God Can’t!—and the Bible Says So

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”?

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.

Thanks for this thought provoking post.

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

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!

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!

Tom:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

My previous comment accidentally got cut short!

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

Dr. Oord,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks for this article.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

There is a lot of comfort that can be taken from a God who ‘cannot’ do certain things. I take comfort in the notion that God is immortal (He cannot die) How awful would it be if he could and did! He couldn’t hear or answer our prayers. I take comfort in the fact that God cannot lie- Wouldn’t it be awful if we died and were being judged before God and He says “J/K I lied when I said I loved you- no go to Hell!” It is comforting to know that God isn’t a hypocrite, and doesn’t break the commandments that he issues, that he can’t sin. (he cannot contradict himself). To say that God is good and does good is to say that He is not evil and cannot do evil. Think about it- what is the consequence of sin (committing evil)? Death. God cannot die! Therefore he cannot commit evil. He can’t even command us to do something that isn’t evil. God is omniscient- and knows how to walk the razors edge of good. And we are commanded to be perfect like him- Matthew 5:48. Ponder that one. In the Book of the Mormons there is a quote- “God would cease to be God” it says it a few times- I wonder if that is what happens when God does things he ‘doesn’t want to do or ‘cannot’ do. Muslims assert that Allah can literally do anything that he want do to. Essentially that he can change the rules according to his fancy. All interesting view points. Nice article- always good not to stick your head in the sand when it reason gets a little choppy. Better yet- I wish we could ask and receive answers from God on the matter and receive them.

Tom,

As I was reading this blog post, I had a strange déjà vu’ moment! I thought I had read this before and sure enough I added a comment way back in November 2014! After re-reading my comments, my position has not changed a great deal, although I do have better understanding of the issues at hand. You open up discussing the flawed view that we should never question or try form ideas concerning God’s nature. Personally, I believe this is one of the reasons that we have an intellect, in order to try to understand God and our universe better. If God is a relational God, then would God not want us to know God better? After all, this is an essential part of relationship building in my mind.

Initially, when the idea that there were things that God could not do was introduced to me, I was strongly opposed to thinking that there was anything that God could not do. However, with scripture as our guide and experience as our teacher, we are left no real alterative. The Bible states there are things God cannot do, and if we are going to believe that God is a loving God, preventing genuine evil is one of those things. I do not take issue with this because it is the most plausible explanation as to why genuine evil exists in the world today.

Thanks for this thought provoking work!
Buford

I freely accept the notion that God CANNOT do some things. I think the Scriptures are clear on that. However, what I have trouble with is the idea that in God’s list of Can’t are a few things that we see him do in Scriptures. The miraculous. The supernatural. The things that seem to break the laws of nature, or even the free will of people. (The hardening of Pharaoh’s heart for example) If we say that God needs to have some kind of help, ours or nature or luck, when it comes to miracles, than our God is not quite as powerful as Scriptures make him out to be.

Tom. Thanks so much for the thoughts here. I really appreciate the scripture references that frame this discussion. I’ll admit, in the beginning as I started sifting through this issue, I found the idea that God can’t do things a bit unsettling. What I realized, however, was that my idea of God was built upon a premise of power. If we believe that Christ is the fullest expression of God, all things, including power, has to be redefined in the story of His life, death, and resurrection. Ultimately, in Jesus, we see a God of love who revealed His power by emptying Himself to death on a cross! If we begin our understanding of His omnipotence with love, and not power, which makes sense in light of Christ, what God can and can’t do takes on a whole new meaning!

As I read through this article (like Buford above, now that I’ve come to the end of the piece I have a memory of reading and commenting here before), I am again struck by the fact that the reasoning of this argument is effective and coherent. I agree with Tom that Scripture clearly testifies to the things that God can and cannot do, and that it is acceptable for us to pursue and hypothesize about characteristics of God within both Scripture and nature. Tom’s argument is clearly made out of Scripture and is sourced within an understanding and acceptance of its teachings.

