A Latter-day Saint Perspective on God's Omnipotence

The omnipotence of God is a subject that has been discussed and debated for thousands of years. Some would argue that God’s power has no restrictions whatsoever,[1] while most would propose certain limitations to His omnipotence.[2] One of the most prominent, proposed limitations to God’s omnipotence is the idea that God has a constant nature and cannot, or would not, act contrary to that nature. This approach understandably places limits to the enacted omnipotence of God. I will briefly review the major arguments proposed by theologians regarding limiting the omnipotence of God.[3] I will then draw upon the Bible and other Latter-day Saint scripture to show how God’s unchanging, divine nature limits His omnipotence.

Theological Arguments

There have been many different theological and philosophical approaches to the omnipotence of God. In Revelation 19:6, we learn that God is “Almighty” or “Omnipotent.”[4] Most theologians do not focus on whether or not God is omnipotent, but rather what it means for God to be omnipotent. Should there be any restrictions on God’s power? How is His omnipotence to be understood? In the book of Isaiah, the Lord teaches, “my thoughts are not your thoughts, nor are your ways my ways, says the Lord. For 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).[5] In the absence of clear understanding regarding God’s ways, various arguments have been set forth by theologians and philosophers regarding the omnipotence of God. These efforts are often made in an attempt to address the longstanding problem of theodicy and all of its implications. In order to resolve perceived contradictions revolving around the divine omnipotence of God, there have been a variety of different limitations imposed on God’s omnipotence.

God Can Do Anything

One theological approach is to say that “if God is omnipotent then God can do anything.”[6] Rene Descartes taught that “we can assert that God can do everything that we can comprehend but not that he cannot do what we cannot comprehend. It would be rash to think that our imagination reaches as far as His power.”[7] He goes on to explain, “I do not think that we should ever say of anything that it cannot be brought about by God. For since everything involved in truth and goodness depends on His omnipotence, I would not dare to say that God cannot make a mountain without a valley, or that one and two should not be three. I merely say that He has given me such a mind that I cannot conceive a mountain without a valley, or an aggregate of one and two which is not three, and that such things involve a contradiction in my conception.”[8] In short, Descartes claims that the scope of the omnipotence of God includes illogical possibilities.

A strict and literal interpretation of the Bible seems to provide some support for Descartes’ theological argument. For example, Job declares to God, “I know that you can do all things, and that no purpose of yours can be thwarted” (Job 42:2). We read in the Gospels that, “for God all things are possible” (Matthew 19:26, Mark 10:27). Finally, Jesus Himself prays to the Father, “Abba, Father, for you all things are possible; remove this cup from me” (Mark 14:36). When taken at face value, one could believe that God truly can do anything, including illogical possibilities.

Everything That is Absolutely Possible

There are some obvious problems and contradictions with Descartes’ broad approach and interpretation. One example is the question of whether or not God can “create a stone which is too heavy for God to lift”[9] Thomas Aquinas argues that God’s omnipotence is limited to being able to do anything that does not involve contradictions of reason—anything that is absolutely possible:

"Aquinas rehearses some of the difficulties about omnipotence in the seventh article of the first question of the De Potentia. He concludes that God cannot be said to be omnipotent in the sense of being simply able to do everything (quia omnia possit absolute). He considers a number of other suggestions. One, attributed to St. Augustine, is that God is omnipotent in the sense that he can do whatever he wants to do. But to this there are serious objections. The blessed in heaven, St. Thomas says, and perhaps even the happy on earth, can do whatever they want; otherwise there would be something lacking in their happiness. But they are not called omnipotent. So it is not enough for the omnipotence which is a divine attribute that God should be able to do whatever he wants…Aquinas turns to the formulation: God can do whatever is possible."[10]

Aquinas explains, “We are left with the alternative that he is omnipotent because he can do everything that is absolutely possible.”[11]

Two Illogical Impossibilities

Harry Frankfurt seeks to resolve the omnipotence paradox by explaining, “For why should God not be able to perform the task in question? To be sure, it is a task—the task of lifting a stone which He cannot lift—whose description is self-contradictory. But if God is supposed capable of performing one task whose description is self-contradictory—that of creating the problematic stone in the first place—why should He not be supposed capable of performing another—that of lifting the stone? After all, is there any greater trick in performing two logically impossible tasks than there is in performing one?”[12] This philosophical approach utilizes the factor of time in order to resolve the contradiction of God creating a stone too heavy for Him to lift.

