Response to Leighton Flowers:
http://soteriology101.com/

“In a recent online discussion, Dr. Johnathan Pritchett made a strong case against Calvinist’s position on this point:
Theological argument – In order for person X to freely choose Y, God has to ensure that person X has the desire to only choose to do Y so Y obtains, because like all things, God decreed Y. If God ensures Y, and Y is sin, then God caused X to sin because there are any number of other things that could obtain if X had different desires, even other sinful ones. But God decreed X to do Y, not anything else. The only way Y obtains is if God works all things to ensure it and nothing else. As such, God caused X to commit sin Y. This is bad theology.”

As many have shown before that Dr. Flowers is ignorant that his argument is self refuting. He has to further his argument and explain what form of causation is the Calvinist suppose to commit too. He simply takes it for granted and even on open theism God is the cause of all things.

“Philosophical argument – If compatiblism is true, then free will is the will of man choosing in accordance to the strongest desire. If so, then it is circular and therefore irrational and must be abandoned. ”

It’s so philosophical that it is invalid.

If x is the case , then y is the case.
If so, it’s circular reasoning.

The conclusion doesn’t flow from the premises. It also refutes himself again .

If libertarianism is true , then free will is the will of man choosing in non determined manner (or uncaused).

Did these (so called) syllogism prove anything? If anything it would look like this:

P1: If compatiblism (Edward’s formulation) was true , then freewill is choosing ones strongest inclination at the moment.
P2: Compatiblism is true.
C: Therefore, therefore freewill is choosing in accordance with the strongest desire

I challenge them to show the fallacy in that argument.

“Here is the circle:
People choose according to their strongest desire, and we know it was their strongest desire because they chose it, and they chose it because people choose according to their strongest desire, and we know it was their strongest desire because they chose it, and they chose it because people choose according to their strongest desire, and we know it was their strongest desire because they chose it…and so on. ”
Edward’s didn’t argue like that and anyone who thinks he did is ignorant. Edward’s argued the contrary position leads to men acting unintentionally and therefore making morally irrelevant choices.

“It is a baseless, unprovable assertion. ”
The same guy who believes choices are uncaused thinks that we have the baseless and unprovable assertion. Everything happens according to chance in his thought. He believes in freewill by chance on his view. If we rewind things over again and the moment arises and may in identical circumstances have been a determinist.
“At most, we could say that “the prevailing desire prevails,” but this is a trivial claim and a mere truism that says nothing about the strength or lack thereof regarding the desire acted upon. It only states that the desire acted upon was the desire acted upon, but that doesn’t tell us anything. In fact, in experience, people always find themselves choosing according to less than their strongest desire. ”
Well, I’ve never met a person that was acting not in accordance with there desire and people often read to much into their experience.  It may seem as if you are forced to do an activity , but usually you most desire or most intend something because those things. As a man may hate community service , but would much rather do that than prison sentence.

“Biblical argument – If the theological argument above is correct, then God causes Y. But the Bible teaches “Let no one say when he is tempted, ‘I am being tempted by God,’ for God cannot be tempted with evil, and he himself tempts no one. But each person is tempted when he is lured and enticed by his own desires. Then desire when it has conceived gives birth to sin, and sin when it is fully grown brings forth death.” James 1:13-15 ”
What is Y? He never states.  I’ll assume he is speaking about a state of affairs in which a person is tempted. The point of the text is God isn’t tempted and he tempts no one. Calvinism doesn’t entail God tempting any individual but decreeing states of affairs where agents tempt one another.
“That desire can’t come from God ensuring it is present for agent X to choose Y, because the Bible teaches that the desire for Y comes from man, not God. But in order for X to chose sin Y instead of sin Z, God has to make sure the desire for Y is strongest in X so that X chooses according to God’s decree. This contradicts Scripture that clearly teaches that X’s own desire for Y comes from himself. ”
There’s no contradiction. It seems like Leighton has no clue what an actual contradiction entails. As sound argumentation isn’t produced much from Leighton.

“Romans 7:15 states,  “For I do not understand my own actions. For I do not do what I want, but I do the very thing I hate.” How in the world does it make sense for someone to choose to do what they hate and it be labeled “their strongest desire?”  ”

Romans 7 isn’t a challenge because a man may have competing desires. I don’t think he’s giving a treatise about the will, but it is problematic to interpret it that way. For it would require that he is doing something against his intentions. That he doesn’t want to sin but his arms and legs without any volition on his part carry him off to do such things. He is acting unintentionally. But if his actions are going against his intentions , how are they morally relevant? He’s not making the choice and rather his will is acting without his intent.  Just as if a demon jumped on his back with a machine called chance and worked him around. It is better understood that Paul is a man making morally relevant choices and he has competing desires. That which is good and that which is evil and he gives into his sinful desire.
“This is just unBiblical nonsense. ”

Says the man defending pagan freedom.

“As such, because of these three, either taken individually or in whole, compatiblism is bad theology,”

It helps in the understanding of Many text. Isaiah 10 , Genesis 50 , Acts 4.

” bad philosophy,”
Is he known for his philosophical insights?

“and bad Biblical understanding and should therefore be rejected by all Christians on pains that:”

He has the same 3 issues.

“1. It makes God the author of evil. ”

He doesn’t elucidate what this concept is suppose to mean , but in a previous post it was pointed out that Freewill theism makes God the author of evil. He’ll have to try again.

“2. It is irrational. ”

I’m not convinced by his case that it is irrational.

“3. It contradicts plain statements in Scripture.”

Or one’s obsessively bad interpretation?

“What are your thoughts?”

That you don’t know what you’re talking about.