However, I wonder if there might be some reason to pursue a deeper level of nuance in Scripture with relation to those things that God cannot do. In the post, Tom discusses a passage in which Jesus describes that with God “all things are possible,” and then uses contextual evidence from that passage to argue that Jesus is primarily talking about how salvation is possible for all people. I wonder if doing similar critical work related to the “cannots” of Scripture would yield more nuanced results for the Biblical testimony to this theory of God’s noncontrolling nature.

Oord said, “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.” I’ve realized that much of the dialogue I’ve had over the years with people of faith can easily morph into assuming that the things we believe are definite. I look back at the ways I held my beliefs in earlier years and grimace, not because I believe different things now, but because I’m sure the way I held my beliefs wounded those who were in dialogue with me. The people in the Church holding any of our beliefs in pride or arrogance is the reason we’ve earned ourselves such a closed-minded reputation outside the Church. However, great progress is made when, even within our own conversations, are able to see how the mainstream accepted viewpoints have changed over time. Growing, changing, and learning should be part of a healthy journey of faith. Therefore, let’s model and teach others how to engage these topics in humility.

I’m totally on board with Godself causing Godself to not be able to do some things. Great.

This is a great thought and a wonderful explanation of the limitations of God. The only concern I am left with come from Old Testament scripture where people would certainly testify to an unloving God when they were being wiped out as the Hebrews took the Holy Land that had been promised to them. How do we work with that? Are we not all part of creation. God revealed himself through the Hebrews, but was that loving to others? My other “sticking point” is that the evil or suffering of the world seems so inequitable. We are fortunate to be born in a country that has not been savaged by war, others are not so fortunate and that is not always easy to deal with. I do believe that we are all offered the deliverance of eternal life, but that does not explain why some seem to win a lottery of sorts, while others suffer.

Tom,

First I would say I am always encouraged when scripture is used to prove a theological point these days. I am with you there. Yet I think it is also important to ask “God can’t what?”. It is very clear that God can’t do those things that are a contradiction to himself. Yet when it comes to God having power when it is ticklish for us to understand it seems to me to say God can’t is either the easy way out, or the way that we can fit it into a particular framework of logic. The problem to me lies in the fact that scripture seems just as clear that God has the power to step into situations and accomplish his will. I recognize this causes us all kinds of problems if we are analyzing God, but that seems an difficult prospect. Personally I am more comfortable with saying “God just doesn’t”, and we may not always know the reason why. And if he does then it seems to me that in his divine knowledge his intervention would create a better situation in that particular issue.

The idea that God cannot may rub people the wrong way at first, but when you take the time and walk them through examples as Dr. Oord does, then it becomes easy to see that there are things that God cannot do such as lie. When framing an argument with this idea that God cannot do something that is against God’s nature allows us to tackle the issue of evil through the idea that we are free to make our own decisions be it good or evil. This is not a bullet proof hypothesis, but acknowledging this reminds us that we cannot know completely the nature of God. Understanding limitations allows us to be confident enough in our thinking, but flexible enough to adjust as required. It comes down to thoughtful reflection on what we understand to be God’s nature through our understanding of the Word. Additionally, constructive dialogue with other believers allows us to think through these tough topics to come to a place where we feel comfortable and understand what we believe and why.

This conversation draws my mind to Romans 8:28, “And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose.” I think that God can’t be actively working to bring evil into the world because that would not be bringing about good for those who love God and really would not be bringing about his purpose in a manner that would be conducive to wooing the bride to God’s self. God would in a way become a terrorist if he were bringing about evil occurrences to bring about God’s plan. God would be acting upon the world to bring pain to cause change whereas I think God has given us the liberty, that Oord points out in Wesley’s thoughts so that we might explore our relationship with God and discover salvation. God cannot be actively working against relationship and for it and because scriptures seem to point towards God wanting us to be in healthy relationship with God I don’t think God is a terrorist.

I don’t have it all figured out, either. I do believe, as you mention, “God cannot not love.” No matter what I bring to the relationship, God full on loves me. It’s been a constant theme throughout our journey together. God’s nature is love, and every other dimension of our relationship stems from this characteristic.

