Which of course, places the one accepting something above the one making the offer. The offer in the tradition of the above being Jesus pleading to be accepted. Even though Jesus is presented in Scripture as being fully God as well as fully man. Right at the get go of evangelism from that standpoint, God's sovereignty is removed and his mercy dependent entirely on a sinner's action. On the other hand, according to Scripture's revelation of God and the substitutionary, propitiating of Christ, Jesus is presented as the one and only personal Savior. Not one who has to be accepted as a personal Savior in order to be a personal Savior.
According to BG and that pattern that prevails in the post-modern church, "believe and you will be saved" does not enter into the picture. And it is a works-based salvation. And more often than not, in my experience as a new Christian, in the many churches of that ilk I attended, and what is seen almost exclusively on television (I was converted pre-internet) nothing of who Jesus is, is presented before that altar call. Only what you can get by answering that call---be it a ticket out of hell or everything going your way with no suffering or trials along the way. Whatever it is that your sinful heart desires at any given moment.
Having grown up from within that environment and worldview, I see the reasoning a little different from that. Though, of course there are several things that lead into any one person's experience, learning and growing, etc. To me there was, when I was younger, the respect drilled into my habits of thinking that I was only still young and had a lot to learn, and that, (rather obviously), all the adults had it figured out, and since I did not, there was still something I was missing. There was some comfort, or maybe, rather, relief, from the disharmony of "give myself to Christ"/"accept him (again) into my life" vs the many passages of the disparity of being 'of Christ' was as far as sin. I never questioned whether I had sin in me—it was more than obvious! But I found myself constantly questioning—did I really give myself to Christ? No, I had to conclude, either I did not, or I still don't understand something. Every time I heard a new way to look at it, I thought, NOW I understand. But, no. —Imagine my surprise to find out the adults didn't have their stuff together, either!
The reasoning they had added up to this: 1. It is a mystery 2. We are still learning of him, and learning patience with ourselves —(these two based on the several premises that God is a God of Love, and that 'accepting Christ into your heart' is the irrevocable gospel. If the Bible says it, who am I to question it?) Thus, they too depended on the mercy of God, because in the end, even in Arminianism, for the ones who know themselves to be sinners without recourse, all they have is Christ—whether this was something I attribute to them or whether they actually thought this way consciously, or whether unconsciously, I can't say. I can say that I know many who abandoned the faith because it did not make sense to them, and at least one Bible College student who went stark raving mad and murdered his infant son and tried to kill his wife. At one point, and it doesn't seem so long ago, I, too wanted to abandon Christianity, because their teaching had lied to me about many things, and made a mockery of my life. Hosea's example was a huge comfort and demonstration of God's sovereignty and my unimportance. I am not here for my own sake. He made me for himself. And THAT is love.
Yes, the given faith, the union with the Vine, is what produces good works, and good works is more than acts of charity, but a changed heart that desires to please the Master and King, and it is God who works in us to produce the sanctification.
Amen. Even the dependence on his mercy, where I continually find myself, is a gift from God, and not by way of my gratefulness or any other motivation. (OT: How anyone can suggest that we are able to act independently of God's establishing it, is beyond me. But, yes, I too think that way, still.)
I think that is rare in the post-modern world, simply because in contrast to what the OP put forth as the view of Aminianism (Libertarian free will), most begin being indoctrinated with that view by the very people reaching the gospel to them. It was the creeds, the Confessions of Faith, the catechisms, of that "very old mainline theological tradition" that made conversion, the hearing of the voice of the Shepherd and following him, based entirely on believing in accordance with the Scripture's declaration "believe and you will be saved--- andnot on choosing. Children and adults alike were taught the scriptures and either they believed or they didn't.
"
...believe and you will be saved--- andnot on choosing." Amen that! And even that—the believing—is not an act of the will, though the believer finds their will completely wrapped up in it—even overwhelmed by it. We do so because it is so.