External Pressures

“For Averroes, the reliability of God ultimately rested upon external pressures. God was compelled to act in certain ways – and thus acted reliably.”[13] This kind of approach assumes the presence of divine laws that prohibit God from acting in certain ways. Unlike the freedom of choice, we experience in this life, Averroes would argue that God is bound by laws within His eternal sphere. One problem with this approach is the question of where those laws come from and whether they are superior to God. If they transcend God’s omnipotence, it would seem that those laws are worthy of our greatest attention.

The author of Hebrews provides some interesting commentary regarding divine oaths: “when God desired to show even more clearly to the heirs of the promise the unchangeable character of his purpose, he guaranteed it by an oath, so that through two unchangeable things, in which it is impossible that God would prove false, we who have taken refuge might be strongly encouraged to seize the hope set before us” (Hebrews 6:17–18). Since “it is impossible that God would prove false” (Hebrews 6:18), it seems that He is being acted upon by an external force. However, another possible interpretation of these verses is that if God broke this oath, He would cease to be God, and therefore “it is impossible that God would prove false” because it would be against the nature of God and God’s works and purposes would crumble under His compromised character.

Doing What He Wills

Augustine explained, "He is called omnipotent on account of His doing what He wills, not on account of His suffering what He wills not; for if that should befall Him, He would by no means be omnipotent. Wherefore, He cannot do some things for the very reason that He is omnipotent.”[14] God’s omnipotence is inseparably connected with His will and character. Similarly, Thomas Aquinas explained, “To sin is to fall short of a perfect action. Hence to be able to sin is to be able to be deficient in relation to an action, which cannot be reconciled with omnipotence. It is because God is omnipotent that he cannot sin.”[15]

Consistent with the Divine Nature

C.S. Lewis’s similar approach is that “God cannot do anything that is inconsistent with the divine nature. It is not merely logic, he argues, but the very nature of God which prevents God from doing certain things.”[16] Similarly, Duns Scotus and William of Ockham argued that “the reliability of God is ultimately grounded in the divine nature itself. God does not act reliably because someone or something makes God act in this way, but because of a deliberate and free divine decision to act like this. God’s reliability or faithfulness is not externally constrained but is determined by God’s own character.”[17]

“Ockham asks precisely what is meant by the word ‘almighty’ (omnipotens). It cannot, he argues, mean that God is presently able to do everything. God was once free to act in any way. However, by doing this, God has now established an order of things which reflects a loving and righteous divine will and that order, once established, will remain until the end of time. God is therefore not now able to do anything which contradicts this established order.”[18] He makes the argument that there are two powers of God: “The ‘absolute power of God’ (potentia absoluta) refers to the options that existed before God committed himself to any course of action or world ordering. The ‘ordained power of God’ (potentia ordinata) refers to the order established by God their creator as an expression of the divine nature and character.”[19]

“Anselm [of Canterbury] noted that omnipotence – understood as the ability to do all things – was not necessarily a good thing. If God is omnipotent, God could do things such as tell lies or pervert justice. Yet this is clearly inconsistent with the Christian understanding of the nature of God.[20] For example, Hebrews 6:18 teaches that “it is impossible that God would prove false.”

Latter-day Saint Perspective on the Divine Nature

Regarding Latter-day Saint theology, a starting place to look at is the aspects of God’s omnipotence concerning divine laws and God’s nature. In an entry in the Encyclopedia of Mormonism, David Paulsen introduces this topic by explaining that, “there are actualities that are coeternal with the persons of the Godhead, including elements, intelligence, and law. Omnipotence, therefore, cannot coherently be understood as absolutely unlimited power.”[21] A couple instances from the scriptures that allude to God being limited by divine law are “all those who receive the priesthood, receive this oath and covenant of my Father, which he cannot break, neither can it be moved” (Doctrine and Covenants 84:40) and “I the Lord cannot look upon sin with the least degree of allowance” (Doctrine and Covenants 1:31). These verses seem to support Averroes’ argument that God is limited by external factors imposed on Him such as divine laws and covenants.