When we talk about God being limited and having certain attributes that are not in God’s control, it is not a negative concept as some suppose. It’s actually quite positive and works in our favor. It brings me comfort to know that God can’t lie, be tempted or deny himself. God can’t be a part of evil because God is love, and God’s love has never failed. If it had failed, evil would then be a possibility. Understanding God can’t prevent evil gives me great hope, and helps me process some of the unanswered questions I have about tragedy and suffering in my own life and in the world.

Calling into question whether God can’t or won’t do things is very important. Many people, like Dr. Oord said, are not at a place they can comfortably say that God “cannot” do things. However, I think its important to look at this possibly. If God is unable to do something, it provides a theology that we can be more at peace with accepting. If we look at the presence of evil as an example, we can see the necessity for a distinction between “won’t” and “can’t.” Let us look at an example, such as that of the death (by murder) of a family member. Would we rather have a God who won’t help, calling into question his love, or a God who can’t? If God won’t help or intervene to prevent the murder of our family members, how can he be loving? How can we love a God who won’t help us when we need God? How can we continue to preserve our faith if he doesn’t love? However, the whole aspect of this changes when we realize or elicit that God cannot do anything to prevent that evil in your life. This doesn’t call into question his love, but rather his power. Now, some may have a problem with this (as myself), but I’d rather a God lacking power to change, then a God who chooses not to.

I agree with the article’s premise that we should speculate about God’s nature. Simply describing how God has acted in history would not be applicable today, which is the reason we interpret these acts and give meaning to them. The act of interpretation is not so airtight; it requires some degree of speculation. And as the article shows, the Bible makes many claims about God’s nature, and I believe these claims are necessary for us to relate to God. While there is always room for mystery in theology, there must also be some semblance of clarity as well.

I actually find great comfort in the idea of “God can’t.” I specifically recall being touched while reading the 2 Timothy 2:13 passage in my own devotion time: “If we are faithless, He remains faithful, for He cannot deny Himself.” The reality that God cannot help but be faithful—as opposed to will not—elevates God in my perspective, as it eliminates all possibility of God ever being faithless. God may be greater in the “God cannot” perspective than that of the “God will not.”

Dr. Oord,
The concept of placing the words “God” and “cannot” in the same sentence can be quite off-putting for many people, so I wanted to begin by thanking you for the gracious way you covered the topic. It was an enjoyable read!
I agree that if God simply chooses not to intervene there is still a problem of evil. When atrocities such as the Holocaust occur, was God sitting back and saying “well, I could intervene but gave humans free will, so I guess I won’t?” The Church often uses the metaphor of God as a parental figure, and especially while one’s child is younger, although they have free will to make their own decisions, a good parent will occasionally jump in and override the child’s choice for the betterment of everyone. If this is our view of God and creation, then there have been points in history when God was not a particularly good parent to humanity.
However, there also comes a point in the life of the child where a parent cannot overpower the child’s free will; it is simply impossible. Part of the danger of creating new life is that it truly is NEW life. After having read this week’s readings, this blog post, and the comments attached to it, I am coming to the understanding of how creation in itself was a self-limiting act by God. Part of creating out of love is a natural limiting of one’s power over the new creation. In choosing to lovingly give life to creation, God also chose to limit God’s own power over that creation. To use your language, what could have been viewed as a “won’t” heading into the act of creation became a “can’t” once free will beings entered the world.
So, yes, those who are unsettled by limiting God beyond a “won’t” statement, technically God made a choice not to interfere with the free will of creation. However, that choice was made eons ago, at the birth of creation, to the point that now we can say God’s “won’t,” in participation with the current creation is a “can’t.”

On the whole, scripture supports the view that there are things in which God cannot do. God has a certain nature and He cannot go against that nature. If God is love, then He cannot hate. Where most people would want to push back is that these examples of “God cannot” do not reference His power, at least in scripture and Christian tradition.
What I wonder about is the use of “cannot”. I cannot fly (without an airplane) because I do not have wings. I also cannot run a full marathon without stopping to walk. Yet, there is a profound difference between the two. It is impossible for me to grow wings to fly. It is possible for me to train myself to run a full marathon, but only if I dramatically change my life.
Perhaps there are things that God cannot do, not because it is technically impossible for Him, but because He grants creatures freedom out of His love. To do those things which God cannot do would require God to dramatically change who He is. While that is technically possible, we can trust that God will remain loving and powerful.

I really appreciated reading this blog entry. It supports and enriches much of my understanding of God’s nature, and I believe that the points that Dr. Oord makes here are very well supported by Scripture. We don’t know, can’t know everything about God in this mortal state. We are finite, and God is infinite. I believe that knowledge and truth are dispensed as needed by the human race, and can even be taken away for periods of time to be dispensed again at some appointed time. I believe that all pertinent information and knowledge of God, that is, pertinent to us at this point in history, is available; we just have to know where and how to seek it.

God created the physical world, and works within both the physical and metaphysical/spiritual world and the rules that pertain to both. As such, there are limitations that are self-imposed by God, and then there are things that God cannot due, and that is due to aspects of the nature of God’s justice and love.
Can God create a rock too big for Him to lift? That’s an old riddle with no way out. If God cannot create such a rock, then God is not omnipotent. If God can create such a rock, then not being able to lift it means that God is not omnipotent. God can create a rock as big as the entire universe, if that’s what God wants to do, in which case God could lift that rock. That’s the answer to that, but the answer to whether God can stop loving us is no. God cannot do that.

Dr. Oord,

I think we are supposed to know God’s characteristics and that if we have questions, we should be free to ask each other and God Himself about them. The Bible is full of stories that teach us that God has been revealing Himself to us from the beginning of time, so I think God wants us to know who He is and what makes Him God. I found it interesting that in each of the examples you cited where the Bible says God couldn’t do something, they were all things that if He did them would make Him less Godly. As Wesley put it, “the Almighty himself cannot do this thing. He cannot thus contradict himself or undo what he has done.” That is the main point. God is God and therefore must do godly things.

When talking about what God CAN’T do all the passages that is quoted is saying God cannot be in Sin, cannot sin. I don’t know if I would go out and say that what God has created has limited God but actually that God cannot and will not bring Himself down to the low of sinning. If that makes any sense at all.
When it comes to what God won’t do, if He stopped every natural disaster then the World (Earth) would not be growing. Every child growing up has growing pains at least once a parent cannot prevent that from happening but they can be there for them. I don’t think God likes evil being upon His people, but there has always been evil and until the last day here on Earth there will always be evil but we know that God wins. So to say God can’t and won’t I don’t think is right.
Goes back to our free will on if we are going to give into the evil or live for God.

Tom, thanks for your work here. The can’t vs. won’t argument has been an area of reflection for me as of late. I believe you’ve said before that if both can’t and won’t are grounded in God’s nature, they are essentially the same thing. A practical difference is that to a victim of abuse or evil, the responses of God “won’t” and God “can’t” would be received differently. I would affirm that God cannot do certain things, based on God’s nature as essential kenosis. I don’t know “how far” I’m willing to take that right now, but I’m continuing to reflect on that.
I appreciate your emphasis on humility, yet still pursuing a framework by which we can work from as we formulate our theology.

“A number of theologians are comfortable saying God voluntarily chooses not to act in certain ways. God voluntarily self-limits, creates space for creation, and gives creatures freedom…” (Oord)

I agree with this statement. However, I disagree with saying that because God self-limits Himself that He cannot prevent evil. I believe that there are at least several instances recorded in the Bible in which God is fighting against evil. One of which is found in the book of Daniel.
Daniel 10:12-13
“Then he said to me, “Do not be afraid, Daniel, for from the first day that you set your heart on understanding this and on humbling yourself before your God, your words were heard, and I have come in response to your words. “But the prince of the kingdom of Persia was withstanding me for twenty-one days; then behold, Michael, one of the chief princes, came to help me, for I had been left there with the kings of Persia.”’

God fights our battles. Exodus 14:14 tells us that: “The LORD will fight for you, and you have only to be silent.”

Ephesians 6:10-13 states, Finally, be strong in the Lord and His mighty power. Put on the full armor of God, so that you can take your stand against the devil’s schemes. For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms. Therefore, put on the full armor of God, so that when the day of evil comes, you may be able to stand your ground, and after you have done everything, to stand.”

