If God is omnipotent (all-powerful), why is he constrained by human language?

[Bohm_Bawerk]

If God is omnipotent (all-powerful), why is he constrained by human language?

Across several different religions, their respective proponents will have said at least once that their God/gods was speaking to a specific generation in their sacred scripture (e.g. Bible, Quran, Tanakh, Bhagavad Gita, etc) and that whatever statement made to that specific, previous generation may not be applicable to today’s generation. For the purpose of relevance and simplicity, let’s focus on Christianity/Catholicism.

It is widely known that the Church historically condemned usury (charging interest). As a matter of fact, it was a mortal sin. Today, with the rise of global financial institutions, it’s impossible and even asinine to adhere to such a law. So we don’t usually find Church officials condemning interest. Those who believe the Church has always taught truth during it’s existence in the world will say that this is a case of “doctrine not changing, but rather, our knowledge of doctrine deepening”. I have read the justification for “allowing” usury, and it goes along the lines of the definition and practice of usury was different in the Middle Ages than it is today. St. Thomas Aquinas regarded usury as similar to charging a person “twice” for the same amount, and was therefore sinful. Today, the definition of usury has “changed”. To explain the justification/explanation in full is a bit complicated (and I say this as an Economics student), but that is the gist of it. There are many more examples like this.

So it begs the question, if Church teaching really is “handed down from Heaven”, and God is regarded as being omnipotent, why is he constrained by human language? Why can’t God give just give XYZ law at the beginning of time that is applicable to all generations, no changing, altering or deepening. Because the very nature of having knowledge of doctrine deepen suggests that God is bound by human language, and is therefore not omnipotent.

 

[Sam_777]

Because of our corruption and challenging the LORD it forced Him to change it according to Genesis 11:1-10:

"Now the whole world had one language and a common speech. As people moved eastward, they found a plain in Shinar and settled there. They said to each other, “Come, let’s make bricks and bake them thoroughly.” They used brick instead of stone, and tar for mortar. Then they said, “Come, let us build ourselves a city, with a tower that reaches to the heavens, so that we may make a name for ourselves; otherwise we will be scattered over the face of the whole earth.” But the LORD came down to see the city and the tower the people were building. The LORD said, “If as one people speaking the same language they have begun to do this, then nothing they plan to do will be impossible for them. Come, let us go down and confuse their language so they will not understand each other.” So the LORD scattered them from there over all the earth, and they stopped building the city. That is why it was called Babel—because there the LORD confused the language of the whole world. From there the LORD scattered them over the face of the whole earth."

We are paying the consequences nowadays with such many languages…

And regarding the interest nowadays, it’s really nothing if you consider the inflation, interest rate of 1.2% versus inflation of 5%, we are even losing on that…

 

[jwright82]

In the Reformed tradition we emphasis that God condescends to us in our creaturely level. He does this by means of a covenant in which he freely binds himself to humanity in an agreement between the two parties. So he uses human language to reveal himself to us in an analogical manner. Just because we can’t understand what he does it does not mean that it is irrational. Reason is just as limited as we are.

 

[Pfaffenhoffen]

If God is omnipotent (all-powerful), why is he constrained by human language?

Across several different religions, their respective proponents will have said at least once that their God/gods was speaking to a specific generation in their sacred scripture (e.g. Bible, Quran, Tanakh, Bhagavad Gita, etc) and that whatever statement made to that specific, previous generation may not be applicable to today’s generation. For the purpose of relevance and simplicity, let’s focus on Christianity/Catholicism.

It is widely known that the Church historically condemned usury (charging interest). As a matter of fact, it was a mortal sin. Today, with the rise of global financial institutions, it’s impossible and even asinine to adhere to such a law. So we don’t usually find Church officials condemning interest. Those who believe the Church has always taught truth during it’s existence in the world will say that this is a case of “doctrine not changing, but rather, our knowledge of doctrine deepening”. I have read the justification for “allowing” usury, and it goes along the lines of the definition and practice of usury was different in the Middle Ages than it is today. St. Thomas Aquinas regarded usury as similar to charging a person “twice” for the same amount, and was therefore sinful. Today, the definition of usury has “changed”. To explain the justification/explanation in full is a bit complicated (and I say this as an Economics student), but that is the gist of it. There are many more examples like this.

