Chatbot and I Discuss Proving God and Using Love as a Theology

Chatbot and I  Discuss Proving God and

Using Love as a Theology

by R.E. Slater and OpenAI's ChatGPT

January 30, 2023

*Disclaimer: Reading through "Chatbot's" responses there are statements and replies I either would disagree with or tweak them a bit to be truer to the source. I will highlight those areas when I do. - R.E. Slater

Introduction

I developed this chat with the Internet a couple days ago as I was playing around with OpenAI's service tool. Today, I refined it a bit before releasing it. Mostly, I like CHAT-GPT because it presents grossly complicated ideas clearly and simply.

But this is also where I must distinguish AI-generated presentations, which I do here, in subject areas I have published a hundred different ways over the years by form and by function.

Today's chat is yet another iteration of how a new theology of important difference is seeking to counter older theologies overlooking difference based upon previous culturally-subjective philosophic models of bias.

Today's Christianity requires a better expression than the one I grew up in - and  of which I have become greatly discontent by - in its unbiblical positions and outcomes. Which I find humorous as its is usually my older Christian groups which would claim the same about me even as I find it more true of traditional church creeds and dogmas.

Which is also why so many people have drifted from the Christian church and Christianity itself, because such creeds and dogmas have produced so many ungodly perceptions and attitudes amongst its adherents.

And rather than struggle with building a progressive Christianity upon the older versions I was taught I simply removed the barriers to godly love to re-establish it's Jesus-core whereby progressive faiths might more easily rest when emphasizing God's love over God's judgments and wraths.

See what you think... this theology is there even in the vast realms of artificial intelligence. It lies there in plain view if we but look for it.

R.E. Slater

January 20, 2023

* * * * * * * * * *

Hi. Prove God

It is not possible to prove the existence of God using scientific methods, as God is generally considered to be a supernatural being. The existence of God is a matter of faith and belief, and different people have different beliefs about God. Some believe in the existence of one all-powerful God, while others believe in multiple gods or no gods at all. The concept of God is also central to many religions, and different religions have different beliefs about the nature and attributes of God.

Prove there is no God

It is not possible to prove the non-existence of God using scientific methods, as the existence of God is a matter of faith and belief. Arguments against the existence of God are typically based on philosophical and logical reasoning, rather than empirical evidence. Some argue that the concept of God is illogical or that the existence of God is incompatible with the existence of evil and suffering in the world. Others argue that the complexity and diversity of life can be explained through evolution and natural processes, rather than by the actions of a supreme being. However, these are arguments and perspectives, not proofs, as the existence of God is not a scientific hypothesis that can be tested with empirical data.

Does process theology remove the problem of theodicy?

Process theology is a type of theology that emphasizes the idea that God is constantly involved in the world and that the universe is in a state of constant change and evolution. It views God as a dynamic and evolving being who is affected by the world and its events.

One of the key ideas in process theology is the concept of divine persuasion, which holds that God works to persuade creatures to act in certain ways, rather than forcing them to do so. This means that God does not control everything that happens in the world, but rather works to influence and guide it.

In terms of the problem of theodicy, which is the question of how to reconcile the existence of evil and suffering with the belief in a benevolent and all-powerful God, process theology offers an alternative perspective. It suggests that God is not the creator of evil, but rather that it arises from the free choices of creatures and the natural processes of the universe. God is seen as working to overcome evil and suffering, rather than causing it.

Process theology does not completely remove the problem of theodicy, but offers an alternative perspective on it, by emphasizing the dynamic and evolving nature of God and the world, and by de-emphasizing the idea of God as an all-powerful, all-knowing and all-good being.

ADDENDUM: As such, process theology emphasizes an all-loving, uncontrolling God where love is free to be-and-become through a series of indeterminant creational events in which God participates with creation. Importantly, God is ontologically different from creation but intimately infilling freewilled creational events.

More so, that God's very being, God's DNA as it were, was poured into creation's birth and through continuous, processual cycles of rebirth. That it is unnecessary for God to control as God is on every leading edge of creational pronouncement as well as every series of creational rebirthing, both good and bad (re sin and evil).

Meaningfully, God is in every processual event along with every actualization of every processual event, as they twist-and-turn in relational enactment, bond, estrangement, cooperation, and union with other relationally interactive events. This is not divine control but divine birthing again-and-again in a cosmos infilled with God's love and generational insistence as a guiding teleology.

- re slater

How is divine omnipotence different from amipotence?

The terms "omnipotent" and "amipotent" are related to the concept of power and the nature of God.

Omnipotence is the belief that God is all-powerful, meaning that God has the ability to do anything that is logically possible. In other words, there is nothing that God cannot do. This is a traditional attribute of God in monotheistic religions such as Christianity, Islam and Judaism.

Amipotence, on the other hand, is a term that is used in some theological and philosophical contexts to describe a God who has limited power, or the ability to do certain things but not others. This idea of a limited God is often associated with Process Theology and Open Theism, which propose a God who is not all-knowing, all-powerful or unchanging, but a God who is affected by the world and is in a state of evolution [with creation's own processual evolution. Further, amipotence refers to a loving, uncontrolling God rather than an all-powerful God who sometimes loves. - res].

