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/

The problem I struggle with is the inaction of God in the presence of “genuine evil”, and the tendency for many to attribute all the good things in life to God. If God doesn’t always prevent genuine evil, then cant the same be said for love? Just like God doesn’t always prevent certain forms of evil, it seems that God cant be responsible for promoting all forms of love as either.

A part of me wants to accept that God can do anything- literally. That part of me desires to be dependent on an all-powerful God, therefore leaving me as a relatively insignificant being on this earth. It’d easier for me that way, anyway. Yet, when I am closest to God, “insignificant” is the farthest description of how I feel. I’m content with the idea that God can’t do certain things, but rather He has faith in humanity to bring about His Glory. Praise Him forever, Amen!

In this blog you mention that, “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 can agree with this, because in this world there is not a lot of clear evidence of God’s Nature. I am a firm believer that we affect most everything in this life, and not that he had a plan for every single thing that has happened, when my brother is sitting in jail, for just straight bad luck, and I hear people saying God has made everything happen for a reason, No way my brother who is someone I love can not be there for a reason. We should restrict a lot of things said about God’s intentions.

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.

The most striking verse you have cited in this entry is James 1:17. “Every good and perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of the heavenly lights, who does not change like shifting shadows.”

It is so cathartic to exclaim how God can do anything, and suggesting any sort of limitation, even in the reasonable sense that you have outlined, seems blasphemous to some. But it seems more insulting to God’s nature to think that He is constantly engaged in the act of patching the holes that (if you follow the logic) He himself is creating.

It’s true that “we know in part.” But this much seems clear to me: whether God can’t or won’t is less important than the fact that we can. Reflect a minute on the absurdity of a universe where God constantly prevents all evil from occurring. Humans would never know anything but perfection, and have no reason to worship. It’s the dark that gives definition to the light. It’s the evil that lets us truly see God. The idea that God acts sometimes, cures some diseases, prevents some earthquakes, is so problematic that I can’t imagine building a faith upon it. I think it’s very important to arrive at the conclusion that there are situations where God doesn’t (or can’t) act. Don’t despair about it—that’s the reason we can perceive a God at all.

I enjoyed the thought process. I wonder if saying that fully controlling another is not love is a step too far. We value freedom but how are we sure that this freedom equals love? As a father, sometimes taking the choice away from my child would not be considered hate but rather love. I would guess that those who find themselves in eternal separation from God may not agree with our ideas of freedom.

We do have a very limited view of our existence. As you say, we need to make assertions with humility.

Tom I like the idea of looking at the power of God through the lens of love.  I find it helpful that you bring out that God’s love is expressed through the way that he has given freedom to his creation of what we chose in life.  Should the ability of choice be taken away it would create a contradiction to his own nature which God would not do.  Certainly as you are advocating the important thing about understanding the nature of God is to approach it from a humble attitude and recognize that we truly do only see in part and do not fully see as we will one day.

I have always struggled with the notion of saying things about God’s. It seems like a futile endeavor to me. The closest I think we can get to knowing anything about God is by reading about who Jesus was and what he did. Then again, Jesus was fully human, so to what extent should Jesus’ actions be viewed as those of a human?

I believe that God does choose to limit himself in intervening on free-will. I do believe that God can work through people if they allow them. In a sense, i believe that people choose to mimic God’s will instead of choosing their own will. I do not think this is the only way God works. I think that he can also work through situations and even draw people towards an action, regardless of their faith. I think that God could potentially interviene on free-will, however like the soldier in Rwanda, he can’t. He physically can stop what is going on, but in order to remain commander, God, he can not.

I really find the idea that God CAN’T do something a challenging idea to accept. Even with the passages that you cited saying that God cannot do certain things, it really does change my perception of who God is. However, as I have been processing it, I’ve been becoming more and more comfortable with it. It actually, to me, makes the most amount of sense. God, being perfect in nature, cannot break his perfect loving nature; that would make him imperfect. And if God is not perfect, then what are we all doing here anyway? The idea that God can’t do something is almost essential to what our perception of who God is.

This article and the lecture we had tonight, has brought out the struggle that I have with being a Christian.  Saying God Can’t do something is quite troubling to me.  If “God Can’t” do certain things, then is He really a God?  I think every sermon preaches by saying or in the same context that God is all powerful.  I know God gives us free will and we have the right to choose it or not use it.  But when people don’t use free will and use it for evil, why doesn’t God intervene.  For example the Holocaust, why did God allow the mass extermination of people to occur for years?  It was man that had to intervene and stop this unnecessary evil.  And if good is supposed to come even from the harshest of situations, where is it?  Well we could say that it brought the end of WWII and the German totalitarianism was brought to an end, but I am sure that a Jewish person would think differently.  How can a Jewish person say that the Holocaust brought good into their life or how it benefited their people?  I believe that there is a God, but I am concerned with the possibility that if my “God Can’t” do something, is He a God.  I want to believe in God, I really do, but when scripture points out that God can’t do everything, it is really hard for me to grasp and understand.

I do not like to think that God can’t do things.  On the other hand I ma glad that God’s character is such that He can’t do the things that would cause Him not to be God.  What great joy we have to know that God can’t deny himself by sinning.  “God cannot not love.”  This statement brings all the hope a person needs.  God’s nature in complete form may not be something for me to grasp now, but I know wen I see God face to face all will be clear.  What a great promise!

I appreciate what was written and I am still processing a lot of the information. It is very enjoyable to see just how loving God is and I like that fact that God does not take away our freedom of choice. I think it is important to think of God as God and not a Santa Claus. I also appreciate the words quoted that are John Wesley’s.

This may be a new lens for me, but it is a lens that has helped me see things more clearly. I have always struggled with the problem of evil and how to adequately engage in the conversation with people who cannot trust a God who “allows” or even wills evil.
This lens shifted the focus of one particular verse for me this week. Luke 1:37 “For nothing is impossible with God.” It started with the question, “But what about this verse?” It ended with a meditation on “WITH God”.

I believe that God stays true to His character and cannot deny Himself.  I do think though, that even though we get glimpses into the character and nature of God through the Bible and through God’s Son revealing the character and nature of God, we are not fully qualified to say what God can and cannot do.  We can make some theological assumptions about what God cannot do based on what we know of God, but I still think we have to be very careful in any conversations where we might say God cannot do something.

By this point in our conversations in class you are certainly aware that I am not entirely in concert with your views re: God.

