John Calvin was not born until 1509 A.D., and Jacob Arminius was not born until 1560 A.D., yet, somehow, although the faith was delivered once for all to the saints in the first century (Jude 1:3), Calvinists and Arminians often have such a black and white view of the world, they insist you must follow the beliefs of one man, or else you follow the teachings of the other.
Of course, in reality, there is a lot of middle ground. Molinism, for example, from the teachings of Luis de Molina (born 1535) seems, to me, to be quite distinct from Calvinism and Arminianism, though lack of study forbids me from forming a solid opinion on its legitimacy. [Update: Following more study after the publication of this article, I accepted Molinism.]
But Calvinists and Arminians are notorious for painting you as one or the other. Speaking from experience, Calvinists call me an Arminian, and Arminians call me a Calvinist. Yet, I am neither, as I find considerable fault in both. In my view, while neither view is heretical, nor are they an adequate summary of all relevant Scriptures.
Calvinism places far too heavy an emphasis on God's sovereignty with regard to salvation, with its most indefensible doctrine being Limited Atonement. To that end, Calvinists often ignore, gloss over, twist, or even change Scripture, especially if it supports free will.
Arminianism, by contrast, overemphasises the responsibility of man with regard to salvation, with its most indefensible doctrine being Conditional Security. This is arguably far more severe, as while Arminians typically acknowledge that salvation is by grace, through faith, and not of works, Conditional Security skirts the border of a works-based "gospel".
A major pitfall of both views, in my opinion, is that neither side adequately acknowledges the omniscience of God. To a Calvinist, God is omniscient, and therefore unteachable, yet while this should include what a Molinist would call "middle knowledge" (i.e. God's knowledge of what a free creature would do in a given situation), Calvinists would argue that this makes God "teachable", as He would have to look into the future to see what a free creature would do. The obvious refutation of this is that God simply always possesses middle knowledge. He doesn't have to "look" anywhere.
By contrast, Arminians must face the fact that God knows ahead of time who will be in Heaven, and who will make a false, temporary profession of faith. If God knows who will fall away, then He knows who to apply the seal of the Holy Spirit to as a guarantee of eternal life (2 Corinthians 1:22; 5:5; Ephesians 1:14).
At this point, it should be fairly obvious that I cannot be adequately placed into either camp. Calvinists do not accept me among their ranks, yet though they would try to number me among the Arminians, these would likewise reject me, and try to count me as a Calvinist. This extremist thinking, ultimately, makes discussion completely unfeasible. Due to ignorance, I am unable to officially call myself a Molinist, though from what I do know I may well accept that label in the future. For now, however, I have another solution.
Within both Calvinism and Arminianism, there is great dissent. Famously, Calvinism is divided into its 5 points, the TULIP acronym. Yet, not all Calvinists accept all 5 points. There are 4 point Calvinists, for example, and typically, they reject Limited Atonement. With that in mind, I have decided to simply identify as a 1 point Calvinist.
I find myself sympathetic to many of Calvinism's points, though I still find them wanting. Of the 5 points, I wholeheartedly affirm the Perseverance of the Saints. I fully believe that once salvation has been received, the believer is sealed by the Holy Spirit, empowered by God to maintain His faith for as long as he lives. Those who fall away from the faith, according to Paul (Hebrews 10:39) and John (1 John 2:19) show that they were not truly saved to begin with. With faith being the sole criteria for salvation, the only realistic way to lose salvation would be to lose faith, which I am compelled by Scripture to believe is impossible.
Of course, I could also identify as a 1 point Arminian. I believe in Unlimited Atonement; yes, Jesus absolutely died to make propitiation for the sins of the whole world, even those who deny the Lord who bought them. However, I find myself tending towards Calvinism, simply because although I disagree with Calvinism on many points, I have never been able to say it borders on apostasy. Calvinists are so committed to the idea that faith is the sole criteria for salvation, they go as far as to suggest that if you say "I accepted salvation", then you actually earned it yourself.
By contrast, Conditional Security is so close to works-based salvation, I am compelled to say Arminianism borders on apostasy, with some Arminians actually being apostates by their confession. In fact, Conditional Security is a belief Arminians share with many works-based pseudo-Christian religions. Therefore, I simply cannot identify with Arminians.
Ultimately, it is illogical to count me as a Calvinist or an Arminian. Doing so is as bad as calling me a Muslim because I believe there is only one God, or an atheist because I don't believe in any God except the Living God. It is my opinion that the main motivation for such black and white thinking is that both views are so indefensible, the only way to make them look good is to make the other appear as the only option, then proceed to tear it down. We see this in many areas of life. "If you don't vote Labour, you'll get the Tories". But if that is a game I must play, play it I shall. I will identify as a 1 point Calvinist, if only to move the discussion back where it belongs: To Scripture.