Monday, November 19, 2007

God Outside Time

The Egg

One analogy of the Trinity I was given was that of an egg. The egg has three components: the shell, the white, and the yoke, all of which on their own can still be called an egg.

This analogy however does not address what the whole or unified egg is. What, or who, is the Triune God?

The Gnostics believed this whole, or Godhead, was the Pleroma (“fullness”) or the source of ALL: the Unknown Father, the Alien God. This perfectly describes the invisible God who dwells in inaccessible light and eternal glory. Yet, it is this same inaccessible, infinite, invisible God who presents Himself to us face to face in the incarnation of Jesus Christ – very accessible, very finite, very visible, and very human.

Needless to say I subscribe to the author of the book of John’s view of Jesus – God the Father incarnate in flesh. It is the understanding or definition of the Father that applies and is important.
The egg illustration succeeds on one level yet fails miserably on another. If this is the Trinity then it is hidden in a mysterious inaccessible realm beyond our understanding. It is completely without relationship to humanity or Creation, which poses serious problems. The Holy Spirit has nothing to interact (have relations) with and the Son can play the roll of mediator (or priest) to the Father with nothing and nobody. Ultimately this analogy of the Trinity functions only in the sense of God’s inter-relationships – His relationship with Himself – which is of very little or no use to us. It is an aspect, which we can never know, never discover, and will never reveal itself.
This illustration does succeed in the fact that it makes the presence of the Triune God obvious and very important. If we entertain the idea of the Trinity as being only three distinct persons who share this “God-hood” then we are ultimately polytheistic. If we are to truly claim to be monotheistic then we absolutely must acknowledge a single God – the Triune God, which the Egg illustration very successfully points out – the whole and unified egg. It doesn’t however label or identify what it is.

It is the understanding of the Triune God’s extra-relationships – His relationship with Creation (and humanity) – that is the only relevant and most important aspect and understanding of the nature of the Trinity. To understand the Triune God’s relationship with Creation really is all about His actions and the functions of the persons of the Trinity. It is about interactions.
I feel the following three diagrams best show these interactions, revealing a more accurate view of the Trinity and a critical hidden part of it.

The Flashlight

In this illustration of the flashlight, it could be said that the Batteries represent God the Father, the Lightbulb represents God the Son (Jesus Christ) and the Light itself as God the Holy Spirit. The Seeing Eye is humanity, Creation, or us.

If we remove the Seeing Eye from the diagram the whole function of the flashlight becomes redundant. The light is not revealing anything nor viewed by anyone. It serves no purpose. If we were to remove Creation from the Trinity it too becomes redundant. Most especially with God the Son and God the Holy Spirit, they are about relationships.

The Bicycle Wheel

In the Bicycle Wheel illustration it could be said that the Crank Shaft is God the Father, the Chain is the Holy Spirit, and the Gear is God the Son. Ultimately all these mechanisms are the drive, or propel the Wheel, which, once again is Creation, or humanity.
This mechanism works quite well. God the Father is the guiding force. The crank shaft is the “engine” or power source of the bicycle. The power generated by the crank shaft is channeled along and through the chain – the Holy Spirit – to the gear, God the Son. The gear (God the Son) plays mediator to mankind and guides it and propels it, the wheel.

If we remove the wheel from this machine what we have left is incomplete at best and pathetically silly and without purpose at worst – a machine that serves no function, a bicycle that goes nowhere. The wheel is not only important, it is critical.

Celestial Bodies

The Sun represents God the Father. The Moon represents God the Son (Jesus Christ) the Sunlight is the Holy Spirit (and interestingly enough, the Reflected Sunlight is the perfect reflection or representation of the Father). The planet Earth yet again represents Creation or humanity.
Once again, if we remove the planet earth from this illustration all would seem to be for naught. There is again no function and redundancy.

All three illustrations include Creation as a critical part of understanding the Trinity and it’s extra-relationality. However, this does in no way describe in detail Creation’s roll.

When dealing with Creation we inevitably come across some very difficult and legitimate questions. Why did God cause Creation if there is absolutely nothing that can be added to God’s perfection? What was His motive? How could an omnipotent and good God created a flawed world? Who was the Creator? These questions can become more and more complex and complicated, and near impossible to answer. They are however all based on one simple assumption:

Creation was a deliberate act.