However, I appreciate the desire to be faithful to God’s revelation in Christ and the Bible.  It certainly is a respectable goal.

Moreover, I agree with the idea that God cannot violate God’s own nature.  The point of discussion will continue to be how exactly we understand God’s nature.  As you rightly say, we “see through a glass darkly.”  When we remember that all of our pronouncements and proclamations about God are conditioned by the dark glass, it will help us remain humble in our statements about God.

The jury is still out on how exactly I will settle out on this question.  I think that there are things as Oord points out that God cannot do simply because of God’s nature.  But the details are where the caveats are. And for many that I deal with as a chaplain the issue of can or cannot still are problems when we come to the end and it is asked why didn’t God intervene in this case.  To this end I am not sure that there will be a good answer this side of eternity and I may be wrong or simply do not understand yet.  But I am sure of this God can and does love creation, desires the best for creation, provided redemption and for that I am eternally grateful.

At first the thought that God can’t, is a little uncomfortable.  As I continue to process the thought that God can’t, I realize it helps me to get a grasp on the problem of evil.  If God were able to do anything, it would be difficult to understand why God would intervene in some present evil and not in others. If God had the ability to stop this evil, than why not prevent that evil.  Some may say that, “God works in mysterious ways” but that is tough solution to accept when innocent children are being abused.

There are many things that we can gather about God based upon the Bible and personal experience which I feel is very accurate. In fact the Bible also tells us that God is not a God of confusion but of peace (1Corinthians 14:33). I also think there is always a place for mystery in the heart of every individual otherwise, God wouldn’t be God.
Tom, I think that you hit the nail on the head there is a need to be humble. However, we can also be observant about what we experience, and include what the Bible says. On the other hand, just as negative theology tries to find God in those things God is not, there is great danger in defining God based solely upon human definition or terms humans create.
I agree that we can see how God is limited by the nature of who God is. Love is such a good example. Love is limited because there are certain things that love CANNOT be in order to be love. I don’t think this really limits the power of God, but is more of a choice of God to be something that has limits. The ability to choose has more power associated with it than I think most of us really conceive.
Oh by the way, I think a 671 God would be pretty confused. However, recent science tells us that there is order in chaos. Just kidding around…

I was a little worried when I read the title of this blog. I couldn’t imagine what there would be that God couldn’t do. As I started reading I couldn’t help but to smile. Very funny prof.! I am exceedingly happy that God cannot not love. That means he will always love what and who he has created. I really enjoyed reading your blog. You made some great points and revealed some great passages of Scriptures. I’m glad there are a few things that God can’t do. God can do anything and in many peoples lives he does. Amen!

I agree that “we know in part” about God’s nature – who He is and how He acts, but I suggest that the “part” that we do know should be exercised fully.  It is clear in the Bible that He wishes to be known by us because of His desire for relationship and partnership with us.  We cannot be in an intimate relationship with someone we do not know.  It is important that we never cease to be curious about Him.  While we cannot entirely grasp the essence of who God is, too often there is a lack of discussion and critical thinking by the everyday Christian.  Discussions such as this one remind me that we ought to welcome and pursue knowing God – in humility, of course.

I like this post, Tom, but I think a mistake made in Open Theology is the continual distinction of God as either loving or all-controlling. Open Theology’s insistence that God is a God of love shines a bright light on itself, but at the expense of disqualifying the love of God for those not willing to accept Open Theology. Although a person might think that God is in total control, He would still find God loving. It sometimes comes across as a way for Open Theology to build itself up, rather than a way to accurately define God. The either/or is confusing…..

It is still difficult for me to accept that God is not able to do certain things. I still hold that he does not do certain things because he does not want not because he can’t. I believe the problem here is that we are trying to state that God must keep all humans inside a “GREEN ZONE” where no diseases, catastrophes, poverty, starvation, etc should exist. But this view is completely non Biblical. Scriptures clearly state that in this world we will suffer but we have a promise that if we keep being faithful to God we will be in the New Jerusalem where there will be no more sorrow or pain. Therefore I don’t think we should blame God for all the evil that happens around the world.

I believe that God can’t do some things because of His nature.  The point of disagreement, of course, comes in the discussion of God’s nature.  It is not hard to say that God can’t sin because He is Holy.  it is also not hard to say that God can’t not love because God is love.  However, to pit power against love and say that God cannot coerce because is love might be an unfair comparison to love and power.  I’m holding out for a third way that explains how God is powerful AND loving - a third way that says, “God CAN and God loves.”

This issue is one of many that reminds me that we come to our faith with a host of presuppositions—passed down to us by our family, the church, culture, history, etc.  And we become very comfortable with these presuppositions—in fact, we often come to believe that they are even Biblical, which they may or may not be.
As you say, Tom, we fully accept many characteristics of God with no problem—even characteristics that we would agree are unchanging.  But can we believe that God cannot NOT love?  It is interesting that we have difficulty with this “limitation,” when it actually affirms the essence of God’s very character.

Something I have been pondering is how Paul talks about our need to be controlled by the Holy Spirit in Ephesians 5:18 and to be led by the Spirit in Galatians 5:18. As I seek to be spiritually formed, I ask God to control me more completely and more wholly every day of my life. I want to become perfect as Jesus is perfect. Somehow I think that this happens as God controls me and leads me as I surrender the illusion of control I might have to God.

When we place love as the central or core concept of God’s character and nature, a redefinition of God’s power occurs.  “Almighty” takes on a new meaning.  Instead of a definition along the lines of, “God can do anything, including control/manipulate/coerce whatever God wants to the fullest extent,” the centrality of love causes our definition of God’s power to go something like, “God is the most powerful being in the universe, but because in God’s love God has created truly free agents within that universe, God cannot coerce those agents to act in specific ways.”

This would explain why God sent Jesus to die instead of end world hunger. 

I hope I’m reading you right, Dr. Oord.

To say that God can’t is reassuring. When God is described as self-limited, there is always a possibility that the self-limitations could be removed. While most would say God is trustworthy and wouldn’t reverse these limitations, the fact remains it would be a possibility. If God can’t, there is no possibility of this change. God is faithful, because he can’t be anything else.

Tom,

I have not read anything in this post or your book “Theology of Love” that would cause me to have red flags. There are obviously strong influences from both Process and Open Theologies.  Both of these theologies have elements that I strongly agree with.  The point you made that I have found most attractive is that “God cannot deny himself.” This is a very crucial point and is why I am interested in furthering my understanding of a Theology of love.

