What is the difference between "God eternal outside time" (eternity) and "God everlasting in time" (sempiternity), and which position do the Islamic and Christian traditions adopt?

The question of God's relation to time is among the most complex issues in philosophy of religion, revolving around two distinct conceptions: timeless eternity and temporal sempiternity. The difference between them is fundamental and has deep philosophical and theological implications, and the Islamic and Christian traditions have dealt with this issue in both overlapping and divergent ways.

Inadequate Responses to be Avoided

From some defenders of monotheism:

"God is clearly outside time in both traditions." Misleading simplification. Both traditions contain multiple voices, and even great thinkers disagreed on this issue. Al-Ghazālī, for instance, has a different position from Ibn Rushd, and Augustine differs from Duns Scotus.

"Sempiternity likens God to creatures." Hasty judgment. Proponents of divine sempiternity do not equate God with creatures, but rather distinguish between limited temporal existence (for creatures) and unlimited temporal existence (for God).

"The issue is verbal, not real." Underestimates the importance of a debate with serious implications for understanding divine knowledge, divine will, and the relationship between God and the world.

From some critics:

"The idea of eternity outside time is logically contradictory." A claim that requires precise proof. Contemporary philosophers like Stump and Kretzmann have developed coherent models of atemporal eternity.

"The Islamic tradition clearly adopts sempiternity." Selective reading. Many texts in Islamic kalām and philosophy point to God's transcendence over time.

Why These Responses are Inadequate

They fail to recognize that the issue involves multiple layers: metaphysical (what is the nature of time?), logical (is atemporal existence conceivable?), theological (what are the implications of each position for divine attributes?), and historical (how have positions developed in both traditions?).

Basic Conceptual Distinction

Timeless Eternity: God exists in a way that completely transcends time. There is no "before" or "after" in divine existence. All temporal moments are present before God in a single "eternal now." Classical representatives: Boethius, Augustine, Anselm, Thomas Aquinas in Christianity; al-Fārābī, Ibn Sīnā, and al-Ghazālī (in some of his works) in Islam.

Basic arguments:
- Divine perfection requires absolute immutability, and time implies change
- Divine simplicity conflicts with temporal composition (past/present/future)
- Absolute divine knowledge requires seeing all events "all at once"

Temporal Sempiternity: God exists in time but without beginning or end. He has an unlimited past and unlimited future. He experiences temporal succession but in a perfect way. Representatives: Duns Scotus, William of Ockham, Richard Swinburne in Christianity; Ibn Taymiyya and some later Ash'arite theologians in Islam.

Basic arguments:
- Scripture/Qur'an describes God with temporal actions (created, sent, will judge)
- Real relationship with creatures requires existence in the same temporal framework
- Response to prayer and interaction with events necessitates some form of temporality

Philosophical Complexities

The issue is not a simple binary. Intermediate positions have emerged:

"Eternity-with-temporality" (Stump-Kretzmann): Eleonore Stump and Norman Kretzmann developed in the 1980s a model attempting synthesis: God is eternal but has a kind of non-temporal "duration" that allows for real relationship with temporal beings.

"Atemporality without stasis" (Leftow): Brian Leftow proposed that God can be outside time without being "static," but rather having a kind of eternal "life."

"Relative temporality" (Craig after 2000): William Lane Craig—after his long defense of atemporality—shifted to a hybrid position: God was atemporal "before" creation and became temporal "with" creation.

Positions in the Islamic Tradition

The Islamic tradition is not unified on this issue:

The Philosophical Current (Muslim Philosophers): Al-Fārābī and Ibn Sīnā strongly adopted divine atemporality. For them, God is "dahr" not "zamān," where dahr contrasts with temporal zamān. Ibn Rushd defended this position against al-Ghazālī's attacks.

Early Kalām Current: Early Ash'arites and Māturīdites distinguished between attributes of essence (azalī) and attributes of action (ḥāditha), suggesting a composite position. Al-Bāqillānī and al-Juwaynī developed precise concepts of eternity.

Ḥanbalī/Salafī Current: Ibn Taymiyya and his school strongly rejected divine atemporality and adopted temporal sempiternity. Their basic argument: the Qur'an describes God with renewed actions, which necessitates some form of temporality.

Philosophical Sufism: Ibn 'Arabī and his school developed extremely complex concepts that transcend simple binaries. His "eternal time" is not our time, but it is not pure atemporality either.

Positions in the Christian Tradition

The Augustinian-Thomistic Line: Augustine established the idea of divine atemporality in Christian theology, influenced by Neoplatonism. Thomas Aquinas developed it philosophically: God is "all at once" (totum simul).

The Ockhamist-Scotist Challenge: Duns Scotus and William of Ockham raised serious questions about the possibility of real relationship between an atemporal God and a temporal world. Their current paved the way for broader acceptance of sempiternity.

Protestant Theology: Divided. Calvin maintained atemporality, but later theologians like Oscar Cullmann adopted divine temporality.

Analytic Philosophy of Religion: Sharp division. Swinburne, van Inwagen, Hasker favor sempiternity; Stump, Leftow, Helm favor eternity.

Theological Implications

Each position has implications:

Implications of Atemporality:
- Divine knowledge: knowing all events "all at once"—solves the problem of foreknowledge and freedom
- Divine will: one comprehensive eternal decision
- Problem: how does God interact with prayer? How does He "respond"?

Implications of Sempiternity:
- Divine knowledge: knowledge renewed with renewed events—problem with foreknowledge
- Divine will: multiple decisions across time
- Problem: does God change? Does He wait? Does He regret?

Contemporary Discussions (2010-2024)

The debate has evolved thanks to:

Contemporary Philosophy of Time: Relativity theory complicated the concept of "now," affecting the debate. Is divine atemporality closer to the four-dimensional block universe?

Open Theism: A Protestant movement strongly adopting sempiternity, claiming the future is "open" even to God.

Academic Islamic-Christian Dialogue: Precise comparisons between positions, especially between Thomas Aquinas and Ibn Sīnā, and between Ibn Taymiyya and Process Theology.

Where We Stand Today

There is no consensus, but trends can be identified:

- Analytic philosophers of religion are roughly equally divided
- Traditional theologians (Catholic/Orthodox/Ash'arite) tend toward atemporality
- "Biblical" theologians (Evangelical/Salafī) tend toward sempiternity
- Emergence of increasingly hybrid and intermediate positions

The most mature position today acknowledges that both positions attempt to protect important theological truths, and that human language may be inadequate to fully express the divine relationship to time.

For Advanced Reading

- Advanced level: Time in relativity theory and its impact on the issue
- Advanced level: Ibn Taymiyya's critique of philosophers on the issue of beginningless temporal events
- Eleonore Stump & Norman Kretzmann, "Eternity" (1981)
- Brian Leftow, Time and Eternity (Cornell UP, 1991)
- William Lane Craig, God, Time, and Eternity (Kluwer, 2001)
- Sulaymān Dunyā, "mas'alat al-zamān 'inda al-Ghazālī" (1965)
- "Formulation: God's Relation to Time" page on the website