quote:

---

The whole question of the relation of God's omnipotence and goodness to evil (instead of the differentiation that God accomplishes the good and merely permits the evil) is resolved quite simply in the following way. The greatest good, after all, which can be done for a being, greater than anything else one can do for it, is to make it free. In order to do just that, omnipotence is required. This seems strange, since it is precisely omnipotence that supposedly would make [a being] dependent. But if one will reflect on omnipotence he will see that it also must contain the unique qualification of being able to withdraw itself again in a manifestation of omnipotence in such a way that precisely for this reason that which has been originated through omnipotence can be independent. This is why one human being cannot make another person wholly free, because the one who has power is himself captive in having it and therefore continually has a wrong relationship to the one whom he wants to make free. Moreover, there is a finite self-love in all finite power (talent, etc.). Only omnipotence can withdraw itself at the same time as it gives itself away, and this relationship is the very independence of the receiver. God's omnipotence is therefore his goodness. For goodness is to give oneself away completely, but in such a way that by omnipotently taking onself back one makes the recipient independent. All finite power makes [a being] dependent; only omnipotence can make [a being] independent, can form from nothing something which has its continuity in itself through the continual withdrawing of omnipotence. Omnipotence is not esconced in a relationship to another, for there is no other to which it is comparable--no, it can give without giving up the least of its power, ie., it can make [a being] independent. It is incomprehensible that omnipotence is not only able to create the most impressive of all things--the whole visible world--but is also able to create the most fragile of all things--a being independent of that very omnipotence. Omnipotence, which can handle the world so toughly and with such a heavy hand, can also make itself so light that what it has brought into existence receives independence. Only a wretched and mundane conception of the dialectic of power holds that it is greater and greater in proportion to its ability to compel and to make dependent. No, Socrates had a sounder understanding; he knew that the art of power lies precisely in making another free. But in the relationship between man and man this can never be done, even though it needs to be emphasized again and again that this is the highest; only omnipotence can truly succeed in this. Therefore if man had the slightest independent existence over against God (with regard to materia), then God could not make him free. Creation out of nothing is once again the Almighty's expression for being able to make [a being] independent. He to whom I owe absolutely everything, although he still absolutely controls everthing, has in fact made me independent. If in creating man God himself lost a little of his power, then precisely what he could not do would be to make man independent.

---

quote:

---

Modes, I'm afraid I don't track with your "objectivity"/ "subjectivity" distinction as applied in this context, but otherwise I think we are saying the same thing. God's omnipotent power is his ability to accomplish his will -- which includes creating independent, free beings who can say "no" to his will. With SK,C.S.Lewis, and you, I regard this to be the highest, most exalted, feat of omnipotence.

---

quote:

---

Modes: Not sure yet.

What do you others think? Are we saying the same thing? I think I see a difference.

---

quote:

---

"Yes, I want to say that God is still omnipotent. I think the second order omnipotence is unnecessary and unfortunate unless we are admitting that omnipotence is indeed defined as control. God does not limit or curb God's will in accomplishing God's will of making creatures free. God's will is wholly and completely accomplished. It is only if you insist on "control" language that you'd need to fall back on some sort of "second order" rhetoric, but then we are implicityl using a different definition of omnipotence than God's ability to accomplish God's will."

---

and later...

quote:

---

Right now, it seems self-evident to me that the first/secnd order distinction with regard to power is really a way of dodging the issue. Now you have two categories for one. And one is not infinite. No, we are no longer talking about OMNIpotence. God does not lose a bit of power in this, IF we are speaking in the definitions that I am using. Correct me if I am wrong. I'd appreciate it.

---

Well, Modes, ol' buddy. I think that you are wrong.

It's seems that you want to define omnipotence in terms of willing (more to the point, the efficacy with which a being can accomplish his/her will) This means, I assume that an omnipotent being would be able to accomplish ANY logically coherent thing that they would wish. Fine, well, and good. However, I think you miss something important. Accomplishment of will ENTAILS manipulation of power in some regard. I would say the following:

For any being X who has an agenda to accomplish, said agenda can only be accomplished personally by being X IF and ONLY IF it is within the POWER of being X to do so.