In summary, the term "omnipotent" refers to the belief that God has the ability to do anything that is logically possible, while "amipotent" refers to the belief that God has limited power, or the ability to do certain things but not others [because of divine love and not because of divine fiat. By God's love comes a freewill creation. Which is to say that all Godly attributes come after God's love and not before God's love. - re slater]

Describe divine amipotence in terms of divine love

Divine amipotence, as it relates to divine love, suggests that God's power is not absolute or limitless, but rather is limited in some way. This idea is associated with the belief that God's power is directed towards promoting love and goodness in the world.

In this view, God does not have the power to control everything that happens in the world, but rather works to influence and guide it towards love and goodness. God's power is seen as being directed towards the well-being and flourishing of creatures, rather than the exercise of arbitrary control.

In this sense, God's love is not a passive or detached love, but rather an active and engaged love that is constantly working to bring about the best for creatures. God's love is seen as the source of God's power and the driving force behind God's actions in the world. This perspective on divine amipotence suggests that God's power is grounded in and directed by God's love, which is the foundation of God's relationship with the world.

It's important to note that this perspective on divine amipotence is different from the traditional perspective of God's omnipotence, where God's power is absolute and limitless, and God is not affected by the world or the actions of creatures [based upon previous Greek Hellenizations or beliefs about gods and godhead such as Zeus and the Olympiad. Process thought removes Greek influences upon church doctrine and in its place promotes a processual metaphysic of cosmology and godhead. - res]

Explain divine sovereignty from a process viewpoint

Divine sovereignty is the belief that God is the supreme authority and ruler over all things. From a process viewpoint, divine sovereignty is understood differently than in traditional theology.

In traditional theology, divine sovereignty is often understood as God having complete control over everything that happens in the world, including the actions of creatures. God is often seen as the creator and sustainer of the universe, who is in control of all events and outcomes.

However, in process theology, the concept of divine sovereignty is understood differently. It emphasizes the idea that God is not the creator of [determinator of divine causal opportunities within] the world, but rather that the universe is in a state of constant change and evolution [as its own divinely initiated self-creator]. God is seen as being involved in the world, but not as the one who controls it.

[This is a difficult paragraph which I find myself continually working on... that God and creation are separate but intimately part with one another as the result of a divinely initiated processual relation with each other birthing profoundly loving and good teleological events which are immediately corrupted at inception countering a divine insistence towards generative value.

A creational inception event which then requires continuous acts of divine atonement and redemption - and not just once by the Christian Cross of Jesus which among other things symbolizes this ying-yang between God and creation. That these continuous creational process events are deeply, intimately underlaid and infilled with divine love and goodness.

It's my own philosophic-theological struggle to remove divine determination in favor of divine design allowing creational response with an activating processually-evolving creational teleology. That is, creation has the potential to fully love but not the ability to do so on it's own... which I find as a paradox if creation was at one time activated by divine love.

Further, creation's very "birth was as a continua creatio event ("from a primal state of somethingness") as versus creation ex nihilo, "out of nothing" referring to a primal state that wasn't, then was, by divine act. That creation was a clay awaiting a molder, a clay-organizer (rather than maker in the strictest sense), a clay-fashioner. Thus, process theology must speak to panentheism as opposed to Westernized classic theism on the one hand, or Eastern pantheism on the other hand. Here's a diagram of that arrangement: - re slater]

 

https://relevancy22.blogspot.com/2018/12/describing-relational-process-based.html

...From a process viewpoint, divine sovereignty is understood as God's ability to influence and guide the world towards love and goodness. God is seen as working to persuade creatures to act in certain ways, rather than forcing them to do so. This means that God does not control everything that happens in the world, but rather works to influence and guide it.

In this sense, divine sovereignty is understood as God's ability to guide the world towards love and goodness, rather than as an absolute and arbitrary control over it. It is also understood that God is affected by the world, God is in a state of evolution, and that the world is not a finished product, but a work in progress.

Using process theology, explain how there can be a creational telelogy, and if so, describe what this process-based teleology can mean.

In process theology, the concept of teleology refers to the idea that there is a purpose or goal to the universe, and that this purpose is guided by God.

In traditional theology, teleology is often understood as the idea that God created the universe with a specific purpose or goal in mind, and that this purpose is reflected in the natural laws and processes of the universe. However, in process theology, the concept of teleology is understood differently.

Process theology proposes that the universe is in a state of constant change and evolution, and that God is not the creator of the world, but rather involved in it. In this sense, teleology is not seen as something that is imposed on the world by God, but rather as something that emerges from the interactions and relationships between creatures and their environment.

From a process viewpoint, creational teleology refers to the idea that the universe is constantly evolving and that God is guiding this process towards the goal of greater love and goodness. This teleology is not a fixed or predetermined goal, but rather a dynamic and evolving one. It suggests that the purpose of the universe is not fixed but is constantly evolving as the universe itself evolves.

