  In the latest issue of Faith and Philosophy urlLink Lynne Rudder Baker penned an article entitled, "Why Christians Should Not be Libertarians: An Augustinian Challenge" [ Faith and Philosophy 20, no.
4 (2003): 460-78]. The basic gist of the article is to explain how essential Christian doctrines (original sin, predestination, and divine causation) cannot cohere with libertarian freedom. Thus, Baker claims we ought to be compatibilists because compatibilism makes the best sense of these doctrines, while libertarian freedom complicates matters. Baker’s fine work is intriguing, but in the end I have to confess it is built on weak grounds. First, in order to prove her theological doctrines are only consistent with compatibilism, she cites Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, Martin Luther, and Jonathan Edwards as her theological authorities. The problem here is that all of these theologians are compatibilists themselves! So, Baker fails to capture the big theological picture behind these core Christian doctrines. If she had consulted Irenaeus, Luis de Molina, Menno Simons, Jacob Arminius, John Wesley, and numerous contemporary theologians, she would have a more realistic consensus on what are the essentials to core these Christian doctrines. Since Baker has not done this, she has only shown compatibilism is most consistent with compatibilist theologians, which is a hollow victory at best. My second critique is that Baker fails to see the overwhelming philosophical difficulties with compatibilism. Most Christian philosophers are not willing to embrace compatibilism as an easy answer to major doctrinal issues because compatibilism seems like a contradiction.
For example, if compatibilism is true, then it would be true that God causes a person to perform a free act. But to talk that way is contradictory. Just because I can say, “I see the invisible man,” does not make it intelligible. Since compatibilism is too philosophically far-fetched, many Christian philosophers are going to avoid it all costs, even if it presents solutions to issues of interest to Christians.
Similarly, denying the laws of logic would relieve all apparent contradictions in Christian doctrines, but no one is willing to make this move because the philosophical price is too steep, even in light of its benefits. I think compatibilism is in similar company. I have more to say on this topic, but I think you get the point. Baker has much more work to do before she shows that Christians should be compatibilists. For me, Christianity makes best sense through a libertarian understanding of freedom. 
