Critically assess the traditional Christian concept of God being eternal.

The word ‘eternal’ has been defined in numerous different ways by theist, agnostic and atheist philosophers. One such definition is that for an object or being to be eternal, it must have a beginning but never end (unless time itself also ends) – an object such as this exists within time and will continue to exist until time itself no longer exists. However, this definition is largely regarded as ‘ever-lasting’ as opposed to eternal. Another definition of eternal then, is an object which, although existing within time, has no beginning or end. This definition is similar to the previous with one vital difference: the object does not have a moment of conception; its existence is inextricably linked to time and, for as long as time exists, so too will this object exist (yet the object still does exist within time). The final definition, however, contradicts both of the previous definitions and states that, in order for an object or being to be eternal, it must exist entirely outside of time. This is the definition upon which Christianity traditionally places its belief of God as eternal and, as a result of this fact, will be the definition discussed in this essay.

This is an excellent introduction in that the candidate has defined both interpretations of the term ‘eternal’ which is the attribute of God being evaluated here. The candidate has distinguished between the two variations of eternal: everlastingness and timelessness (though the latter term here is not used). This shows us that the candidate will be exploring how these terms have been assigned to the nature of God.

This definition of eternity in relation to God was put forward by Boethius in his Consolation of Philosophy (524) and, since shortly after the books’ creation, has been regarded as the traditional view of God’s existence in relation to time; indeed, Aquinas supported this view in his Summa Theologica, thereby further cementing it in the Christian tradition. This is excellent background to the Boethius contribution shown the relationship between Boethius’ work and that of Augustine. The view was initially put forward by Boethius as an attempt to explain how humans could retain their free-will with an omniscient God who could see every human’s future: he reached the conclusion that God must not exist within the time-frame which all of humanity does. This is subtly done which is very good; the candidate has not wasted time going into the details of Boethius’ dilemma as it is not relevant to this question, though the nature of that dilemma is mentioned as being the birth of this theory. While God may know of our future, it is not the future for him as he does not exist within time. In this definition, God has no concept of time and exists in a continuous present with no concept of future or past; he sees all of human history in a simultaneous instant. Boethius himself explains this by stating that God has the ‘simultaneous and perfect possession of boundless life.’ While this theory may be strong and explained eloquently by Boethius, it has come under severe criticism by innumerable philosophers (particularly in the last century), both religious and atheistic including Richard Swinburne, Kenny and Brian Davies.

A lovely summative paragraph bringing together Boethius’ understanding of God’s eternity. Note that the candidate has correctly presented this as Boethius’ contribution, though in ‘Consolations of Philosophy’ it is Lady Philosophy who reveals it to Boethius. When answering a question where you are required to distinguish between Boethius’ dilemma, human freewill and rewards/punishments, and the solution to the dilemma, God’s eternity, be clear about which voice you are detailing from ‘Consolations’: Boethius’ and Lady Philosophy’s.

This being said, the traditional Christian view of God’s eternity has a number of great strengths. Perhaps the greatest strength of the theory is put forward by St. Thomas Aquinas. He claims that, in the human world, change and time are blatantly inextricably linked: humans grow old and die, buildings erode and collapse, metal rusts and memories are forgotten. If God were to exist within time and be constrained by the same laws which time inflicts upon the universe, he too would be susceptible to change. The candidate is nicely linking God’s eternity to the other attributes of God, in this case immutability. However, both the bible and Christian tradition state that God is ineffable and cannot change (in Malachi 3:6 it states that ‘I the Lord do not change.’). Great use of scripture here; be sure to have a bank of passages you can call upon. Do not worry about accurate quotes, paraphrasing is perfectly acceptable. Indeed, the ability to or even the possibility to undergo change seems to imply imperfection; a perfect being would have no need to change seeing as any change would be detrimental. Surely a God who ages, forgets or deteriorates in any way would not be worthy of worship. Clearly then, owing to the fact that God is perfect and the fact that he doesn’t change, he must not exist within time. The candidate justified this assertion well. However, despite the strength of this point, it has come under criticism, namely by Christian philosophers who believe that God is in fact capable of change. In the bible, God is shown to forge a covenant with the Israelites; he speaks of his love for them (as well as all mankind), asks them to perform tasks and gave them the Ten Commandments. Clearly, as is evident from human experience, it is impossible to take part in a relationship of any kind without it altering your way of life at least to a minute degree. Surely then, if God did indeed enter into a covenant with the Israelites, it must have altered him at least in some way, particularly if he loved them as is stated in the bible. Moreover, God is frequently referred to as having human-like emotions towards the people with which he creates relationships including surprise (Isiah 5). Surely if God can be surprised, he is susceptible to change and, as a result of this the traditional view that God must exist outside of time owing to the fact that he cannot change may be fundamentally flawed.

