Is God really Omnipotent?

[12strings]

Yes. If God intended that the created being love Him. You see inorder for true love to happen we must choose with in our own wills to do so since love is a product of the will. The really nice thing about our wills is the fact that we can love whom ever we wish. We really can Love our neighbors. It isn't a command that we cannot hope to fullfil. We can love or hate anyone it is up to us. Man is not with out choice.
MB

MB, I posted this in another thread, and wanted to put it here so you would know I was talking about you...From "MB" over on the "Is God omnipotent" thread...(just today, I think, others have said it also)


From "MB" over on the "Is God really omnipotent" thread...(just today, I think, others have said it also)

If man was without choice (for example, in the future eternity) according to this belief he could not truly love God?

 

[Tom Butler]

Let me throw this out by T. P. Simmons in his 1935 Systematic Study of Bible Doctrine.

[FONT=&quot]God possesses all power. In Gen. 17:1 God declares: "I am God Almighty." The title "Almighty" is applied to Him over and over in the Scripture. This title signifies that He possesses all might or power. Again we read in Matt. 19:26: "With God all things are possible." Many other passages declare God's omnipotence. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]The omnipotence of God does not mean, of course, that He can do things that are logically absurd or things that are against His will. He cannot lie, because the holiness of His character prevents Him from willing to lie. And He cannot create a rock larger than He can lift; nor both an irresistible power and an immovable object; nor can He draw a line between two points shorter than a straight one; nor put two mountains adjacent to one another without creating a valley between them. He cannot do any of these things because they are not objects of power. They are self-contradictory and logically absurd. They would violate the laws that God has ordained, and thus cause God to cross Himself.[/FONT]

 

[humblethinker]

Let me throw this out by T. P. Simmons in his 1935 Systematic Study of Bible Doctrine.

Agreed, and so the term 'omnipotence' being ascribed to God with no qualifications is absurd and should not be so used in an attempt to describe God as accurately as we can. This term can be a stumbling block for Atheists.

There are certain things that God cannot do and this is not to his shame but to his glory. The fact that He cannot do them is an admirable quality and if he could do them he would be less honorable.

 

[Yeshua1]

Agreed, and so the term 'omnipotence' being ascribed to God with no qualifications is absurd and should not be so used in an attempt to describe God as accurately as we can. This term can be a stumbling block for Atheists.

There are certain things that God cannot do and this is not to his shame but to his glory. The fact that He cannot do them is an admirable quality and if he could do them he would be less honorable.

What is also in play here is that ONLY the saved by the Grace of God can see Him in the fullest/correct way for this OP, as those not saved will bring faulty understandings of God into their discussion!

the unsaved will continue to misunderstand just what being God really means, what he is "all about!"

 

[HeirofSalvation]

(I don't think Pascal believed as you state... do you have a link you could provide? I admire much about him and would be interested in seeing such.)

LOL :laugh: He may not....I always confuse Pascal with Rene' Descartes:wavey: They were both frogs, Christians, mathematicians by trade, and smart...and both apologists...I think I (yet again confused Descartes with Pascal) I always do this. Anyway, it's one of those two frenchies.

This is getting to the heart of the matter. What is the meaning of the word "Omnipotent"? It, afterall, means something whether you and I think so or not, correct? I propose that 'Omnipotent' means "the power to do anything". If that is not what that means then someone please give me the word which signifies that meaning and if no one can show such a word then I call "dibbs" on the meaning so that I can dream up a great combination of latin words whose combination would be greater than "Omni Potens".

People please...

Who here can present a definition that most people on this board would agree to? or even that a group of people would agree to? What does omnipotence mean to 'biblicists'? What does omnipotence mean to cals and arms?

Fortunately....I do not think that one's status as a "Cal or Arm" or anything else is actually pertininent here: I think all Bilblical Points of View are capable of perfect agreement...There is also no such thing as a "Biblicist" In my opinion anyway...so let's dispense with such arrogance....

The crux of this problem lies within the idea of there being such a thing as propositional content which might exist or have independent definable value OUTSIDE of the independently existent a se God. I, at least, do not think that there is even any such "thing" as "Omnipotence" "Goodness" "Pattern" "Logic" or "Rule"....outside of the Eternal "LOGOS"....The Ultimate and eternal "LOGOS" is our ultimate and self-existing definition of all such things. I do not even believe that propositional content exists outside of the "LOGOS" HIMSELF.

