God Can’t!—and the Bible Says So

February 24th, 2010 / 101 Comments

I sometimes hear the argument that we should not speculate about the attributes of God’s nature. Overall, I don’t find this argument convincing.

A couple of the underlying assumptions of the argument seem on target, however. One assumption is that humans often overreach in their claims about who God is.  Finite minds should not pretend to grasp entirely the essence of an infinite God. I agree with this. There is always a role for mystery in theology.  Folks just don’t always agree about what that role is.

This assumption to the argument reminds us “we know in part” (1 Cor. 13:12).  We should remain humble in our words about God. After all, we occasionally realize in hindsight that our previous claims are not as helpful or accurate as we once thought.

The second assumption against speculating about the attributes of God’s nature is justified by the inadequacies of the ancient Christian tradition. This assumption says that many Christians today identify ancient theological claims they no longer find plausible.

For instance, a good number of theologians today think the ancient Christian claim that God does not suffer (i.e., is not affected by creatures) is faulty. Although this claim was common among ancient theologians, the Bible suggests otherwise. Sometimes abstract speculation about God’s nature fueled ancient theological claims that most Christians now believe erroneous.

As another example, take the issue of God’s power and creaturely freedom. Many if not most ancient theologians implicitly or explicitly denied that creatures are free.  Many if not most contemporary theologians argue otherwise.

Given these concerns, some Christians today say we should resist making any claims whatsoever about God’s nature.  We should restrict ourselves instead, they say, to descriptive comments about the way God has acted in history.

I disagree with the view that we should refrain from making claims about God’s nature. Instead, I think we ought to offer humble hypotheses about what we believe God’s nature is like.  In humility, we ought always be ready to modify our views. “We know in part,” not in full.

My primary argument for why we are justified in speculating about God’s nature comes from the Bible.  Biblical authors OFTEN make statements about God’s nature or attributes. They don’t just describe God’s actions.  Here are a few:

“God is love” (I Jn 4:16).  “God is spirit…” (Jn. 4:24). “The Lord our God is holy” (Ps. 99:9).

“The Lord is one” (Deut. 6:4). “God … knows everything” (1 Jn. 3:20). “God is just” (2 Thess. 1:6).   “God is not unjust” (Heb. 6:10).

In God’s nature “there is no change or shadow of alteration” (James 1:17). “God is not a God of disorder but of peace” (1 Cor. 14:33).

“Since the creation of the world, God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse” (Rom. 1:20)

The last biblical passage I cite is especially powerful. Paul claims our observations of the world – not just the Bible – can tell us something about God’s invisible qualities and divine nature.

Most Christians also believe that Jesus Christ reveals important information about God’s nature. In part, this belief fuels Christians to claim that Jesus is fully human and fully divine.  The Bible witnesses to the revelation of God’s nature through the life of Jesus.

Here are two passages from the many I could quote to support the idea that Jesus reveals God’s nature:

“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God” (Jn 1:1). The Word “became flesh and dwelt among us” (John 1:14).

“We know also that the Son of God has come and has given us understanding, so that we may know him who is true. And we are in him who is true—even in his Son Jesus Christ. He is the true God and eternal life” (1 Jn. 5:20).

I mention the issue of speculating about God’s nature to get to a question I’ve been asking for some time: Is there something about God’s nature that makes it impossible for God to act in certain ways?

To put it succinctly:  Should we say God CAN’T do some things?

A number of theologians are comfortable saying God voluntarily chooses not to act in certain ways.  God voluntarily self-limits, creates space for creation, and gives creatures freedom, say theologians as influential as Jurgen Moltmann and John Polkinghorne. This limitation is based on God’s free decision.

Instead of wondering whether God could or would do something, however, I’m wondering if God essentially CAN’T do some things. There’s a big difference between “can’t” and “won’t.”  I’m asking the can’t question.

The distinction between “God can’t” and “God won’t” is especially important for accounting for God’s action or inaction to prevent genuine evil. I try to account for this in light of the genuine evil caused by pain and suffering in our world.  The recent Haiti earthquake and the million or more people negatively affected brought the problem of evil to the fore of my mind again.

If God won’t prevent evil even though God could, we’re left with the same essential questions about evil. But if God can’t prevent the evil, a completely new way of thinking emerges.

For some people, of course, merely asking the question, “Should we say God CAN’T do some things,” is blasphemous.  For them, the Bible clearly indicates that God can do all things.

A few passages – but not many – explicitly support the view that God can do anything. The most well known is probably when Jesus says, “with God all things are possible” (Mt. 19:26 and elsewhere).  In this passage (and the other gospels reporting the same conversation), Jesus seems to be saying that offering salvation is always possible for God. That would be different that saying literally nothing is impossible for God to do.

There are passages in the Bible that specifically say God CAN’T do some things. Notice: these passages aren’t saying God voluntarily chooses not to do some things. They say God simply cannot do them.  Here are four biblical verses as illustrations:

“It is impossible for God to lie” (Heb. 6:18).  See also Titus 1:2.

“God cannot be tempted by evil” (Js. 1:12).

“If we are faithless, [God] remains faithful — for he cannot deny himself” (2 Tim. 2:13).

I personally think the statement in the last of these passages — God cannot deny himself — covers the others.  Paul seems to be saying that God’s own nature places limits on what God can do. God must be God, and God cannot be otherwise.

We must come to terms with the fact that the Bible says God can’t do some things. Christians like me who privilege the Bible on theological matters can’t ignore statements that seem to tell us something about God’s nature and God’s inherent limitations.

If we think about it a bit, however, these limitations based on God’s nature aren’t that big a deal. They shouldn’t shock us, even if we haven’t thought much about it previously.

Does it diminish our view of God, for instance, to admit that God can’t lie?  I doubt it.  And I doubt our view of God is diminished if we consider other attributes we typically think apply to God.

For instance, I doubt many of us worry that God can’t voluntarily decide to be 671 instead of triune. Most Christians assume that trinity is part of what it means to be God. (By the way, if to be three is to be triune, what’s the word for 671?!)

Or, for another instance, we probably don’t think it’s a significant limitation that God must be omnipresent rather than confined to one place or another. And we probably don’t worry about God being limited to leading an everlasting life instead of being able to choose to have a beginning or end.

Upon reflection, the fact that God can’t do or be some things doesn’t seem so bad after all.

One of the most important biblical statements about God’s nature is that God’s eternal and unchanging nature includes steadfast love.  God cannot not love, to use the double negative.

Here’s where I wonder if thinking about God’s nature as love helps with the problem of evil. Here’s the love theo-logic I’m proposing: perhaps we are justified in speculating that part of what it means for God to love others is that God never controls others entirely. To put it positively, God’s love always involves giving freedom and/or agency to creatures. Because God’s nature is love, God cannot do otherwise.

I was reading the works of John Wesley the other day. I came across a line of argumentation from him that supports my view of God’s nature making God incapable of controlling others entirely.  Wesley writes, “were human liberty taken away, men would be as incapable of virtue as stones. Therefore (with reverence be it spoken) the Almighty himself cannot do this thing. He cannot thus contradict himself or undo what he has done.”

If God’s loving nature prevents God from controlling others entirely, we might have to rethink how we understand God’s mighty acts recorded in Scripture and evident in our contemporary lives. We don’t have to reject that God acts in mighty and miraculous ways.  God still acts providentially and miraculously. But we might need to think of God’s acts as not involving the entire control of others.

Admittedly, looking at God’s power through the lens of God’s love and not total control is new to some people.  But I know of nothing in the Bible to suggest that thinking in this way does injustice to the overall biblical witness.  After all, most folk think God always acts lovingly – even when biblical writers report God being angry with sinners.

I don’t have it all figured out. I see through a glass darkly. And I admit there are a few biblical passages that aren’t easily explained by the idea that God always acts loving. They are the exceptions.

But I am trying to propose a biblically supported view of God’s nature that helps us make sense of why God doesn’t prevent genuine evil. God can’t prevent genuine evil, because God’s nature of love always gives freedom and/or agency to others.

My speculation is based upon the biblical witness that God can’t do some things. I have the Bible as my primary resource. I affirm with the Bible that God’s inabilities to do some things come from the truth that God “cannot deny himself” (2 Tim. 2:13).


John Wesley, “On Divine Providence,” Sermon 67, The Works of John Wesley, vol. 2 (Nashville, Tenn.: Abingdon, 1985) paragraph 15.

Add comment


Lori Ward

On a tangential thought . . . if “God cannot be tempted by evil” as James submits, what do we do with the God-Man who was tempted in the wilderness of his 40-day fast?  Was that not God?  Were his temptations not of evil?  Was he not truly tempted? 

I am convinced that Jesus, of one being with the Father, was in fact tempted by evil to do evil (perhaps this is a stretch of the term, “evil”?  Surely he was tempted to go against the “will of the Father.”). 

I also wonder then, was it impossible for Jesus to sin?  While among us would it be true to say, “Jesus CAN”T sin,” because that is outside his nature?  Is Jesus an exception to the “God rule”? 

I don’t necessarily disagree with your argument, but I am concerned about the implications it has regarding God in Christ Jesus.

Todd Holden

You write that, “God can’t prevent genuine evil…” What difference would it make if you were to say, “God doesn’t prevent genuine evil”? To me it does not appear that your argument would be interfered with in any meaningful way.

In addition, how do you define “genuine evil”?


“Many if not most ancient theologians implicitly or explicitly denied that creatures are free.”

Who?  I’m working on an article on free will skepticism, and would like to know who you are thinking of here.

Hans Deventer


I agree that God can’t do certain things, and that he cannot entirely control others. But like a prison warden who cannot entirely control his prisoners, he definitely can avoid them causing harm in society. In fact, that is part of the very purpose of the prison. God doesn’t, however (yet). I’m still left with the question why.



