Abstract This essay provides the first critical analysis of Pavel Florensky's (1882‐1937) doctrine of divine timelessness. I contend that three of Florensky's arguments could be used to supplement a cumulative case for divine timelessness. First, I examine the Eastern Orthodox approach to divine timelessness by focusing on certain patristic texts and conciliar statements. This offers the necessary context for Florensky's own insistence on divine timelessness. I then turn to contemporary divine temporalism. Finally, I examine Florensky's own writings, showing how he held to what is now referred to as the ‘classical view’ of God as utterly timeless or a‐temporal, for which he proposed three original arguments: (1) the argument from the Self‐Proving Subject, (2) the argument from liturgical experience, and (3) the argument from memory. Together they reveal Florensky's unique contribution to a lively and ongoing debate which sits on the crossroads between theology and philosophy.
Harry James Moore (Thu,) studied this question.