I'm not prepared to defend Matt's idea because it seems to me to go beyond what the Bible means by "God is love." But this objection to it seems to me equally flawed.darinhouston wrote: ↑Wed Jan 22, 2020 1:42 pmThe social trinity and a proof based on love seems really desperate to me. But, it begs two questions. First, if God can’t be complete without expressing His love in eternity, then what do you do when considering that the greatest expression of love is to lay down your life for another — that didn’t happen prior to Creation. So, was God incomplete by failing to be able to express the fullness of His love?
God is likewise essentially Creative. How can He be complete in His creativity prior to Creation?
I believe God is not subject to time for the same reason He's not subject to space. Some call this a philosophical argument, but it's not; it's an argument from physics (time is a dimension of the physical universe, without which the physical universe as we know it couldn't exist) and logic (since God created the physical universe, there's no reason He'd be subject to any part of it unless He explicitly made it so, as Jesus did (Phil. 2:5-8)). Most have no problem with the idea that God is everywhere in space at once, but seem to balk at the idea that He's also everywhere in time at once, even though the two are really the same idea.
So, getting back to your questions: For God, there's no "before" or "after"; He sees it all in a way we can only call "all at once." To Him, there is no "prior to Creation;" whatever is true now of His love, creativity, relationships among the Godhead, etc., isn't "before" or "after" anything; it just _is_. No doubt that's a woefully inadequate way to think of it, but it seems it's the best we time-bound creatures can do.