Editing Omnipotence (section)

==Rejection or limitation==
Some monotheists reject the view that a deity is or could be omnipotent, or take the view that, by choosing to create creatures with [[free will]], a deity has chosen to limit divine omnipotence. In [[Conservative Judaism|Conservative]] and [[Reform Judaism]], and some movements within [[Protestant Christianity]], including [[open theism]], deities are said to act in the world through persuasion, and not by coercion (this is a matter of choice—a deity could act miraculously, and perhaps on occasion does so—while for process theism it is a matter of necessity—creatures have inherent powers that a deity cannot, even in principle, override). Deities are manifested in the world through inspiration and the creation of possibility, not necessarily by [[miracle]]s or violations of the laws of nature.<ref>{{cite web |last1=Viney |first1=Donald |title=Process Theism |url=https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/process-theism/ |website=plato.stanford.edu |publisher=Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy |access-date=6 October 2022}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |title=Open Theism |url=https://www.theopedia.com/open-theism |website=theopedia.com |publisher=Theopedia |access-date=6 October 2022}}</ref>

===Philosophical grounds===
[[Process theology]] rejects unlimited omnipotence on a philosophical basis, arguing that omnipotence as classically understood would be less than perfect, and is therefore incompatible with the idea of a perfect deity. The idea is grounded in Plato's oft-overlooked statement that "being is power".

{{quote|My notion would be, that anything which possesses any sort of power to affect another, or to be affected by another, if only for a single moment, however trifling the cause and however slight the effect, has real existence; and I hold that the definition of being is simply power.|Plato, 247E<ref>{{cite web |url=http://philosophy.eserver.org/plato/sophist.txt |title=Archived copy |access-date=2006-05-12 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20051230161511/http://philosophy.eserver.org/plato/sophist.txt |archive-date=2005-12-30 }}</ref>}}

From this premise, [[Charles Hartshorne]] argues further that:

{{quote|Power is influence, and perfect power is perfect influence ... power must be exercised upon something, at least if by power we mean influence, control; but the something controlled cannot be absolutely inert, since the merely passive, that which has no active tendency of its own, is nothing; yet if the something acted upon is itself partly active, then there must be some resistance, however slight, to the "absolute" power, and how can power which is resisted be absolute?|Hartshorne, 89}}

The argument can be stated as follows:{{cn|date=September 2021}}
# If a being exists, then it must have some active tendency.
# If a being has some active tendency, then it has some power to resist its creator.
# If a being has the power to resist its creator, then the creator does not have absolute power.

For example, although someone might control a lump of jelly-pudding almost completely, the inability of that pudding to stage any resistance renders that person's power rather unimpressive. Power can only be said to be great if it is over something that has defenses and its own agenda. If a deity's power is to be great, it must therefore be over beings that have at least some of their own defenses and agenda. Thus, if a deity does not have absolute power, it must therefore embody some of the characteristics of power, and some of the characteristics of persuasion. This view is known as [[dipolar theism]].

The most popular works espousing this point are from [[Harold Kushner]] (in Judaism). The need for a modified view of omnipotence was also articulated by [[Alfred North Whitehead]] in the early 20th century and expanded upon by Charles Hartshorne. Hartshorne proceeded within the context of the theological system known as process theology.

[[Thomas Jay Oord]] argues that omnipotence dies a death of a thousand philosophical qualifications. To make any sense, the word must undergo various logical, ontological, mathematical, theological, and existential qualifications so that it loses specificity.<ref>Thomas Jay Oord, ''The Death of Omnipotence and Birth of Amipotence'' (Grasmere, Id.: SacraSage Press, 2023), ch. 2.</ref>

===Scriptural grounds===
In the [[Authorized King James Version]] of the [[Bible]], as well as several other versions, in [[Book of Revelation|Revelation]] 19:6 it is stated "the Lord God omnipotent reigneth" ({{langx|grc|παντοκράτωρ|[[Christ Pantokrator|pantokrator]]}}, "all-mighty").<ref>{{cite web |url=http://strongsnumbers.com/greek/3841.htm |title=Strong's Greek Dictionary: 3841. pantokrator (pan-tok-rat'-ore) |publisher=Strongsnumbers.com |access-date=2011-04-07 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110319205959/http://strongsnumbers.com/greek/3841.htm |archive-date=2011-03-19 }}</ref>

[[Thomas Jay Oord]] argues that omnipotence is not found in the Hebrew and Greek scriptures. The Hebrew words Shaddai (breasts) and Sabaoth (hosts) are wrongly translated as "God almighty" or "divine omnipotence". Pantokrator, the Greek word in the New Testament and Septuagint often translated in English as "almighty", actually means "all-holding" rather than almighty or omnipotent. Oord offers an alternative view of divine power he calls "amipotence," which is the maximal power of God's uncontrolling love.<ref>Thomas Jay Oord, ''The Death of Omnipotence and Birth of Amipotence'' (Grasmere, Id.: SacraSage Press, 2023), ch. 1.</ref>