This sort of unqualified declaration is what gets many into trouble and leads to misunderstandings.
A standard definition of
libertarian freedom is
leeway freedom: a moral agent can opt for two or more courses of action under the exact same circumstances. So there are ever so many different and divergent ways to complete the future. Given the same past, and billions of free agents, there are countless ways the future might turn out. Moreover, the choices of multiple free agents interact with each other or counteract each other. In addition, this impacts natural events inasmuch as humans often manipulate natural process to yield desired results.
Is such a "free will" described in Scripture. I think not.
Scripture clearly denies free-will to be an absolute independence on God’s providence in doing of any thing, and of His grace in doing that which is good or a self-sufficiency in all its operations. Scripture denies a plenary indifference of doing what we will, this or that, as being neither determined to the one thing nor inclined to the other thing by any overruling influence from heaven.
Accepting the above implies that the good acts of our wills have no dependence on God’s providence as they are acts, nor on His grace as they are good; but in both regards proceed from such a principle arising within us as is in no way moved by any superior agent (God).
We deny any
autonomy of our wills, because they are created; and the second, because they are corrupted. Their creation hinders them from doing any thing of themselves without the assistance of God’s providence; and their corruption, from doing any thing that is good without God's grace. A self-sufficiency for operation, without the effectual motion of God, the
first cause of all things, cannot be allowed neither to men nor angels, unless we intend to make them gods; and a power of doing good, equal to that they have of doing evil. We must not grant this to man by nature, unless we will deny the fall of Adam, and fancy ourselves still in paradise.
Defining
free will therefore can be difficult. The definition cannot make God the author of sin, but neither it cannot limit the free will of God.
The point I am trying to make, is that while we have a will, our will is unlike God's omniscient and all powerful will. Our will is limited because we can be influenced by outside forces, and also influenced by internal changes in regeneration, being born in original sin, etc. Of course God has
ordained (decreed) these outside forces to occur
naturally,
freely, or
necessarily such that no violence is done to our will. At this point objections arise by those that seek to get behind the curtain, if you will, to speculate and/or decry how God actually pulls this off. To them, while God is able to merely speak and create all that exists, He is somehow not able to ordain all that has, is, or will happen, without necessarily treading upon their
Holy of Holies: "free will".
It is best to define
free will to be
the ability of a moral agent to choose according to his greatest inclinations at the moment he so chooses. Scripture is replete with examples of this notion of free will.
Unfortunately, the anti-Calvinists have taken the term
free will to often refer to the ability of man to believe without even the work of God in regeneration. This is due to the error that assumes we are free to choose or select our nature.
The Fall left the human will intact insofar as we still have the faculty of choosing. Our minds have been darkened by sin and our desires bound by wicked impulses. But we can still think, choose, and act. Yet something terrible has happened to us. We have lost all desire for God. The thoughts and desires of our heart are only evil continuously. The freedom of our will is a curse. Because we can still choose according to our desires, we choose to sin and thus we become accountable to the judgment of God.
As fallen human beings we retain our
natural freedom (the power to act according to our desires) but lose
moral freedom. Every choice we make is determined by something. There is a reason for it, a desire behind it. This sounds like
determinism. No!
Determinism teaches that our actions are completely controlled by something
external to us, making us do what we don't want to do. That is
coercion and is opposed to
freedom. How can our choices be
determined but not
coerced? Because they are determined by something within—by what we are (nature) and by what we desire (will). They are determined by ourselves. This is
self-determination, which is the very essence of freedom.
Yes, for us to choose Christ, God must change our heart. Indeed, this is precisely what God does. He changes our nature for us. He gives us a desire for Himself that we otherwise would not have. Then we choose Him out of the desire that is within us. We freely choose Him because we want to choose Him. That is the wonder of His grace.
For more, see:
https://www.monergism.com/blog/common-objections-reformed-doctrine-predestination
AMR
