One source of the dispute on this thread is that there are many verses in the Bible that seem to mean, on their surfaces, that Christ came to save all men and that there are also many verses in the Bible that seem to mean, on their surfaces, that not all will be saved. Every participant in, and lurker on, this thread that has read the Bible should be able to agree on these two points and the logical conclusion that on the surface of the texts there is contradiction.
The dispute, then, is on how to deal with this apparent contradiction. Theological liberals say either that the Bible isn't God's word (at best, it's a human document that "contains" God's word) or that interpretation is mystical and/or subjective; in either case, surface contradictions don't matter. Hopefully, all reading this thread can agree that both liberal approaches are unworthy of respect.
Theological conservatives, by contrast, believe the Bible is God's word and, thus, like him isn't self-contradictory. So they want to resolve the apparent conflict in a logical way. Given the language of the texts, this requires going below the surface meaning of the words.
Calvinists address the subsurface meaning of the text by addition; they include for consideration yet another group of verses in the Bible, those that describe election. As God doesn't contradict himself, they say, when he says he comes to save "all the world," for example, he must mean "his elect from all parts of the world." Although this approach complicates matters it is internally coherent. And increased complication doesn't mean error; God's creation is complicated, so an accurate description thereof will itself included complicated elements.
Arminians, by contrast, try to deal with the apparent contradiction of God sending his Son to save all men and the Bible's account that not all will be saved by subtraction and simplification. They overlook or gloss over the many Sovereign election verses in the Bible. They do the same to those verses that emphasize God's omnipotence. Thus God may have elected some people but surely only a special few. And God may be all-powerful, but he chooses to give up his power any place it might infringe on the human right of choice.
This interpretive approach does simplify reality. But it also distorts it. It teaches a diminished view of God (He doesn't accomplish all he wills and much of what he does accomplish is contingent on his creation) and an elevated view of man. Indeed, in the Arminian view, Human Choice is the ultimate Sovereign. It outranks even the Creator....
Calvinism may be complicated and a bit paradoxical. But I'll take complication and paradox over simplicity that puts man at the center of the church any day.
Amen