I have a confession. Until recently, I had not read C. S. Lewis’ Mere Christianity. I know, hard to believe, right? Especially for a kid from an evangelical background, but the truth is, I found the constant analogies annoying. I would get a chapter or two into it and my teenage self felt a bit condescended to and wanting to get on with the meat of the argument. I have since learned that these chapters originated as radio broadcasts and I can understand why his accessible and relatable analogies were unexpected and effective. Nowadays I am know for making too many analogies myself.
Recently I came across a comment that Lewis’ description of the Trinity in MC was worth reading so I did. It was fine, decent analogies (“a three-personal Being” like a three dimensional object), but it was the following chapter that I found surprising, “Time and Beyond Time.” What surprised me was that here Lewis was making an argument I had stumbled across while in college. It was so similar to how I had conceived of the problem that if I did not know that I had not read MC, I would think that I had and was merely repeating what Lewis said.
Rather than belabor the point and since the chapter is relatively short, here are a few key quotes to highlight his argument.
- “Almost certainly God is not in Time. His life does not consist of moments following one another.”
- “But God has no history. He is too completely and utterly real to have one”
- “Another difficulty we get if we believe God to be in time is this. Everyone who believes in God at all believes that He knows what you and I are going to do tomorrow. But if He knows I am going to do so-and-so, how can I be free to do otherwise? Well, here once again, the difficulty comes from thinking that God is progressing along the Time-line like us: the only difference being that He can see ahead and we cannot. Well, if that were true, if God foresaw our acts, it would be very hard to understand how we could be free not to do them. But suppose God is outside and above the Time-line. In that case, what we call ‘tomorrow’ is visible to Him in just the same way as what we call ‘today’. All the days are ‘Now’ for Him. He does not remember you doing things yesterday; He simply sees you doing them, because, though you have lost yesterday, He has not. He does not ‘foresee’ you doing things tomorrow; He simply sees you doing them: because, though tomorrow is not yet there for you, it is for Him. You never supposed that your actions at this moment were any less free because God knows what you are doing. Well, He knows your tomorrow’s actions in just the same way—because He is already in tomorrow and can simply watch you. In a sense, He does not know your action till you have done it: but then the moment at which you have done it is already ‘Now’ for Him.”
This perspective on time and history shapes my conviction regarding resurrection. It also provides a means of understanding how God can both know all of history without directing or ordaining every jot and title of existence. Understanding that God is before, after, and outside of history provides a very helpful way of conceiving of sovereignty and suffering, human will, and the Divine plan and theodicy. It is one that I think is more consistent with Scripture and our experience than the predestination of Calvinism one the one hand and open theism on the other.
Even Lewis’ disclaimer is similar to the one I offer in my book: “It is a ‘Christian idea’ in the sense that great and wise Christians have held it and there is nothing in it contrary to Christianity. But it is not in the Bible or any of the creeds. You can be a perfectly good Christian without accepting it, or indeed without thinking of the matter at all.”
Lewis wasn’t the first to contemplate such a view of God outside of time, but it may well be that his articulation of it, through parents and pastors who had read MC influenced me. Either way, I find this perspective to be persuasive and extremely helpful.
11 thoughts on “Inside Out of Time”
Hi Christian! We have spoken about this before so I won’t belabor the point but I still don’t see how contemplating God outside of time provides any helpful explanation for our experience of life in time. For God to simply know or see actions not yet present to us in time is functionally the same outcome as determinism. That is God may not determine the future as we experience but it if is known as already present to God infallibly, then the result is the same, we are not free to do other than what God knows. I do appreciate the caveat of Lewis that this is not determinative of our faith but it is certainly interesting and has significant implications for how we live out that faith I think.
Tim, thank you! I appreciate your engagement on this topic and the ideas you have introduced me to. In this case, I do not see how God knowing the outcome predetermines it for us. We are still making (or not making) our choices along our path, the fact that God is able to see the entire journey does not remove our volition and choice.
