Note #4:  

Therefore it is not enough to say that "God's deity is temporal infinity" (Robert W. Jenson: Systematic Theology vol. 1, Oxford University Press, 1997) pp. 216-17. His deity is not only continuing without end, but also means wholeness of life.

from this:

Eternity, Time and the Trinitarian God

To rightly conceive of God's eternity and properly
understand eternity's relation to time, we must
interpret it as the eternity of the Trinitarian God.

By Wolfhart Pannenberg

http://www.ctinquiry.org/publications/reflections_volume_3/pannenberg.htm

http://www.ctinquiry.org/publications/reflections_volume_3/pannenberg.htm

Our contemporary exegesis, of course, told us to read that phrase "I shall be who I shall be". This changes the point and deprives Augustine's argument of its most important evidence. There is future to God, then, and he will show himself to be what he will be. In other words, he is free and unrestricted in his actions. This is a far cry from the timeless identity of "I am who I am". Thus in his reference to Exodus 3:14 Augustine was mistaken, because he used a misleading translation. But in his comment on Psalm 102:24 he was not completely wrong. The psalm says indeed that God exists forever, and it continues to affirm that God remains the same, while everything else passes away (Psalm 102:27). So God is indeed unchanging in his identity, God "from everlasting to everlasting" (Ps. 90:2). This need not import timelessness, however, only faithfulness through the changes of time and history, faithfulness in identity with himself and therefore in relation to his creatures, too. But the psalm also says that in God's life time doesn't pass in the same way as it does in our human experience: "a thousand years in thy sight are but as yesterday, when it is past" (Ps. 90:4). Time doesn't pass away from the presence of God, but he looks at the whole of time like we do when a period is complete.4 This is also to be kept in mind, when God is called everlasting (Isa. 40:28). That does not only mean that his existence continues through time. It also implies his continuous identity, undisturbed by the process of time (Is. 41:4).

AND

. . . But if the whole of life is structured by the future source of its completion, which is also the source of the new that happens in the course of that life, then even the simultaneous possession of that life should be expected to be structured correspondingly. Regarding the Biblical God we have no word that precisely states the importance of the future for himself. But when he calls himself the God "who will be who he will be" (Exod. 3:14), his future action seems to constitute his identity. In addition, it seems there will be something new in connection with God's future or rather issuing from his future.

There is another Biblical idea suggesting a constitutive importance of the future concerning God's own identity. That is the expectation of the kingdom of God to come. In the last day, the prophet Zechariah says, God will be king of the whole earth (Zech. 14:9). The same expectation is expressed in Obadiah (21) and in Zephaniah (3:15), while in second Isaiah the event of God's accession to his kingdom is seen to have just occurred and is proclaimed by the messengers who announce to the Jewish people their liberation (Isa. 52:8). The event may have been envisioned by the prophet, however, as a future one, though it is described as having occurred already. This proclamation of God's kingdom recurs in Jesus' teaching. It is the central issue of the "gospel" Jesus proclaimed (Mark 1:14): The kingdom of God is close at hand, and indeed, its advent becomes a present reality already (Luke 11:20). On the other hand, in the Old Testament God is called the eternal king (Jer. 10:18; Exod. 15:18; Ps. 10:16). Similarly, in the New Testament, the one God is called the eternal king (basileus ton aionon, 1. Tim. 1:17), everlasting and invisible.

How are those predications to be reconciled? On the one hand God's kingdom is eternal, on the other it is still to come. Is it only in human experience, that God's kingdom is still future, while in itself it is always the same? But then it would make no difference in God whether or not he is recognized to be king by his creatures. Can he be king without such recognition? That seems hardly possible. Even if he could rule over his creatures without their awareness, the fact of resistance to his rule and of open rebellion cannot be disregarded and can hardly be said to make no difference. The problem is sharpened when we consider that God's kingship over his creation is not something accidental with regard to his own identity as being God. It is inseparable from his divine nature. Thus, with the manifestation and recognition of his kingship his divine nature itself is at stake.

The tension among the Biblical pronouncements on the kingdom of God epitomizes the problem of how the eternal God is related to time or, more precisely, what is the impact, if any, of temporal events and of the outcome of the process of history upon his eternal identity.

In Christian theology, this problem is also posed and most sharply so by the Christian faith in the incarnation of the eternal Son of God in the person of Jesus Christ. The incarnation certainly cannot be thought of as making no difference to the eternal life of the one God. . . .

SEE, WORTH A GOOD READ!