So it begs the question, if Church teaching really is “handed down from Heaven”, and God is regarded as being omnipotent, why is he constrained by human language? Why can’t God give just give XYZ law at the beginning of time that is applicable to all generations, no changing, altering or deepening. Because the very nature of having knowledge of doctrine deepen suggests that God is bound by human language, and is therefore not omnipotent.

He is omnipotent in such a way that He can do the oxymoron: be constrained, because He wants, by human language.

 

[Bearontherun]

He has chosen to come down to our level, to reveal His truths gently, gradually over history so that we can absorb them, adapt to them, and by our own free will accept them. He is not constrained by the language but generously allows time for our stubborn natures to conform to His laws. By His Mercy, He is patient with us in our weak human condition.

 

[rom422]

The limitations that we find in human language are our limitations, not God’s. Because He is omnipotent, He is able to etch His moral law in the conscience of every person. For example, the moral law, “Do good and avoid evil,” is the same for all men at all times and in all places. However, our understanding of good and evil, and the linguistic expression of the moral law, its details and applications, will vary according to our education, background, and changing circumstances. The various expressions of the moral law that we find in different religions and in different periods of human history reflect our limitations, not God’s.

Now for a word on “usury”. Usury, conceived as the charging of exorbitant interest, has always been wrong. However, people can have different judgment on what is to be considered as “exorbitant.” Is 18% interest exorbitant? Sometimes, yes, but not always. When there is a lot of risk involved on the part of the lender - such as when there is no collateral, and when the borrower has a poor credit score - then the 18% may not be exorbitant. But if the borrower is offering a security, and has a good credit rating, then 18% is difficult to justify morally, and could be a case of usury.

 

[JRKH]

God is not bound by human language - We are…

You ask…
“Why can’t God give just give XYZ law at the beginning of time that is applicable to all generations, no changing, altering or deepening.”

Yet God HAS given us such a law and Jesus Himself has expressed it in several places in Scripture. That Law is the Law of Love. It is written on our hearts

The problem is not that the Law does not exist, but rather that the law is not understood, or not properly and fully understood, by us humans due to our limited intellect and fallen nature. Because we fail to understand properly, we use language to try to communicate and clarify our understandings with each other.

Human language, both oral and written is limited in it’s ability to present thoughts and principles. It is limited in two ways. First by the ability of the writer/speaker to clearly present his/her thoughts and second by the reader/listener to grasp and correctly incorporate what is being communicated.
The first limit can be gotten around somewhat by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. The second is more difficult for it depends on the attitude and disposition of the reader.

God can provide insight to us in seconds that cannot be adequately explained with volumes of words. St Thomas Aquinas wrote brilliantly for years of God and of divine law etc. and yet at the end saw that, compared to what God truly is, all of his work was just so much “straw”.

So what you see as an inconsistency (the deepening of understanding) is really simply a change on our part regarding what is truly unchangeable on God’s part.

Peace
James

 

[bren19]

**So it begs the question, if Church teaching really is “handed down from Heaven”, and God is regarded as being omnipotent, why is he constrained by human language? Why can’t God give just give XYZ law at the beginning of time that is applicable to all generations, no changing, altering or deepening. Because the very nature of having knowledge of doctrine deepen suggests that God is bound by human language, and is therefore not omnipotent. **

Your statement is heretical. God IS omnipotent and ALL knowing. He is NOT constrained by human language, humans are constrained by their own LIMITED minds and understanding. Don’t equate the world’s finances to God’s knowledge. We will never understand totally the wisdom of God because of our FINITE minds.

So please heed this nugget of wisdom, from God’s mouth:

** “For my thoughts are not your thoughts,
neither are your ways my ways,”
declares the LORD.
As the heavens are higher than the earth,
so are my ways higher than your ways
and my thoughts than your thoughts. **

Isaiah 55:8-9

 

[Bohm_Bawerk]

In the Reformed tradition we emphasis that God condescends to us in our creaturely level. He does this by means of a covenant in which he freely binds himself to humanity in an agreement between the two parties. So he uses human language to reveal himself to us in an analogical manner. Just because we can’t understand what he does it does not mean that it is irrational. Reason is just as limited as we are.

Thank you .

 

[babylonsfalling]

If God is omnipotent (all-powerful), why is he constrained by human language?

