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.

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.

Tom,

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.

Tom,

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.

Thanks for this thought provoking post.

I think Bart agrees with you!
http://www.recycleyourfaith.com/2010/02/08/god-is-not-in-control/

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.

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!

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

Dr. Oord i appreciate this article you have written.  The Bible does not seem to clearly give an answer to the problem of evil and because of this we hypothesize about it.  It seems that as Wesleyans, we should really like the fact that God can’t CONTROL us. We are not robots, we are free, and God gives us this freedom because He loves us and desires a mutually loving relationship.  Is this not the Wesleyan belief?

Yet, we want to say that God is able, if He wants to, to take away that freedom He has given to us.  That God can control us if He so desires.  I guess, these 2 beliefs dont really line up for me. If we value and cherish our freedom as a core belief, then why can we not say God cant take it away?  It really doesnt seem to be as much of a stretch as it sounds.

I agree that the question that there is a huge different between “can’t” and “won’t”. Yet, that seems like such a huge debate, and one that I may not ever be able to fully grasp, so I tend not to think about it. Your statement, “God must be God, and God cannot be otherwise” really hit me though. There must be some things that God cannot do in order to remain God. These limitations that you mention, the things that God is not able to do, are not things we thought God did in the first place. I always assumed God had never lied, but I never considered that it was because He could not lie. These limitations that are presented do not diminish my view of God in the least bit, but they do shift my ways of thinking about God’s actions and why He does or does not do certain things.  Most of the times when I start to think about complex issues such as this, I trail off because I am satisfied with knowing that I cannot possibly grasp everything because it is so beyond my comprehension. This is not an exception, however, I do enjoy that I am able to look at it in a new way now.

God cannot lie?
I meditate on Wittgenstein’s work for a while and then John 1:1 make sense with “God cannot lie”?

Lie is by definition a fact that is not true, or real. (Heb 6:18)
God is the Word. (John 1:1)
So if God speaks something, it becomes true, real. Because He is the Mighty.

Now God cannot lie is just a mere tautology.
Right?

First of all, thank you for saying you don’t have it all figured out; that really encourages a student like me to know one of my professors still thinks and wrestles with these issues as well. It is really weird to think about what God cannot do (classic explain of “a rock so big…”) but it would make sense (to me) that a God who is all loving would give that freedom to His creation so that they might truly and purely love Him in return. Also I think with regard to the “with God all things are possible” might be understood in the context of whatever issue a person is going through. Like with Philippians 4:13, just because we “can do all things through Christ” does not mean we 1) should do any of those things, and 2) it fits the situation we’re in appropriately.

This post reminds me of people I know who questions God’s ability to do things. I guess it is hypocritical to say that God can do anything, but at the same time say that God cannot lie. I agree that God can do anything, but he chooses not to do everything to stay consistent. If the Bible said that God can do anything, while not saying that God never lies, some might assume that God is not as good as he seems.
To say that God can do anything, makes him seem all powerful, without restraint. Like God controls whether we get a flat tire, which I believe that he does not. God places rules like I cannot lie to ensure the world that he restrains himself when needed. This gives all of man kind a sense of security which is extremely important for faith.
This post reminds me of a hypothetical question someone asked me one time. “If God is all powerful then could he microwave a burrito so hot that even he could not grab it?” Interesting to think about, but I think the answer is irrelevant. God chooses to restrain his power when needed.

This is a very fine line that I often struggle with. I often wonder how much can we hypothesize about God without coming to a point where we think we know everything? I am so often confused with all the differing opinions that I have no idea what to believe in regards to theological issues. Perhaps this is because my personality makes me a pretty indecisive person, but it could also be because people within even the same denomination believe very different things. The second I think I believe something, some circumstance changes my mind.

I do not completely disagree with hypothesizing though. Even though I am often confused and disorientated I believe that I am stronger in my faith because of it. This is because I have made it a personal issue. Instead of just believing what someone tells me, I take the time to wrestle with it and compare it to others beliefs, and then adapt it to make it my own.