After hearing a statement like that the first response will be to assume that is was an accident. Then if Creation was an accident we reintroduce the question of God’s omnipotence (an omnipotent being can’t or at least shouldn’t) be making accidents. After all, how could an all-powerful being make a mistake or accidentally cause Creation? But this question too is based on an assumption. The assumption that if something was not a deliberate act then it must have been an accidental act. But incidences or events do not have to be either a deliberate act or an accident. Creation could be a byproduct of the nature of God – it could have been inevitable.

We must begin to look at the nature of God. The nature of God is goodness. What is goodness in its simplest form? Goodness by its nature gives itself, communicates itself. One cannot be good and utterly isolated or in an eternal or perpetual “social” vacuum. Since goodness by its nature gives itself and communicates itself, it must have a recipient to give itself to and to communicate with.

Creation – although absolutely not God’s purpose – is a byproduct of the state of Godhood. Creation is a byproduct of God’s goodness. Creation and its creatures add nothing to God nor is God dependant on Creation or its creatures in any way or form, but Creation (even as a byproduct) is completely dependant on its Creator. It is something that simply and naturally pours out of God. This answers the question “Why does God create?” It also addresses many of the more difficult questions: Why did God cause Creation? What was His motive? He didn’t choose to cause Creation and He had no motive. “Why did God create a flawed world (or allow it to fall)” becomes a little trickier to answer, but still easy. Once again, God did not, as an act, cause Creation. Why a fallen world? To not have introduced Free Will would again contradict God’s nature. Goodness gives itself and communicates itself. To have recipients without Free Will is to have robots or automatons, which ultimately make communication, and giving impossible. Free Will was a necessity of Creation: a byproduct of a byproduct.

It is an aspect of God, which brings us back to the actual nature of God. There are 5 elements to the nature of God:

  1. God the Father
  2. God the Son
  3. God the Holy Spirit
  4. Creation (as a byproduct) in which to give Himself to and communicate with, &
  5. The unified or whole God (The Triune God), which the three persons of the Trinity compose.

But what or who is the Triune God? Who is God the Father? It is clear who the Son is and what roll He plays. It is also clear who the Holy Spirit is and what roll the Spirit plays. It is not however clear what roll the Father plays. Even in the naming of the theologies it isn’t clear. Christology is the study of the divine nature of Christ. Pnumatology is the study of the nature and actions of the Holy Spirit. Why is there not a “study of the Father”; Father-ology, if you will?
Could the Father be the Triune God, this unified and Whole God?

As the diagram to the left shows, could the Father actually be the basis, or foundation, of the Triune God, or the Trinity?

If forced to answer the question, “Trinitarian or Unitarian?” I’d have to say both. A serious flaw and hypocrisy of most Christians is their claim to be monotheistic yet their practice of never acknowledging or addressing the unified Triune God.

I really cannot blame Jews and Muslims for accusing Christians of being pagan and polytheistic. Most Christians openly and freely acknowledge the three persons of the Trinity in worship but never the singular Triune Deity. But when faced with the accusation of being polytheistic they are the first to state that they do believe in one God, which has three persons. When pushed to define the Trinity many resort to some lame excuse of “the mystery of the Trinity” with a follow-up of not being able to know the true nature of God. A statement which dangerously toes the line of being agnostic, because one aspect of agnosticism is the belief that God is unknowable (or incomprehensible) to the human mind. So what does this make Christians who make this claim? Are they Christian Agnostics?

Is this “mystery of the Trinity” claim really another less direct way of saying “I don’t know”? I believe in the Concept of the Trinity, but not the Doctrine of the Trinity. At the end of the day I think the Doctrine of the Trinity is a man-made construct.

The Gestalt God

We need to look at the concepts of the “Unity God” or the Triune God, or possibly – a better description – a Gestalt God. The concept of a Gestalt God has some presumptions, which should be looked at first. The word gestalt means an organized whole that is perceived as more than the sum of its parts. Simply put, a gestalt says that 1 + 1 + 1 = 4 (not 3).

To apply this to the state or nature of God presumes that God is like a cut gem or a diamond - having facets. These facets are the only direct aspects of God that we as humans can perceive or be aware of – not the diamond itself. These facets, when combined, would form the whole, or Unity God, or Triune God, whose nature and being is utterly incomprehensible and alien.
It is interesting to note that what we today define the word “holy” is absolutely not as the Hebrews defined it. The Hebrew word for holy is kaddosh, which does not mean a state of moral perfection nor has anything to do with morality. It means “otherness”, not natural, but supernatural, not of this world, but alien.

