Arminians like to trot out various prooftexts which, to their own way of thinking, imply or presume human choice–defined as the freedom to do otherwise.
They then castigate Calvinists for disregarding the “plain sense” of Scripture (or words to that effect). We do this because we allegedly begin with our a priori commitment to predestination, which we then impose on the Scriptural data.
The funny thing about this allegation is that Arminians are actually in a parallel situation. While they don’t believe in divine foreordination, they do believe in divine foreknowledge.
Now, even though foreknowledge doesn’t actually determine the future, foreknowledge does assume the future is determinate. If God knows the future, then the future cannot be otherwise.
Therefore, an Arminian really can’t take any of his own prooftexts at face value (i.e. what he takes to be the “plain sense”). Since God foreknows what the agent will do, the agent lacks “real” freedom (as the Arminian defines it). The agent’s freedom is “illusory” (as the Arminian defines it).
Some Arminians have shifted to Molinism. But that move simply relocates the problem. In the actual world, an agent doesn’t have the freedom to do otherwise. Rather, the actual world (or world-segment) represents only one human choice–the one that God instantiated, to the exclusion of other possible choices.
Only an open theist can consistently interpret Arminian prooftexts to establish libertarian freedom.