God Is Sovereign!

Let us look at the following verse which speak of God's original design:

"Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain" (Acts 2:23).

The murderers of the Lord Jesus Christ acted in fulfillment of a divine decree but at the same time their act of killing the Lord Jesus cannot be attributed to anything but their own "free will"--"And by wicked hands have crucified and slain" the Lord of Glory.

If someone wants to attribute the actions of those hands as coming from God because "He makes all of the events of the universe fulfill His original design" then we must imagine that God can be the source of wicked acts.

I cannot believe that this is true.

In His grace,
Jerry

What about the "free will" of Adam and Eve? According to Dr. Pettegrew it was God who was ultimately responsible for their act of sinning:

So we must believe that neither Adam nor Eve had free will because in the end they were destined to sin because of the "continuous action of God by which He makes all of the events of the universe fulfill His original design."

And what was the result of these sins of which God bears the responsibility? The Westminister Confession of Faith says, "They being the root of all mankind, the guilt of this sin was imputed;and the same death in sin, and corrupted nature, conveyed to all their posterity descending from them by ordinary generation.From this original corruption, whereby we are utterly indisposed, disabled, and made opposite to all good and wholly inclined to all evil, do proceed all actual transgressions."

So if Dr. Pettegrew is right then in the end it is God who was responsible for the following "wickedness":

"Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain" (Acts 2:23).

I do not think that Dr. Pettegrew's assertion is correct because I do not believe that God can be responsible for any wicked act.

That does not change the fact that Dr. Pettegrew places the ultimate responsibility of Adam's sin and Eve's sin on God:

By what Dr. Pettegrew says we can only conclude that Adam's "rebelling against God at the devil's instigation and by his own free will" was a result of "that continuous action of God by which He makes all of the events of the universe fulfill His original design."

So it Dr. Pettegrew assertion is correct then it is God who is responsible for the following:

"They being the root of all mankind, the guilt of this sin was imputed;and the same death in sin, and corrupted nature, conveyed to all their posterity descending from them by ordinary generation.From this original corruption, whereby we are utterly indisposed, disabled, and made opposite to all good and wholly inclined to all evil, do proceed all actual transgressions."

So if Dr. Pettegrew is right then in the end it is God who is responsible for the following "wickedness":

"Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain" (Acts 2:23).

I do not think that Dr. Pettegrew's assertion is correct because I do not believe that God can be responsible for any wicked act.

In His grace,
Jerry

Dr. Pettegrew wrote:

According to this it is a continuous action of God by which He "makes all of the events of the universe fulfill His original design." If that is true then the event of the crucifixion and killing of the Lord Jesus is of God's making, since "He makes all of the events of the universe fulfill His original design."

According to Dr. Pettegrew's assertion we must also believe that God was also responsible for the sin commited by Adam since according to him God "makes all of the events of the universe fulfill His original design."

Earlier I said: "That does not change the fact that Dr. Pettegrew places the ultimate responsibility of Adam's sin and Eve's sin on God:"

To this you said:

Evidently we have a different understanding of Dr. Pettegrew's words. What do you not understand about the meaning of the words "He makes all of the events" in the following statement?:

This statement here seems to be constructed in a way that lends itself to misinterpretation. It is left up to the reader, at this point, to wonder too much what is meant by original design thus they could easily miscalculate what is in view or they could rightly suspect what is in view, but either way its definition by the author would help in determining a more precise meaning. I have seen this reference used before but each time with a less than consistent use when compared to each user.

The most immediate question I can imagine someone asking if they are not sure as to what exactly is in view with the use of the term, original design, would be:

What other design does the author have in mind that exists which would require him to use the qualifier, original, in speaking of God's design and what is its place, if it exists, in consideration of the issue?

Isaiah 53:4
Isaiah 53:10
Rev.13:8
Acts 2:23

RP, saying that God has decreed all that happens and works it together for His glory is not the same as saying He is responsible for everything that happens. That inference is not a necessary one. In any case, saying He has ordained it and works it for His glory is nothing more than what Paul says in Eph.1:11. If Dr. P is saying "God is responsible for Adam's sin" then so is Paul. The phrase you've referred to in the article only paraphrases Eph. 1.11.

