{"id":6574,"date":"2023-06-06T10:01:49","date_gmt":"2023-06-06T17:01:49","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/thomasjayoord.com\/index.php\/blog\/archives\/"},"modified":"2023-06-06T12:15:23","modified_gmt":"2023-06-06T19:15:23","slug":"my-response-to-john-sanders-on-omnipotence","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/thomasjayoord.com\/index.php\/blog\/archives\/my-response-to-john-sanders-on-omnipotence","title":{"rendered":"My Response to Sanders on Omnipotence"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

I want to thank my friend John Sanders for his thoughtful critique of my recent book, The Death of Omnipotence and Birth of Amipotence<\/a><\/em>. See that critique here.<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

In the following, I respond to John. His comments push me to be clearer, but I\u2019m not convinced by his criticisms. I continue to find my arguments more convincing than alternatives.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In what follows, I address what I think are John\u2019s key points. I\u2019ve addressed some of his other points in this previous response.<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n

\n
\"\"<\/a><\/figure>\n<\/div>\n\n\n

Bible<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

John agrees that the Hebrew and Greek words translated \u201calmighty\u201d do not mean omnipotent. But his main point revolves around whether God can control creatures or creation. He says, \u201cmost biblical scholars hold that the biblical texts depict a deity who can control specific circumstances.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

I\u2019m not sure how John knows this; I doubt he took a poll. I would not be surprised if a poll were done and his comment proved correct, however. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

My point is not what a poll of Bible scholars thinks about God\u2019s power, although I cite many Biblical scholars who agree with me. My point is addressing what the biblical text actually says. And as I argue, I find no texts that require interpreters to think God can control creation, in the sense of being the only cause.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

John also says biblical writers themselves thought God can control. As he puts it, \u201csome biblical writers believed God could control an event.\u201d John claims this understanding of omnipotence \u2013 God controlling creatures or creation \u2013 is in the Bible.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Do Biblical Writers Say God Controls?<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

Neither John nor I, of course, know with certainty what writers thought about God\u2019s power. We have the biblical text, but we\u2019re not mind readers. If the writers of scripture thought God could control, they did a very poor <\/em>job of saying so. They never explicitly proclaim this. And we can easily understand the stories they tell about God as involving creaturely contribution.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

If I had a doctoral student who tried to write a 300-page dissertation defending the idea God can control but never <\/em>actually made the claim, I\u2019d fail that student. If Biblical writers thought God can control in the sense of determining outcomes singlehandedly, they failed miserably in expressing those thoughts. So I see no good reason to speculate they believed God was controlling. But I admit no one can know for sure.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Because this point is crucial, let me address it another way. John claims that \u201cthe Bible portrays God as one who can singlehandedly control an entity.\u201d But I find no textual evidence for this claim. None. One can make assumptions or inferences, of course, and many have. But it\u2019s not in the text. So I continue to reject the idea the Bible affirms the notion God can or does control, in the sense of being the only cause of some outcome.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Everyday Language of Control<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

One of John\u2019s stronger points is his worry that my defining of control as \u201csinglehandedly determining outcomes\u201d is not the common use of the word \u201ccontrol.\u201d He rightly points out that at least sometimes we use \u201ccontrol\u201d but don\u2019t mean one person alone determined an outcome.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

I\u2019m not <\/em>arguing, however, that I\u2019m using the word \u201ccontrol\u201d for God in the common use of the word. When an overbearing parent is said to \u201ccontrol\u201d her kids, after all, we don\u2019t mean she is omnipotent. I\u2019m saying many people use \u201comnipotent\u201d in a way that assumes God alone can or does bring about some result.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Instead of \u201csinglehandedly,\u201d I could have used the phrase \u201cunilaterally determine.\u201d And instead of \u201ccontrol,\u201d I could have said, \u201cacts as a sufficient cause.\u201d Perhaps my attempt to use accessible language causes some of John\u2019s worries. But my point is that there is no explicit biblical support for the idea an omnipotent God alone brings about outcomes.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Death by a Thousand Qualifications<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

