Sentences with phrase «with omnipotence»

The affirmation of faith, that God is Almighty, is then always dependent upon the insight that I can not perceive and reckon with this omnipotence as a universally valid fact whenever I please, but only if it pleases God.

What is confusion for us is order for Him, what we call chance is designed by Him, thought out from eternity and executed with omnipotence.

Perhaps we do not fully realize the problem, so to call it, of enabling finite free wills to co-exist with Omnipotence.

... The absence of individual freedom went hand in hand with the omnipotence of the State.»

For the classical fusion of goodness with omnipotence creates in fact not unity but a profoundly conflicted entity... To heal the internally contradictory religious combination of love and power, power itself first needs recoding.58

Hamann critiqued this as a pathetic, prideful parody of God's fiat in creation: «For what is the highly touted reason with its omnipotence, infallibility, effusiveness, certainty, and evidence?

As far as omniscience being incompatible with omnipotence, I'm not really clear on what your argument was there.

Not exact matches

If god is omniscient, he would know the future with absolute certainty; but his «omnipotence» would be rendered powerless if he ever tried to alter the future, due to his «omniscience».

Additionally, it removes god's omnipotence in that he can not act according to his own «free will»; rather, he is obliged to act only in accordance with this «good nature.»

Classical theism, we believe, can affirm the genuineness of evil and reconcile this with God's omnipotence and omnibenevolence.

In short, Plantinga's response to Mackie is clearly not that evil is compatible with benevolent omnipotence because all evil is nongenuine.

With this basic distinction between «I» and «C» omnipotence in mind, let us analyze what Griffin has to say about Plantinga's position.

It is Griffin's contention that only a theism that entails «C» omnipotence is able to reconcile divine power and goodness with the genuineness of evil.

15 With all these caveats against unqualified omnipotence being laid down like stepping stones to a new horizon of view, Origen finally arrived at a provocative conclusion: «we must maintain that even the power of God is finite, and we must not, under pretext of praising him, lose sight of his limitations.»

It is only when we turn to Irenaeus of Lyons that we encounter full blown a philosophical defense of divine omnipotence, but precisely in Irenaeus we are dealing with a leading Christian thinker of his time whose influence was extensive.8

First, Camus can not reconcile the fact of evil and suffering with the claim of God's goodness and omnipotence.

The problem with the analogy is that it's not even close to being equal, more likely Hitler is a terribly poor imitation of God even though he attempts to emulate omnipotence and sovereignty.

The prevailing structure of theological interpretation in the West lost that vision, replacing it with static categories of divine completedness necessitating a view of absolute omnipotence.

The redefinition of omnipotence and omniscience provide the groundwork for process thought's unique treatment of theodicy, the question of how the concept of an all powerful yet loving God can be reconciled with the existence of evil in the world.

Hence we shall do well to think of the divine omnipotence as meaning cosmic Love's supreme capacity to work in and through, as well as with, the world, indefatigably and indefeasibly.

Free will taken in context with everything else espoused by Christianity, including the omniscience and omnipotence of God, really feels like every person is a pre-written program.

Faustus Socinus and his followers were the first to break, not only with trinitarianism and the worship of Jesus as literally divine but above all with the one - sided view of God as immutable and merely infinite, also with the tragic error of omnipotence in a sense contradictory of freedom in human beings.

Take any traditional objection to accepting the old Platonic analogy of God as the World Soul and it can be shown that the objection stands or falls with aspects of a tradition which philosophy has been moving away from since the middle ages — for instance ideas of sheer infinity, sheer immutability, also what is usually meant by omnipotence.

So long as there are those who identify God with some one - sided abstraction like infinity; absoluteness, or worst of all omnipotence (not even a self - consistent abstraction), we shall need the help both of more balanced theists and of nontheists to counteract these more subtle and intellectual forms of idolatry.

Traditional Christian theology, with its doctrine of divine omnipotence, could not do justice to the latter intuition.

«The Highest Beings stand out from one another as dark omnipotence and shining goodness, not as later with Marcion in dogma and creed, but in the actual experience of the poor soul of man.»