This process-based teleology can be understood as the idea that God is working to bring about the best possible outcome for creatures, and that this outcome is constantly evolving as the universe itself evolves. It also means that God is not the one who determines the outcome, but the one who guides the process towards the best possible outcome, and that the outcome is not predetermined but rather a result of the interactions between the creatures and their environment.

In summary, in process theology, creational teleology refers to the idea that the universe is constantly evolving, and that God is guiding this process towards the goal of greater love and goodness, and that this goal is not predetermined but rather a result of the interactions between the creatures and their environment.

Excellent. Thank you.

You're welcome! I'm glad I could help. If you have any other questions, feel free to ask.

R.E. Slater - Divine Sovereignty - What Is It?

Divine Sovereignty - What Is It?

Is It Near or Far? Controlling or Uncontrolling? Fully Knowledgeable

or Processually Affected in It's Divine Knowledge, Power, and Presence?

by R.E. Slater

December 16, 2022

A Fresh Perspective of Divine Omnipotence

When thinking of a Divine God with Divine Power it perhaps is better think in terms of Divine Love....

Shocking?

Perhaps.

But certainly much more in line with a "biblical" God than if casting Divinity in terms of non-Loving power and control. (aka, church-like dominionism with its legalisms, rites, and beliefs).

For a process theologian when speaking of God we prefer to speak of a God who is loving at all times rather than some times... or maybe not at all.

Too, if divine Sovereignty were cast in terms of a divinely Loving God at all times than the traditional terms of power and control must also be altered to better reflect a loving God.

As example, for the traditional language of omnipotence let's recast it in terms of "amnipotence" - that is, LOVING power (see Oord's articles below).

Let's also do the same with the very unhealthy word "control" which Christians love to sing about and speak to when praising God's omniscient determination of our own affairs and the world's.

A process theologian will do away with words like "divine control" altogether when speaking to a divinely-loving sovereignty within processual categories of divine processual indeterminancy. By which we mean, that creation, if it were to follow it's inherently- divine "Imago Dei" of God birthed within it (and yes, even today does this divine birth continue - as versus just one time "in Adam" ala Paul's voluminous characterization of Adam's sin in the book of Romans).

And further, because divine Love created creation in God's Image (Imago Dei) it also was created by Love (and not by divine fiat) with intermittant freewill.

That is, creational freewill agency - just like our own freewill agency - is fraught between generative, or valuative, good and sin and evil, which are not generatively good or valuative of someone or something outside itself.

A Processual Divinity Takes on a

New Divine Character and Attributes...

Hence, process theology generally teaches of a loving and uncontrolling (or noncontrolling) divine Sovereignty which, though genuinely powerful is genuinely loving and noncontrolling per the processual metaphysics found throughout the universe's "cosmic being".

Which cosmic being may also give rise to someone or something that isn't just "IS," in itself, but also "BECOMING" more than itself in itself.

So when when describing God as a processual God a process metaphysician (or metatheologian?) will say that God is not only complete in himself but also has the capacity in God's Godness of transcendence to be 100% present and immanent to creation's "processual" being. Which is to say that God in God's relationship with creation will "grow" and "become" with creation as it becomes.

When saying this a process theology is stating that neither party is static but continually evolving in relationship to itself and with creation as a whole. And that an IMMANENT God - in God's timeful existence - processually evolves with our own existence. An existence which, unlike God's divine Self, may also devolve in it's processually timeful existence.

Take note: "God qua God is complete." God is infinitely Becomed or Evolved. But in God's processual relationship with an evolving or devolving freewill and indeterminant creation, God is continually processing - or urging - that creation to become what it inherently is in itself re its Divine Imago; than to lean into the dark side of its unloving, devolving freewill which is as "uncontrollable" as its upside potential is.

Processual divine Sovereignty then speaks to an evolving/devolving creation which is and may become more than it is or may become less than it is.... And further, it is by God's redemptive power imbued into creation (as depicted by God's atoning redemption) that a freewilled, indeterminant creation may be released from its devolvement towards a processually good and generatively valuative part of the creational whole when partnering with salvific God of creation.

Thus and thus, the classical church teachings re divine omnipotence, omniscience, even omnipresence, when recast processually completely change the nuances of a truly divine loving sovereignty. And when done, show us a divine God who is much more who God is than our own images of God cast into our own religious images however "Christian" or "biblical" they claim to be. Let's read below Thomas Oord's thoughts on a few of these Christianized aspects of God....

Blessings & Merry Christmas!

R.E. Slater

December 16, 2022

https://open.spotify.com/episode/55JiRaUOL47X3mmgqZggOu

Part 1

The Death of Omnipotence

(and Birth of Amnipotence)

https://thomasjayoord.com/index.php/blog/archives/the-death-of-omnipotence

by Thomas Jay Oord

November 16th, 2022

I’m writing a new book. My tentative title is “The Death of Omnipotence… and Birth of Amipotence.”