Very nicely stated. I make a similar argument in my thesis that creation (I know we disagree on the nature of this) was a risk and act of faith for God because once God created God would never be able to “uncreate.” That is, God would forever be different by God’s act of creation. God would for ever be a creator and unable to ever erase this fact. I also agree that God had no choice but to create humans to be free. God could have created a world full of nonrelational objects and creatures but to create a being in God’s image that was relational meant that God could not do otherwise than create them to be free. In other words, I don’t speak about the “gift” of free will but the necessity of it.

All this to say, very nicely said and I think I will share this with my class…assuming this is alright with you.

Mark W. Wilson

It is interesting that in I Cor. 13 Paul doesn’t simply tell us what love does, but what it does not do. Because God is love, there must be things He doesn’t or can’t do. Open Theists have insisted that creaturely freedom is a prerquisite for genunine love and relationship. Is this true of God? Does he choose to love us, or does he love us because his nature constrains Him to? Can he not love us? If his nature constrains him to love us, why couldn’t God have made our nature so we are constrained to love and obey him? Or must we ascribe to God the freedom to not love us? I fear I see through a glass even more darkly.

Michael Lodahl

Thanks for all your hard work, Tom. I agree with Kevin’s bewilderment, though. (I’m guessing Timpe.) What is striking to me is just how adamantly human freedom is affirmed and protected in early Christian theological writings, from Justin Martyr to Irenaeus to Athanasius to the Cappadocians, and many others. So I think you have more allies among the early theologians than you’re suggesting. And that’s a good thing!

John King

A very interesting topic.  From a more philosophical perspective is a paper by Phillip Clayton on “Can there be Theology after Darwin”, Prof Clayton has some interesting comments about what God can and cannot do.  However, he does not ignore the Bible entirely.  He relates his view to the ancient hymn found in Phil. 2 to present a kenotic theology.  The apophatic theologian from Harvard, Gordon Kaufman has some interestint ideas about the nature of God also.  I think Kaufman’s books “In the Beginning…Creativity” and “Jesus and Creativity” are very readable

Grant Miller

Dr. Oord, I love the tone of this piece and of the logical progression you take us through. I also appreciate your use of Scripture and your effort to acknowledge the necessarily humble attitude that any theory about God’s nature must be accompanied with.

However, I think I’d like to offer that God’s decision not to intervene in a “won’t” sense can be just as powerful as a God “can’t” understanding. I find this especially poignant in light of the idea of God’s active suffering. What could it mean if God is actively protecting human free will by refusing to interact with us in a way that jeopardizes it? How much more might God be suffering, especially when it could be theoretically in God’s capacity to act and prevent evil, but God can’t because our free will is the most loving thing God can offer us? Thank you for your thoughts here!

Gordon Knight

On determinism in the history of the Church: Augustine is a prime example of a theological determinist. Aquinas wiggles a bit but in the end a consistent Thomist has to adopt theological determinism (after all its one simple divine act that results in all of creation as its laid out temporally for us, but is, as it were laid out as a big banquet table before God.. fixed and determined. Remember that the Dominicans rejected Molinism not, as some of us do, because, even if it made sense, it would render God the greatest possible manipulator, but because they thought the existence of counterfactuals of freedom negated God’s sovereignty. I don’t need to mention Luther and Calvin (but I did anyway)
On the other hand the Greek Fathers—I have in mind theCappadocians and Origen.. were all about libertarian free will.

Tony Scialdone


I truly appreciate that you consider God’s nature an appropriate topic of discussion. I’m often surprised at what people avoid discussing. In my opinion, it’s perfectly acceptable that we ask, “What is God really like?”

As valuable as speculation can be, it should never trump revelation. The musings of a follower of Christ should be both constrained and tempered by Scripture. Along those lines, would you please clarify the following?

>> I disagree with the view that we should refrain from making claims about God’s nature…Biblical authors OFTEN make statements about God’s nature or attributes.

Here’s why I ask: you seem to suggest that, because the writers of Scripture ‘made statements’ about God’s nature, we should engage in the same kinds of activities. I may have misunderstood, of course…but you seem to have reduced Scripture to the musings of ancient men, subject to revision. I’d like to know whether I’ve misread you.

Thanks for making us all think. Have a great day!

Linsey M.

I would have to agree with your thoughts here. Because God is good and God is love (things I think most Christians are okay saying even if they suggest they don’t know everything about Him), would in essence suggest there is a long list of non-loving, evil, and bad things God cannot do. It is important we realize that the simple things we say God IS also imply there are certain things God IS NOT and therefore there are certain things He CANNOT do. Thanks for your thoughts.

Dustin J.

The idea of God not being able to do certain things has been growing on me since your Philosophy of Love class. This idea of God not being able to interfere with freedom in creatures which would violate some form of characteristics of God’s essential nature makes sense. The one question I do have is does this thought process somehow limit God’s ‘God’ ability? If we put a limitation which makes sense for us does it diminish the power of God?
I enjoy the idea that characteristics of God are boiled down to love. That which goes against the ultimate love God shares to creation cannot happen. Love always plays the role of final word or authority, if it goes against love, as holding authority of our free will would,  it cannot happen.

Austin Lamos

As I read this blog post I thought of the children’s song I used to sing in Sunday School and at Children’s camp.
“My God is so great, so strong and so mighty, there’s nothing my God cannot do…”
I think that this is a helpful way of thinking for a child, and even a new Christian. However, I think, and I believe that Oord thinks, that this avenue of thinking and believing are the equivalent of “spiritual milk” (Hebrews 5:12-14). It may be a helpful rubric as one explores the basics of Christianity.
However, as one grows and matures as a Christian one must move on to “spiritual meat” (see above scripture reference). One moves from a children’s bible to an adult bible; from cute pictures to the ugly reality of sin and the cross (not that it can’t be argued that the cross can be seen as beautiful in it’s message). One moves from the idea that God can do absolutely anything without reserve to understand that there are some things that God cannot, not just will not, do.
I believe that Oord illustrates this well.

Mary Forester

I think an interesting point that I feel you have brought to light, as I read this, is how it is in the way that we say things that makes a difference. You wrote, “Is there something about God’s nature that makes it impossible for God to act in certain ways?” I feel that this sounds different than a description of God which states that “it is impossible for God to act”. Clearly, the intention is the same, but the perception of the reader/hearer is different when comparing these ideas.

Your suggestion of why genuine evil exists makes sense to me when we consider that a loving God can’t interfere with the free will that He has given humankind.

Mark Mounts

I totally agree with the assumption that God cannot do some things because He is love and love just would not complete some of the actions of evil.  I also learned this week that God is, most likely, an isolated spirit that does not take human form thus, partaking in some human decisions would not be like God.  I do believe that God intensely wanted to have a relationship with all of humankind so He sent Jesus to suffer evil and relate to humankind in a more intense way. 

God also would never associate himself with evil and suffering as a choice to partake in that evil and suffering.  I am not sure we could totally say that there are things God cannot do, but things that do not match His nature nor would He associate with those decisions.  Does that mean He cannot do them or that He has never thought or even considering doing those things?

David Hater

This is an interesting perspective, and really was informative in certain ways.  I struggle with the idea of God cannot do something, because it seems limiting to say that, unless of course it is God who self-limits for the sake of his character.  In the essence of things that are evil, it is counter to God’s character to be or do any of those things, so I guess in a way that is that he cannot do those, as it is Biblical, it just seems like it could become a gray area if we are not careful to explain in depth the meaning when referring to God can’t.  This is an interesting thought that I need to look at more to hopefully understand on a deeper level.

Paul Darminio

Again, I think that Tom presents a very strong argument here.  When it comes to essential kenosis, I have no difficulty accepting that God is loving by nature or that God suffers with us.  As he notes, I share the struggle of many others in saying that there are certain things that God cannot do.  I appreciate his approach, and I agree with some of the assertions he makes.  For instance, I had not considered if God could be something other than Triune, but I guess I would be comfortable saying God cannot violate this part of his nature. 

The issue of necessary evil vs. genuine evil is one that I am still struggling with, and I am beginning to wonder if natural evil falls under the umbrella of necessary evil since it allows for the kind of world that we live in.  Either way, I think this essay does an excellent job of acknowledging the tension created by this perspective and relating it back to Scripture.

Jerimy W

The logic behind this argument makes sense: there are certain things that God cannot do because God said God cannot do them.  These certain things cannot be done because they would go against the very nature of God.  God, who creates in love, for love and out of love, created each of us with a free will.  In doing so, God granted each one of us the ability to choose, sometimes moment by moment, whether to seek God or seek evil.  If God is truly love, as the Scriptures point out, God cannot create in any other way.  And, if God is that love, I can understand how God cannot step in and change that which God created in and out of God’s own nature.
This, in my mind, does not diminish the power of God.  In fact, for me, it actually reinforces the character of God.


This was a very interesting piece.  The “can’t” and the “won’t” are so intertwined with each other it is almost impossible to distinguish where one ends and the other begins.  God won’t because He gave us free-will-His gift to us.  Because He values that, as do we, He will not intervene on certain levels, causing the “can’t” to appear.  It seems that one causes the other to take place.  Would it be different if God have not given us free-will?  Would “can’t” even be an issue anymore?  And if that is the case, could there actually be a “can’t”.  If we no longer had free-will; just woke up one morning and it was gone, would God change?  Would He become different and be capable of everything?

Kelli Simmons

I appreciate the fact that you are willing to ask “the hard questions” regarding Gods nature and the issue of evil. Overall, I would agree with your statements, especially when examined in the light of 2 Tim. 2:13. I am one of those people who have difficulty (or at least in the past)using the words “God” and “cannot” in the same sentence.  However, I am am of the opinion that the gift of free will that was given to us from a loving Creator plays a huge role in the circumstances, both good as well as evil, that we encounter in this world.  Thank you for this insightful essay.

