They probably weren't even thinking of the issue of free will when they wrote that, and in so doing, wrote a story that suggested there isn't any free will.
I would suggest a modification of that.
The story of A&E shows how God allowed humans to embark on a quest to avoid the laws of nature. God then supplied a set of laws, which supposedly would bring humans back on track, except that humans could not competently follow the laws, given the difficulties of this new mal-adapted human existence, which the Bible says was deliberately created by God, by imposing "thorns and thistles" upon us. This could be reinterpreted that humans left their native low population state, and the forest destruction and agriculture caused invasive weeds. This is consistent with the Hebrew idea that God's laws are to stop natural pestilence, and increase human lifespan.
Where this idea goes seriously off the rails, is that Christianity is all about the individual, rather than the state of Israel. Failing to get Israel to behave properly, Paulism gave up on the hope that humans could ever pull together and create paradise by observing laws. God would have to reward individuals who worked against the crowd, and he would do it in an afterlife.
Having taken this step, it then becomes a virtue in Christianity, for the crowd to be a corrupt failure. This crowd is then said to be following free will. It's true that it is, but being a corrupt, overpopulated, mal-adapted crowd, it has no free will. Christianity could be said to be a unilateral individual's attempt to go against the crowd, no matter what the consequences. It's true that you have the free will to give all your money away, but gosh darn, something seems to stop you. The Pope could run around in a Pope mobile with no armoured walls on it, but gosh darn, it seems ever more pragmatic to have glass walls on it, even though it would show off his Christianity magnificently, if he was persecuted and died, or if he was shot at, and the bullet just crumpled on his forehead.
Quite obviously, the Pope has the free will to believe what's written in the Bible, but chooses not to. In other words, the Bible has not convinced the Pope on riskier issues.
Did you just notice that I took you down a path, with a massive contradiction? It took me all my lunch time to figure that one out.
Arguably, as individuals, we are compelled by mob rule to behave the way we do. Yet, this is our "free will" from A&E heritage. Then, I would get no arguments from Christians, when I say that it's my ultimate free will to give all my money way, and behave as a Christian should. But I would only do that, if I truly believed the Bible, and had my free will taken away.
The solution to this, is that if you follow the Bible because you believe it, then you have no free will. If you follow it out of "faith", even though you don't believe it, then you have free will.
The two conclusions are that (1) people who have faith and free will, don't believe the Bible, (2) those who do believe the Bible have no free will, and will go to Hell.
Obviously, the Pope has no faith, and doesn't believe the Bible. (Also, he has no free will, because he is constrained by mob rules.)
I think all conundrums have been solved. However, there may be group (3) who believe the Bible, and pretend they don't, so they can pretend they have faith.