As the title suggests, I’ll argue that God is not omnipotent. But instead of simply saying, “God can’t do…,” I’m also proposing a view of divine power I think is more biblically supported, philosophically coherent, and experientially justified. I call it “amipotence.” (Here’s a 3-minute ORTShort describing the word.)

Here’s how I plan to start the book…

THERE’S NOTHING THAT HE CANNOT DO?

“My God is so big, so strong, and so mighty there’s nothing that He cannot do.”[1] These lines from a children’s song give voice to what many people believe: God can do anything.

Other song lyrics proclaim the glory of an all-powerful God. In his Messiah concerto, George Frideric Handel’s oft-repeated lines ring out:

For the Lord God omnipotent reigneth,

Hallelujah! Hallelujah! Hallelujah! Hallelujah![2]

Contemporary worship choruses promote omnipotence, declaring a sovereign God cannot be thwarted nor the divine will be frustrated. It’s common for believers, enraptured in praise, to lift their voices to the One they call “almighty” and proclaim, “our God reigns!”

OMNIPOTENCE

“Omnipotence” expresses in formal language the “God can do anything” view. A God with all (omni) power (potent) apparently can do anything we imagine and more. Augustine made this connection, saying the omnipotent God is “He who can do all things.”[3]

In some theologies, God actually exerts all power and is the cause of everything; call this “theological determinism” or “monergism.” In others, God could do everything but chooses not to. God so conceived controls from time to time but generally opts to allow creatures to exert power; call this view “voluntary divine self-limitation.”[4]

Among the attributes theists ascribe to God, omnipotence is likely best known. For many, it’s a placeholder for God – “the Omnipotent.” Although distinctions can be made, the term is often thought synonymous with other words and phrases describing divine power: “sovereign,” “all-powerful,” and “almighty.”[5] These describe what many think necessary of a being worthy of worship: unlimited power.

Christian creeds refer to God’s almightiness. “I believe in God the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth…” begins the Apostle’s Creed. The Nicene Creed starts similarly: “We believe in one God, the Father, the Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth…” The Westminster Confession speaks of a God who, in “sovereign” or “almighty” activity, saw fit to “ordain whatsoever comes to pass.”

THREE MEANINGS

Theists espouse various meanings of omnipotent, almighty, or all-powerful. In this book, I address three common among scholars and laity. To say God is omnipotent typically means at least one of the following:

1. God exerts all power.

2. God can do absolutely anything.

3. God can control others or circumstances.[6]

Amazon

Some theists affirm one or two meanings but not all. Some reject the idea God exerts all power, for instance, but believe God can control others. Others say God can do anything but also say God doesn’t always control creatures. Many claim God can singlehandedly determine outcomes but cannot do what is illogical or self-contradictory. And it’s common for believers to say God is omnipotent but appeal to mystery when vexing questions arise.

CONCLUSION

I’d love to hear your questions, suggestions, and thoughts. Now that you know the general aim of the book, what issues should I be sure to address?

(I explain amipotence a bit in my book, Pluriform Love. Also, see this essay from Jay McDaniel.)

[1] Ruth Harms Calkin, “My God is so Big” (Permission to quote granted from Nuggets of Truth Publishing).

[2] Handel seems to be drawing from Revelation 19:6, which in Latin and in the King James Version of scripture is translated “omnipotent” but in most contemporary biblical translations is rendered “almighty.”

[3] Augustine, De Trinitate, IV 20, 27 (CChr.SL), 50, 197: “Quis est autem omnipotens, nisi qui omnia potest.” Despite this claim, Augustine also notes a number of things God cannot do.

[4] Theologians have explored the distinction between God’s potential power and the actual expression of divine power. See, for instance, Ian Robert Richardson, “Meister Eckhart’s Parisian Question of ‘Whether the omnipotence of God should be considered as potentia ordinata or potentia absoluta?” Doctoral Dissertation (King’s College London, 2002), 17.

[5] In previous writings, I’ve said we could rightly call God almighty in the senses. God is 1) the mightiest, 2) exerts might upon all, and 3) the source of might for all. Gijsbert Van Den Brink argues for “almightiness” over omnipotence in Almighty God: A Study of the Doctrine of Divine Omnipotence (Netherlands: Kok Pharos, 1993).

[6] By “control,” I mean acting as the sufficient cause of some creature, circumstance, or event. To describe such control, I use phrases like “singlehandedly decide outcomes,” “unilaterally determine,” or others that depict God as the sole cause. I will argue that God never has controlled and, in fact, cannot control others.

* * * * * * * *

Part 2

Omnipotence Not in Scripture

https://thomasjayoord.com/index.php/blog/archives/omnipotence-not-in-scripture

by Thomas Jay Oord

November 27th, 2022

I’m currently writing a book that rejects the doctrine of divine omnipotence. I’ll suggest a replacement I call divine amipotence – the power of love. I introduced the writing project in this previous blog essay.