Lisah Malika

There is a big difference between can’t and wont. When we think of God in terms of “He can’t” do a certain thing, then we are making the claim that He is limited by His nature. When we say that God can but simply will not, then we are emphasizing God’s will. This concept of God’s will versus His nature gets complicated when we start discussing certain topics like evil. The idea of saying God “cannot” was not something I grew up with; when I initially heard that I didn’t like it. I felt like it undermined the power of God. How can God be omnipotent if He “cant.” After I wrestled with this perception of who God is, and what He can and cannot do, I’ve decided that to say that God “cant” does not destroy my faith in who I believe Him to be.

James Shepherd

This is an interesting thought. Is God self-limiting or not? The answer to this question may never be known, but it will be a question we try and answer throughout the ages. The reason I bring this up is because I think it is important when dealing with this question, the question of whether God suffers or not. I would say God suffers. I say this because I believe God is a relational being, and our actions as humans affect how God responds to us. This is way we have a relationship with God, not a God who foreordains our every move. I get this from Exodus 32, where Moses was able to change God’s mind. Many will disagree with this, but I am okay with that. This shows that God did have a relationship with the people, and thus was affected by what Moses had to say to him. Due to this, God is in relationship with humankind He has to suffer when we mess up. If God did not suffer then what would be the point of God being in relationship with humankind?

Valerie Wigg

I tend to struggle with the idea that God “can’t” do something because that does limit a traditional understanding of omnipotence. However, I do see how claiming that He cannot do something lines up with his nature as an omni-loving God. Bear with me as I think out loud (well, in typing). Many people would say that God can prevent evil and has done so. For example, we attribute the healing of a loved one to God or the redirection of a storm. I guess the question, then, would be if those things are controlled by God. I also wonder what the role of miracles is in the conversation about genuine evil. Being blind or lame obviously do not make the world a better place; thus, those handicaps are genuine evil but are overcome by the miracle of healing by Christ. I suppose that would imply that God is working in the midst of genuine evil rather than preventing it. Anyway, I do not know exactly where I stand on whether or not God “can’t” or “won’t” do things. I would like to think that God’s choosing to limit God’s self can be a characteristic of His loving nature but I do see where that is problematic to the problem of evil. This topic makes my brain hurt, but I am looking forward to future conversations about it.

Kaitlyn Haley

This conversation makes me think of the story of Mother Teresa’s call to form the sisters of charity. In her call experience she saw a vision of Christ asking her to “carry me into the holes of the poor, I can’t go alone, carry me to them.” Her whole ministry was based off of the concept of carrying Christ to the broken people who did not know him. The idea that Christ could not go to these people without a Child of God carrying him to them lead to one of the most well known ministries in the world. Perhaps God can’t do certain things. I am okay with that because it helps me to better understand my role and responsibility in bring the light of the Gospel to those living in darkness. I think the beautiful paradox in this is that God perhaps empowers God’s followers to do what could not have been accomplished without them. It is an interesting thought at least.

Nick McCall

Dr Oord,

I am very intrigued by your argument and it has got me thinking more about God’s limitations. It is clear in Scripture that there are things that God cannot do such as tell a lie or commit evil. Also, God’s nature is love and God cannot contradict his own nature, which means God cannot do anything outside of that love. The part where I get hung up on this argument is admitting there are things that God cannot do. The more I think about it, the more I am okay with the fact that there are things God can’t do. But, soteriologically, it does not make a difference whether God “can’t” or God “won’t.” At the end of the day, God won’t do those things which you talked about here.

This issue of whether God can or cannot do certain things is an interesting one, I tend to lean more on the side with Dr. Oord, mostly because it provides a good explanation of the problem of evil. There are just certain things that God cannot do or prevent from happening.

Derek Hunt

By giving a description of God that suggests his love reigns above all, and with that love creaturely freedom and the “God can’t” concept, will He never act outside of human action? I was wondering about this while reading the blog. It would seem to follow the line of thought concerning God not being able to control human life. If God cannot, will not, does not, would not, whatever kind of ‘not’ that could be used here, do certain things, and does not do them to preserve out creaturely freedom, to me this speaks to an extreme responsibility for humanity. Preventing genuine evil may not be God’s task because, as this blog suggests time and again, God is loving. God’s uninvolve-ment does not have to correlate with his lack of care for addressing genuine evils, but he has given his greatest creation a mind and able body to do it, with HIs help.

Rachel Ball

I agree entirely with the notion that first off, we should not expect to understand an infinite being as finite creatures. With that being said, it is important we delve as deeply as possible into what we believe and why.

Rachel Ball

My previous comment accidentally got cut short!

It is important to decided whether we believe that God can’t or that God won’t. In most instances, He won’t because He chooses to give us free will. However, I believe that there are times that God can’t entirely based on who God is. Think about a time you yourself said “I can’t” but the reason was because you physically couldn’t bring yourself to do the thing. You couldn’t because you couldn’t bring yourself to do it, however, physically, you actually could have done it. I see this issue in a similar light. God can’t because of who He is.

Ryan O’Neill

I do enjoy this blog post, but I’m not sure if I am completely satisfied with it. This is because you mention things like the idea of God not suffering, and how that belief is now faulty, and most people today think that God actually does suffer, but no detail is mentioned on why that is. I am very interested in why they think that God suffers with us, in opposition to the idea that God doesn’t suffer. This is something that I frequently wonder about as well, so I would like to know both sides of the argument. This isn’t a complaint, however, just an observation. Off that topic however, I don’t think it’s too far fetched to say that God can’t do some things. The biggest example of this that got me thinking a lot is the notion of aseity. If God necessarily has to exist, God can’t kill himself. If God can’t kill himself, what’s to say He can’t do other things as well?

Oscar Diaz

Dr. Oord,

One particular line struck me to be the most thought provoking piece of information I have received since classes got out, “if God won’t prevent evil even though God could, we’re left with the same essential questions about evil. But if God can’t prevent the evil, a completely new way of thinking emerges.” This ongoing conversation of “Can’t” is somehow reflected in the the “won’t” aspect of the argument. For instance, I find it helpful, like Dr. Oord’s stand, to say that God will do what his will has allowed him to. Since humans have free will, God ultimately respects that.

Brian Troxell

Dr. Oord,

I know that trying to understand what God’s role is with the evil that exists in the world today is cumbersome. I know that as a pastor in a post-Christian world I am confronted with this problem. It’s a question that I don’t really have a great answer to. In fact, I feel like it exposes how great a faith we have to have to be Christians today. I think that my answer is directly connected to the problem of sin. I feel like in our Western mindsets today that we have forgotten how bad sin really is. Because we have forgotten this we have forgotten how deeply it really affects our spirits, bodies, relationships and our world. How can a loving God let this or that happen? How can a loving God allow starvation, wars, tidal waves, earthquakes, cancer, abortions, etc, etc, etc….
Maybe our loving God has to allow the consequences and affects of sin take it’s toll on the world and the people that He loves until the marked end of time?!? In some ways this kind of an answer feels like a cop-out, but in most ways it feels like the only answer that can start to makes sense to me these days.

Nicholas Carpenter

In reading your thoughts Dr. Oord, I appreciate your research and study of this issue. It would make sense that for God to be God (or at least a classic understanding of God), there are certain characteristics and actions that would not be consistent with the nature or character of God. And your use of scripture is great, even though it flies in the face of one of evangelical’s favorite verses to quote (Matthew 19:26). I would be interested in thinking about the different between God “can’t” and God “won’t” do something, and if it would be more in the nature/character of God to be naturally limited or to intentionally be self-limited. Lots of thoughts and questions, but good stuff all around.

Buford Edwards

Dr. Oord,

I agree wholeheartedly with you that we should not avoid making claims about God’s nature, but rather form our own humble hypotheses about who God is.  We should also recognize that God may manifest different to different people, taking into account their unique perspective on life.  For us to avoid any attempt to speculate about God’s nature would mean avoiding the search for a deeper personal relationship with God.  Even in our finite human terms, we strive to understand those who we love better.  We (I) am looking for a God I can know personally, not some unknown deity that is unknowable and untouchable. 

Additionally, your statements regarding God’s inability to do some things is very intriguing.  I agree with Wesley that God cannot be in control of all things for freewill to be preserved.  If God were in total control, then everything that happens would be dictated by God’s control and not a freedom of choice.  The old saying goes, “if you love someone let them go and if they love you back they will return to you.”  This is what I feel is at the essence of freewill.  God letting us go in hopes that we love God and return.

Raquel Pereira

As I read your post, Dr. Oord, I realized that a shift in my perception, and consequently the way I express it, in what concerns God and God’s control in the world, has been occurring within me. I have always understood and explained the events of life (mine and others) in terms of God’s absolute and God’s permissive (in the sense of allowing something to happen) will. That perception helped satisfactorily to explain why certain things, particularly bad ones, happen in the world or to specific individuals. Reflecting deeper on the subject, I recognize my pride in thinking that I had figured out a way to understand God, in the eagerness to have a straight answer to the problem of evil. In reality that perception does not “solve” the problem, because even when it is not God’s absolute will, why does God even allow certain things to happen? That does not fit the ground essence of God – love and goodness.
I feel privileged and humbled for the opportunity to have understood years ago that God’s essence is love, and all that God is and does flows from that. And again in realizing my finitude in grasping all of this, I realize how great God’s love is. Because it is again based on God’s essence, love, that I can have another perspective on the problem of evil.
Genuine love is the one that loves so unconditionally that sets the recipient of that love free. Part of loving someone is to set them free, to love back or not. It is in this way I understand God’s love. In order for the response to be truthful, it needs to be the result of choice: to return or not.
Although God continues to act “in mighty and miraculous ways”, God cannot contradict God’s nature, which implies not having total control over the world and creatures. In giving freedom to human beings, as it is implicit in God’s nature (love), God limits God’s power in acting/preventing evil. And so it is that God is in control, but not total control, because this is limited by the freedom God gave to human beings to choose between bad, good or best (which is the possibility that God is always persuading us to choose, though grace).

