You repeat this and similar posts so often it is becoming a cliché. Let's deconstruct this pat answer you like to toss about (like so much other boilerplate at your disposal).
I think by now that you know that I believe that God has
(1) foreordained all events, therefore God knows the future perfectly;
(2) thus every action in the future is a certainty; and
(3) therefore all future actions, including free, moral decisions of God's creatures, must be what they unequivocably will be—otherwise God could not perfectly know what they will be.
Without going into exhaustive detail, my inclination is that incompatibilistic, libertarian freedom will win the day over confusing compatibilism.
I know that Arminians (and their cousins) will deny the first premise. But that is not the issue. The issue we are discussing your oft-used phraseology cast as if that is the end of the matter. Compatibilism (soft-determinism) says that our notions of freedom are not absolute freedom, for no one has absolute freedom. Therefore, when speaking of 'freedom' we need to define our terms. Depite what some in this thread like to shrilly state, there are agreements on what 'freedom' means amongst theologians. In one camp, I believe yours, 'freedom' is the ability to do otherwise from what one does. (Again, this is not the issue we are discussing.) In my camp, 'freedom' means to choose according to one's greatest inclinations of the moment of choosing. Consequently, for my camp there is only one possible course of action for me and I 'freely' chooses that course of action. In other words, that I chose what I wanted to choose (my desires at the moment) and that God is orchestrating my choosing directly or indirectly, is irrelevant given the terms I have used. My 'freedom' and God's foreknowledge are compatible, hence the term compatibilism. Now you can pick a bone with me about whether or not you agree with the terms (since we are in two camps), but again that is not the issue. The issue is that there is no basis for your statement above that compatibilism is "confusing". What you are doing when you post these templated statements that belie undisputed validity is practicing an intellectual shell game.
If you tweak hyper-sovereignty, you can retain genuine freedom. If you retain hyper-sovereignty, you must water-down genuine freedom.
Here you use "hyper-sovereignty", a term that can only be meant to be pejorative. For you and I both know that there is a commonly understanding about the word 'sovereignty'. Yet you choose to cast the word that I know you learned in seminary, in a negative light to pander to the crowd. "Hyper" sovereignty? Come on, GR! Why did you not simply state, "if you tweak the common understanding of sovereignty, you can..."? The reason you did not do this is that somewhere deep inside you there is a resistance to just give any due to traditional understandings of the terms we both have learned. Rather you want to cast what you are advocating (sovereignty is not micro-management) as mainstream, while the traditional understandings of words and terms is suddenly made aberrant. So, you distinguish 'hyper-sovereignty' from 'sovereignty', implying so cleverly that the former is something strange, while the plain old sovereignty word has been understood for ages. For someone who spends so much time correcting the practices of the Mormons and JWs, I find it inexplicable that you do not recognize when you are doing the very same thing.
The way to have our cake and eat it to (not to mention resolve the sovereignty vs free will tension) is to have a right understanding of sovereignty and freedom.
This statement should have been your opener before the statement immediately above. Here you make no clever additions to the terms.
The two motif theme (God settles some vs all of history) also is part of the solution.
You really, really, like the word 'motif'. Why? There is nothing dominant nor centralized to the two items unless you place them in some context. Why not just state 'the two themes' versus elevating the two items to an implied elegance of thinking? And by the way, 'motif theme' is redundant.
I still maintain that an omnicompetent God simply does not need to be omnicausal to be sovereign over the universe
Finally we come to two of your really favorite words, tossed about whenever the door is even slightly ajar. It is rare that you will just use the proper term, omnipotent, and then take the brief time to simply state that you are holding to a different understanding of the word. So what exactly is an omnicompetent God? Hold on a moment and I will ask Clete to look up the definition in his very fine dictionary. "having the capacity to handle any situation". Thanks, Clete! GR, using the 'omnicompetent' over the clearly understood term for one of God's attributes is just another shell game. Notice here how you do not enclose "sovereign" in quotes, for you have already, ever so craftily, cast your sovereignty as the, ahem, 'normally' understood term as explained earlier.
After walking myself through your post and reviewing the many other standard templates you repeatedly use to reply to posts I have concluded that you are not to be taken lightly, for you very purposefully and cunningly craft your words that easily ensnare the unsuspecting. It is only after much back and forth, "what do you mean here?", "how do you define this?", etc. that one is able to construct an accurate picture of what you really mean, just like those other folks mentioned above. You are better than this and it troubles me to see you engage in this deception.
Are we getting anywhere. Are we at least getting past our denials and accusations?
