In light of Einstein’s conclusion that time is relative, how can you believe that God is not above time?

Relatively Theory basically stipulates that whether an event is viewed as being in the past, present or future depends on where one is in relation to the event in question as well as how fast one is moving. Some people conclude from this that Relativity Theory lends support to the classical view of God in which God views all events of history as “an eternal now.” Since the open view of the future says that God faces a future partly comprised of possibilities, these people think Relativity Theory refutes the open view.

While this argument is commonly recited in books critical of the open view, it actually is based on a misunderstanding of Relativity Theory. Relativity Theory (both special and general relativity) apply only to finite points of reference within the space-time universe. An event “x” is past to one person, for example, present to another, and future to a third only because each of these people is a finite point of reference who is separated from the other two and who is (perhaps) traveling at a different velocity than the other two. Moreover, being separated from each other and the event in question, each must rely on light, traveling at a finite speed (186,000 miles per second) to convey information about the event. It is because of these conditions — and only because of these conditions — that each person experiences the time of the event in question differently.

But God, obviously, is not limited to any of these conditions. God is not finite, situated in one location over and against other locations or moving at a particular velocity. God is omnipresent—which means there is no distance between him and anything or any event in the universe. God is thus contemporary with every event. And so the timing of an event is not relative to God.

In other words, God knows when “now” is — in contrast to the past and future. God’s omnipresent “now” encompasses all the “nows” of every event and every point of reference. There is, therefore, a real past, a real future, and a real “now” for God. No finite point of reference — like a human being, for example — can have access to this “now.” For us, “when” an event happens is relative. But it is not for God.

An important aspect of the common misunderstanding of Relativity Theory is the mistaken idea that Relativity Theory applies to the future as well as to the present and past. It’s true that an event may lie in my future that is already present or past from other perspectives. Indeed, all events that a person experiences, other than those they themselves originate, are already past by the time they experience them, for it took light, traveling at a finite speed, to convey information about the event to them. But there is no perspective in which the events a person originates lie in the future for that person. Relativity theory actually rules out this possibility. In this sense Relativity Theory actually presupposes, rather than undermines, the reality of time.

So, there is nothing in Relativity Theory that argues against the Open View’s understanding that God faces a real future that is partly comprised of possibilities.

Further Reading
Perhaps the best book I’ve read that proves that Relativity Theory doesn’t undermine the reality of time is William Craig’s Time and Eternity. There’s also an excellent (but rather technical) discussion of Relativity Theory, arguing that it actually presupposes the reality of time rather than arguing against it, in Milic Capek’s, The Philosophical Impact of Contemporary Physics.

Related Reading

What do you think of Thomas Aquinas’ view of God?

Question: You have written (in Trinity and Process) that the relational God of the Bible is the antithesis of the immutable God of Thomas Aquinas. Could you explain this? Answer: Aquinas and much of the classical theological tradition borrowed heavily from Aristotle’s notion of God as an “unmoved mover.” God moves the world but remains…

What is the significance of Genesis 22:12 ?

Abraham passed God’s “test” (vs. 1) by being willing to sacrifice his son. The Lord says “…now I know that you fear God, since you have not withheld your son…” If the classical understanding of foreknowledge is true, God’s statement “now I know” seems disingenuous. The meaning of God’s explanation for this knowledge — “since…

Topics:

Who Rules Governments? God or Satan? Part 2

In the previous post, I raised the question of how we reconcile the fact that the Bible depicts both God and Satan as the ruler of nations, and I discussed some classical ways this has been understood. In this post I want to offer a cross-centered approach to this classical conundrum that provides us with…

How do you respond to Isaiah 14:24, 27?

The Lord of hosts has sworn: As I have designed, so shall it be; and as I have planned, so shall it come to pass… For the Lord of hosts has planned, and who will annul it? his hand is stretched out, and who will turn it back? The fact that Scripture frequently speaks of…

How do you respond to Romans 9?

The Deterministic Interpretation of Romans 9 Many people believe that Romans 9 demonstrates that God has the right and power to save whichever individuals he wants to save and damn whichever individuals he wants to damn. I’ll call this the “deterministic” reading of Romans 9, for it holds that God determines who will be saved…

Open2013 Speakers (Video)

Here’s all of the videos of the speakers and their Q&A’s from Open2013. Unfortunately, there was a mix-up and we didn’t get Jessica Kelley’s presentation taped. We’re working to get her to speak again so we can get that to you. Thanks for posting this on youtube T. C.! And now, without further ado… Greg…

Topics: