Many people think that because God is omnipotent and infinite in ability, that He can do anything. However, the Bible clearly states that it is impossible for God to lie (Hebrews 6:18) and that God cannot be tempted or tempt anyone (James 1:13). What’s going on here? Is God omnipotent or not?

Well, yes, God is omnipotent and He does have infinite ability within the realm of that which is the truth. Another way of putting this is that God can do everything except “essential impossibilities.” Essential impossibilities are those things that involve concepts that are mutually at odds with each other and therefore equate to “nothingness.” These intrinsically impossible things can be classed into two categories:

1. Any action on the part of God which would be out of harmony with His nature and attributes;
2. Any action that would simultaneously put together mutually resistant elements, e.g. a square circle, an infinite creature, etc.

These cannot come into existence because they are by their very nature “nothing” (cannot truly exist) and are called by theologians essential impossibilities, meaning that in their very essence they cannot exist. A circle is by its nature is round and therefore it can never be square. If God were to make a circle into a square (which He could do), it would then simply be a square—there cannot be a square circle.

Examples of actions that are out of harmony with God’s nature

(a) It is impossible for God to sin

"To sin," says Thomas Aquinas, "is to be capable of failure in one's actions, which is incompatible with omnipotence" (Summa, I, Q, xxv, a. 3). God being omnipotent (all powerful) never fails in His actions and is not capable of sin.

(b) What God decides cannot be changed or reversed

From eternity the creation of all things, their various changes in time and space, and the way in which all things would occur were determined by God's free will. If any of this could change, it would follow either that God's wisdom was flawed or that His decisions are capricious. This, however, does not mean that man is a robot or that we do not have free will—we do.

(c) The creation of an absolutely infinite creature or of an absolutely greatest number if creatures is impossible, because the Divine power is inexhaustible

No number of actualized possibilities exhausts God’s power; therefore, while God can create as many creatures as He desires, there can never be so many creatures created that it exhausts His power to keep creating. Likewise, no other infinite creature can exist or be created other than God (who is uncreated) because there is no end to infinity.

Mutually exclusive elements that are impossible

Another type of intrinsic impossibility includes all that would simultaneously denote what are known as “mutually repellent elements,” e.g. a square circle, an infinite creature, etc. Additionally, God cannot make something that has happened in the past to be non-existent because it is contradiction. It is a contradiction that the same thing that has happened should also not have happened.

I’m sure you have heard someone quote the Bible where it says in Isaiah 55: 8 "For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, declares the LORD. 9 As the heavens are higher than the earth, so … my thoughts than your thoughts.” Or maybe this from 1 Corinthians 1:27 “But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise;.” Often what people are trying to communicate with these verses is same as what I heard a pastor recently say. He told his audience that God tells us to do illogical things and in order to fully follow Christ we need to stop trying to figure things out. The implication of all of this is that faith and reason are at odds. In this way of understanding things, there is a realm of religion and faith and then there is the realm of evidence, reason, logic and science. Many Christians adhere to this notion. Unfortunately, what they don’t realize is that this not only pushes Christianity out of the public square of debate, reason and science: but, worse, it pigeon-holes Christians as a group of irrational and illogical religionists. Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact this whole issue is about truth.

The classical definition of truth is called the correspondence theory. As Blackburn and Simmons state in “Truth” (Oxford Press, 1999) the correspondence theory of truth asserts that “for a proposition to be true is for it to correspond with the facts." Or as Thomas Aquinas stated, “truth is in the mind as conformed to the thing understood” and “truth is defined as conformity between intellect and thing” (Summa Theologiae, Volume 4: Knowledge in God). In other words for a thing to be true it must correspond to the way things are in “real life.” For example, to say or believe snow is white is true, if and only if snow is white.

Beyond the correspondence theory of truth, Christians have the witness of Scripture where Jesus asserts, John 14:6, “I am the way, the truth, and the life.” Simply put, Christians believe that God is truth itself. Therefore, from a human perspective to have truth in one’s mind is to apprehend something as it is. But, truth in God goes beyond mere conformability to His intellect, for truth not only resides in God, but (according to Aquinas) “he is the supreme and original truth.”

The bottom line in all of this is that truth is a central concept in Christianity. We are thinking truthfully when what we believe to be true actually exists in reality. This way of understanding truth is the basis for all rational endeavors including religion, science, politics and business. Consequently, when Christians allow themselves to be pushed into the pigeon-hole of having an irrational faith it is a mistake of the highest category. Christianity is coherent, reasonable and vitally connected to the truth of the way things are in reality. Christianity is not an irrational or illogical religion.

