Actually, the “mechanics” are found in the Calvin/Armin forum.
Often the heat revolves around the thinking of either acceptance is the result of or it is the catalyst to salvation
But either way, accept is basically the same as receiving that which is implanted.
Be very careful to not assume human effort is involved other then in the manner of response.
Romans 10 states the word is already in the heart and in the mouth and of that gift of God the result is then in belief and confession “unto” (about) salvation.
For example: Matthew parable of the four “soils” shows that only that soil prepared for the seed is “received, accepted” in which harvest is gathered.
One shallow soil may demonstrate intellectual “acceptance” but no life sustaining ability.
The soils are not the determination of other then to be present.
Though the other three soils have the seed delivered, they have nothing to sustain that life (no presence and nurturing
of the Holy Spirit).
At its foundation it assumes a Calvinistic structure (Arminianism, for example, assumes Calvinism until it doesn't). What I mean by this is that, as Albert Mohler pointed out in his discussion with Eric Hankins regarding Calvinism and the "traditional view", contemporary Baptist theology revolves around Calvinism (a statement to which Hankins agreed). If you look beyond the five points I think you'll find that we take for granted ideas, or at least lean towards emphases and expressions, that did not exist prior to Calvinism.
Insightful, and I agree, which I why I have often said, the average evangelical, from congregant to pastor, is not an Arminian, but a Pelagian, in his default views. No one would tick that box on a test, but his instincts, reactions, speech, all reflect Pelagius.