Depends on what you mean by "free will," actually. If by it you mean that you are not coerced or remotely controlled, sure. If by it you mean that you can choose anything without any criteria (abitrarily) or pre-existing context, then we have some problems - let me use kind of a silly example:
If God knows I am going to have waffles tomorrow, and that knowledge is of an actual, certain choice, then there is actually a restriction on my future choice. No matter what, I will not choose pancakes tomorrow, I cannot - since the future is certain and it is already known what I will choose. The problem of foreknowledge vs. unrestricted (libertarian) free will is one thing that causes some people to go the route of Open Theism, which believes that God cannot know the future because the future isn't knowable or certain.
A second problem is the undeniable nature of "choice." Choices aren't arbitrary, we make choices for reasons. There are inclinations, circumstances, and desires (among other things) that inform and direct every choice we make. If I choose waffles tomorrow, it's because I want waffles and not oatmeal. Did I choose to want waffles too? Did I choose to prefer them? Hopefully I haven't oversimplified in my analogy, but that's what I am getting at. We may have choice, but those choices are limited by our greatest inclinations and are subject to our desires. I am not of the opinion the we choose our greatest inclinations or desires.
Restricted or "compatablist" will, IMO, not libertarian "free will", is both the biblical and logical conclusion we have to make. This retains God as absolutely sovereign and not self-limiting AND man as responsible and not a robot. But it really depends on what people mean when they say "free will." In philosophical/theological circles, this is why people make a distinction on what they mean.