The role of God in or not in evil has always been an interesting and difficult area. Your argument is interesting because it takes a good attribute of God - His need to love - and uses it to explain a troubling issue - the issue of evil. Why evil happens is an extremely difficult question and the can’t of God has to be discussed when explaining it. I really enjoy the idea of love being the reason that evil happens. It is a refreshing and new argument.

I think it is impossible to ever know the true nature of God and to fully understand Him. However, I think it is healthy and necessary to wrestle with discovering Him and all the possibilities of Him.

I believe that part of who we are as humans is our curiosity and speculative nature.  If it is part of how God designed us, I think it is perfectly reasonable for us to speculate about the attributes of His nature. My initial thought when I first read the title of this post was that God can do whatever he wants.  However, after reading through the post, I appreciated the overall stance that it took – that God cannot act against his nature, and that his many attributes are all affected by his nature of love.

I find it very refreshing to read something that is questioning (in a positive way) the nature of God. It has been something that I have struggled with for a long time but have felt that it was highly discouraged in the church to even slightly wonder about. I agree with your first couple of assumptions about why we shouldn’t try to define God. As human being we naturally want the clear cut answers about everything, I know I feel uncomfortable with the unknown. But we need to keep in mind that we are human, so we will never be able to clearly put God in a box, which is a good thing. I also agree with your point about God and His love. While sometimes it’s hard to say that God always wholly loves us when we clearly see people suffering (like the Haiti earthquake), it’s because of this love that we are free. God gives us as humans the opportunity to be His love when we see someone suffering. He gave us free will so that we can choose to follow Him or we can choose to not. Willingly choosing to love and model your life after someone is a much greater relationship than one that is just blind faith. It is difficult to say that God “can’t” do something, but I think it is very important to remember that God can’t not love us. No matter what we do, how far we stray, or how much we question Him, God will always love all of us.

“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.”

I used this piece of Scripture yesterday in my discussion post. John 13:2-4 says, ““The evening meal was being served, and the devil had already prompted Judas Iscariot, son of Simon, to betray Jesus. Jesus knew that the Father had put all things under his power, and that he had come from God and was returning to God…”. My position is that God uses evil – for His purposes and His glory. Job 42:2-3 says, “Then Job replied to the LORD: I know that you can do all things; no purpose of yours can be thwarted. You asked, ‘Who is this that obscures my plans without knowledge?’ Surely I spoke of things I did not understand, things too wonderful for me to know.” Without sounding too deterministic God does have a plan – maybe He has many plans. Who are we to know, inquire, or assume? Can God prevent evil? Yes. The power is His according to Scripture, but that does not automatically assume that He will wield it when we hope or expect Him to. God’s gift of freedom does not preclude Him from wielding power to prevent or destroy evil.

1 Cor 13:12’s phrase, “we know in part,” makes me wonder if we only know in part due to God’s way of revealing himself differently and in different ways to different people.  After all, I think everyone has a different experience with God.  Therefore, in order to know God, we should talk about our personal experiences with God with others; this is how we get to know God better.
Also, knowing that God can’t do some things does not sound so terrible to me.  Personally I prefer if God can’t lie or be tempted by evil.  That gives me hope that as I live in Christ, and Christ in me, I can overcome evil and sinful temptations.

I have always firmly believed that God is love. The genuine evil that we see in the world does not come from God. Along with a lot of other people I have always wrestled with the question of why if God love us, would He allow evil to occur. I also believe that God is all powerful and that if God wanted to stop evil from occurring, God has the power to do so. However, after the readings and the topic of God self-limiting Himself, its an idea that I am throwing around. God gives us freedom to act in whatever way we want and that may be the appropriate way to respond to God or it may not be. Even though God has the power to override what we do, God limits Himself because of the freedom God offers us. I think this is an interesting idea that I had not previously thought about.

I agree that humans often over reach their claims about God.  It is easy to do; yet, we need to remember that God is God and that fact alone should tell us that there will always be some mystery.  That is why Faith was given as a gift along with God’s grace.

Thanks for the good thoughts.

