The Kalam Cosmological Argument

[Belacqua]

take terms with quite specific meanings and twist those meanings into something else

Unfortunately, if we look at history, it appears that the modern English usage of the word "omnipotence" is severely twisted away from what it used to mean. 

The idea comes from Aristotle, like so much else. It doesn't mean that God can do anything. It has to do with the very basic Aristotelian/Thomist structure of act and potency. God is said to be the fulfillment of all potency -- that is, all potentiality in the world achieves its actualization in God. "All potent" here doesn't mean that he can do anything but that all potency ends there. God's essence is pure act. This is why one of the most important synonyms for God in this tradition is actus purus. 

My guess is that the meaning of the word has been twisted by the sola scriptura literalist Christians, and the atheists who argue solely according to such people's terms. I'm told that such people are in the majority now, but I have no idea of percentages. 

Platonists, Aristotelians, Neoplatonists, Augustine, Thomas Aquinas and all the Thomists, Sufis, Sikhs, and several branches of Hinduism use the term in the way I've defined it above. For them, the idea of God flying around the world deciding to do things is just nonsense. A key point of these traditions is that God takes no action. In fact it's kind of a funny picture -- God goes around doing stuff until he finds something he can't do, and then he says, "Oh Myself! I guess I'm not omnipotent after all!" 

I don't know how Plantinga is using the term. I've never read anything by him. But we have to be careful when reading theology not to twist the word into a modern meaning that its originators never intended. 

https://hal.science/hal-03002478/document