Are you familiar with the term “amipotence?” I was reminded of it when you answered anon about omnipotence. Curious of your thoughts on it
I have never heard of it but I looked it up AND IT LOOKS FREAKING AWESOME!!!!!
I found an article written by the guy who coined it and uhhh I’ll just post like the whole thing lollll
Amipotence combines two Latin words ami and potens. The first means “love,” and we find it in words like “amicable,” “amity,” and “amigo.” The second is the Latin word for power or influence, and we find it in “potential” and “potency.” Amipotence is pronounced, “am” (as in “Amsterdam”), with a short “i” (as in “it”), and “po-tence” (similar to “moments”).
I coined this word to stress the priority of love over power in God. Divine love (ami) comes logically and conceptually prior to divine power (potens). We best understand God in general and divine power in particular if we give love pride of place. Love comes first.
Amipotence interprets the Johannine phrase “God is love” (1 Jn. 4:8,16) to mean love comes first in God. God is necessarily loving, because it’s God’s eternal and unchanging nature to love. God could no more stop loving than stop existing; but both are metaphysical impossibilities. Amipotence agrees with John Wesley when he says, “God is often styled holy, righteous, wise… [but] he is said to be love: intimating that this is . . . his reigning attribute, the attribute that sheds an amiable glory on all his other perfections.”
Crucial to making sense of amipotence is making sense of love. Most theologians say God loves, and some say divine love is powerful. But few define love carefully or allow love to characterize divine power in a satisfactory way. As a result, the majority portray God’s love in ways that differ radically from what we consider love.
[…]
We best define the love in amipotence as acting intentionally, in relational response to God and others, to promote overall well-being. This definition applies to both divine and creaturely love. The love God and creatures express, in other words, involves intentional action, relations with others, and the aim to promote flourishing. And because love is inherently uncontrolling, neither divine nor creaturely love controls.
Love can’t be omnipotent.
While the definition of love applies to God and creatures, divine love is greater in degree than creaturely love. Divine love is universal and therefore differs in scope, because only God is omnipresent. God’s love differs in duration and frequency, because God loves everlastingly. Divine love differs in adequacy, because God is omniscient and therefore better knows what promotes well-being. Divine love is necessary, because it’s God’s nature to love; creatures may or may not love. Divine love is perfectly sensitive and vulnerable, because God is affected by all creation. Creatures often fail to empathize with a few, let alone be sensitive to all.
The “potence” of amipotence pertains to God’s influence. Divine power is immensely more influential than creaturely power. God is more powerful, in part, because God affects all creation. And divine love is more powerful because everlastingly relentless. The power of amipotence is active and receptive, empowering and empathetic, wooing but persistent, and always uncontrolling. God’s love is literally the most powerful force in the universe.
An amipotent God is not omnipotent in the sense of having all power. It is impossible for a loving God to have all power, because love requires responsive others with power. An amipotent God is not omnipotent in the sense of being able to do absolutely anything. After all, love cannot sin, cannot force its own way, cannot be isolated, cannot make 2 + 2 = 7, and more. And an amipotent God does not control creatures or circumstances, because love is inherently uncontrolling.
God exerts the greatest conceivable power but, thank goodness, is not omnipotent. Amipotence is maximal divine power in the service of love.
I still would take it a step forward: love IS power, and not separate from it. This is where my thought gets kind of Thomist (he believed love and justice and wisdom were all one but we experienced them differently). All virtues are extensions of love. All divine attributes or energies are emanations of Love. I haven’t fully fleshed out or developed this idea but. I’m glad to know there are others who have had similar thoughts.
I think this is also a way to have still have a philosophical understanding of God (that is, God as Ultimate Reality), while still keeping an open theist and immanent perspective. But I need to meditate on this first
