Pages

Monday, February 19, 2007

The Bible’s Definitions

In several different discussions lately, atheists have been demanding to know what the Bible’s definition of something is. Their demands have an extremely limited merit, but the approach being used is completely farcical. In both of the most recent examples (example one and example two (see also the follow up in the comments with “Doubting Tom” this post)), the atheist demands “chapter and verse” for the definition of a theological term.

Specifically, we have the most recent request of Tundaz (linked in example one above) stating:

Please state the Bible's definition of 'omnipotence' for the record, noting the chapter and verse if you will.
His request was echoed by Gray_Mouser too.

The problem with this is that the Bible is not a dictionary, nor is it to be used as such. There are only very rare instances when the Bible specifically states out an explicit definition in a matter that would satisfy today’s atheists. But this is to be expected in a book that is meant to have a universal, trans-cultural appeal.

Atheists—no, let us get even more specific: Modern Westernized atheists account for one very small slice of all the cultural viewpoints that have ever existed. Were the Bible penned to address every whim of modern Westernized atheists, the Bible would have remained meaningless for thousands of years, incomprehensible to any other culture.

The modern Western philosophical method of defining terms—of explicitly stating them in the midst of a comprehensive philosophical argument—is not only historically limited to just a few hundred years, but is also not even the way that anyone speaks normatively today. There is a reason that philosophy books have a limited appeal while James Patterson and Steven King are read by millions.

The average person speaks colloquially, using words defined by their context set in the conventions of society. Language is fairly “loose” when used in this manner, but it is how every culture converses, and it is how modern Western philosophers speak when they are not writing stuffy books.

The Bible’s intention was not that it would be understood by only the selected philosophical elite, but that it would have a universal and transcendent scope. The uneducated farmer in the Nile Delta in 200 AD could understand the point of Scripture when it was read to him; he would not need a modern philosophy degree to “get it.”

So, to demand “chapter and verse” where a term is defined ignores 1) the cultural context of the term’s usage—that is, how it was used conventionally; 2) the textual context of the term’s usage—that is, how it was used in the text itself; and 3) the anachronistic aspect of inserting a philosophized back into a colloquial work.

While the first two points should be fairly self-evident, I will clarify what I mean by the third point. The term “omnipotent” is not found in Scripture. It is a term that systematic theologians came up with to describe one of the various attributes of God that can be discovered by reading the text of Scripture. As such, the “definition” of the term is the distillation of multiple points drawn from various sources, linked by a common bond. In the case of omnipotence, the common bond is the concept of the power of God. The meaning is defined not by a single verse, but by every verse that deals with God’s power.

That this can be summarized in a modern definitional form by systematic theologians does not mean that the modern definitional form is found in an explicit statement in the Bible itself; nor should it. The onus, at this point, is on the atheist to demonstrate how this is not a perfectly reasonable manner in which concepts can be conveyed to the vast majority of people throughout all history. In other words, the atheist needs to demonstrate why the Christian must be compelled to give him a definition in such a narrowly constructed manner as the atheist requests.

35 comments:

  1. Peter Pike: The term “omnipotent” is not found in Scripture.

    Rev. 19:6 in KJV.

    (And yes—that was petty.)

    ReplyDelete
  2. Oh, do I really have to come here and read this? Kudos to you Steve, if you want me to stay away.

    Listen up Pike. Why do you have this fixation on what atheists think? Christian theologians themselves are debating what it means to say God is omnipotent, beginning with Plantinga.

    So go figure it out and get back to us, okay?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Pete Pike: Except for the pesky little problem of never allowing Christianity to define "omnipotence." Every instance I've ever read where atheists attempt a critique based on God's omnipotence, they use their own definition of omnipotence, not the Bible's.

    The atheists you were refering to were only asking you to do what you claimed they weren't letting you do...