Alex, I think I'm safe in asserting here that by "original" Dr.P means basically "in the beginning." It's clear from the article as a whole that he does not believe there is any non-original plan. It's probably roughly equivalent to the biblical "from the foundation of the earth."

No time to comment, but just throw out this related quote from Calvin's Institutes:

In speaking of God's providence, "we make God the ruler and governor of all things, who in accordance with his wisdom has from the farthest limit of eternity decreed what he was going to do, and now by his might carries out what he has decreed. From this we declare that no only heaven and earth and the inanimate creatures, but also the plans and intentions of men, are so governed by his providence that they are borne by it straight to their appointed end." (vol. 1, 207)

I, too, suspected that, thanks for the affirmation.

A couple more observations I have.

Pettegrew states:

Never minding the example he gives after this quote, my interest is if, aside from Open Theists, is Pettegrew taking the approach that unless one is affirming the view he states they are automatically arguing the negative, that God is not in control?

I, personally, do not take Pettegrew’s view but do agree with much of what he says while firmly rejecting Open Theism. So my hope is that he believes there are those who do reject Open Theism but do affirm God is in control of all things and knows all things past, present and future yet do not do so with the terms and approach offered in his case. I suspect he does. But among the rest of us I know there has been the habit of using binary code to reduce this to either/or issues without recognition of acceptable and orthodox alternatives (without including Open Theism at all).

But as to this entry by Larry Pettegrew, I believe he escapes the charge of placing upon God the origin of evil. The “continuous action” of God does not necessitate that we view this action to be in the mind of Pettegrew or anyone else (unless stated specifically as such) as direct cause. As was quoted earlier, John MacArthur does a good job in presenting the role of evil under the stewardship of God’s sovereignty (bold and italics mine):

And it is important to note this because what Jerry S. has been arguing is actually an issue that arises when this doctrine is discussed with certain students and theologians. There is a healthy minority that urges others to assign blame to God for sourcing evil. They are also quite outspoken so I do understand Jerry’s response with respect to this argument. But I am not convinced that, apart from interpreting or at best taking by implication, Pettegrew is in this camp. In fact, as I said I believe he tries to make it clear he isn’t.

But I do also want to add that there are those who will mouth the view that God is not the author of evil yet, when handling things on a case by case basis, often they can be found either implying or explicitly (sometimes on purpose sometimes in ignorance) charging God with authoring evil. They oversimplify the sovereign mechanism.

For example, a loved one is murdered. Suddenly someone who does not take the theological position that God author’s evil will ascribe, either directly or by implication, that God chose for this person to die this way. Well, that is incorrect because it is incomplete and sends the wrong message. It takes the view that this was the decree of God with respect to his sovereign direct will as opposed to his sovereign passive superintending which allows for humans to make choices while God takes those choices and executes a divine determination. Worse, some forward the idea that God actually did intend for this to happen directly making him guilty of desiring sin. So these are elements that do arise but I believe Pettegrew is substantially far away from this posture in this case.

Jerry,

Do you believe that when discussing God's sovereignty and acknowledging that he permits or allows volitional creatures to act as they will, which in the case of evil the volition of an agent other than God was the source of its introduction to the plan of God, and God beforehand (in his infinite knowledge that is eternally before and after all things) decreed to allow it, is synonymous with blaming or assigning responsibility to God for evil?

It appears to me that so far no one has denied that under the superintendence of God's sovereign control he allows creatures with volitional capacity to act as they will. Now someone, after my saying this, might try to qualify what I just said in their agreement and if so I agree there might be an issue. But if my summary of the views expressed here is the case, so far the worst I have seen are references to theologians that in other parts of their work have directed students toward the erring view of an unintended overreach of divine sovereignty.

I do agree in some places some students and theologians err in their use of rationalism and philosophy (often strongly lead by Calvin's example but this is not meant to bring Calvin himself into the argument) and reason something like...(crudely put here) "Since God is sovereign and sovereignty means complete control, that is nothing escapes God's sovereignty, then ultimately God is responsible for both evil and good"....but I haven't seen this declared here and really not even implied.

And since God is sovereign, their action ultimately redounds to the glory of God!

