But unless I deny the facts of Matthew 11 (God could have dispensed additional Graces; He was under no obligation to do so, but it was His Right to do so if He saw fit as in the cases of Nineveh and saint Paul)....
...Then I still end up with a form of Absolute Predestination in which God "allows" a "fair free choice" by dispensing sufficient graces to all (as defined by the five points of Classical Arminianism) but still reserves to Himself the Sovereign Right to dispense extraordinary graces towards the specific accomplishment of His Exact Plan.
This sounds suspiciously like Jonathan Edwards explanation of the fall of man in the Garden. Quoting from Miscellany 290:
If it be enquired how man came to sin, seeing he had no sinful inclinations in him, except God took away his grace from him that he had been wont to give him and so let him fall, I answer there was no need of taking away any that had been given him, but he sin'd under that temptation because God did not give him more. He did not take away that grace from him while he was perfectly innocent which grace was his original righteousness, but he only withheld his confirming grace given now in heaven, grace as shall surmount every temptation....
It is late, and i shall not go into the chain of logic that i must slow down to understand at this late hour, but suffice it to say, that if one follows the chain of logic, (s)he ends up in a position where man cannot be held responsible for his fall
It may interest you to know that Edwards was never able to extricate himself from the quagmire that he got stuck in, and never could answer the objections. This is where the Arminian Free-will Predestination ends up, denying the same responsibility of man for his choice that it affirms, hence, a contradiction.
I think that we may need to separate the Ideas of Innocence and Perfection. Believe it, or not.
There is a developing Orthodox Presbyterian argument... not really so much an argument as a theological investigation... that Adam's WORSHIP of God Logos-Theophany (the Word in his midst, as opposed to the Word Incarnate in the flesh of Mary sometime later) in the Garden was INNOCENT of the actually-forbidden Sin of Commission regarding the Fruit of Trial, but was nonetheless even then not PERFECT in the sense of perfect Worship, as later exemplified by the Christ.
This is NOT what God said!! But from whom did Eve hear this Teaching? She did not hear it from God. She did not hear it from the Serpent. She heard it from Adam.
If Eve heard this Teaching from Adam, then it may very possibly mean that....
Adam himself had already engaged in a form of "worship" which was NOT PERFECT. For as God has later declared to the Sons of Adam (and the Law of the Lord is Perfect):
But if Adam was permitted to engage in a form of "worship" which God foreknew to be Imperfect, thereby setting the stage for Eve's transgression ("I have touched, yet I do not die", perhaps??), whereas the Christ performed the Worship of God perfectly...
Then this implies a conclusion which few but Calvinists are willing to contemplate:
It's a deep, knotty subject.
It is hard, and thick, and (almost, I think) inquires where angels fear to tread.
I know no other way with which to speak thereof.