    ReplyDelete
  4. The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, Vol. IV:2188-2190. [1915]

    om-nip’-o-tens:

    1. Terms and Usage:
    The noun “omnipotence” is not found in the English Bible, nor any noun exactly corresponding to
    it in the original Hebrew or Greek.
    The adjective “omnipotent” occurs in Revelation 19:6 in the King James Version; the Greek for this,
    pantokrator, occurs also in 2 Corinthians 6:18; Revelation 1:8, 4:8, 11:17, 15:3, 16:7, 14, 19:15, 21:22 (in all of which the King James Version and the Revised Version (British and American) render almighty”). It is also found frequently in the Septuagint, especially in the rendering of the divine names Yahweh tsebha’oth and ‘El Shaddai. In pantokrator, the element of “authority,” “sovereignty,” side by side with that of “power,” makes itself more distinctly felt than it does to the modern ear in “omnipotent,” although it is meant to be included in the latter also. Compare further ho dunatos, in
    Luke 1:49.

    2. Inherent in Old Testament Names of God:
    The formal conception of omnipotence as worked out in theology does not occur in the Old
    Testament. The substance of the idea is conveyed in various indirect ways. The notion of “strength” is inherent in the Old Testament conception of God from the beginning, being already represented in one of the two divine names inherited by Israel from ancient Semitic religion, the name ‘El.

    According to one etymology it is also inherent in the other, the name ‘Elohim, and in this case the
    plural form, by bringing out the fullness of power in God, would mark an approach to the idea of
    omnipotence. See “God, Names of.”

    In the patriarchal religion the conception of “might” occupies a prominent place, as is indicated by
    the name characteristic of this period, ‘El Shaddai; compare Genesis 17:1, 28:3, 35:11, 43:14, 48:3, 49:24-25; Exodus 6:3. This name, however, designates the divine power as standing in the service of His covenant-relation to the patriarchs, as transcending Nature and overpowering it in the interests of redemption.

    Another divine name which signalizes this attribute is Yahweh tsebha’oth, Yahweh of Hosts. This
    name, characteristic of the prophetic period, describes God as the King surrounded and followed
    by the angelic hosts, and since the might of an oriental king is measured by the splendor of his
    retinue, as of great, incomparable power, the King Omnipotent (Psalm 24:10; Isaiah 2:12, 6:3, 5, 8:
    13; Jeremiah 46:18; Malachi 1:14).

    Still another name expressive of the same idea is ‘Abhir, “Strong One,” compounded with Jacob or
    Israel (Genesis 49:24; Psalm 132:2, 5; Isaiah 1:24, 49:26, 60:16). Further, ‘El Gibbor, “God-Hero”
    (Isaiah 9:6) (of the Messiah; compare for the adjective gibbor, Jeremiah 20:11); and the figurative
    designation of God as Tsur, “Rock,” occurring especially in the address to God in the Psalter (Isaiah
    30:29, the King James Version “Mighty One”). The specific energy with which the divine nature
    operates finds expression also in the name ‘El Chai, “Living God,” which God bears over against the
    impotent idols (1 Samuel 17:26, 36; 2 Kings 19:4, 16; Psalm 18:46; Jeremiah 23:36; Daniel 6:20, 26).
    An anthropomorphic description of the power of God is in the figures of “hand,” His “arm,” His
    “finger.” See “God.”

    3. Other Modes of Expression:
    Some of the attributes of Yahweh have an intimate connection with His omnipotence. Under this
    head especially God’s nature as Spirit and His holiness come under consideration. The representation
    of God as Spirit in the Old Testament does not primarily refer to the incorporealness of the divine nature, but to its inherent energy. The physical element underlying the conception of Spirit is that of air in motion, and in this at first not the invisibility but the force forms the point of comparison.

    The opposite of “Spirit” in this sense is “flesh,” which expresses the weakness and impotence of the
    creature over against God (Isaiah 2:22, 31:3).

