“The defender of divine timelessness therefore has a way out: he can adopt a static theory of time and deny the reality of tensed facts and temporal becoming. But this represents a very unpalatable route of escape, for the static theory of time faces formidable philosophical and theological objections, not to mention the arguments that can be offered on behalf of a dynamic theory of time. I therefore prefer to cast my lot with the dynamic theory. And it is noteworthy that almost no defender of divine timelessness has taken this route. Virtually the only person who appears to have done so is Paul Helm. On his view there is no ontological difference between the past, present and future: “Do the times which are at present future to us exist, or not? Answer: they exist for God … and they exist for those creatures contemporaneous with that future moment, for that moment is present to them, but it is not now present to us.” In the same way, “the past event … belongs in its own time, and is therefore real, belonging to the ordered series of times which comprise the creation and which are … eternally present to God.”32 Thus Paul affirms what he takes to be Augustine’s view that “God created the temporal order, by an eternal act, as a B-series.” He explains, “In creation God brings into being (timelessly) the whole temporal matrix,” and “God knows at a glance the whole of his temporally ordered creation.” Similarly, tense is but an ephemeral feature of language; the truth conditions of tensed sentences are given by tenseless facts, facts that are known to God.35 Paul thus appears to be the one advocate of divine timelessness who has seen and taken the way out. But it is a hard and lonely road.”