2. What does Boethius mean when he calls God “eternal”? “ The common opinion, according to all men living, is that God is eternal. Let us therefore consider what eternity is, for this will make clear to us the same time the divine nature and the divine knowledge. Now, eternity is the complete possession of an endless life enjoyed as one simultaneous whole; this will appear clearer from a comparison with temporal things [things inside time].” (150) Comment: As human beings, we are “temporal things”—we exist inside a time line…
3. “ For whatever is living in time proceeds in the present from times past to times future; and nothing existing in time is so constituted as to embrace the whole span of its life at once, but it has not yet grasped tomorrow, while it has already lost yesterday. In this life of today you are living in no more than a fleeting, transitory moment.” (150) Comment: Let’s look at a simple diagram to compare human time with Boethius’ description of God’s relationship to time…
6. “… God should not be regarded as older than His creations by any quantity of time but rather by the peculiar quality of simplicity in his nature…Since, then, every judgment comprehends the objects of its thought according to its own nature, and since God has an ever present and eternal state, His knowledge also, surpassing every temporal movement, remains in the simplicity of its own present and, embracing infinite lengths of past and future, views with its own simple comprehension all things as if they were taking place in the present.” (151) Comment: Boethius calls this “ pro vision,” and not “ pre vision.”
7. The human past × The human present The human future GOD IN THE ETERNAL PRESENT (OUTSIDE OF HUMAN, LINEAR TIME)
8. “ Yet, if one may not unworthily compare the human present with the divine, just as you see certain things in this, your temporal present, so God sees all things in His eternal present. Wherefore this divine foreknowledge does not change the nature or properties of things: it sees things present to its contemplations just as they will turn out some time in the future…For example, when you observe at the same time a man walking on the earth and the sun rising in the sky, although you see both sights simultaneously, nevertheless you distinguish between them and judge that one is moving voluntarily, the other necessarily; in like manner the intuition of God looks down upon all things without at all disturbing their nature, yet they are present to Him and future in relation to time.” (151) Comment: Let’s look at one last diagram to illustrate this…
10. What are the benefits and drawbacks of Boethius’ argument? What is gained and what is lost by adopting this perspective on God’s relationship to time? How do you think this argument relates to Boethius’ desire to adhere to a strict view of monotheism (belief in one God)? For example, how does this depiction of God as “simple” and unchanging support monotheism?
11. If Boethius is right, and God exists completely outside of human time, is it worthless to pray? Here is what Boethius says about this. What do you think he means? “ God is the ever prescient spectator of all things, and the eternity of His vision, which is ever present, runs in unison with the future nature of our acts, dispensing rewards to the good, punishments to the evil. Hopes are not vainly put in God nor prayers vainly offered which, if they be right, cannot be ineffective. Therefore turn from vice, cultivate virtue, raise your heart to legitimate hope, direct humble prayers to the heavens. If you will only not dissemble [not be dishonest], a great necessity for righteousness is laid upon you, since you live under the eyes of the Judge who discerns all.” (152)
12.
13. “ The biblical writers do not present God as some passive factor within reality but as an agent in it. Further, they present him as acting within human history…More specifically, the biblical writers present God as a redeeming God. From times most ancient, man has departed from the pattern of responsibilities awarded him at his creation by God. A multitude of evils has followed. But God was not content to leave man in the mire of his misery. Aware of what is going on, he has resolved, in response to man’s sin and its resultant evils, to bring about renewal. He has, indeed, already been acting in accord with that resolve, centrally and decisively in the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ…God the Redeemer cannot be a God eternal. This is so because God the Redeemer is a God who changes .” (153-154)
14.
15. YES—But Wolterstorff tries to reconcile these apparently contradictory views by arguing that even though God’s actions can change over time (for example, in response to human needs), God’s essence (core nature) remains unchanged.
16. What are the benefits and drawbacks of Wolterstorff’s argument? What is gained and what is lost by adopting this perspective on God’s relationship to time? Who is more persuasive? Boethius or Wolterstorff? Why? Do you have to choose one view, or can they both be right? In general, do you think the eternal/everlasting debate is important to defining a concept of God? Why or why not?
![What does Boethius mean when he calls God “eternal”? “ The common opinion, according to all men living, is that God is eternal. Let us therefore consider what eternity is, for this will make clear to us the same time the divine nature and the divine knowledge. Now, eternity is the complete possession of an endless life enjoyed as one simultaneous whole; this will appear clearer from a comparison with temporal things [things inside time].” (150) Comment: As human beings, we are “temporal things”—we exist inside a time line…]()