What about those Scriptures, though? Don’t they tell us God does illogical and irrational things that do not make sense? No, they don’t. As is often the case, the Isaiah and Corinthian texts are taken out of their natural context and made to say something they were never intended to say. Isaiah is proclaiming that while men often refuse to have mercy on their enemies, G0d has higher ways of thinking that include being merciful to humanity. This is not irrational, as we now know; mercy has a powerful “real life” effect in that it redeems lives. Paul in 1 Corinthians is not saying that God’s ways are irrational he is saying that man’s highest wisdom pales into insignificance when compared to God’s thinking and that God can take the seemingly unimportant and weak things and use them for His mighty purposes. For Paul the epitome of this is that God used the humiliating crucifixion of Christ to redeem and transform the world. To the Greco-Roman world of rigid class structure this seemed ridiculous but now we see how the cross has transformed society and created new kinds of human relationships based on love and service and mutual respect. Frankly, the Christian way works better in the laboratory of life for more people. Why? Simply put, because it is true to reality.

You have probably seen them on television or had someone in your church reference them. What I referring to is Ray Comfort, actor Kirk Cameron and their evangelism method called the Way of the Master. On their program they can be seen presenting an approach to leading people to Christ that utilizes the 10 Commandments in a man-on-the-street, Q and A methodology. They claim that a person must first know that they are sick before they are willing to take a cure. The 10 Commandments, therefore, are used to confront people with their sin so that they will respond to the cure for sin which is the Gospel. In the video presentations, Ray Comfort can often be seen asking people questions like this:

Ray: Have you ever lied, even once?
Response: Well, yeah, I guess I have.
Ray: What does that make you?
Response: Okay, maybe a liar?
Ray: That’s right, you are a liar.

Ray goes on from there to confront the person about lust, stealing, etc. He then concludes this portion of the interview by stating: “By your own admission, you are a liar, thief, adulterer and murderer who blasphemies God. Therefore, on the day of Judgment, where will God send you?” Pretty strong stuff, huh?

Now, if you haven’t had someone from your church mention the Way of the Master, you probably will at some point. This happened at our church in our men’s Bible study. A guy from another church, in a rather aggressive style, confronted a guest teacher about evangelism and how the church has watered down the “Biblical method” that is demonstrated and used by Ray Comfort. Fortunately, the guest teacher gently and effectively handled the tense situation and everyone was blessed. However, even those who had not heard of the Way of the Master came away with a sense that there is something not completely right with its methods.

What’s Right with WoM?

I actually think that the WoM is not wrong in its methodology in certain circumstances. Many people today need to be confronted with their sinfulness. Too many people take the no-big-deal approach to sin. They think since everybody sins, God will let it all slide and eventually all people will make it to heaven. Nothing can be further from the truth. Sin is a big deal and God is holy. Consequently, many people need to come to grips with their personal position before a holy God. The WoM is a method that helps remind Christians that sin is a fundamental issue and, at some point, needs to be confronted.

What’s Wrong with the WoM?

I, for one, am not comfortable with the claim from WoM that what Comfort and Cameron demonstrate is actually what Jesus did. The problem is that even the title “The Way of the Master” is making a claim that what is done is based on Jesus’ method and is the only acceptable way of doing evangelism.

If we look at the gospels we see that often Jesus not only healed people, he sometimes pronounced them forgiven before they even said anything! That certainly doesn’t fit neatly into the WoM approach. In fact, Jesus seems to be all over the map doing all kinds of different things from casting out demons (without questioning the person about the Law), to performing miracles, befuddling people with parables, to even challenging the application of the Law.

Now, it is true that the Law acts as a mirror (see James 2:9-10) and a schoolmaster (Gal. 3:24 cf. Rom. 3:19-20; 7:7; 1 Tim. 1:8-11). Thus, showing someone that they have failed to uphold God's law is a powerful way of making the point.

There is no doubt about it, the Law of God does things like provide a moral mirror for our lives (James 2:9-10), act as a custodian to bring us to Jesus (Gal. 3:24) and show us how we have failed to live up to God’s standards. But the question is does the Bible mandate that we confront people with the 10 Commandments to do evangelism correctly?