The candidate has assessed both sides of this view in this paragraph showing reasoning for each and then presented the problems faced but the more traditional interpretation when taking against the revelation of God in the Bible. This is excellent evaluation.

Moreover, not only does God’s ineffable nature cause problems with the traditional view of God’s eternity when examples of relationships between God and humans are brought into question, but the very fact that God is able to form these relationships in the first place seems to contradict the traditional Christian view of God’s eternal nature. Indeed, if Boethius’ theory is to be accepted as the traditional Christian view, it seems to contradict any instances where God enters the human time-frame to intervene directly, whether that be through the answering of prayers, miracles or the coming of Jesus. The candidate has brought the problem to the fore by bringing the argument to the problem of miracles. According to the traditional view of God’s eternity, he has no concept of past, present, future or universal time in general. Instead, Boethius and Aquinas would argue, he exists outside of time and sees all of humanities actions throughout all of time in a simultaneous, instantaneous present. If this were the case, it would surely be impossible for God to pick a particular time in history and intervene directly because God has no concept of human time. For example, according to Christianity, God directly intervened in the life of Mary and made her pregnant with Jesus, his son. This intervention from God on a specific date in history would arguably be impossible for a God who has absolutely no concept of time. This is perhaps a slight misunderstanding of the notion of timelessness. It is not that God has ‘no notion of time’ it is more that ‘God is not subject to time’. Boethius’ presentation of God’s eternity is one where God sees all of time laid out before him, like the many slides of a movie. In this way, one could theorise, God could do exactly what the candidate has dismissed; He could pick a slide and jump in, like Mary Poppins in jumps into the chalk drawing. This criticism, therefore, has a very damaging implication. If the traditional view of God’s eternity is kept then it would be impossible for any events throughout history where God directly intervened to be true (including the coming of Jesus). Owing to the fact that the vast majority of Christians would disagree with this statement, it seems likely that the traditional view of God’s eternal nature demanding he be outside of time would be regarded as incorrect by most.

The candidate has reasoned this point, albeit with some errors, which shows an attempt at justification. It is a good attempt to evaluate the involvement of God in the world, but perhaps the use of Wiles would be better to show that God could not be involved in the world as it would challenge his overall benevolence given that he picks and chooses where and when to be involved, e.g. in ancient Egypt and not in Auschwitz.

That being said, however, it is possible for a Christian believer to retain his/her belief in the traditional view of God’s eternity while still believing in direct intervention from God owing to a very simple explanation. While it may seem to be an impossibility for God to exist outside of time and manage to affect events within time, it is entirely possible that human’s merely lack the mental capacity to fully understand God’s nature and the way in which he acts. As an omnipotent being, it may be entirely possible for God to exist outside of time yet still will events to happen within our human universe. Indeed, Aquinas’ theory of Eternal Law states that God’s nature is only knowable through simplistic reflections and that the true complexity and power of God’s true nature cannot be comprehended by us as humans. A lovely evaluation of human feebleness. The candidate could have drawn upon Boethius once more with the theory of knowledge and how knowledge of an object is relative to the subjective nature of the knower of the object. However, this is not a particularly strong point because, as Aquinas and C.S. Lewis state, and as is generally accepted by Christians, although God is all-powerful, he can still not perform actions which are logically impossible. Descartes disagreed with this and stated that God could do anything, whether logically possible or not. It would seem to many that being able to exist both within and outside of time is a logical impossibility and, as a result, cannot be done even by God. Therefore, I would argue that this point further weakens the traditional view of God’s eternal nature.

