I would definitely steer clear of any model which makes God Omnitemporal as opposed to Atemporal. The former leaves us with prima awkward questions re the PSR and God's activity not to mention Kalam type arguments against an infinite past.

Eleonore Stump and Norman Kretzmann formulated a new theory of Divine Timelessness in their article Eternity which features quite heavily in contemporary discussions. Brian Leftow's Time and Eternity is a full book length defense of DT with reference and response to more recent criticisms (he takes a Presentist interpretation of time). Katherin Rogers has also written a number of essays defending DT this time from an Eternalist standpoint - if you're interested in any of this drop me a message and I'll see if I can get hold of them.

There's no consensus as to whether Divine Timelessness commits one either to the B or A Theory. Most Thomists are A-Theorists of a type though DT also has very capable defenders upholding a B-Theoretical line such as Alexander Pruss and Paul Helm.

lawrence89 wrote:

Thanks for your answer. Probably I'm a bit confused. I was thinking that if God is Timelessness, then we had to be eternalists. But you say we could also be presentist. So I'm asking: given that God is Timelessness, doesn't it mean that He "sees" our past and future events together? And in that case, doesn't it mean that presentism is false?

Depends on your theory of truth. Presentists who want to affirm the eternality of God might say that while it is true that only the present exists, God has such intimate knowledge of both the past and future that he "sees" them as equally well and with equal immediacy as he does the present. What he has done and will do was ordained before the creation of the world,so that his relation to the present is the same as it is to any other time.