Across several different religions, their respective proponents will have said at least once that their God/gods was speaking to a specific generation in their sacred scripture (e.g. Bible, Quran, Tanakh, Bhagavad Gita, etc) and that whatever statement made to that specific, previous generation may not be applicable to today’s generation. For the purpose of relevance and simplicity, let’s focus on Christianity/Catholicism.

It is widely known that the Church historically condemned usury (charging interest). As a matter of fact, it was a mortal sin. Today, with the rise of global financial institutions, it’s impossible and even asinine to adhere to such a law. So we don’t usually find Church officials condemning interest. Those who believe the Church has always taught truth during it’s existence in the world will say that this is a case of “doctrine not changing, but rather, our knowledge of doctrine deepening”. I have read the justification for “allowing” usury, and it goes along the lines of the definition and practice of usury was different in the Middle Ages than it is today. St. Thomas Aquinas regarded usury as similar to charging a person “twice” for the same amount, and was therefore sinful. Today, the definition of usury has “changed”. To explain the justification/explanation in full is a bit complicated (and I say this as an Economics student), but that is the gist of it. There are many more examples like this.

So it begs the question, if Church teaching really is “handed down from Heaven”, and God is regarded as being omnipotent, why is he constrained by human language? Why can’t God give just give XYZ law at the beginning of time that is applicable to all generations, no changing, altering or deepening. Because the very nature of having knowledge of doctrine deepen suggests that God is bound by human language, and is therefore not omnipotent.

How does a “former devout Catholic” like yourself ask Catholics a question like that?
Don’t you know as a “former devout Catholic” that the Catholic understanding of God is so big that there’s no such possibility of Him being constrained by language?
A “former devout Catholic” might ask Catholics why human understanding is so constrained, but not why God is so constrained.

 

[JRKH]

How does a “former devout Catholic” like yourself ask Catholics a question like that?
Don’t you know as a “former devout Catholic” that the Catholic understanding of God is so big that there’s no such possibility of Him being constrained by language?
A “former devout Catholic” might ask Catholics why human understanding is so constrained, but not why God is so constrained.

 

[Sherry_G]

If God is omnipotent (all-powerful), why is he constrained by human language?

Across several different religions, their respective proponents will have said at least once that their God/gods was speaking to a specific generation in their sacred scripture (e.g. Bible, Quran, Tanakh, Bhagavad Gita, etc) and that whatever statement made to that specific, previous generation may not be applicable to today’s generation. For the purpose of relevance and simplicity, let’s focus on Christianity/Catholicism.

It is widely known that the Church historically condemned usury (charging interest). As a matter of fact, it was a mortal sin. Today, with the rise of global financial institutions, it’s impossible and even asinine to adhere to such a law. So we don’t usually find Church officials condemning interest. Those who believe the Church has always taught truth during it’s existence in the world will say that this is a case of “doctrine not changing, but rather, our knowledge of doctrine deepening”. I have read the justification for “allowing” usury, and it goes along the lines of the definition and practice of usury was different in the Middle Ages than it is today. St. Thomas Aquinas regarded usury as similar to charging a person “twice” for the same amount, and was therefore sinful. Today, the definition of usury has “changed”. To explain the justification/explanation in full is a bit complicated (and I say this as an Economics student), but that is the gist of it. There are many more examples like this.

So it begs the question, if Church teaching really is “handed down from Heaven”, and God is regarded as being omnipotent, why is he constrained by human language? Why can’t God give just give XYZ law at the beginning of time that is applicable to all generations, no changing, altering or deepening. Because the very nature of having knowledge of doctrine deepen suggests that God is bound by human language, and is therefore not omnipotent.

God’s not constrained but you are…

 

[Wesley7]

If God is omnipotent (all-powerful), why is he constrained by human language?

Across several different religions, their respective proponents will have said at least once that their God/gods was speaking to a specific generation in their sacred scripture (e.g. Bible, Quran, Tanakh, Bhagavad Gita, etc) and that whatever statement made to that specific, previous generation may not be applicable to today’s generation. For the purpose of relevance and simplicity, let’s focus on Christianity/Catholicism.

