Short answers, pulled from the story.
Ancient Greek philosophy identified free will as the capacity to choose between different possible courses of action. Aristotle in the 4th century BCE and Epictetus in the 1st century CE attributed compatibilist free will to this notion. They argued that nothing hindered us from doing or choosing something made us have control over them.
The term liberum arbitrium entered Christian philosophy during the 4th century CE. It traditionally meant lack of necessity in human will until the Enlightenment proposed its own meanings. This requirement was universally embraced by both incompatibilists and compatibilists for centuries.
Carl Ginet formulated an argument in the 1960s known as the consequence argument. It states if determinism is true then we have no control over events of the past that determined our present state. Since we can have no control over these matters we also can have no control over their consequences.
Neuroscience places restrictions on both compatibilist and incompatibilist conceptions of free will. Cognitive naturalism stresses the role of neurological sciences in studying human cognition. Overall brain health substance dependence depression and various personality disorders clearly influence mental activity.
Strong theological determinism asserts everything that happens has been predestined by an omniscient omnipotent divinity. Weak theological determinism relies on divine foreknowledge where what God knows about the future will inevitably happen. Soft theological determinism claims humans have free will to choose their actions holding that God while knowing their actions before they happen does not affect the outcome.