Group 2 contains such classical attributes as creation ex nihilo, omnipotence, incorporeality, nontemporality, and absolute unsurpassability, along with their neoclassical counterparts.

Hartshorne connects his opposition to the classical doctrine of omnipotence with his rejection of the classical doctrine of creation.19 To be sure, one might embrace creation ex nihilo while recognizing some limits to divine power (other than logical contradiction).

According to them, the classical theologian indicts the process theologian with «forfeiting a meaningful notion of divine omnipotence,» while the latter indicts the former with «proposing...

To call such contingencies «blessings of God» too blatantly suggests to me a very capricious omnipotence or a finite deity who has managed to exert a bit of benevolent influence in this particular instance — and either way I am back with my old problem.

His religious difficulty came from the kind of theology he found around him, its habit of identifying words in a book (written by human hands and thought by human brains) with the words of God, also from the habit of playing fast and loose with the dangerously ambiguous concepts of omnipotence and omniscience, and taking these more seriously than any definite affirmation of the freedom of creatures to make decisions that are their own and not God's.

But process thinkers may go a step further than Hauerwas in their understanding of divine power as noncoercive, persuasive, beckoning love with their reinterpretation of the traditional divine attributes of omnipotence and omniscience.

It's true that Chad's God has not provided him with enough material to frame an argument for its existence, much less its identity as Creator, or qualities of omnipotence and omniscience, or even status as a necessary being.

For Israel, God was the ultimate reality, he was all power (though that is very different from the concept of omnipotence of later centuries), and he was good — not a being concerned with selfish interests, but his character was grace and love.

Cone affirmed the doctrine of divine omnipotence, but with a twist.

Can such a belief in prayer exist together with the belief in omnipotence?

It begins with a rationalistic assumption about the attributes of God — as though we know what omnipotence and goodness mean — and then we put that concept of God to the test of our experience of evil.

Now, when God's enemy stands before Him, He cries to God, whose omnipotence He knows: «All things are possible with thee; let this cup pass from me» (Mark 14:36).

Swinburne sets out to defend God's omnipotence and goodness (although he is weak on God's omniscience) by arguing that the evil in the world is necessary to the measure of good in the world, with good finally winning out over evil.

The image of a God who renounces omnipotence enters into our consciousness with such unexpectedness that we can not help but see it as a revelation.

Although we probably can not imagine, given our experience with this world, a substance that would quench our thirst without having the capacity to drown us, the empirical connection between these two qualities is not a logical connection... Furthermore, if God's omnipotence is limited only by logical principles... why do we need water at all?

But the biblical doctrine of God does not remain with man abased before omnipotence.

I begin not with the earlier manifestations of proposals that solve the love / power riddle by negating divine omnipotence, thence to move forward in time.

Kierkegaard wrestled throughout his pseudonymous writings with how to reconcile this centrality of God as Love with the doctrine of divine omnipotence, and specifically with holding onto both omni potence and human freedom.

66 He rightly observed that God «is omnicompetent, that he can appropriately deal with any circumstance that arises; nothing can ultimately defeat or destroy him,» 67 but he believed this is only a working out of the inherent meaning of omnipotence while, elsewhere, he gave that word its far more classical tonalities.

In this endeavor to reconcile the omnipotence of a good God with the facts of personal experience, four major lines of thought were followed out.

What we are left with, then, is what Hartshorne refers to as the «social view» of omnipotence.

This final part of Griffin's argument for the process theodicy turns on an assumption that he appears to have borrowed by Hartshorne, viz., that the so - called «social view» of omnipotence is the only alternative to the monopolistic (and thus to the standard) view.9 The critique of the latter thus established the former as (in Griffin's words) «the only view that is coherent if one is talking about the power a being with the greatest conceivable amount of power could have over a created, i.e. an actual world» (GPE 269).

If Griffin has really discovered a flaw in what lam calling the «standard view» of omnipotence, this would have important negative consequences for Christian theology generally and especially for the way in which it has dealt with the traditional problem of evil.

So far as has been shown to the contrary, there is nothing wrong with Premise X and nothing wrong with the standard view of omnipotence.