Christians: God is Not Omnipotent

[DeepShadow]

This came up a long time ago, and at the request of my wife I'm making it the topic of this latest de-lurking.

I believe that one of the greatest obstacles to many people's understanding of God is the prefix "omni-". Not only is non-scriptural, but it's a logical construct that carries its own contradictions with it! Come on, we've all heard them, about God making a rock so big He can't lift it, or making a being that can armwrestle Him, or making an immoveable post AND an unstoppable cannonball at the same time, or making a tree so thick He can't cut it, or floating a loan He can't repay. We blow these off because they are juvenile pseudo-intellectualism--and they are--but they contain at their heart a genuine contradiction that crops up in questions that are much more worthy. Chief among these IMO is the riddle of Epicurus:

The Riddle of Epicurus

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?

Much as we may hate it or be tired of hearing it--I've saving my rebuttal of line 2 for another thread--I believe this riddle contains questions worth asking. Many answers I've heard deal with this in one way or another, but in the end most boil down to a backpedal: "God is not omnipotent." I'm quite fond of the lines from George Burns' "Oh God!" movies, where the little girl asks why He made bad things, and He replies, "Have you ever seen a front without a back? A top without a bottom?" She says she hasn't, and He explains that He can't make things without making their opposites. Cute, certainly; profound, maybe, but it amounts to saying that God isn't omnipotent, because there's something He can't do. Admitting that from the outset might eliminate a lot of confusion.

Not only is the term "omnipotent" logically baseless, it's scripturally baseless. The Bible actually states things that God cannot do, such as lie (Titus 1:2). Can God die? I know few Christians who interpret the term this way, but this only begs the question as to why we use this term at all.

 

[Katzpur]

As usual, you're right. You're so omni-right that nobody can even begin to prove you wrong. I read an interesting article awhile back that also proves that, scripturally, God is not omnipresent either. Maybe I'll see if I can dig it up.

 

[lilithu]

As usual, you're right. You're so omni-right that nobody can even begin to prove you wrong. I read an interesting article awhile back that also proves that, scripturally, God is not omnipresent either. Maybe I'll see if I can dig it up.

Nor is God omniscient. Otherwise, He would not have needed to test Job.

 

[Katzpur]

Nor is God omniscient. Otherwise, He would not have needed to test Job.

Some people would say that, between the three of us (DeepShadow, you and I), we're out to dimish the greatness of God.

 

[lilithu]

Not only is the term "omnipotent" logically baseless, it's scripturally baseless. The Bible actually states things that God cannot do, such as lie (Titus 1:2). Can God die? I know few Christians who interpret the term this way, but this only begs the question as to why we use this term at all.

Check out "Omnipotence and Other Theological Mistakes" by UU theologian Charles Hartshorne. There is a summary here.

 

[PeaceSeeker]

This came up a long time ago, and at the request of my wife I'm making it the topic of this latest de-lurking.

Not only is the term "omnipotent" logically baseless, it's scripturally baseless. The Bible actually states things that God cannot do, such as lie (Titus 1:2). Can God die? I know few Christians who interpret the term this way, but this only begs the question as to why we use this term at all.

Omnipotent means possessing unlimited and universal powers...God is omnipotent in the spiritual dimension...and if he ever portayed any physical universal powers he would be breaking his own infallible laws of nature...so...God has never and will never interfere in the physical universe...but our spirit can access the unlimited powers of God by receiving blessings and inspiration.

 

[Free4all]

Not only is the term "omnipotent" logically baseless, it's scripturally baseless. The Bible actually states things that God cannot do, such as lie (Titus 1:2). Can God die? I know few Christians who interpret the term this way, but this only begs the question as to why we use this term at all.

What about Rev. 19:6

 

[lilithu]

Omnipotent means possessing unlimited and universal powers...God is omnipotent in the spiritual dimension...and if he ever portayed any physical universal powers he would be breaking his own infallible laws of nature...so...God has never and will never interfere in the physical universe...but our spirit can access the unlimited powers of God by receiving blessings and inspiration.

I think... and I think you agree with me here... that God is unlimited and universal in potentiality. But God is limited and particular in actuality. For the universe to exist, it cannot be any other way.

 

[DeepShadow]

Wow, thanks, Katz and Lilithu!

Since it appears that I've already got support (and may actually be a little late in pointing this out) please allow me to emphasize the first sentence of my opening post: I believe that the omni- concept is an obstacle to understanding God.I we used the analogy of the world being a hive of bees and God as a very loving beekeper, we'd have a better parallel for understanding our relationship with God. After all, from the bees' perspective, the beekeeper has unbelievable power, without having to delve into floating rocks and lifting loans.

 

[PeaceSeeker]

I think... and I think you agree with me here... that God is unlimited and universal in potentiality. But God is limited and particular in actuality. For the universe to exist, it cannot be any other way.

That beautifully paraphrases it.

Namaste

 

[DeepShadow]

What about Rev. 19:6

Frubals for the challenge!

I stand corrected in part: the word is present in a single verse of the KJV, but the Greek term "Pantocrator" was given a different meaning in the Revised version; it seems translators differed and some chose a term established by tradition. Nevertheless, the definition for the term comes from tradition, not scripture. Or can you find me a scripture that states that God can do absolutely anything? (This isn't facetious; you've surprised me already)

According to Strong's Concordance, the term "Pantocrator" means "all-ruling," and is therefore a reference to God's sovereignty.

 

[Nick Soapdish]

Interesting topic DeepShadow. This is a dangerous debate because it seems so heavily soaked with semantic misunderstanding. With that disclaimer, here is my argument against what you are asserting.

To me, omnipotent means that God has ultimate authority. He created this Universe, the laws of physics and every being in the Universe, and He has complete power over them. He has chosen to give some beings freewill and the ability to act on their own.

