Is ex-nihilo creationism irreconcilable with the concept of individual free will? Looking on this site in many answers involving the problem of evil I see affirmations of belief in free-will.

According to Calvinist Mark Hausam, who presented a paper at a conference on Mormonism, the assertion that God gave us free-will and that God created everything ex-nihilo, beliefs that he asserts are held by many evangelicals, are incompatible. He argues:


  Creation ex nihilo implies a radical metaphysical dependence upon
  God, one that logically guarantees that the creature will not be independent from God or
  be capable of independent contributions to reality in the ways envisioned in Arminian
  thought. In fact, creation ex nihilo logically leads directly to Calvinistic determinism.


Hausam continues to argue that Arminian thought is not all that dissimilar from Mormonism. Mormonism explicitly rejects the notion of creation ex-nihilo and as such resolves the problem of evil as well as the paradox: If God created everything, how is our will independent of him? He argues that Arminians, in order to believe in our having free-will, must reject the concept of ex-nihilo creation as well.

My question is directed to those who hold both these views. I am not entirely convinced that these views are irreconcilable as argued, but I cannot produce a good counter-argument. How do you resolve the paradox presented here by Hausam?

Note: I recognize one way to argue this is that God, being all-powerful, created our free wills out of nothing, but this is still the same paradox. How can God determine (create) something that is undetermined? (free-will). If you could present a logical argument for this view, I would gladly hear it.
With all due respect to Mark Hausam, the logic just doesn't hold water.  That sounds like a category error. 


  Category Errors
  
  These fallacies occur because the author mistakenly assumes that the
  whole is nothing more than the sum of its parts. However, things
  joined together may have different properties as a whole than any of
  them do separately. The following fallacies are category errors:
  
  
  Composition (Because the parts have a property, the whole is said to have that property)
  Division (Because the whole has a property, the parts are said to have that property)
  


Free will is not dependent on our origins. To illustrate this, we can look at a polar opposite theory of origins and show that the same argument can be stated, and it's equally nonsensical.

Creationism implies a first cause, which is God. It deals with the origin of everything. Ex-nihilo creationism claims God as a first cause, leaving the question "where did God come from?"

Current Atheistic Naturalism also assumes a first cause - the Big Bang, and question "what existed before it?  Where did the energy, which eventually became matter, come from?"

Both claim either a first cause, or a first known cause, leaving the question of whether or not this known first cause is truly first... But I'm getting off the subject.

Let's rephrase the question attempting to tie free will to this alternate theory of origins:


  The Big Bang theory implies a radical metaphysical dependence upon
  energy and matter.


To which we can only reply "duh."

If the Big Bang is true, and we have a metaphysical dependence on matter and energy, that has nothing to do with whether or not we have free will. 

The existence of free will has nothing to do with origins. It doesn't matter if the proposed theory of origins is the Big Bang, or Ex-nihilo Creationism, or the idea that a Turtle god barfed up the universe. (Sorry. I've been reading some odd legends lately.)