My statement: God gave man a free will to freely chose whether he would love and obey or reject..
your response: Scripture please?
There is no explicit scripture that states man has a will. However, it is implicit in the language of the Bible that man choses, choses whom he will serve. Adam (Eve) chose to accept Satan's temptation. Man in God's Image is free, communal and distinctive.
Christ in His incarnation assumed man's human nature and redeemed all of it and joined it to himself.

The understanding of what and the how of this mystery was outlined by Maximus the Confessor in his arguments against Nestorius and his view that Christ had only one will - His divine.

This is how Maximus explains it, In Christ's human nature which is consubstantial with all men, God humanly wills, decrees and perfectly fulfills the salvation of all men, for no human being is untouched by His Incarnation, and nothing is detracted from His sovereignty as God if individual persons choose not to accept salvation. Human nature is mans essence which is the same for all men, but the personhood is the use of that will for good or evil. Christ, being truly consubstantial with all men, truly died for all men, and thus His atoning Passion, Death and Resurrection are in no way limited.

If not all men rise with the second Adam then not all die with the first Adam. Or, there would of necessity be some men who are not affected by the consubstantiality of Christ's human nature. Since they are not in Him through His Incarnation, they would of necessity not be in Adam either. Not being in Adam they would have no need of Christ. This is the denial of ancestral sin which was condemned as Pelagianism.

Here is the result of your understanding of redemption.
If Christ's human nature is efficacious in salvation only for a number of elected individuals, thenb it would appear that Christ's humanity, insofar as it is efficacious for those individuals, is united with them not naturally but only by the object of their wills, since His human nature itself is not united with them. This union only in object of will between God and man in Christ is Nestorianism, which also was condemned by the Church.

Thus it seems that the human nature of such elected individuals gives nothing to election and Christ's human nature certainly does not, as it only affects the elected individuals. Human nature either has no will, which is a kind of Apollinarianism or it is merely ineffectual in salvation. Thus Christ's two human will decisions of salvation in His temptations and in the Garden are illusory and this is Docetism, which was also condemned.

It seems you lack a clear distinction between person and nature, lack of understanding between natural will and the mode of willing of the person.

In the protestant argument between Calvinism and Arminian view, the Calvinists views the will of humanity as set in sin from birth of the individual. The individual is guilty of God's wrath from infancy. The Armenian view maintains that the human will is only weakened, not totally depraved, only individuals can freely choose, therefore individuals can experience guilt and wrath. Thus Calvinism puts the will exclusively in the nature of man, the Armenian exclusively in the person.

Thus the Calvinist has the problem of being supralapsarian and threatens the sovereignty of God in that God becomes the author of sin and sustains man's sinful nature after acceptance as a believer . Fortunately, most do not hold to this view and thus Calvinism has changed and has become infralapsarian to get around this dilemma but only in regard to Adam, not the believer.