The version of "free-will" theology you describe here is not how I or any other "free-willers" I know describe it or believe.
On which specific points do you think I'm misrepresenting the position?
By the way, I believe you are accurate in that free-willers don't have a coherent explanation of their theology, in general, and have simply accepted it based on their authority figures such as pastors. Yet, the presuppositions underly their belief system whether they explain it that way or not.
Many of them are perfectly fine with heaving boulders at Reformed believers, without fully understanding or explaining their own beliefs. But, they do not want their presuppositions laid bare so that they are accountable for them.
My conviction is this: free-willers believe that the unsaved man must dredge up faith and repentance from a stony heart, in order to receive a heart of flesh. Reformed believers are convicted that God gives the man a heart of flesh to replace his heart of stone, from which flows faith and repentance.
Now, the attempt of free-willers is often to diminish the radical corruption (which is what total depravity refers to) resulting from the Fall, and to claim that man, with his stony heart, can produce faith and repentance. Some altogether deny the necessity of regeneration at all, even after salvation is received.
That is why many of them believe in a two-tiered system, where there are "carnal Christians" and "spiritual Christians".
Anyways, perhaps you can clarify where you think I am misrepresenting the position of free-willers.
Here is my representation of their theology:
FREE-WILLER RESPONSE
The free-willer response to total depravity (radical corruption) is free will or human ability.
Although human nature was seriously affected by the Fall, man has not been left in a state of total spiritual helplessness. God graciously enables every sinner to repent and believe, but He does so in such a manner as not to interfere with man’s freedom. Each sinner possesses a free will, and his eternal destiny depends on how he uses it. Man’s freedom consists of his ability to choose good over evil in spiritual matters; his will is not enslaved to his sinful nature. The sinner has the power either to cooperate with God’s spirit and be regenerated, as a product of this cooperation, or to resist God’s grace and perish. The lost sinner needs the Spirit’s assistance, but he does not have to be regenerated by the Spirit before he can believe, for faith is man’s act and precedes the new birth. Faith is the sinner’s gift to God; it is man’s contribution to his salvation.
NOTE: I am using the phrase free-willer to describe the Arminian position, as well as the position of many others with similar theology. Reformed believers don’t believe man is a robot, and doesn’t make any decisions. Reformed theology teaches that man’s will is subject to his fallen nature, therefore he makes sinful choices as an overall orientation. In the case of believers, man’s will is subject to his regenerate nature, therefore he makes righteous choices as an overall orientation.
The analogy of a fish in a pond is good to understand this. A fish can swim around his pond all he wants, but he isn’t free to jump out of the pond and live on land.
Humans do not have libertarian free will, like some claim, but they have creaturely free will. This concept is biblically solid, although the exact phrases are not used.