Obviously you disagree with that view, but I do not see why. Can you help me understand your position more clearly?
I have struggled over the years with this question about free will and exhaustive divine foreknowledge (foreknowledge being how it appears to those of us “in time”) If God knows (“knowing” being a contested idea in philosophy as well, “what constitutes “knowledge” over say, “belief”? ) every choice as if it has already happened and he has this knowledge infallibly, then what God knows cannot be changed. As I noted in the first comment, functionally then I can or will do only what God knows. I agree, as you noted, that knowledge is not causation and I lived in that for a long time. But the big, often unasked question is, “is there a future to be known by God, in or out of time, apart from the choices we make to bring about that future?” Asked another way, “is the future settled or open?” (hence the open theist position, the future is not “there” to be “known” until actualized). When the claim that God is outside of time ( a claim I don’t dispute btw) is made as the answer to those questions, the claim presumes too much. I don’t see a way to reason from God is outside of time to therefore God sees everything in time as an eternal present. That is a leap. To be fair, the whole question of freedom, what exactly it is, whether or not we have it, is a question not just theologically but also, scientifically for lack of better word this morning :). That is to say, if every action has a cause and an effect, then if we can discover the beginning of the causal chain we can theoretically predict every subsequent event because each effect becomes a cause of the next effect and so on…dominos. In that framing, if we are free at all, it is only one choice, the first choice that a person makes, but that gets really hairy because arguably, in this frame, my very existence is the effect of a cause I did not choose, there is no possible “first choice” I could make…This might be a way to argue that a God outside of time can see the future as present, in that the world in time unfolds very predictably. But even if that is true, freedom is still the question. So, in what is probably not anymore clear, my position is that positing God outside of time with exhaustive knowledge of all our perceived, from our perspective in time, “future” choices, at best, does not protect our freedom (understood as the ability to choose otherwise in any given situation) and at worst is a non sequitur.
Again, thank you for engaging with me Tim! There is much here and of course, we are unlikely to settle the matter, even in our lifetimes, but I appreciate the engagement. To focus on a few points you bring up.
You say, if God knows all of history “as if it has already happened and he has this knowledge infallibly, then what God knows cannot be changed. As I noted in the first comment, functionally then I can or will do only what God knows.” I suppose I cannot but restate my view, which is that God knowing what our choices are is NOT predetermining our choices. Yes, since all time is at present for God, God may observe and know what our decisions were/are/will be at any given moment in our lifetime, that is not the same as God determining what we may do. This is the key for me, not whether God knows but does God *will* all decisions. I do not see any conflict between God’s knowing and our will.
Next, “But the big, often unasked question is, ‘is there a future to be known by God, in or out of time, apart from the choices we make to bring about that future?’ Asked another way, ‘is the future settled or open?’ (hence the open theist position, the future is not “there” to be “known” until actualized).” That is, of course – and you helped open up this area of discourse to me, the very question of “open theology.” They are seeking to answer similar questions of theodicy, will, etc. but their decision is that God can NOT know all since it has not happened, even for God (thus God is NOT outside of time, at least that has been argued by several open theists). Personally, I see no need or problem with our future being *known* by God (obviously). What is gained philosophically/theologically by positing that the future is open, even to God? I do not see it answering any problems more effectively than the timeless God proposal, while raising all sorts of other issues, not lists (which they embrace), the limited scope of God.
You argue that my assertion that God being outside of time helps answer these question that “the claim presumes too much. I don’t see a way to reason from God is outside of time to therefore God sees everything in time as an eternal present. That is a leap.” I see it as less of a leap that to argue that God is bound by humanity in our actions. And we haven’t even gotten into arguments from biblical evidence for/against both positions (and I grant the evidence works both for/against BOTH positions and does not offer conclusive evidence either direction, otherwise the argument would be largely moot). Once I make the assumption that God is outside of time, borrowing the two-dimensional to three-dimensional metaphors, it seems trivial that God would be able to “look down” upon the page of our history and see it all at a glance. That may not persuade you, but it seems the smallest of leaps any of us are making in this discussion.