    The holiness of God in its earliest and widest sense (not restricted to the ethical sphere) describes
    the majestic, specifically divine character of His being, that which evokes in man religious awe. It is
    not a single attribute coordinated with others, but a peculiar aspect under which all the attributes
    can be viewed, that which renders them distinct from anything analogous in the creature (1 Samuel
    2:2; Hosea 11:9). In this way holiness becomes closely associated with the power of God, indeed
    sometimes becomes synonymous with divine power equals omnipotence (Exodus 15:11; Numbers
    20:12) and especially in Ezekiel, where God’s “holy name” is often equivalent to His renown for
    power, hence, interchangeable with His “great name” (Ezekiel 36:20-24). The objective Spirit as a distinct hypostasis and the executive of the Godhead on its one side also represents the divine power (Isaiah 32:15; Matthew 12:28; Luke 1:35, 4:14; Acts 10:38; Romans 15:19; 1 Corinthians 2:4).

    4. Unlimited Extent of the Divine Power: In all these forms of expression a great and specifically divine power is predicated of God. Statements in which the absolutely unlimited extent of this power is explicitly affirmed are rare. The reason, however, lies not in any actual restriction placed on this power, but in the concrete practical form of religious thinking which prevents abstract formulation of the principle. The point to be noticed is
    that no statement is anywhere made exempting aught from the reach of divine power. Nearest to a
    general formula come such statements as nothing is “too hard for Yahweh” (Genesis 18:14; Jeremiah 32:17); or “I know that thou canst do everything” or “God . . . hath done whatever he pleased” (Psalm 115:3, 135:6), or, negatively, no one “can hinder” God, in carrying out His purpose (Isaiah 43:13), or God’s hand is not “waxed short” (Numbers 11:23); in the New Testament: “With God all things are possible” (Matthew 19:26; Mark 10:27; Luke 18:27); “Nothing is impossible with God” [the Revised Version (British and American) “No word from God shall be void of power,” Luke 1:37]. Indirectly the omnipotence of God is implied in the effect ascribed to faith (Matthew 17:20 “Nothing shall be impossible unto you”; Mark 9:23 “All things are possible to him that believeth”), because faith puts the divine power at the disposal of the believer. On its subjective side the principle of inexhaustible power finds expression in Isaiah 40:28: God is not subject to weariness. Because God is conscious of
    the unlimited extent of His resources nothing is marvelous in His eyes (Zechariah 8:6).

    5. Forms of Manifestation:
    It is chiefly through its forms of manifestation that the distinctive quality of the divine power which
    renders it omnipotent becomes apparent. The divine power operates not merely in single concrete
    acts, but is comprehensively related to the world as such. Both in Nature and history, in creation
    and in redemption, it produces and controls and directs everything that comes to pass. Nothing in
    the realm of actual or conceivable things is withdrawn from it (Amos 9:2-3; Daniel 4:35); even to
    the minutest and most recondite sequences of cause and effect it extends and masters all details of
    reality (Matthew 10:30; Luke 12:7). There is no accident (1 Samuel 6:9; compare with 1 Samuel 6:
    12; Proverbs 16:33). It need not operate through second causes; it itself underlies all second causes
    and makes them what they are.

    It is creative power producing its effect through a mere word (Genesis 1:3; Deuteronomy 8:3; Psalm
    33:9; Romans 4:17; Hebrews 1:3, 11:30). Among the prophets, especially Isaiah emphasizes this
    manner of the working of the divine power in its immediateness and suddenness (Isaiah 9:8, 17:13,
    18:4-6, 29:5). All the processes of nature are ascribed to the causation of Yahweh (Job 5:9, 9:5; Isaiah 40:12; Amos 4:13, 5:8-9, 9:5-6). God’s control of the sea is named as illustrative of this (Psalm 65:7, 104:9; Isaiah 50:2; Jeremiah 5:22, 31:35). The Old Testament seldom says “it rains” (Amos 4:7), but usually God causes it to rain (Leviticus 26:4; Deuteronomy 11:17; 1 Samuel 12:17; Job 36:27; Matthew 5:45; Acts 14:17).

