The Nature or Attributes of God
Possible Questions
Whether or not it is possible, or necessary to resolve the apparent
conflict between divine attributes
Whether Boethius, Anselm or Swinburne provides the most useful
understanding of the relationship between divinity and time
Whether or not any of these thinkers are successful in resolving the
problems of divine knowledge, benevolence, justice, eternity and free
will
Whether the attributes should be understood as subject to the limits of
logical possibility or divine self-limitation
Omnipotence - powerful
The idea that God can do anything. The debate here lies in what it means to say he
can ‘do anything’
1)God can do anything, including the impossible – Descartes + Anselm
Both Anselm and Descartes argued that God was TTWNGCBC/ most perfect
meaning he must be all powerful, otherwise we would be able to conceive of an
even greater being
The idea that God can do the logically impossible means that God can make a
square circle or make 2+2=5
Descartes argued that the laws of mathematics only exist in the way that they
do because God created them that way, so God can change them when he likes
As all logic comes from God, God can change logic or suspend it for a time
If omnipotence does not mean that God can do absolutely anything, how could
he perform miracles or save the world through Jesus? SYNOPTIC LINK
Augustine – God is so powerful that he can save fallen humans from sin
The reason why we cannot understand how God can undermine logic is because
we have limited reason
Biblical support: Matthew 19:23 “With man this is impossible, but with God
all things are possible”
Criticisms:
This view might make God into an arbitrary (random) figure who becomes
unpredictable – if God is really all-powerful in the sense that he can do anything
at all, then God is capable of doing evil , of being unforgiving, of turning against
us, and of failing. It makes it impossible for people to have a relationship with
God or trust him for their salvation
Process theodicy – God cannot change the impossible to the possible as this
seems like nonsense – what is the purpose in being able to defy logic?
Defies the free will defense which suggests that God is constrained by our
gift of free will. Augustine and Hick justify evil with their theodicies and argue
that God could not act in any other way than he does without depriving us of
, our free will. Suffering is a price that has to be paid in order for us to make free
choices and be autonomous moral agents. However, if Descartes is correct and
God is capable of absolutely anything, such as suspending the laws of logic to
allow us to have free will without evil, then the existence of evil becomes
something that God could change, this is therefore difficult to reconcile with a
loving God.
This view might make someone question why God does not change the
laws so that we cannot do evil
There are biblical examples of God not being able to do everything – e.g., He
cannot lie Hebrews 6:18 “it is impossible for God to lie” as this wld
contradict his loving nature – contradicts the view that God can do absolutely
everything
2)God can only do the possible and logical – Aquinas + Swinburne
Aquinas argued that God can only do what is possible “everything that is
absolutely possible” and “everything that does not imply a
contradiction”
He cannot create a square circle because a square circle does not and cannot
exist
His view was that logical possibility means that God can only do what a
perfect God can do – that is, he cannot sin (cannot deceive or do evil)
It cannot be right to say God could sin because that is not part of his logical
nature
Aquinas also argued that God cannot change the past
Swinburne agrees and argues that God being able to do everything has to be
understood in context
A square circle is not a ‘thing’ and so God cannot create one a stone too
heavy for God to lift could not be a thing or a knot that God could not untie
So, to say God can do every ‘thing’ does not limit him because it only refers to
logically possible powers
Criticisms:
Just because we understand some things to be logically impossible, does not
mean it is logically impossible for God – making a square circle may be
impossible for us, but for an all-powerful God it should be easy. Is this not
limiting God to a human? By simply saying he can only do what we believe is
possible.
Is creating humans logically possible though? – God did this, and we would
not say this is logically possible
3)God deliberately limits God’s power (self-imposed limitation) – Vardy
“God is limited by the universe he chose to create”
It has been suggested that perhaps, in creating a limited universe, God decided
that he would only operate within the natural laws he created, thus self-
imposing a limitation on his power
If the universe is carefully fine-tuned then any undue interference from God
would upset the balance of the universe
He argues that the universe is perfectly suited for the existence of free, rational
human beings, and that in order for it to remain this way, God’s omnipotence
has to be very much limited (self-imposed)
, God chose to create the universe in this way, knowing what it would mean, and
therefore it is still right to call God omnipotent because nothing limits his power
except when he chooses.