The Argument of the Divine Nature

However, in these and other verses, it is unclear whether God is refraining from acting, based on divine law, or whether it is His nature that prevents Him from breaking a covenant and looking upon sin with allowance. Since agency is central to Heavenly Father’s plan (see 2 Nephi 2) and is a gift from God (see Doctrine and Covenants 101:78), it would seem appropriate to conclude that God Himself possesses a similar freedom of choice. If so, divine law cannot be the best explanation of verses like Doctrine and Covenants 1:31 and Doctrine and Covenants 84:40.

C.S. Lewis’s divine nature argument seems to be a more comprehensive explanation of why God cannot break an oath and why He “cannot look upon sin with the least degree of allowance” (Doctrine and Covenants 1:31). “God cannot do anything that is inconsistent with the divine nature. It is not merely logic… but the very nature of God which prevents God from doing certain things.”[22] He is not able to do these things because if He did, He would cease to be God. If Christ’s nature and actions included turning stone into bread for his own immediate gratification, He would not have had the character and nature necessary to perform His infinite Atonement. As a result, God’s work and purposes would have been frustrated, and we would have been without a Savior.

Constant Nature

The Standard Works seem to teach the idea that God’s nature dictates how He acts. The foundation of this argument is that God’s nature is constant. In the Book of Mormon, we learn repeatedly that “God is not a partial God, neither a changeable being; but he is unchangeable from all eternity to all eternity” (Moroni 8:18). Nephi teaches that “He is the same yesterday, today, and forever” (1 Nephi 10:18). God’s nature does not change, but how does this relate to His actions? Alma teaches, “see that ye have faith, hope, and charity, and then ye will always abound in good works” (Alma 7:24). He does not say that you cannot do bad works, he just says that you will always abound in good works. This verse teaches us that actions follow one’s nature. God’s general actions and intents do not need to remain a mystery because His nature is constant.

Straight Paths

In Doctrine and Covenants 3:2, we learn, “God doth not walk in crooked paths, neither doth he turn to the right hand nor to the left, neither doth he vary from that which he hath said, therefore his paths are straight, and his course is one eternal round.” God’s nature does not change based on circumstances—it remains the same. This enables His children to confidently place their trust in Him: “Trust in the Lord with all your heart, and do not rely on your own insight. In all your ways acknowledge him, and he will make straight your paths” (Proverbs 3:5–6). Because God’s paths are straight and His nature constant, He is able to make our paths straight and help us to come to “the measure of the full stature of Christ” and develop the attributes that He possesses (Ephesians 4:13).

Priesthood Power

The Latter-day Saint canon seems to support the argument that God is limited in His omnipotence because of His divine nature. The way that priesthood power operates might provide additional insight into the relationship between God’s omnipotence and His power:

"The rights of the priesthood are inseparably connected with the powers of heaven, and that the powers of heaven cannot be controlled nor handled only upon the principles of righteousness. That they may be conferred upon us, it is true; but when we undertake to cover our sins, or to gratify our pride, our vain ambition, or to exercise control or dominion or compulsion upon the souls of the children of men, in any degree of unrighteousness, behold, the heavens withdraw themselves; the Spirit of the Lord is grieved; and when it is withdrawn, Amen to the priesthood or the authority of that man. Behold, ere he is aware, he is left unto himself, to kick against the pricks, to persecute the saints, and to fight against God. We have learned by sad experience that it is the nature and disposition of almost all men, as soon as they get a little authority, as they suppose, they will immediately begin to exercise unrighteous dominion. Hence many are called, but few are chosen. No power or influence can or ought to be maintained by virtue of the priesthood, only by persuasion, by long-suffering, by gentleness and meekness, and by love unfeigned; By kindness, and pure knowledge, which shall greatly enlarge the soul without hypocrisy, and without guile." (Doctrine and Covenants 121:36–42)

If priesthood power is inseparably connected with righteousness, it seems appropriate to conclude that God’s power is also inseparably connected with his righteous nature.