    The same is true of the processes of history. God sovereignly disposes, not merely of Israel, but
    of all other nations, even of the most powerful, e.g. the Assyrians, as His instruments for the
    accomplishment of His purpose (Amos 1:1-2:3, 9:7; Isaiah 10:5, 15, 28:2, 45:1; Jeremiah 25:9, 27:6,
    43:10). The prophets ascribe to Yahweh not merely relatively greater power than to the gods of the nations, but His power extends into the sphere of the nations, and the heathen gods are ignored in
    the estimate put upon His might (Isaiah 31:3).

    Even more than the sphere of Nature and history, that of redemption reveals the divine omnipotence,
    from the point of view of the supernatural and miraculous. Thus Exodus 15 celebrates the power
    of Yahweh in the wonders of the exodus. It is God’s exclusive prerogative to do wonders (Job 5:9, 9:10; Psalm 72:18); He alone can make “a new thing” (Numbers 16:30; Isaiah 43:19; Jeremiah 31:22).
    In the New Testament the great embodiment of this redemptive omnipotence is the resurrection of
    believers (Matthew 22:29; Mark 12:24) and specifically the resurrection of Christ (Romans 4:17, 21, 24; Ephesians 1:19); but it is evidenced in the whole process of redemption (Matthew 19:26; Mark 10:27; Romans 8:31; Ephesians 3:7, 20; 1 Peter 1:5; Revelation 11:17).

    6. Significance for Biblical Religion:
    The significance of the idea may be traced along two distinct lines. On the one hand the divine
    omnipotence appears as a support of faith. On the other hand it is productive of that specifically
    religious state of consciousness which Scripture calls “the fear of Yahweh.” Omnipotence in God is
    that to which human faith addresses itself. In it lies the ground for assurance that He is able to save,
    as in His love that He is willing to save (Psalm 65:5-6, 72:18, 118:14-16; Ephesians 3:20).
    As to the other aspect of its significance, the divine omnipotence in itself, and not merely for soteriological reasons, evokes a specific religious response. This is true, not only of the Old Testament,
    where the element of the fear of God stands comparatively in the foreground, but remains true also of the New Testament. Even in our Lord’s teaching the prominence given to the fatherhood and love of
    God does not preclude that the transcendent majesty of the divine nature, including omnipotence,
    is kept in full view and made a potent factor in the cultivation of the religious mind (Matthew 6:9).
    The beauty of Jesus’ teaching on the nature of God consists in this, that He keeps the exaltation of
    God above every creature and His loving condescension toward the creature in perfect equilibrium
    and makes them mutually fructified by each other. Religion is more than the inclusion of God in
    the general altruistic movement of the human mind; it is a devotion at every point colored by the
    consciousness of that divine uniqueness in which God’s omnipotence occupies a foremost place.

    -Geerhardus Vos

    ReplyDelete
  5. Loftus said:
    ---
    Listen up Pike. Why do you have this fixation on what atheists think?
    ---

    Listen up Loftus. Why do you have this fixation on thinking I have a fixation on what atheists think?

    Loftus said:
    ---
    Christian theologians themselves are debating what it means to say God is omnipotent, beginning with Plantinga.

    So go figure it out and get back to us, okay?
    ---

    Which, if true, means that you cannot use the argument of problems with omnipotence against Christianity. If the term has no definition, then you can't very well claim the definition of the term causes problems within Christianity.


    B H said:
    ---
    The atheists you were refering to were only asking you to do what you claimed they weren't letting you do...
    ---

    I'm going to hold you to that then.

    Gene gave quite a few places on-line and from a bookstore to get the definition of omnipotence. Now, are you going to use any of that in your critique of Christianity or aren't you?

    ReplyDelete
  6. This is fantastic! Since Stephen King doesn't define terms in his novels, why should we expect the Bible to?

