Is This a Logic Argument?

[Benjamin]

Can these two premises form a valid argument and add up to a logically true conclusion?

A

Originally Posted by Iconoclast

I am one who denies "free will exists".Man does have a will ...self will...however it is bound by his nature...

Choice is choice....it has nothing to do with the condition of the will....

Here is where I see the above typical Calvinist argument above logically leading to concerning Icon view of “self will” and the nature being Determined to support a philosophical theory which conveniently uses the term “free moral agency” but in conjunction with the nature of man being pre-determined:

B

Originally Poste by Benjamin:
Bill C: “God determined all things that ever happen, He is Sovereign."
Bob A: "Did God determine the things Jeffrey Dahmer did?"
Bill C: "No, Jeffrey Dahmer did what he did because of his nature."
Bob A: "Who determined Jeffrey Dahmer’s nature?"
Bill C: "God did, He determines all things, He is Sovereign."

Can a true conclusion be derived from within my example?
We will see, Icon is about use his two premises above and explain how his argument can be demonstrated to be logically true using ethical philosophical principles to do so.
Take it way Icon!