I do find it hard sometimes to consider that God CAN’T do some things, though I’ve been been knowledgeable enough to realize what God couldn’t do. I agree that God can’t do certain things based on His love - which is why genuine evil exists. Since God is freedom EVERYTHING needs to able to act freely in accordance with His love otherwise there wouldn’t be true freedom. For me, this idea logically carries over to prayer and freedom. If our actions and lives are predestined… why pray? It’s irrelevant. But God can sometimes grant our prayers, and sometime He CAN’T. The analogy that was best described to me to explain this concept was the relationship between a parent and their child. The parent created the child. The parent will shelter and protect that child definitely while they are young, but also as much as they can as the child grows up. However, the reality is that sometimes the parent WILL NOT be able to protect the child from harm and the parent CAN’T help. What the parent can do, is be there for the “aftermath” and nurture their child back on their feet and continue to be there and remind the child that they are for them through the tough times. This example sort of helps me understand what God can do and what God CAN’T do.

Theology, the study of God, is the first thing that comes to mind as I read the first few lines of your blog. I sometimes get annoyed with Theologians and discussions/arguments that they can get into. I just think to myself, we can study all we want about God but I don’t think we will ever fully understand His true nature, and humility should be a big characteristic of Theologians. This blog also causes me to re-evaluate my understanding of that verse, “… with God all things are possible”. You have opened my eyes to a God, who cannot do, and it makes me think if God, generally can do, then there must be things he can’t do and you say it perfectly; there must be some type of counterbalance.

Thomas Jay Oord discusses the nature of God. He asks the question “Is it possible that God can’t do something?” He says there are many things that God can’t do such as lie, not love, or that God “cannot deny himself” (2 Tim. 2:13). The biblical support that was used makes sense that there are things that God can’t do. The question of whether or not God can actually stop tragedy or if it is part of His nature to not be able to stop these tragedies such as earthquake in Haiti, is still one that needs to be answered. God not being able to deny himself helps to understand that there are just somethings that God cannot do. It does not answer the big questions. God is love comes through the Bible without any question and yet tragedy strikes and people question God’s love. Does God’s love stop just because evil appears? I think not. The Bible tells us, “For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. (John 3:16)” Being able to send your son to die for us seems to open another debate about what God can or cannot do. We have to see this as an ultimate sacrifice to be able to get past the evil side of what God did hear. We look at it as the ultimate act of love but others will tell you differently. The Bible does talk about God’s nature and the limitations of it but theologians even struggle with the question of what God can’t do.

“After all, most folk think God always acts lovingly – even when biblical writers report God being angry with sinners”.

Dr. Oord you have raised some interesting questions.  I’m not sure that God being angry doesn’t equate to still being loving.  I can be angry with my children when they disobey me and still love them immensely.  God can still love someone who has committed some great sin – but he might be angry at the suffering that the sin produced in the lives of others.  His anger doesn’t mean that he won’t give that person the best possible chance for repenting and returning. 

This also raises another question.  When the bible reports that God hardened the hearts of certain people, pharaoh, Judas, etc. what should we take that to mean?  I have a hard time thinking that a loving God would purposely use someone in an unloving way that would lead to their destruction.  Do you suppose instead that these individuals because they continued to ignore God’s voice and purposefully acted in ways to contrary to God’s will, that they became so hardened that they could no longer hear God’s voice.  Yet the bible would say that they were carrying out God’s will in some way, somehow people would have to turn against Jesus in order to crucify him.  Do you think that God willed that or just knew that because of the sin in this world that it would inevitably happen?  Jesus would be sacrificed whether it was Judas or someone else that betrayed him, not because God planned from the beginning to use Judas.

The one passage that really sticks out to me is the Romans 1:20.  “his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made”.  I might be taking this out of the context but I see it as telling us that we can look around us and see God’s nature in the beauty around us.  As humans we tend to twist this beauty but it still there whether we choose to look, or not.  God chose to reveal Himself in what He made.  This means that there is more to the balance of life around us then what we see at a glance.  God wants us to look at His creation because it tells us about Him.

This is a battle that I am facing right now.  I still feel that evil is the result of humans make poor choices and separating themselves from God, but to what extent can God intervene?  If God can’t prevent genuine evil from occuring because of God’s love, what does that say about God as “loving” when God watches people suffer?  I think this line of thought open a big mess of questions that I’m not sure will ever be fully and finally satisfied.

