cause and effect realm where time exists (but just maybe not how our time exists for instance it could have a different rate or not be running parallel to ours).

Thanks for your help
I think the confusion, if I understand correctly, is thinking (even subconsciously) that "time" is a thing. So does God possess this thing or does he interact (in some mysterious way) with this thing? The problem arises there, time is not a thing.
Dooyweerd held that "cosmic time" is what gives meaning to creation. Without time everything would be meaningless. For Dooyeweerd it's not existence and essence that are primary in creation but meaning. God's meaning, for lack of a better word, is self-contained aseity. So he is not in need of being in created time or cosmic time for meaning, we do have to be in it for meaning.
Also our election is "meaningful" not if it is in some eternal "time" but its meaningful simply because its in God, its meaningful for us in time. To ask these questions, for him, is to absolutize time hence making it the basis of meaning for God and us, an idol.
 
These are great guys! Thank you so much.

Your answers on not needing to existence to be predestined make sense. Thank you

So God is indeed outside of time. What's the scriptures we use to support this? Is it Genesis 1?

Also, how would i refute this idea of God being outside of time and us being elected: Since God is outside of time, from His perspective, him choosing us happens simultaneously as when we believe. Therefore one doesn't necessarily cause the other. He doesn't believe in Total Depravity, but still believes in unconditional election (his version of it), so this is his way of reconciling the two.

My response was that to determine the cause and effect relationship we have to look at it from our perspective inside time. When we do that we see that in time we are elected then believe. But he just still kind of dances around it. Anyways, it got me thinking about this. What would you guys say to that?
 
Sorry, having trouble doing quotes, but...

Jesus never left the eternal realm? Are there any good books on the trinity and incarnation? I didn't know that! Wow

That's not exactly what I said, nor what you originally asked, but that is what we call the extra-Calvinisticum. What we are saying is that the Son, being co-eternal and co-equal with the Father, predated time and creation.

The best book on the Trinity is Matthew Barrett's Simply Trinity.
 
So God is indeed outside of time. What's the scriptures we use to support this? Is it Genesis 1?

We can find Scriptures to support it, but it also flows from the definition of God. If God is *in* time then God is limited by time. That makes him a finite god.
Also, how would i refute this idea of God being outside of time and us being elected: Since God is outside of time, from His perspective, him choosing us happens simultaneously as when we believe. Therefore one doesn't necessarily cause the other. He doesn't believe in Total Depravity, but still believes in unconditional election (his version of it), so this is his way of reconciling the two.

Depends on how the word "cause" is being used. Historically, cause had four different senses and not all of them apply in this case. The danger in saying God's choosing us happens simultaneously as we believe tends to read our believing happens when God chooses us, and that is not the case. From God's perspective, not from our time-bound existence, there is no before and after. From our plane there is.
 
These are great guys! Thank you so much.

Your answers on not needing to existence to be predestined make sense. Thank you

So God is indeed outside of time. What's the scriptures we use to support this? Is it Genesis 1?

Also, how would i refute this idea of God being outside of time and us being elected: Since God is outside of time, from His perspective, him choosing us happens simultaneously as when we believe. Therefore one doesn't necessarily cause the other. He doesn't believe in Total Depravity, but still believes in unconditional election (his version of it), so this is his way of reconciling the two.

My response was that to determine the cause and effect relationship we have to look at it from our perspective inside time. When we do that we see that in time we are elected then believe. But he just still kind of dances around it. Anyways, it got me thinking about this. What would you guys say to that?
Ok so I'm taking it your friend is debating, or having a conversation about this? They are proceeding on the assumption, it seems of absolute time. That time is this absolute thing that we must relate God to, idolatry of time. Enstein disproved absolute time in the last century, it doesn't exist. So their problem is conceptual, they conceive of time in an outdated fashion. You shouldn't have to answer questions based on false assumptions, I would remind them of that.
 
That's not exactly what I said, nor what you originally asked, but that is what we call the extra-Calvinisticum. What we are saying is that the Son, being co-eternal and co-equal with the Father, predated time and creation.

The best book on the Trinity is Matthew Barrett's Simply Trinity.
Thanks for the book recommendation. Ahhh, yeah. you are right. My bad. What i meant to say was by a period that Jesus was not in the heavenly realm was that he was in the eternal realm, then was incarnated, then went back to the eternal realm. The period where he wasn't in the eternal realm I was referring to was during his incarnation. I was unclear, i didn't mean to say he wasn't in the eternal realm and not God before the incarnation. Nor was i trying to say he wasn't God when he became flesh. What I'm trying to understand is in eternity there is the Triune God. But then the Son took on flesh. does that mean he left the eternal realm while he took on flesh? If so, then a change occurred in the eternal realm. For once all three of the God head was there and then during incarnation there are only two.
 
