Here is the fundamental problem I have with your personal view of free will. First, if willpower is precisely defined as the cognitive ability to voluntarily choose between spiritual good and evil, then being in an equal state of equal librium actually means an apparent lack of willpower. To sincerely, want is that one generally prefers one necessary thing to another. What is claimed is that the will causes the will to act. It is a logical contradiction. "Will" does not remain the cause of the choice.Therefore, there is no reason in your theology. And if there is no possible cause, there is not sufficient reason for something to exist without a doubt. You may believe that a person determines for themselves what they want, but this is not so true. A person can decide how they are going to live their life. But how can the will correctly determine the conscious will?If the will maintains no reason to decide other than to be free, then your view of freedom does not gain freedom at all. 

Why does the self-determined have a prior will to determine the next choice, and so if you go back to the conscious first choice, what then caused that choice? This is the logical conclusion, there is no possible reason, therefore there is no conscious will at all in the moral sense of moral freedom of self-determination. The possible existence of being inevitably becomes a cycle, due to the awkward truth that not everything "is" is. Now that I believe that you accept grace as the source of faith, but since you leave the will as capable and uncorrupted, your logic is the same as pragmatism.So anything that happens outside of the rational process remains an event that happens by coincidence. The belief that humans are nothing more than robots programmed for a pre-existing purpose.