For Christians, this would make sense of God limiting himself by becoming
human in Jesus Christ and choosing to save humanity
It would also tie in with the biblical presentation of God’s power as far
surpassing human understanding without being unlimited – the emphasis is
more on God’s power over the universe rather than the power to do anything
Vardy – God is limited to the laws of the universe he created. God limits his
own power, as he chooses to create a universe where there is a genuine free
will, and thus he has to limit his power to sustain this
SYNOPTIC LINK – This could explain the problem of evil – Hick may say that God
chooses not to intervene because evil allow for a process of ‘soul-making’
However, is God still worthy of worship if he has specifically chosen to allow the
extent of suffering that there is in the world, or if he has chosen to allow some but not
all potential miracles.
Macquarrie – God limits his power for the love of humanity
God is not constrained by logic, nor by the physical world, nor by the actions of
human beings, but is constrained in his omnipotence merely because he
chooses to limit his power out of love for humanity
In order for God to be loving, he must let us have free will and to do this there is
no room for an interfering God, but rather a self-limiting God who lets us decide
our own moral path and fate.
Kenosis (self-emptying) emphasizes that God had to limit himself to become
human in Jesus – so God deliberately emptied himself of some divine attributes
before coming to earth, in order to make Jesus’ encounter with humanity
possible
For example, Jesus acts with complete limits – he does not always perform
miracles and only does them occasionally
Jesus had to have human limitations in order to be human at all, and this was
because of God’s own choice and freely given love.
Biblical support: Philippians 2:5 “he emptied himself, by taking the form of
a servant, being made in human likeness” “he humbled himself”
God limits his power so that he can suffer with us
Moltmann – God became God incarnate and suffered with and for us in order to
bring us closer to salvation – he chose to enter our time and space in order to
show solidarity
Perhaps this solves the problem of evil because God is suffering with us, therefore he
is not evil but rather is doing it with us (showing his loving nature)
Problem with omnipotence:
SYNOPTIC LINK: Religious language: The human mind is limited and fallible, thus
can we really understand God’s omnipotence?
What does ‘all-powerful’ even mean? It could be symbolic, suggesting God
cannot literally do everything but simply just describes how God is a being
greater than us
Possible Questions
Whether or not it is possible, or necessary to resolve the apparent
conflict between divine attributes
Whether Boethius, Anselm or Swinburne provides the most useful
understanding of the relationship between divinity and time
Whether or not any of these thinkers are successful in resolving the
problems of divine knowledge, benevolence, justice, eternity and free
will
Whether the attributes should be understood as subject to the limits of
logical possibility or divine self-limitation
Omnipotence - powerful
The idea that God can do anything. The debate here lies in what it means to say he
can ‘do anything’
1)God can do anything, including the impossible – Descartes + Anselm
Both Anselm and Descartes argued that God was TTWNGCBC/ most perfect
meaning he must be all powerful, otherwise we would be able to conceive of an
even greater being
The idea that God can do the logically impossible means that God can make a
square circle or make 2+2=5
Descartes argued that the laws of mathematics only exist in the way that they
do because God created them that way, so God can change them when he likes
As all logic comes from God, God can change logic or suspend it for a time
If omnipotence does not mean that God can do absolutely anything, how could
he perform miracles or save the world through Jesus? SYNOPTIC LINK
Augustine – God is so powerful that he can save fallen humans from sin
The reason why we cannot understand how God can undermine logic is because
we have limited reason
Biblical support: Matthew 19:23 “With man this is impossible, but with God
all things are possible”
Criticisms:
This view might make God into an arbitrary (random) figure who becomes
unpredictable – if God is really all-powerful in the sense that he can do anything
at all, then God is capable of doing evil , of being unforgiving, of turning against
us, and of failing. It makes it impossible for people to have a relationship with
God or trust him for their salvation
Process theodicy – God cannot change the impossible to the possible as this
seems like nonsense – what is the purpose in being able to defy logic?
Defies the free will defense which suggests that God is constrained by our
gift of free will. Augustine and Hick justify evil with their theodicies and argue
that God could not act in any other way than he does without depriving us of
, our free will. Suffering is a price that has to be paid in order for us to make free
choices and be autonomous moral agents. However, if Descartes is correct and
God is capable of absolutely anything, such as suspending the laws of logic to
allow us to have free will without evil, then the existence of evil becomes
something that God could change, this is therefore difficult to reconcile with a
loving God.