It isn’t that I don’t agree that there isn’t a Biblical witness to what is being said here.  I see it.  But I think I see some more implicit explanations against this. 

If we are to say that God somehow must act in love but doesn’t choose, we can set him free from the obligation of the earthquakes and Tsunamis.

The problem is Jesus who constantly acts in “unfair” ways.  He heals one, but not all.  He raises one to life, but leaves many dead.  He withers a fig tree that won’t produce fruit.  AND…he calms a storm.  Who is this that even the winds and the waves obey him?!!!

Jesus is our earthly example of who God is, his nature, his way.  So, if Jesus acts this way in seemingly unfair ways, why would God have different attributes.  Maybe his ability to choose is a part of what makes his essence love.  We have to let him determine what is loving and then try to understand it.

Tom:

I love how you look at God through His eyes of love and I too believe God cannot go against His nature.  I also believe God is limited regardless if He limits himself out of love or not but in this I question a few things.  If God is limited based on who He is and cannot change this why does He intervene at times with prayer.  If the perceived or actual intervention is by God why can He or does He intervene in some circumstances and not others.  If He cannot intervene why pray at all.  A very good argument but I am still left with a few questions.

I agree that God cannot do something against God’s nature.  That does in my mind mean that God does not control others “entirely”.  This premise fits nicely with my arguments made last week about freedom withing the boundaries of God’s sovereignty.

God could not prevent evil without “entirely” controlling us, I think.  This would violate God’s nature of love.

I think we are quick to forget that Jesus came to restore the truth concerning the treatment of others and the nature of God.  Dr. Orrd, you do a fine assessment reminding the current church that we do have a God that suffers and rejoices along side of creation as well as the image of our God seen through the gospel revelation of Christ.  In my perception, Jesus came to correct some of the faulty teachings and misconceptions that Jewish culture and legalistic mentality had instilled.  In fact, even Paul found himself correcting some of the incorrect theological tendencies in the early churches.  Have we again found ourselves theologically looking in the wrong corners for revelation?  Are we pointing to the truth in doctrines that produce massive churches?  Is the theology we actually need found inside of the gospels?  I agree with you sir, that we the image of God concisely documented in gospels.  Secular philosophies have narrowed our image of God and the church has followed suite for years.  Perhaps with the change in modernity and the coming of age of generation X, a new chapter in our Christian tradition is being printed.  Perhaps this is the coming of the age of Love!

It seems to me that any time one tries to define God that we will have the human limitation.  Any definition we can think of will limit the one who created the world in which those definitions exist.  God is greater than our very ideas to begin with.  He will not be limited by our ideas.  For example, I submit the following idea.  The old “trick” question, can God make a rock so bit that he can’t lift it?  I say yes.  The response may come then he can’t do something because he can’t lift the rock.  My response… he can do that too.  This clearly does not make sense by human logic, but how many times have people witnessed the hand of God and had no logical explanation for what happened?  God does not fit in the bow that the wisdom of the wise create.  We should always continue to know and understand God more, but with the understanding that He is always greater.

While I agree that humans should be able to question God’s nature, one should also be careful on making assumptions about Him because of our limited minds. God is after all God and there is no possible way that our limited knowledge could ever begin to grasp the magnitude of which God is.  I do believe that God can and has stopped evil by controlling the will of a person and there is biblical evidence to support this. In the story of Moses in the book of Exodus, the author indicates that God hardened Pharos’s heart explaining his abundant stubbornness to head to Moses’ plagues. I like to take the Bible for what is says and not try and make it appeal to my own thoughts of what I want to believe.  God is God after all and because he did make humans, he would also be very capable of controlling them.

When talking about the nature of God, I do not like to make my own arguments. I feel like I do not have a large enough knowledge base to make a stand one way or another. I can only say who he is to me based on personal facts. I think if you are defining the nature of GOd as anything less than he is, then it is not a good argument or topic to stand on. Theology is always going to leave mystery so no matter how much you search to find the exact nature of God, you will never find it.

Dr. Oord
I am so glad I came across your blog; and I remember from class how you challenged us to think outside the box, but don’t throw away the whole box. Though I am definitely enjoying thinking about what you’ve said, I remember many nights debating with my father about how God becomes an even more powerful God by his willingness to limit himself, and may we not forget that God showed us a supreme example of what freedom can cost. I always debated from the point that God’s limiting himself proved he was a much greater God than a God who could not willingly limit himself to better communicate and love us.

You listed the following post on Emergent Village.

“Evil and God’s love
Instead of wondering if God could or would do something, I wonder if God essentially CAN’T do some things ... The distinction between ‘God can’t’ and ‘God won’t’ is especially important in accounting for God’s action or inaction to prevent genuine evil.
God can’t prevent genuine evil, because God’s nature of love always gives freedom and/or agency to others.
Thomas Oord”

You then state the following on your BLOG site.

“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 colleagues and I have struggled for many years to identify the exact nature of evil. We have made some progress. We believe evil to be finite in nature and only relevant to the universe of mankind.  We do not find evil in the fang and claw of the tiger or the flood and hurricane of Natural Law.  The results may seem evil, but they are not, they are simply Natural Law at work.

I’m sure you will concur that the description of evil in the Old Testament is decidedly different than that of the New. Christians seem to have made the Garden of Eden serpent into the devil or Satan although he does not appear to be identified as such.

Additionally, would you agree that the Jewish writers appear to identify evil almost exclusively as human perfidy, excess or neglect. Temptation by Satan is not generally involved. My colleagues and I concur.

I think a distinction between what God can’t or won’t do is moot. We have few tools for discerning this. But as to the question of “why does a good God permit evil?” As you know, theologians have pondered this interminably. My answer is to say that one of the necessities of life seems to be a yin for each yang. If God only permits good we have no contrast and no free will choice. Free will seems to have been designed for options of choice, thus indicating God wants us to find our own way.  Will he rescue us all in the end?  I am inclined to answer yes.

Either way God seems to have limited His will to our choices at least temporarily. 

One of the more interesting ideas we have explored is “do angels have free will?” We believe not or there would be Divine beings performing all sorts of daring do.

I believe this willingness to temporarily suspend His will is because we are to be in relationship with God and Man, and that requires a sort of two way street. You can’t have a one way relationship.  Why does he seek the relationship?  Lonliness? Partnership? Co-creation of the universe? We cannot know.  But seek it He does.

