You, once again, muddied the water about the “free” portion of “free will”.
Example, the street sign marked “No entry” may be an issue to influence your thinking about what descision is wise or legal, but it absolutely would not be an issue to limit your “free will”, assuming that something like “free will” existed. Your “free will” could choose to enter the street and break the law, or not enter and obey the law, if your view of “free will” is correct.
The kind of influence Paul writes about is where he sees the street sign, does not want to enter it, but finds himself turning onto the street, breaking the law no matter what he wants or thinks. He cannot stop himself from doing that which he knows is wrong. This is the evidence of the loss of “freedom” of the will. We don’t argue there is no will, we just argue that it is not free.
You, OTOH, claim that a man is not limited by anything that would take away the man’s ability to make that choice exactly as he wanted. You, therefore, claim this proves man has “free will”. But, we point out, if something overpowers a man’s will such that he cannot choose what he actually sees is possible and desparately wants to do, this would by everyone’s definition in the world (perhaps except yours and the RCC) prove the will is not “free”.
St. Paul is providing an example of weak will in Romans 7. But, he continues, that with divine grace he can "with the mind serve the law of God". His will, while weak, can become strong as Christ sanctifies him.