I would be careful to avoid the temptation to oversimplify the matter and prescribe this potentially injurious formula here. That is to say if all one has in view is (1) God being sovereign and (2) within his sovereignty he allows volitional acts thus the product of the two, God's sovereignty and volitional action is always to God's glory, then it is vitally missing other variables for a proper formula. I would have to disqualify this statement if it were meant to stand without amplification and clarification.

A good reference here to use in recognizing the necessity that the two being added together are not meant to be a formula for claiming something has been done to the glory of God (divine sovereignty + human volition) is found in 1 Corinthians 10. I will post with selected verses and the culminating reference to doing "all to the glory of God" (bold and italics mine):

If Paul held to the formula as you have expressed he certainly did not employ it here. Because here Paul fills the passage before the final charge, "whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God" with a long list of things that clearly do not redound to the glory of God even though, if anyone did them, both God's sovereignty and volition would be active which was the formula offered earlier.

So, as I said, while not disagreeing with the general theme of what was said it needs to be qualified with amplification and clarity.

First, I do not see the difference between what some are saying here about God's sovereignty and what Dr. Pettegrew said. I think the problem here is a misunderstanding of what he actually said. Notice that in saying,

he does not say God "makes" or caused/causes the events to take place. He says that God makes these events (which could either be caused by God or by others) "fulfill his original design."

Second, Isa 57:15 says God is, "the High and Lofty One Who inhabits eternity." Any theology that makes God subject to time - which He created - will end up with these contradictions and problems. God does not "look back" to the past or "look forward" to the future as we do. He lives outside of time, which he created and thus is able to see our past, present and future from the same viewpoint - a viewpoint which is outside of time. Our inability to properly describe God's relationship to time comes directly from the fact that we are creatures of time and cannot think any other way.

Let us look what a well known Calvinist says of the same subject. A.W. Pink writes the following:

" 'In Him we live, and move, and have our being' (Acts 17:28). What a sweeping assertion is this! These words, be it noted, were addressed, not to one of the churches of God, not to a company of saints who had reached an exalted plane of spirituality, but to a heathen audience, to those who worshipped "the unknown God" and who "mocked" when they heard of the resurrection of the dead. And yet, to the Athenian philosophers, to the Epicureans and Stoics, the apostle Paul did not hesitate to affirm that they lived and moved and had their being in God, which signified not only that they owed their existence and preservation to the One who made the world and all things therein, but also that their very actions were encompassed and therefore controlled by the Lord of heaven and earth." [emphasis mine] (A.W. Pink, THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD, Chapter 3).

Let us look at the "very actions" which are supposedly controlled by God in these verses:

"Their throat is an open sepulchre; with their tongues they have used deceit; the poison of asps is under their lips: Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness: Their feet are swift to shed blood: Destruction and misery are in their ways: And the way of peace have they not known: There is no fear of God before their eyes. Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God" (Ro.3:13-19).

If these actions are controlled by God then how could it possibly be said that those who act in this way are "guilty before God"?

"Guilt" before God neccessarily denotes having committed an offense or crime before God. But if God controls those actions how could it be said that they were committing an offense against God? That weould make no sense at all.

This idea portrays the Lord God as one who would declare the lame guilty for limping and the blind guilty for not being able to see!

Daniel, I have been familiar with Pink's writings for many years and it was many years ago when I read the book you mention. Your letter did in fact awaken my thoughts about what he wrote on this subject and therefore I decided to quote his words and examine his ideas. Do you have any thoughts about what I said?

Jerry,
I'll concede that Jesus' sufferings for sin may have begun before the cross. (per #23)
But this doesn't really solve the perceived problem, and I should have recognized that before. God decreed the before-cross suffering just as much as He did the on-cross suffering and providentially ensured they would occur on schedule just as He did the cross.

As for what Dr. P. means by "continuous action of God by which He makes all of the events of the universe fulfill His original design." I've done all I can to explain that I think... as have others.
One last shot I suppose: I've read and heard enough of Dr.P to know that he is not of the opinion that God causes people to do things contrary to their own will. He ordains and they choose. Sovereignty and providence speak to the certainty that they will choose and to God's activity in determining that they will choose, but these principles do not involve compelling people to act against their will. Saying "He makes these things happen" is simply not the same as saying "He forces them to choose what they do not want to choose."