Finally, you say, “my position is that positing God outside of time with exhaustive knowledge of all our perceived, from our perspective in time, “future” choices, at best, does not protect our freedom (understood as the ability to choose otherwise in any given situation) and at worst is a non sequitur.” Again, restating what I wrote above, I do not see any conflict between God knowing the results and our freedom to make our own choices. Our knowing the result of a soccer match, does not change the course of the match when we watch the replay. The keeper will still make the mistake of coming off their line too early, every time we watch it again. (Another poor analogy, but what do we have aside from analogies?)
This perspective, of God outside of time, knowing yet not interfering (other than occasional miracles and interventions), is far more than a non sequitur to me, as stated. It is a coherent and defensible answer to the problem of evil, human will, and God’s sovereignty. I do not pretend that it is “inspired” or even fully provable, merely defensible and in keeping with orthodox Christianity. I suspect my answers here will not be sufficient to the questions you raise, but neither do I find your questions sufficiently challenging to the thesis.
So, what we are left with is a wonderful discussion and, I would like to think, an example of how to disagree in a world that currently seems to be unable to engage in proper, respectful discourse. Thank you again Tim!
I think the whole sticking point with all of this is that we are trying to describe and discuss God with our limited human language and understanding. No matter how many words and concepts we posit, we cannot possibly come even close to either describing or understanding the Truth. And what about all the other beings out there in the known universe (not to mention the unknown one(s)) that are all trying to do the same thing. Or perhaps some have gotten past all this, and are content just to go out and live God’s first and greatest commandment, and the second which is like unto it.
Jo Ellen, I agree which is why I have written elsewhere of the limitations of our perspective. Still, we must try and understand to the best of our ability. That is where humility comes in…
I don’t know what is happening but I have no reply option on the last couple of posts you made. Anyway, you may be right about Tom Oord. I think he does argue that God is NOT outside of time. My claim that no open theist makes that claim was too hasty. Sorry about that. My argument and the thing Tom and I agree on, is that God is and can only be known/experienced in time. As I noted earlier, I have no objection to the claim that God is outside of time. I would be interested to read a post on the scriptural support you mention for God being outside of time and how that may be offered as an explanation for happenings in time. Thanks!
I rather like this idea, because it supports an epiphany I had several years ago when reading prayer requests on Facebook… If I pray for something to happen for someone, but it is already after the fact (and I don’t know the result yet), does it still make sense to pray? I think that yes, it does, because God is outside of and unconstrained by linear time.
Thank you, Susan! Prayer is another complicated subject, especially when it comes to questions about efficacy, etc. I agree with you that, regardless of time or outcome, it is worthwhile for us to pray for and with others as it builds our relationship with them and with God; faithfulness lived out.
There was no reply button under your last response. So, this post is in response or meant to be in the chain above. You are welcome, I love the discussion! It is weird, but there are so few people who want to discuss things like the timeless nature of God and its implications for our thinking and living! :). And as you noted, this is not an issue about which we must have a definitive answer, there is room for disagreement and disagreement often brings better understanding even if not agreement.
