So, if "Enlightening" someone's mind in order that they can "see" is acceptable, then what is the objection to the "Regenerating" someone's heart in order that they "believe"?
In the case of the irresistable "Enlightening", one will not have the ability to "not see", while in the case of irresistable "Regeneration", one will not have the ability to "not believe".
It seems that if this "Enlightenting" is "Irresistable" as you claim, then Arminianism has not removed the "problem" of God interfering with man's "free-will" completely. They have only moved it a step away.
In other words, Arminianism takes objection with "Irresistable Grace" because if "Grace" were "Irresistable", then, by definition, man would not have "free-will".
However, if this "Enlightening" (Prevenient Grace) were likewise "Irresistable", then, by definition, man would not have "free-will".
Jean
In any case, the enlightening IS irresistible. (He is the light who lightens every man who comes into the world.)
Therefore, the only objection I have to your version (irresistible grace) is that I think it lacks some biblically in terms of explaining the "belief" passages.
Arminianism thinks it has removed the problem of interference with man's free will because the enlightening makes possible a "clear" judicial choice. This choice enlightens all the way to a "no complaints" adjudicating. So then, it is at the "moment of choice and the exercise of choice" that 'free will' is not interfered with.
A positive choice is not irresistible according to classical arminianism.
For me, however, based on absolute foreknowledge, the Lord DOES know who will make the positive choice. They are then irresisibly enlightened by plan, and irresistibly regenerated based on their foreknown positive choice for Christ. (PM might disagree with that.)