    Utterly hilarious! Pike, you're right at home with Triablogue!!

    ReplyDelete
  7. Actually, setting the Bible side by side with the likes of a Stephen (yes, CalvinDude, it's "Stephen" - get it?) King novel is not that far off. Both King's novels and the Bible are fictional literature; they both often involve stories about the supernatural; and both are claimed to have been written by "the King" himself. Cheaply written and mass produced story books, read by millions everywhere, precisely for the reason that Pike himself suggests: they do not require a lot of heavy thinking.

    Welcome aboard, Peter! Water finds its own level.

    ReplyDelete
  8. bulartha said:
    ---
    This is fantastic! Since Stephen King doesn't define terms in his novels, why should we expect the Bible to?
    ---

    Naturally, you fail to grasp the implications here. Does the fact that King doesn't define his terms mean you cannot understand his books?

    smedly said:
    ---
    (yes, CalvinDude, it's "Stephen" - get it?)
    ---

    I always put at least two gramatical and spelling errors in just to give atheists the ability to avoid the subject. It's my little way to help you avoid hurting your brain, lest you lose self-esteem.

    You're welcome.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Yes, the comparison of the Bible with escapist literature is most appropriate.

    I especially enjoyed this part:

    "The uneducated farmer in the Nile Delta in 200 AD could understand the point of Scripture when it was read to him."

    Roger that - the average uneducated farmer in the Nile Delta ca. AD 200 was probably no less superstitious than were the primitives who wrote the bible in the first place. What a great excuse for not defining its terms!

    The Triablogue laff-o-rama has just gotten more interesting.

    ReplyDelete
  10. "Naturally, you fail to grasp the implications here."

    Oh really? Let's see:

    "Does the fact that King doesn't define his terms mean you cannot understand his books?"

    As fiction, no. But it's certainly not sufficient to serve as the standard of one's worldview.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Peter's right! Why expect a fictional book to define its terms?? I'm glad this one's settled!

    ReplyDelete
  12. Is it not a good rebuttal to ask these atheists, "where in evolution is a defintion of evolution, where in dna is a definition of dna; Where in Plato is a definition of "kia" or any word that he wrote.

    Their question is pointles, the Bible does not define what "petra" is, so maybe it doesn't mean rock, maybe it means cocaine.

    foolish questions

    ReplyDelete
  13. That's right - asking for Christians to state their definitions is foolish indeed. So what are we to make of statements like the following:

    "Every instance I've ever read where atheists attempt a critique based on God's omnipotence, they use their own definition of omnipotence, not the Bible's."

    ?????

    ReplyDelete
  14. Peter Pike says:
    "The meaning is defined not by a single verse, but by every verse that deals with God’s power."

    Um hm. So that verse about God not being able to help clear the plains because the enemy had chariots of iron (Judg 1:19), that has some bearing on your definition, right? Would you concur that "omnipotence" then can be defined as "doing anything you want, provided you're not going up against an army equipped with iron chariots"? :)

    ReplyDelete
  15. Peter Pike wrote -

    "So, to demand “chapter and verse” where a term is defined ignores 1) the cultural context of the term’s usage—that is, how it was used conventionally; 2) the textual context of the term’s usage—that is, how it was used in the text itself; and 3) the anachronistic aspect of inserting a philosophized back into a colloquial work."

    It would be more accurate and honest simply to admit that the Bible does not define its terms. Isn't that what you're really saying anyway? By trying to make this out to be the unbeliever's failing only tells them that you're desperate to find a way to make excuses for the Scriptures.

    McFall

    ReplyDelete
  16. I originall said:
    ---
    Does the fact that King doesn't define his terms mean you cannot understand his books?

    Bulartha responded:
    ---
    As fiction, no. But it's certainly not sufficient to serve as the standard of one's worldview.
    ---

    On what basis do you make the distinction between being able to understand "as fiction" and understanding "as the standard of one's worldview"?