Rod Ellis

I can’t “not agree” with much of what is said here. It seems reasonable that God doesn’t mind if we speculate about God’s nature. After all, anyone considering God’s nature after the final pen stroke of Scripture has speculated. Anyone who pondered what the original authors meant was speculating. Given God’s intense desire for relationship it seems that speculation isn’t just something permissible, but something desirable. I believe I have just speculated.

It is also clear that there are things God cannot do. Defining the limits of these things requires speculation.

Speculation raises the issue of whether omnipotence is the power of compulsion. If compulsion means total control, I must agree that this is not the nature of omnipotence. Control is inconsistent with fundamental aspects of what Scripture says God is. Yet if compulsion means placing requirements or imposing some degree of initiative I cannot be as certain. God required specific behaviors and choices in Scripture. Paul was, for example, forbidden to go into Asia Minor. The key to my current understanding is distinguishing the degree of “compelling” God exerts. I do not believe that God controls. That, I believe, is something God cannot do.

jason newman

The idea that God is self-limiting because his nature is love is something that should not surprise us. Think about the following analogy.
A business man is travelling and and as he is eating at a restaurant a women strikes up a conversation with him. She propositions him to go to her hotel room. His response, “I cannot because I love my wife”
This is an active self-limitation that the man puts on himself. Motivated and coming out of the love he has for his wife. God does the same thing. The cannots and the will nots come from the very nature of who he is. He loves.

Amy Byerley

Mr Oord,
You had stated that their were specific scriptures in the bible that say “God CAN”T” do some thing. You even listed a few examples. My question is: Is it because God Can’t do these things or is it he can’t because he chooses not to. God created the entire world in 6 days and he even says for us that if we have faith in a mustard seed we can do a lot. God is so powerful. He can make the lame walk, he can rise people from their death. A God who is that powerful to do so much, I would imagine can if choose to be tempted by evil. Jesus who was God was even tempted. I know you had mentioned that the passages you gave aren’t saying God voluntarily choose not to do some things, but say he cannot do them. If we say that God cannot do some things, then are we putting limits on God?

Tara West

Illuminating!  This post cleared up so much about process theology. Focusing on God’s nature of love brings the issues into perspective in regards to evil and sin, as well as God’s omnipotence.  I am particularly thankful for the Scriptural background and support being given to demonstrate the truth of Oord’s statement, “God’s love always involves giving freedom and/or agency to creatures. Because God’s nature is love, God cannot do otherwise.” This brings to light that all of God’s actions and characteristics are encompassed by love because it holds priority; love is God/God is love has taken on more fullness of meaning. Jason’s phrase encapsulates all of this when he says “the cannots and the will nots come from the very nature of who he is. He loves.”  On this basis, I can embrace the thought that can’t do some things because they would go against the very nature of Godself. 
Yet, more than any other thought, the beginning of this post grabbed me. “One assumption is that humans often overreach in their claims about who God is.  Finite minds should not pretend to grasp entirely the essence of an infinite God. I agree with this. There is always a role for mystery in theology.  Folks just don’t always agree about what that role is. This assumption to the argument reminds us “we know in part” (1 Cor. 13:12).  We should remain humble in our words about God. After all, we occasionally realize in hindsight that our previous claims are not as helpful or accurate as we once thought.”  Thank you for clarifying this, Dr. Oord!  From this qualification, I was then able to better accept and reason out the rest of the post.

Tom Evans

This was an interesting set of statements.  I do feel that God feels suffering.  I base this on God being a relational God.  If God does not care about God’s relationship with us humans, then we would have been left to our own devices and never offer the chance for salvation.  However, God is loving God’s creation.  God created us humans in God’s image.  Therefore, we do have a free will just like God’s will.  Our whole purpose is to align ourselves with God’s will.  When we do not align ourselves with God, we sin.  God is always seeking goodness in everything God has created and in the world itself.  When the world goes against that design, evil or bad things happen. People have problems and I believe that God uses those problems to help build character within the person affected by the problem.  I have had many medical issues.  However, I have been blessed to have them because I have grown in my understanding and love for God.  God never deserted me throughout those situations.  I believe that most of my health issues came from my own abuse of my body.  These were sins caused by my decision in life style.  I could not blame God for these problems like so many others do in these cases.  God is not at fault.  God gave me the freedom to choose.  I made the wrong choices.  Evil is created by our choices or those choices of others.  Therefore, I believe that God cannot do certain things.  If God did intervene, then my freedom of choice would be compromised.  God would then be going against God’s nature.

Aaron Mednansky

Dr. Oord,
I believe that the problem of evil and the role that God plays in regards to evil is one that we will always have troubles reasoning. Using two of the passages of scripture I would like to purpose maybe a slightly different way of understanding God’s role in not chasing to act upon genuine evils in the world. The statements are, “God cannot deny himself” and “God is just”. Because God cannot contradict himself and God is just, is it not possible to say that God doesn’t choose to act because the consequence of sin is death and evil. I believe that God is love and there are attributes of God’s character that are unchanging, so in a way that would speak of things God cannot be or do, but I do not believe I can say that God could not stop an evil if God saw that it was acting in a just manner. What would make some evils just and other unjust I cannot expound upon at this time, but God is love and is not a God of disorder but of peace so everything that happens I believe happens for a purpose according to God’s will.

Leslie D. Oden

Accepting God from a perspective of what He cannot do, is not threatening. A God with boundaries reinforced by love is helpful! I think our restrictive language creates barriers that obstruct our understanding God. I find the relationship between God, love, and sin to be less influenced by God’s level of control or lack thereof. Sin is a consequence of freewill. From this blog post I would have to redefine love to include an acceptance of one’s freewill. I do accept that there are things that God simply can’t do; however, I do not understand why He can’t do them.


This is very interesting to think about. I haven’t thought that God COULD’NT stop evil. Instead, I’ve always thought that God chooses not to stop evil because of free will. I don’t know yet if I can fully accept that God cannot or doesn’t stop evil because of those instances within Scripture that talk about God preventing evil in terms of interceding on behalf of Israel when being attacked by the enemy – God routing the enemy, and other such characterizations. We know God provides and protects – but not always, sometimes we are not protected and we become victims of evil. Maybe God CAN’T prevent evil by interrupting or preventing free will because God’s nature of love always gives free will. But I wonder this. Does God speak direction into us that could prevent us from falling into evil hands? Does God use persuasion in these instances and then leave it up to us to act on, and listen to the leading? Does God set up detours or put up boundaries or confuse the situation to prevent evil actions from occurring? If so, then the question would be why would’t God do this ALL the time? I’m continuing to chew on this!

Topher Taylor

Dr. Oord,

The first thing I want to say is this blog post actually provides answers to nearly every question I had for this week. I think I am beginning to open up more and more when it comes to this approach on God’s nature. There is nothing new or concerning in this post, so it’s harder to reflect on the ideas when I’ve heard the argument before and tend to agree with it. Saying that God is all-knowing, or all-powerful doesn’t change with these assumptions because God can still know everything that can be known, which doesn’t mean that everything is knowable.

Michelle Borbe

Dr. Oord, I really enjoyed your introductory to this blog post. You started out by sating the importance of giving definitive attributes to God rather than relying in the mystery of God.  We can find false comfort in the idea of a God who is mysterious, that since God is, and should be, out of the box then we should know nothing of this God. However, this is dangerous because we then make our own assumptions and also are affected in how we respond to this God. Attributes are important to give to God, but also lead us into many debates into what those attributes should be. One of the main claims that you have in this blog is that God Can’t do everything in compared to Won’t do everything. With this view of God we are given comfort in the face of our theodicy questions that come up about God. If our God Can’t act because of God’s nature in love then we have a reason for bad things happening in the world. However, I do like this conclusion, but I also have concerns. With the false comfort that that some find in relying in the mystery in God can we also have false hope in simply stating that God Can’t do some things because of God’s nature. I wonder if we are just simply putting ourselves in another box?

Brenden O’Neill

I thoroughly enjoyed reading this post. The notion that God cannot do things is something that is fairly new for me to understand, but is just as vital to the true understanding of God’s nature. As finite beings, it is very hard to try to understand the true power of an infinite God. I do however believe that the ability to question certain aspects of Christianity should not be viewed as a negative aspect, but instead as a means to gain an understanding of appreciation for the faith that we have. It is a way to make that faith our own. A solid foundation is the key to living the Christian faith to the fullest.

Andong Yue

I am one of the people who are really cautious about being anthropocentric when thinking/talking about God’s nature. I do understand it is not really possible for us to completely avoid being anthropocentric, but I think it is still important to be aware of it. Overall, I do not think we can understand God completely; however, if this fact prevent us from even trying to understand God, then we would fall into practical atheism. So I do appreciate the effort you put into this post.
However, regarding to the idea of “God Can’t”, I think such notion is directly contradicting part of the very definition of God, which is, Omnipotence. God can do all things by definition, in this sense, “God Can’t” is invalid. However, there is the possibility that we got the very definition of God completely, or partially at least, wrong, and I think this is what you are trying to show in this post. I do think the traditional definition of God (Omnipotent, Omnipresent, Omniscient, omnibenevolent) is problematic because “Omnipotence” and “Omnibenevolence” are incompatible with the existence of problem of evil. And after all, I do not really have a solution with such incompatibility.

