Philip,
It would take me a while to unpack it. But attempts by Arminians to explain how God could lose the salvation of sinners He intends to save, sometimes result in proposing a deity Who exists as an entity within and dependent on natural time (not merely as the Incarnate Son or some other manifestation but altogether), Who isn’t independently existent from time (and upon Whom spatio-temporal reality doesn’t depend for existence). It was this line of thinking that led to modern notions of emergent pantheism, but a type of Mormonistic deity (or set of deities) would be the other final theological result. (A fact Mormons have not been altogether slow to pick up and exploit for their own evangelism efforts among Southern Baptists, for example.)
There are some hardcore determinstic Calv lines of thought which end up effectively proposing pantheism, too, of course; and Arms are usually good about trying to avoid a result less than supernaturalistic theism, but converts to Calvinism often report feeling theologically reassured that they are now really worshiping the real final ultimate independent Fact (my terminology) of all reality, not some lesser lord or god which they were starting to feel like their local version of Arminianism was leading them toward (and which Arm theology broadly speaking might logically involve in any case!)
This is a standard apologetic (and even in some ways evangelical) critique of Calvs vs. Arms, as many of us well-know; and while Arms have standard replies to such critiques (some of which are themselves quite good), I do think Calvs have a legitimate theological complaint in principle here (even if they sometimes fumble the critique in practice). C. S. Lewis, whom I adore, preached and taught God’s highest independent reality in a rich and robust fashion–until it came time to explain how (even with the admission of post-mortem conversion) God could fail to save any sinners from sin. Then Lewis threw God’s competency under the bus, to save his belief in a final hopelessness for some sinners. When it came to this topic, he never stood his ground on his amazing arguments and insights regarding God’s supreme reality.
(Other Arminians, more consistently in this regard, teach that God just chooses to give up saving sinners from sin after a point even if technically He knows He could succeed if He kept going. This restores a doctrine of God’s sovereign competency and capabilities, but at other theological costs, as Lewis for example was well aware.)
) But it only highlights how desperately we need both aspects of God. Most of the time we go back and forth borrowing between them while never seeing the contradiction in this.
)