-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Campolo denies Omnipotence of God
- Thread starter PastorSBC1303
- Start date
Humblesmith
Member
This is not a peripheral issue. It is not one of the things that we can agreeably disagree. Denying that God is all-powerful is a first class heresy. "Almighty" means the same thing as omnipotence (all powerful). That God is infinitely powerful is supported throughout scripture, and anyone denying that doctrine has to deny huge sections of scripture.
Further, saying omnipotence is Greek philosophy is:
1) irrelevant, since the real question is "Is it true?" and
2) shows a lack of understanding of Greek philosophy. People that say this make it sound like all Greek philosophers agreed with each other. They did not. and
3) No Greek philosopher that I know of taught that any being, God or otherwise, was omnipotent. Some Greek philosophers (not all) had a concept of omnipotence, but never connected it with a personality.
Harold Kushner teaches that God is a finite being that is limited in power. If anyone is interested in all this, there is a debate between him and Norman Geisler available from The John Ankerberg Show.
A finite, limited god is a poor god. Anyone that teaches a god that is not all-powerful should be avoided. I'll take the God of the bible any day. He is almighty and in control.
Further, saying omnipotence is Greek philosophy is:
1) irrelevant, since the real question is "Is it true?" and
2) shows a lack of understanding of Greek philosophy. People that say this make it sound like all Greek philosophers agreed with each other. They did not. and
3) No Greek philosopher that I know of taught that any being, God or otherwise, was omnipotent. Some Greek philosophers (not all) had a concept of omnipotence, but never connected it with a personality.
Harold Kushner teaches that God is a finite being that is limited in power. If anyone is interested in all this, there is a debate between him and Norman Geisler available from The John Ankerberg Show.
A finite, limited god is a poor god. Anyone that teaches a god that is not all-powerful should be avoided. I'll take the God of the bible any day. He is almighty and in control.
StraightAndNarrow
Active Member
It sure must be tough being God; no one to turn to when things beyond your control happen that make you cry. This guy's really sharp, ain't he? </font>[/QUOTE]Ever read this?
Gen 6:5 And GOD saw that the wickedness of man [was] great in the earth, and [that] every imagination of the thoughts of his heart [was] only evil continually.
Gen 6:6 And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.
Gen 6:7 And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.
Gen 6:8 But Noah found grace in the eyes of the LORD.
I don't see much difference between what Tony is saying and the description of God's reaction to the state of creation before the flood. (it grieved him at his heart) You tell me the difference.
Marcia
Active Member
This is not a matter of agreement, it is a matter of the biblical view of God. So it's okay for a Christian who has a wide public platform to say that it might be true that God is not omnipotent and that Kushner's views may be correct? Kushner thinks God just can't do anything about what is going on the world and God feels sad about it. Is this the kind of God we should be proclaiming?
Marcia
Active Member
StraightandNarrow, the issue is not that God grieves but that he is limited and finite (as Kushner believes). Kushner believes God grieves because he can't do anything about bad things.
In a book of essays edited by New Agers that I've been reading (in preparation for a lecture I'm giving and for my newsletter), _For the Love of God: Handbook for the Spirit_, eds. Richard Carlson and Benjamin Shield, there are essays by New Agers, Buddhists, Mind Science believers, assorted others, and avowed Christians (the Christians in this book say some of the same things the New Agers say). There is an essay by Kushner in which he states that he found an answer to the suffering in the world by reading Archibald MacLeish's modern version of Job, J.B. which revealed to Kushner that we should forgive God for "the world's messiness and imperfection," and that "God is not responsible for everything, but that some things in the world are beyond His power" (these are MacLeish's words which Kushner is quoting but he is agreeing with them) (p. 127).
Kushner does say that God does not send sickness and death, but his view is that God is not in charge and has limited say in what happens on earth. This is how Kushner has decided to explain suffering. Keep in mind, Campolo said we should consider Kushner's view of God as though this is a good thing to do.
In a book of essays edited by New Agers that I've been reading (in preparation for a lecture I'm giving and for my newsletter), _For the Love of God: Handbook for the Spirit_, eds. Richard Carlson and Benjamin Shield, there are essays by New Agers, Buddhists, Mind Science believers, assorted others, and avowed Christians (the Christians in this book say some of the same things the New Agers say). There is an essay by Kushner in which he states that he found an answer to the suffering in the world by reading Archibald MacLeish's modern version of Job, J.B. which revealed to Kushner that we should forgive God for "the world's messiness and imperfection," and that "God is not responsible for everything, but that some things in the world are beyond His power" (these are MacLeish's words which Kushner is quoting but he is agreeing with them) (p. 127).
Kushner does say that God does not send sickness and death, but his view is that God is not in charge and has limited say in what happens on earth. This is how Kushner has decided to explain suffering. Keep in mind, Campolo said we should consider Kushner's view of God as though this is a good thing to do.
It sure must be tough being God; no one to turn to when things beyond your control happen that make you cry. This guy's really sharp, ain't he? </font>[/QUOTE]Ever read this?
Gen 6:5 And GOD saw that the wickedness of man [was] great in the earth, and [that] every imagination of the thoughts of his heart [was] only evil continually.
Gen 6:6 And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.
Gen 6:7 And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.
Gen 6:8 But Noah found grace in the eyes of the LORD.
I don't see much difference between what Tony is saying and the description of God's reaction to the state of creation before the flood. (it grieved him at his heart) You tell me the difference. </font>[/QUOTE]The difference is that Campolo's god is a poor, poor God who couldn't do anything to stop it. The God of the Bible, and in particular in the Genesis passage you quoted, is One who is in control of all circumstances. Yes, the sin of man grieves the Lord, and he does something about it. He doesn't sit back and just wring his hands as Campolo implies.
StraightAndNarrow
Active Member
It sure must be tough being God; no one to turn to when things beyond your control happen that make you cry. This guy's really sharp, ain't he? </font>[/QUOTE]Ever read this?
Gen 6:5 And GOD saw that the wickedness of man [was] great in the earth, and [that] every imagination of the thoughts of his heart [was] only evil continually.
Gen 6:6 And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.
Gen 6:7 And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.
Gen 6:8 But Noah found grace in the eyes of the LORD.
I don't see much difference between what Tony is saying and the description of God's reaction to the state of creation before the flood. (it grieved him at his heart) You tell me the difference. </font>[/QUOTE]The difference is that Campolo's god is a poor, poor God who couldn't do anything to stop it. The God of the Bible, and in particular in the Genesis passage you quoted, is One who is in control of all circumstances. Yes, the sin of man grieves the Lord, and he does something about it. He doesn't sit back and just wring his hands as Campolo implies. </font>[/QUOTE]No difference tht I can see:
1) When the floods swept into the Gulf Coast, God was the first one who wept.
2) Gen 6:6 And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.
StraightAndNarrow
Active Member
I don't believe I said that. I simply quoted from the Bible. Do you believe the Bible?
StraightAndNarrow
Active Member
Let me ask this question. Is God restricted by man's free will? If someone chooses to reject Christ can/will God intervene and force him to accept Him?
I would take this to be about the nature of God rather than about His power.
I would take this to be about the nature of God rather than about His power.