Prof

God is often posited by Christians as "Omni" everything: Omniscient, Omnipotent, Omnipresent, Eternal, Perfect etc.

Can someone tell me: what scriptural support is there for these attributes? Obviously there is a lot in the Bible about God being the creator, about his power and knowledge. But is there anything in there that states precisely that God is omniscient and omnipotent?

I ask because:

1. I've often seen theists say God is _by definition_ eternal, omniscient and omnipotent. I'm curious exactly where in the Bible it says this, or if it is simply inferred from his deeds.

2. Personally I've never seen the need for why God, or "a God" is of necessity Eternal, All Powerful, Perfect, Omniscient etc. Not all Gods have been described this way. It seems to me a deity need only be powerful enough to achieve the ends he has purported to achieve. A being posited as powerful enough to have created our world doe not lead necessarily to His being Perfect, or All Powerful, or Omniscient etc. Yet Theists of all stripe, biblical literalist or liberal, seem to start with the a priori definition first (God defined as All Powerful, a "Perfect Being" etc), without ever questioning that a being need not necessarily be Omnimax; a terrifically powerful being need not be a perfect being.

3. Whether it's supported precisely by scripture, or simply inferred, God's "Omnis" seem to me to be important mostly as a device of Christian faith; a descriptive barrier set up around God by believers in order to render him beyond scrutiny. No doubt long ago theists realized that once you can question any aspect of God at all it's like a crack in the dam that leads to more questions and more cracks. Where do the questions stop and how can the dam hold?

Thus, I see Omnimax descriptions less as necessary qualities of a Deity, more as necessary qualities of Christianity; necessary for the perpetuation of a fictional Deity who mustn't be allowed scrutiny lest he disappear in a cloud of doubt.

Can anyone point out where I am off-track here? And I'd really appreciate some scriptural references to God's Omnimax qualities.

Thanks.

Prof.

Madkins007

Omnipotent is used in Revelations 19:6. In this case, it is the word 'pantokrator' or 'ruler of all'. It is more commonly defined as 'almighty' (9 times in the NT) The Hebrew equivilant seems to be 'shadday'- 'all mighty, most powerful' and is used 48 times in the OT.

Not quite as 'powerful' as we usually ascribe to 'omnipotent'.

Omnipresence is hinted at in many passages, mostly rather poetically- such as Jer. 23:24 "Can a man hide himself in hiding places So I do not see him?" declares the LORD. " Do I not fill the heavens and the earth?" declares the LORD."

Etc., etc., etc. Here is a link from Naves Topical Bible online (http://bible.crosswalk.com/Concordan...i?number=T2069) so you can look up the references yourself.

As for me, I am not quite as convinced that God is as all-everything as we often assume He is. I DO think He is powerful, non-human, and on a different plane or level of thought than we are, but I am not sure I buy that He is micromanaging this planet.

CJD

Greetings. One thing historic, orthodox theologians have posited—contrary to the above statement—is that the Christian God is not less than the philosophical conceptions of god. That is, without Scripture, sola philosophia, one can determine many (if not all) of the "omni" characteristics attributed to God. Put differently, if a God exists, then in order for it to be any God at all, it must have certain characteristics. Pagan philosophers since the dawn of time have argued nothing less.

For example, Saint Anselm's argument that God is that-which-no-greater-can-be-conceived, while not "proving" the existence of God does point out the obvious:

1. A god who cannot control all things is less than a God who can.

2. A god who cannot see the future is less than a God who can.

3. A god who is a temporal being is less than a God who is eternal.

4. etc., etc.

One might respond at this point with the obvious retort: "What I deem perfect is not necessarily what you deem perfect." Fair enough.

The point is that historic Xian theology typically started with philosophical constructions, and then supplemented those constructions with Scripture. From Aristotle, many argued that God is a necessary being (and therefore self-existent, eternal, and the First Cause). From Plato, many argued that all human conceptions of, for example, the Good, the True, the Beautiful, Equality, etc., are derived from an a priori knowledge of those concepts, found ultimately in the uppermost Form, or put differently, the very mind of God.

What philosophy lacked, Scripture gave: Personality. Enter Kant and his Transcendental argument.

Anyway, the point is that most xians up until the Enlightenment thought an Omni-God had certain attributes that could be shown philosophically. True, it was a nameless, faceless, impassible Being, but it nonetheless found philosophical support. Whether or not Scripture supports these conceptions of who God is, is another matter entirely.

Regards,

CJD

DeLurking

Er, so the theologians invented a God and said that the god of the bible was him, without any support?

CJD

Well, that depends on how you look at it. What the theologians did was take the invented god of the philosophers and said it is much more than that—per Scripture, "it" is a personal Being who is very much involved in the universe.

I didn't say the Scriptures do not support God's omni-attributes, I said that evaluating it is another matter entirely. I contend the notion that the omni-attributes are "necessarily" Christian as the OP suggested.

Prof

Thanks for the replies. Madkins007 I appreciate the Biblical reference.


CJD, thank you. Maybe I'm being dense, but I still see nothing *convincing* in the arguments you sketched that point to Omni-attributes being necessary for a God. (I also understand you are trying to help me understand where other theists/deists were coming from, and weren't necessarily outlining your position).

No time..gotta run for now.

Prof.