You might be familiar with Pascal's Wager, also known as Pascal's Gambit. It states that one is best off believing in Christianity, because, if it is true, you'll be saved and go to heaven, and if it is not true, it has still led you a decent life of moral behavior. As Pascal said, "If you win, you win everything, if you lose, you lose nothing" - i.e, if you're right, you get eternal life, if you're wrong, you only sustain (if any) temporary injuries.
I personally disagree with this wager, but I thought of a related gambit that addresses those that believe in a pseudo-works salvation. It is as follows:
If you are saved by grace, you should want to serve God as heartily and fully as possible, loving him and your neighbor and doing good works. If we assume that, if salvation is not by grace, that it is by works, than you are best off believing in grace in the first place, as it will fuel you to do good works, and if it turns out to be wrong, you'll still most probably get into heaven given the amount of good you've done.
This goes for any degree of human participation, be it a light view of faith/works salvation or a full-fledged Pelagian view of salvation by works.
My question is, how would those that this gambit addresses respond to it? Catholics, Arminians (sort of), Pelagians, any who hold to any degree of human participation of works to salvation, how would you respond to this logic, both biblically and logically?
In Sum, why not believe in salvation by grace? It'll fuel you to do good works, and if you're right, you'll be saved. If you're wrong, and salvation is by works, no sweat! You've already done all those good works as a result of grace anyways, so you'll be saved that way too.