In the final analysis I believe the key to evil does not rest within scripture but in the hearts of Mankind.  It seems to not occur without us. In other words, it is our choice not His as to whether evil is permitted. Until we return to THE WAY, evil will flourish.

If God is Perfect, there must be a spectacular reason(s) God does not tamper with what we view as evil. (At least from our vantage point.) To say that God “can’t” seems unreasonable to me. After all, if our Creator is all-knowing, the beauty and the treachery each of us is capable of was known to God before we came into existence. So why would God create evil, or the possibility of evil? To truly see the Earth and its inhabitants for the intricate puzzle that it is denies God can be surprised. This was planned.

God is always with us. Even in the throes of unspeakable horror, God will quiet our internal storms. All we need do is listen.

(I would not term a natural disaster “evil.” Hurricanes are not spiteful. Tornados do not gossip. Lightening is not greedy. Earthquakes are not hypocritical. As a friend of mine once said, “Debbie, storms are merely the energy of the natural world renewing itself.)

We have been given physical life on this lovely planet so that we might learn more about love. The pain that comes along with it is part of the gift. From it, we grow. We flourish within newfound deeper meaning. We find God. My view is that God CAN do anything. But God loves each of us so completely that God has faith in US.

If I am prevented from testing my wings, I will never know what it means to soar. It was in my darkest moments that I finally understood I did not have all the answers. I could not go it alone. In torment, I found my way Home.

Thanks for allowing me to offer my view. Love!

You state, “perhaps we are justified in speculating that part of what it means for God to love others is that God never controls others entirely.”  This is the essence of a relationship that is based on the foundation of love.  The beauty of a relationship is the freedom for two to choose.  This doesn’t limit the power of God but rather conveys the biblical truth that love trumps all things (1 Cor. 13).  Jesus instructs us to pray that workers be sent into His harvest field in Matthew 9.  Why not skip this step and pray that people be saved?  This isn’t God’s decision to make.  Salvation is provided for all but all people have the choice to accept or reject. 

Stephen W.

When one comes to the point of realizing God is already limited, as you explain, the move to understanding God limit to act is easily taken on as truth. If we take on the theology of God won’t God is a whole different God. God then is choosing to let us be hurt and suffer. The God who can’t is a God of love. The God who won’t is a God who loves with limitation to that love.

It is true that God is love and always acts in love.  If God was not going to act in love all the time then we would not be able to make such bold claims.  However, there are times in the Bible where I wonder if God was a willing accomplice to actions that are not loving at all.  One instance that comes to mind is God’s willingness to allow Job to endure such pain for the purpose of making the point that Job was a good man.  So many lives were changed or destroyed by God allowing evil to reign in their lives.  Personal freedom or free will has been the call of theology and was a very vital aspect of Wesley’s ideals too.  It is something that our country deems very important as well.  I am not sure what the balance is between God’s control and our free will, but I am interested to find out.

I must start by commenting, I enjoyed this blog very much.  The title was a bit concerning, and for the Christian it should be.  Why is there questions regarding what God can do and cannot do?  Christians believe that God can do all things.  The Bible says, “‘Everything is possible for him who believes’” Mark 9:27 (NIV). Perspective is revealed as Christians study the Bible.  God does not put limits on His abilities to lovingly help.  The limitations are found only when we read about the character and nature of God.  The example given in the blog and in the Bible is, “for He (God) cannot deny Himself” (2 Timothy 2:13).  For the Christian, it is therefore, important to read and study the Bible.  Without this thorough study the man or woman of God is not ready to meet the arguments and comments of the nay-sayers.

Very Intriguing… I especially appreciated comments like, being able to remain humble in discussing God’s nature.  This stood out to me because of the idea that we are finite beings and God is infinite by nature.  There is so much that we do not know and cannot understand.  The article goes on to suggest that we should always be ready to expand or change our view as we continue to grow and learn more about who and what God is.  It is also important that we remember that, with God’s infinite nature, we are never going to be able to understand God completely.
It is true that the Scripture states that the world could not contain all the volumes if all were recorded. Clearly, there is infinitely more to the nature and working of God than we can ever know.  The old cliché comes to mind… “The more I learn, the more there seems to be that I need to learn.”

Tom,
I agree with your statement that “in humility we ought to always be ready to modify our views.” Humility is a fitting garb for the believer, and in many circles it has become the monarch of all virtues. It is entirely a Christian virtue; a virtue that commanded new wordings as they coincided with the modified views of the individuals who were diligently practicing it at that time. Today, as our views change regarding theology and the world that surrounds us, we also must humble ourselves in order to clear our vision to that which may become a new revelation in Christian thought and expression. As new teachings and contexts evolve through time and experience, we need to forget the weaknesses that are inherent within our human natures and gird ourselves with Christlike humility. Modesty is more than knowledge, feeling, or obedience to moral law, it is life itself. For it is in humility that we establish right relations between our soul and God and when these relations are right, we open the door for new Christian possibility. With new viewpoints searching for expression, it must be realized that they will never be wholly satisfied with insufficient measures of self-sacrifice or arrogant gratification. It is only when we approach these viewpoints with humble garb that we will be able to see these movements in the splendor of their time.

God can’t.  Not a usual thought when thinking about God.  God can’t or God chooses not to.  I have always fallen along the line of God choosing not to.  But the more I think about who God is, the more I realize who God does disqualify him from doing certain things.  God can’t lie.  If he could that would change who he is.  It is a hard pill to swallow.  The thought of God not being able to do something.  A lot of people would see that as a weakness.  People have to be willing to see outside the box but, if open then the possibilities are endless.

As some have already pointed out, there are interesting implications to this line of thinking (what God can and can’t do) when it comes to the Son.  Jesus was obedient to the Father unto death.  This we cannot deny.  The question then becomes—did He have a choice?  If Jesus is God then He cannot be tempted to disobey.  If He is “man” then He would be contained/immersed/trapped inside freewill (thus susceptible to temptation) by virtue of God’s love nature.  Christianity considers Christ to be both God and man—one commentator (certainly more) noted that Jesus was God as man.  If God took on flesh, would that allow Him to betray His nature? 

