First, there is a problem with the premise of the question. While it is true that God can do anything that is consistent with his nature, it is absurd to suggest that he can do everything. God cannot lie (Hebrews 6:18); he cannot be tempted (James 1:13); and he cannot cease to exist (Psalm 102:25–27). It is crucial that we learn to question the question rather than assuming the question is valid.

Furthermore, just as it is impossible to make a one-sided triangle, so it is impossible to make a rock too heavy to be moved. What an all-powerful God can create he can obviously move. Put another way, God can do everything that is logically possible.

Finally, we should note that a wide variety of similar questions are raised to undermine the Christian view of God. Thus, it is crucial that we learn to question the question rather than assuming the question is valid.

For further study, see Norman L. Geisler, Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1999), 553–554; see also 283–288. See also Hank Hanegraaff, “Indwelling of the Holy Spirit,” available at www.equip.org.

Proverbs 26:4–5
“Do not answer a fool according to his folly,
or you will be like him yourself.
Answer a fool according to his folly,
or he will be wise in his own eyes.”

First, the Bible tells us “God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them” (Genesis 1:27). As God created both male and female in his image, he does not participate in one or the other gender, but rather transcends gender.

Furthermore, while the Bible uses masculine titles for God, such as Father and Son, it also employs feminine images for God, such as mother (Isaiah 49:14–15; 66:13) and midwife (Isaiah 66:9). Likewise, his judgment of Israel is likened to that of a mother bear robbed of her cubs (Hosea 13:8). Whether masculine or feminine, all such images are anthropomorphisms or personifications that reveal God to us in ways we can understand.
As God created both male and female in his image, he does not participate in one or the other gender, but rather transcends gender.

Finally, the language we use for God must clarify rather than confuse. In the absence of biblical warrant we ought to refrain from tampering with the traditional titles for God. Indeed, it would be a grave mistake to sacrifice theological clarity concerning the nature of God and the nature of the relationships between the divine persons of the Godhead on the altar of political correctness.

For further study,see Leslie Zeigler,“Christianity or Feminism?” in William A. Dembski and Jay Wesley Richards, (eds.), Unapologetic Apologetics (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 2001): 179–86.

Galatians 3:28–29
“There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.”

First, there is such a thing as sanctified jealousy. As such, jealousy is the proper response of a husband or wife whose trust has been violated through infidelity. Indeed, when an exclusive covenant relationship is dishonored, sanctified jealousy is the passionate zeal that fights to restore that holy union. The jealousy of God for his holy name and for the exclusive worship of his people as such is sanctified.

Furthermore, as there is sanctified jealousy, so too there is sinful jealousy. In this sense jealousy is painfully coveting another’s advantages. Accordingly, the apostle Paul lists jealousy as an act of the sinful nature. Says Paul, “The acts of the sinful nature are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; idolatry and
witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissentions, factions and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like” (Galatians 5:19–21, emphasis added).

Finally, as God personifies sanctified jealousy, so those who reflect his character must be zealous for the things of God. The Bible is replete with heroes such as Elijah (1 Kings 19:10, 14), David (Psalm 69:9), and Paul (2 Corinthians 11:2) whose jealousy for God’s glory motivated self–sacrifice and radical reform. The quintessential example, however, is found in the incarnate Christ who exercised the epitome of sanctified jealousy by overturning the tables of the moneychangers in the temple––a symbolic gesture condemning the Jewish leaders of his day for dishonoring God through their contemptible religiosity (Matthew 21:12–13; John 2:17; cf. Jeremiah 7:9–15).

For further study, see J. I. Packer, Knowing God (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1982): 151–58.

2 Corinthians 11:2
“I am jealous for you with a godly jealousy.
I promised you to one husband, to Christ, so that I
might present you as a pure virgin to him.”

First, the Bible unequivocally teaches that God is perfectly good and thus incapable of doing evil (Psalm 5:4–5; James 1:13; 3 John 1:11). As such, God’s repentance must not be understood as entailing moral guilt. Indeed, the moral perfection of the Creator sets him apart from his sin–tainted creation (Leviticus 11:44–45; 19:2; 20:7; 1 Peter 1:15–16).

Furthermore, although God does not change, the meaning of the word “repent” has changed over time. Thus in place of the word “repent” most modern English translations substitute the word “regret” or “grieve.” Indeed, as a human father grieves over rebellion on the part of his children, so our heavenly Father grieves over rebellion on the part of his creation.

Finally, God’s repentance must be understood as an anthropomorphism communicating the full measure of God’s grief over the horror of sin rather than a change of heart or a change of mind. With respect to the faithlessness of Saul, God says, “It repenteth me that I have set up Saul to be king” (1 Samuel 15:11). Yet, the very same context says that “the Strength of Israel will not lie nor repent: for he is not a man, that he should repent” (v. 29, emphasis added). Apart from an anthropomorphic understanding, such passages would be self–refuting.

For further study, see Millard J. Erickson, What Does God Know and When Does He Know It? (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2003).

1 SAMUEL 15:29
“He who is the Glory of Israel does not lie or change his mind; for he is not a man, that he should change his mind.”

First, the Bible from beginning to end demonstrates the omniscience of God. In the words of Isaiah, God knows “the end from the beginning” (Isaiah 46:10). As such, God’s knowledge is exhaustive, including even those things yet future (cf. Job 37:16; Psalm 139:1–6; 147:5; Hebrews 4:12–13).

