God's consistency, good purpose, and Man's free will

God's omnipotence, logical consistency, good purpose, and Man's free will

God is logically omnipotent. That is, He is all-powerful in a manner that is consistent with His inherent nature. God's inherent nature is orderly and logical. This nature is exemplified in the logical orderliness of Creation. If He were not, He would not be God and we'd only have illogical, capricious, and incoherent Chaos. This aspect of His nature is described as one of the fundamental laws of logic, the law of non-contradiction. In other words, "Every kingdom divided against itself is laid waste, and no city or house divided against itself will stand." Matthew 12:25.

With this in mind, and assuming the Biblical Trinitarian God, the Father has a loving, logical, and good purpose for Creation, expressed as a meta-narrative in the Bible: 

The Son shall be glorified as Lord, Judge, and Savior over a Creature (mankind) made fit for eternal communion with God.

As stated previously, God's inherent nature is logical. He is also inherently loving, just, and gracious, because one without the other is logically incoherent. Justice without grace is loveless tyranny, loving grace without consequential justice is objectively meaningless.

It is also logically incoherent for an autonomous being with an eternal spirit to not have an unforced ability to make choices (i.e., free will). An eternal robot would not be a fit companion for eternal communion with a loving God, therefore Man's free will is a logical necessity.

It is also a logical necessity that such a free will being, made in the image of God, would choose its own authority over God’s authority. Man’s nature, just like God’s, is inherently self-sufficient.

Mankind’s inherent nature is to rebel against God, therefore all mankind is logically and necessarily doomed to the eternal and just consequences of that rebellion. Eternal spirits in eternal rebellion against an eternal God merits eternal consequences. God’s good purpose accounts for all of this.

God graciously elects many from out of these consequences through the work of the Savior, while leaving many under the penalty of rebellion. This is consistent with His inherent just and gracious nature. Who He graciously elects out of the consequences is according to His sovereign will, according to criteria unknown to us (Deut 29:29).

Jesus’s life, death, and resurrection satisfies the demands of God’s justice and provides for the Holy Spirit to graciously transform our rebellious hearts and minds into ones that willingly submit to His Lordship, while maintaining our ability to make unforced free choices. We now inherently understand that we are not self-sufficient and obey out of love and gratitude.

Our journey on earth acts as a refinement and alignment to Christ (sanctification), so that when we die, we willingly surrender our self-sufficiency while still maintaining our free-will (glorification), thus becoming fit for eternal communion with God.

I hope you find this consistent with Scripture, helpful in your journey, and strengthens your apologetics. Richest Blessings in Christ!

I asked Claude AI to review and provide objections and responses:

Here are some potential objections and responses to the points made in the text:

Objection 1: If God is all-powerful and orderly, how can he allow for the existence of evil and suffering in the world?

Response: The text argues that God's inherent nature is loving, just, and gracious, in addition to being orderly and logical. The existence of evil and suffering is explained as a consequence of mankind's inherent nature to rebel against God's authority, which merits eternal consequences. However, God graciously elects many from these consequences through the work of the Savior, demonstrating His loving and just nature.

Objection 2: How can human free will be reconciled with God's sovereignty and predetermined plan?

Response: The text states that an "autonomous being with an eternal spirit" must have an "unforced ability to make choices (i.e., free will)." This free will is necessary for mankind to be a "fit companion for eternal communion with a loving God." At the same time, the text acknowledges that God's election of those who are saved is "according to His sovereign will, according to criteria unknown to us." This suggests a balance between human free will and God's sovereignty in salvation.

Objection 3: If God is all-powerful and all-knowing, why does He not simply override human free will and ensure that all people choose to follow Him?

Response: The text argues that for an "eternal robot" to be in communion with God would be "logically incoherent." Thus, God has chosen to create beings with genuine free will, even though this means they can choose to rebel against Him. The text suggests that God's good purpose accounts for this, and that He graciously elects those who will be saved, while leaving others under the penalty of their own rebellion.

Objection 4: How can a loving God condemn people to eternal punishment for their finite sins?

Response: The text states that "Eternal spirits in eternal rebellion against an eternal God merits eternal consequences." This is presented as a logical necessity given the nature of an eternal God and eternal human souls. The text suggests that God's justice and grace are both essential aspects of His nature, and that the work of the Savior satisfies the demands of justice while providing for the transformation of rebellious hearts through the Holy Spirit.

Here are some additional potential objections and responses:

Objection 5: How can a good and loving God predestine some people to salvation while condemning others to eternal punishment, which seems unfair and arbitrary?