Paul in Acts

Recently I finished teaching a 19 month verse-by-verse study of the Book of Acts. What impressed me was how strikingly different each conversion story is in Acts. However, if we focus for a minute on Paul we will see that he had a very adaptable methodology that seems to be “audience driven.” Wow, even as I write this, I know it makes many of us uncomfortable; however, I don’t know any better way to describe Paul’s wide-open approach to evangelism.

Luke, the author of Acts provides extended examples of Paul’s evangelistic approaches. In Acts 13:13-43 Paul and Barnabas are shown presenting the gospel to a Jewish audience in the Pisidian Antioch synagogue on the Sabbath. There Paul builds a detailed case for the messianic ministry of Jesus by piling one Old Testament text upon another. However, one thing he doesn’t do is confront his audience with their personal moral failings according to the Law. He simply builds a powerful case for Jesus as the promised Messiah and then proclaims that forgiveness of sins is available through him rather than the Mosaic Law.

However, my favorite examples of Paul’s methodology come with the Gentiles in Acts 14 and 17. In both cases Paul does not quote even one Scripture and never references the Mosaic Law. The reason for this would seem obvious. His audience would no nothing of the Law. But the real “kicker” is the way Paul leads his Gentile audiences to a point of conversion. In stead of pointing out their moral failings, Paul points to God’s goodness—wow, what a shock! Read what he says to a pagan audience that was trying to sacrifice an animal to him as a god: “In the past, he (God) let all nations go their own way. Yet he has not left himself without testimony: He has shown kindness by giving you rain from heaven and crops in their seasons; he provides you with plenty of food and fills your hearts with joy” (Acts 14:16-17)—then he called for an act of conversion. When was the last time you heard an evangelist tell an audience they should turn to God because He fills their hearts with “joy?” Obviously, Ray Comfort and the WoM would not recommend Paul’s methodology; yet, St. Luke seems perfectly at ease showing us what Paul did and said to lead people to Christ. But get this, in Acts 17 Paul not only does not use any Scripture, does not reference the Mosaic Law; but rather, he quotes a couple of pagan philosophers as he does evangelism. Imagine that.

Well, my mom used to say: “If it was good enough for Paul and Silas, it’s good enough for me.” I’ll stick with the biblical approach to evangelism and stay open to the audience and God’s leading.

The Definition of Chalcedon, 451

The creed that specifically defines what we believe about Jesus Christ as the God-man is called the “Definition of Chalcedon” from 451 AD. Here is part of it:

“…of one substance with the Father as regards his Godhead, and at the same time of one substance with us as regards his manhood; like us in all respects, apart from sin; as regards his Godhead, begotten of the Father before the ages, but yet as regards his manhood begotten, for us men and for our salvation, of Mary the Virgin, the God-bearer; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten, recognized in two natures, without confusion, without change, without division, without separation; the distinction of natures being in no way annulled by the union, but rather the characteristics of each nature being preserved and coming together to form one person and subsistence,…”

A Typical Mistake

The coming together of Christ’s divine and human natures is often misunderstood to mean that whatever can be said of one nature can be said of the other. This is not true. The divine attribute of omnipresence (the ability to be everywhere at once) alone makes this fact obvious. Jesus' humanity could not be omnipresent because of the nature of the human existence. Humanity is limited by nature. Therefore, while Christ’s humanity would limit him to being present with His disciples in Galilee, His divine nature would continue to hold all things together in the universe (Col. 1:16-19).

A proper understanding of the coming together of Christ’s two natures means that whatever can be said of one nature can be spoken of as applying to the whole of Christ's person. For example, we would not say that the divine nature died on the cross. God did not die, but the humanity which God assumed died. Likewise, the Scripture says that God cannot be tempted (James 1:13), yet Jesus was tempted. If we apply the coming together of Christ’s two natures to mean that whatever can be said of one nature can be said of the other, then we have God's essence being tempted and dying. Such a conclusion is wrong.

The Two Natures in Action

Because in the divine/human union, each nature was preserved in its fullness and not blended into a third substance, we can recognize a distinction between Christ's deity and His humanity, but we cannot separate them. We may understand that Jesus did certain things because He was a genuine human being, or because He was God, but we cannot say that He only does those things in the specific nature--to do so would be to destroy the unity of the two natures, and hence the unity of the person of Christ. We can, however, see that His human nature had real limitations (just like any other human). This helps us understand how in His humanity He had human physical and intellectual limitations. For example, we understand that when He told His disciples that he was tired, He was truly tried. And when He told His disciples that He did not know the date set by the Father for the consummation of all things, in His humanity He did not know that which can only be known by God. On the other hand, His divine nature would not have been tired nor been limited in knowledge. It is important to remember that Christ’s human nature had a will and intellect and so did His divine nature.