So, you see saying that God is powerless against evil is really not that simple. Our deliverer is calling; our deliverer is calling now. God delivers us from the grasp of the evil one. Shouldn’t we give all thanks and glory to Him. He is fighting our battles, even when we don’t know it.

When I think of God’s attributes, the one attribute of God that steps to the forefront for myself is God being powerful. As Christians we will sometimes based on our experiences with God, add the attributes that best suit our experiences with God. Dr. Oord makes excellent references, concerning the attributes of God along with the scriptures. As Christians in studying scripture, there is always an element of mystery concerning the Bible and its contents. The more we read and study the Bible, the closer we will become in gaining an understanding of the Bible, and who God is.
Dr. Oord makes a point that claims should not be made about God’s nature, and with this I understand this to mean no claims should be made about God, that are not within the Bible, or to simply not add to what is not true concerning the nature or attributes of God. I agree we will know in part but overall, we will learn and know what God’s nature and attributes are as Christians.

Tom, I appreciated you addressing the importance of humility and recognizing the place of mystery in our thoughts and words about God’s nature. I also was glad to see you grounding your discussion within the concept of free agency and shifting the conceptual focus from a God of control to a God of love. As we wrestle with our preconceived notions of God’s nature in light of new perspectives, it is best to do so within a Biblical framework, which I also appreciated in your approach here.

One thing that struck me as I read was your reference to Paul’s statements about seeing darkly. This is one of my favorite passages of scripture for many reasons, chief among them the hope and trust implicit in the words that follow the “but then.” I had not considered that this could have an ongoing earthly fulfillment as well. In other words, just because we see “darkly” does not mean we will never see “less darkly” before that eventual “but then” finally arrives.

There are times where I have wanted to just say that “we should resist making any claims whatsoever about God’s nature.” It would be so much easier to think that God is completely not definable because we cannot be completely sure of who God is, outside of Scripture. We use Scripture, tradition, experience and reason to say that what we know about God comes from our senses and experiences as well as what we know about God in the Bible. I do believe that we know about God’s nature and it does aid in our understanding of how God works in the world. There is a chance that God’s nature does have an impact on the actions that God can take.

Once again, I am taken by what you have to say Dr. Oord. I am especially taken by your comments on “can’t vs. won’t.” I think it was the defining moment for me when you said, ” there’s a big difference between ‘ can’t and won’t.'” I think the word won’t is a strong word and it is often used in almost an aggressive manner and the word can’t seems to be a term that is used when someone desires to do something but it just isn’t possible or there is something that conflicts with your ability to do something. Can’t seems to be used in a loving nature, not an aggressive nature.
God wants to love humans and there are many scripture passages that support this loving nature.

Thank you Dr. Oord for sharing your thoughts on some tough subjects. Many times Christians, myself included, struggle think in new ways because it isn’t what we know through our tradition. This can get in the way of us allowing God to change our minds. I really love the section on the trinity vs 671. We don’t give those things a second thought because the Bible says that is who God is. I really love you switch the focus from what can’t do to what He must do. God must love because God is love. God can’t not love. IF He chose not to then He would choose evil, which He cannot be a part of. I’ve not completely come on board with this way of thinking but it is beginning to make more sense to me. I never want to be so stuck in my tradition that I can’t allow God to teach me new things even if they go against what I have always thought to be true.

God’s very nature is love and we are to love God. Certainly we do have finite minds and “we know in part” (1 Cor. 13:12). To know God is to grow in an ever deepening understanding of God’s nature.

“God Can’t” and the Bible says so is certainly true as the Scriptures outlined demonstrate. The existence of evil in the world is what calls into question for some, the very character of God as love. Jesus does reveal God in a way that shows God’s nature of love. It is God’s desire for humanity to emulate that love and to live a fulfilled life without sin.

Yet, we see “darkly” and don’t understand the full power that Jesus made available to humanity to fight the battle against sin. For we are not waging a battle against flesh and blood. The fight is against the principalities of darkness. Free-will is the inhibitor that prevents sin from being eradicated from our present world. God can’t contradict what was gifted in the form of free-will.

