Board index ‹ God

[jimwalton]

God is not constrained. These are principles that are elemental to all reality. "Human logic" is just as misguided a concept as "human mathematics." Mathematics is the language of nature just as logic is the skeleton of reality. Entities can't self-contradict; A cannot equal non-A. These are fundamental realities that are improperly thought of as just human constructs. Annaka Harris muses that even consciousness is a fundamental aspect of the universe.

What I'm claiming is not that God is constrained to human logic, but that God is just as much a part of reality as math, logic, consciousness, and energy.

[Relevant]

> I didn't make this argument. The argument I made is that power is not just the ability to do work but the actuality of doing work. The power of omnipotence is power in ability and power in action, not just power in ability.

I think my first take-away is that by this definition of power we can only infer that God is powerful, not all-powerful. The proof is in the pudding, as the expression goes.

> That is an improper definition of omnipotence. The definition of omnipotence is NOT "unlimited power."

I get that you may have a specialized understanding of this word. However, to say that the definition I used is false or untraditional implies that I have simply made up this definition. In fact, this "common sense" definition is reflected in Wikipedia or Internet Encyclopedia of philosophy or the Merriam-Webster Dictionary So when you say that I am working from an untraditional or false definition, you should probably clarify where you get your definition and why you would consider it more representative of Christian belief.

Christians have a lot of different beliefs and the common ideas are often not especially biblical like substance duality. There's nothing wrong with saying that God is not omnipotent in the colloquial sense, but still worthy of awe or whatever.

[jimwalton]

> I think my first take-away is that by this definition of power we can only infer that God is powerful, not all-powerful.

You seem to be mistaking both the philosophy and the theology. God is omnipotent, but that doesn't mean He can do anything. That's not what "omnipotent" means. "All-powerful" has to be defined, but it most certainly does NOT mean that there are no limits to what the all-powerful being can do.

> I get that you may have a specialized understanding of this word.

The definition I am working with is that which has been been tended by philosophy and theology. Thomas Aquinas wrote: “All confess that God is omnipotent…it seems difficult to explain in what God’s omnipotence precisely consists.” Therein lies the rub. But it's certainly not, according to any biblical understanding, that God has unlimited power.

> You should probably clarify where you get your definition and why you would consider it more representative of Christian belief.

I get my definition from studying the Bible and representing what it has to say (which, then, is Christian belief).

• In Mark 6.5, Jesus says He was unable to do miracles in Nazareth. His power was constrained by the people's lack of faith (v. 6).
• Hebrews 6.18 says it's impossible for God to lie.
• James 1.13 says it's not within God's ability to tempt anyone
• Deuteronomy 32.4 says God cannot do wrong.

So you're getting the idea that "omnipotence" doesn't mean, in the Bible and therefore according to Christian belief, that God has "unlimited power" to do anything at all.

[Walla Walla]

> These are fundamental realities that are improperly thought of as just human constructs. Annaka Harris muses that even consciousness is a fundamental aspect of the universe.

This is still saying that God is constrained and is not truly omnipotent.

The fact of the matter is that you either need to accept that God is not only beyond our ability to fathom, God is beyond our ability to even conceive. That necessarily includes being beyond logic itself. The problem with the OP's post is not whether omnipotence is logically consistent, it is assuming that divinity can be perceived through a logical framework at all.

We live in a world which is "queerer than we can imagine," is it rational to expect that a universe which is, at best, heuristic was conceived by something which follows laws of rationality in the least?

[jimwalton]

> This is still saying that God is constrained and is not truly omnipotent.

What it is saying is that "omnipotence" does NOT mean "unlimited power." We must define omnipotence properly and adequately, or we are left in an endless sea of meaningless where words don't mean anything. But words (and concepts) do have constrained meanings so that we can actually have a mutuality of understanding.

> The problem with the OP's post is not whether omnipotence is logically consistent, it is assuming that divinity can be perceived through a logical framework at all.