Thanks for the book recommendation. Ahhh, yeah. you are right. My bad. What i meant to say was by a period that Jesus was not in the heavenly realm was that he was in the eternal realm, then was incarnated, then went back to the eternal realm. The period where he wasn't in the eternal realm I was referring to was during his incarnation. I was unclear, i didn't mean to say he wasn't in the eternal realm and not God before the incarnation. Nor was i trying to say he wasn't God when he became flesh. What I'm trying to understand is in eternity there is the Triune God. But then the Son took on flesh. does that mean he left the eternal realm while he took on flesh? If so, then a change occurred in the eternal realm. For once all three of the God head was there and then during incarnation there are only two.
I don't think you mean to say "he left the Godhead and now there is only two", that would be a separation of the Godhead. I would refer you to the ancient creeds of the church on this. He can't be separated from the Godhead. How the incarnation happened is a mystery beyond our comprehension, we know only that Christ said "he and the father are one" while in an incarnate body hear on earth.
 
My bad. What i meant to say was by a period that Jesus was not in the heavenly realm was that he was in the eternal realm, then was incarnated, then went back to the eternal realm. The period where he wasn't in the eternal realm I was referring to was during his incarnation

We hold to the extra-Calvinisticum. The Logos did not cease to uphold the universe while he was incarnate.
 
Oh okay. That makes sense about the incarnation. I'll try to read that book too. Thank you guys!
 
Ok so I'm taking it your friend is debating, or having a conversation about this? They are proceeding on the assumption, it seems of absolute time. That time is this absolute thing that we must relate God to, idolatry of time. Enstein disproved absolute time in the last century, it doesn't exist. So their problem is conceptual, they conceive of time in an outdated fashion. You shouldn't have to answer questions based on false assumptions, I would remind them of that.
yeah, so he is saying that God is outside of time and therefore his decisions are chronological, which I think we agree with? But since they aren't chronological there is no cause and effect. For instance election and saving grace don't have a cause and effect relationship. That is what he is saying. So to defend it I started to get backed up into heresy by suggesting maybe God does have time in his realm because obviously election is the cause of saving grace. So I'm curious what a non-heretical argument is. So i think my friend is saying that sense God's decisions aren't chronological ordered they aren't logically ordered.
 
I don't think you mean to say "he left the Godhead and now there is only two", that would be a separation of the Godhead. I would refer you to the ancient creeds of the church on this. He can't be separated from the Godhead. How the incarnation happened is a mystery beyond our comprehension, we know only that Christ said "he and the father are one" while in an incarnate body hear on earth.
Yeah. I didn't mean to say that. Sorry. It is still wrong, but what I was trying to say was that there were only two of the Godhead in the eternal realm because the other Godhead, the Son, was in the time realm (creation). I was not trying to say there was now only two Godheads because the Son was no longer one of them. But, after looking more into what extra-calvinisticum is, I realize that the Son never left the eternal realm. So he was somehow outside of time, yet the flesh he united himself to was in time/creation. Is that the right understanding?
 
I would recommend this book if you are interested in the philosophy of time: link. Paul Helm's view would be nearest to my own (pro divine timelessness), and his chapter, responses to him, and his responses to their responses are fully viewable in the preview on googlebooks. If you read that and are interested in more by Helm, I would also recommend his book, "Eternal God."

I would also recommend James Anderson's thoughts on the subject. Here is an article linking divine timelessness and the incarnation: link. He has an excellent chapter in "Calvinism and the Problem of Evil" which uses a helpful metaphor of God as the author of a story to illustrate that it is the story that occurs over time, not the author outside the story.
 
Yeah. I didn't mean to say that. Sorry. It is still wrong, but what I was trying to say was that there were only two of the Godhead in the eternal realm because the other Godhead, the Son, was in the time realm (creation). I was not trying to say there was now only two Godheads because the Son was no longer one of them. But, after looking more into what extra-calvinisticum is, I realize that the Son never left the eternal realm. So he was somehow outside of time, yet the flesh he united himself to was in time/creation. Is that the right understanding?
You might also find this course helpful: https://reformedforum.org/courses/van-tils-trinitarian-theology/

One doesn't have to agree with all of Van Til, but a lot of the material Lane Tipton covers here is invaluable (i.e. God the Son is still immutable through the incarnation).
 
