The Error and Senselessness of Compatibilism

"Compatibilism

Compatibilism, sometimes called soft determinism, is a theological term that deals with the topics of free will and predestination. It seeks to show that God's exhaustive sovereignty is compatible with human freedom, or in other words, it claims that determinism and free will are compatible. Rather than limit the exercise of God's sovereignty in order to preserve man's freedom, compatibilists say that there must be a different way to define what freedom really means."

--Quoted from http://www.theopedia.com/compatibilism

The above definition is as clear as it gets. As good as the motive of the first philosophers who proposed it, it has 2 basic flaws:

1. The definition of freedom or free-will is revisionist which is attributed only to liberals who have no rules except what they invent on the fly. Furthermore, it is a revisionist definition re-created to fit an agenda or protect a dogma (that is also flawed). When Stephen accused the "people" of resisting the Holy Spirit (Acts 7:51-53), did they resist because it was in their nature to? or was it because they had a false understanding of the divine plan? When the Jihadist explodes a bomb and kills innocents, is it because of his nature alone or is it because of his understanding of his religion of which he is trying to be obedient to???
2. The prevailing concept of divine sovereignty, magnanimous as it sounds, is not biblical. It is not biblical, not because it subtracts from the biblical view of sovereignty, but because it ADDS to it human-view elements that ignore the plain revelation of God by God in the bible. The concept that God CAN predetermine every detail of the future is common-sense BUT The concept that God, because He is sovereign, WILL predetermine every detail of the future is Biblically flawed. A correctly synthesized concept of divine sovereignty should take into account that God gets angry (hypocrisy if he already knows the future), God gets surprised,  God changes his mind (Hebrew: nacham), God gets argued out by Moses in Exodus 33 and Numbers 14 and many other passages

I still believe in preponderance of verses as a hermeneutic principle or even rule. When there are a preponderance of verses on a given issue, God is SHOUTING (emphasizing) a biblical principle. When God is just WHISPERING or even HINTING because there are only one or two verses on an issue and there are even alternative interpretations other than the dogmatic ones, then there is no emphasis there. God's WHISPERS should be interpreted in the light of God's SHOUTS and NOT the other way around. THAT IS COMMON SENSE HERMENEUTICS!

So to correct the compatibilistic philosophy:

1. Change the concept of sovereignty by making it more biblical
2. Be willing to adjust your theology against the preponderance of evidence.

Compatibilists start with a wrong principle and then twist the other to make things fit. That is the greatest error. The second error is that they forget that God does not contradict himself and the only way to synthesize scripture sensibily is to interpret the whispers of God in the light of the SHOUTS(!) of God instead of the opposite.

What I mean here is that if we take compatibilism as part of our orthodox biblical doctrine, then there would be tons for scripture that we will have a hard time interpreting and like these pseudo-theologians would resort to the common cop-out of saying that those are just "anthropomorphisms" like they know what it really means other than another revisionist terminology, or would say that it is a mystery that only God understands (forgetting that the point of God's revelation is to remove or unravel mystery).

We believe in mystery only in the Pauline definition that it is a principle PREVIOUSLY HIDDEN BUT NOW REVEALED and by revealed we do not mean revealed in part! So in the New Testament age we have ALL MYSTERIES REVEALED and that is the beauty of true revelation!

God clearly demonstrates in Scripture that He does not have foreknowledge of everything in the future.

What is most important in this debate is HONEST HERMENEUTICS (a posteriori biblical knowledge or INDUCTIVE analysis used to solve legal cases by piecing together evidence vs. a priori or DEDUCTIVE analysis used by science experiments) and COMMON SENSE LOGIC. That is, we analyze God's revelation without bias instead of using Scripture to defend our sacred cows.

Let's analyze the two discussions between Moses and God. The first comes from Exodus 32 and the second is found in Numbers 14. They have the following in common therefore stating the logical OBVIOUS:

1. God gets angry with the disobedience of the twelve tribes of Israel. If God previously knew ALL ABOUT the future, why didn't he forsee this disobedience. If he did forsee this disobedience, then the logical common sense conclusion is that God is nothing but a HYPOCRITE! He knows that future and yet reacts quite negatively to it when it actually happens, as if he didn't! That is not my opinion. That is HONEST EXEGESIS, no excuses! No cover ups, the same way that God did not cover up David's adultery and murder but recorded it in Scripture without bias, without excuses!
2. God threatens to destroy the whole nation and spare only Moses and will continue His project with only Moses bloodline. Surely, He is still fulfilling His promise to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob since Moses still carries the bloodline. However, He just demonstrated that He does not see all the future. Otherwise, the logical common sense conclusion is that God is FORGETFUL if He knew ahead of time that David would come from line of Judah and not the line of Moses!
3. Moses competently reasons out with God showing Him that all God would be destroying is His own integrity since He promised the promise land to all twelve tribes.  God would also be inadvertently showing His inability to take care of the twelve tribes and Egypt and the nations around will mock Him and His Holy Name. God IS CONVINCED by the arguments of Moses and responds by sparing the whole nation. However, if God had indeed foreknowledge of this discussion, then the logical common sense conclusion should be that God is FORGETFUL since He forgot that Moses got the better of the debate, OR that God is a HYPOCRITE because He already knew that Moses would give great reasons but He PRETENDED NOT TO KNOW!

We haven't even discussed Hezekiah's sickness in Isaiah 38 where God's SOVEREIGN WILL AS DECLARED BY ISAIAH HIS PROPHET was for Hezekiah to die that day but it was OVERTURNED by Hezekiah's prayer! So the compatibilist common sense and honest conclusion should be that their God is OBVIOUSLY BOTH FORGETFUL OR A HYPOCRITE.

Which attibute would we rather give for our sovereign God??? Admit that God does not necessarily know ALL of the FUTURE? or, admit that God is a hypocrite or forgetful or even BOTH?

God told us to love Him with ALL OUR MIND! Now put that God-given mind to work!!!