Furthermore, if God’s knowledge of the future is fallible, biblical predictions that depend on human agency might well have turned out wrong. Even Jesus’ predictions in the Olivet Discourse could have failed, thus undermining his claim to deity. God himself could have failed the biblical test for a prophet (Deuteronomy 18:22). Indeed, if God’s knowledge of the future is incomplete, we would be foolish to trust him to answer our prayers, thus negating the “confidence we have in approaching God: that if we ask anything according to his will, he hears us. And if we know that he hears us—whatever we ask—we know that we have what we asked of him” (1 John 5:14–15).

Finally, while open theists suggest that God cannot know the future exhaustively because he changes his plans as a result of what people do, in reality it is not God who changes, but people who change in relationship to God. By way of analogy, if you walk into a headwind you struggle against the wind; if you make a u–turn on the road the wind is at your back. It is not the wind that has changed, but you have changed in relationship to the wind. As such, God’s promise to destroy Nineveh was not aborted because he did not know the future but because the Ninevites, who had walked in opposition to God, turned from walking in their wicked ways. Indeed, all of God’s promises to bless or to judge must be understood in light of the condition that God withholds blessing on account of disobedience and withholds judgment on account of repentance (Ezekiel 18; Jeremiah 18:7–10).

Isaiah 46:9–10
“Remember the former things, those of long ago; I am
God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is none
like me. I make known the end from the beginning,
from ancient times, what is still to come. I say:
My purpose will stand, and I will do all that I please.”

First, when Scripture speaks of God as omnipresent or present everywhere (Psalm 139), it is not communicating that he is physically distributed throughout the universe, but that he is simultaneously present (with all his fullness) to every part of creation. Thus Scripture communicates God’s creative and sustaining relationship to the cosmos rather than his physical location in the cosmos.

Furthermore, to speak of God’s omnipresence in terms of his physical location in the world rather than his relationship to the world has more in common with the panentheism of heretical process theology (currently popular in liberal circles) than with classical Christian theism. Panentheism holds that God is intrinsically “in” the world (like a hand in a glove), while classical theism holds that God properly exists outside of time and space (Isaiah 57:15).

Finally, the danger of speaking about God in locational terms is that it logically implies that he is by nature a material being. The apostle John clearly communicates that “God is Spirit, and his worshipers must worship in spirit and in truth” (John 4:24).

For further study, see Gordon R. Lewis, “Attributes of God,” in Walter A. Elwell, ed., Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, 2nd edition (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2001), 492–499.

Psalm 139:7–10
“Where can I go from your Spirit?
Where can I flee from your presence?
If I go up to the heavens, you are there;
if I make my bed in the depths, you are there.
If I rise on the wings of the dawn,
if I settle on the far side of the sea,
even there your hand will guide me,
your right hand will hold me fast.”

Furthermore, while the Bible from Genesis to Revelation reveals that God is one in nature or essence (Deuteronomy 6:4; Isaiah 43:10; Ephesians 4:6), it also reveals that this one God eternally exists in three distinct persons: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit (1 Corinthians 8:6; Hebrews 1:8; Acts 5:3–4). Thus, the plural ending of Elohim points to a plurality of persons, not to a plurality of gods.

Finally, although Elohim is suggestive of the Trinity, this word alone is not sufficient to prove the Trinity. Thus, instead of relying on a singular grammatical construction, Christians must be equipped to demonstrate that the one God revealed in Scripture exists in three persons who are eternally distinct.

For further study, see Robert Letham, The Holy Trinity: In Scripture, History,Theology, and Worship (Phillipsburg, New Jersey: P&R Publishing, 2004).

DEUTERONOMY 6:4
“Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one.”

The first plank underscores that there is only one God. Christianity is not polytheistic but fiercely monotheistic. “You are my witnesses, declares the Lord, and my servant whom I have chosen, so that you may know and believe me and understand that I am he. Before me no god was formed, nor will there be one after me” (Isaiah 43:10, emphasis added).

The second plank emphasizes that in hundreds of Scripture passages the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are declared to be fully and completely God. As a case in point, the apostle Paul says that, “there is but one God the Father” (1 Corinthians 8:6). The Father, speaking of the Son, says, “Your throne, O God, will last forever and forever” (Hebrews 1:8). And when Ananias “lied to the Holy Spirit,” Peter points out that he had “not lied to men but to God” (Acts 5:3–4).

The third plank of the Trinitarian platform asserts that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are eternally distinct. Scripture clearly portrays subject/object relationships between Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. For example, the Father and Son love one another, speak to each other (John 17:1–26), and together send the Holy Spirit (John 15:26). Additionally, Jesus proclaims that he and the Father are two distinct witnesses and two distinct judges (John 8:14–18). If Jesus were himself the Father, his argument would have been not only irrelevant but also fatally flawed; and if such were the case, he could not have been fully God.

It is important to note that when Trinitarians speak of one God they are referring to the nature or essence of God. Moreover, when they speak of persons they are referring to personal self-distinctions within the Godhead. Put another way, we believe in one What and three Who’s.

For further study, see James R. White, The Forgotten Trinity (Minneapolis: Bethany House, 2001).

Deuteronomy 6:4
“Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one.”
Matthew 28:19
“Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.”