It may help to say a bit more about providence... I was just reading Fred Morritz's Contending for the Faith last night and was reminded that providence is generally understood to mean what God brings about by the use of secondary causes as opposed to what He does directly (I believe he quoted recent writers like Millard Erickson and Roland McCune on that point, but it goes way back). That understanding of providence is important background. So you could argue that he should have said "indirectly" before "makes" but when you're aiming to be brief you have to assume some things.

David, remember it was you who recommended that I read A.W. Pink in order that I could understand the Calvinist position on this subject. If you do not want to defend what he wrote that is up to you. The quote which I gave seems plain enough:

" 'In Him we live, and move, and have our being' (Acts 17:28). What a sweeping assertion is this! These words, be it noted, were addressed, not to one of the churches of God, not to a company of saints who had reached an exalted plane of spirituality, but to a heathen audience, to those who worshipped "the unknown God" and who "mocked" when they heard of the resurrection of the dead. And yet, to the Athenian philosophers, to the Epicureans and Stoics, the apostle Paul did not hesitate to affirm that they lived and moved and had their being in God, which signified not only that they owed their existence and preservation to the One who made the world and all things therein, but also that their very actions were encompassed and therefore controlled by the Lord of heaven and earth." [emphasis mine] (A.W. Pink, THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD, Chapter 3).

The last part which I bolded could not be any plainer. If I am reading it wrong then tell me exactly what he is saying.

If you think that the meaning which I put on Dr. Pettegrew's words are in error then give me a meaning which you think is correct and then we will discuss your version of the interpretation of his words.

Please be specific.

I am merely commenting on what he wrote. If you think that I am misrepresenting what he said then why don't you contact him so he can clear this up.

I have already answered that idea (see post # 13 on this thread).

Two questions for Jerry:

You stated:

You clearly believe He did not, so my question is this: Are you implying that there was no certainty of the crucifixion? For if God did not control the event (a.k.a. "make" it occur), then surely man could have acted differently. The eternal purpose of the Father for the Son (namely, to glorify Himself through Jesus' life and work amongst fallen humanity) would have been intuitive guess-work, at best a series of calculated risks, if your position is accurate.

Second question: Could you please clarify and support your exact understanding of "free will" from Scripture? If I understand your statement here, though I hope I am wrong, you are describing and affirming the doctrine of libertarian free will. This view is at the heart of Open Theism, and I beg you to employ caution if you are indeed affirming it.

By the way...

I'm fairly certain it is unnecessary to make this kind of comment on SI.

Jerry, you accuse Calvinists of believing God forces people to act against their will, thus giving them an excuse for their sin. What you describe is not Calvinism, but Hyper-Calvinism. Calvinists take what the Bible says and believe it, even if it doesn't make sense.
For instance:

God does not consult men, and he does not react to man. He works all things out according to His own purpose.

Sinful men are completely and totally responsible for their actions. They can blame no one but themselves.

This is what orthodox believers have affirmed for 2,000 years. This is what everybody on this thread seems to affirm over and over. We cannot reconcile these truths in our minds because we are limited, but we believe them because God has said them.

Jerry, 2 Pet 3:9 can be interpreted different ways than the one you mentioned. The question that needs to be asked in regards to that verse is who is the any? I believe most C would say, the elect. In other words, people throughout the centuries have said, look around, he has not come back yet, therefore I don't think He is coming back. But 2 Peter is making the case that God's timing is not our timing. He will come back when He desires. And part of that desire is that all His elect will come to repentance. I probably massacred that interpretation, nevertheless, it is not a far-fetched interpretation.

Please consider the words of Sir Robert Anderson on this point:

"The Lord Himself, though come down to earth that He might drink the cup which brimmed over upon Calvary, could pray, upon the very eve of Calvary, that that cup might pass from Him. He, 'the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world'- He, who, ere a few days had passed, could chide His doubting disciples with the word 'Ought not Christ to have suffeted these things?' recapitulating in their wondering ears the oft-told record of prophecy which Calvary fulfilled - He found, neither in that record, nor in the divine purpose it unfolded, anything to hinder the prayer of Gethsemane, 'O My Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from Me.' With Him the dire necessity to drink it arose from no stern and irrevocable edict of the past, but from the sovereign will of a present living God, Who, even then, would hearken to His cry if redemption could be won at any price less terrible and costly..." (Robert Anderson, The Gospel and Its Ministry, Chapter 6).