One chapter in my book addresses God’s power described in what Christians call the Old and New Testaments. I’ll argue that omnipotence — even the Hebrew and Greek words often translated “almighty” or “all-powerful” — are not in the biblical texts.

God’s Power in Scripture

Authors of sacred writ describe a God who does amazing things, including creating the heavens and the earth, enacting miracles, providing salvation, and promising ultimate victory over evil. While English translators typically avoid “omnipotence” when translating Hebrew and Greek texts, they do use “almighty.” Many people believe biblical writers portray God as all-powerful.

Given this reading of scripture, Arthur Pink puts the significance of omnipotence this way: “If God were stunted in might and had a limit to His strength, we might well despair. But seeing that He is clothed with omnipotence, no prayer is too hard for Him to answer, no need too great for Him to supply, no passion too strong for Him to subdue, no temptation too powerful for Him to deliver from, no misery too deep for him to relieve.”[1]

According to many, only an omnipotent God can save.

The Hopelessness of Omnipotence

Omnipotence does not inspire hope in everyone, however. It leads many to despair and unbelief. To those who suffer, a God who can singlehandedly liberate seems asleep. Or this God doesn’t care enough to rescue the hurting from horrors and holocausts. Fervent prayers for healing go unanswered; cries for help from the sexually abused elicit few godly rescues.

Consequently, many people have no desire to live forever with a deity who allows evil now. An almighty God isn’t trustworthy.

I will argue that Christian scripture does not support omnipotence, at least as understood in the three ways I’ve identified. God doesn’t have all power, there are many things God cannot do, and God can’t control others.

Biblical authors talk about divine action, and they consider God’s power immense. But the Hebrew and Greek words translated “almighty,” “sovereign,” and the like support neither classic nor popular understandings of God as all-powerful.

Amazon

In fact, writers of scripture acknowledge limits to divine power. And they point to the role creatures play in bringing about outcomes.

Omnipotence isn’t born of scripture.

Issues to Address?

As you see it, what words, passages, or issues should I address when talking about God’s power described in Scripture?

[1] Arthur Pink, 67.

The Church's Most Radical Theology is Learning to Teach and Be Love

The Church's Most Radical Theology is

Learning to Teach and Be Love

in all it is, does, and preach

by R.E. Slater

The very best biblical hermeneutic to live in our lives is also the simplest and most effective.

True, a hermeneutic is how one reads the bible. More specifically, how one interprets the bible using exegetical tools of grammatical, historical, and contextual development of ancient oral traditions collected in their recitement by the temple of Israel and the early Christian church and passed along in their generations to both the peoples of the OT (the Hebrew Scriptures) and NT (the Christian Scriptures which include the Hebrew Scriptures).

However, as studies and earnest converts to the Christian faith we live out the hermeneutics we have learned. And if we are looking for outcomes of faith it must error towards love and not simply truth.

Why? Because is a God of love first and foremost. And secondly, because what we grasp as "truth" is most often not truth but forms of folkloric traditions we believe are truth.

Many examples abound across the history of science and the church as each struggled with the other in defining what truth means to any given situation. This struggle hasn't lessened but as I have discussed on multiple occasions here, with the right kind of theology, the epistemological traps of both church and science can be overcomed. All this can be found in the science section of the topical list on the right (and in the Index lists found within the topical list).

From reading the bible we know that within it are hundreds of stories written around the word "love's" power to change things. As can truth when contextualized in its epistemological parlance. But for many faith keepers we speak best when we love. To speak truth, as we often try to do, but shows to us much of our failure in this task. Thus, as a Christian, I would wish the church lean towards love rather than use "truth" as its marker of faith. Not to discount the importance of truth but to honestly say that Christians seem to be particularly terrible at distinguishing truth from fakery, fakerers, and false teaching.

• Now some may call LOVE radical while others hardly mention it at all as a bastion of Christianity. Yet, in the bible, as well as in the stories of the world, whole stories of redemption are written around LOVE.

• Large words are used to describe LOVE - atonement, propitiation, expiration, transformation, renewal, rebirth, even resurrection. But all the best stories can be captured by this word's four simple letters... LOVE.

• LOVE is the most humble of words. The most simple, most often overlooked word. 

• LOVE can aptly be described as overlooking itself while bearing all.

• All the best theologies are underlaid by LOVE's essence.

• All the best faiths and churches are centered around LOVE.

• Whole seasons and holidays are dedicated to LOVE.

• So when entering any faith or belief remember to look for LOVE's centrality.

• If LOVE is only a cursory subject to that faith's foundations and messaging than walk away from all such people and institutions whose own words have replaced it with other words.

• Without LOVE as the keystone, lodestone, or cornerstone to one's life animus, life force, or life energies, no other stones are equal to its grace, power and ability to heal, or provide soul nourishing constructs.

• More simply, LOVE is God and is of God.

• God's imparted Imago Dei is our own inner construct however conflicted by our own lives and experiences.

• LOVE begins when it is unlocked by God's Self through Jesus. This faith experience of Godly grace and forgiveness has gone on to revolutionize everything. Except, of course, it's very simple frame usually becomes lost around other words promising power and meaning.