Noelle Parton

This seems to be one of those topics that ends up dictating whether someone “leaves the faith.” Many people try and understand the totality of God, but that endeavor is simply impossible because of our finite minds, as you suggested. I believe that we know exactly what God wants us to know about Him and Creation. Some need to simply accept that fact and have faith that God does, whether it’s to stop a catastrophe or not, have absolute control. He is all loving, and in that He gives us free-will. Bad things happen and natural disasters do occur as a result of our world being imperfect, and it will remain that way until the coming of our Lord.

Kevin Field

Attempting to define God is something that I have always felt uncomfortable engaging in. However, the way of thinking that is presented in this blog is not something I am entirely apposed to. In fact, I like the idea that God is essentially all-loving (it is a fundamental aspect of my believe) and I see a lot of room for faith with that perspective. From my experience, God is one of the most ambiguous terms in our language and I see no problem in opening up this avenue for characterization, however I do see it as essential that we make seeking relationship a priority that far surpasses our desire to define God in any way.

Taylor Gould

This blog is one of my favorites we’ve had because I frequently wonder where God is in our suffering. I like to believe that God is suffering right there with us. He hurts when we hurt. That is what an all loving God is in my mind. I don’t like to think that we are alone in our suffering and that God is just watching from above. He is the shoulder we can cry on and the warm embrace we need in times of anguish. I understand that this may not be something everyone else agrees with, but that’s what I love about faith. We get to build our own and it can be different for everyone.

Kendra wilson

I think there is a distinct difference between God wont do something in comparison to God cant do something. God cannot prevent all evil because humans have free will and the devil is real. Sometimes we need suffering in order to draw nearer to God. Sometimes our greatest steps in faith come in our sufferings from evil. If God took out all evil then where would faith be. We wouldn’t necessarily need it.


The ideas proposed in this topic were not what I was expecting. Even though I am unsure where I stand about the idea that God cannot prevent evil and God will not prevent evil or the idea of “Cannot” and “Will Not;” I think that the point here is not just purely about whether God cannot or will not, but that he lovingly gives us the freedom to make our own decisions. Calling upon his guidance provides some direction to where it is He wants us to go, but we do make those decisions. I believe Christians and non Christians will always question and dispute God’s nature and his qualities. I think that there is beauty in the mystery and part of what makes God so great. I don’t personally feel that this topic needs to be defined, rather we should focus on the good that we can do through God.

Kara Den Hoed

This is a difficult topic for anyone I think. It is definitely something that I struggle with. Every time I have thought about this, I get kinda frustrated. All sorts of questions start to pop in my head. I think that it is good to reason through God’s word and to try and wrap or heads around it, struggle with it. But, I also believe that at the end of the day, God’s ways are completely above our ways. Regardless of whether we can make sense of it or not, the Bible says he is all-powerful, all-knowing, and loving all at the same time. This doesn’t make sense if we put the world’s definition on those terms along with the world’s scenarios to understand it, but that is because we are human and can’t understand in the way God can. Besides, what would be the fun in worshiping a God that we could totally understand? There would be nothing else to learn!

Michael Delie

This post was very thought provoking and definitely seemed to be opposing most aspects I had learned about God growing up. I had always thought that He is perfect and controls every aspect of life. That nothing happens without His knowledge or doing; in a sense His hands are on every circumstance and all of our lives. However, this reading had me think again on what exactly God can and can’t do or when He chooses to intervene; or if He even can make that decision. I have always understood that God is omniscient, but I am always challenged about why bad things happen to good people and even babies that have no understanding of this world and have done nothing wrong. The intervening part is what I don’t understand, with my conscience there are certain situations where I think that if I was all powerful I would save that person…but that is the interesting part about God, there are many times that He doesn’t intervene when I believe He should.

Connor Magnuson

I have often struggled with the dilemma of whether our minds, as humans, are capable of even assessing who God is or what He is capable of. The stance seems pretty appealing at first. I mean, if God is almighty and it says in the Bible that we cannot comprehend ways in which God works then a natural response might be to not even try to put a finger on what He can do. The defense given by Dr. Oord was helpful to me, specifically about giving ‘humble hypotheses’ about his nature. Moreover, Oord mentioned in class that we should gather evidence from throughout the Bible and use that to mold an overall sculpture of what we think God is like. It will most likely not be perfect, as we know, but I think it is important try. Like he said, if we do not try, then why hold a belief at all?

Cali Carpenter

This topic is something that I have always thought about, even when I was a little girl. Although we can not exactly know certain attributes about God, I have always thought it fun to imagine them. When I was younger, I would try to imagine God doing certain activities with me that I enjoyed, such as playing basketball with me, or swinging with me on the swings at the playground. Although this was maybe a childish thing to imagine, I think it can also apply to things I do today. All the attributes I associate with God are relatable to me, which helps me as I am trying to understand God. By relating myself to him, I find it easier to connect with him and associate him with more than just a Supreme Being in the sky. Just like you said, I agree that there is always a role for mystery in theology, but I do not think that means we cannot imagine what that mystery is.

James Shepherd

We, as human beings, are designed as relational beings. This relational ability does not just exist between other beings and us, but also between God and us. Which is part of the reason we were created to be relational beings. I think that because of this we can affect God, even if it is in a small way. This affect not only happens between a person and God, but also between a community and God. While this can sound rather simple, it becomes difficult when we being to think that God can or cannot do something. I say this because I have just brought up the relationship many theologians think we have with God. If this is the case, then it is possible for God to not be able to do something. By even saying that this is a type of relationship God has with humans already puts limits on things God can do. If we are saying God is relational, then God cannot act in a way that would harm the relationship. By saying this I feel compelled to ask the question; “are we putting God in a box?” This is just some food for thought, but overall a very compelling article.

Michael Gordon

This is a perfect blog to follow up with what we talked about in class earlier this evening asking why God can’t do certain things and it was interesting because it was the first time I had ever heard the words “God can’t do some things.” I have always been taught that God is all powerful and everything happens for a reason because God wanted it to happen that way and the truth is that it is almost impossible for us to understand it. It is stated perfectly when saying, we can’t understand God because we can’t think like God. Very similarly, as stated in the second paragraph of the blog, our finite minds cannot even begin the grasp the entirety of God’s existence, mind, or whatever you want to call it. God is so much bigger and therefore it’s hard to find answers.

Matti Munger

This is one of the hardest blogs to think about for me. I’ve always thought that God can do everything and anything He wants and challenging that is something I’ve never even thought about doing. I’ve always believed that God just chooses not to do some things because He knows what will be best for us in the end. It’s never been something I’ve questioned and something I tend to avoid because it’s one of those things that you just have to have faith in. But I love that these blogs actually make us think deeper about these things. I still don’t like the idea of saying God can’t do something, but I do agree that if He could do something to prevent awful, evil things from happening He would. I’m excited to think deeper and learn more about this from the scripture to figure out what I really believe.

Tyler Mahaffy

A difficult subject indeed, but one I have pondered with for a long time. When I was young, I always believed that God was omnipotent and such, but as I grew up and began to see the world and what was going on in it, I began to wonder why this was happening if it was said that God would protect us and that he loved all. I then came to a similar solution that was discussed in this blog. I began to think, maybe wondered, what if God was similar to those who who want to help but can’t or can only do so much. Perhaps he’s limited like we are, who’s to truly say for certain.

On the subject of Free Will, I want to quote a line from a tv show I once saw , “Like the good book says, he moves in mysterious ways, his plan is a mystery, but here’s what isn’t. HE GAVE US FREE WILL. WE CHOOSE OUR FATE, FOR GOOD OR ILL.” If God were to deny us freewill, then he would be no better than some of those who are and was considered evil.

Rachel Finley

When I began reading the part of this blog where thought was purposed that “God Can’t,” I was totally ready to write a lengthy paragraph on how God is all powerful so there is nothing He can’t do. This is an idea I was raised to believe. But, then I kept reading and I found that I agree! According to my understanding, which very well could be flat out wrong, God is an all-loving God. If His nature is love, then it would make sense that there would be certain actions that aren’t loving that God literally could not do because it’s not a part of who He is. For the record, I believe even if He was capable of evil, He would never choose it, because there is not even a speck of evil in His nature.

Julie Armbruster

I am one of those people who have a hard time saying that God can’t do something. I believe that God is multi-dimensional and there is no possible way to fathom all that he is and is capable of doing. With that said, I also don’t feel that it would be right for me to say that He can do everything. I am stuck, so good for you to have the ability to step out and question our beliefs of what God IS.
I do agree with Rachel , that if God was capable of evil- He would never do it because he is a God of love.

Toniessa Phelps

Growing up in the church I have always learned that God is omnipresent and he suffers with us. He is able to do everything and knows what we will do. That is where I get confused and start asking questions. If God knows everything and knows what action I will take, what is up with the concept of free will? The way it was explained to me is God is like an earthly father. He lets us do what we want and just provides guidance along the way. But then there comes up the question of well why does bad things happen to us. It is a very interesting topic and I don’t know if I will ever know the answer. But it is very nice to investigate.

Caleb Gerdes

My thoughts are if God can’t do somethings? Who is the one saying to God “You can’t prevent evil.” If it is God saying to God “I can’t prevent evil”, then it is God creating his own limitations and might imply God won’t prevent evil. If it is some other being greater than God creating the rules then whoops.