A couple of things stood out to me this time in your response. First, I completely agree that knowing is not causing or determining and therefore there is no conflict between God knowing something and our freedom. The questions there for me are around what counts as knowledge for anyone. We use the word know/knowledge to cover a wide range of things. For example, when my daughter was two I would have said that “I know that if I put her down in front of a puppy she will crawl toward it.” But the reality is that I believe with high degree of confidence, based on the past experience of toddler’s fascination with small animals like puppies and the past experience of toddler’s curiosity about the world around them, that my, seemingly unusually curious, toddler would crawl immediately toward that puppy. When she did that, I would say, “I knew it.” But again, I didn’t “know” it in the strictest sense, prior to its happening. So, at what point does the degree of confidence become knowledge? I had no discernable doubt about the outcome of the meeting of my toddler and that puppy but I would not call that “knowledge” in a discussion like this though because I was also aware that Emily could have chosen otherwise for any number of reasons. If she had chosen not to engage the puppy the and headed off to explore some other option that would not have surprised me either because she was always curious and anything could capture her attention. In that way, one could say I had knowledge of the possibilities and so was would not be caught off guard or surprised by her choices. Likewise, God can and I suspect does know all possibilities of human choices and so is never caught off guard or surprised. Like you noted, we are not likely to settle this in our lifetime 🙂 because we haven’t even necessarily agreed to the definition of terms in the discussion! We are using words and the attendant meanings in ways that sound like agreement but likely hide assumptions we each make about those words. That is why these discussions are important because even in disagreement we likely get more clarity about things like how we use words and that makes us better thinkers and communicators over time, so thank you as well.
Another thing that struck me in your last response was your comment about analogies being all that we have, and again, I agree! But it is because of that analogical dependence that this discussion relies on that I find the idea of a timeless God (again, I do agree that God exists outside of and before time) to be unhelpful as an explanation for, well, anything. Analogies, as I know you know, 🙂 depend on some common experience or understanding of two ideas being brought together to help us understand another. But my question then is if no one, other than God, has been outside of time, how does the analogy work, there is nothing to reference to, no vocabulary adequate. We cannot say that “God being outside times means…” There is no way we can have any knowledge of that. For an analogy to work we would have to have some idea of what timelessness would mean. Where would that knowledge come from? Your admittedly weak analogy about a soccer replay fails for me because the game was played and then watched back on tape, there is no freedom in the replay, it is settled even though it was not determined in the playing initially. I have actually used this same analogy in the opposite direction, “Is God watching a replay in which the same things, happen in the same way, in an eternal now?” The theodicy questions can get deep here then as well, does God see past present and future for us as eternally present for all eternity so that suffering truly never ends or resolves but plays out eternally? Ugh, I am pretty sure you don’t think that but how does an eternal present resolve?
One more thing, you wrote: “They are seeking to answer similar questions of theodicy, will, etc. but their decision is that God can NOT know all since it has not happened, even for God (thus God is NOT outside of time, at least that has been argued by several open theists). Personally, I see no need or problem with our future being *known* by God (obviously). What is gained philosophically/theologically by positing that the future is open, even to God?” I don’t know of any open theist who argues God is NOT outside time (process theologians do as far as I know, but contrary to popular understanding Open Theology and Process Theology are not the same thing). What open theism argues is that God has entered time and God is experienced by humanity in time. Also, the question about God can know is not in dispute, most open theists I know would argue that God knows all that can be known. This would mean that God cannot know what is not there to be known. It sounds nit picky but it matters. Your framing in that quote still includes what has “not happened” in “all” ( Knowledge and Knowing it seems to me would require existence at some point.) Then you you argue from there in the parentheses that that would mean that God is NOT outside of time. I don’t see how that follows. What is gained by positing an open future, even for God, is relationship that is not one sided…but that claim too will open another can of worms 🙂
For the moment just a quick reply. Not sure why the “reply” button wasn’t there…
First, definition of terms is vital and I am sorry I didn’t pick up on your earlier reference to how we define to “know.” I do not think this term needs to eludes our definition, I just failed to offer one. I appreciate the one that you have offered, I think we can also state that “knowledge” can mean a certainty of facts, such as the effects of gravity. Gravity is not a question of our expectation, it will occur, it is a fact. This is the way in which I use the term and I should have clarified that.
On analogies, I think the two-dimensional inability to understand three-dimensional experience is the closest we can get. Not all that helpful, but we might try.
Finally, regarding open theists, perhaps I got the attribution wrong, but I thought that this is the position that Oord maintains. I seem to recall that in our discussion, he pushed back on my suggestion that God is outside of time and said he did not accept that. It has been several years since I’ve really read up on their positions, so I may well be misremembering.