In my opinion there is no genuine contradiction. God's nature is defined by the things that He chooses to do. Therefore, it is not possible to for God to act against His nature, because His nature is defined by how He acts. He still is omnipotent. He just chooses to act one way and not another.

The Riddle of Epicurus

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?

My opinion on this is that the presence of evil is necessary when creatures are given freewill. All an evil action is is an action that disagrees with God's will. If creatures are able to act according to their own will and not God's, then by definition, evil must exist.

So the question is why did God decide to create creatures with freewill. That is a good question, but it does not mean that God is not omnipotent.

I also find the assertion you seem to make unsettling; that somehow God is not powerful enough to counter evil. The good news of the Gospel tells of God's plan to counter evil. If we think He isn't doing it the way we think He should, then perhaps we don't have the big picture like He does.

 

[Mister Emu]

Or can you find me a scripture that states that God can do absolutely anything?

Depends on how you interpret this verse:

Matt. 19:26
"...with God all things are possible."

 

[SoyLeche]

Nor is God omniscient. Otherwise, He would not have needed to test Job.

While I don't necessarily disagree with you - the test was more for Job's benefit than for God's.

 

[lilithu]

While I don't necessarily disagree with you - the test was more for Job's benefit than for God's.

That would require adding on a layer of interpretation that is not nascent in the text. Which doesn't mean it's wrong, but it's not necessarily true either. I could agree that Job benefited spiritually from the ordeal in the end, but at the expense of his first children, I'm not sure that I would have taken that trade if given the choice.

At any rate, I can think of other examples in the OT where God does not seem to know everything. The NT is another matter. At that point, Christians were viewing God from the Hellenistic view.

 

[Free4all]

Or can you find me a scripture that states that God can do absolutely anything?

Verses in which the absolute unlimited extent of God's power is affirmed are rare. The reason, however, lies not in any actual restriction placed on this power. The point to be noticed is that no statement is anywhere made exempting anything from the reach of divine power.

Nearest to a general formula come such statements as "Is anything too hard for the Lord" (Genesis 18:14; Jeremiah 32:17); or “I know that thou canst do everything” or “God . . . hath done whatever he pleased” (Psalm 115:3, 135:6), or, negatively, no one “can hinder” God, in carrying out His purpose (Isaiah 43:13), or God’s hand is not “waxed short” (Numbers 11:23)

In the New Testament: “With God all things are possible” (Matthew 19:26; Mark 10:27; Luke 18:27); “Nothing is impossible with God”. Indirectly the omnipotence of God is implied in the effect ascribed to faith (Matthew 17:20 “Nothing shall be impossible unto you”; Mark 9:23 “All things are possible to him that believeth”), because faith puts the divine power at the disposal of the believer.

On its subjective side the principle of inexhaustible power finds expression in Isaiah 40:28: God is not subject to weariness. Because God is conscious of the unlimited extent of His resources nothing is marvelous in His eyes (Zechariah 8:6).

It is chiefly through its forms of manifestation that the distinctive quality of the divine power which renders it omnipotent becomes apparent. The divine power operates not merely in single concrete.​

 

[DeepShadow]

How, then do you address the Riddle of Epicurus, from my first post?

 

[Super Universe]

Have you ever allowed your child to ride a bicycle? Did they fall and skin their knee? Then by your own logic you are a malevolent parent. Did the child eventually get back on the bike?

Maybe Elpicurus' little four sentence logic test doesn't quite cover every scenario.

What if this evil you fear so much isn't evil at all? It's just ignorance.

 

[DeepShadow]

Super Universe, I agree with your analogy, but only because it compares God to a finite being!

Have you ever allowed your child to ride a bicycle? Did they fall and skin their knee? Then by your own logic you are a malevolent parent.

No, because I am not literally omnipotent. A literally omnipotent parent could teach His child to ride a bike without any risks at all, or even without practice. For a creature of absolutely unlimited power to allow evil to flourish is malevolent.

Maybe Elpicurus' little four sentence logic test doesn't quite cover every scenario.

Maybe it's not supposed to.

What if this evil you fear so much isn't evil at all? It's just ignorance.

Then a totally and completely omnipotent being would fix that, wouldn't he?

 

[DeepShadow]

In my opinion there is no genuine contradiction. God's nature is defined by the things that He chooses to do. Therefore, it is not possible to for God to act against His nature, because His nature is defined by how He acts. He still is omnipotent. He just chooses to act one way and not another.

I actually agree with most of this! If this is how you define "omnipotent," then fine. I mean, the term "circumspect" literally means "to look around," but it has surpassed that to mean "careful" or "prudent." Perhaps that's what happened with the word "omnipotent"...but then we need to let the dictionaries know that.

My opinion on this is that the presence of evil is necessary when creatures are given freewill. All an evil action is is an action that disagrees with God's will. If creatures are able to act according to their own will and not God's, then by definition, evil must exist.

Okay, but what about natural "evils?" Specifically, what about pain and disease? I believe these things are there to teach us powerful spiritual lessons...but then if God was literally omnipotent, He'd teach us that without forcing us to go through it. I believe He can't, because he's limited by laws of the universe. Learning, I believe, cannot be imposed or infused, not even by God.

I also find the assertion you seem to make unsettling; that somehow God is not powerful enough to counter evil.

When did I say this? I believe God is powerful enough to counter evil. What I don't believe is that God can create good without evil, light without dark, etc. Nor do I believe that He can abolish evil without the inhabitants of the Earth losing something vital along with it--learning, perhaps. If He were literally omnipotent, it stands to reason He could to both of these.

The good news of the Gospel tells of God's plan to counter evil. If we think He isn't doing it the way we think He should, then perhaps we don't have the big picture like He does.

And here I totally agree. :clap