The candidate has used multiple scholarly opinions to evaluate this point about what is logically possible for God to do. It would be worth considering Descartes’ position a little further. Descartes said that God can do the logically possible and impossible; typical responses would err towards Aquinas’ notion that God cannot do what is logically impossible; this would defend God from challenges such as can God create a stone he cannot lift etc. However, upon reflection, Descartes’ point holds some value: our understanding of logic and mathematics work insofar as we understand them and God wills them to work. Taking from Keith Ward, if we can know the universe it is because God has known it into existence; therefore what we know is what God allows us to know. Theoretically, therefore, what we consider logical is what God has allowed us to know to be logical. God could therefore have known into being what we consider illogical, thus Descartes is right. Ultimately, God created logic, so He can do what he wants.

A further, similar weakness of the traditional view of God’s eternity is put forward by both Richard Swinburne and Anthony Kenny (both of whom are Christians). This weakness is similar to the previous as it is also concerned with the impossibility of acts which are logically impossible to achieve. Both philosophers argued that Boethius’ idea of God seeing and knowing everything from outside of time in a simultaneous present is incoherent. Kenny attempts to highlight the ridiculousness of this theory by stating that, according to this view of God’s eternal nature, ‘The great fire of Rome is simultaneous with the whole of eternity.’ Swinburne further supported this point and practically dismissed the entire theory by claiming that it ‘doesn’t make much sense.’

The candidate could have afforded Swinburne a little more development here: Swinburne argues that God cannot know what it is like to be in 1995 unless He was in fact in 1995, in which case God must be in time. It should be noted that both Swinburne and Kenny seem to be leaning towards a belief in God as ever-lasting as opposed to eternal in a Boethian sense. This is a satisfactory assessment of the Kenny/Swinburne challenge.

However, this criticism is extremely weak. Neither Boethius nor Aquinas claimed that all of time takes place at once; indeed, if this was the case it would be incorrect. Boethius instead claimed that the nature of God’s knowledge is so different to humans’ that he, as an omniscient being, sees all of eternity in a simultaneous present. The nature of knowledge which God possesses isn’t constricted by time and, as a result of this, God is able to take in all the knowledge of the universe simultaneously; the events do not actually happen simultaneously. Indeed, Paul Helm puts this criticism succinctly and claims that ‘God, considered as timeless, cannot have temporal relations with any of his creation. He is timeless in the sense of being time free.’ He then goes on to accuse Kenny and Swinburne of reduction ad absurdum (over-simplifying the argument to ridiculous degrees to try and prove it as incorrect). For this reason, I would argue that Kenny and Swinburne’s criticism doesn’t weaken the traditional theory of God’s eternal nature at all.

This is an excellent evaluation of the challenge using Paul Helm including some good quotations and technical language.

A strength of the traditional Christian view of God’s eternal nature which is also rooted in God’s separation from the time-bound universe is put forward by Anselm and has been elaborated on innumerable philosophers. The essence of Anselm’s argument is that, as a perfect being, God cannot be contained or restricted by anything. For this reason, Anselm would argue, not even time or the universe could contain him, thereby making it illogical for God to be within time as Swinburne and Kenny would argue. A good reading of Anselm here. This point can be further supported with reference to God’s creation of the universe. Logically, it seems impossible for any being (God included) to create a reality and then exist within it; God must have existed outside of the universe prior to its creation in order for him to have created it. A simple example would be for a builder to exist within his creation. Moreover, seeing as time is a feature of the universe, it seems likely that God would not be affected by it if he is not a part of our physical universe. While philosophers such as Descartes would argue that it is possible for even God to act in such a way as is logically impossible, I would argue that this is a fairly clear strength of the traditional view of God’s eternal nature.

Another good evaluation of the challenge.