If the Lord Jesus believed in the absolute certainty of the crucifixion why would He pray to the Father asking, "O My Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from Me."

The Lord Jesus said:

"O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing" (Mt.23:37; NIV).

Here are some verses which demonstrate that receiving God's blessings or curses was dependent upon free will choices:

[i]"Behold, I set before you this day a blessing and a curse; A blessing, if ye obey the commandments of the LORD your God, which I command you this day: And a curse, if ye will not obey the commandments of the LORD your God, but turn aside out of the way which I command you this day, to go after other gods, which ye have not known" (Deut.11:26-28).

Brian Jo, where did I ever accuse Calvinists of believing God forces people to act against their will?

I appreciate Pettegrew's point, which I suppose should be rather obvious to anyone, that restricting God's knowledge only in the case of future free decisions is in fact an enormous reduction of knowledge. I was a bit disappointed, though, that the article failed to make any really insightful analysis as to what motivates open theists in this belief, and what process leads them there.

Obviously there have been conflicting views of human freedom for millennia, going back even farther than Augustine and Pelagius. However, the open theist idea of will is undoubtedly modern. There are many ways to illustrate this point, but a consideration of astrology will do. In ancient times and even through the Middle Ages, many people believed in astrology. This was not simply because they were stupid or silly, but because they believed in an integrated creation. The Greek concepts of physis and kosmos included not just what we would call the material universe, but also aesthetic and ethical laws as well. It was assumed that there was an underlying harmony that connected all these things, and that man stood within this harmony and therefore affected by it. I'm not sure how many made astrology an absolutely deterministic system (Marsilio Ficino claimed that knowledge of astrology allowed one to exert influence on the cosmos rather than vice versa), but those who believed in it nevertheless acknowledged that man is limited and influenced by external, even cosmic, factors.

The major objection to astrology during the Renaissance was not rational or scientific, but ethical and sentimental. Pico della Mirandola rejected astrology because it placed a limit on man's self-determination; it reduced his freedom. For Pico, man is master of matter, not the other way around. The idea of the determining self so captured the imagination of people that astrology became not irrational, but degrading. Astrology is just one illustration of what is one of the most significant features of modern thought - the conception of "person" as a self-determining will. The modern man, to think himself free, not only requires that he not be obviously coerced, but he must not even be "pressured" or "influenced." Nothing gets in the way of his own sovereign determination. The concept of the modern self as a free individual is reinforced by Kant and finds its full flowering in Nietzsche, who defines life as simply "the will to power." Life is nothing more than the assertion of the individual to control all that is external to him, and he is great to the extent that he achieves.

The very existence of God as a personal, real, and knowable absolute creator and sustainer is an affront to the modern mind. As Pico realized, if something (in this case Someone) is directing what happens here on earth, humans can't claim to be absolutely self-determining. In fact, there is only one person who meets the definition of a self-determining will, and that is God. (Even that is something of a caricature, though, because God's will should never be considered separate from his intellect.) Everyone else who pretends to this is simply making himself into a little god, and a caricature at that. Open theists, following the modern impulse to value individual self-determination as the highest good, limit God; it is the only way they can stop him from limiting man.

Postscript: Ideas in this post were inspired by Louis Dupre, The Passage to Modernity; and Colin Gunton, The One, the Three, and the Many.

Charlie, I would say that the beliefs expressed by those within the Open Theism movement are a protest against the idea that in the beginning God decided that certain individuals would be saved and therefore the others would be lost. Therefore a person's future depends, not on the present action of the grace of the Living God Who appeals the gospel to the sinner's heart, but instead on what is nothing more than an iron decree of faith.

The idea that a man's fate was settled before the foundation of the world becomes a limitation of His power to bless and save in the ever present "now" and so therefore it denegrates into a denial of the truth of the sovereignty of God.

I vehemently disagree with the assertions which those in the Open movement make to attempt to prove their case. They take verses which are to be understood in a figurative sense and place a literal spin on them. The same can be said for those who assert that a man's fate was decided in the past eons. They use verses which should be understood in a figurative sense and interpret them literally in order to defend their views.