It's a great question. Allah, for instance, is impersonal, can be self-contradictory, and is unknowable. But that is in contrast to the God of the Bible. The whole point of the Bible is that God is knowable and that He has made Himself known. His self-revelation is the program that allows us to engage with Him in relationship. As Francis Schaeffer wrote, "God is there and He is not silent."

Schaeffer continues that there are only three possible basic answers to the metaphysics of being, the dilemma of man (we are personal but finite, and so not a sufficient integration point for ourselves), and problem of knowing.

1. There is no logical, rational answer. Everything that exists has come out of absolutely nothing. Nothing nothing: no energy, no mass, no motion, no personality. You must not let anybody say he is giving an answer beginning with nothing and then really begin with something: energy, mass, motion, or personality. That would be something, and something is not nothing. But it is unthinkable that all that now is has come out of utter nothing.All is finally chaotic, irrational, and absurd. If a personal held that everything is meaningless, nothing has answers and there is no cause-and-effect relationships. But this cannot be true. The universe has a certain form and order.

2. Everything that exists had an impersonal beginning (such as mass, energy, or motion, but they are all impersonal, and all equally impersonal). As soon as you accept the impersonal beginning of all things, you are faced with some form of reductionism, which argues that everything there is now is finally to be understood by reducing it to the original, impersonal factor or factors. Beginning with the impersonal, everything, including man, must be explained in terms of the impersonal plus time plus chance. There are no other factors in the formula, because there are no other factors that exist. If we begin with an impersonal, we cannot then have some form of teleological concept. No one has ever demonstrated how time plus chance, beginning with an impersonal, can produce the needed complexity of the universe, let alone the personality of man. If we begin with less than personality, we must finally reduce personality to the impersonal.

3. Everything that exists had a personal beginning. That which is personal began everything else. In this case man, being personal, does have meaning. This is not abstract. It gives a legitimate answer to humanity’s aspiration for personality. To have a sufficient answer for a personal beginning, we need two things: (1) We need a personal-infinite God, and (2) we need a personal unity and diversity in God.

If we follow the logic, we can deduce that God exists and that He can be known.

[Rada]

I agree with almost everything you said, except this: "Nothing in Scripture suggests that God’s will is determined or bound by any external factors"

There are several examples of God changing His mind based on human action. For example, in Jonah 3 God says He will destroy Ninevah, but He decides not to when they repent.

Numbers 14:11-20 God says He will destroy Israel, but decides not to when Moses asks Him not to.

Psalm 78:41 "Yea, they turned back and tempted God, and limited the Holy One of Israel." - People can limit God's ability to give blessings when they are sinful.

Isaiah 63:10 "But they rebelled and grieve

[jimwalton]

God using His free will to change His mind shows a responsiveness to human action, not that He is determined or bound by them. The repentance of the Ninevites motivated but did not force him to rescind His prophesied judgment. He is sovereign, and has any and every right to change His mind as He deems fit, but that doesn't mean He has been forced to do so.

> Ps. 78.41

You'll notice that the translation is questionable, and "limited" is not the meaning usually chosen. Most translators translate hitvu as "grieved; pained; wounded; provoked," not as "limited."

> Isa. 63.10

Yes, people can certainly grieve the Holy Spirit. This is confirmed in Eph. 4.30. It means people have brought sorrow to God. The Holy Spirit feels the intense loss of life, of ruin, of what could have been. Such loss actually causes pain, not to mention the psychological agony that something went terribly and unnecessarily wrong.

None of these suggest that God's will is determined or bound by any external factors.

[Robber]

‘He can not interfere with the freedom of man ‘

Exodus 4:21

And the Lord said to Moses, “When you go back to Egypt, see that you do before Pharaoh all the miracles that I have put in your power. But I will harden his heart, so that he will not let the people go.