It seems to me that our good and necessary attempts to define God usually create as many questions as answers.  Our definitions, because they are ours, are imperfect—and I do not see a way out of this condition at the present.  Yet, I once heard a pastor say that when you find a “supposed” contradiction in the Bible, it is an opportunity to learn something fascinating about God.  I took this to mean that were we find incongruities, we are in for a special discovery.  Related to this is my brief study of deconstructive theology, which reinforced to me that truth about God is often found in the paradox.  Faith is sometimes required to see how two seemingly contradictory things can be true.  Faith, of course, trusts in a God who can become flesh and remain love. 

Thanks for the very informative article, Dr. Oord.

Jason Higgins

I most appreciated the presentation of this blog, and most importantly, how it’s language gently lifted the ownership of the nature of God back to God. This may seem to be a simple statement, but among the contemplative religious, it is an imperative reality.  I am uncertain if at this point in my theology, that I can affirm or deny that God “is” anything other than God. As I have experienced God in the intimacy of prayer, reflection and adoration, He has always met me exactly where I am and with perfect love.  The importance of the intersection is not only that God met me in relationship, but that He invested love persistently and consistently.  Above all notions of what I have come to believe about God and even those things which I have altered because of later experiences and intimations with Him and His Holy Spirit, I concur that His love is not always, from the perspective of human definition and expectation, kind.  Instead, God, being God, permits Himself to be God and to love exactly as He intends.  How God loves us, that is, the manifestation of His love is accurate and unfailing as it arise from perfection in holiness.  Naturally, as Dr. Oord’s post includes, it is necessary to discuss the nature of God.  But, however we may dialogue about God, the nature of God and His love must be held above definition and assumption. For me, God’s love exists beyond the concrete and, despite the manifestation, our joy must rise from a place of faith.  Faith permits joy as it affirms that however God has shown His love that it is love exibited perfectly, let it be in the blessings of suffering or prosperity of spirit.

I’m with you on this. I don’t believe that God has total control. I try to avoid “God’s plan” language because many times in scripture we see “God’s plan” change…the Ark, just to name one.  To say that God is in total control is to say that God molests little girls, that God rapes boys and women, that God kills, etc.  On the converse, it’s also to say that God gave me the winning lotto numbers or other great things we would like to attribute to someone with total control.  I think we like the idea of total control becuase it absolves us from responsibility.  If someone starves to death, well that must of been God’s will. If we destroy someone through words, well, it’s just what God had me say.  The idea of love comes with responsbility to it and often we look to anything to not have to claim responsbility for our actions. 

Sharon

You question brings to mind Matthew 5:45 “...for He causes His sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous.” God can do all He chooses to do. He can’t, cannot do that thing which is contrary to Himself. I’m a parent and I love my children in spite of what they do. I can’t stop loving them but I allow them freedom to choose right or wrong always preferring they choose right. God’s loving nature allows us to choose, evil however allow the opportunity to step back and it controls the will.

God is so much larger than we can comprehend and I understand His “can’t” makes a way for my “can.”

Matthew 19:22
When the young man heard this, he went away sad, because he had great wealth.

Jesus didn’t run after the rich, young ruler and say, “Wait!  Wait, come back!  Let’s work something out.” He let him walk away. 

Until reading your blog, I’ve never thought that allowing the rich, young ruler to walk away was an act of love.  And, I have never thought that God couldn’t stop the young ruler from walking away.

Restraining oneself from imposing one’s own desires or plans on another is indeed a great act of love.  This really helps me to reconcile God’s inaction when confronted by evil. Because he has given humanity the freedom to choose, he has limited himself. As you said, it goes against his very nature.

In the words from the book Jonathan Livingston Seagull, “If you love something set it free.  If it comes back to you, it is yours; if it doesn’t, it never was.”  God desires our love.  But, a love that is coerced is no love at all.

I like how this topic is explained here. It is a compelling line of thinking. I have found myself puzzling over what people say in church lately because of this thought process of the things God can’t do.
I noted some people in the conversation puzzling over the thought that God cannot be tempted and carrying that over to the person of Christ. I saw the possible line of thinking myself when I read that statement but I find the humanness of Christ a compelling reason that, in fact, Christ could be tempted.

Here is something to think about:

There is genuine evil in the world.
    -Defined as an event or action that makes the universe worse then what it might have been.

God granted freedom to creatures which means that these creatures would be capable of doing genuine evil.
Is it logical to say that because God allowed evil to happen it made the world worse.
The world would be better off if their was no evil.
Genuine evil makes the world worse. Without genuine evil it would be better.
So God, did a genuine evil thing when he gave freedom to creatures because it made the world worse because those creatures are capable of doing genuine evil.

The “solution” you present to the problem of evil is totally foreign to me. I grew up that God could do everything and he could stop evil, but he didn’t always. The “the mystery card” as you call it professor, came out, so I was never given a real strong answer Biblically about why God does or doesn’t, during certain situations, stop evil from occurring.

What you suggest makes sense to me from my own personal experiences regarding evil in this world. Relatively speaking, compared to some, I haven’t experienced evil as much as others I know have and because one of my Spiritual gifts is compassion, I have always wondered why some people’s lives have been filled with evil and others have not.

Thanks for bringing this to light!

I really appreciate that you begin this speculation by saying that theology always contains some mystery. I believe that many Christians attempt to force a certain theological belief as factual which really only serves to further divide the Church.

I really appreciate the statement you are making here. I had never thought about the fact that we greatly appreciate God’s limitations when it comes to certain attributes and not others. I hope that more Christians can open their minds to what you are suggesting and at the very least enter into dialogue about it.

Dr. Oord,
  This idea of God not being able to do something is a challenging one for me. It has been engrained in my head since I started attending church that God can do all things and I can do everything through Christ, who gives me strength. If God cant do all things than now I have to think about all the things I cant do. But I appreciate this blog and I am open to a new ideas to process through.

I really enjoyed this blog. I agree that we should present hypotheses about the nature of God. If we are limited to not defining any qualities of the nature of God because we are finite creatures, then what is the point of God revealing God’s self to humanity? I think that your Biblical support is very sufficient in identifying specific qualities of God’s nature that God has revealed to humanity.

I also really like what you wrote about God not being able to do something. I agree that God cannot do things that are against God’s very essence. Since God is love, God cannot do things that are unloving. Many of the common aspects that we say God cannot do are insignificant, but God not being able to do things unloving is really significant in the way we view God. My question is what implications does this concept have since humanity can do things unloving and sin? Humanity can do things God cannot do? Is this a bigger issue than saying God cannot do something?

