Apologetics
Southwestern Journal of Theology
Volume 60, No. 2 – Spring 2018
Managing Editor: W. Madison Grace II
New York: Oxford University Press, 2016. xxiv + 248 pages. Hardcover, $110.00.
The End of the Timeless God is the newest addition to the Oxford Studies in Analytic Theology series. Analytic theology, simply put, is theology done in tune with the resources of analytic philosophy. Author Ryan Mullins capably brings these resources to bear in arguing against the “divine timeless research program,” which rests on adherence to four hypotheses: divine timelessness, divine simplicity, strong immutability, and strong impassibility (10). This program, it is argued, ought to be rejected both because it is internally incoherent and because it raises more problems than it solves. While Mullins is careful in laying out his case, the book assumes a readership having facility in metaphysics as well as some background familiarity with the existing literature concerning God and time.
Following a particularly helpful preface establishing the need for greater precision in work on divine eternality, the book’s first chapter sketches the divine timeless research program to be examined. Noting that “it makes no sense to ask what God’s relation to x is if one does not have a clue what x in fact is” (13), Mullins’s second chapter takes up the question “What is Time?” Developments in the philosophy of time factor prominently in contemporary approaches to the God and time question, and Mullins shows he is well acquainted with these developments. Although duly emphasizing the ontology of time, Mullins’s somewhat dismissive stance toward the A- versus B-theory debate (24–25) will no doubt surprise certain readers. Regardless, whereas appeal to the B-theory of time is generally regarded as the only available (albeit undesirable) option for divine timelessness, Mullins positions himself to argue that timelessness is compatible with neither presentism nor eternalism. This strategy suggests a real advance in the God and time literature. Turning in chapter three to the question, “What is eternity?” Mullins explicates the understanding on offer from the timelessness research program and its interplay with that program’s four hypotheses. Pointed questions are raised at each juncture, but the book’s main argument begins in the fourth chapter.
The opening burden of chapter four is to promote a decidedly minority reading of the classical theists as proponents of presentism (rather than eternalism, which he dismisses as anachronistic). Resting as it does on the repeated assertion that presentism is assumed (76, 79, 82, cf. 52) in these writings, scholars of these figures are unlikely to find compelling reason to alter already settled views. What some will perceive as undue haste in this section notwithstanding, one appreciates Mullins’s historical mindedness—especially his interaction with the medievals—throughout this and the preceding chapter. Chapter four rounds out with a consideration of the (bleak) prospects of holding timelessness, presentism, and omniscience. Turning to the doctrine of creation, chapter five continues the demonstration of the timeless research program’s incompatibility with presentism, arguing that a timeless God can neither create nor sustain a presentist universe. The latter argument naturally raises the question of God’s “real relation” with creation, and Mullins convincingly shows that “the denial that God is really related to creation brings about severe incoherence within Christian theology and practice” (122).
Having argued that the timeless research program is incompatible with presentism, Mullins shifts his focus in chapter six to argue that it fares no better in conjunction with eternalism. Not only can such a view not support creation ex nihilo (135), Mullins argues, it entails a modal collapse—meaning “there is no contingency for everything is absolutely necessary” (138). Moreover, the crucial distinction between “begotten” and “made” cannot be maintained on an eternalist ontology, and as Mullins keenly observes, “that is not a good position to be in if one holds to the eternal generation of the Son” (143). Chapter seven, the longest of the book, maintains that there is no acceptable model of the Incarnation that is compatible with the timeless research program. Particular attention is paid to the “two-minds” view (which is rejected as Nestorian), and Mullins rightly highlights the unacceptable implication of an eternally incarnate Christ implied on eternalism (187). Certain readers, however, will be nonplussed by Mullins’s assumption (188) that eternal subordination is tantamount to inequality. Nevertheless, the chapter is richly thought-provoking, pushing readers to choose between timelessness or the Incarnation.
Overall, The End of the Timeless God is a formidable critique of the timeless research program, both resharpening familiar arguments as well as forging new ones. Mullins is an engaging writer, notwithstanding the occasional jarring turn of phrase (e.g., “eternal generation and procession are an ineffable mystery, and…I find ineffable mysteries to be incoherent and repugnant to Christian theology,” 102). Proponents of relationalism, quite comfortable affirming a beginning of time, will detect Mullins’s penchant for the absolute view of time latent at several points (e.g., 67, 86, 151). Certain temporalists justifiably will cry foul in response to assertions such as “there is little sense in claims that God is timeless sans creation but temporal with creation” (73), “if God is timeless, He is necessarily timeless” (73), and “if there is a state of affairs where God exists without creation and another where God exists with creation, God has a before and after in His life” (133), and it is regrettable that space limitations seem to have prevented substantive engagement with those who have put forth major arguments to the contrary. Still, The End of the Timeless God presents a well-developed case deserving careful consideration.
