Makes sense to me. Barring some sort of miraculous intervention, I don't see how a babe could possibly understand God.
Our faith and journey to God requires a journey through the world God creates (and for God to create us). My point was simply that I don't like explanations that seems to require a sort of "magical autopilot," for people to come to God. It seems to me that God leads people to faith through diverse means. God frequently uses history to shape the faith of the covenant people for example.
Man cannot lead himself to God because man is not self-creating and because man lives in a fallen world, in sin, beset on all sides by instinct, desire, and circumstance. Reason can show him the signs of God (Romans 1) and we may see our need for God (Romans 7, Paul delights in God's law in his inner soul while fallen, but cannot follow God due to sin), but only by grace are we led to repentance and faith. Our own control over our lives is limited. We are only free over desire, instinct, and circumstance — free over over selves — to the extent we are in God, by grace.
But when Jesus says, "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to it! How often would I have gathered your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you were not willing!" (Matthew 23:37), I take it that repentance for Jerusalem was not metaphysically impossible. Rather, repentance was blocked by the will and nature of the inhabitants of the city.
My problem with Catholic theology is that it often seems to invoke a two tiered grace: a first, universal grace, and then a contingent grace "chosen through free will." My problem with Reformed Theology is when it seems to suppose a sort of divine autopilot is required for man to repent. These issues seem to stem from the coherence issues of libertarian free will itself.
It seems more to me like we are not free when our actions are "determined by nothing that comes before," but rather when we are unified as a rational while and choose what we truly think is good while also knowing the true good. Plato got at this when he proposed that only reason could "unify the soul." It could do this because reason let us know the true good, and men want "what is really good, not just what they currently believe to be good." But the true good is God, and God is creator of all, and thus the only way we learn of God. God is infinite, and so we can only experience God's true nature by God reaching out to us.
Calvin echos Plato: "The will must choose what the understanding judges to be good." IMO, Calvin's work is fairly compatible with compatibilism. What seems to cause confusion and disagreement is the means by which the Spirit overcomes man's sinful nature. Is this always through supernatural overpowering of the human will, the "auto pilot," complaint, or through Divine Providence, and thus fathomable means (which supports the usefulness of evangelism). I don't find Calvin himself always clear, but it seems more like the latter, in which case I don't think the Reformed view is actually as far from the Catholic, Lutheran or Orthodox view as people might assume.
Individual versus corporate election still seems like a key difference though, but also less pressing. If God chooses individuals based on nothing we can know, and if we know the elect by their membership in the "Body of Christ," then corporate and individual election also start to look closer.