If God can’t lie can he omit the truth? = Abraham and Issac

Jackson Bevens

This is a really challenging topic, and I am glad that we are able to talk about it and discuss so that we can come to conclusions for ourselves. I have always struggled with the problem of evil and why it is allowed by God. It is very hard to say that God cannot do certain things, however I do believe that even when people say that God is no where to be found in a horrible situation there always seems to be some person or group of people that stand up and make a difference in the name of God. People are so quick to say that God is not present in a situation because he isn’t physically changing the situation, however why is it that we ignore the fact that God had an impact on the lives of the people that ended up making the difference. I believe that God does not create evil, nor does he ignore it, however he does everything he can to give us the decision to make a difference and do his will. I think that it is important that he works through us with our permission or cooperation because otherwise we are just puppets on this earth. It is hard to say that God cannot do certain things however I am excited to look at this more, as I believe it falls more in line with my view of the topic.

Kayla Sevier

“Should we say God CANT do things”… I don’t believe I could say this statement or ever agree with this statement because I look at in the opposite way. What I mean by this is that I see in a way that if you have faith, God CAN do things. Therefore, if you do not have faith I can see how you could believe that God “CANT” do things. Without faith it would be easy to agree with that statement but with faith I find it hard to agree with. As a faithful Christian there are things in my life that God possibly could have done something about when I “needed” Him to and just because He didn’t do something about it doesn’t mean that He CANT do something about.

Linnea Phillips

I found this blog extremely thought-provoking. I struggle with the phrase, “God can’t” because it seems to go against his all-powerful nature. However, after last night’s lecture and this week’s blog, I’m starting to understand how God’s all-loving nature limits his all-powerful nature. I think it’s an extremely difficult concept to grasp, but I do believe that God limits himself in order to maintain his all-loving character. In other words, God can’t do somethings that would contradict his steadfast love.

As I scrolled through a few student’s posts, I noticed that a couple people mentioned that God doesn’t act in some ways because he chooses not to, not because he can’t. I, on the other hand, believe that God cannot act in someways not because of a choice, but because of who he is. His perfect character prevents him from being able to act in a way that would make him imperfect.

With all that said, I know that I will never be able to complete understand God’s character. As an finite being, I don’t have the capacity to comprehend such an infinite being. However, I believe that God’s mystery is a crucial part of our existence. God wants us to love him with a blind faith. In other words, if we knew exactly, with 100% certainty, who God was, there would be no reason for faith.

melissa verhage

This is a very interesting concept to talk about. God’s nature is something that will never be fully known or figured out, but I don’t think this means that we can’t try and learn about his nature. I believe God gives us opportunities to discover his nature and we learn this as we grow closer to Him. It is like any relationship we have, as you grow closer to someone you learn more and more about them. However, I believe we can’t make permanent assumptions about God’s nature, but realize that we can always be wrong.

Brianna Kinghorn

This article is definitely thought provoking. Since we know God to be all powerful it is hard to think that there are things that he CAN’T do. However, if we see him as all-loving than there are certain things God could not be able to do. Not because he does not have the power to do so, but it is not in his nature to do certain things.

Cass Hinton

I thought this post was really interesting . I have heard a lot about the different arguments for what God can and can’t do during my time here at NNU. I like the different takes and views that this discussion always brings and I think that this blog post does a good job of reiterating all of the main topics mentioned in class. This is a very thought provoking article and it encourages the reader to wrestle with the question presented.

Kristen Loper

I am of the firm standing that God can’t do in miracle in my life what I am not will ing to do in obedience. With that said, I make choices in my life and all that happens in and to me has the consequences. good and bad because I ask God to intervene in my life I have given Him reign over my life. I Chose Christ….so I believe all that happens to me is a direct result of my choices

Allison Christy

I think that as Christians we have a responsibility to speculate about God’s nature, not only because we have committed our lives to him, but also because we are to give others the opportunity to know him as well. In order to properly evangelize, I feel like we have to at least have some form of concept of who and what we think God is, and I truly believe wrestling with the concept itself is so much more effective than being told what to believe. Being a loving and religious person requires that we have a relationship with our God, and just like any other relationship, we ought to pursue to know the other as much as we possibly can. For our own sales and the the sakes of those who have yet to follow God, we must address the problem of evil and be able to understand how and why or God acts in many cases. This not only allows but makes it necessary for us to speculate about God’s nature, and if anything hope that it will lead us to a better relationship with him.


This whole concept is still a little blurry to me. But in some ways I kinda understand it. When we speak about “theodicy” and how or where God is when bad things are happening. I like to think that GOd is right with us suffering and feeling the pain and disparity that we might go through. But then “free will” is brought in the conversation and I think to myself, Does God not choose to do something in cases of evil because of fee will? Just like Jesus took time to get to know the people he associated with, we as Christians should take the time to know one another. Our intention should never be to judge each other, but to help and understand each other.

Rachel Ball

First of all, what is the basis behind the statements saying we shouldn’t try to learn about the attributes of God? Are we not called to know him intimately and as best we can? Does he not wan’t to reveal himself to his children? Discovering more about our God is something I firmly believe is more of a duty and a privilege.

I do however also believe that our minds are much less capable of understanding the fullness of God. The Bible tells us that merely standing in His presence will overcome us even to the point of death. We are not capable of understanding his every attribute, however we can always learn and strive for more.

Matt Silva

It is interesting to note that “many if not most contemporary theologians” argue for humans having free will, because this claim would not apply as clearly in philosophy. Vargas argues that theologian’s prephilosophical commitments are the reason that that are almost the only people who still affirm an incompatibilist view of free will, and that these beliefs are on shaky logical ground because of the irrational nature of strong prephilosophical commitments. This does not automatically discredit these views, but it is interesting to consider. In fact the free will element of any theological system is something that is hard to talk about in general terms. Exactly how free will is understood has profound implications for the rest of the theory.

Curtis S Mostul

The most important thought that I enjoy entertaining in this discussion is that fact that If God truly values our free will more than controlling every aspect of our lives than we really can change things for ourselves. This may be for better or for worse but, I like o think that it would be mostly for the good of everyone involved. When I think of God controlling every single part of my life and even my future, I begin to wonder what it the point of even trying because God will take care of what I need. I would hope that I can have the free will to go to college or get married if I want, while also having the ability to punch my neighbor in the face.

Spencer Hassman

You make a good point. However, it is still so difficult for me to think of God as being literally unable to do something. My understanding of God, while maybe not strictly biblical, is defined by complete power over every single thing and in every single way. While His/Her/It’s nature is Love, I do not believe that He is bound by that nature/that nature limits His power. I think He has self-control/the ability to self-limit, but if He so chose, I think that He could do anything.

Sampson Twihangane

To an extent I agree with what you say as it is supported by the bible and reality. However I think its very important to add that “genuine evil” as you’De love to call it is result of sin. Had there been no seen ,we wouldn’t be living such a sad and dramatic life. And knowing that God doesn’t deny himself or rather contradict himself, He told his prophets what would happen in the latter days before (Daniel ,Revelation, Matthew 24) and it is some that is happening today (Natural disasters, Wars and conflicts ,Economic crisis etc). God is truly a loving God that he wouldn’t let us suffer but since he doesn’t deny himself he can not take away the results of sin that is in the world. However there is a promise of eternal life in John 3:16 that’s stands as hope in such hard life. If we believe we shall get to see him and understand his nature more! Thank you


Wesley writes, “were human liberty taken away, men would be as incapable of virtue as stones. Therefore (with reverence be it spoken) the Almighty himself cannot do this thing. He cannot thus contradict himself or undo what he has done.” – See more at: http://thomasjayoord.com/index.php/blog/archives/god_cant_–_and_the_bible_says_so#sthash.TuLR5im8.dpuf

I really like this line of thinking about God. In my life we have had large amounts of death. My daughter even suffered for a time with PTSD in some form from it. I do not believe that these deaths were an act of God as some kind of punishment but my husband believes it is a lack of action on Gods part in our favor. I believe that there are those who make choices that end their lives prematurely from what God would have desired for them. I also believe that there are those things that are just beyond control that nature takes its course like SIDS and miscarriage. I also believe that we serve a loving God by that token alone it is a must for me to believe that there are some things God cannot change or interfere in. However, I do believe he is there waiting for us to use everything that stumbles into our lives as a tool to grow and become closer to him (Genesis 50:20). I will admit there was a time in all of that I struggled with why God did not intervene and save some of the people who died. Now I have come to the conclusion that God is loving and he did not have the option. He loves us and not everything is that simple.

Kevin York

“There is always a role for mystery in theology” (Oord). This is very true. I cannot count the number of times that I have been asked a question regarding Scripture, that is so seemingly obscure that it makes you wonder where it came from. This has happened whether I am working with teens or with the adults. We have to understand when to “draw the line.” I have ultimately ended up asking them back, is this something that we need to know or that we want to know. At the same time, there are some things that we should know. One of the biggest topics brought up here is evil. I do not believe that God “can’t” do something, but instead will not. This is not to say that God is a proponent of evil. Instead, sin as it started with Adam of Eve opened the world to the choice of evil in the world. If apart of God, a person chooses to do evil, this is not a topic of whether or not God wants this or supports this person choice. Instead, it is seemingly allowed by God as this course of action is the persons choice. This may seem wrong, but at the same time, to think otherwise to play with the idea that God should override a person’s ability of free choice.
Word Count: 225
Oord, Thomas Jay. “God Can’t–and the Bible Says So.” 24 February 2010. Thomas Jay Oord. Web. 11 November 2015.

Bill Segur

I found the progression of the blog to logical for sure. I like how the scripture was added to both explain and support your thought. For me that speaks to someone that is wanting to explore more of who and what God is and what He can and cannot do.

This has been an area in my life that I have always battled back and forth with. Why God allows certain things to happen in our world, such as child abuse, rape, and pointless murders of all types. My original battle is that God will not interfere simply because of “free will” and if He chose to do so would take away the freedom of choice that He gives to us. He would then be micromanaging.

