You duly maintain everything that has been done can not be contingent because now gain the necessary result of what has been, and I agree. And then we dive into Augustine. Augustine said that because ( cause/ effect) man is enslaved to sin, Jer 179, he no longer maintains liberty though he still enjoys volition. Consider that precisely also read on. Extremely applicable point. I agree with you. Man does naturally retain a free will but not to elect any spiritual good. Man in his natural condition is deceased to spiritual effects. Yet he does choose moral good and the colorful likes and dislikes of this world. But Calvin gives veritably little attention to this kind of freedom. Because really it signifies nothing in apt comparison to the thrall of the will in a spiritual sense. Since a man can not constantly choose to be saved, though he may be acted upon by the godly disclosure of God which Romans 1 easily indicates that all men are and therefore all men are shamefaced, a man's conduct will be determined by his own heart. A man naturally selects his own way. A man's voluntary opinions generally determine his specific direction, and in this we tone- determine the possible issues of conscious opinions and literal events in our lives. I agree it generally depends upon the necessary condition of the heart. The leading cause of mans action really remains the mind precisely opting what's utmost pleasing at the time of conscious choice.However, we don't mean that conscious choice isn't in the equilibrium state of Arminian tone-determinism, If we dig a little deeper into the area of moral freedom or liberty. Hence, moral liberty equals the will being without cohersion of a cause that rightly determines the conscious choice previous to choosing. What we're maintaining the will is determined by the strongest desire that follows from what the mind is most pleased with as to the objects of choice. If a person held two equal objects of choice with the conscious won't leaning either way also that isn't moral liberty of conscious will but no conscious will at each. Choosing solicitations one object over another. Or choosing according to what the person desires for themselves. That's using the subject and the verb duly. When we say the conscious choice is the mind choosing we aren't saying that choosing is rigorously in a rational paradigm. The minds view of the direct object is directly determined by what kind of understanding a person has by the pleasure bone has about the object. In other words moral capability is further than rational understanding, we grasp what's right, we don't habitually perform what we grasp to complete. Thus, when we're talking about moral capability, we're espousing the moral understanding of an object of choice by what satisfies us most about the object or what our strongest desire about the object by our forming a view of the direct object in our moral understanding by our rational process and a spiritual process. We consider this spiritual affection. So we believe the forming of what we're pleased with utmost in our understanding comes as a result of godly knowledge, or from a supernatural source. Hence what I'm stating it isn't just the supernatural change in the soul that determines the choice, but it's the godly knowledge employed to the mind that's of a supernatural process that makes the desire strongest so that we follow the view of the object of choice to be most pleasing to us. It's our spiritual affections that are part of our rational process that forcefully affect our moral understanding of the direct object of conscious choice that directly determines our favorable view of the direct object so that our sincere desire for that object is lesser to unfeignedly ask the good over the wrong. A mouth full but suppose about that.