The Holy Spirit CAN through human cooperation, eradicate the demons of darkness. Deliverance is fully available

God can’t! It is at first a hard pill to swallow, but you ease the pain by your use of Scripture to make your point. God is love! It cannot be disputed. I agree it is also true what He creates He cannot un-create. God has given humankind free-will. Jumping in and changing things is not being free to make a choice—even if it is a bad one; if understanding this “God Can’t” helps one who may be struggling—Praise the Lord.
I still have a problem with those Scripture verses that show God jumping in and turning things around. Maybe the power of prayer is much more important than one might realize. I think to try to figure out God’s attributes is a part of one’s growth in Christ-likeness. It is one of the reasons God gave one a mind. Thanks for sharing the article it is helpful for all as one grows in faith.

WOW! God can’t! Not something I would have ever thought before reading your post! God can’t lie, can’t be tempted and cannot deny himself. If God is pure love, then He cannot make one of His children do anything! “Part of what it means for God to love others is that God never controls others entirely. God’s love always involves giving freedom to creatures. Because His nature is love, God cannot do otherwise.” Not sure this is the answer to the question why a baby dies in the womb, but for the topic of why good people are hurt at the hands of others, this is the best article I have ever read on the subject! Because God is love, he refuses to “control” those He loves. This will be truly helpful as I move forward in ministry!

Regarding the first commenter, Lori Wood, questioning about Jesus being God, God cannot be tempted, and Jesus was tempted, I believe this clearly shows that church fathers got it wrong–Jesus is not God because he was genuinely tempted. Plus, Revelation says Jesus overcame, which is only possible if he could have sinned.

Interesting insights, but I do find the argument weak that ‘cannot’ has to be different than ‘will not’. Most of your post is argument and reason – very little Scripture. So lacking it, I looked up the etymology of ‘cannot’. This Greek word, dunamai or dunatai is where we get our root for dynamite (power). So it does reflect on a lack of power to be able to do something as opposed to the will not, which reflects on choice.

However, If God is by nature a God of truth and love, then nothing he does goes against those attributes. It is a choice, but so much so that he forsakes the power as it were. In other words, because he will not eternally, he cannot. I am not saying this is the case, just that the argument given does not conclude that the connection is not there.

By example, I reference Christ, the God-man, 100% God and 100% man. He was tempted. He was hungry. He chose to lay down some of His power and knowledge in order to be obedient to the Father. “Did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, but laid it aside, poured it out.” Christ could not be unaffected by temptation, because He willed not to hold on to equality with God. By the same token He no longer knew what the Father knew. By the same nature, could not the will of the Almighty determine His character, and as a result make some things impossible, even to the extent that it could be said “He has no power to lie”?

Dr. Oord,
I have nearly finished reading “God Can’t”. I want very much to agree with your premise, that God cannot, without our cooperation, stop or prevent evil. However, I find the arguments in the book to be mostly anecdotal and thin on theology. Could you point me toward additional readings and resources that address the issue from a more theological, and less anecdotatal, perspective?

This piece offers a compelling exploration of the theological question regarding whether there are things that God cannot do based on His nature. The author presents a nuanced argument, drawing from biblical passages and theological reflections to challenge conventional understandings of divine omnipotence.

One of the strengths of this essay is its engagement with the complexities of biblical theology. By examining various biblical passages that suggest limitations on God’s actions, such as God’s inability to lie or be tempted by evil, the author encourages readers to grapple with the notion that God’s nature inherently imposes constraints on His actions. This approach adds depth to the discussion and prompts readers to reconsider traditional interpretations of divine omnipotence.

Furthermore, the author’s proposal that God’s loving nature necessitates the granting of freedom and agency to creatures offers a thought-provoking perspective on the problem of evil. By reframing God’s power through the lens of His love, the author invites readers to reconsider how they conceptualize divine intervention and providence in the face of suffering and injustice.

Overall, this essay stimulates reflection on fundamental theological questions while remaining grounded in biblical scholarship. Its exploration of God’s nature and its implications for understanding divine action provides valuable insights for theologians and laypersons alike.

Best regards,
[mathew]