It is only the echoes of this deity’s actions that we can perceive. If the natural universe, or all Creation, were a pond and God places His foot into the waters we could not possibly see or even comprehend His foot but only the ripples of water that emanate from it.

If God is represented by this blue triangle then He is One God and only One God and the only One God. (The triangle shape is not to signify the Trinity but a spear or arrow like device, which we’ll see later). He is independent and non-reliant upon anything: He requires nothing else and is completely whole, perfect, and self-sufficient. In this state there is neither Triune God nor Trinity.
Certain aspects of God are dependent on the Created Universe, while the Created Universe is dependent on One aspect of God. The Created Universe is dependent on God the Father, while God the Son and God the Holy Spirit are dependent on the Created Universe.

Before you grab your torches and begin sharpening your pitchforks, please read on. Creation is a byproduct of God’s Goodness (as discussed earlier). If we can agree that God’s nature is goodness, then goodness by its nature gives itself and communicates itself. Creation becomes a byproduct of God’s Goodness because the very nature of goodness cannot exist in an isolated vacuum. It must give itself and communicate itself to someone or something! Thus the Created Universe comes into being. The only two arguments I’ve heard against this idea do not hold water when thought through.

In the following diagram we represent the entire Created Universe as a red circle, God (still the blue triangle) is still external, alien, and independent: He does not need Creation. It is important to note in this representation that the red circle is the entire Created universe of 4 dimensions. This circle would have height, depth, length, and time. Time, history, and anything temporal would only exist within the circle’s boundaries. Anything outside the circle’s boundaries – most specifically God – would be eternal and timeless.

The first argument states that since the Created Universe is a temporal thing (it has a beginning and it will also have an end) and God’s nature is eternal, there are vast amounts of time before Creation and after our universe’s end. During these times God would not have this byproduct of His Goodness. The flaw in this argument however is in its very question. Time only exists within our Created Universe. Our Created Universe is 4-dimensional (if not more!) and God is outside of it. There is no time before or after our universe! Our universe is Time. If this weren’t true – if time did exist before and after Creation – then God Himself would be subjected to time and a chronological chain of events as well as aging. From God’s point(s) of view, the Created Universe –as a self-contained 4-dimensional universe – would always exist.
The second argument agrees that God’s nature is Goodness and Goodness must give and communicate itself to another. However, this argument does not agree that Creation must be that other. Before Creation God existed in a Triune state – three distinct persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. God’s Goodness “gives” Himself and “communicates” Himself to Himself. There is no need or place for Creation.

This idea of the Trinity is flawed and even polytheistic. It does not recognize the Triune God as a whole but only as three persons. Trinitarian Christians here must exercise great care.
Lee Strobel’s interview with William Lane Craig, Ph.D., Th.D., in his book The Case For A Creator, talk about the necessity of a single Creator and Ockham’s razor principle.

At that point, another objection popped into my mind. “Why does it have
be one Creator?” I asked. “Why couldn’t multiple Creators have been
“My opinion,” Craig answered, “is that Ockham’s razor would shave
away any
additional creators.”
“What’s Ockham’s razor?”
“It’s a
principle that says we should not multiply causes beyond what’s
necessary to
explain the effect. Since one Creator is sufficient to explain
the effect, you
would be unwarranted in going beyond the evidence to posit

Basically Lee Strobel is asking if it is possible that there were more than one Creator – a pantheon of deities. Dr. Craig answers that it is not impossible, but highly unlikely because of the proper scientific methodology of the Ockham razor principle. He then goes on the give a simple explanation of what this principle is. He ends by stating that it is “unwarranted” to create a “plurality” of deities. One is the simplest answer, so One it should be.

Most monotheists would absolutely agree with this and may even use Ockham’s razor in an argument. But let’s go back to the original argument: God’s Goodness “gives” Himself and “communicates” Himself to Himself, as the three persons of the Trinity. There is no need or place for Creation.

If we apply Ockham’s razor to this comment we find a redundancy. Why have more than one, when only one is necessary? God’s Goodness needs only to give and communicate to one receiver, not two. That one receiver is Creation. These other two aspects of the Trinity (the Son and the Holy Spirit) only come into play when God interacts with Creation. In fact, they are part of God’s Goodness. The Son and the Holy Spirit are the Giving and the Communicating actions themselves. They are God’s presence within and among His Creation. They are in fact, personifications of the Jew’s Shekinah (see below). They are “begotten” beings only because they exist only as God’s Goodness “gives”, “communicates”, and interacts within our Created Universe. They are the ripples that emanate from God’s foot dipping into the pond we call our universe.

