The Supernatural in the New Testament, Possible, Credible, and Historical: Or, An Examination of the Validity of Some Recent Objections Against Christianity as a Divine RevelationRow, C. A. (Charles Adolphus)
Religion
The Supernatural in the New Testament, Possible, Credible, and Historical: Or, An Examination of the Validity of Some Recent Objections Against Christianity as a Divine Revelation
Row, C. A. (Charles Adolphus)
Bible. New Testament -- Evidences, authority, etc.; Miracles; Revelation; Supernatural in the Bible
When we speak of God as a being possessed of infinite power, what do we
mean? The thing intended is, that He is a being who possesses such power
as enabled Him to create the universe, and that He is capable of exerting
every other degree of power which is possible. We may call this, if we
like, power without limit; though there is always one limit to possible
power, viz., that of working contradictions. Of course we are ignorant of
what are the limits of possible power.
But when we make this addition to our finite conception, we mean by it
power similar to that exhibited in the universe—it and all other power
beyond it. Must such a conception be banished outside the limits of
rational thought? Is the idea of a being who possesses power sufficient to
build the universe, and all possible power besides, unthinkable? Again, we
speak of God as infinitely wise. What do we mean by it? We affirm that He
knows all things actual and possible. The knowledge is none the less
knowledge, because to the knowledge of the actual we add on the knowledge
of the possible. Such a being is certainly not unthinkable.
Again: God is often spoken of, not only as a being possessing infinite
attributes and perfections, but as the Infinite Being. Here the attempt is
made to entangle us in a puzzle. It is argued: if He be the infinite
Being, there can be no being beyond Him. He must therefore include all
being, both actual and possible. If this be so, He must also include the
finite, otherwise there would be a being which is not included in infinite
being—or in other words, being without limit would not include all being,
which is self‐contradictory. Several other self‐contradictions may be
easily adduced by reasoning on the same principles.
I reply that the term “Being” is used here in a sense so intensely
abstract, that we have removed it out of all those conceptions of which
quantity can legitimately be predicated. Of material being we can affirm
that it is quantitative, but of no other. The adding on the word
“infinite,” and calling God the infinite Being, is to use words which have
no validity as conceptions.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account