I thoroughly agree with what John Wesley states on this matter. I think that this is foundational for what I believe when God created creatures God gave free will to those creatures. When God made that decision God would not go back and alter that decision because God can’t return to a prior point in history just to change a decision. This cannot is the one that I subscribe to and I think that it explains evil the best. I understand that this undercuts a lot of the omnipotent views of God but then again the whole power idea seems to me to be more human rather than biblical.

I do believe there is mystery when discussing God’s nature. I do not believe we are in the dark though. I do believe that God is a loving god. He is in relationship with creation and therefore affected by creation. The Bible affirms this in the flood story, “The LORD was grieved that he had made man on the earth, and his heart was filled with pain” Genesis 6:6.  The world was so evil that God washed it violently away.  Maybe God cannot stop evil because God gave us free will; or maybe He just cannot stop evil. I believe that there is evil in the world but I am not sure God’s role with evil.

I truly appreciate the thoughtful work you have put into this blog and the many challenging thoughts.  These are the kind of things people bring up in a serious Sunday School class and I have to say I really do not have an answer.  I will agree to the things that God cannot do.  I would agree with the person who made the first comment about how this affects Jesus and his time here on earth, but I think that is for another blog.  Resolving the world of evil and all the suffering is something God will not do because of God’s choice to give us freewill.  That would probably fall into the “he cannot deny himself” category but I still feel it is more of a choice on the part of God just as it is a choice on the part of us as parents not to protect our children from all the suffering and evil in the world.  Could this possible come into the idea that God will not allow any temptation to come upon us that we cannot stand, but will make a way of escape (I Corin 10:13)God does not eliminate the pain or suffering, but help’s God children in and through it when we ask.  Just some thoughts.  Would still like to hear more about the Jesus question of could he sin.

With respect to Professor Middleton, I tend to agree with you in thinking the distinction between ‘can’t’ and ‘won’t’ is an important one, especially in dealing with the culpability or responsibility of God in the issue of evil.

There seem to be a lot of people in the pews of the church today that are quite uncomfortable with this issue of ‘can’t’ being pinned on God. It is simpler to conceive of God as the all-knowing, all-powerful, ever-present but these traditional constructs seem to fall short. I agree that there is Biblical support to the idea that God can’t do some things. Unlike many genuine Christ-followers, this does not cause a crisis in my view of who God is. Greater crises are caused by an inconsistent description of God or a description where God makes arbitrary decisions to not intervene when evil is immanent.

I also wonder what, if any, distinction people might sometimes make between evil and suffering perpetrated by the agency of an individual as opposed to the suffering cause by a natural disaster, such as the earthquake referenced in your post. Perhaps there is no difference as agency might also be given to all of creation, not just human beings and, as such, also has a ‘will’ of it’s own that is free as well.

Blessings!

I really thought your blog was very beneficial to me. You stated, “Finite minds should not pretend to grasp entirely the essence of an infinite God.” I think this one sentence says it all. I often wonder how humanity thinks they can grasp who God really is. For instance, when I think of God being holy, I really can’t begin to understand what pure holiness is. I can understand what I’ve read and learned from others and I can understand what I perceive but God’s holiness is way beyond my understanding so how can I in my finite mind even try to figure out God’s holiness. You also state, “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.” I absolutely agree with your statement and it’s something I’ve always felt.

Just mulling over some thoughts here, regarding Prof. Oord’s question, “Should we say God CAN’T do some things?”  Wouldn’t it better to ask, “Is God always ABLE to act in ways that are consistent with His character?”  In other words, does God have the where-with-all, the power, the ability to always act in love?  To me, this restores the fullness of what acting in love is.  My thinking is that if you take away the ability to choose not to love, then the significance of acting in love is diminished.  If someone chooses to serve another person, it is a very different idea than if someone is a slave that is forced to serve another person.  Can someone be ‘brave’ in the absence of having fear that needs to be overcome?  If there is no fear, is it really bravery when someone acts bravely?  If God CAN’T act without love, then how much does that truly embody the idea of loving someone?
God is able.  God is powerful.  Maybe it takes God’s power and ability to enable Him to always choose to love.  Love is not a gift if it is not freely chosen.  If we believe God has created us with free agency, why would we then strip Him of the very same free agency.  Is God supra-personal?  Does He embody all that we are - and more?  Maybe it is better to say, God has created us in His image with a creative ability that reflects His, and He continually works to restore us to the state of original design in which His creation moves and acts in perfect concert with Him.  It seems to me that evil manifests when creation does not move and flow in cooperative response with Him.  He does not super-cede our creative agency, but He is not absent from it either.  He continues to work to restore us to Himself and His divine order - one that is good.
Isn’t the ultimate proof of His love found in His choice to die for us to enable us to be restored to the state of His original design - where those who embrace this restored state will manifest His love, not evil?  Isn’t it our role to act in concert with Him, to be a blessing on the earth, and in His grace, spread this redemption message to the whole earth?

I agree that we should not pretend to fully grasp the nature and essence of God because our minds are finite and limited. However, I’m with you in that, just because we do not fully know everything about God (1 Cor. 13:12) does not mean that we cannot reasonably speculate or make claims based on Scripture (of course in a humble way).

The idea of God “can’t” or “won’t” do certain things really intrigued me and pushed my thinking to a new level. Although I’m inclined to agree that because of God’s nature he simply “cannot” do certain things such as lie, become evil. But I’m also inclined to ask, are there certain things that God chooses not to do (won’t) even though he may be able to such as intervening in situations in our lives, etc?

The list of things that God cannot do was not new to me. In fact, I can remember as a kid hearing an object lesson illustrating things that God cannot do, such as not tell a lie, be tempted by evil, or act contrary to his nature. What you’ve suggested in your blog is an idea much more difficult to embrace- the idea that God cannot prevent evil because it would cause him to violate the freedom of choice that he has endowed to his creation. Once we begin to raise the possibility that God is less than sovereign, we may manufacture a God who is supernatural but not divine.
  Having said that, we must take seriously the proposition God wants more than anything else to be in a transparent and integral relationship with us. In order for that to happen, humans must have the absolute freedom to reach out to God through Christ and declare him Lord and Savior on our own accord or, choose instead, to follow a path of sin and separation. Such freedom leads to a relationship based on transparency and integrity. Certainly, Jesus did not manipulate people with whom he ministered in order to get a desired result. Instead, Jesus honored them with complete freedom…and evil had its way with him, at least to the point of his death on the cross. God cannot compromise his character and love, but that is strong evidence for, rather than against, the concept that God cannot prevent evil until the day of choosing or rejecting his Son comes to an end.