Consistency

The Standard Works repeatedly describes God’s consistency in will and character with statements such as, “There is nothing that the Lord thy God shall take in his heart to do but what he will do it” (Abraham 3:17). And in 1 Nephi 1:14, we read, “because thou art merciful, thou wilt not suffer those who come unto thee that they shall perish.” It seems appropriate to conclude that God’s unchanging nature determines His actions. It’s not that God doesn’t have the power to do things that contradict His nature, rather that He will not because of who He is.

Conclusion

Joseph Smith taught, “Our Heavenly Father is more liberal in his views, and boundless in his mercies and blessings, than we are ready to believe or receive, and, at the same time, is more terrible to the workers of iniquity, more awful in the executions of his punishments, and more ready to detect every false way than we are apt to suppose him to be.”[23] Indeed, “my thoughts are not your thoughts, nor are your ways my ways, says the Lord. For 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). Although there are many mysteries that have not yet been revealed, the Latter-day Saint scriptural canon seems to support the idea that God’s omnipotence is limited because of His divine nature. Since God is an unchangeable Being with a benevolent nature, we are able to place our confidence and trust in Him and in His omnipotence. “Because 1 Nephi 1:14, we read, “because [God is] merciful, [He] wilt not suffer those who come unto [Him] that they shall perish” (1 Nephi 1:14). Thankfully, God’s almightiness and omnipotence is exercised in our best interest, and because of His divine nature, we will one day be able to declare unto God as Nephi, “Thy ways are just” (2 Nephi 26:7).

Endnotes

[1]. Rene Descartes, for example, took this kind of position. This argument is sometimes referred to as voluntarism, or universal possibilism.

[2]. Howard A. Redmond outlines some of the common limitations given by theologians, philosophers, poets, and Biblical writers, in his book, The Omnipotence of God. Howard A. Redmond, The Omnipotence of God (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1964).

[3]. It is beyond the scope of this paper to provide a comprehensive study of the divine omnipotence of God. Others have undertaken such an effort such as Gijsbert van den Brink in his Almighty God: A Study of the Doctrine of Divine Omnipotence. Gijsbert van den Brink, Almighty God: A Study of the Doctrine of Divine Omnipotence (Kampen, Netherlands: Kok Pharos, 1993).

[4]. The King James Version of the Bible states, “the Lord God omnipotent reigneth,” but the NRSV reads, “the Lord our God the Almighty reigns.” Continuing the historical debate regarding the omnipotence of God, and for the purposes of this essay, the words almighty and omnipotent can be used interchangeably.

[5]. Unless otherwise noted, all Bible verses in this post are taken from the NRSV.  

[6]. Alister E. McGrath, Christian Theology: An Introduction, 6th ed (Hoboken, NJ: Wiley Blackwell, 2017), 187.

[7]. Linwood Urban and Douglas N. Walton, ed., The Power of God: Readings on Omnipotence and Evil (New York: Oxford University Press, 1978), 38.

[8]. Urban and Walton, The Power of God, 39.

[9]. McGrath, Christian Theology, 187.

[10]. Anthony Kenny, The God of the Philosophers (New York: Oxford University Press, 1979), 91–92.

[11]. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, Ia. 25, 3.

[12]. Harry Frankfurt, "The Logic of Omnipotence," Necessity, Volition, and Love (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1998) 1–2.

[13]. McGrath, Christian Theology, 188.

[14]. Augustine of Hippo, St. Augustine's City of God and Christian Doctrine: Chapter 10.—Whether Our Wills are Ruled by Necessity.

[15]. Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, Ia. 25, 3.  

[16]. McGrath, Christian Theology, 187.

[17]. McGrath, Christian Theology, 188.

[18]. McGrath, Christian Theology, 188.

[19]. McGrath, Christian Theology, 188–189.

[20]. McGrath, Christian Theology, 188.

[21]. Daniel H. Ludlow, Encyclopedia of Mormonism: the History, Scripture, Doctrine, and Procedure of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (New York: Macmillan, 1992), 1030.

[22]. McGrath, Christian Theology, 187.

[23]. "History, 1838–1856, volume D-1 [1 August 1842–1 July 1843] [addenda]," p. 4 [addenda], The Joseph Smith Papers, accessed April 16, 2020, https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/history-1838-1856-volume-d-1-1-august-1842-1-july-1843/285.