However, if God “steps” into our natural universe from His external, supernatural (holy – kaddosh) state, we could only see the “ripples” of His steps in the pond. This is the part of the triangle (now purple) that enters Creation, the only aspect of God we can perceive. This is God’s echo or ripple or emanation. This aspect of God is very much dependent on our Created Universe for it would not - could not - exist without our universe.
This aspect of God (echo, ripple, emanation, etc.) is what the Wisdom or Reason of God is (see Proverbs 8:12). Sophia and the Logos is this facet. One is God’s “ripple” and activity within Creation – God’s Wisdom, Sophia, the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of God, while the other is God’s echo and activity within men’s hearts and souls – God’s Reason, Word, Logos, or Son.

Certain Rabbis spoke about the Spirit of God brooding over creation and they compared it to a rider of a horse. While the rider is on the horse the rider depends on the horse but the rider is never the less superior to it and has control over it. The term Shekinah comes from the Hebrew word shakan that means to pitch one’s tent. The Shekinah was not a conceived, separate divine being, but the presence of God in our world. This was the Jewish rabbinical concept of the Shekinah, which I believe is just as applicable in this representation as any of the Christian nomenclature is.

While we have now identified the purple overlap within the blue triangle of God (call it Sophia, the Logos, Wisdom, God the Son, the Holy Spirit, or the Shekinah). God’s presence within our world, His footsteps if you will. The remaining part of the blue triangle (still blue and still external) is that third aspect of God, the alien (holy), unknowable, incomprehensible, and supernatural aspect – constant and external – the foot that causes the ripple in the pond.
These examples and diagrams are all very symbolic, an attempt to explain something extremely abstract. I however believe certain groups of ancient Jewish Gnostics understood this much better than we give them credit for.

If we use the same diagrams but change the circle of the Created Universe to another red triangle (its point representing man’s reaching out to God) we find some interesting results:

The final symbolic result is a Star of David. The Star of David itself is an ancient figure. Scholars do not know when it became a widespread symbol of Judaism, but as far as is known, it first appeared on a Jewish holy seal in Sidon in c. 600 BC.

This star is also a Gnostic symbol.

The upward pointing triangle is the physical realm (fire) reaching up towards
the spiritual and the downward pointing triangle is the spiritual realm of the
waters of life reaching towards the Earth in order to lift it upwards. The
symbol was first popularized by Kabbalists (Jewish mystics)…2

The very fact that, again, it is linked to an older Jewish group, the Kabbalists, maintains it’s Jewish heritage. Ultimately it can be said to mean that it is all of Creation’s desire to search and seek out God, and God’s love to reach out to mankind. The symbolism is significant. There are three ways to discover God. Revelation (prophecy), Reason or logic (philosophically), and Imagination or Symbolism (mysticism). Reason (logic) and Imagination (symbolism) are man reaching out to God, while Revelation is God reaching out to man.

This strongly suggests that older non-Christian groups acknowledged – to some degree – various facets or aspects of God. They may not actively have identified a Triune nature of God, but they were most definitely aware of this nature. This God reached out to us!

Ultimately I would have to agree with the Jew and Muslim’s concept of an undivided and Unified God more so than the Christian’s three deities of the Trinity. Either we are monotheistic or we are polytheistic. You cannot be both. This really isn’t an issue with one faith being right and the other wrong; this is an issue of perception. Much of the debate and arguments between these faiths come from nomenclature (and the egotistic desire to be right as opposed to finding the truth).

The best illustration I can think of is sunlight. God is sunlight. It touches everything we see. We cannot see anything without sunlight. Everything we see is because of sunlight. However, we cannot see the sunlight itself. We can see its effects. We can feel its warmth. We can see the objects it illuminates. But we cannot see the sunlight. When we see rays of sunlight peeking through a cloud we are only seeing the atmosphere and airborne particles being lit up by the sunlight, but not the sunlight itself. When we see all the various colours of the flowers we are only seeing parts of the sunlight that are being reflected – but not the sunlight. When we stare directly at the sun we are seeing the nuclear fires that cause the sunlight, but not the sunlight. Yet everything we see is because of the sunlight. Nobody debates or denies the existence of sunlight, yet nobody has seen it. What we do see is its effects on our world around us. It is not a localized phenomenon, but permeates every aspect of the world around us. Sunlight does not have an agenda or purpose. It defines everything’s purpose. Sunlight did not have a reason why it is letting us see everything. It did not choose to allow us to see everything. We see everything because of it. Our sight and vision is a byproduct of it.