    We can certainly expand out beyond just King too. Apparently, you are trying to convince me of a worldview (your own). Yet you have not defined a single word ever in conversation with me. You still intend for me to understand your point of view, do you not?

    ReplyDelete
  17. You know Pike, maybe I'll be glad to see you here after all, for then you will no longer be able to ask atheists to define words when you cannot even define them to the satisfaction of your Christian friends. This may actually be fun to watch after all.

    Maybe Pike won't last very long here after all. This I've gotta watch. :-)

    ReplyDelete
  18. Gray_Mouser said:
    ---
    So that verse about God not being able to help clear the plains because the enemy had chariots of iron (Judg 1:19), that has some bearing on your definition, right?
    ---

    The verse doesn't say God wasn't "able" to help clear the plains.

    All it says is that God was with the men of Judah, and the men of Judah could not clear the plain due to the chariots. Your assumption is that God being with the Israelites means God is actively using His power, but this is, again, your assumption. I read this as saying, "Just because God is with you doesn't mean you get super powers."

    If I go through a trial in my life, it can look like "failure" to you. I can still say, "God was with me through this experience." It says nothing to the omnipotence of God. Furthermore, Judges 1:19 is only the beginning of the book of Judges. It's not an isolated historical instance as if nothing happened beyond that. In point of fact, there were some very important historical events that occured because of the men of Judah not taking the plains, all of which lead ultimately up to Christ.

    ReplyDelete
  19. McFall said:
    ---
    It would be more accurate and honest simply to admit that the Bible does not define its terms.
    ---

    Maybe you should read the post again. I've admitted all along that the Bible doesn't define its terms in the manner you expect.

    All your comment demonstrates is that you are stretching for straws.

    Loftus said:
    ---
    You know Pike, maybe I'll be glad to see you here after all
    ---

    For someone who keeps saying he doesn't want to talk to me anymore, you sure talk to me a lot. Admit it. You're addicted.

    ReplyDelete
  20. "On what basis do you make the distinction between being able to understand "as fiction" and understanding "as the standard of one's worldview"?"

    On the basis of the fact that fiction does not define its terms, while a source that can adequately serve as the standard of one's worldview does.

    ReplyDelete
  21. calgary gluck said:
    ---
    That's right - asking for Christians to state their definitions is foolish indeed.
    ---

    You act as if the definitions have never been presented. Gene's already provided plenty for you.

    Again, you don't like the way in which the term is defined. It's not that the term isn't defined; it's that you're looking for any excuse to ignore it.

    ReplyDelete
  22. I'm beginning to worry that signing Peter Pike onto Triablogue was a big mistake. He is only going to take it lower and lower. Unbelievers seem to be enjoying this all too much!

    ReplyDelete
  23. bulartha said:
    ---
    On the basis of the fact that fiction does not define its terms, while a source that can adequately serve as the standard of one's worldview does.
    ---

    And yet you've still not defined any of your terms. You just expect me to understand what you wrote here.

    Let's turn the tables then. By what standard can you define anything? For instance, you use the word "adequatey" in your above paragraph. How could you possibly know what is, or is not, adequate for any worldview?

    What is your justification for demanding a definition?

    ReplyDelete
  24. "You act as if the definitions have never been presented. Gene's already provided plenty for you."

    For Pete's sakes, Pike! Pick a position and stick with it. Either the Bible doesn't define its terms and thus needs your paltry excuses (hence the purpose of your blog), or it does define its terms, in which case your blog is a complete waste of time altogether.

    Steve Hays, THANK YOU for bringing this guy on! He's a definite improvement!

    ReplyDelete
  25. PP: "What is your justification for demanding a definition?"

    No one has "demanded" anything. We simply ASKED for the Bible's definition. And look at all your over-heated frustration that resulted from this! One little question is enough to bring your faith into serious crisis.

    ReplyDelete
  26. But they've given you a definition in the links...