• Inside the breast of everyone man and woman can be found LOVE as displayed by our passion and zeal for the things which motivate us... both the good things in this life as well as the bad things, the addictions, the drives for money and power, the lust for power, dictate, and harm. Underneath these drives is the driving force of LOVE gone bad.

• At the last we must learn to re-see LOVE. To recenter around it. To lean into it in all we do. For without LOVE we are but shells to life's energies. But with LOVE, it can change everything we do... beginning with ourselves.

R.E. Slater

December 2, 2022

God as "Amipotent" better Describes God than as "Omnipotent"

The Death of Omnipotence

article link

by Thomas Jay Oord

November 7, 2022

An amipotent God is active, but not a dictator. Amipotence is receptive but not overwhelmed. God engages without domineering; is generous but not pushy; and invites without monopolizing. Amipotence is divine strength working positively at all times and places. The power of an amipotent God is the power of love. - Oord, Thomas Jay. Open and Relational Theology: An Introduction to Life-Changing Ideas

I’m writing a new book. My tentative title is “The Death of Omnipotence… and Birth of Amipotence.”

As the title suggests, I’ll argue that God is not omnipotent. But instead of simply saying, “God can’t do…,” I’m also proposing a view of divine power I think is more biblically supported, philosophically coherent, and experientially justified. I call it “amipotence.” (Here’s a 3-minute ORTShort describing the word.)

Here’s how I plan to start the book…

THERE’S NOTHING THAT GOD CANNOT DO?

“My God is so big, so strong, and so mighty there’s nothing that He cannot do.”[1] These lines from a children’s song give voice to what many people believe: God can do anything.

Other song lyrics proclaim the glory of an all-powerful God. In his Messiah concerto, George Frideric Handel’s oft-repeated lines ring out:

For the Lord God omnipotent reigneth,

Hallelujah! Hallelujah! Hallelujah! Hallelujah![2]

Contemporary worship choruses promote omnipotence, declaring a sovereign God cannot be thwarted nor the divine will be frustrated. It’s common for believers, enraptured in praise, to lift their voices to the One they call “almighty” and proclaim, “our God reigns!”

OMNIPOTENCE

“Omnipotence” expresses in formal language the “God can do anything” view. A God with all (omni) power (potent) apparently can do anything we imagine and more. Augustine made this connection, saying the omnipotent God is “He who can do all things.”[3]

In some theologies, God actually exerts all power and is the cause of everything; call this “theological determinism” or “monergism.” In others, God could do everything but chooses not to. God so conceived controls from time to time but generally opts to allow creatures to exert power; call this view “voluntary divine self-limitation.”[4]

Among the attributes theists ascribe to God, omnipotence is likely best known. For many, it’s a placeholder for God – “the Omnipotent.” Although distinctions can be made, the term is often thought synonymous with other words and phrases describing divine power: “sovereign,” “all-powerful,” and “almighty.”[5]

These describe what many think necessary of a being worthy of worship: unlimited power. Christian creeds refer to God’s almightiness. “I believe in God the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth…” begins the Apostle’s Creed. The Nicene Creed starts similarly: “We believe in one God, the Father, the Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth…” The Westminster Confession speaks of a God who, in “sovereign” or “almighty” activity, saw fit to “ordain whatsoever comes to pass.”

Answering Divine Omnipotence with Divine Amipotence resolves questions of theodicy

THREE MEANINGS

Theists espouse various meanings of omnipotent, almighty, or all-powerful. In this book, I address three common among scholars and laity. To say God is omnipotent typically means at least one of the following:

1. God exerts all power.

2. God can do absolutely anything.

3. God can control others or circumstances.[6]

Some theists affirm one or two meanings but not all. Some reject the idea God exerts all power, for instance, but believe God can control others. Others say God can do anything but also say God doesn’t always control creatures. Many claim God can singlehandedly determine outcomes but cannot do what is illogical or self-contradictory. And it’s common for believers to say God is omnipotent but appeal to mystery when vexing questions arise.

CONCLUSION

I’d love to hear your questions, suggestions, and thoughts. Now that you know the general aim of the book, what issues should I be sure to address?

(I explain amipotence a bit in my book, Pluriform Love. Also, see this essay from Jay McDaniel.)

[1] Ruth Harms Calkin, “My God is so Big” (Permission to quote granted from Nuggets of Truth Publishing).

[2] Handel seems to be drawing from Revelation 19:6, which in Latin and in the King James Version of scripture is translated “omnipotent” but in most contemporary biblical translations is rendered “almighty.”

[3] Augustine, De Trinitate, IV 20, 27 (CChr.SL), 50, 197: “Quis est autem omnipotens, nisi qui omnia potest.” Despite this claim, Augustine also notes a number of things God cannot do.

[4] Theologians have explored the distinction between God’s potential power and the actual expression of divine power. See, for instance, Ian Robert Richardson, “Meister Eckhart’s Parisian Question of ‘Whether the omnipotence of God should be considered as potentia ordinata or potentia absoluta?” Doctoral Dissertation (King’s College London, 2002), 17.