But as I read and wrestle with this some more (as your Scripture points out) there are some things that God “Can’t” do. Many Christians I know want to argue against this and say we should not question things that God does or does not do, but I disagree with that. They say it questions my faith in God. I say that it strengthens my faith and helps me to better understand why I believe in my God.

As I was teaching a small group last night I raised the very question that you wrote about and that was the distinction between “God Can’t” and “God Won’t.” Could my dad had been saved when he was sick. He was a good Christian man and was making an impact for the Kingdom. I heard all the ‘Christian’ things that people say…it was not comforting at all. I struggled for a long time on this issue, but have come to a peace that there are some things (for whatever reason) that God can’t do.

Thanks for this article.

Amy Byerley

I have many questions and many thoughts after reading this article. First off I would like to say that God is definitely a mystery. Like you mentioned, we can’t assume that we know all there is about God because we just don’t and won’t while on this earth. We only know what we can fully understand, and honestly I am learning that I don’t understand as much as I thought I did, but that is okay because I am definitely still learning. Like you said, there are bible passages not easy to explain that God always acts loving. Once scripture that immediately came to mind is when Jesus went into the temple courts and found people buying and selling there. Jesus overturned tables and benches. To me, this tells me that Jesus/God was angry. Could Jesus have handled things in more of a loving way? I’m not sure just sitting down with these people explaining why it was wrong what they were doing would help. So was there a better way for Jesus to handle that situation? My next thought is if God can’t be tempted by evil, because evil is going against God, then why would God allow himself to be tempted in the wilderness?

Donnamie Ali

After reading this article several times, I wonder, ‘Is it that God can’t control every situation or is it that because of sovereignty, God chooses whether to intervene or not or when to intervene or not?
Then my mind went to Job. It could be just a story told to teach something about God or life or the limits to Satan’s power or all of these. However, one would imagine that it seemed to Job’s wife that God could not help her husband so she told him to curse God and die. This was a scenario where evil seemed to be holding sway- but there was a happy ending. Not only was Job’s health restored, but he received a new family and even more of this world’s wealth.
I am certainly not claiming to understand fully this concept of ‘God can’t’, and I fully accept that God’s perfect love prevents any display of control over human beings. That being the case I consider the current situation with the Syrian refugees walking with whatever possessions they can carry, scrambling to get into overcrowded boats just to get somewhere, anywhere other than the place they called home for years. I remember in horror the image of that little boy washed up on the seashore and I ask- ‘Is it that God can’t or is it that in some inexplicable way, this human tragedy can be part of a future plan?’

Leon Drake

Dr. Oord,
I appreciate the flow of your article and agree that there are some things God cannot do. One of my brain teasers is “Can God create a rock that God cannot pick up?” Perhaps this is a self-serving question. Clearly, as you show in your article there are some things God cannot do (great use of scripture). I agree that God’s love prevents God from “entirely” controlling others. God cannot go against God’s nature. It defines God. It seems, however that we cannot fully understand or articulate that definition. If I read the account of Sodom and the destruction of that city, God stopped many people from living and experiencing the next day. Some may argue that in this case, God made them die (which sounds pretty controlling and perhaps even “unloving”). There are other occasions in the Bible where it seems God’s actions or commands are unloving (such as not sparing even children when taking over places in the Promised Land). However, like most others, I accept that God acted from love, while acknowledging I do not understand why. I, like you, see through a glass darkly.
Rev. Leon R. Drake II

Will Albright

Adding on to the two passages that you “quote to support the idea that Jesus reveals God’s nature,” my favorite of all is John 1:18: “No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained (exēgēsato) Him.” Jesus is the exegesis, the interpretation, or maybe I could say the hermeneutic for God’s nature.

If God is incapable of stopping “genuine evil,” then we may have to rethink (reinterpret? reimagine?) some of the events in the Gospel narrative. Certainly, I think it calls for a re-processing (pun fully intended) of Jesus’ wilderness temptation. According to Matthew, in the first trial the tempter attempted to have Jesus “command” (coerce) creation for Jesus’ benefit. In the second trial, the tempter attempted to have Jesus do something in order to have God “command” (coerce) creation for Jesus’ benefit. In the third trial, the tempter attempted to have Jesus forsake God completely. If God is incapable of stopping “genuine evil” and works through loving non-coercive persuasion in creation, then the contrast between God’s nature and the first two temptations is quite profound. If God’s nature is actually that of loving non-coercive persuasion (which I am inclined to believe), then the tempter was actually attempting to tempt Jesus/God into contradicting God’s nature. I’ve not heard a sermon or teaching like that yet, in fact, it’s quite a different monster to previously heard.

Michael Poole

Discussions on what God can or cannot do are some of my favorite to have. It allows us to explore God’s identity on a deep level. I used to ask people the question, “Can God make a rock so heavy that he cannot lift it?” The answer: yes and no. The simple question create a paradoxical moment. Our quest to figure out if there is anything impossible for God leads us to a similar paradox. Jesus is one of my most trusted sources when it comes to the attributes of God. He tells us, as the blog says, that with God all things are possible, implying that nothing is impossible. Could it be that the things we declare as being impossible for God are simply things that God limits himself to? It is hard to say. We cannot fully know God while we are here on Earth. We would do well to avoid proclaiming we know God’s nature in its entirety. When we do, we are bound to find out we are wrong at least on some level. I am comfortable thinking of God in terms of what the blog says concerning what he cannot do. I am equally comfortable with the idea that nothing is impossible for God. I am willing to allow God to be who he is, revealed with the time is right and loved up until that moment.


I too see through a glass darkly and it is with the most humble of hearts that I respond to this blog. I don’t begin to understand many things about God. I do most certainly agree that there are certain things that God can’t do. The scriptures outlined make a very clear statement about God not be able to lie and is without sin (holy). To say that God can’t stop evil is not, in my view fully, supported by the scripture from Timothy 2:13. The full verse reads “if we are faithless, he remains faithful—for he cannot deny himself.” God cannot deny himself, even we are faithless. God doesn’t prevent evil may very well be because he chooses not to, not because he can’t. Saying that God can’t prevent evil sounds like we are rendering God powerless over evil. I don’t believe that to be true.

God gave each of us the gift of free will. God has provided the freedom to choose good or evil. If God were to prevent evil it would mean violating our free will. Without Free Will, God would exert total control and we would all be like robots. Without our free Will there would be no relationship, there would be no love. God not preventing evil does not mean that God stays out and does not protect. He does. There will come a time when the Lord Jesus will return and the battle will be fought. The Lord will win, the new earth will be formed and the old will pass away (Rev. 21).

Monica Liberatore

Excellent points, most of which I had not considered. For me, it was that could do anything; however, he chose not to act on occasion. This bring up the not so pretty image of God freely allowing evil, which I have struggled with explaining. You said “God can’t prevent genuine evil, because God’s nature of love always gives freedom and/or agency to others” and I have to say that this is the first time I have heard it put that way. I never made the correlation with 1 Timothy 2:13 saying He “cannot deny himself” and it makes perfect sense. God did not give free will to just Christians, he gave it all humanity. If he were to choose when we could have free will and when we couldn’t, it wouldn’t really be free will. Finally, since we are taught that God cannot lie and cannot deny himself, t would stand to reason that he could not take away the free will he has given to all humanity.

Ronald Miller

I found this blog post to be extremely interesting, thought-provoking but really hard to digest in terms of really coming to grips with nature of God explanation. The fact that God cannot deny Himself, hence, go against His own nature is understandable and of course Biblical! The fact that God’s nature of love would allow people to make choices, knowing that that choice is an evil choice, and allowing that evil choice to run its course, is hard to digest.

Of course it supports the arguments that as finite beings, we cannot adequately speculate about the nature of God but it also points to my own inadequacies in really understanding what love is all about. My love for my kids is a preventative almost controlling love and I would go to lengthy measures in insuring that they do not make the “incorrect decisions”. This being said, God’s nature of love is also preventative but my dilemma would be in questioning if God’s love would not have a more controlling measure in place in the prevention of evil which has the outcome of expanding distance between Himself and man? Would a God of love want that distance to grow between Him and His most valuable creation?

Wes Ayala

Hey there fam 🙂 as dumb and puny as I am i’d thought id give my humble opinion on this matter. To say that God is good by way of mere necessity is to make God into an automaton & in so doing diminish Him of His liberty and thereby His goodness. For liberty is good and without liberty there can be no goodness nor evil. And what can be more good than that absolutely free Being we call God? But if He is not absolutely free and so voluntarily chooses to be perfectly good for all eternity then He is but a mere robot. God cannnot lie because He is God and so freely chooses not to lie for all eternity. For God is not subservient to anyone or anything but is Lord over all.


Sometimes I feel that speculation about aspects of God’s nature that we only know in part, but not fully is not helpful. Not only does it distract us from simply loving and trusting God, giving up the often white and masculine desire to figure it all out, speculation can also lead to divisive doctrine. As we see in history and as you point out , speculation about the nature of God has produced theologies that are not loving. One could also question the motives of theological speculation. Is the speculation for speculations sake, only for the academy? Or is it to assist others in their construction of loving theological frameworks? Yet, while speculation may not always be helpful, a return to the Biblical witness, our own experience of God, a critical look at tradition, and revelation of the Holy Spirit can help us better understand God and perhaps better explain the good news to others.


This article is hard to digest for me. As we find in the article “A good number of theologians today think the ancient Christian claims that God doesn’t suffer.” If God doesn’t suffer on the cross how can we get the redemption? Saying that “Jesus is fully human and fully divine.” Through the suffering of his human life, we all are saved from our sins. This is the core of God’s love for us. So that we could gain the eternal life.
And also I have some doubt if “God cannot be tempted by evil,” as James supports. How can we relate, God- man, who was tempted in the wilderness of his forty days without eating anything for his life? This article is interesting but not easy to agree.


