Shades of Grey: Are you a Four-Point Calvinist or a One-Point Calvinist?
The middle ground between Calvinism and Arminianism is a lot greyer than a lot of people tend to think. It is common to speak of Four-Point Calvinists, that is those who aspire to believe in all of the points of Calvinism except Limited Atonement. However, I would suggest that most of those who are described as Four-Point Calvinists are not so close to Calvinism as that description would suggest.
Four-Point Calvinists strongly maintain that election is Unconditional. There is almost no difference between them and Five Pointers on this point. However, it is on the other points that they are usually more ambiguous.
Four Pointers claim that they believe in Total Depravity, as do some who reject all Five Points. However, they tend not to understand this in terms of Total Inability, as do Five Pointers. They argue that unbelievers could believe; that they are capable of believing, they just do not do so and will be condemned for not believing. Likewise, they tend to be uncomfortable with Irresistable Grace. They seem to see the Elect as unable to resist God's grace, but view the non-elect as being offered a grace which they resist. Rejecting Limited Atonement tends to result in accepting the idea of grace being offered to all.
Four Pointers always profess to believe in Perserverance. However, their view tends to be closer to Eternal Security or Once, Saved Always Saved. They tend not to hold a consistent Free Grace position, but they usually allow the possibility of some sort of apostasy and its subsequent judgment both in this life and the next.
A good example of a theologian who calls himself a Four-Point Calvinist, but who is probably really a One-Pointer is Robert Lightner. He has written some really excellent books from a Dispensational Fundamentalist perspective. He rejects Lordship Salvation and often quotes Zane Hodges.
The fact that there is so much uncharted ground between Calvinism and Arminianism means that the old and popular categories of Arminian and Calvinist are simply no longer relevant. They belong to the days of Whitefield and Wesley and were probably unhelpful back then.