The Incoherence of Compatibilism

One disturbing trend I have found within Christendom is what I call the "New Calvinism." Advocates of this view, such as James White, believe that all human behavior is determined, meaning that no one has a will autonomous of God's will. They also believe that we have free choice, and that determinism is compatible with free will. I find this trend very disturbing, and I want to see it stopped. Here is an argument against compatibilism, based on an argument by Peter Van Inwagen. However, this version of the argument avoids the flaws found in earlier editions of Inwagen's argument, and thus improves upon it. First, let's begin by defining two things.

Free choice: Something is a free choice if it is up to us. If some fact is up to us, we have the ability to render it false. For example, the fact "Drew is wearing a white shirt" is up to me because I can render it false (such as, by taking it off).

Entailment: The relationship between two sentences where the truth of one (X) requires the truth of the other (Y). If X entails Y, then if X is true, Y must be true. If Y is false, X must be false.

Theistic Determinism: The idea that all things are determined by the decree of God. The divine decree entails all facts.

Now on to the argument:

If theistic determinism is true, then here are the following implications:

1. The eternal decree of God is not up to us.
2. The fact that the eternal decree of God entails all future facts is not up to us.

The theistic determinist would gladly assent to these two premises. To them, God's will is autonomous, and ours is not. This leads us to premise 3 of my argument.

3. If some fact X is not up to us, and X entails some fact Y, then Y is not up to us.

or stated more simply:

3'. If something is not up to us, anything it entails is not up to us.

which means:

3''. If we cannot render a certain fact false, then we cannot render something that the fact entails false.

From premises 1, 2, and 3 we get:

4. No future facts are up to us.

But Compatibilism states:

5. There are future facts entailed by the eternal decree of God that are up to us.

Therefore

6. Compatibilism is false.

Premise 3 is to say that if we cannot render some fact X false, and X entails Y, then we cannot render Y false (modus ponens). This is logically equivalent to saying that if we can render Y false, then we can render X false (modus tollens).
Let's plug in some examples to illustrate this point.

If the fact that the sun is yellow is not up to us, and the fact that the sun is yellow entails the fact that the sun has a color, then the fact that the sun has a color is not up to us. Or stated more simply,

If the fact that the sun is yellow is not up to us, then the fact that the sun has a color is not up to us.
or
If the fact that President Lincoln was assassinated was not up to us, then the fact that President Lincoln was killed was not up to us.
or
If the fact that the moon orbits the Earth is not up to us, then the fact that something orbits the Earth is not up to us.

Premise 3 should seem obviously true, yet I have discussed this with compatibilists who think it is false. So are there any additional arguments we can make for this premise? Well, let's assume that the premise is false.

Let's assume there is some fact X that is not up to us, and X entails some fact Y, but Y is up to us.

we could restate this as:

Some fact Y is up to us, X entails Y, but X is not up to us.
which means:
We can render some fact Y false, X entails Y, but we cannot render X false.
This is to say that X entails Y, and Y is false while X is true, which is a contradiction.

Here is an example to illustrate, the fact that you are wearing a shirt entails the fact that you are not naked. If premise 3 is false, it would lead to situations where you could be naked but not shirtless (for example). This is incoherent. If the fact that you are wearing a shirt entails that you are not naked, then you cannot be both naked and wearing a shirt.

If premise 3 is false, it leads to a contradiction. Therefore, Premise 3 cannot be false.

And hence, compatibilism is false.