Is the prevenient grace you are speaking of given to all men?
In order for an offer to be valid, then wouldn't the offeror have to include enough information to the offeree in order to make a reasoned decision? If I offered you one shiny brand new "bliksenater" and told you nothing of it, you couldn't possibly know whether to choose to accept. Does prevenient grace carry this information? If it does, then who with prevenient grace could reasonably say "No" to heaven over hell? If it does not, then prevenient grace does not foster a true offer.
Any time someone comes to saving faith it is because of the working of the holy spirit, and any time someone denies the faith it is because of their own free will. IOW in order to choose to come to God you must first surrender your free will (and everything else for that matter) to God.
(Same idea. If someone has fair information, who could refuse?) Is the idea here that all men are saved until they decide to blow it on their own?
The Bible is quite clear that Christ died for the sins of the whole world and not merely for the sins of the elect.
Well, we would say it is just as clear in the other direction. :)
The effect of the atonement is only applicable to those who believe on Christ, but Christ suffered and died even for those who will ultimately perish.
If Christ suffered for the reprobate, would He have suffered less if He only did it for the elect? If yes, the obvious follow-up would be why did He do it then? However, if you were focusing on the death, then how was it not partially wasted? I understand it can be useful to tell a lost person that "Christ died for you", but from a theological standpoint, how does it glorify God for Him to have died for the reprobate?
God does not "foresee" and then elect in any temporal sense. God made his election based upon his own will, and we read from the bible that those who believe shall be saved and that all who are saved are elect. Why is it necessary to take it further than that?
Just to be sure we are talking about the same thing. If man's belief is the driving force behind election then that is very different from the reverse. From our POV it may all come out the same in the end, but God's sovereignty is on the line here. :)
If there is no prerequisite act required on the part of men for salvation, then the gospel is meaningless.
That depends on whether you are talking about "salvation in fact" or "salvation such that we know it". When does the former actually take place? If the elect are already set in stone from the beginning, then no other "act" is required of a man's free will to be elect. Now, if one is elect, then certainly some things will necessarily happen, belief, perseverance, etc., however, nothing a man could possibly do could ruin his status as an elect. God alone handles all the details.
The Philippian Jailer asked "What must I do to be saved?". If there were no prerequisite act required, Paul's honest answer would have been "Nothing! You can't do anything."
Since Paul (like all of us) could not have known whether the jailer was of the elect, he answered in accordance with what God tells us. However, if the jailer had been able to ask God directly, then the answer might very well have been "Nothing! You can't do anything". :)
Was not what Paul uttered the inspired Word of God?
Are you saying that Paul's response was a different answer than God's?