omni-
An interesting thing to note...
How we typically define a few terms related to God:
omniscience - God knows all things.
omnipresence - God is present to all places at all times.
omnibenevolence - God is all loving and good.
omnipotence - God can do anything.
* QUESTION #1 - Did you notice anything of interest?
* QUESTION #2 - Is there possibly a better way to think of these terms, are they wholly unnecessary / unbiblical, or are they just fine as they here stand?
How we typically define a few terms related to God:
omniscience - God knows all things.
omnipresence - God is present to all places at all times.
omnibenevolence - God is all loving and good.
omnipotence - God can do anything.
* QUESTION #1 - Did you notice anything of interest?
* QUESTION #2 - Is there possibly a better way to think of these terms, are they wholly unnecessary / unbiblical, or are they just fine as they here stand?
Labels: philosophy of sorts, theology
posted by Adam Godbold | 12:05 AM
6 Comments:
The terms are good but what is striking to me is that I think there are very few of us that really live out those terms in our daily lives. If we did I think all of us would be much further down our own roads of sanctification. 'God is present everywhere' - That alone is worth a day's contemplation.
Answer #1 - "All" is the common denominator (save "omnipotence," which is sufficient).
Answer #2 - "Omniscience" as defined implies this: an being has infinite knowledge through infinite experience (also implying that the being must be infinite as well to have experienced infinitely). As it is obvious to any who tarries on the thought, this is a very difficult idea to work through. I'm beginning to believe that the concept of time and God's knowledge of time is something I will not be able to comprehend (on the implication that in order to be able to understand it one must be able to see it infinitely, which I'm not able to do).
"Omnipresence" is something I would agree with, although I do not desire that it be confused with pantheism (because I don't find it's all right to worship God's creation).
"Omnibenevolence" is definitely biblical, for anything God is, He is wholly. Something else I'd say in response to omnibenevolence is that God is also just and holy, and all of this He is wholly (which is another wonderful conversation altogether).
I both agree and disagree with omnipotence as it has been defined. God can do anything, but God will not just do anything for the whim of it. Anytime God acts, He acts always in character. He does not change. Also, since God has created human free will, God has chosen to limit Himself in His actions for the sake of that free will. John MacArthur would agrees in the matter that "God is sovereign, but man is responsible."
Just a few points.
K-,
I find it interesting that each of the terms are defined as actualities (i.e., referring to a "reality") except for omnipotence, which is defined as a possibility (i.e., referring to an "ability"). For a few years now, that has simply struck me as odd.
Question: Does God necessarily know everything, or is it possible to simply affirm that He can know everything (and still remain wholly biblical)? Also, what is mean by knowing all things? Does He know sin?
Lamb,
Let me rephrase that definition as "God can do all things." This includes the object (things) coupled with the adjective (all). I'm not sure what you meant by mentioning sufficiency. Could you explain?
If you were to define knowledge experientially, wouldn't that imply that God has "experienced" sin, not merely in atonement but even in practice and negligence?
Regarding the worship of creation... not in the sense in which one would assume its end to be found in itself. However, we are allowed to "worship" in a broader sense - in which we bestow honor to a created being, appreciate His presence through creation [?], etc.
Philosophically speaking, a "thing" would necessarily be an intrinsic possibility. In other words, God cannot lie, not because there is some "thing" that He cannot do, but because Him lying is an intrinsic impossibility (i.e., a "non-entity"). Since such would be wholly contrary to reality, it does not limit God to say that it is impossible. Think of the whole question of God making a square circle. Impossibilities are inherent contradictions.
I think a better definition of omnipotence by your own definitions would be, "God is all powerful." It is a knowing that He is the source of all power, all power is rightfully His. Any power any other has on this earth or in the next world, is given or allowed by God. Nothing can overpower Him. He is not some alpha male that can be conquered at some point and His power stolen. He has all power. If He so chose, nothing could stand against Him.
I also think we sometimes misinterpret his omnibenevolence. We take being all good and all loving to mean that He is always allowing and accomodating. Acceptance is not the same as love. There is certainly a disconnect in how we view love and what love is. There is a disconnect in how we view good and what good really is. We think a good, loving person is someone who is accepting of everyone and passively accepts all behaviors from all people. That is not love, that is not good. It is not good to overlook and allow evil. It is good to stand up in the face of evil. Likewise, it is not love to condone evil. It is love to show a better way, to call wrong what it is, and offer help to those that clearly need it.
Regarding omnipotence - perhaps defining it as knowledge learned by experience, we could determine it as something else. Going along with the idea of notesfromtheparsonage, God does not need to experience in order to obtain knowledge. He is the creator of knowledge. He knows things intimately in a way that we can barely understand, if it's an understanding at all; a dim reflection of this could be the human desire to create.
I'm too tired to think of this right now, but does this make sense? I'm just thinking with what you give me. This is fun.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home