Thank you for your thoroughness with my questions. I agree with you that we cannot infallibly know whether a person is of the elect (chosen of God) or not. I admit that my questions in the post you have kindly answered are hypothetical and even foolish; I should know better than to think that we can have this knowledge that is reserved for God only.
I had no idea what Sandemanian dogma was. So I researched it on the net and I agree that Robert Sandeman's view is a gross error. Sandeman wrongly taught that salvation only required a mental assent. He even wanted emotions and soulish reaction "divorced" from it. He wouldn't make a good charismatic, but that is just some levity to lighten our heavy discussion. And I found Pelagius in the dictionary and discovered that he denied the doctrine of original sin. This too is error and ignores the Biblical truth that Adam acted as our "Federal Head" or I'll say, representative and through his sin, passed the sinful nature and curse of death to all humanity. Remedied, of course, by the "last Adam", Jesus Christ.
I won't speak for Billy Graham, but in my own case, being brought up in the Church of the Brethren, we simply were not taught this truth. It may sound utterly amazing, but it was largely ignored. And not surprising as that denomination moved from conservative, puritan-like views to liberal, ecumenical (as in WCC, World Council of Churches) ones. It could be that Graham's up-bringing in the Baptist tradition was a similar experience as mine, but I think that someone as learned in theology as Bill should know better.
I am concerned when I watch Graham's crusades because I have doubts of the sincerity of the multitudes who come down to that platform, hear Billy pray the sinner's prayer over them (actually, I hope they have them at least recite it). They get their "complimentary Psalms + NT" books and away they rush to their cars in the parking lot. How many of them forget this experience or toss it aside, etc. God only knows. In defense of the crusades, I attended a pre-crusade meeting by some of Graham's "advance guards" sent to a local church. They asked us to be in prayer for the crusade and took down phone numbers, addresses of parishioners willing to share their testimony or follow up if called upon by converts of the crusade. They really stressed follow up. This was saying to me that they expected many to fall away or ignore a decision that is supposed to change our lives inside out.
There have surely been many who can testify that they genuinely received Jesus Christ as their personal Lord and Savior at one of these crusades and I do not want to degrade their experience in any fashion. But many may view these services and think that it looks to be "cheap grace" or a "mob mentality" or peer pressure tactic to add notches to the barrel of Billy's "gospel gun". I sincerely hope that this is not the case. God knows.
I apologize for my lengthy rambling, let me finish on this thought:
It appears to me that the Arminian view of salvation is rejected by the Calvinist because the act of believing faith on the part of an individual is interpreted by the Calvinist as a work. If the efficacy of salvation cannot be realized (according to Arminianists) until Jesus' atonement is received by a soul as belonging to him or her personally, then you must believe that this makes it conditional upon man's "input" (be it ever so small). Hence, the sovereignty of God has been usurped by man in this instance. This, I know, is contradictory because God is sovereign. Unless God, as a sovereign act of His will gave men the freedom to choose if they will answer His call on their lives.
For the Arminianist view to be true, God must place a conditional upon salvation. It cannot be effective for the unregenerate until he places his total trust and faith in Jesus' finished work on the cross. But the moment he receives, he is converted and he becomes a new creature, something that did not exist before. Yes, he needs to grow and be tested with various trials that produce patience. He is sanctified and submits to Jesus' teaching and loves Him above all else. Election for the Arminianist is general or non-specific in that God predestinated only the plan and potential for the Elect to be saved. He would someday call them and the moment they answered the call in sincere, believing faith, He declares them to be the elect, now in a more specific sense. The Arminiast would likely say that "limited Atonement" is such because only those who act in faith to believe will receive the vicarious redemption of our Saviour. The substitutionary aspect of His vicarious death is of no use to me until I answer and receive His call to Salvation. The key word to jump on there is "act" where I am sure you must declare as a work and now it would no longer be of grace.
I don't see the act of believing faith as a work. James in his book rebukes the one who says he has faith without supporting evidence of works and that faith without works is dead. Yes, this answers in your favor, because James declares that the two live under the "same roof".
I know that you will have objections to the above and I am willing to hear them out because the doctrine of Calvinism is very compelling. Don't give up on me too quickly. Likewise, I guess dismiss me somehow, if after many reasonings, I still conclude that my current beliefs are in truth and acceptable to God.