This view might make someone question why God does not change the
laws so that we cannot do evil
There are biblical examples of God not being able to do everything – e.g., He
cannot lie Hebrews 6:18 “it is impossible for God to lie” as this wld
contradict his loving nature – contradicts the view that God can do absolutely
everything
2)God can only do the possible and logical – Aquinas + Swinburne
Aquinas argued that God can only do what is possible “everything that is
absolutely possible” and “everything that does not imply a
contradiction”
He cannot create a square circle because a square circle does not and cannot
exist
His view was that logical possibility means that God can only do what a
perfect God can do – that is, he cannot sin (cannot deceive or do evil)
It cannot be right to say God could sin because that is not part of his logical
nature
Aquinas also argued that God cannot change the past
Swinburne agrees and argues that God being able to do everything has to be
understood in context
A square circle is not a ‘thing’ and so God cannot create one a stone too
heavy for God to lift could not be a thing or a knot that God could not untie
So, to say God can do every ‘thing’ does not limit him because it only refers to
logically possible powers
Criticisms:
Just because we understand some things to be logically impossible, does not
mean it is logically impossible for God – making a square circle may be
impossible for us, but for an all-powerful God it should be easy. Is this not
limiting God to a human? By simply saying he can only do what we believe is
possible.
Is creating humans logically possible though? – God did this, and we would
not say this is logically possible
3)God deliberately limits God’s power (self-imposed limitation) – Vardy
“God is limited by the universe he chose to create”
It has been suggested that perhaps, in creating a limited universe, God decided
that he would only operate within the natural laws he created, thus self-
imposing a limitation on his power
If the universe is carefully fine-tuned then any undue interference from God
would upset the balance of the universe
He argues that the universe is perfectly suited for the existence of free, rational
human beings, and that in order for it to remain this way, God’s omnipotence
has to be very much limited (self-imposed)
, God chose to create the universe in this way, knowing what it would mean, and
therefore it is still right to call God omnipotent because nothing limits his power
except when he chooses.
For Christians, this would make sense of God limiting himself by becoming
human in Jesus Christ and choosing to save humanity
It would also tie in with the biblical presentation of God’s power as far
surpassing human understanding without being unlimited – the emphasis is
more on God’s power over the universe rather than the power to do anything
Vardy – God is limited to the laws of the universe he created. God limits his
own power, as he chooses to create a universe where there is a genuine free
will, and thus he has to limit his power to sustain this
SYNOPTIC LINK – This could explain the problem of evil – Hick may say that God
chooses not to intervene because evil allow for a process of ‘soul-making’
However, is God still worthy of worship if he has specifically chosen to allow the
extent of suffering that there is in the world, or if he has chosen to allow some but not
all potential miracles.
Macquarrie – God limits his power for the love of humanity
God is not constrained by logic, nor by the physical world, nor by the actions of
human beings, but is constrained in his omnipotence merely because he
chooses to limit his power out of love for humanity
In order for God to be loving, he must let us have free will and to do this there is
no room for an interfering God, but rather a self-limiting God who lets us decide
our own moral path and fate.
Kenosis (self-emptying) emphasizes that God had to limit himself to become
human in Jesus – so God deliberately emptied himself of some divine attributes
before coming to earth, in order to make Jesus’ encounter with humanity
possible
For example, Jesus acts with complete limits – he does not always perform
miracles and only does them occasionally
Jesus had to have human limitations in order to be human at all, and this was
because of God’s own choice and freely given love.
Biblical support: Philippians 2:5 “he emptied himself, by taking the form of
a servant, being made in human likeness” “he humbled himself”
God limits his power so that he can suffer with us
Moltmann – God became God incarnate and suffered with and for us in order to
bring us closer to salvation – he chose to enter our time and space in order to
show solidarity
Perhaps this solves the problem of evil because God is suffering with us, therefore he
is not evil but rather is doing it with us (showing his loving nature)
Problem with omnipotence:
SYNOPTIC LINK: Religious language: The human mind is limited and fallible, thus
can we really understand God’s omnipotence?
What does ‘all-powerful’ even mean? It could be symbolic, suggesting God
cannot literally do everything but simply just describes how God is a being
greater than us
