Time & Trinity
by Jonathan
What is time? In a previous post I spent a little bit of space looking at time, but I feel the moment has come to revisit these ideas. The main problem that I want to pose concerns the effect our view of time has on our concept of God. Let’s consider two scenarios:
1) We view time in terms of ‘change’. Time is a measurement of the rate, duration, experience of change. In the common view of God, God is perfect. In this view of perfection ‘change’ is an unwelcome element. Let’s break down the argument for this.
P1 (Premise 1): God is perfect
P2: Perfection means unable to be improved upon.
P3: God can not make negative changes (otherwise God would no longer be perfect).
Conclusion: God does not change as God cannot improve upon himself.
So, in the ‘time = change’ view, God is best not to be viewed as temporal; unfortunately this makes for a diestic or impersonal God.
2) This is a hastily chosen alternative, mostly to show how the different view changes our concept of God. Instead of equating time merely with change, let’s broaden the concept to relationship. Here, we would say that all relationships require temporality. Some such relationships would be categorized as ‘change’, so some of the meaning of ‘time’ is incorporated in this view, but hopefully without the negative effects on our concept of God. Let’s consider some of the most basic relationships and see if the temporal is a necessary component for understanding the relationship. Imagine two points in space, point A and point B. They are not identical. It might seem that their relationship is atemporal (not effected by time), but this might be a hasty claim. Consider that you want to define their relationship by measuring from A to B. What does it mean that they are x inches apart? x inches includes the notion that to travel x distance at v velocity will take t time. Even this simple one dimensional relationship requires time for meaning.
Here, we can understand God as having temporality without compromising the divine nature. Also, we have a view of God that does not require creation. God does not gain temporality by creating, for if God is triune – as Christian dogma claims – God is essentially relational.
The question remains, what is time? What conception makes the most sense for our talk of God?
I think you need to define ‘perfection’ (if that’s possible in light of relativity) and i think in that understanding of perfection that you should explain why you think that God being ‘perfect’ makes God impersonal. with point A and point B, the key is IF. IF you want to define their relationship by measuring. there are other ways of defining their relationship, not all of which necessitate time. but in the situation of measuring distance then sure.
Two things, 1) I defined perfection in P2; I intentionally kept the definition minimal so as to avoid erroneous concepts. The notion I am most interested in this post is ‘time’, secondarily it’s effect on our concept of God. God becomes impersonal because God cannot interact with time if time in this view is seen as equivalent to change. If God cannot interact with time, how can God interact with essentially temporal beings?
2) You were correct to say the key is IF on measurement; I chose it only as example. Nonetheless, I would be curious to know what type of relationships can be defined atemporally.
Thanks for commenting!
I think the root of the problem with #1 is the idea that perfection encapsulates God. Time can definitely be defined as “the presence of change” if, for example, love or relationship are more definitive of God.
Number 2 still assumes mass, i.e. Creation, no? How else does distance and velocity exist? Distance is defined by space right? If so, velocity is as well correct?
Perhaps it could be that time is a lot closer to a “sequence of events.” In that case, no compromise is needed to the divine nature; on the contrary, time is and has been defined solely by the God who is love.
I would agree with your last paragraph’s proposal about “sequence of events”; only I would say that sequence of events is a type of relationship, so relationship could still serve as paradigmatic for time.
On the other hand though, relationship was not chosen because I am certain of its adequacy; my main intent with the post was merely to show how our view of time can effect our concept of God.