I am a proponent of the Calvinist view on predestination, but I would like to present the major protestant opposing view. Thought it might be helpful.
What follows is an article by J. Grider who is an important apologist for this opposing view called 'arminiansim'.
http://www.mb-soft.com/believe/txc/arminian.htm
Arminianism
Advanced Information
The theological stance of James Arminius and the movement which stemmed from him. It views Christian doctrine much as the pre - Augustinian fathers did and as did the later John Wesley. In several basic ways it differs from the Augustinian fathers did and as did the later John Wesley. In several basic ways it differs from the Augustine - Luther - Calvin tradition.
This form of Protestanism arose in the United Netherlands shortly after the "alteration" from Roman Catholicism had occurred in that country. It stresses Scripture alone as the highest authority for doctrines. And it teaches that justification is by grace alone, there being no meritoriousness in our faith that occasions justification, since it is only through prevenient grace that fallen humanity can exercise that faith.
Arminianism is a distinct kind of Protestant theology for several reasons. One of its distinctions is its teaching on predestination. It teaches predestination, since the Scripture writers do, but it understands that this predecision on God's part is to save the ones who repent and believe. Thus its view is called conditional predestination, since the predetermination of the destiny of individuals is based on God's foreknowledge of the way in which they will either freely reject Christ or freely accept him.
Arminius defended his view most precisely in his commentary on Romans 9, Examination of Perkins' Pamphlet, and Declaration of Sentiments. He argued against supralapsarianism, popularized by John Calvin's son - in - law and Arminius's teacher at Geneva, Theodore Beza, and vigorously defended at the University of Leiden by Francis Gomarus, a colleague of Arminius. Their view was that before the fall, indeed before man's creation, God had already determined what the eternal destiny of each person was to be. Arminius also believed that the sublapsarian unconditional predestination view of Augustine and Martin Luther is unscriptural.
This is the view that Adam's sin was freely chosen but that, after Adam's fall, the eternal destiny of each person was determined by the absolutely sovereign God. In his Declaration of Sentiments (1608) Arminius gave twenty arguments against supralapsarianism, which he said (not quite correctly) applied also to sublapsarianism. These included such arguments as that the view is void of good news; repugnant to God's wise, just, and good nature, and to man's free nature; "highly dishonorable to Jesus Christ"; "hurtful to the salvation of men"; and that it "inverts the order of the gospel of Jesus Christ" (which is that we are justified after we believe, not prior to our believing). He said the arguments all boil down to one, actually: that unconditional predestination makes God "the author of sin."
Connected with Arminius's view of conditional predestination are other significant teachings of "the quiet Dutchman." One is his emphasis on human freedom. Here he was not Pelagian, as some have thought. He believed profoundly in original sin, understanding that the will of natural fallen man is not only maimed and wounded, but that it is entirely unable, apart from prevenient grace, to do any good thing. Another teaching is that Christ's atonement is unlimited in its benefits. He understood that such texts as "he died for all" (2 Cor. 5:15; cf. 2 Cor. 5:14; Titus 2:11; 1 John 2:2) mean what they say, while Puritans such as John Owen and other Calvinists have understood that the "all" means only all of those previously elected to be saved. A third view is that while God is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance (1 Tim. 2:4; 2 Pet. 3:9; Matt. 18:14), saving grace is not irresistible, as in classical Calvinism. It can be rejected.
In Arminius's view believers may lose their salvation and be eternally lost. Quoting as support of this position such passages as 1 Pet. 1:10, "Therefore, brethren, be the more zealous to confirm your call and election, for if you do this you will never fall," Arminians still seek to nourish and encourage believers so that they might remain in a saved state. While Arminians feel that they have been rather successful in disinclining many Calvinists from such views as unconditional election, limited atonement, and irresistible grace, they realize that they have not widely succeeded in the area of eternal security. R T Shank's Life in the Son and H O Wiley's 3 - volume Christian Theology make a good scriptural case against eternal security from within the Arminian tradition, but the position has been unconvincing to Calvinists generally.