I was ready to be in full disagreement with your statement ‘God can’t’ but I’m actually in agreement with what you are saying.  I agree with you that God does not operate through controlling others but is driven by love.  To be honest, I don’t see the big issue with ‘God won’t’ and ‘God can’t.’  I know that it is important but to me it does not change the fact that God is love and it is love that causes God to act.

“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.”

A bishop once said of Christian Perfection,
‘Why, Mr. Wesley, if this is what you mean by perfection, who can be against it?’  I echo the sentiment.  I have been one of the first to have a problem with you saying that God can’t as an explanation of the problem of human suffering.  However, when you explain it like that, I must say that I think I believe the same thing.  I think in the discussion at one point this course, I talked about can’t and wouldn’t regarding his nature.  However, I think I must agree with you now that you’ve explained it.

Ok, just for fun:  I believe the correct term for 671 in one is hexahecatoheptacontamonoiune.  (We use Greek prefixes in chemistry, but rarely go this high – but I think this is close.)  As for the above posting, I focused in on the concept that God does not or cannot undo what He has established.  First, a slight detour…it always ‘bothered’ me that when King Darius signed the decree that anyone who did not bow to him would be thrown in the lion’s den.  After all, he was King, could he not undo what he wanted to.  While reading this blog, I realized that if a king is permitted to decide or ‘undecide’ two things can happen.  First, there could be little to no thought in making decrees if they could always be undone.  Second, much would be done or undone in a ‘willy nilly’ way based on emotion.  Back to God, if we assume God is all knowing, then to make a decision that was in error and then undo it says something about a problem with this assumption.  Taking back decisions that may impact someone or something means favoritism at the least.  What would it mean if God ‘took back’ a gift or undid a deed?  Rather than a flood, perhaps He would have simply undone what had been done.  Control-alt-delete?

I have to admit that I have enjoyed the past two day’s blog readings.  They have been lighter and easy to digest.  Although I had a couple of points that I disagreed with yesterday, I don’t have that issue today.  I agree with the assertions and the support material provided.  It seems sound theology to say God can’t and the Bible says so.  You can’t ignore the Scriptures that say God cannot.

I do have some study to do on His prevention of genuine evil.  I hadn’t thought of my views as taking both sides or having it both ways with regard to the mystery of God.  In this area, I am thinking of how God’s sovereignty affects not having complete control and I am not seeing anything clearly yet.

What I particularly key on in your blog is the way all of this puts “power,” as we commonly understand it, on it’s head. I think we can say God cannot act in power- the world’s definition of power, that is. God exerts love, and it shows our concept of power to be a lie- and God cannot lie! It is really all summed up in the phrase that God cannot contradict Godself. However, we do need to be open to genuine mystery and humility in the midst of this all. We must always be willing to adjust our ways of speaking about God- as Peter Rollins basically put it in How (Not) to Speak of God (and this is a paraphrase): “We can never speak of God, but it’s something we must never stop doing.”

God put us on this earth and I believe he gave us freewill. It is our choice to enact bad behavior that hurts others, and I believe that God tries to stop it through love, but not through force. If the world was perfect then faith would be easy, and we could not earn our way to heaven through Jesus.

I think God does contain qualities of human nature.  I think the problem arises when we try to describe Him and His qualities in an exact manner.  I believe the mystery of His being comes from the unknowing extent and potential of these characteristics; things which we, as humans, are incapable of understanding.  But of all His characteristics, I believe love is His biggest trait that is never ending and unchanging.

As a person, I understand that my speculations and ideas concerning God’s nature are not always going to be accurate or complete. However, I do think that we should be able to make some hypotheses about God’s nature based on the information given to us in His word, the Bible. I loved the examples given within this blog, I think they did a great job to fully describe and show where we can get trustworthy information on how to better understand God and how He works in our everyday lives.
As huge disaster continue to hit various part of the world, I realize that tough questions come up about whether God could or could not have prevented the tradgey from occuring, however, I do believe God allows us to work with our own free will and I believe this is a truly loving and powerful act in and of itself.

This article brought up a lot of questions and really made me think. I have always believed that God created as to have freewill, and he let’s us decided what to do with our lives. I have never considered God associated with genuine evil. I have heard countless times, “why did God let that happen?” To me I have always been of the understanding that God didnt let that happen, we as humans did.when i hear of natural disasters happening, its always just been natural, something that is supposed to happen. why blame God? its horrible yes, but with what i believe, I just have to trust it’s what he intended and that my God wouldnt hurt his creation out of spite.  I think it is impossible to fully know the magnitude of God.

I have to say first of all that I have been sorting this out with myself since I took theology 2100, I think that as a part of God being all loving he gives humans the freedom to make whatever choices, and I think that through that we get the genuine evil that you are talking about. However, I never thought about as if God CAN’T intervene. Now that I am thinking about it, I guess that is the only way that the being all loving and allowing freedom to humans makes complete sense… because if God could intervene and doesn’t then it would no longer make sense. I think that this very well could mean that God CAN’T do some things. It isn’t something I am for sure on yet but it seems that this would have to be true to support my orginal thought.

This blog brought up some challenging ideas.  The idea that God CAN’T do somethings is a challenging one.  Obviously the examples like, God can’t lie and others make sense and are accepted readily.  But when you get to the problem of evil and God not preventing evil is where it gets sticky.  You get into which is more loving, having freedom or preventing harm.  And there isn’t a good answer really in my thinking.

I get weary of the arguments between different denominations about the attributes of God. I’ve witnessed some really heated discussions about it between some of my peers. I agree with what you said early on about being humble about any assumptions we make about the character of God keeping our hearts and minds open to any assumptions or speculations we may have about the character of God.

Part of the reason it is so hard for me to speculate about the essence of God is because I am fully aware that no one has a complete or correct answer without any doubt.  I am often in awe of how there is no possibility for our minds to grasp all that God is.  However, even though we cannot possibly completely understand, that does not mean that we should stop trying to learn.  As long as we operate with the knowledge that we may be completely wrong.  I am one of those who cringe when it is suggested that God cannot do something, but after reading this, it seems a little less alarming to me.