John\u2019s criticisms of my arguments in chapter two are stronger than his criticisms of chapter one. As I understand him, he thinks we can easily reduce my long list of qualifications to one or two major categories. This issue also arose in my recent debate with Ryan Mullins.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Perhaps this chapter could have been clearer if I offered three tiers of qualifications. One overarching qualification related to logic, a dozen sub-categories, and then billions of examples. My overall aim, however, was to alert readers to the many qualifications necessary to make sense of omnipotence. Given the responses to the book, most readers were unaware that omnipotence must be qualified in so many ways.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

John\u2019s reference to omniscience helps illustrate why I think we\u2019re better off identifying sub-categories and examples rather than simply saying all qualifications are logical. As open theists, John and I have a distinct set of truths we think God knows than what non-open theists have. And this difference makes a difference.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

So while technically open and non-open theists deny God can know what is logically unknowable, how each thinks about the content of divine knowledge differs significantly. This illustrates why identifying subcategories is only important for pointing out differences among theologies. And it\u2019s important for alerting \u201caverage\u201d readers that numerous qualifications are necessary to make sense of divine power.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Acting Singlehandedly<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

John makes a mistake when criticizing my view, a mistake that I encounter from time to time. The mistake is based on a subtle but important distinction. Here are several examples of this mistake in John\u2019s own language. He thinks I believe \u201cGod never acts without some other entity,\u201d and says in response to my LeBron James example that \u201cJames did not act singlehandedly.\u201d John says I think God \u201cnever \u2018singlehandedly\u2019 does anything in creation.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The subtle difference between what I actually say and what John says I say is that I claim no outcomes <\/em>or results <\/em>are brought about by God singlehandedly. Sometimes he quotes me rightly, but then he returns to phrases that sound like God can\u2019t act without creation being involved.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

To explain the difference between \u201csinglehandedly acting\u201d and \u201csinglehandedly bringing about outcomes,\u201d I sometimes use the example of asking my wife to marry me. I acted. She didn\u2019t force me. But the results I wanted would require her cooperation. So while I could act, I couldn\u2019t singlehandedly bring about the outcome of our being engaged.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

As I understand him, John\u2019s primary criticism here is that I\u2019m using \u201ccontrol\u201d for God in a way different from the average use of \u201ccontrol.\u201d He\u2019s right about this. I\u2019m defining \u201ccontrol\u201d in an unconventional way. I do so to address divine omnipotence understood as God being the sole cause of an outcome. John then uses \u201csinglehandedly\u201d in examples of how people might act. Of course, I\u2019m criticizing this use of \u201csinglehandedly\u201d in everyday speech… if the word means being the only cause. So his examples don\u2019t fit my criticism of omnipotence.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In this discussion, John again claims biblical writers believe God controls. This is an important point for him. To repeat myself: I find no evidence for this claim, if “control” means God is the only cause. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

If we redefine \u201ccontrol\u201d as God being the decisive cause among other causes for some outcome, however, I will agree with John. Biblical writers think they should give God credit as the decisive cause. My claim is simply that God can only be the decisive cause when creatures cooperate, or the conditions of creation are conducive.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Moving a Pebble<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

After my claiming God doesn\u2019t have a hand to lift a pebble, John says \u201cPersonally, I (and every other theologian I\u2019ve ever read) never thought God required a body to move a pebble. And I\u2019ve yet to read an explanation of why so many thinkers are wrong about this.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This is odd to me. I had been explaining why theologians are wrong to say God is omnipotent, so my entire book is the explanation John wants. In this book and many previous ones, I\u2019ve explained why we can do things with our bodies \u2013 like lift pebbles \u2013 that God can\u2019t do. God can’t, because God is bodiless and not omnipotent. God moves pebbles only when creation cooperates with God\u2019s desire to move pebbles.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Problem of Evil<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

John agrees with some of my claims in my work to solve the problem of evil. But he doesn\u2019t agree with everything I say. And unlike many other readers, he doesn\u2019t think I\u2019ve solved it.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Although I say a noncontrolling God can raise Jesus from the dead, John disagrees. I\u2019ve published my work on this issue in other books (which I footnote). John and I have previously argued about miracles too. Although many find my affirmation of miracles satisfactory, he does not. He also mentions the work of our common friend, Ryan McLaughlin. I know about some of Ryan\u2019s work, and I had a series of email exchanges with him a decade ago. But perhaps Ryan has something new. I\u2019ll check it out.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

