57
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 4:
Line 4: + +
Answering the criticism that omnipotence is not compatible with God's all-loving nature.
A common counter is that [[God]] can do anything within His nature; it is not in [[God]]'s nature to create such a rock, so He would not do so. However, this is a contradiction of the definition of omnipotence.
A common counter is that [[God]] can do anything within His nature; it is not in [[God]]'s nature to create such a rock, so He would not do so. However, this is a contradiction of the definition of omnipotence.
A further problem with the naive notion of omnipotence is that it is impossible for God to be both wholly good and wholly powerful. Many souls have been misled by the pernicious doctrine that states that an all-loving God could not be responsible for suffering in the world. This is, of course, a denial of the doctrine of sin, which holds that we are each - individually and collectively - held responsible by God for the suffering that comes upon us - whether or not we can actually understand why we are responsible. Of course, the fact that we are responsible entails that God is not. How can this be reconciled with omnipotence? The clear answer is that God's powers are virtual powers (pouissance) not actual powers (pouvoir): God could in theory do anything but the fact that he does not do anything particular does not disprove that he could not have done it. God, while all-loving and omnipotent, is not obliged to do whatever would benefit any specific part of creation, but rather to "love the individual as part of the collective" - suffering, no matter how great on the mortal scale - is always inconsequential compared to the realization of God's plan.