Arminian and Calvinist viewpoints both capture important aspects of spiritual reality, and yet neither one can capture the whole.
God infallibly destines AND presents a choice, and both are real. The Arminian/Calvinist divide, I believe, results from assuming that the connection has to be established in the time line that we know. It can’t be, because paradox would now become frank contradiction. Choice and destiny are both rooted in something larger, would be the only sane conclusion that I could embrace. And the bible is copacetic with that thesis.
What I have narrowed the debate between Lacob Arminius and Jean Calvin is the understanding of the process of progressive sanctification.
That is, they both think that paedobaptism puts a human into the Kingdom of God, when it does not and cannot, Even immersionists (baptizers of responsible adults) often suggest that baptism of the "believer" is a sure sign of tegeneration, and that failure to progress in justification is consistent with "backsliding." Personally, I reject those insecure theological propositions. I reject "backsliding" as a term applying to true regeneration. What I accept is the use of the Greek present tense in the description of true salvation, justification, regeneration, and progressive sanctification,And that means that John 3:16 needs to be interpreted as saying:
". . . that whosoever continually without failure exercises complete irreversible trust in and faithfulness to Him shall never perish, but have eternal absolute life (in Him)(a never-ending spiritual union with God for ever).
Some, maybe many, are not going to like this, but there it is, the correct and precise definition of what true salvation means. It means no going back from the Christ of the Bible.
And it means that those who appear to do so must be viewed as and treated as those who began by professing, but never possessing, the new-born inner spiritual man.
I think that ought to clear up how one regards Catholicism, Armininanism, Calvinism, or whatever ism that tolerates habitual sinfulness without discipline in its membership.
Perchance the solution is that it takes two “yes” votes to elect? Not just one?
Also, that there is usually no “no” vote on His part, for nothing need ever be done for someone to perish. We are not told, for example, that all things work to the harm of those who can’t seem to love Him and likewise of all humanity it was only said, in so far as scripture is concerned, of just one man, Judas Iscariot, that it would have been better for him to have not been born.
Rather, we find all His effort on the side of rescuing the elect, through His providence and, yes, outright in-your-face efforts (Paul cannot be the only one).
I think that people, in fantasizing about things like human “goodness”, may be utterly underselling the sheer effort it takes to redeem anyone. Not just the Cross but every struggle in every life so that we should finally come to agree with Him, His will, in our wills: to relent, repent and be washed. To vote “yes”.
Salvation is heroic effort. Nothing less. It is making the blind to see and the deaf to hear ... often when they were perfectly content to remain blind or deaf but that He broke through to them.
The saints are so often like post turtles who confuse our struggles with actual climbing, but we never put ourselves where we find ourselves even if our little legs do flail a bit.