The first time you suggested that there are certain things that God must do, it did not settle well. However, as the discussion of God and the problem of real evil in the world keeps reemerging it makes more and more sense. For God to be able to end evil and to not do so does become a troublesome thought. For God to be limited by his nature of love, and therefore a mandate to give creation free agency, brings the thought to rest. Perhaps some would suggest that a God limited by his nature is not a God of omnipotence, however I see it as an expression of his absolute power.

I found this post to be very puzzling because this topic is difficult to discuss. I find it interesting that we acknowledge that “we know in part” and yet we still strive to believe that we know everything about God or become frustrated when we cannot find an answer for why some things happen. As a Christian it is difficult to explain the full character of God to non-christians because we do not have all of the answers. This seems like a weak spot in our theology, or at least in mine, and I’m wondering how to defend something I believe in so strongly when I cannot describe the character of my God entirely.

It seems to me that you cannot say that God cannot do something no matter his character.  If God loved chaos then there would be very little likelihood of any consistency to God.  Essentially you could say that God can’t be loving all the time if chaos was God’s interest, just as you could say that God cannot be consistent.

Naturally then, God being love means that God cannot do some things.  Logic dictates that you cannot be unable to say that any being, including God, can do absolutely anything, whether that means a constraint on action or on character.

What I appreciate about this post is that we do not know everything and we are looking through a darkly lit glass but just as the writers of the Bible did we can make some statements about God’s character.  I also appreciate that as we encounter more knowledge that disproves old theology that we not cling to this sacred cow so tightly that we are unable to see that the thought does not hold water any longer.  I believe that if we are able to agree on the essentials about who God is in view of scripture than we are on the right path, this will continue to allow us to make adjustments as we journey down the road of understanding.

I think it is very beneficial, and in a way is a kind of worship, to ponder on the nature of God. To spend time trying to understand God’s very being is a great way to begin to know Him.  I would agree with the author in that we should remember that our ideas regarding God are simply hypothetical, and are not concrete and unquestionable claims regarding His nature, unless of course such attributes are clearly implicit within Scripture.

God can’t do things that are logically contradictory, such as make a mountain without a valley, or commit an evil when He is wholly good.  Any failure on our part to find an adequate solution reconciling this fact and the problem of evil is due to the impossibility of creation to know the mind of its Creator.  To not accept this because we cannot see God fitting into a certain box of criteria of our own making shows how limited is our understanding.

In his book Damage Control, Dean Merrill relates an oft-told fable of Jesus debriefing the angels upon his return to heaven following his ascension.  As he tells them the history of his time on earth, an archangel asks, “Did I understand you correctly that you’ve put the whole project in (the disciples’) hands?  Everything the Father wants to happen…it’s all up to them?  What if they fail to do your bidding?”  Jesus’ response to the archangel is, “I have no other plan.” (1)

As I read your blog entry, I was reminded of the story above.  “If,” as you say, “God’s loving nature prevents God from controlling others entirely,” it means God has placed a great deal of trust on us to carry out God’s redemptive plan for creation.  If God, by God’s loving nature, cannot coerce us, but must instead trust us, that means God has limitated ability to see the plan to its fruition.  This really challenges my understanding of God as omnipotent. 

(1. Dean Merrill, Damage Control: How to Stop Making Jesus Look Bad (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2006), under “80,” Amazon Kindle edition.)

When I read the title of your blog, I immediately thought of two of the verses you quoted.  My first thought was “God cannot lie” and my second was “God cannot deny Himself.”  While I don’t believe that God is limited in any way in reference to power and knowledge, I do consider the possibility that God is limited within His own nature.  God’s nature is such that God cannot sin.  The Bible says that sin separates us from God.  Isaiah 59:2 says, “But your iniquities have separated you from your God; your sins have hidden his face from you, so that he will not hear.”  Habakkuk 1:13 says, “Your eyes are too pure to look on evil; you cannot tolerate wrong.”  Is it possible that God doesn’t prevent evil that is caused by sin because he cannot look upon that evil?  I realize this question would not give a satisfactory answer to an innocent victim of that evil; but Jesus was an innocent victim when He was dying on the cross and there was a moment when He felt some absence of God’s presence.  Is it possible that God could not look at His Son while He carried the sins of the world?