However, many have argued that Boethius’ entire theory of God’s eternal nature relies too heavily on the influence of Platonic and Aristotelian philosophy and isn’t actually based in Christian knowledge. Indeed, the idea of a God who exists in a separate reality from humans seems to be a Christianised reflection of Aristotle’s idea of a Prime Mover God and his perfect, ineffability seems to draw from Plato’s idea of the perfect, unchanging realm of the forms. This observation is not without merit; the classical understanding of God is based in Biblical Revelation as well as Greek philosophy. However, I would argue that this criticism is extremely weak. Just because Boethius adapted some of his ideas from the ancient Greek philosophers doesn’t mean that his theory isn’t applicable to the Christian faith. Indeed, the mere fact that St. Thomas Aquinas supported the theory combined with the fact that it has been accepted as the general, traditional view of God’s eternity seems to prove that, despite its roots in Pagan philosophy, it is entirely applicable to Christianity. Let us not forget that Aquinas translated the works of Aristotle into Latin and developed his ideas from Aristotle. Certainly, Christianity as a faith itself is largely based on ancient Greek Philosophy. For this reason, the traditional Christian view on the eternal nature of God is not weakened by its Platonic and Aristotelian roots.

Well justified.

Overall, therefore, I believe it is clear that Boethius’ theory of the eternity of God as is put forward in his Consolation of Philosophy, which has been agreed with by Thomas Aquinas and generally accepted as the traditional Christian view is a strong, well thought out theory. However, despite this, I believe that this theory’s apparent inability to support the view that God can interact with the universe, affect people directly and intervene at specific points in time weaken it significantly. Clearly, a huge percentage of Christians believe that God has the ability to affect what happens in our universe and, if the traditional view is to be accepted, it seems unlikely that this could be true. Therefore, I would argue that the fact that the traditional view of God’s eternal nature seems to disagree with the traditional view of God’s actions within the universe cause the theory to be far from perfect.

The candidate has summed up the case for God’s eternity and the case challenging it. The candidate has shown that there are benefits but that many of the challenges weaken the perspective. It would have been refreshing for the candidate to conclude with a more fixed point of view, for example one where God is both eternal AND everlasting as Christian theology actually maintains, hence the understanding of the Triune God of scripture: the Father is eternal, the Holy Spirit is everlasting within the universe and the Son walked as a man and is present in the world in the tabernacle. This would have shown a real understanding of the Christian notion of how God’s eternity can be reconciled with the challenges of Swinburne and modern miracle-maintaining Christians.

AO1: 16/16
The candidate has assessed the traditional nature of God’s eternity well and consistently throughout the essay calling upon scholarly ideas throughout. Each paragraph has been used to deal with a separate aspect of God’s eternity, from the challenges posed by Boethius’ ‘Consolations’ to the Cartesian notion of God’s ability to act illogically. Each challenge has been dealt with directly and in a sophisticated manner. The candidate could have explored the notion of God’s everlasting eternity more calling upon his revelation throughout in scripture and the need for an imminent God for the existence of miracles to work. The candidate has shown an excellent variety of knowledge calling upon scholars both in and outside of the taught syllabus giving quotes, key names and varied arguments. The candidate’s understanding is evident in the appropriate application of each scholar and theory in order to assess of God’s eternity. The candidate has selected elements of both classical and contemporary scholars and even synoptically linked to Greek philosophy. Finally, key language and terms were used appropriately and to a sophisticated level.

AO2: 24/24
The candidate fully engaged with the question as evidenced by the fluidity of the paragraphs covering a full range of challenges to God’s eternity and the assessment of various responses to those challenges; the candidate ensured that the engagement was evident as the end of each paragraph was linked back to the question. Material beyond the taught syllabus for this topic was used, including Plato and Aristotle as well as the assessment of God’s ability to do the logical and illogical. All concepts were analysed fully; there were the odd assertion that was incorrect or incomplete, however, this was the exception and due to positive marking, this would not lower the candidate’s overall mark. Finally, the essay was fully evaluative as the candidate assessed varied aspects of the topic, analysing each and drawing conclusions.

Overall: A* [40/40]