The debate between Erasmus and Luther is one of the earliest of the Reformation over the issue of free will and predestination, which is a form of determinism.
Erasmus wrote "On Free Will" in September of 1524 as his first public attack upon Martin Luther. While he believed that the Roman Catholic Church needed reform from within, he accused Luther of having gone too far. He held that every human possessed free will and that the doctrine of predestination stood at odds with the teachings of the Bible.
Erasmus argued against the belief that God's foreknowledge of events
caused those events, and he held that the doctrines of repentance,
baptism, and conversion depended on the existence of free will. He
likewise contended that divine grace called, led, and assisted humans
in coming to the knowledge of God, and then supported them as they
used their free will to make choices between good and evil, and
enabled them to act on their choices for repentance and good, which in
turn could lead to salvation through the atonement of Jesus Christ. - Wikipedia
In response in December 1525, Martin Luther published "On the Bondage of the Will" or "Concerning Bound Choice".
Luther's response was to reason that original sin incapacitates human beings from working out their own salvation, and that they are completely incapable of bringing themselves to God. As such, there is no free will for humanity because any will they might have is overwhelmed by the influence of sin. Luther concluded that unredeemed human beings are dominated by obstructions; Satan, as the prince of the mortal world, never lets go of what he considers his own unless he is overpowered by a stronger power, i.e. God. When God redeems a person, he redeems the entire person, including the will, which then is liberated to serve God. - Wikipedia
I think these two (and most) positions on the extent of the human will's freedom acknowledge what might be called Free Agency; that is, the ability to choose from within a limited set of options. Libertarian Free Will, for example, easily admits that one is not free to choose to levitate or grow an additional set of eyes, etc., and that what one is free to choose are only those possible options available.
Other positions, like the Reformed stance, would agree but would severely limit the scope of what is possible by extending the limitation into our very natures:
“Free agency is a general mark of all human beings as such. All humans are free agents in the sense that they make their own decisions as to what they will do, choosing as they please in the light of their sense of right and wrong and the inclinations they feel. Thus they are moral agents, answerable to God and each other for their voluntary choices. So was Adam, both before and after he sinned; so are we now, and so are the glorified saints who are confirmed in grace in such a sense that they no longer have it in them to sin. Inability to sin will be one of the delights and glories of heaven, but it will not terminate anyone’s humanness; glorified saints will still make choices in accordance with their nature, and those choices will not be any the less the product of human free agency just because they will always be good and right.” - J.I.Packer
Packer's position (and that of Johnathan Edwards as well) is that the factors limiting choice are internal, i.e., our very natures corrupted to the point of an unavailability of the option to actually choose to do good. What we do choose, however, are "free" choices from the set of choices available.
Thus, the Free Agency view can apply across the board and the distinction in various frameworks boils down to describing of what the limitation of possible choices consists. In other words, is exercising moral free agency in choosing to do good an available option for everyone regardless of salvation, an available option tending toward salvation, or the product of salvation.