The biblical citations you quote about what God cannot do reflect this truth well. Because of God’s character (self-imposed?), God cannot do things that would be contrary to that character. Through God’s own self revelation, God has revealed a character consistent with only certain actions and activities.

It seems, though, that to use the phrase, “God can’t do X,” is only inflammatory. For those who have been taught that God’s power and sovereignty are the defining and central characteristics of God, to hear that God cannot do something is to call God something other than deity. The phrase may serve some shock value in order to draw attention to the dialog needed about the primacy of love. However, I find it much more compelling and effective to teach and preach with more a more gentle and pastoral approach, rather than severely and abruptly disturbing coveted paradigms and embedded theologies.

Rich+

I appreciate the position that, “… we ought to offer humble hypotheses about what we believe God’s nature is like.  In humility, we ought to always be ready to modify our views. “We know in part,” not in full.”  In understanding the meaning of humble hypotheses, we realize that our educated guess; no matter how well researched, are questions without answers on God’s nature, on our own nature and the degree of freedom we give to both God and man to change.
It is not critical for me to know, in an absolute sense, whether God can suffer or whether humans are free to act, and in doing so, whether our actions influence God to act. I believe that God meets us in time and is affected by our petitions for help. What is most important for me is having the choice to experience the sacrificing love of God, through Jesus Christ.

The concept of God not being able to do some things is somewhat difficult to process at first, but makes sense in the light of God’s nature. As the blog states, there are certain things God cannot do. They would contradict who God is. God’s nature is love and out of that love we are given free will. Because of free will people can choose to do evil. I do not believe that God allows evil to run rampant in our world but does allow the option for it because of free will. God does not forcibly change a person’s intent on doing evil, but through promptings and interaction with creation, God may persuade or influence the outcome of a situation if others choose to follow those promptings through free will.

The nature of God never changes.  The view that some people have of the can’t or won’t argument does nothing to change the nature of God in my understanding.  We will never understand why God may or may not act, but that has little to do with His nature.  God loves His creation.  Now that love is God’s nature, that never changes.  If a person believes or says that God can’t do something or chooses not to do something does nothing to change the fact that He loves his creation.  Now the logical side says that if God chooses not to act or does not act that means he does not love.  I just don’t agree with that.  I doubt that many Christians, if they really thought about it, would agree with the fact that His love does not end.

A few years ago, I remember seeing a gift book in the Christian bookstore.  It was called something like “101 Things God Can’t Do.”  I believe it was meant to be shocking in title, but the content was trite and Chicken Soup for the Soul-y – much unlike this article (thankfully).  I am glad for the differentiation between can’t and won’t.  There is a big difference there.  I think people get up in arms about saying God cannot do something because it would seem to limit God’s omnipotence.  Rather, as we read here, saying God can’t do something only strengthens God.  To say God cannot lie is makes our worship and following of God all the more special.  To say God cannot be tempted means, to me, that God is truly omnipotent.

When you take the whole passage in 2 Timothy you get a different view. I do not believe it is saying that God can not what I do think it is referencing back to Remember Jesus Christ, risen from the dead in verse 8. If we understand “If we are faithless, He remains faithful, for He cannot deny Himself.” as referring back to Jesus and His work on the cross. Then no He can not deny the work He did.

In the church it seems like you are not allowed to question God so its nice to be in a setting where asking questions is okay and actually encouraged. I have always thought that God could do whatever he wanted whenever he wanted, so I really had to think when you ask the question Can God not do some things? Even now I am not sure if I even have an answer to this question, but then again maybe I do not want an answer. I personally like the idea of mystery and not knowing. Not knowing for sure gives me determination to keep seeking God and having faith. I do not think that God wants us to know everything about him, there are some things that we must question and never know the answer to. I hope that someday when I hopefully get to heaven I will be able to ask God these difficult questions and it will suddenly all make sense and I will understand. However, until then I will keep seeking to know God and have faith in what I believe in.

