I feel like you need a more rigorous definition of what 'outside time' means. I can think of two different interpretations of the term which lead to different answers.
Omniscience - Has correct knowledge of the complete future
It is difficult to reconcile the existence of an omniscient being with the existence of human free will, but some people have attempted to do so. In my opinion, the three most interesting solutions are:
Molinist Solution: G-d knows the initial conditions of The Universe and They know all the rules governing The Universe, including how every creature will act in every possible situation. From this information G-d can calculate everything that will happen. Thus, G-d is omniscient without infringing on free will. This solution is interesting since it compatible with the A-Theory of Time and relies on the global hidden variable interpretation of quantum physics.
Aristotelian Solution: Regarding a different problem, Aristotle claimed that "no proposition about the contingent future has a truth value." If this claim were true, it has several implications for formal logic, one of which helps resolves the current issue. Unfortunately, it also implies that if G-d is infallible, then G-d is not omniscient in the strongest meaning of the word.
Boethian Solution: This is the solution I personally subscribe to. Basically, it says that any claim regarding when G-d knows something is false. Therefor, G-d can know something, without knowing it in the past. In other words, G-d has no temporal properties; They are "not in time". This solution may be the most appealing to you, as it appears to be in line with your current beliefs given how you describe "outside of time".
Atemporal - Does not vary with time
There are many things that are a temporal. The easiest to recognize examples are the fundamental constants of physics e.g. the speed at of light. However, recent work has challenged this notion. A more rigorous example would be abstract objects as described by platonism e.g. the number 4. It is worth noting that there is some issues regarding the existence of abstract objects and G-d. That debate mostly focuses on if G-d could have created abstract objects, so I do not think it prevents us from explaining G-d's relationship to time by analogy with abstract objects.
For the purposes of this answer, I am defining G-d as the omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent creator of The Universe. Under this definition, I see no problems with the claim that G-d is atemporal. However, I also see no problems with the claim that G-d is temporal. I am not sure if you can form a more restrictive definition of G-d without your question becoming tied to a specific religion, in which case your question probably belongs on a different Stack Exchange site.
Non-Causal - Does not participate in causal relationships
If the existence of G-d implied anything regarding an important issue, then there must be a causal relationship between G-d and that issue. Therefor, the claim that Their existence is relevant to anything important is incompatible with the claim that G-d is non-causal. For this reason, I cannot imagine that anyone would claim that G-d is non-causal. Add on to this the fact that a reasonable argument can be made that no non-causal object exist, I do not feel the need to pursue the matter further.