It is widely known that the Church historically condemned usury (charging interest). As a matter of fact, it was a mortal sin. Today, with the rise of global financial institutions, it’s impossible and even asinine to adhere to such a law. So we don’t usually find Church officials condemning interest. Those who believe the Church has always taught truth during it’s existence in the world will say that this is a case of “doctrine not changing, but rather, our knowledge of doctrine deepening”. I have read the justification for “allowing” usury, and it goes along the lines of the definition and practice of usury was different in the Middle Ages than it is today. St. Thomas Aquinas regarded usury as similar to charging a person “twice” for the same amount, and was therefore sinful. Today, the definition of usury has “changed”. To explain the justification/explanation in full is a bit complicated (and I say this as an Economics student), but that is the gist of it. There are many more examples like this.

So it begs the question, if Church teaching really is “handed down from Heaven”, and God is regarded as being omnipotent, why is he constrained by human language? Why can’t God give just give XYZ law at the beginning of time that is applicable to all generations, no changing, altering or deepening. Because the very nature of having knowledge of doctrine deepen suggests that God is bound by human language, and is therefore not omnipotent.

You’re speaking of God in human terms.

 

[Anathama_Sit]

Greetings Bohm Bawerk,

I am surprised that you have posted this.

Here is what the Catechism of the Catholic Church has to say about this.

Paragraphs 39-43

#39 In defending the ability of human reason to know God, the Church is expressing her confidence in the possibility of speaking about him to all men and with all men, and therefore of dialogue with other religions, with philosophy and science, as well as with unbelievers and atheists.

#40 Since our knowledge of God is limited, our language about him is equally so. We can name God only by taking creatures as our starting point, and in accordance with our limited human ways of knowing and thinking.

#41 All creatures bear a certain resemblance to God, most especially man, created in the image and likeness of God. The manifold perfections of creatures - their truth, their goodness, their beauty all reflect the infinite perfection of God. Consequently we can name God by taking his creatures" perfections as our starting point, “for from the greatness and beauty of created things comes a corresponding perception of their Creator”.

#42 God transcends all creatures. We must therefore continually purify our language of everything in it that is limited, imagebound or imperfect, if we are not to confuse our image of God-“the inexpressible, the incomprehensible, the invisible, the ungraspable”-with our human representations. Our human words always fall short of the mystery of God.

#43 Admittedly, in speaking about God like this, our language is using human modes of expression; nevertheless it really does attain to God himself, though unable to express him in his infinite simplicity. Likewise, we must recall that “between Creator and creature no similitude can be expressed without implying an even greater dissimilitude”; and that “concerning God, we cannot grasp what he is, but only what he is not, and how other beings stand in relation to him.”

God Bless.
Anathama Sit

 

[jwright82]

Thank you .

Your welcome. Is that a good thank you or a bad thank you?

 

[someguy14]

constrained by human language?

Glorified with.

 

[Bohm_Bawerk]

Your welcome. Is that a good thank you or a bad thank you?

“Good” thank you. I wasn’t being sarcastic.

Have a nice day .

 

[jwright82]

“Good” thank you. I wasn’t being sarcastic.

Have a nice day .

Well I am glad to have been of help! Yeah John Calvin, one of our “founding fathers” in the Reformed tradition, said that revealation from God was simply “crib-talk” or “baby-talk”, from what I understand it in french literly means when we say to a baby “goo-goo, gaga”. What he meant was not that we cannot understand revealation but that we can only understand it as far as creatures can understand it.

Luther had a good dinstinction between God as he is and God as he has revealed himself to be to us. We cannot use reason to peel back heaven and learn things about God or his ways aside from revealation. Why does God allow evil to happen? Well it is a fair question but if God does not reveal why he allows evil than what right do we have as creatures to demand a response? Does God owe us an explanation?

 

[ivory]

It’s not God being limited by human language. It’s us that are limited.

 

[Pfaffenhoffen]

How does a “former devout Catholic” like yourself ask Catholics a question like that?
Don’t you know as a “former devout Catholic” that the Catholic understanding of God is so big that there’s no such possibility of Him being constrained by language?
A “former devout Catholic” might ask Catholics why human understanding is so constrained, but not why God is so constrained.

babylonsfalling;, the palette of options that you find has 1 million colors. What astonishe me in the OP is that he presents an icon of a very austere Puritan and in his picture he has a smiling family.

People ask questions for millions of reasons.

And I accept your reaction !!!