[5] In previous writings, I’ve said we could rightly call God almighty in the senses. God is 1) the mightiest, 2) exerts might upon all, and 3) the source of might for all. Gijsbert Van Den Brink argues for “almightiness” over omnipotence in Almighty God: A Study of the Doctrine of Divine Omnipotence (Netherlands: Kok Pharos, 1993).

[6] By “control,” I mean acting as the sufficient cause of some creature, circumstance, or event. To describe such control, I use phrases like “singlehandedly decide outcomes,” “unilaterally determine,” or others that depict God as the sole cause. I will argue that God never has controlled and, in fact, cannot control others.

* * * * * * *

 

What does Amipotence Look Like?

It looks like the human touch of a nurse.

article link

by Jay McDaniel

July 25, 2021

​

​God is neither impotent nor omnipotent but what I call “amipotent.” I coined this word by combining the Latin word for power — “potent” — with a Latin prefix for love — “ami.” From “potent” we get words like “potential” and “potency.” We find the “ami” prefix in love words like “amity,” “amigo,” and “amicable.” God’s power is the power of love: amipotence.

An amipotent God is active, but not a dictator. Amipotence is receptive but not overwhelmed. God engages without domineering; is generous but not pushy; and invites without monopolizing. Amipotence is divine strength working positively at all times and places. The power of an amipotent God is the power of love. - Oord, Thomas Jay. Open and Relational Theology: An Introduction to Life-Changing Ideas

Thomas Oord has coined the term "amipotence" to name the infinite power of divine love The term combines the Latin word for power — “potent” — with a Latin prefix for love — “ami.”

Amipotence is a verb not a noun. It is an ongoing and endless activity, always different and yet always the same. This activity is not all-powerful in the sense of being able to prevent all tragedies, but it is all-faithful and, I believe, all-beautiful. The heart of amipotence is healing and life-giving, like love itself.

What does it look like? I think it looks like the healing power of a nurturant nurse. We do not expect nurses to make everything right, but in their human touch we find life's deepest meaning. That meaning is not that all pain can be relieved. It is that noone suffers alone and that always, even in suffering, there is a healing (a solace, a togetherness, a presence, a companionship, and a hope) that is more, much more, than whatever tears must be shed. For me, the God of whom Thomas Oord speaks is a deep Nurse in whose life the universe unfolds, moment by moment. She is - he is - it is - the Nurturing: an encircling spirit beneath, behind, beyond, and (sometimes) within the happening of all that happens

- Jay McDaniel, July 25, 2021

Theologian Keith Ward's "God of Love"

 

Pictured L to R: Peter Enns, Tripp Fuller, Adam Clark, Thomas Oord

Keith Ward and a God of Love

article link

by Thomas J. Oord

October 16th, 2022

I recently wrote a chapter for a book celebrating the work of Keith Ward. My argument is that Ward offers a metaphysics that supports both a conceptual basis for love and a basis to view God as loving.

God is Love

Keith Ward believes an adequate account of love requires an equally adequate account of God. He believes God is the chief exemplar of love and the ultimate Mind making creaturely love possible.

Keith believes a Christian description of God is “guided by the key teaching that ‘God is love.’”[1] But just about every Christian believes God loves.

The way many professional theologians conceive of God, however, does not align with love as I have defined it, as we experience it, or as described in much of sacred scripture. Keith Ward’s concept of God is different; it aligns with love so understood.

God Must Love

Unlike the voluntarist God of some theologies, Keith believes God must love. God cannot freely choose evil.[2] In fact, divine freedom is “necessarily conditioned” by love.[3] To put this in my own terms, Keith believes love comes logically prior in the divine nature to will.

We should reject theologies aligned with ancient Greek philosophical notions of a static God, says Keith. Such theologies consider God a timeless substance rather than a dynamic person. They present God as simple, immutable, and impassible too, which fails to align with the dominant biblical portrayal of God or with the personal piety of believers.[4]

Keith agrees with the majority portrayal of God in the Christian scripture, which portrays God as “a dynamic, creative, and relational reality.”[5] This dynamic God changes but is not in all ways immutable. “A general biblical account of God,” says Keith, “is more sympathetic to the view that God changes in some respects than to the view that God is completely changeless.”[6] A changing God “capable of new creative actions is more supreme than are beings that cannot be other than it is.”[7]

Open and Relational God

Keith Ward is what I call an “open and relational theologian,” because he believes God essentially experiences time analogous to how creatures experience it. God’s experience is temporal, but the divine nature does not change. Keith rejects the classic view of divine simplicity because it undermines the personal and relational aspects of God. God does not have a preordained plan that is worked out in a predetermined and precise way.[8]

A relational God suffers with and knows creatures experientially. God’s “concern for the well-being of creatures implies knowledge of their condition,” Keith says. And it implies “pity if it involves suffering, revulsion if it involves the willful causing of suffering, and action to relieve that suffering where it is possible.”