John concludes this section by saying, \u201cThe real claim in this book is that any deity with more power than the God of essential kenosis must be rejected \u2013 not just those that affirm omnipotence. A mighty God who can move a pebble or raise Jesus from the dead must go.\u201d <\/p>\n\n\n\n

John is right that I believe a God who can move a pebble or raise Jesus singlehandedly <\/em>must go. That God is morally responsible for failing to prevent evil. But I argue that a God who moves pebbles and raises Jesus through uncontrolling love and creaturely cooperation should be embraced. Omnipotence must go.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Amipotence<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

John likes some of what I say about amipotence. And he\u2019s right that someone could use the word in other love-first theologies. As I try to say in my explanation, I think amipotence is God\u2019s power expressed through uncontrolling love. But other love-first theologies may understand uncontrolling love differently than I do.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

After reading the last chapter, John has questions. He wonders how creatures require God\u2019s power to do anything. I admit I didn\u2019t explain that question, because I assumed it would be an assumption many readers hold. When I claim God is a necessary cause for the existence and activity of any creature, I mean we all live and move and have our being in God. I\u2019ve said this often in previous books, but maybe I forgot to say it in this one.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

John asks other good questions of me in this last section, questions I answer in general, but not with the specificity he would like. This is a fair criticism. I could have said more and given many more examples. Perhaps I\u2019ll take this section and write an entire book on it. But the general framework for answering his questions is in this chapter.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Exaggerated<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

Overall, I think John\u2019s criticism of my book comes from his desire to retain some version of omnipotence. Most if not all of his criticisms reflect this desire. Of course, I don\u2019t think the main understandings of omnipotence are worth retaining. That\u2019s a key reason I wrote the book!<\/p>\n\n\n\n

I love John\u2019s witty conclusion: \u201cParaphrasing Mark Twain, I conclude that \u2018the rumors of omnipotence\u2019s demise have been greatly exaggerated.\u2019\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

I\u2019ll conclude with Khalil Gibran: \u201cExaggeration is truth that has lost its temper.\u201d That omnipotence is dead is, I think, an important truth and not an exaggeration. But I hope to express that truth in tempered ways.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Small corrections:<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

While John agrees with me that the Hebrew words translated as \u201calmighty\u201d do not mean omnipotence, he says, \u201cit hardly warrants the conclusion that all understandings of omnipotence must be rejected.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

I\u2019m not arguing against all<\/em> understandings of omnipotence. I\u2019m arguing against what I believe are the primary<\/em> understandings of omnipotence, which I explain early in the book and refer to often. I could craft a definition of omnipotence I could embrace; I have done this in previous books with \u201calmighty.\u201d But the definition of omnipotence I think plausible wouldn\u2019t be among the three most common ways people use the word.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

John says, \u201cOord says that all proponents of omnipotence affirm at least one of the following definitions (3).\u201d Actually, I don\u2019t say this on page 3 or elsewhere. I say the three definitions of omnipotence I offer are the most common. As I say in a footnote, I agree with Alvin Plantinga that omnipotence is a widely defined word. But I quote major theologians throughout the book who adhere to one of these three definitions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

John says I offer yet a fourth definition of omnipotence when I talk about divine determinism of all events. I confess not to being as clear as I should be. I tried to say the first definition of omnipotence, \u201cGod exerts all power,\u201d is identical to what John considers a fourth definition: divine determinism. (See my explanation on page 2)<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

I want to thank my friend John Sanders for his thoughtful critique of my recent book, The Death of Omnipotence and Birth of Amipotence. See that critique here. In the following, I respond to John. His comments push me to be clearer, but I\u2019m not convinced by his criticisms. I continue to find my arguments […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[9],"tags":[136,7202],"yst_prominent_words":[1070,1161,1740,3371,5388,5836,6433],"class_list":["post-6574","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-open_and_relational_theology","tag-john-sanders","tag-criticism"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/thomasjayoord.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6574","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/thomasjayoord.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/thomasjayoord.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/thomasjayoord.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/thomasjayoord.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=6574"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/thomasjayoord.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6574\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/thomasjayoord.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=6574"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/thomasjayoord.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=6574"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/thomasjayoord.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=6574"},{"taxonomy":"yst_prominent_words","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/thomasjayoord.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/yst_prominent_words?post=6574"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}