This is the same way we should understand the (so-called) "Euthyphro dilemma"....there is no such thing as an independent criterion or standard to which the a se God adheres. There are NO "independent" propositions, notions, laws or ideas (even laws of logic) which are the MOST basic laws which exist....which are not a part of the ultimate reality and the ultimate self-existing "logos"...

"OMNI" and "POTENCE" are not even intelligible independent notions or propositions without the a se "Logos" to provide them with meaning. Thus, if God provides us with a definintion of "omnipotence" which does not require a notion of logical absurdity...than our definition of "omnipotence" ought never entail that. "Logically absurd" is, itself, a notion which does not exist outside of the ultimate "Logos"...This is why I have little patience for any who speak in terms of "Man's logic"....there is simply no such thing..."logic" is, itself, a fundamental part of our understanding of who and what the eternal "Word" or "Logos" is....it does not exist outside of the "Him" whom it helps to describe...

Anyone who uses a term like "Man's logic" is ill-informed I.M.O. There is NO SUCH THING....They are all entailed in the ultimate being of WHOM God is...as the ultimate LOGOS....God does not do anything against his own nature. Thus, however we answer these questions...I do not think that suggesting logical absurdity is an available option....God has told us that: He is Omnipotent, He is also ultimate pattern, rule, logic, logos, and law....therefore he CANNOT be logically absurd.

Too many of us are coming from a "Neo-Platonic" perspective which assumes that there is independent propositional content which does not have its very essence or being within the Divine nature itself...I disagree. NOTHING...not even the "property" of "redness" exists without him...Nor the notion of either "Omnipotence" or "Absurdity"....

 

[humblethinker]

God has told us that: He is Omnipotent....

Where does He tell us that? Maybe I missed that verse/teaching. Why not use a word that does not entail absurdity, like 'Almighty', which He has told us? The use of the word 'Omnipotent' to describe God is not as appropriate as or accurate. For insider-talk, The word "Omnipotent" will get us by but talking with or making a case to an outsider, that word will be a stumbling block. Ha, and even with many believers that word will require qualification.

 

[HeirofSalvation]

Where does He tell us that? Maybe I missed that verse/teaching. Why not use a word that does not entail absurdity, like 'Almighty', which He has told us? The use of the word 'Omnipotent' to describe God is not as appropriate as or accurate. For insider-talk, The word "Omnipotent" will get us by but talking with or making a case to an outsider, that word will be a stumbling block. Ha, and even with many believers that word will require qualification.

I don't understand your objection..."Almighty" and "Omnipotent" are considered to be synonymous usually. Accept that there will always be certain "godless" who will refuse to believe that 2+2=4 if it would require a belief in God. They don't WANT to learn....Thus, they never will. They have been given over to a "reprobate mind". Such confusion is not our purview. We should shake the dust off of our feet with such individuals. Our Calvinistic brethren are quite correct in understanding and defining such beings...(we simply disagree about the point or level upon which it is properly ascribed). I believe (as a passionate lover of apologetics) that we DO have a requirement and a command to "give an answer for the hope..."....but if they elect to be merely obtuse....it is their decision. ONLY the Spirit of God might convince such a being...once they begin "arguing about divisions and strifes of words"........ such as play-acting a signifigant difference between "Almighty" and "Omnipotent"...They are playing stupid word-games...I really think my above post covers most of this....I didn't randomly conjure it out of no-where.

 

[Yeshua1]

Where does He tell us that? Maybe I missed that verse/teaching. Why not use a word that does not entail absurdity, like 'Almighty', which He has told us? The use of the word 'Omnipotent' to describe God is not as appropriate as or accurate. For insider-talk, The word "Omnipotent" will get us by but talking with or making a case to an outsider, that word will be a stumbling block. Ha, and even with many believers that word will require qualification.

can finite mind of man even grasp what God chose to reveal to us in the bible fully, much less ALL that He is?

 

[humblethinker]

I found this was informative regarding the OP:

There is no universally accepted characterization of omnipotence - no account of the idea of the form "God is omnipotent if and only if..." that is universally embraced as the truth of the matter. (In case one thinks that this entails that the notion is unintelligible or unusable, not that there is no such analysis of "cause" or "knowledge" either.) But something like this seems right as far as it goes.