A God who simply contemplates suffering “is not truly love,” says Keith. “The one who truly loves will do something to help.”[9] God is passible, because “affected by the beauties and sufferings of the created world.”[10]

God’s Creative Love

Love compelled God to create the universe. “One who believes in the existence of God,” argues Keith, “will believe that there is an actual case of supreme goodness that has created the world for the sake of good.”[11] And God had a particular aim in creating: “that autonomous persons can come into existence,” says Keith. These creaturely persons would be able to “shape their own lives freely and creatively, and can find their fulfillment in being united to the divine in love.”[12]

In a certain sense, says Keith, God needs creation. “If God’s love is agape love, love of the other and the imperfect, then that love could not exist without a creation containing possibly imperfect creatures.” This does not mean that the universe created God, however. “Creation in no way brings God into being,” Keith says, “and it depends wholly upon God in order to exist.”[13]

Trinity?

A good number of Christian theologians affirm divine love as necessary among members of the social trinity. But Keith thinks “the idea of God as a sort of society is a bad idea.”[14] Christians should not think God is comprised of three persons, each with distinct centers of consciousness, distinct freedoms, distinct responsibilities, distinct wills, and distinct relations between one another.

This formulation of the Trinity is more tritheistic than monotheistic. Keith believes God is one; God has one mind and will. I’ve reviewed Keith’s book on the Trinity here.

The loving Creator experientially loves and relates with the created world.[15] God’s love is ad extra. “If God is a relational being characterized by love,” Keith reasons, “that relation must be to non-divine persons, and not a sort of secret self-love.”[16] 

We can talk about divine love as in some sense trinitarian, Keith says, if we identify a “threefold form of divine love – as creating finite persons, relating in love to them, and uniting them to the divine life.” This activity “is the manifestation of the supreme goodness of God as creative, self-giving, and universally inclusive love.”[17] “If God is agape love,” says Keith, “this is love of what is truly other than God, not just love of the divine beauty and self.”[18]

God and the Future

God’s “plan” for creation is not a detailed blueprint of all that will occur. God does not entirely determine or even foreknow what the future of the universe will be. But “God wills that creatures cooperate in the work to create new expressions of love and goodness,” says Keith, “and that plan can take many forms.”[19] The love plan Keith says God entertains is neither unilaterally determining nor willy nilly.

Creaturely love is derived from divine love. We “must learn to love,” says Keith, “by learning to share in the divine love.”[20] This learning provides creaturely persons with their purpose. “The highest business of life is to live well in a just and compassionate society,” Keith says, “and to see that living well consists in seeking the true, the good, and beautiful for its own sake.” It involves “realizing as fully as possible our positive human potentialities, and then working for a society and a world in which that is a real possibility for all without exception.”[21]

Love after Death

Loving creatures hope to experience even greater love after death. “For those who believe themselves to experience something of a God of love,” says Keith, “the hope of paradise is the hope of closer knowledge and love of God.”[22] But this closer knowledge and love does not come through divine fiat. God wills that persons “attain their end by their own efforts, in cooperation with the divine…” And “if finite persons are to love and realize themselves in God, there must be more to finite consciousness than the often painful and always inadequate sense of union with the divine that is apparent in ordinary lives.”[23]

This “more” is what many theists call “heaven.” Even “the hope of heaven,” says Keith, “is entailed by belief in a God of love.”[24]

Keith Ward’s theistic metaphysics provides a far more adequate account of love, creaturely and divine, than alternatives. Rather than a materialist metaphysics that denies essential elements of love, such as value, freedom, experience, agency, morality, and more, Keith’s idealistic metaphysics not only accounts for these elements but emphasizes them. Rather than a theistic metaphysics that claims God is impassible, timeless, simple, and in all ways immutable, Keith’s theistic metaphysics portrays dynamic love as the activity of a dynamic God in giving-and-receiving relations with creatures.

Keith Ward’s philosophical vision aligns with a robust account of love.

---

[1] Keith Ward, Christ and Cosmos, 86.

[2] Ibid., 167.

[3] Ibid., 165.

[4] Keith expresses this throughout his book Sharing in the Divine Nature.

[5] Ibid., 72.

[6] Ibid., 61.

[7] Ibid., 73.

[8] Ward, Sharing in the Divine Nature, 77-78.

[9] Ibid., 47.

[10] Ibid., 49.

[11] Ward, Morality, Autonomy, and God, 208.

[12] Ward, Christ and Cosmos, 231.

[13] Ward, Sharing in the Divine Nature, 74.

[14] Ward, Christ and Cosmos, x.

[15] Ibid., 72.

[16] Ibid., 182.

[17] Christ and Cosmos, 62.

[18] Ward, Sharing in the Divine Nature, 77.

[19] Ibid., 77-78.

[20] Ward, Morality, Autonomy, and God, 202.

[21] Ibid., 215.

[22] Ibid., 207.

[23] Ibid., 192.

[24] Ibid., 207.