Predestination, Unconditional Election vs. Prevenient Grace

I used to think that there was no significant theological difference between the Calvinist concept of predestination and the Wesleyan concept of prevenient grace. Well, the traditional articulation of both really had no difference. Even if predestination is motivated by the sovereignty of God and prevenient grace is motivated by the love of God, they are still presented as essentially initiated by God DESPITE THE FACT that salvation has already been offered full and free by Christ.

It makes very little sense to make man accountable for salvation if even the very effort to turn to God is initiated by God! This paradox defies common sense logic and if we cannot use common sense and common understanding to comprehend the revelation of God, than God is truly a failure at revelation. Didn't Christ himself say that the truths of God had been revealed to "babes" instead of the intellectual Pharisees and Jewish leaders (Luke 10:21, KJV)? Babes do not go to schools of philosophy or institutions of learning! If babes are able to comprehend the revelation of God, they have nothing more than common sense and common understanding to help them.

Predestination, even the supralapsarian version can only make logical sense if they throw out the rest of Scripture and make their Bible based only on that one or two word study regardless of any context. The meaning and life application would not change one bit if their Bible would just be three words: predestined, chosen and elect. It is a concept that completely ignores plenary inspiration and progressive revelation and the painstaking process by which the Holy Spirit composed every word and thought of Scripture. It is a shame that we treat as scholars even with doctorate degrees these theologians who accomplish nothing but confuse us by distorting divine revelation.

They essentially do not need the rest of the Bible. In fact, the rest of Scripture tells exactly the opposite emphasizing human responsibility from Genesis to Revelations WITHOUT EXCEPTION, compared to the stark scarcity of predestination-oriented verses.

I wonder if John Wesley, despite the fact that he saw human accountability in Scripture was still influenced by the Calvinism of the Church if England which ordained him and to which he was subject to when he formulated prevenient grace.

Wesley basically implied that prevenient grace is given by God some time before or at the point of salvation. If that is what he really meant, then it is clearly Calvinist-influenced and is almost similar to predestination. It is no different than saying that God has already chosen whom he desires to save. Again, this would put human responsibility logically non-contributory to the salvation event. Hence, salvation becomes entirely the act of God where human response is degraded to a mere token to make salvation complete. It also hints of irresistible grace even though unintended.

I would like to propose that the only way prevenient grace can find full biblical support is for it to be articulated as follows:

1. Throughout Scripture, God courts man continuously and persistently into personal relationship with him. Prevenient grace is God's ramping up his courtship to the point of giving you thoughts or experiences or even dreams that highlight and communicate clearly your need of God and his saving grace. Your positive or negative response to God's invitation may happen long after the "connection" or immediately after. 
2. The ability to exercise saving faith is inherent in man as a significant part of being created in the image of God. Prevenient grace does NOT grant saving faith. Prevenient grace is simply God's extra effort to invite you to himself.
3. Prevenient grace can be resisted or refused by man, then God moves on to the next person.

The above description of Prevenient grace may be the best, if not the only, way to divorce this concept from the "detestable (John Wesley's words)" doctrine of predestination. Personally, that is the only way I can accept this doctrine. The issue may not be in the doctrine itself but in the way it is or has been articulated in past history.