For instance, The Lord God lives in the ever present "now" as the "eternal" state is not limitless time but instead the absence of time. And verses which speak of Him doing something in time are purely figurative. Let us look at the following verse:

"According as He hath chosen us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love" (Eph.1:4).

Again, this can only be understood in a figurative sense because God lives in the ever present "now" so to Him there is no "before." The Apostles understood this and that is what Paul meant here:

"But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth: Whereunto he called you by our gospel, to the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ" (2 Thess.2:13-14).

Notice that here Paul says that God hath "from the beginning" chosen the Christian to salvation through belief in the truth. How can this be since before the foundation of the world there was no one believing the gospel?

Actually, the answer is quite simple. In the eternal state the same "moment" when the sinner believes the gospel can be said to be the same "moment" that existed before the world began. After all, since God lives in the ever present "now" then the moment when a sinner believes belongs to the same "now" as does a moment that existed before the world began. Obviously the above quoted verses in regard to when the Christian is saved can only be understood in a figurative sense. It is a mistake to take verses that place God in time and use those verses to make doctrine.

I thought it was the Calvinists that use too much theory...Jerry you seem to be doing this with Ephesians 1.....

rogercarlson, I was merely explaining exactly what Paul says at Ephesians 1:11. If you think that my explanation is incorrect then please tell me exactly why you think that I am wrong.

What leads you to believe that time doesn't exist in the eternal state?

Larry, please consider the following verse:

"But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day" (2 Pet.3:8).

Are we supposed to believe that there is a celestial timepiece with a thousand-year dial?

Of course we cannot take Peter's words literally but instead we can understand his words as meaning that God is not bound by time as we are. According to this there is a speeding up of time at the same time that there is a slowing down of time. Surely this thought can only be interpreted as meaning that God is timeless or outside of time.

Martin Loyd-Jones writes, "In the first place, Peter tells us that God is altogether above time. ‘Beloved, be not ignorant of this, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years and a thousand years as one day.’ That is the principle; God is eternal, God is above time. We must never think of God as being involved in the time process or in the flux and movement of time and history — God is altogether above time. It is almost impossible for us to grasp such a thought and such a concept, and yet it is a very vital principle. We, being creatures of time, of necessity think in terms of time. God is altogether above and beyond and outside it, so that when we are thinking of the purposes of God, it is always dangerous to exaggerate this time element. God Himself, being eternal, is right outside it. To Him a thousand years are but as one day and one day as a thousand years. In other words, He does not live at all in the realm, or in terms of, the time process" (Martin Loyd-Jones, God and Time).

God is not limited by time at all and not subject to it. It could be said the He lives in the ever present "now."

Loyd-Jones explains God's relationship to time in the following manner: "God is like a man making a watch or clock — He Himself is outside it, He exists without it, He is not a part of it. The watchmaker makes the watch, he winds it up, he sets it going, he is outside the process but he initiates the process, he sets the hands in motion. That may help us a little to understand the relationship of God to time. But, according to this biblical teaching, God set the process going and He keeps it going" (Ibid.).

Augustine wrote: "In the eminence of Thy ever-present eternity, Thou precedest all times past, and extendest beyond all future times, for they are still to come--and when they have come, they will be past. But 'Thou art always the Selfsame and thy years shall have no end' (Ps.102:27). Thy years neither go nor come; but ours both go and come in order that all separate moments may come to pass. All Thy years stand together as one, since they are abiding. Nor do Thy years past exclude the years to come because Thy years do not pass away. All these years of ours shall be with Thee, when all of them shall have ceased to be. Thy years are but a day, and Thy day is not recurrent, but always today. Thy 'today' yields not to tomorrow and does not follow yesterday" (Augustine, Confessions, Book 11, Chapter XIII).

The fact that God has a different timetable (which I think is the point of the verse) does not mean that time does not exist in eternity. For instance, in eternity there are songs sung. That means the passing of time. Words spoken mean that time has passed. Leaves that grow mean that time has passed. Those things make no sense in a "timeless" world. So while God has a different relationship to time, that is different than saying that time does not exist in the eternal state.