The Christian walk requires faith. I feel that this statement is key if someone claims to be a Christian. Now I feel that to say God cannot do something is a copout in trying to find explanation in the unknowns of a Christian walk just as some may say the unknown is a copout. I have grown up believing that God is all powerful, all knowing, and omnipresent. I believe He has the ability to do anything and everything but I also believe that He has chosen not to but that just as a parent can give up on their child God could choose to give up on us. The reason I take this side is because I feel if you believe that God cannot give up on us or He must love us then I feel this would go as far as to say we are more powerful then God because we have this thing called free will to do what we want and God does not posses this same power. God has blessed us with free will to do as we please. I do believe that He suffers with us but because of free will He must make the choice of what to do in every situation to allow the free will He provided to stand strong or to intervene and remove that free will. He let His own son die for all of us and He did not step in. He allowed the people to have free will when it impacted Him so much. He had to make that choice not because He couldn’t do anything about it but because that was what He chose. We need to realize that without God being apart of all things horrible things would be happening at all times. There would be no good but because He intervenes He provides us with lives to live and free will to decide on what way we will act and turn. Yet He can take it away just as easily as He gave it and I feel that is what places Him over us.

Wow, I didn’t see God in that perspective. To say that “God can’t and the Bible say so,” my jaw dropped. But I understand the concept that God places limits to Himself, so “God can’t.” I see more like God won’t because He wants human interaction.

Solomen says it best “all is meaning less..vanity vanity.” We have already identify God to be infinite, then to understand that “God can’t” or won’t will take eternity to comprehend. Why God does certain things, it is just one of the many mysterious that keeps us wondering. And God wants us to seek it out and find out….He wants us to know Him, so all of this speculation, theology I see it as God loving it because we seek to know Him in our limited mind. We may not come to an agreement, but the whole point is that we are seeking Him. Continually our perception of Him will change and expand.

He has made everything beautiful in its time. He has also set eternity in the human heart; yet no one can fathom what God has done from beginning to end. Ecclesiastes 3:11

I’ve been trying to fight against these principles all week.  Well, sometimes it takes an experience, I guess, because as I was talking with a friend of mine, tonight, and listening to her struggles with faith in regard to God and the issue of evil, it all just started to come together for me.

I think I am afraid that we will limit God’s ability because it seems like the easiest thing to accept that God is too loving to *not* prevent evil, so God must be incapable of doing so.  But in some ways, it seems like the only logical conclusion to draw.

It’s almost ironic how God seemingly has chosen to give us more power than God retains for Godself.  Then again, maybe that is indicative of God’s character, as well.

The phrase “God can’t” has, honestly, probably never been said to me before I met Dr. Oord. It has always been God can, God can do anything, God can perform miracles, God can ____. Fill in the blank, it can literally be anything.

I appreciate the fact that you are willing to say this, and follow through with a strong explanation, and I agree with every word. One of my favorite things about taking a class with you is the fact that you have a different perspective on the bible than the average person and you stand by your opinions.

Talking about “God can’t” has probably never been brought up because there has never been a situation where I was discussing what God cannot do, when I am having a discussion about faith or religion, it is usually focused on what God can do. This is an interesting approach because it broadens a persons’ view of God. It makes you think about God not only as a mysterious something, but as a real something with meaning.

We as humans tend to relate to people that are similar to us, which makes perfect sense. When we talk about what God can’t do, it makes Him more real and more tangible. Talking about “God can’t” should be a comfortable topic, and it is once you have explained the logic behind it and exactly what it is that God can’t do. Overall I really enjoyed reading this specific blog post and the discussion that we had in class.

I loved this blog entry. I believe very strongly in free will and a god that has a sort of “hands off” policy. But I had never really thought of a god who cannot prevent evil. I am okay with that kind of God!  I would much rather believe that than in a god who chooses NOT to intervene in order for a bigger picture or to teach a lesson. God is not diminished in my eyes because he is limited; I actually find it incredibly comforting, knowing that there isn’t an all-powerful being up there choosing to NOT prevent genocide or rape, etc.

