from discussion in comments at AGThinkTank.com

George Wood:	The problem is that Arminians also stress God’s sovereignty and divine prerogative, while Calvinists admit man’s moral responsibility. That is not the nub of the issue between Calvinists and Arminians. The nub is unconditional election, limited atonement, and eternal security.
Me:	That may be the nub of the issue between Calvinism and Arminianism, but it doesn’t have to be the center for our understanding of soteriology.
George:	While the AG deftly tries to avoid "the extreme positions" of the two camps, in reality this is impossible.
Me:	It may well be impossible if you start from inside of one of the traditional positions and then try to reason your way to a halfway point. But it is not horribly difficult if you start from a third position and describe how it overlaps both while being different from either. That is what I’m suggesting and I think it is exactly the kind of thing an AG Think Tank might be able to articulate to make a positive contribution to the fellowship’s theological identity.
George:	There’s not a lot of wiggle room between those two hard edges.
Me:	Then don’t get down between those edges - start somewhere else.

At Work in Cape Town