Doc's little example. The CEO. Let's say the CEO's agenda is to delegate more authority to others such that he doesn't unilaterally control all the business. It is a foregone conclusion that the CEO cannot delegate away power (the ability to control!) and authority that he doesn't have. The CEO pre-delegation would be first order, post-delegation would be second order.

So, to me, talking about first and second order omnipotence is not dodging the problem at all, but saving it from complete absurdity. Remember way back when I tried to argue that omnipotence was the ONLY "omni" that could be completely CONSISTENT while making a distinction between capacity of attribute and it's exercise. (Better recognize. This is what got me to seeing the validity in the fundamental premises of openness in the first place. Want me to revert??? ) And one cannot talking about willing in any PRAGMATIC sense unless there is POWER to accomplish the will.

Long story short: I think Doc's right here.




PS: And I've ALWAYS had problems with Doc's infinite intelligence argument against classical theism. Whoowee.

quote:

---

All of our reasoning insists that something can not be made out of nothing. Yet, for God, all things are possible. Another one, we say that in Christ, God became a human being. Preposterous. Offensive even. Yet we say, okay, let's go with it, despite our reasoning.

---

A Compatibilist:
"What? Human beings can have genuine freedom and YET be fully determined by God? PREPOSTEROUS. Can't God do anything? Are we going to limit God??"

"What? Human beings can be completely determined by God and STILL have moral responsibility for sin...and STILL be "all-good"? IDIOTIC. But aren't all things possible with God??"

How far are we going to take this? Just wondering...


AND...
Modes said:

quote:

---

The most I can say with confidence is that God is Able to accomplish God's will. Please show me the flaw in this logic.

---

Modes, there's nothing flawed with the logic. But saying that God is ABLE to accomplish God's will means that he has sufficient POWER and wherewithal to bring it to pass. Sorry, man. But I don't think you can't get away from talking about "control"

quote:

---

Meph: POW, A question. How can you talk about Creation and Resurrection without talking about "power"?

---

quote:

---

Uh, oh...

Modes said:

quote:

---

All of our reasoning insists that something can not be made out of nothing. Yet, for God, all things are possible. Another one, we say that in Christ, God became a human being. Preposterous. Offensive even. Yet we say, okay, let's go with it, despite our reasoning.

---

A Compatibilist:
"What? Human beings can have genuine freedom and YET be fully determined by God? PREPOSTEROUS. Can't God do anything? Are we going to limit God??"

"What? Human beings can be completely determined by God and STILL have moral responsibility for sin...and STILL be "all-good"? IDIOTIC. But aren't all things possible with God??"

How far are we going to take this? Just wondering...


AND...
Modes said:

quote:

---

The most I can say with confidence is that God is Able to accomplish God's will. Please show me the flaw in this logic.

---

Modes, there's nothing flawed with the logic. But saying that God is ABLE to accomplish God's will means that he has sufficient POWER and wherewithal to bring it to pass. Sorry, man. But I don't think you can't get away from talking about "control"

---

Yes, Meph, I am aware of the connection there, but this is precisely why I am drawn (tempted?) to the idea that we need to be a bit more honest about our discussions of power insofar as we invoke God as the subject of the sentence. I thought you'd be with me on retaining omnipotence. I can see that the math is getting in the way. I understand that, but I still have to ask, what is the most honest way through this? I grant that responsibility can be localized on the basis of our exercise of freedom, this is what makes sin "against God" and what is assumed here is that God has made this possible metaphysically by making us independent. All good. Now, I am talking about backing up for perspective on things here, not with any one event in mind, but rather with the way in which we conceptualize power for God formally. We know some things for sure:

1. God can create something out of nothing. And that, strictly speaking, is not logical or even humanly conceivable.
2. God can genuinely change God's own nature, the incarnation demonstrates this.

Is this not theologically relevent data?

