I realize the following statement is a broad generality and abundant exceptions may be found, but please tie in to the essence of the query. There seems to be a virtual "flip" in positions regarding the matters of man's role in salvation and man's role in sanctification between those taking a typically "calvinistic" approach and those taking a typically "armenian" approach. For example, a person who takes the position that salvation is solely of God and man's will has nothing to do with the issue, will also take the position that sanctification depends on a person making wise choices. In salvation, God does everything. In sanctification, God enables and man must choose. On the other hand, a person who takes the position that God enables salvation for all, but man must freely make the choice, will also (very often) take the position that sanctification depends on an "overpowering" work of the Spirit in a person's life. Sort of a "let go and let God" handle it approach (e.g. Keswick, etc.). Why is it that the two positions attribute everything to God in one position and put the responsibility on man for the other? or am I missing something?