This topic reminds me of the Isaac Watts hymn...

Great God, how infinite art Thou!
What worthless worms are we!
Let the whole race of creatures bow,
And pay their praise to Thee.

Thy throne eternal ages stood,
Ere seas or stars were made:
Thou art the ever living God,
Were all the nations dead.

Nature and time quite naked lie
To Thine immense survey,
From the formation of the sky
To the great burning day.

Eternity, with all its years,
Stands present in Thy view;
To Thee there’s nothing old appears;
Great God! There’s nothing new.

Our lives through various scenes are drawn,
And vexed with trifling cares;
While Thine eternal thought moves on
Thine undisturbed affairs.

Great God, how infinite art Thou!
What worthless worms are we!
Let the whole race of creatures bow,
And pay their praise to Thee.


Blessings!
 
This looks great! Thank you

A shorter take:


"In the incarnation, the eternal Son of God assumed a human nature. He did this without giving up his divinity. He retains his immutability, omniscience, omnipresence, and all the attributes according to his eternal, divine, and necessary existence.

In this episode, we discuss how these two natures relate to the person in the hypostatic union. By looking at Scripture, the Council of Chalcedon, and our confessional tradition, we review an orthodox grammar for speaking about these matters.

An error in the doctrine of God or Christology, however minor it may seem, will inevitably compound as other doctrines are developed. We should always seek to maintain confessional orthodoxy by reviewing the basics from which we never graduate.

This is Christ the Center episode 591 (https://reformedforum.org/ctc591)"



Sorry, last one:


@34m is where they really open up.
 
Last edited:
Yeah. I didn't mean to say that. Sorry. It is still wrong, but what I was trying to say was that there were only two of the Godhead in the eternal realm because the other Godhead, the Son, was in the time realm (creation). I was not trying to say there was now only two Godheads because the Son was no longer one of them. But, after looking more into what extra-calvinisticum is, I realize that the Son never left the eternal realm. So he was somehow outside of time, yet the flesh he united himself to was in time/creation. Is that the right understanding?
Yep. At some point with a mystery you can only go so far.
 
yeah, so he is saying that God is outside of time and therefore his decisions are chronological, which I think we agree with? But since they aren't chronological there is no cause and effect. For instance election and saving grace don't have a cause and effect relationship. That is what he is saying. So to defend it I started to get backed up into heresy by suggesting maybe God does have time in his realm because obviously election is the cause of saving grace. So I'm curious what a non-heretical argument is. So i think my friend is saying that sense God's decisions aren't chronological ordered they aren't logically ordered.
Logic and time are things we experience not God per se. As far as election goes you're referring to the ordo salutis vs the historie salutis. But those are again from our perspective. Your friend is again making logic and time things that God must follow or be subservient to, absolutizing them. That's his problem. Then when he finds something that seems to defy those he yells foul.
What is your friend's religious convictions or position? That would help us know where he's coming from.
 
Logic and time are things we experience not God per se. As far as election goes you're referring to the ordo salutis vs the historie salutis. But those are again from our perspective. Your friend is again making logic and time things that God must follow or be subservient to, absolutizing them. That's his problem. Then when he finds something that seems to defy those he yells foul.
What is your friend's religious convictions or position? That would help us know where he's coming from.
I see. That makes sense. He is a Christian and used to be "reformed" with a seminary degree but over the years has morphed his theology into some quite unique stuff. He leans more Arminian and puts focus on charismatic stuff. He doesn't hold to any creed or confession except for some of the creeds in the first couple centuries. I think he finds reformed theology as a little dangerous. He is not someone I talk theology with that often, maybe once or twice a year. I try to push his beliefs to their logical conclusions, but he has more knowledge than me so it can be difficult.
 
I see. That makes sense. He is a Christian and used to be "reformed" with a seminary degree but over the years has morphed his theology into some quite unique stuff. He leans more Arminian and puts focus on charismatic stuff. He doesn't hold to any creed or confession except for some of the creeds in the first couple centuries. I think he finds reformed theology as a little dangerous. He is not someone I talk theology with that often, maybe once or twice a year. I try to push his beliefs to their logical conclusions, but he has more knowledge than me so it can be difficult.
I see. Well I hope we've been helpful. Any more questions or clarifications you after?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top