Though I do believe that God gave every human and every living thing free will and I do not believe that He can control our actions, He can be a strong influence on our hearts and minds—a persuasion, perse, to follow that path He has in mind for our lives. He allows, not causes, evil to occur—and I do believe that He has all the power to stop it, but He cannot make anybody love Him, or turn to Him, or change his or her ways. God is always present in our lives, and though we see many evils in our time, I guess I believe that everything does really work for the good. What we gain on Earth is nothing compared to what we will gain in heaven, where evil will be absent, and love will prevail.

Dr. Oord,

  I think that your point makes a lot of sense.  Even though some church tradition would be loath to place limits of God, it does seem that God would violate his nature by completely controlling a human.  I do wonder though if there are some situations where there would be a plausible exception.

  The situation that I am thinking about is a kind of love paradox.  You write, “God can’t prevent genuine evil, because God’s nature of love gives freedom and/or agency to others.”  What about when God taking away the agency of one individual would preserve the agency of another?  If someone is trying to kill me, they are removing my agency to live.  If God were to step in, he would violate the agency of the person trying to kill me but he would preserve my agency.  Which will should God respect?

To say God cannot do something i believe is inaccurate. If we are to say God cannot do something I believe that in a way we could be saying then that God is not all powerful. I believe that God is capable of doing anything and chooses not to do many things we believe he should do. If God was to prevent ‘evil’ events from occurring he would be taking away the freewill of the people who are choosing to perform those ‘evils.’

In class I mentioned, “Maybe we are just not supposed to know all of these things.” Then I mentioned how I often use the free-will argument to back up why where is evil in the world.
As I was reading other people’s comments written to you, Hans Deventer stated the following, “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.” I thought he made a very good point and as I got to thinking, I decided the reason God may not always intervene is the fact that we have free will. Although we have free-will, I honestly think God does try to intervene. For example, when I want show anger or grumpiness towards someone, I know in my heart that it is wrong to act in that way. Is that not God or the spirit convicting me. My flesh says, yeah go ahead be mean to that person, but my spirit says no that is not right. So there you have it, I think God does try to intervene in evil and I think evil is in the world because of free-will. I can not explain it in any other way. It goes all the way back to Genesis when Adam and Eve ate from the apple.
I cannot explain why bad things happen to good people or why an innocent young person gets raped. But the best explanation I can offer is that the person causing the evil is most likely acting from their fleshly desires that are from Satan. It hurts my heart to see so much evil in the world, but I think God can use the evil that has occurred to people and turn it into good. He offers redemption and forgiveness and always loves any victim that occurred because of evil.

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!

After reading and hearing your discussion on this, I still have a hard time believing that God CAN’T do some things. In my belief, personal walk, and study of the Bible, it is not that God can’t do certain things, but that he chooses not to, mainly for the sake that he would basically be contradicting himself and not be the God that we want to worship, praise, and look up to. Even though it says it is impossible for God to lie, it seems to me that it is impossible because he would not be living up to who he is if he did.

There is helpful consideration in further exploring your theo-logic ideas. 

A reinforcement of the idea of the gift of freedom is the gift of a loving God is useful.  Alternatively, it stands to reason to ask why a loving God could not be completely controlling and completely loving at the same time?  Ie. Because God loves so much God controls because God loves and will not let go. Some might argue that Love is the reason for the control.

The inclusion of the Wesley comments on liberty, and reference to the fact that God can not contradict God’s-self are important.

All of this made me think of the proverb, “If you love something, set it free; if it comes backs it’s yours, if it doesn’t, it never was.” ~Richard Bach

This is the eternal struggle.  It is the question that plagues humanity.  “Why does God not relieve suffering?  Why does he allow these things to happen?”  Whether or not someone can agree with your viewpoint, it is still a hard pill to swallow.  To say that God cannot do things is hard to understand because we are taught from an early age, “God makes miracles, God created the heavens and earth… he created mountains, etc.”  We would have to make the distinction between can’t and won’t and it can get jumbled.  I agree with parts of this view, but I agree with other’s take on this subject also.  So this subject brings on other questions and conversations.  I can see where this argument comes from, but I think the reasons leave me wanting more… I need a more concrete reason.

