Creation or becoming as a philosophical and theological problem has always been one of the main controversial issues of philosophers and theologians. It is sometimes defended that creation is an instant act or event; sometimes it is thought that creation is a process without a beginning. In this article, the approaches of Ibn Arabī and Ibn Taymiyya to the issue of creation are examined and compared. These two scholars mainly advocate that it is not possible for creation to begin at (...) a certain time as an instant event. According to them, while nothing material can be co-eternal with God, He has always been creating and manifesting from eternity because of His perfection. This study argues that when this issue is taken in its various aspects, it will be seen that Ibn Arabī and Ibn Taymiyya stand together about the issue against both philosophers and theologians. (shrink)

Divine temporality is all the rage in certain theological circles today. Some even suggesting that the doctrine of the Trinity entails divine temporality. While I find this claim a bit strong, I do think that divine temporality can be quite useful for developing a robust model of the Trinity. However, not everyone agrees with this. Paul Helm has offered an objection to the so-called Oxford school of divine temporality based on the Christian doctrine of the Trinity. He has argued that (...) this form of divine temporality entails Arianism. In other words, divine temporality suffers from an inadequate doctrine of the Trinity. In this paper I shall first articulate the so-called Oxford school of divine temporality. From there I shall develop some of the Oxford school’s theological benefits that help flesh out the doctrine of the Trinity, and assuage the charge of Arianism. Then I shall offer an examination and refutation of the Arian charge to divine temporality in order to show that the divine temporalist can maintain a robust Trinitarian theology. (shrink)