We also know that God, in becoming a human being, took on some limitations as layed out in the kenosis hymn. Additionally we know that this did not result in God ceasing to be God. Quite the opposite is true! This is a primary revelation of God and indicates something about the way God uses power! God's power must be envisioned in such a way that precisely in participating in an "out of the ordinary way" in the finite world, God expresses something true about God's omnipotence (that God IS ABLE to do the possible). So, what we know theologically seems quite at odds with what we know from our experience. And yes, reason is limited to our experience and our imaginations. I do see the danger in this logic as making it "plausible" in this limited sense of consistent with the "things we know for sure" that perhaps other things that seem illogical to us are in fact possible. Now, this admission is required by faith at some point. Like it or not. Otherwise, throw out the resurrection, the creation, the incarnation, and basically every other non-analog with our experience. This is NOT yet the same as saying that what we can DEMNSTRATE as impossible now becomes possible for God. It simply is to say that we have to be a bit more careful about what gets tossed into that set: "demonstrably impossible actions". Let's say we are talking about a round square. Well, this is as demonstrably impossible of an example as I can concieve, so, I'd say that that is impossible, even for God. It means nothing. BUT this is a far cry from saying that, since I cannot concieve of how something can come from nothing, that that is now categorically impossible for God. One is a matter of mutually exclusive definitions (round square) and the other is a matter of lack of analog in my experience. See the difference? I'd say that the compatibilist deal is the former not the latter.

I'm still wanting to get at a more adequate definition of omnipotence. I think ours is too small. Meph, I think I need to clarify that when I say that for God all things are possible, the category "all things" still has to be within the category of what is, according to God's awareness, "possible." The assertion is simply another way of saying that God is able to do what God wills, so long as that is within the "realm" of possibilities as God knows it. God doesn't contradict Godself, so if God wills it, it is to be assumed that it was possible, not according to our math, but God's.

As far as control goes, yes, I grant that it is involved, but only indirectly. Omnipotence is first a category having to do with God's infinity. There is no finite wherefore that exists over and against God in principle. NOW, there is of course God's creation which is wholly derived, but God's relation to it is a matter of will, or in biblical terms, covenant. God is not metaphysically bound to keep covenant, as Greg's theology would indicate, but rather God keeps covenant freely by virtue of God's will. God has set certain stipulations which are extreme in terms of what is indicated if God should break covenant, but this is not because God knows it is metaphysically impossible that that should happen but that God has decided, and God's decision is indeed decisive, in all regards. Much of what we speak of with regard to freedom and so forth, I'd assume God has decided to grant independence to. Thereby our intuitions about that freedom are basically correct. Though to what extent is still debatable.

I still see that the distinction being made here between God's omnipotence with regard to will is useful. I do see the implications for how this affects control in our finite ways of thinking, and I will continue to do the best I can there. Localizing responsibility on the most evident agent and so forth. If we are so often encouraged by God to envision God's power differently than by quantities of control, it seems we ought to take that to heart and demote the "implications" in terms of finite power in some way. It is ALWAYS true that one idea ties into many related ideas, but this does not mean that we should sacrifice the coherence of what we know for sure with regard to the original idea being spoken of, here, of course, I refer to omnipotence as discussed above.

This is too fun.

"Christianly understood, truth is obviously not to know the truth but to be the truth. Despite all modern philosophy, there is an infinite difference here..." SK

quote:

---

quote:

---

Meph: POW, A question. How can you talk about Creation and Resurrection without talking about "power"?

---

Fun question.

quote:

---

Meph: And one cannot talking about willing in any PRAGMATIC sense unless there is POWER to accomplish the will.

---

Try this one on. (Modes can join.) God, before the creation of the world willed lovingly towards me and you.

How does THAT fit with your formula? (You are smarter than me, so maybe this will be not trouble.) I think I'm staying on track if I say that there is a KIND of "creation" without andy "actual" (temporal/material) exercise of power. Have I made this funner; or added stupidity?

Thanks.

I'm o() or (o), but definitely {o}.

---