To be honest, I find the notion that God can’t do anything about evil more troubling than God won’t. I also frankly wonder at most of our assumptions about God: They’re very human-centric. That’s the only perspective we have, but given our scientific advances and how complex we’re realizing this uni- or multiverse is, I wonder if there’s some truth to the idea that we can’t ever really speculate about God’s true nature.

To say that God or the Divine can’t control or eradicate or just stop evil doesn’t seem in line with a being who is purported to have created the very universe itself. Whether or not one believes God created ex nihilio, whether or not God was always in relation to something (even primordial matter) in the beginning, this gives the idea that God’s in control: that God’s shaping matter out of love. To suggest that God can’t control evil suggests, at least to me, that the universe has gotten somewhat out of God’s grasp: an experiment gone awry. Surely a loving parent, who gives their children freedom and then sees them proceed to go down the path of self-destruction, wouldn’t say, “You know what? I gave you freedom. You abused it. Now I have to step in for your own good. . .”

Christians would no doubt point to Yeshua here and say, “That’s God stepping in.” But, as a non-Christian, I have issues with this claim. God (or, the God of the Abrahamic faiths) made a covenant not only to Abraham on behalf of the people of Israel but for all nations. Paul, in fact, believed that Yeshua was integral to ushering in this new kingdom, this eschatological age where all nations would honor Israel’s God. The idea existed in ancient Judaism that even a righteous pagan could, in fact, still be righteous and abide by God’s covenant with all nations (they just wouldn’t be part of the covenant God made with Israel, of course). So . . . what do modern Christians do with this? It seems to be putting a monopoly on God’s convenantal language which originally, theoretically, seemed to extend to all peoples.

B. V.

I believe that God is love. Therefore, God necessarily has all the attributes of love. And as He is love, He cannot also be anything that is contrary to love. I do not claim to understand why this is; but neither do I take issue with anyone who would like to speculate about such a thing. On the contrary, I believe that God created our ability and desire to speculate about such things, even if we never get it exactly “right.” God delights in our God-fearing, God-honoring, loving discussions and debates. As long as we acknowledge that we are not God and are not ever going to be God, we can use our God-given logic and reason for good purposes, such as having theological discussion and debate. This can actually be a form of both prayer and worship. I liken it (loosely, in terms of relationship) to a group of children sitting together, speculating about what their mother or father might like to have as a birthday or holiday gift. They might discuss their parent’s qualities, their likes and dislikes, their experiences, etc., all in an effort to come to some conclusion about the very best gift to get. And in the end, they might not choose exactly what their parent might have chosen for her/himself. The gift they choose, therefore, would not be termed “perfect” in that way. But it is perfect because it was given out of a heart of love from children who were in relationship with the parent. And the parent would enjoy and prize that gift on the basis that their children thought about it carefully and selected it for them. In the same way, the conclusions we reach about God, when reached with hearts and Spirits of love and devotion, are good conclusions not if they are “logically sound” or “right,” but because they are generated worshipfully and in community.

Christephor Gilbert

I agree with the possibility that there are things that God can’t do, but I have to say that the biblical evidence presented above is not compelling in support of the thesis that God can’t prevent evil. The examples above, in a moral and ethical way, are things that I applaud God for not being able to do, and of course it doesn’t “diminish our view of God” to think that God can’t “lie,” “be tempted by evil,” or “deny himself.” Aren’t those things that we would typically associate with sin, with a lack of perfection, which God clearly is perfect and acts perfectly? In using those examples aren’t we just saying God can’t be human? However, I will still affirm that a God who can’t do something is preferable to a God who won’t do something, and I affirm this for they very kinds of moralistic and ethical reasoning I might apply to the agency of another human. A God who won’t is not a God I could trust, it is a fickle God whose action in history must be consistently evaluated and judged, and I don’t want a God I have to judge!

Kyle Seibert

For this model, love logically precedes freedom. Yet, it is undeniable that freedom is a critically essential element for this model to “work.” Out of God’s love, all of creation maintains its freedom (as well as laws of nature, etc.). And yet, you also point to how ancient theologies denied the freedom of humans, and how many in modernity find this unpalatable. I wonder what would the effect be to bring different notions of freedom into play. For example, in a Western, post-Enlightenment, post-modern context, our notion of freedom difference essentially from the notion of many of the earlier church fathers (and mothers). I wonder if we are being consistent when we compare these notions of freedom across centuries and cultures, or if we have made a fundamental error in defining this theological model against some notions of centuries ago. Of course, a mere acknowledgement of this does no good towards creating a theology that makes sense today. But I wonder how the interaction might be richer between this model and “ancient” models if we did some translation work with the ancient models first.

Eric S

Part of this logic fits Jesus’ crucifixion. God can’t help Jesus being sent to the cross to die when he prays for deliverance from what is to come. Out of love God has to let Jesus die and let the free will of humans play out its course of action. When it comes to Lazarus’ resurrection however, while Mary and Martha wished Jesus had been there, it was Jesus who was deeply moved was moved to action. Lazarus was dead for four days and they said there was a smell of death so he was clearly dead. Jesus acts on his own when he speaks back and forth with the Father. Then Jesus calls out and Lazarus comes out of the tomb. This seems to be an instance where God is acting in showing God’s power. So does God act out of power or love? To me in this instance it seems God is acting out of power. This means he is controlling Lazarus’ life in a way to display God’s power. It seems in this case, God set limits on acting, rather than God can’t act.

Denise Rode

Dr. Oord asks: Should we resist making any claims about God’s nature at all or should we just describe God’s acts in history? His response: “We ought to humbly offer hypotheses about what we believe God’s nature to be and be ready to modify our views.” One of the most challenging aspects of our class this week for me has been deconstructing some of my long-held beliefs about God’s nature. Although I’ve always understood God’s nature to be loving, I haven’t held love to be the pre-eminent attribute of God. Today’s blog asks the “Can’t” or “Won’t” question, and I’m still working through the implications of the concept that God can’t do some things. The thought that God can’t act to prevent evil, and perhaps doesn’t know the future, puts into perspective for me a question of evil that has plagued me for eight years, since the time I was involved in responding to a campus shooting that took the lives of six people, including the shooter. The idea that God was unaware that Steven was so troubled that he would take the lives of six students and injure many more had never been a possibility for me, although I’d early believed that God suffered with us through this tragedy. Steven had agency and freedom to commit this action without intervention from God. This insight doesn’t bring me greater peace, but it may put to rest some of my lingering questions.

Esther Buck

We talked about this issue a long time in class today . The claim that God has to love (or: can’t not love) convinced me (or: is convincing me more and more), I guess. But I’m still trubled with the idea that God cannot prevent evil – it seems powerless to me. That God can’t protect his creation from genuine evil seems to be a greater issue than that God can’t lie or not love – this is another level, isn’t it? God sees the genuine evil, he sees its affects, but he cannot do anything… God seems to be powerless and helpless. He promotes his love – but we do not, want not, cannot hear.
In contrast, these thoughts evoke another image of God in me: God as loving, patient, uncomplaining, caring, and enduring Creator. I like this image more…
I’m struggling – I’m not (yet) convinced…

Jaeymes Childers

I find myself reading much of this and nodding along with your conclusions about what passages you’re using and also agreeing with the opinions you’re saying you don’t agree with because they are not substantiated enough. Perhaps this is due to my still being rather new to the world of thinking critically about scripture and having to figure out how to express the at times dialectical nature of my beliefs about God and Christ.

I absolutely agree with the idea you propose of “Finite minds should not pretend to grasp entirely the essence of an infinite God. There is always a role for mystery in theology.” I would say based on conversations we’ve had that you while agreeing with this do not agree with how far I am willing to let this be the answer to why I do not make as firm of claims as you do on some topics. I would additionally agree with you that is not necessary, despite the trend that some who believe in this mystery over assumption model about God, to simply talk about descriptions of how God has previously acted in the world. That said I think that I logically draw any conclusions I am willing to make about God’s nature from what I know of God’s actions in history.

I am willing to say that God is loving and faithful because we know a history that tells of a loving and faithful God. While you continue forward with saying it is in God’s nature and God cannot change that nature, and use 2 Timothy to support your assertion I don’t go there with you. I would say that it is in God’s nature because it is how God has always been, but that God can change God’s nature and has not chosen to do so because God does not desire to. I believe that I can still draw on 2 Timothy in the same way that you do though. Would it not be God changing who God is and forsaking God’s self in the process to change that nature? The relationship of humanity to God would certainly change if the nature of God was not longer loving. The relationship to humanity would change if God no longer was faithful despite our actions.

I am also still uncomfortable with this idea of God cannot as the answer to evil. I’m not sure I have a better one to offer and I even would say that I think maybe the idea that in love God does not control people and take away their freewill can be the answer to why God does not stop evil.
I can agree with the model of a God who is interested in the well-being of all and of individuals at the same time, so let us start from there. Why is it not equally probably that this loving God who is interested in both of these well-beings does not stop evil because God won’t; because the maintaining of freewill for all of humanity is more important as an act of love than to interfere in a single situation. To not take away our freewill is an act of love, freewill is a thing we are promised by God and to take that freewill away would be an act that creates mistrust. The act of God is to love us by not compromising our trust in the promises of God.

This image of God I’m attempting to hash out is still a God who’s love is primary.
It is a God who could choose differently or could have in a time passes but does/did not, and who does/will continue to have that nature.
It is a God who does not act against evil out of love, but instead of it being out of an inability does so out of a lack of desire to be unloving.
It is a God acting out of motives to not only be loving to us but to also continue to be in a mutually loving relationship with humanity.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published.

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>