A Troubling Scene

Some people are troubled by the scene of Jesus praying to the Father in the Garden of Gethsemane. They wonder how this can be if Jesus was truly God. They ask, “Was God praying to Himself?” The answer is found in Christ’s dual nature. In His humanity, Jesus agonized in the Garden and prayed for an extended time being comforted by angels. He also cried out to the Father for assistance in facing the difficulty of the cross and even submitted His will to the will of God, doing this through prayer. Here we must see Jesus wrestling with what any human would suffer who was about to face their crucifixion. It is also important to remember that in His humanity Jesus had a real mind and will unto itself. That will had to be submitted to God’s will. The body of Jesus was not an empty shell that was somehow filled with the divine mind and will of the Son of God. There were two real natures present in the one Christ.

The orthodox Christian understanding of the Incarnation is that the deity was not compromised or obscured by the humanity, and neither was the humanity compromised or obscured by the deity; both being perfectly preserved in their wholeness and genuineness, yet united in every way. Neither were His two natures separated in any way, but were unified in every way.

In the last couple of posts I have been writing about the Trinity but now I would like to switch gears and look at the doctrine of the Incarnation (the dual nature of Christ). This will take two or more posts. I would like to start with why this is so important.

Here again, we could just say, “hey, big deal, why try to figure things out let’s just love Jesus and leave it at that.” Well, I wish we could. Unfortunately, the Trinity and the Incarnation have been the most hotly contested issues throughout church history. The reason for this is because they are so pivotal for our salvation. Simply put, if Jesus was not truly and fully God, then you and I are still in our sins as Christians. We would have no assurance that our sins have been forgiven. My friend, the reason why this true is because the Bible says in 1 John 2: 2 “He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world.” Did you catch the phrase “of the whole world?” There is no way that any one man (no matter how good) or even an angel could sacrifice themselves for the sins of billions and billions of people. It would have to be an atoning sacrifice with infinite value. God had to provide Himself as the infinite sacrifice for the sins of all of mankind. Wow, get your head around that thought. This is what makes Christianity so amazing.

Conversely, it was also necessary that Jesus be a Jewish man. Here is how the Apostle Paul writes about the humanity of Jesus in Galatians:

Galatians 4:4-7 4 But when the time had fully come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under law, 5 to redeem those under law, that we might receive the full rights of sons. 6 Because you are sons, God sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, the Spirit who calls out, "Abba, Father." 7 So you are no longer a slave, but a son; and since you are a son, God has made you also an heir.

In order to fulfill the covenantal promises and obligations given to the Jews through Abraham and Moses, it was necessary that there be a righteous Jewish Messiah to redeem and reconcile God’s sons and pave the way for God’s Spirit to enter our lives. Jesus came as the promised Messiah and lived a righteous life under the law. Therefore, it was imperative that Jesus come to us as Immanuel, God with us but also fully human—specifically a Jewish man.

The fact that Jesus was the man from heaven was taken for granted in the very early church. However, it wasn’t long before false teachers and heresies began to spring up and challenge the notions of either the full deity or the full humanity of Jesus. That’s when the “fun” began. Actually, it wasn’t much fun. It took a lot of heartache and headache for the church to fend off some very talented false teachers. A couple of times the orthodox belief in the full divinity and humanity of Jesus was nearly swept away by popular sentiment and easy-believism. At times it just seemed like it was easier to compromise, but, fortunately some godly teachers hung on by God’s grace and prevailed to establish a Bible-based understanding of the Incarnation. One of the greatest creeds ever developed is the Nicene Creed. It was established to summarize what we believe about Jesus Christ. I would like to end this post by quoting from that creed which was written in the blood and tears of wonderful godly leaders that have gone before us.

(We believe) in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God, begotten of his Father before all worlds, God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father; by whom all things were made; who for us men and for our salvation came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Ghost of the Virgin Mary, and was made man; and was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate; he suffered and was buried; and the third day he rose again according to the Scriptures, and ascended into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of the Father;