MH wrote:  “Reflect a minute on the absurdity of a universe where God constantly prevents all evil from occurring. Humans would never know anything but perfection,...”

Was that the case for God before creation?

As for God intervening to stop evil, I think sometimes he has.  Wasn’t it the case of peoples in the Old Testament that they were so wicked and evil, and raising their children to be wicked, that God decided to wipe them out?

This leads us to a tough discussion.  Does God sometimes have to make a choice between the lesser of two evils, just like we sometimes have to do?

In this case, God views the physical death of those wiped out to be better than spiritual death by wickedness.  That must be a tough decision.

I think you make a lot of good points in this article that, as far as I can discern, are supported by Scripture. It is very interesting and stimulating to investigate issues like what God can’t do.
I only wonder: what does God think about our attempts to understand Him, to pin Him down? I really like when Paul talks about the mystery of our faith, and the overall mysterious nature of our Father. I want to be known for my radical faith, not my genius. Where is the balance between worshiping God with our minds and with our hearts? Doesn’t God desire that we take him from the place of intellectual speculation and even fact and bring Him into practical, lived-out experience.
When should we stop discussing what “love” exactly is, and just start loving people. This sounds very plain, I know, but I am very simple minded sometimes and very much ok with it.  I don’t want to abandon the knowledge of the Holy, I just don’t want to go overboard.
I realize that this has nothing to do with the actual post, but is something that has been on my mind recently.

I really like what you said in that we should always be ready to modify our views. We as humans are always learning, and by learning we are able to think in a new light. I had never really thought about the difference between what God is able to do and what God is not capable of doing. I also agree that as humans, we are given the opportunity to love. But if God is love, then I do not think that is a choice but rather is nature and God cannot do otherwise. I believe that there is a point in religion that we aren’t supposed to know or to understand. We do know in part and are not capable of fully grasping the essence of an infinite God.

I have read those verses in the Bible that mention things that God can’t do. I have also often heard (and have said myself!) that God can do anything. I guess I have never really processed how those two things don’t exactly correlate. God cannot deny His nature, but I still believe He is capable of doing most things. But then, why wouldn’t He intervene when evil occurs? Why would He LET evil happen? In my understanding, God loves us so much that He gave us free will. It is OUR choices that create evil. God doesn’t want to see us suffering anymore than we want to suffer. In fact, I think that God is suffering right along with us. His nature of love makes Him hurt whenever we hurt, but He also desires to give us a choice and thus evil still happens. The question for me would be, how do ‘miracles’ fit into this? Why would God seemingly intervene in some instances and not in others?

This is a very interesting topic. Like many others, i have never thought of what God can do and what He chooses to do. He is beyond our understanding and His ways are not ours. So perhaps we have misinterpreted scriptures or maybe “they” are right, that God also has limits. I personally do not know. I would love to believe that God has no limits because as I have seen Him in my life; He has acted with power beyond comprehension. But so what if He has limits? do we abandon Him or do we continue in our ways of love? I think either way, God is the only true way, regardless of limits and all things that His own creation wants to find wrong with Him.

This article is very interesting. I understand where you are coming from and you have plenty of evidence that I would have never thought of myself. The Bible does put limitations on what God can do, but at the same time, I cannot convince myself that God’s nature of love would include the issue of evil in which God would allow evil to be present in our lives. We are commanded to love like God loves, and committing evil acts, are not acts of love, so I don’t understand God does not step in and teach us how to love like we ought to when it comes to the problems of evil. It is so hard for me to understand how God’s nature limits the intervention of evil in this world.

To me it seems that if we were unable to speculate about who God is, we would be blinding ourselves to his divine revelation. It would seem difficult for me to believe and trust in a God whose characteristics I deliberately leave as a mystery. God indeed is mysterious, and I can’t assume that everything I believe about God is absolutely true, but I know for certain that I can’t ignore the ways that he has revealed himself through scripture, through history, and even in my own life. I think that it is hard enough as it is to have enough faith in him to have a genuine relationship, but it would be much more difficult if we had no clue to what his nature is.

This concept that God “Can’t” do something does have support. It makes sense in my mind that God can’t contradict His Nature. I also believe as Dr. Oord stated above that we should come in humility when describing God’s nature. I view God’s nature as something three-dimensional, where we as humans can only see two dimensions. What I mean by this is that God’s nature is complex, deep, and rich. It will take us all of eternity to learn God’s nature (if eternity is even long enough). I do agree that God cannot contradict His nature, but we need to come in humility as to knowing what His nature is.

God and Theology is not something we can say we have all figured out. God is not some mathematical problem with a definite answer that we can think about and in a couple hours say ok well I understand God now. However I do affirm that we should still contemplate and try our best to describe God’s nature. I have never thought that God had limits on what God can and cannot do. When I first came across that idea my initial feeling was that God can do anything and that God chooses not to do evil or lie. After looking through the verses you cited and hearing your argument I too feel that it is bad to believe God can’t do some things.  God’s inability to commit evil or not love is not mind blowing after some reflection because it makes sense that God cannot deny himself.

“There is always a role for mystery in theology.” This line caught my attention right away. It is one that I definitely agree with. Likewise it follows that this is where a lot of the differences and disagreements are hidden amongst believers. Overall it seems to me that being able to speculate about God’s nature and willing to change our views would help us grow in faith. Also, I didn’t realize that there were Bible verses specifically saying what God cannot do. I found this interesting and it pushed me to think more even though I do think that God is able to choose to do many different things that we don’t fully comprehend. God would even be able to choose to limit himself.

It is different to think that God is incapable of anything. For me I grew up believing God can do all things. So I wonder if God was capable of evil but He chooses to be good and holy, does that make Him any different then if He was holy and incapable of being otherwise? Also I immediately thought of Jesus time on earth. If jesus truly became a human and experienced the world as we do, He must have experienced evil and been tempted by it. And if Jesus is capable of evil, is not God also?

The idea that God cannot prevent certain evils is much easier for me to accept than the concept of a God that can stop the occurrence of evil events and chooses not to. Free will is vital in this argument, noting that God cannot impinge on someone’s free will to prevent evil. I think it is important that you also bring up Matthew 19:26, “with God all things are possible.” I emphasize “with” as the key term in this verse. God is omnipotent, but He did grant us free will. He can do all things if we are with God. God cannot change our hearts unless we are accepting of God. This helps bring peace to my struggle to solve the problem of evil for myself.