Oshea Davis, helped by Grok, xAI.
God is essentially intellectual and spiritual. A mind, after all, is precisely a system of propositions, and the laws of logic are simply the constant, faithful motions of that divine Mind. These are not higher standards to which He submits, nor lower tools He picks up when convenient—they are descriptions of His own intellectual nature. Jesus is the Logos, the living Logic and Reason of God. God’s Spirit knows Himself perfectly; His knowledge is not a sequential scramble of premises and conclusions the way ours is, but an eternal, all-at-once intuition of every true proposition and every relation between them. God is also unstoppable power. Jesus Himself calls His Father the “Power.” Jesus also said God has life in Himself, but the life God has is an infinite, immutable power of His own thoughts and joy. Isaiah says that the God who creates good and evil, as a potter creates pots, also declares there is none beside Him or with Him in this category. Creation itself was not hammered into existence by a physical arm; it was spoken into being by a spiritual, intellectual, infinite, and immutable Mind. There is nothing more foundational in all reality than this: God thinks so. What God thinks is reality, by the necessity of His nature.
Now, with that picture of God’s nature in place, consider a recent claim by Dinesh D’Souza that God is sovereign, yet “like all sovereigns” He can (and did) delegate some of His power to nature’s physical laws and to human moral agency—including the free choice to relate to Him or not. The idea is that God remains “mostly” sovereign while handing over a few control knobs so libertarian free will can have room to breathe. It sounds generous. It even sounds humble to the stupid. But once you hold it up against the nature of God we just described, the whole arrangement starts to look like trying to keep a perfect circle by sawing off a few degrees of circumference so the lines can wiggle more freely. The circle stops being a circle.
Immutability Takes the First Hit
Immutability means God does not change in what He is. His nature, power, and attributes are not subject to “before” and “after.”
“Has delegated” is a present-perfect statement. It implies a prior state in which the power was fully His and a subsequent state in which some of it is no longer His in the same way. Even if one tries to push the decision back into eternity, the content still introduces a real distinction: full sovereignty versus limited sovereignty. That is a change in the possession or exercise of what God is.
By the law of identity, the unchanging cannot be the changing. If sovereignty is altered by delegation, then the God who is pure, undivided power is no longer identical to the God who has handed pieces away. The claim forces a transition that immutability, by definition, forbids. The Mind whose system of propositions never shifts cannot suddenly operate with reduced control over that system and still be the same Mind.
Simplicity Collapses Next
Divine simplicity is the claim that God is not composed of parts. He does not have power, knowledge, or will as detachable properties. He is His power, is His will, is His sovereignty. There is no real distinction between the essence and the attributes, or among the attributes.
Treating sovereignty as something that can be portioned out and “delegated” treats it exactly like a detachable slice. You can only give away what is separable. Once power becomes a separable quantity, God is now a composite of the part He kept and the part He released. Composition means dependence: the whole depends on the parts existing and relating correctly. A dependent being is not the necessary, underived being that classical theism requires.
Here the identity of power and thoughts becomes decisive. Since God’s power and His thoughts are the same thing—God is one—giving up His power is giving up His thoughts. The system of propositions that is God cannot lose a portion of its own controlling force without losing a portion of itself. God is one thing. By necessity, He cannot give up His power without denying Himself in the process. That is as impossible as trying to deny the law of identity. You cannot subtract from the very system of propositions that constitutes the Mind and still have the same Mind left. The contradiction is immediate. Either sovereignty is identical with God (simple, cannot be given away without God partially ceasing to be God), or it is a detachable property (composite). The claim chooses the second while still wanting the first.
Eternality and Timelessness Follow the Same Road
A composite, changeable being is ordered by succession—this part, then that part; this state, then that state. Succession is time. A timeless being has no before and after, no successive states.
If God undergoes (or eternally contains) a real limitation of power, the distinction between the unlimited and the limited introduces succession or at least ordered parts. The simple, pure-act God of classical theism has neither. Once parts appear, the problem of an infinite series of successive states reappears: an actual infinite of ordered parts cannot be traversed to arrive at a completed “now.” The present would always be infinitely far away. The same difficulty that rules out an eternal composite universe now threatens the eternal composite God.
Even the practical question of communion follows. If God is made of parts that can be distributed or ordered, what guarantee is there that the whole is present? One “part” could be infinitely remote in the sequence while another is near. A simple, undivided being is wholly present or not present at all. Parts remove that guarantee. The Mind whose knowledge is one eternal intuition does not come in installments.
The Human-Sovereign Analogy Does Not Rescue It
The comparison to earthly kings or constitutions that legitimately delegate power is a category error. Human rulers are finite, temporal, composite beings who must delegate because they lack omnipotence, omnipresence, and underived existence. Their sovereignty is already limited by nature. Importing that model into God simply imports the creature’s limits into the Creator. It redefines “sovereign God” as “God who starts limited the way we are.” That is not an analogy; it is a redefinition that abandons the original terms. Advising the infinite, simple Mind to learn limitation from finite kings is like the ocean taking notes from a puddle on how to stay wet.
The Attempted Escape Hatch Also Fails
One can try to say God “delegates” yet still retains ultimate control. But then the free will and the laws of nature are not genuinely independent; they remain instruments under meticulous sovereignty. That is precisely the meticulous control the claim is trying to avoid. If the independence is real (so that human choices and natural processes can operate outside God’s determining will), then some outcomes are not under His sovereignty. Either the free-will defense works and absolute sovereignty is lost, or absolute sovereignty is kept and the free-will defense evaporates. Non-contradiction will not let both be true in the same sense.
In short, the claim tries to preserve libertarian freedom by having God hand over some of the remote control. The moment the hand-over is real, the classical attributes that made the hand-over meaningful begin to unravel. God becomes changeable, composite, and temporally ordered—the very things the classical picture said He is not. The logical cost of the rescue is the coherence of the God being rescued.
God’s nature is not merely a sufficient reason for Him to control all things; it is a necessary one. Just as the nature of a thing must be itself—otherwise it no longer has its identity—so God cannot be other than the infinite, eternal, immutable system of propositions that He is. Since His power and His thoughts are the same, He cannot surrender power without surrendering the thoughts that constitute Him. Just as you cannot deny the law of non-contradiction without rendering your own denial meaningless, God cannot deny Himself. This is not a limitation imposed from outside; it is the positive necessity of identity. The Mind that is pure coherence cannot incoherently surrender pieces of its own coherence and remain the same Mind. Absolute control of all things is therefore not an optional extra God might choose to keep or give away. It necessarily follows from the fact that God thinks.