Exodus 10:1

Then the Lord said to Moses, “Go in to Pharaoh, for I have hardened his heart and the heart of his servants, that I may show these signs of mine among them,

Exodus 9:12

But the Lord hardened the heart of Pharaoh, and he did not listen to them, as the Lord had spoken to Moses.

Exodus 7:3

But I will harden Pharaoh's heart, and though I multiply my signs and wonders in the land of Egypt

Ezekiel 36

26 I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you; I will take the heart of stone out of your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. 27 I will put My Spirit within you and cause you to walk in My statutes, and you will keep My judgments and do them.

Note the words “cause you to walk in my statutes”

Hebrews 4:12

For the word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing to the division of soul and of spirit, of joints and of marrow, and discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart

Note the words ‘ discerning the thoughts and intentions “

Deuteronomy 2:30

But Sihon the king of Heshbon would not let us pass by him, for the Lord your God hardened his spirit and made his heart obstinate, that he might give him into your hand, as he is this day.

There are many other examples from the bible of god specifically influencing the thoughts, deeds and intents of individual humans

[jimwalton]

Thanks for bringing these up. Let's discuss them.

Pharaoh hardened his own heart before God says anything about it, showing that when God "hardened Pharaoh's heart," he wasn't doing anything actively (as you have implied), but merely let Pharaoh pursue the course Pharaoh had already decided to pursue.

Pharaoh reveals a hard heart from the starting line towards the people of Israel (Ex. 1.11-22). Pharaoh also shows a hard heart towards God in Ex. 5.2. Exodus 7.13 says Pharaoh's heart became hard and he would not listen to them. God hasn't done anything actively like interfered with his free will, but rather has left Pharaoh to harden his own heart. God gave him over to it (as in Romans 1.18-32: when people exercise their free will in rebellion against God, he doesn't stop them but lets them do it. He doesn't interfere with their free will.) God is not forcing Pharaoh to be rebellious, Pharaoh has already decided that on his own. God isn't actively forcing Pharaoh to do anything against his will, but rather just affirming what Pharaoh has decided on his own. God "hardened" hearts that are already hard. They made their choices, God brought elements into their lives that should have turned them around but only cemented them further in their positions. It is only in that sense that God hardened hearts.

> Ezekiel 36.26-27

You'll notice if you read the context (start at v. 22 if you don't want to invest much time) that God is expressing a series of blessings that He plans to shower on the people of Israel—gifts that they do not deserve. The term that you have translated as "cause" is from the root asa which means "do" or "make" in the broadest sense and with the widest application. The context shows us that God is gifting them, not forcing them. His gifts are a motivation for them, not a coercion.

> Heb. 4.12

The word used here is κριτικὸς: “Skilled in judging; discrimination; discernment; the intelligence that discerns.” It is a sifting process at work, and then analysis of evidence. The all-seeing eye of God will make no mistakes. Ultimately the truth of God’s revelation will be used to assess and judge all things. It is the plumb line of history and humanity, of truth and reality. There is no notion of coercion here.

> Dt. 2.30

Same as before. As J.A. Thompson writes in his Tyndale OT commentary on Deuteronomy (p. 95):

"Sihon hardened his own heart first, as Pharaoh had done. God gave him over to it."

> of god specifically influencing

Influence, yes. Coercion, no. They are very different things. I am trying to influence you to see God as active and influential, but I am not forcing you in any way to my position. That is your choice. So also with God's interactions with humans.

[Scape211]

Part of the issue is we are not just looking at omnipotence alone. If we look at the 'traditional' definition (or one you would google), it would say:

having unlimited power; able to do anything.

We could say that this is a characteristic of God (and it is). However, we have to eliminate the logically absurd as said (A cant also equal non-A). But we must also understand the being we are talking about. While God can do anything, His nature would say otherwise. And it's why he can't do other things like lying. Not because he lacks omnipotence, but because the rest of Him that makes up His being would not allow it. If He is good (noun) he can't lie. It doesn't mean he lacks power at all. When you consider the full nature of God, omnipotence is squarely in there. But other things are too.