Freedom - The ability to do as one wants.
Now, this is a simplistic definition of freedom because there are, most certainly, limitations to freedom. Take for example, I am not free to choose to breath oxygen, freely without mechanical assistance, under water. I'm limited by the laws of physics. I'm also bound by circumstances. For example right this moment I'm not free to go parasailing because I'm sitting in my living room and part of the laws of physics and my circumstances dictates that I cannot parasail at this very moment.
One last, and possibly the most important part of this idea, one cannot go against oneself. Now, before you get in a huff about this and say that I'm Calvinist after all... Listen, there are different levels to a person. For example, I want to eat ice cream right now, but I'm choosing not to do so because my will is overriding my natural desire. Anyone who's ever dieted can attest to this conundrum. I want to but I don't want to and that's okay. In the end I'm still doing what I want on a certain level.
Choice - an act of selecting or making a decision when faced with two or more possibilities.
This requires an actor, and two or more options. This doesn't mean that there cannot be agreement between two actors. Take my wife and I together we chose to attend a financial class. We came together and talked about the choice and decided that we agreed we should take this class. That's a different class of choices. We're talking about two separate actors that do not consult each other.
Take Bob. Bob decides to murder his neighbor. Did God choose for Bob to murder his neighbor? There is no evil in God, therefore God could not have gone against His nature to choose murder.
Take Jim. Jim hates the very thought of God. His heroes are Nietzsche and Hitler. Jim is faced with a choice, to murder his neighbor or not. He chooses not to do so. Did God choose this? If all choices are God's choice then He did choose that. But, everything an evil person chooses is evil, so God couldn't have made this choice either because it's an evil choice too because Jim is evil.
Now, if you say God made the decision to let Bob and Jim make those decisions, that is a TOTALLY different position. That is a totally different decision. God didn't decide between the two options to murder or not to murder. That is not an option that God's nature allows. God chose to let Bob and Jim make those decisions.
Within Calvinism there are several ideas that rob everyone of this idea of choice. That is, within Calvinism mankind is limited by his nature to choose; the whole TULIP acronym, Total Depravity, Unconditional Election, Limited Atonement, Irresistible Grace, and Perseverance of the Saints means that mankind has absolutely no decision in salvation. Within total depravity, is the concept that mankind has a sinful nature, and as such people cannot choose to love God. Also, this sinful nature is part of mankind's birthright, it has nothing to do with each individual's behavior or anything like that. To a certain extent I can see the point there, but the problem comes when one says that a sinful-natured person cannot go against that nature and choose God.
I found yet another site about Calvinism and the first point it tries to make is that "man is one hundred percent responsible for his behavior." I found this interesting site also which makes it clear that the Bible teaches that mankind can make free choices. "Luke reports that, “by refusing to be baptized by [John], the Pharisees and the lawyers rejected God’s purpose for themselves” (Luke 7:30, emphasis added). How could Scripture be more explicit than that? So too, in Isaiah the Lord says, “Oh, rebellious children…who carry out a plan, but not mine; who make an alliance, but against my will, adding sin to sin” (Is. 30:1). Again, how could Scripture get any clearer than that?" So, which is it? Did the Pharisees actually reject God? Not according to Calvinism, they were born rejecting God as part of their sin nature, not as any actual choice of their own. So, how is man responsible for his own choices if his choices are
I realize that philosophically speaking having at least two options presented to an individual is all that's required for choice. However, I would posit that there's more to it than that simple concept. I believe that for a choice to be real the different options have to be viable options. Like in the examples in Calvinism the sinful human cannot choose God/good because of a born-in predilection to sin. That is not a real choice.
If Calvinism is right then John the Baptist was wrong in saying: "Behold, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!"
In summary, I still believe in God. I will always believe in God. Also, I believe Christianity (really the Bible) has the best description of God available for mankind. I will never and can never accept that Calvinism has the answers to the nature of Christianity/salvation. I know I may be missing something, but as it stands, I don't think I will ever be dissuaded from holding that view.