God is omnipotent only if for any proposition P, God can make P true unless:
(1) P is formally contradictory, or
(2) P is informally contradictory, or
(3) P can only be made true by the person to which it refers, or
(4) P's content is such that it would be false if God so acted as to make it true, or
(5) P's content is such that God has an esential property incompatible with God making P true.

Here some examples are needed: of (1) "There is a round square"; of (2) "God makes an immaterial squirrel"; of (3) "God writes (as autobiography) the autobiography of William James"; of (4) "There is something other than God that is not created by God"; of (*5) "God digests ice cream without becoming embodies." (A standard but more controversial example is "God cannot sin.") Considering some such characterization may make us more realistic concerning what divine omnipotence can be.

Keith Yandell
Department of Philosophy
University of Wisconsin - Madison
as printed in Philosophia Christi, Vol. 13, No. 2, 2011
​

May I emphasize that last sentence: Considering some such characterization may make us more realistic concerning what divine omnipotence can be.

 

[AresMan]

I found this on a debate site:

Omnipotence: The ability to do anything. But we could not logically discuss a god who thwarted logic, so we must restrict ourselves to punk omnipotence rather than true omnipotence: An omnipotent god, then, can do anything except violate logic. No square circles; no married bachelors​

So, how would you answer him? Would you disagree with his statement, "we could not logically discuss a god who thwarted logic"? Would you disagree with parts of his premise?

If there is even one thing that God cannot do then why do we claim that he is Omnipotent?

I agree with him. God is omnipotent. He can do anything that is not intrinsically contradictory.

 

[AresMan]

Yes. If God intended that the created being love Him. You see inorder for true love to happen we must choose with in our own wills to do so since love is a product of the will.

I totally agree. No one ever loves against his own will. That would make no sense.
The question is: can immaterial things like love--acts of the will--come ultimately out of a vacuum?

The really nice thing about our wills is the fact that we can love whom ever we wish. We really can Love our neighbors. It isn't a command that we cannot hope to fullfil. We can love or hate anyone it is up to us. Man is not with out choice.

Well, I would think there are some important limitations.

Can you love your acquaintance neighbor with the same love that you would love God, your wife, or children (assuming you love them correctly)?

Can you love the Joker Killer with the same love that you would love God, your wife, or children?

If you think so, I would fear you tremendously.

 

[humblethinker]

What is also in play here is that ONLY the saved by the Grace of God can see Him in the fullest/correct way for this OP, as those not saved will bring faulty understandings of God into their discussion!

the unsaved will continue to misunderstand just what being God really means, what he is "all about!"

I don't think there's anyone on this board that would say that they do not have a single faulty understanding about God. We do not get life from the correctness of our theology, life comes from a relationship with God. This is why one's theology is not that important to God, especially compared to our relationship with Him and others.

I don't quite understand what you mean here. If someone is bringing faulty understanding of God into this discussion then surely you would be able to explain the misunderstanding to them. Afterall, one should be able to explain what they claim to understand, no?

 

[quantumfaith]

I don't think there's anyone on this board that would say that they do not have a single faulty understanding about God. We do not get life from the correctness of our theology, life comes from a relationship with God. This is why one's theology is not that important to God, especially compared to our relationship with Him and others.

I don't quite understand what you mean here. If someone is bringing faulty understanding of God into this discussion then surely you would be able to explain the misunderstanding to them. Afterall, one should be able to explain what they claim to understand, no?

:applause::applause::applause::applause:

 

[freeatlast]

I found this on a debate site:

Omnipotence: The ability to do anything. But we could not logically discuss a god who thwarted logic, so we must restrict ourselves to punk omnipotence rather than true omnipotence: An omnipotent god, then, can do anything except violate logic. No square circles; no married bachelors
​

So, how would you answer him? Would you disagree with his statement, "we could not logically discuss a god who thwarted logic"? Would you disagree with parts of his premise?

If there is even one thing that God cannot do then why do we claim that he is Omnipotent?

The bible teaches there are things God cannot do.

 

[humblethinker]

The bible teaches there are things God cannot do.

Who's disagreeing? That is just what we are saying. What is your point?

 

[freeatlast]

Who's disagreeing? That is just what we are saying. What is your point?

You are talking about logic and I am talking about reality or things that others can do. There are things that God cannot do and others can according to scripture.

 

[humblethinker]

You are talking about logic and I am talking about reality or things that others can do. There are things that God cannot do and others can according to scripture.

Well, regardless, I agree with what you've said and it's no surprise that logic comports with scripture.