relation to any creature of his as though it could even in any way exist without him. Rather, he
himself puts all things in those relations to himself, which he eternally and immutably wills—
precisely in the way in which and at the time at which these relations occur. There is absolutely
no “before” or “after” in God; these words apply only to things that did not exist before, but do
exist afterward.40 It is God’s immutable being itself that calls into being and onto the stage before
him the mutable beings who possess an order and law that is uniquely their own.
Infinity
[194] When applied to time, God’s immutability is called eternity; when applied to space, it is
called omnipresence. From time to time the two have been included under the umbrella term of
“divine infinity.” As such the term “infinity,” however, is ambiguous. In the first place, it can be
used negatively in the sense of “endless.” A thing is called endless when in fact it has no end though
conceivably it could have. In philosophy the term has often been applied to God in that sense.
Neoplatonism, for example, viewed God in that sense as being without boundary and form, totally
indeterminate, boundless, an overflowing fullness fromwhich the universe emanated.41 Similarly,
the Kabbalah spoke of God as the boundless one (
ין
ֵ
א
סוֹף
), without limit and form, who in the ten
sephiroth created intermediate forms between the infinite and the finite.42 Later, Spinoza’s
philosophy won acceptance for this concept of God’s infinity. Spinoza’s “substance,” that is, God,
is not a being distinct from the world; rather, it is that which constitutes the basic stuff in
creatures and hence is automatically infinite, absolutely undetermined being. All determination,
accordingly, is negation, deprivation, a lack of existence. God, however, transcends all limitation
and definition. He is nondetermined substance. Extension is one of his attributes.43 In Hegel this
concept of infinity again acquires another meaning because he conceives of Spinoza’s substance,
not as eternal and immutable being, but as absolute becoming. Hence, God was called infinite
because he could become anything and everything, somewhat like “the infinite” (
ἀ
π
ειρον
) in
Anaximander’s system, which, though itself indeterminate, could produce all sorts of things.
The error of this view is that it takes the lowest common denominator the intellect can obtain
from finite things by abstraction and equates this abstraction with the infinite. It was precisely
the goal of the philosophy of identity to derive the particular from the general, the specific from
the nonspecific, the finite from the infinite, by process thinking. God as such is infinite
potentiality; he then becomes finite, personal, conscious, determinate in the creatures, which are
his self-manifestation. But this view is untenable. Infinity is not a negative but a positive concept;
it means, not that God has no distinct being of his own, but that he is not limited by anything
finite and creaturely. Of course, such a denial of creaturely limitation can be variously construed.
If one means that God cannot be confined by time, his infinity coincides with his eternity. If one
means that God cannot be confined by space, then his infinity coincides with his omnipresence.
This in fact is howGod’s infinity is often defined.44 But infinity can also be construed in the sense
that God is unlimited in his virtues, that in him every virtue is present in an absolute degree. In
