[RnMomof7]

Correct me if I'm wrong (and I probably am) but this seems to be the case in either circumstance. Whether God only chooses to save the chosen, or foreknows those who will choose, in either case, He has made men for the purpose of sure destruction. Right?
Or, is that your point, that the Arminians' attempt to salvage the justice of God fails?
If so, I still manage to seem some distinction. The Arminian leaves the burden for choice on the sinner, and if they choose to rebel against God, they are justly punished. By contrast, under strict Calvinism, it seems that God punishes arbitrarily, for free will is an illusion.

That is a point without a distinction .
For IF God is omniscient and IF God foreknows all things , then He foreknows who will "accept" Him under the Arminian Theology with certainity

And inspite of knowing that the person will burn for eternity He creates him for just that purpose

Calvinists believe that God restrains no man from coming to Him, all men are free to do so..every man stands before God without excuse. The "burden " is on all men to repent and believe.

[FactQuest]

Calvinists believe that God restrains no man from coming to Him, all men are free to do so

Perhaps I misunderstand Calvinism, then. I thought that total depravity meant that man, apart from God's work of irresistable grace, is incapable of of choosing to come to God. And if that is what it means, I get hung up trying to understand how someone can be free to do something they cannot do.

Then I put that together with the doctrine of limited atonement, and it seems arbitrary.

If, however, grace is both a) offered to all men at some point in their life, and b) resistable, then I can see where the burden belongs on the man. But I suspect I'm oversimplifying it.