A spillover from Calvinism into Arminianism has occurred in recent decades. Thus many Arminians whose theology is not very precise say that Christ paid the penalty for our sins. Yet such a view is foreign to Arminianism, which teaches instead that Christ suffered for us. Arminians teach that what Christ did he did for every person; therefore what he did could not have been to pay the penalty, since no one would then ever go into eternal perdition. Arminianism teaches that Christ suffered for everyone so that the Father could forgive the ones who repent and believe; his death is such that all will see that forgiveness is costly and will strive to cease from anarchy in the world God governs. This view is called the governmental theory of the atonement.
Its germinal teachings are in Arminius, but his student, the lawyer - theologian Hugo Grotius, delineated the view. Methodism's John Miley best explicated the theory in his The Atonement in Christ (1879). Arminians who know their theology have problems in such cooperative ministries with Calvinists as the Billy Graham campaigns because the workers are often taught to counsel people that Christ paid the penalty for their sins. But it is an important aspect of the Arminian tradition, from Arminius himself, through John Wesley, to the present, to be of tolerant spirit; so they often cooperate in these ministries without mentioning the matter to the leadership. Arminians feel that the reason Scripture always states that Christ suffered (e.g., Acts 17:3; 26:23; 2 Cor. 1:5; Phil. 3:10; Heb. 2:9 - 10; 13:12; 1 Pet. 1:11; 2:21: 3:18; 4:1, 13), and never that he was punished, is because the Christ who was crucified was guiltless because he was sinless. They also feel that God the Father would not be forgiving us at all if his justice was satisfied by the real thing that justice needs: punishment.
They understand that there can be only punishment or forgiveness, not both, realizing, e.g., that a child is either punished or forgiven, not forgiven after the punishment has been meted out.
A spillover into Arminianism from Baptistic Calvinism is an opposition to infant baptism. Until recently the long Arminian tradition has customarily emphasized infant baptism, as did Arminius and Wesley (Luther and Calvin too, for that matter). It has been considered as the sacrament which helps prevenient grace to be implemented, restraining the child until such time as he becomes evangelically converted. Arminians believe that the several household baptisms mentioned in Acts 16 - 17 and 1 Cor. 1 imply that infants were baptized, and that this act is the NT counterpart of OT circumcision. But the untutored often feel that they should not baptize infants, because so many Baptist - type evangelicals do not.
Biblical inerrancy is another spillover. The Arminian tradition has been a part of the long Protestant tradition which Fuller Seminary's Jack Rogers discusses in his Confessions of a Conservative Evangelical. It is interested in the Bible's authority and infallibility, and expresses confidence that Scripture is inerrant on matters of faith and practice, while remaining open on possible mathematical, historical, or geographical errors. Its scholars in general do not believe that Harold Lindsell correctly interprets the long Christian tradition on Scripture in such works as The Battle for the Bible, when he says that until about 150 years ago Christians in general believed in the total inerrancy of Scripture.
Another spillover is in eschatological matters. Arminianism is not dispensationalist as such, has not committed itself to a given millennial view, and has little interest in specific prophecies (believing God would have us concentrate on what is clear in Scripture: Christ's redemption and a holy life). But many lay Arminians have succumbed to such popular prophetic books as those of Hal Lindsey, which teach unequivocally that present political events and trends fulfill specific biblical prophecies.
A considerable problem to Arminians is that they have often been misrepresented. Some scholars have said that Arminianism is Pelagian, is a form of theological liberalism, and is syncretistic. It is true that one wing of Arminianism picked up Arminius's stress on human freedom and tolerance toward differing theologies, becoming latitudinarian and liberal. Indeed the two denominations in Holland that issued from Arminius are largely such today. But Arminians who promote Arminius's actual teachings and those of the great Arminian John Wesley, whose view and movement have sometimes been called "Arminianism of fire," have disclaimed all those theologically left associations. Such Arminians largely comprise the eight million or so Christians who today constitute the Christian Holiness Association (the Salvation Army, the Church of the Nazarene, the Wesleyan Church, etc.).
This kind of Arminianism strongly defends Christ's virgin birth, miracles, bodily resurrection, and substitutionary atonement (his suffering for the punishment believers would have received); the dynamic inspiration and infallibility of Scripture; justification by grace alone through faith alone; and the final destinies of heaven and hell. It is therefore evangelical, but an evangelicalism which is at certain important points different from evangelical Calvinism.
J K Grider
I don't think I have any problem understanding this. 
You support the Calvinist view on predestination but you thought it would be helpful to present the Arminian viewpoint on predestination. Sorry bro. That confuses me.