God is the unseen sunlight. We cannot see or be aware of God, just as we will never scientifically prove God’s existence. We can see and be aware of God’s effects. We can see these reflections of God. These reflections of God are the Spirit of God and the Spirit of God is never the less a very real and living aspect of God. Existence is a byproduct of God’s nature just as vision is a byproduct of the existence of sunlight. And just as shadows are a necessary byproduct of sunlight, so too is evil a byproduct of our existence – Free will. Can it be said that sunlight created shadows? No, not purposely. But is sunlight responsible for shadows? Yes, definitely. Can God be said to have created evil? No, not deliberately. But is God responsible for evil? This successfully addresses the problem with Isaiah 45:7, KJV. Is this god the author of evil? Yes God is the author of evil yet is Himself absolutely not evil.

Creation’s Cascade to Sin

There is a cascade effect from God’s Goodness. A byproduct of God’s Goodness is Creation. A byproduct of Creation is Free Will. A byproduct of Free Will is Evil, or Sin. The byproducts of Evil or Sin, are pain, misery, and suffering. This cascade effect is the out-flowing of God’s Goodness or Love. It permeates everything but can potentially be stopped by Free Will. Sin therefore is not really the absence of God’s will, but the blockage of it.

If we return to the analogy of sunlight we’ll find that the Sun in the diagram is God. The Sunlight is God’s Goodness, which naturally flows from Him. The windows are humanity - or us - and the blinds of the windows represent our Free Will. We have the ability to choose whether the blinds remain open or closed. If we choose to keep our blinds open, then this cascade effect continues into and through us bringing us sunlight (God’s Love). If we choose to keep our blinds closed (which is sin and the blockage of God) then the result is shadows and darkness, which is sin. Now the consequences of shadows or darkness are as follows. When we attempt to walk around our house in the dark we are relatively successful because we know our own homes. However when we stub our toe on the bed’s leg and break it – which is the consequence of walking in the dark - we suffer pain and misery. Now although God can be said to be responsible for all of this cascade effect, He cannot be blamed for it, because it wasn’t a deliberate act. It is all a byproduct of His nature. I feel this properly addresses the problem of God being the author of evil as Isaiah 45:7 states. It is also interesting to look at various translations of this verse. Most translate it as something more akin to “I create darkness”, or “disaster” rather than “I create evil.” The translation of “I create darkness” matches this “Creation’s Cascade to Sin” very well. Darkness or shadows being a byproduct of God’s out-pouring light.

I feel we have established that God is responsible for the existence of evil but He is not to be blamed for it – as a fault - as it wasn’t a deliberate act. However, what is a direct, conscientious, and deliberate act is His intervention to free us from stubbing our toes. He entered our universe and became one of us. He would stub His toe once and for all and show us how to avoid breaking our toes. He would make the point known that we absolutely do not know our own houses as well as we believe we do – we cannot walk around in the dark without getting hurt. Jesus’ redefining of the Commandments is evidence of this. Before Christ most people could say, “at least I never committed adultery!” Jesus’ redefining of adultery to include even lust in your heart would seem to set us all up for a fall. It’s a command we cannot obey and a standard we cannot live up to! His point was not to suggest that we are all useless failures but to say that we need God – we need sunlight to navigate through our houses – regardless if we think we know our homes well enough or not.


What is Eternity? Some would answer that Eternity is forever. I would only partially agree with that answer. That answer is only half-correct. Let’s look at the word “forever”. Forever is in a temporal and historical context. The “fore-“ is similar to “forward” signifying direction - from here onward. It is measurable. The same can be said of forever. Starting from this point in time and endlessly onwards. However, “endlessness” is absolutely not the same as eternal. They are not the same. “Endlessness” may not have an end but it can have a beginning. Endlessness and Eternal are not the same. If we enter some sort of state of forever we can say that at this one (measurable) point in time and history we became endless. We can’t measure anything beyond that point because it’s a different state, but we can mark down on our calendars that one point in time. Something that is Eternal cannot be measured, cannot have a measurable point in time or history. To enter a state of Eternalness may only be recorded historically as an exit point. We exited this state and entered another state.

