Can an Arminian affirm Salvation by Grace alone(through faith alone)?

At first glance, this seems a silly question (and it is), since Arminians explicitly affirm this. But there is pushback from both Calvinists and ..for want of a better term..  Spurgeonists.

So I thought it might be good to set this out properly. Arminians(especially Weslyans) tend to think of salvation relationally, not causually. We operate in a relational world, not a dry cause - effect world. We often feel that the dry cause-effect view is an import of pagan philosophy into Christianity, but all truth is God's truth, so let us play in the cause-effect sand pit, and see if it is valid for an Arminian to affirm salvation is all of grace and the cause of salvation is grace.

Something to think about as you read this. 

Don't be confused here, I am not talking about the will(free or otherwise), I am speaking in the future tense. So the sentence "the sun will rise tomorrow" does not express my "willingness" for the sun to rise tomorrow. This is a flaw in English. For clarity, in this article, "will not" merely reflects the future tense. "Can not" reflects inability or impossibility.

If I can not do something it follows that I will not be doing it, regardless of my desire.
However, if I will not in the future be doing something it does not follow that I can not do it.
Illustrated with a simple example:
I can not flap my arms and fly to the moon, so it will not happen, no matter my desire for it to.
I am not going to get into my car and drive to the shops, I can (I have a car, petrol, time, etc) because I have the capability to do so, but the cause of me not doing so is not my inability to do so. I don't do it because I don't desire to do it, so it will not happen.

To assume that because I will not do something, I therefore can not do that thing is what is known as the fallacy of affirming the consequent. It is both formally and intuitively false.

Let's start with a thought experiment. 

For the sake of argument let us take total inability out of the equation. Let us assume man could, unaided turn to God from his sin. Now, remember, we don't believe this, we're just examining a claim.
Secondly, lets assume God provides no grace.

Could man be saved under these conditions?

The answer is obviously a resounding no. Man can want to be saved until he is blue in the face, but without grace, he can not be saved. It is not merely that he will not(future tense, not willingness) be saved for some other reason, it is impossible.

A Spurgeonist suggested to me that this was true the other way around for Arminians. In other words, if there were grace but no ability to repent then man can not be saved. Huh? That's no Arminian teaching.

God can absolutely save a man in the way the Calvinists (or in this case Spurgeonist) think. He is absolutely capable of doing so to the final degree. I can not emphasize this enough: Grace is the only thing in this that is necessary. God can not save without grace, for the very act of saving is Grace by any definition. Why would a Spurgeonist think Arminians think that God's grace is not sufficient? The only system in which grace is insufficient is semi-Pelegi... Oh... Right. He is operating on the assumption that Arminians are semi-Pelegianists. Now it all makes sense.

The argument in that God graciously (for any choice given by God is nothing less than an act of Grace) gives us a choice means He can not save without our consent is false. However He will not save without our consent, not because He is limited in some way, but because that is His sovereign choice. If it were not His choice, we would be saying that God is obligated or necessitated to give us the choice, which is not what Arminians teach.

At the end of the day, the deciding factor in salvation is grace. It is the only factor that is necessary. Our consent might be specified as a condition by God, but without grace, our consent is meaningless. Without consent, God will not save, though He most certainly can.

"But if you make a choice aren't you adding to your salvation?"

Well, lets do another thought experiment to illustrate how silly an idea this is. Imagine I come to your house with a precooked meal. I offer you this meal. If you accept it, does the portion on the plate increase in size because you accepted it? If you reject it, does the portion decrease?

If you answer "yes" to either of those questions, I have to ask what your justification for that is? That simply isn't how things work.

Grace Upon Grace

So, in conclusion can Arminians affirm salvation is grace alone? Yes, absolutely. John Wesley spoke of this. Grace at the first Grace at the last. Salvation is all of Grace, since even the very choice we are given is Grace.

Are Arminians correct in asserting that they add nothing to their salvation? Absolutely.

What is the Spurgeonist's confusion then? Simply this, he has failed to distinguish certainty from necessity, and further has failed to distinguish work from surrender.

Note that I used the terms "consent" or "make a choice" above for the sake of argument, but Arminians see it more of a yielding or surrender to God.

As usual, comments are welcome, but I reserve the right not to publish any I deem not consistent with the spirit of dialog and charity.