    A complete idiot could understand the definition.

    ReplyDelete
  27. "But they've given you a definition in the links..."

    Then why all the excuses for the Bible not supplying its own definitions?

    ReplyDelete
  28. For Pete's sakes, Pike! Pick a position and stick with it. Either the Bible doesn't define its terms and thus needs your paltry excuses (hence the purpose of your blog), or it does define its terms, in which case your blog is a complete waste of time altogether.

    I don't how the T-bloggers put up with this stuff. The above post indicates this person hasn't read the post and comments by Peter and Gene or he/she doesn't know how to put things together.

    I can see why the person would want to remain Anon.

    Of course, what is even worse is that they could really care less what the definitions of words are...if they did, they would do there own homework. I know there are atheists out there that are willing to do this, from some reason, they are few and far between here.

    Jeff Downs

    ReplyDelete
  29. Jeff,

    We put up with most of it because why would we turn away someone making non-christians look like hacks and illiterate hayseeds??

    ReplyDelete
  30. In point of fact, these little mosquitos are probably all the same ignoramus. Loftus is just ticked off that Peter has won the respect of the T-bloggers while his arguments are dismantled on a regular basis. Well, at least he can hang out with "Bulartha", "Smedley", and "Calgary Gluck"....

    ReplyDelete
  31. Wookalar claims,

    "Then why all the excuses for the Bible not supplying its own definitions?"

    Pike stated,

    "There are only very rare instances when the Bible specifically states out an explicit definition in a matter that would satisfy today’s atheists."

    See, Peter's qualified claim was that the Bible does not "specifically states" the "explicit definition" of omnipotence in "a manner that would satisy most atheists."

    It's not like you can take the Bible, turn to "O" (or, "A," for attributes), and come away with a handy definition of 'omnipotence.'

    What is needed is to do the hard work required of Bible study. Now, as someone either unaquainted with Christianity, or a former fundamentalist name it and claim it Christian, I can understand why you think the Bible to be something other than its author intended it to be. By doing the hard work, we can draw out satisfactory definitions that do not fall prey to the incoherency critiques.

    The atheist, being lazy, just wants to say that omnipotence means "can do just anything ole that we can think of." But this isn't the Bible's definition. For example, the Bible tells us that God cannot lie. That he cannot deny himself. So, the Bible's definition would have to build in qualifications like these. To insist that we're not using 'omnipotence' correctly, well, so much the worse for the word 'omnipotence,' then! You see, you can only get a Christian by taking what *the Bible* says about God and basing a critique on that. if you want to critique a god who can "do just any ole thing we can think of," go ahead. But you're not critiquing Christianity in this case.

    Anonymous writes,

    "For Pete's sakes, Pike! Pick a position and stick with it. Either the Bible doesn't define its terms and thus needs your paltry excuses (hence the purpose of your blog), or it does define its terms, in which case your blog is a complete waste of time altogether."

    One wonders if this atheist, who resides in the Appalachian Mountains, and is to busy brushing his one tooth, and pickin' his banjo, can read? Does the hillbilly atheist recognize a difference between "a fleshed out definition" and an "explicitly stated definition?"

    Now, assuming he can read, one place he could go to find just such a fleshed out definition is John Frame's Doctrine of God, pgs 513-542. Further, he could read various reformed systematic theology textbooks.

    But, if he wants to remain ignorant of Christian theology, attack a theology of his own making, and then boast to his cousin-wife that he defeated "Cris-te-anty," then feel free to remain "ig-nit."

    Bulartha writes,

    "On the basis of the fact that fiction does not define its terms, while a source that can adequately serve as the standard of one's worldview does."

    So if the Bible "defined its terms" then it would be "fact," even though it included miracles and such!

    Furthermore, there are plenty of "sources" which, from an atheist perspective, that can "adaquately" serve as a standard for one's worldview. But since contradictory things cannot be true, then either Bulartha knows what this one source is, and things like platonic realism, or physicalism, or scientism, etc., are all fiction, or he thinks that many intellectually respectable atheists can disagree, but, since not all can be true, then some of them are 'fiction,' he'd allow for 'fiction' to "define its terms."