We must be very aware of two very different realms or states of being - the Infinite and the Finite - the Temporal and the Non-temporal. There exist two continuums. Our world exists within a time-stream. We have history. We can record when things happen. We exist within a time-stream, a Temporal Continuum. When we die our souls go dormant and wait for the End Time (again, another historical point in time yet to come). We are judged, and for those who receive eternal life (salvation) pass into Heaven and the presence of God. But this is critically important! We pass into eternal life. We exit this state or temporal world and enter another non-temporal state or world. We exit the time-stream and the implication is significant. We cease to be time-orientated beings. Even though our death, judgement and salvation may all have a chronological, measurable, and recorded sequence, our eternal lives do not. They exist eternally. They exist outside this time-space continuum, and to exist outside of time-stream is to be immeasurable, and timeless. It creates somewhat of a paradox. If an individual receives salvation within (or at the end of) our world, then in this other state of being, they have already and forever have received it. We (our “future” spiritual selves) could potentially co-exist side-by-side with our current very physical, very temporal selves.

Let us look at this from another point of view; from our own living point of view: We live our lives. At some point in our lives we die. In the grave we enter soul-sleep – in which we have no awareness. From our own perspective we would die and then open our eyes to be greeted by Christ and immediately stand before God for judgement. Although hundreds, or thousands, or millions of years may have passed we would have no recollection of it. We receive salvation (hopefully) and enter eternal life, exiting this temporal state. In this newly acquired eternal life we would now have access to all existence, which would include the historical time of our physical and temporal lives.

Therefore if we will receive salvation then we already have. We currently exist in our eternal lives. Granted we may not recognize ourselves or no have access, but we would co-exist. I believe this is exactly what Paul was speaking of when he said

"For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the likeness of
his Son, that he might be the firstborn among his brothers. And those he
predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he
justified, he also glorified."

Romans 8:29-30 NIV

So, to say that eternity means forever is only half-correct. Eternity more correctly is not forever, but for always. (It applies both forward and backwards in time).

This theory is interesting because it readily accepts two seemingly contradictory points of view or beliefs.

One school of thought is that upon death judgement is immediate and the saved soul passes immediately to Heaven and the presence of God. The other school of thought is that upon death the soul goes into a soul-sleep and waits for Judgement Day. Both can be correct. From the deceased point of view judgement and salvation would be immediate. Upon entering this new eternal-life state of being their existence would cover their perceived “now”.

It is interesting to note that certain sects of Gnostics believed that it was crucially important to find one’s divine, or heavenly, counter-part. It was only through the discovery (and potential joining) of their heavenly or spiritual “twin” could they become enlightened and receive gnosis (knowledge). The interpreted assumption was that our world mirrored the divine world. But if this idea is applied it takes on a completely new perspective. Only those “chosen” or “saved” have the potential to find or discover their “divine” counter-parts, having already been saved. This could potentially be the fusion of three radically different beliefs. I believe it also offers an alternative to the Arminian-Calvinist theological debate. This is neither one nor the other.

An Eternally Existent Finite Universe:
God’s Glass Marble

Imagine a glass marble. Within its center is a bright light with various rays or beams of light streaking out to its outer edge. This glass ball represents the whole of Creation; our entire created universe. The smooth outer surface of this ball is the end of our universe. The very center of the bright light in its center is the birth or creation of our universe – the Big Bang if you will. The rays or beams of light streaking out are galaxies, stars, and planets travelling through space and forward through time. Time would be represented as the distance from the center, similar to counting rings on a tree stump. The further away from the center, the further into this universe’s finite history you would find yourself – the outer edge being the end of the universe and the end of time. Although the universe is finite (having both a beginning and an end), viewed like a glass ball, this whole could exist eternally. God could carry this glass ball around in His pocket like a young boy carries a marble. It would always exist and would always accompany Him. In this “state” it would be completely static. Time would not flow.

History would be laid out in plain view from the beginning to the end, from Alpha to Omega.
However, the analogy of the boy and his marble must end here because God can do something the boy can never do. God can dip His finger into the glass marble! As He enters, Time ceases to be frozen and static and become a stream - history. God can enter the Time-stream, thus exiting His “state” of eternalness.
Other Implications of a God Outside of Time.

1 Lee Strobel, The Case For A Creator, pg. 109
2 Bernard Simon, The Essence of the Gnostics, pg. 147

No comments: