Consider a very powerful agent (call him John), who can perform every logically possible action, except for turning on my TV. Due to his nature, John just cannot do that. It seems to me that nobody would call John omnipotent, due to his inability to turn on my TV. Now consider God. According to what I've read about classical Christian theism, it is impossible for God to sin/do evil due to his good divine nature. So how is God omnipotent when John isn't? What is the relevant difference between the 2 cases? Consider another agent (call him Alex). Alex, unlike God, doesn't have a perfectly good nature, so he is able to sin and to do evil, in addition to everything that God can do. It seems like Alex is more omnipotent than God (he is able to perform actions that God cannot), which would make God not omnipotent, since nothing can be more omnipotent than an omnipotent being. I would really like to know then, according to classical Christian theism how come God is omnipotent, while John and Alex are not.

I apologize if this question has been asked before. I haven’t been able to find something that deals specifically with what I need the answer to. To start, I do believe in the Trinity and I believe a Unitarian God is lacking, especially in Christianity, and scripture does teach the Trinity, so my question isn’t about if or can the Trinity exist/s. ——— My question is how can three persons (I know not separate gods) all be omnipotent? I know the three are all one in will, mind, and essence, but the fact that they are three distinct persons makes it difficult for me to understand this. Wouldn’t one be more powerful than the other two? When I try to find solutions I can only come up with two ways and they can’t fully satisfy my question: 1. The first is that the Son and Spirit derive the nature of God from the Father since eternity. The problem with that for me is that the Son and Spirit don’t seem like God if they depend on the Father to be God. I can see someone saying that God is ontologically dependent on Himself, and the Son and Spirit are God because they proceed from the Father, so they are dependent on their own nature which is God. Since they are uncreated that could make sense. 2. The second is that all three persons are able to “use” the omnipotent attribute within the essence of God. In my head it’s like them picking an apple from a tree. And this one seems so wrong. It makes it seem like the essence of God is a circle and the three persons live/exist within that circle and get their power from that essence, the circle. It’s like the essence is inanimate and the three persons live in it and are able to use the omni attributes because of it. I know it’s wrong but I’m just trying to give my thought process. I keep trying to understand it by saying they share omnipotence, but I can’t wrap my head around it. If the Father is the source, then He alone is omnipotent. But since the Son and Spirit are uncreated, they would also be omnipotent by definition? Maybe it’s as simple as saying “All three are one God and they all are of one essence, so they are just omnipotent.” Maybe I’m just overthinking it, I’m not sure. It kind of sounds like I’m talking about polytheism the way I’m describing it and that maybe the problem.

If the Christian God is omniscient, He knows everything, and if He is omnipotent, He is all powerful. But these two statements seem to be contradictory. So if a Christian believes that his/her God has these two attributes, aren't these two attributes contradictory as well? Below is why I think they are contradictory: - If God is all knowing, God is able to know the future of every human being and also of Himself. - But if God knows precisely what He will do at any point in time, does He still have free will? - If God is all powerful, could He make a choice at any particular point in time that is **not** determined by His omniscience? ---- @GratefulDisciple transferring OP's comment to the Q for more context: **Note**: This is a question on theism in general, and **I'm interested in a Christian answer to help me with seeing the logic** in holding two seemingly contradictory attributes while preserving God's own free will. I pose this question with a great respect in the belief of a God and I don't mean any derogation to the faith of Christianity nor do I want to upset the users in this community.

In talking to Jehovah's Witnesses I found it difficult to discover what they believed on these three attributes: Omnipotent - God cannot be thwarted by the Devil, sin, sinners, or the world but is all-powerful in all things. Omniscient - God knows all things about all things, past, present and future, all the time. Nothing escapes his knowledge, including our thoughts & motives. Omnipresent - God is in all places, at all times, in the fullness of his being. It is not just a bit of God everywhere, but _all_ of God is everywhere _all the time_. So he does not need angels or anyone else to inform him of anything anywhere at any time. What is the Jehovah's Witness belief on these matters?

The Pope Francis stated in 2014 >When we read about Creation in Genesis, we run the risk of imagining God was a magician, with a magic wand able to do everything. But that is not so Does this statement come into conflict with the belief that God is omnipotent? Is the Christian God not all powerful?

God knows, before even creating Earth, which people would choose Him on Earth and eventually go to Heaven. Therefore, God could just create these people and choose not to create the people who will go to Hell. Furthermore, because God is all-powerful, He could instantly implant all the spiritual growth, experiences, knowledge, etc. that these people would have gotten on Earth into their minds in Heaven - making the need for the experience/journey we go through on Earth unnecessary. Therefore, why would God create Earth as a "testing phase" for humans to grow, learn, and choose Him, when He can already have Heaven now with free humans that will love and serve Him? He could bypass all the suffering and evil in the world by doing this and achieve the same end result - a Heaven where all the people, of their own free will, love Him, serve Him, and share in His beautiful creation.

The Bible describes God as: God is the All-Powerful Creator of the universe. If the God is All-Powerful - how would a human (who is the less powerful) be able to crucify the All-Powerful God (Jesus) - how would I worship a God who can't protect himself and one day when he was baby, he needed the human to protect him and feed him to stay alive! - what was he before he becomes an embryo? and where was he? was he nothing? - if yes, how was he created? - if yes, who then created the human before he gets created?

I've been reading the Catechism, and reached the 310th point ; it's about Divine Providence and the scandal of evil. I am having a hard time understanding the following passage: "With infinite power God could always create something better (174 ). But with infinite wisdom and goodness God freely willed to create a world 'in a state of journeying' towards its ultimate perfection." It sounds contradictory to me. It states that God has both infinite power and infinite goodness. It seems, then, that it would only be possible for Him to create "something better", since not creating "something better" while being able to do so would be in disagreement with His infinitely good nature. How does the Catechism avoid this apparent contradiction? It links to the Suma Theologica, but I am not proficient enough in Philosophy to understand it. If possible, I would like an answer that solves this problem *within* the Catechism, i.e. without usage or substitution by other arguments.

You have Saint Thomas Aquinas in the 13th century saying that God cannot do what is intrinsically impossible, but I would like to know what Catholics believed about the divine omnipotence before Aquinas and what they believed about it in the centuries after Aquinas.

I just finished reading Mere Christianity and was blown away by some of the statements Lewis makes. He mentions "even [God] cannot produce [a changed heart] by a mere act of power …. It is something they can freely give Him or freely refuse Him ." (Mere Christianity Book 3 chapter 10) This brought up an interesting point in my mind: if you believe in the idea of Free Will with regards to Salvation or a changed heart, you indirectly believe that there is something God cannot do. This directly contradicts the scriptures including Matthew 19:26 and Luke 1:37 (as well as many others, see [OpenBible's *What Does the Bible Say About Omnipotence?*](https://www.openbible.info/topics/omnipotence)) that talk about Gods omnipotence. I grew up in a Calvary Chapel church where Free will was pushed ad nauseam and I was wondering how these Christians as well as other Arminians reconcile free will with something God cannot do.

If God is truly omniscient as in "all knowing", then God knows everything including the future. But doesn't this then remove his choice to do something other than the choices he takes in the future he knows of? In which case he is not omnipotent? Or conversely, if he can truly do anything because he is "all powerful", this has to make the future uncertain even to himself. How can these two common claims about God be reconciled? (There are definitely different ways to interpret "omniscience" and "omnipotence", and not all of them are going to be biblically relevant or logically reasonable. I imagine that these claims represent formalized, philosophical representations of God which might not have an _exact_ biblical basis (like I suspect the Trinity does) -- not meaning they are biblically _incorrect_ but just not necessarily _exactly_ correct in the way a human might understand them. Still, I think this is a relevant question.)

Here are two statements that I have always considered self-evident: > God’s total foreknowledge is not compatible with genuine human freedom. > > God is with us at all times but does not know in advance what we will think or do. Having stated my “Axioms of God’s Foreknowledge vs. Human Freedom”, I have gradually realized that what is for me self evident, and therefore axiomatic, is not so for many Christians. Anyway, I have come to realize that it is necessary to demonstrate what to me is obvious, either directly, or by disproving the opposite, viz. the position that is referred to as "compatibilism": > [**Compatibilism**] God’s total foreknowledge is compatible with genuine human freedom (see e.g. Divine Foreknowledge and Human Freedom Are Compatible @ jstor.org) **Is there a way to prove that God’s foreknowledge is incompatible with genuine human freedom? If so, can someone provide an Answer with that proof?** **P.S.** While I am interested to receive "an overview of all Christian positions ", **the priority is for a logically valid answer to the Question**.

For Biblical Unitarians, and from a theoretical standpoint, can God make use of His omnipotence and free will to take on human form and teach us by way of example what it is to live a holy and humble life, from birth to death? According to Biblical Unitarians, is this something possible for God, or is it beyond His capabilities?

In the *Diary* of Saint Faustina, entry **(586)**, Our Lord says--- >**And know this, too, My daughter: all creatures, whether they know it or not, and whether they want to or not, always fulfill My will.** I have gone through all 1828 entries of St. Faustina's *Diary* on multiple occasions and have found no contradictions (save one insignificant date). Therefore, I am convinced of its truth, albeit I am having difficulty understanding what the above quote means. From a Catholic perspective, what might this mean? For clearly, God does not *will* the sinner's sin, but rather, permits it (for a greater good, I believe, known to Him. Perhaps this is an answer.)

Does God tell us in the bible he is omnipotent and omniscient, or are these attributes which (Greek?) philosophers and theologians merely ascribed to him?

I understand the traditional theology of omnipotence to be that God can do anything He wills, and that his omnipotence is thereby limited to His nature. In other words, saying that God can do anything does not imply that He can lie or sin. For example: >God is all-powerful and able to do whatever he wills. Since his will is limited by his nature, God can do everything that is in harmony with his perfections. – Thiessen The best proof texts for this seem to be Hebrews 6:18 and 2 Timothy 2:13. However, based on a debate with a friend, I asked this question on Biblical Hermeneutics SE, and got an answer that surprised me: According to the answer, Hebrews 6:18 does not necessarily mean that God cannot lie - only that He won't. So this leads me to a question: What is the Biblical basis for the doctrine that God's omnipotence means that he *cannot* act against his nature? Would it perhaps be more correct to say that he *will not* act against his nature?

I keep reading these articles that say just because God allows something to exist or happen, doesn’t mean he intended it to happen in the first place. You take the example of divorce for example. Jesus himself said that God never wanted it in the first place, but he somehow allowed it. We see examples of polygamy in the Bible that was allowed by God to some extent. The general argument around the existence of evil is that God allows it to happen, but never intended it to be there in the first place. So if God allows or tolerates certain things against his will, does it still make him all powerful?

Castiel wanted to ask this question from a biblical basis: > Can God kill himself ? I mean, if he can kill himself, he isn't > immortal and if he can't, he have not unlimited power... The question here is, what is the Catholic understanding of omnipotence? How do Catholics address the apparent contradiction that God cannot be omnipotent if he cannot kill himself and he cannot be immortal if he can kill himself?

Let's assume that God is omnipotent in the sense that he can do anything which is logically possible (so that he cannot create square circles because a square circle is a contradiction). Now it is thought that God cannot do things like make himself cease to exist, or to become contingent. How does this square with the idea that (at least some part of) God became a man. By entering into time and assuming a bodily form, is that not the meaning of becoming contingent? I can anticipate the answer that Jesus has two natures, the human one that is contingent (and does not exist anymore) and one that is divine (which was never contingent), but this seems to me to just split Jesus into a divine part (which was never contingent) and the ordinary human part, so that the Jesus that walked on Earth was an ordinary human, and hence no need fore the idea of the trinity. Any way to resolve this dilemma? Edit: Perhaps to restate: Do we have to accept that God - in his omnipotence, must be able to create the logically impossible, in order to believe in something like the trinity?

Here is a related question but they are not the same https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/6702/do-miracles-violate-the-laws-of-physics Looking at most miracles in the bible, they can be explained based on what we already understand (physics, chemistry, etc) and sometimes they were even explained in the bible. Like in the case of God parting the red sea, the east/west wind had to be strong to drive the water apart and made the children of God passed. There are others like that. But there are 2 miracles that are difficult for me to explain. - The Shunamite widow pouring out oil from nowhere (2 Kings 4) - Here is an analyses have read but not satisfied: http://www.jba.gr/Articles/nkjv_jbajuly97.htm - Jesus feeding 4000/5000 from food that did not exist I know God is omnipotent and can do all things, ***but in the case of the Red Sea, we learned how He did it.*** My question is, when Jesus had 5 loaves of bread and 2 fish, how does breaking them increase them till they could feed 5000 people (I know it's a miracle) I am even more concerned about the Shunamite woman. Having a jar of oil, and pouring into several jars and could have continue if there were more to fill. How did the oil keep pouring when there was a finite amount inside (diluted with water - I don't think so)