    Further, might he tell us what this "source" is? Is it "science?" Well, does "science" provide necessary and sufficient conditions for demarcating 'science' from 'non-science?'

    Perhaps the sourse is his "cognitive faculties." Well, do his "cognitive faculties" define what, say, "rationality" is? What happens when his cognitive faculties disagree with say, Michael Martin's? What standard determines who is correct?

    Oh, well, this is all so troubling when you look into the minds of an atheist.

    John Loftus notes that,

    "You know Pike, maybe I'll be glad to see you here after all, for then you will no longer be able to ask atheists to define words when you cannot even define them to the satisfaction of your Christian friends. This may actually be fun to watch after all."

    Actually, Peter can define the term to his "Christian friends." Just not to atheists who have their cowboy hats on too tight.

    But, let's say that Peter couldn't define the term. Why would that mean that he couldn't ask atheists to define their terms?

    John's argument appears to be:

    If a person S, can't to a task T, then S cannot ask another person, J, to do T. How would this work out?

    Say that Loftus isn't man enough to protect his wife from some outlaws. Does this mean that he can't ask someone else to do the job?

    Or, say that a football coach can't run a 4.3 40. Does this prevent him from asking other players to do it?

    Further, is John tacitly admitting that he cannot provide definitions for his terms? Is his tactic here like that of a man who says, "I may be drowning, but I'm taking as many of you with me as I can?"

    Mcfall says,

    "It would be more accurate and honest simply to admit that the Bible does not define its terms. Isn't that what you're really saying anyway? By trying to make this out to be the unbeliever's failing only tells them that you're desperate to find a way to make excuses for the Scriptures."

    But that's not what he said at all, was it? Furthermore, since the Bible does define the terms in the fleshed out sense (or, the good and necessary consequence sense), and we have shown said definitions in our theological works, then the onus is on the atheist to do his homework.

    Apparently Mcfall thinks that it's not his fault if he fails to study those who he critiques. How would a theist be treated if he critiqued, say, Michael Martin and showed almost zero familiarity with Martin's works? What if the theist responded to the atheist outrage, "Well, why blame me for not studying Martin's works? Are you desperate to find a way to excuse atheism?

    Gandolfi writes,

    "Peter's right! Why expect a fictional book to define its terms?? I'm glad this one's settled!"

    Well, the Bible does straight up define *some* terms, so does that mean Gandolfini thinks it is "non-fiction?'

    No? Well then he must mean that if a book doesn;t define 8all* of its terms then it is fictional. Well, I grabbed Copi and Cohen's Intorduction to Logic textbook, and they said people can "fall into error." The did not define "fall," though. So, I take it that gandolfini thinks that Copi and Cohen's book is a work of *fiction!*

    Anyway, here's a simple definition for omnipotence: God can do anything compatible with his attributes.

    Hopefully Peter can get some better interlocutors that supply substantive points to the discussion, but I won't hold my breath.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Very interesting topic.

    "God can do anything compatible with his attributes."

    Aren't God's attributes infinite? Wouldn't that mean that God's ability to do anything would also be infinite? It seems this definition of omnipotence is simply sloughing the whole matter off onto an unspecified number of attributes, thus making it all the more murky, which is the opposite of what a definition is supposed to accomplish.

    Joel

    ReplyDelete
  33. "Aren't God's attributes infinite? Wouldn't that mean that God's ability to do anything would also be infinite? "

    If God can only do things compatible with all of his attributes, then adding new attributes could only reduce the number of things he can do. Or keep the number the same.

    ReplyDelete
  34. To the two posters above.

    This is the part where you now offer an argument.

    ReplyDelete
  35. To the poster above.

    I was replying to Joel

    ReplyDelete