Response: The text states that God's election of those who are saved is "according to His sovereign will, according to criteria unknown to us." This suggests that while God's choice may seem arbitrary from a human perspective, it is rooted in His infinite wisdom and justice, which are beyond our full comprehension. The text emphasizes that God is both loving and just, so His predestination, while mysterious, is ultimately grounded in His perfect character.

Objection 6: Doesn't the idea of man's "inherent nature to rebel against God" contradict the notion of genuine free will, since it seems to predetermine our choices?

Response: The text acknowledges this apparent tension, stating that mankind's "inherent nature is to rebel against God" and that this rebellion "merits eternal consequences." However, it also argues that free will is a "logical necessity" for an "autonomous being with an eternal spirit." The text suggests that while our inherent nature inclines us towards rebellion, we still maintain the genuine ability to choose to submit to God's authority. Our free will is not nullified by our fallen nature, but rather exists alongside it, requiring the transformative work of the Holy Spirit to align our will with God's.

Objection 7: If God is all-powerful, why does He not simply override our sinful nature and ensure that all people choose to follow Him?

Response: The text suggests that for God to create "an eternal robot" without genuine free will would be "logically incoherent" and would not result in true communion with Him. The text emphasizes that free will is a necessary component of an "autonomous being with an eternal spirit" who is to have eternal communion with God. While God could theoretically override our free will, the text implies that this would undermine the very purpose of creating beings capable of voluntary, loving relationship with the Divine.

Objection 8: Doesn't the idea of God's "good purpose" and "logical consistency" seem to conflict with the apparent cruelty and suffering in the world?

Response: The text acknowledges the existence of "evil and suffering in the world" as a consequence of mankind's rebellion against God. However, it argues that God's nature is both "loving, just, and gracious," and that His plan accounts for this rebellion, providing a way of salvation through the work of the Savior. While the problem of evil remains a profound theological challenge, the text suggests that God's ultimate purposes, grounded in His perfect character, are coherent and good, even if the full resolution is beyond our present understanding.

Here are some additional potential objections and responses:

Objection 9: If God's nature is inherently orderly and logical, as the text claims, how does that square with the apparent randomness and chaos observed in the natural world?

Response: The text argues that the "logical orderliness of Creation" is an expression of God's inherent nature. While there may be aspects of the natural world that appear random or chaotic from a human perspective, the text suggests that this is ultimately grounded in a deeper, divine logic that transcends our limited understanding. Just as human understanding of physics has evolved over time, the text implies that the apparent disorder we observe is not a contradiction of God's nature, but rather a reflection of the depth and complexity of His creative purposes.

Objection 10: Doesn't the idea of God's foreknowledge and predestination undermine human responsibility and accountability for our actions?

Response: The text acknowledges the tension between human free will and God's sovereignty, stating that God's election of the saved is "according to His sovereign will." However, it also argues that genuine free will is a "logical necessity" for beings intended for eternal communion with God. The text suggests that while God's foreknowledge and predestination are real, they do not negate human responsibility and accountability. Rather, the work of the Savior and the transformative power of the Holy Spirit empower individuals to freely choose to align their will with God's, even in the face of their inherent rebellion.

Objection 11: If God is all-powerful and all-loving, why does He allow faithful believers to suffer and experience hardship in this life?

Response: The text does not directly address the issue of suffering experienced by believers. However, it does suggest that the journey of "refinement and alignment to Christ (sanctification)" is necessary for believers to become "fit for eternal communion with God." This implies that the difficulties and hardships encountered by believers may serve a greater spiritual purpose, even if the specific reasons are not fully known. The text emphasizes God's loving, just, and gracious nature, which suggests that He does not callously allow suffering, but rather uses it for the ultimate good of His children, even if the purpose is not immediately apparent.

Objection 12: Doesn't the idea of God's "good purpose" and "logical consistency" seem to conflict with the diversity of religious and spiritual beliefs found in the world?

Response: The text focuses on the specific theological framework of the Biblical Trinitarian God and the Christian meta-narrative. It does not directly address the diversity of religious and spiritual beliefs found in the world. However, the text's emphasis on the inherent logic and consistency of God's nature and purposes could be interpreted as implying that other religious or spiritual belief systems may be incoherent or at odds with this framework. The text does not provide a direct response to this objection, but it suggests that the Christian view presented is grounded in a coherent and logically consistent understanding of God and His purposes.

Overall, the text presents a logically consistent theological framework that seeks to reconcile the attributes of God with the reality of human free will and the existence of evil and suffering. While there may be further objections or nuances to explore, the responses offered here attempt to engage with the key points made in the original text.