The Two Extremes

Calvinism and Arminianism seemingly offer two opposing views of salvation, the sovereignty of God, and the nature of man.  At first glance these two concepts appear mutually exclusive--polarized at opposite extremes with no middle ground:

Arminianism

The above Arminian description implies that God designed a system in which it's literally possible for every single human being on the planet to be saved (universal atonement).  The underlying assumption of Arminianism is that God honestly does want to save everybody!  However, in this Arminian system God can't actually save anybody!  That would violate their "free" will.  Therefore, God's done what he can to entice and encourage all mankind to accept his freely offered salvation--he's even sacrificed his son to pay the penalty for everyone who has ever lived.  But in Arminianism this alone is insufficient to save anyone.  Every human destiny (while foreknown by God) is ultimately determined by each individual himself--man's own individual act of choosing to be saved. 

Implicit in this Arminian belief system, of course, is that it's not only possible for literally anyone to be saved--it's equally possible for everyone to be lost (despite God's best attempt)!  The God Arminians conceive has forfeited both control and responsibility for salvation into the hands of his sinful creatures.  Those choosing to be saved will be saved because of their own decision; those choosing otherwise will not be.  Since salvation is ultimately determined for each individual by each individual, total loss of all mankind is a theoretical possibility and God could do nothing about it. 

Isaac Air Freight’s comedy routine parodying a popular television game show--“The Dating Game”--vividly illustrates this concept of salvation.  In “The Saving Game” a contestant asks questions of three prospective, but unseen, saviors to determine who will be his savior.  Anyone who's actually seen the TV show knows how it goes.  Questions are alternately fired at prospective date #1, date #2, and date #3 on a wide variety of topics in a given time frame--then the contestant chooses, meets, and dates whoever is selected.  Simply imagine yourself as the contestant in "The Saving Game."  Jesus is one of countless hidden saviors competing for an opportunity to "date" you.  God, Satan, the angels and demons are sitting in the audience cheering or cajoling as you evaluate the responses to your questions from each of the prospective "saviors,"

It's pretty easy to conclude from this humorous parody that you could easily choose savior #2 instead of Jesus (it's entirely up you).  Alternately, you might choose Jesus, have some great times together--but later decide you like another savior even better (there's no guarantees in the "dating game").  Your relationship with Jesus begins when you decide it begins; it's over when you decide it's over.  Your eternal decision was not so eternal after all, and Jesus goes on to appear on the next episode of "The Saving Game"; maybe he'll do better with the next contestant. 

Calvinism

Calvinism sharply contrasts this egocentric view of salvation.  In this view God is not simply encouraging you from the audience--he's the show's producer, director, and sponsor.  He's already pre-selected certain contestants to win eternal salvation before they ever appear on his show.  Since God controls not only the game itself, but all the contestants, the audience, and even all the competing saviors, he can assure himself that those contestants he has already chosen will indeed willingly choose Jesus.  Although each contestant still willingly chooses, the game is rigged!

Romans 8:28-30 And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose.  For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren. Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.

Notice the progression of God's actions listed in Paul's letter to the Romans:

Particularly notice the verb tense in the verse:  "...we know [Present Tense] that all things work [Present Tense] together for the good to them that love God, to them who are called according to his purpose.  For whom he did foreknow [Past Tense], he also did predestinate [Past Tense] to be conformed [Future Tense] to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.  Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called [Past Tense]: and whom he called, them he also justified [Past Tense]: and whom he justified, them he also glorified [Past Tense].

Calvinists and Arminians disagree over the cause of God's predestination

Both Arminianism and Calvinism agree that God had a purpose in creating this earth.  Both agree God predestinated some group of humans he foreknew.  Both also agree that these people individually choose to trust God for salvation.  The disagreement arises over the cause of God's predestination.  Arminians believe God predestinated those he foreknew would volitionally choose to be saved (man chose, then God predestined); Calvinists admit the omniscient God can look down the long corridors of time and see who these individuals are, but they deny this foreknowledge of future human performance, choices, and actions caused  God to choose anyone (God predestined, then man chose). 

Calvinists insist God chose his group first--then caused all events and circumstances so that at God's foreordained time each called would willfully respond.  God predestined you--personally and individually--totally independent of any eventual choices you might make.  In fact, according to Romans 8:28 he worked "all things" out in your life for your eventual good so that you could (and definitely will) make that choice he foreordained you to make before creation!  

One minister described God's first choice this way: 

Imagine a husband and wife.  They have no children; the wife is unfaithful.  She abandons her husband to marry another.  Over time she has lots of kids.  They're all brats.  Then, both the woman and her second husband die--leaving all the kids to their fate. 

What relationship do any of these kids have to the woman's original husband?  None.  What obligation does that husband owe any of these brats?  None.  The former husband can let the relatives, social services, or prison system take them; he can ignore them entirely and let whatever happens in the course of their miserable lives happen to them.  These children can reap the benefits and consequences of their natural parentage while the first husband is not obligated to assist them in any way.  He is not the cause of their problems, nor is he vicariously responsible for problems they cause!  The first husband owes them absolutely nothing--they're NOT his kids! 

However, what if he chooses to adopt two of the children into his own family, and through a series of orchestrated events coaxed those he chose to desire the adoption by him also?  By legally adopting some but not all the kids has he been unfair in any way to the remainder of the children?  No.  They still receive everything that's coming to them; they're absolutely no worse off than before!  The first husband has no obligation to any he chose not to adopt.  However, he is now legally obligated to protect, provide for, nurture, and discipline those he has adopted--they now belong to his family!

That's election:  A few people find mercy, the rest get justice.