Your problem is that your premise, by necessity, has to deny that human beings are responsible for their actions.
If you were "born depraved" than your sin is a necessary outcome of your birth nature and therefore you are not really responsible for it.
You might claim that a person is damned for their own sin but that sin is a necessary byproduct of being "born depraved."
Thus, in your theology, repentance can never mean a forsaking of evil because your birth state necessitates evil in the same way that the genetic makeup of a caucasian, in regards to the pigment of malanin, necessitates skin colour.
You don't believe human beings really have a choice in regards to obeying God or not because, in your mind, the birth state necessitates disobedience. Thus the Gospel you believe, by necessity, must serve as some kind of cloak for this disobedient state.
We have debated this before. I disagree with your Scriptural hermeneutic, and disagree with your logic... but it has been a waste of time in the past debating with you, so I will just agree to disagree.
Which is exactly what the ancient gnostics would teach. They saw that human virtue was limited by the material world in that the spirit was entrapped within a flesh body. This philosophy was known as dualism and, unfortunately, it infiltrated Christian orthodoxy very early on.
You have your history a bit off, an are mislabeling what I have stated.
The ancient gnostics taught
secret knowledge as the source of salvation.
Dualism was never orthodox.
Zoroastrian philosophy has always been considered heretical.
If you don't like seeing human depravity which is clearly displayed within Scripture, that is on you.
Gnostics believed that humans were innately good, but hindered.
What the Bible teaches is the humans are innately wicked, and only faith in Christ can free us, by rebirth in the Spirit.
I know you are unwilling to change your mind about this, so this is my last post about it with you.