I think that it is necessary for us to understand God’s attributes so we can know with assurety that we are his children. I also believe we need to know what and whom to emulate. To leave God a total mystery allows justification for ill actions with the claim that we simply don’t know. God tries to reveal himself all the time because he does not wish to be a mystery to his children. I disagree with the belief that God has limitations. I believe that yes He can’t lie or be tempted but I believe that is where we will never understand. God knows all so why would He ever be tempted when He is all too familiar with the negative consequences. I think that we cannot fathom what our Father in Heaven capable of and because we can’t understand we try and find a solution.

“We must come to terms with the fact that the Bible says God can’t do some things.”

I have a large problem with this topic. If someone was to see this sentence, they could assume that one is saying that God can’t save, God can’t protect, God does not show mercy, etc. One has to read more in depth to see that you are implying “God can’t lie, He cannot be tempted, He cannot deny himself.” God is love, and love is perfect. Of course he cannot lie or be tempted by evil, for that would make him imperfect. It would not make him the Almighty God. Why must you go to the extreme and say “God can’t!” when it can confuse many on this topic?

After reading this entry, It made me realize that I also as the majority of Christians sometimes take the stance that we some of the attributes of God are far beyond our human minds.  I do not disagree with your bold quest to understand God’s nature, after all, God made us and we are curious creatures.  Nonetheless, I still believe that some things were not meant to be revealed to us here on earth.

I agree with the first part of your blog that we should be free to glorify God through proclaiming who He is. I believe God has reveled himself to us in two ways, explicitly though His word, and implicitly through His creation. We are free to glorify Him be proclaiming what we know Him to be by what we see around us. We just need to make sure that is in line with what He has explicitly revealed to us through scripture in order to know we are correct. Because if we are contradicting the truth of scripture, then we are wrong. The second half of the article talkes about God not being able to control evil. This is a hard topic to address in one blog, yet alone one blog post! There have been many, many whole books written on the subject by many who are much more wise than I. But what I do know, is that I would not trust a God who could not control evil. That makes Him out to be no more powerful that I am.  I know our views differ drastically here because I believe the original bible to be inerrant and God breathed whereas you do not, but I believe there are specific instances in the bible where God does step in and prevent evil (God blinding the men of Sodom who were trying to rape the angels). I don’t know why God doesn’t step in at every instance of evil in the world, but I believe that is where faith comes into play. God is big enough that I don’t have to understand everything that He does.

I struggle with this concept of God can’t do something’s. I just cannot believe that someone all powerful is really incapable of doing things. I know that you said he gave us free will but I just always have had it in my mind that God can is all powerful and is capable of doing everything…

Saying that God can’t do something seems very strange. I prefer to think that God can do anything He wants to do. Since He would have no desire to sin, or say, create an object so heavy He can’t even lift it,then simply can’t do those things because He does not want to do them.
I also feel that, by saying God’s character is love and He cannot go against his nature, we are restricting Him, or putting Him in a very small box. God’s character is so much more than love. He is also powerful and mighty and just… Love is one aspect of His character. He acts in love, but I do not believe that love dicatates who He is.

I don’t agree that God can’t do anything. i believe he can do anything and everything that he wants and to refrain himself from guiding our every step gives us our sense of freedom. Allowing for him to be consistent in his involvement in our life. He is 100% there at all times but we have to ask for him to be apart of our life. Then he will put the opportunities in front of us that he deems “right” for us to go down. we just have to be in contact with him and be one in spirit with him.

I used to see God’s inaction in the face of genuine evil had to do with giving us our free will, but it was that God wouldn’t override our free will. Now, I prefer the idea that God can’t override free will because the idea of God choosing not to stop evil still greatly bothers me. The way I see it, before God created creatures with free will, God would have been all powerful, but once God created freedom, God limited that power.

It is important to note that “God is love” and “love is God” are saying two completely different things. I felt in reading this post that it was hinting more at the idea that love is God. But to say this would be saying that my love for my parent is God.  Saying that love is God to me seems to be hinting at the idea that love is a part of God’s nature. But I don’t think that I would say that love is a part of God’s nature, because this would imply that some things that God does are not love. Rather, I would say that John meant that everything God does is infused with love.