Munchausen syndrome by proxy

Here is where optimal grace comes in. In short, optimal grace is whatever form and measure of grace is best suited to elicit a positive response from us, without overriding our freedom.  Because we are all different, the exact nature of this will vary from person to person. But the important idea is that if God truly loves each one of us, and truly desires our salvation, he will offer his love and grace to each of us in the way that is optimal to elicit a positive response.
Pretty clearly, not everyone has such grace in this life, and that is one of the reasons I believe in postmortem grace and repentance. What this means is that in the long run, everyone has an equal opportunity to be saved. In the afterlife, God can find ways in his infinitely creative wisdom to give everyone the best opportunity to respond to the gospel.
What this underscores is that no one goes to hell because of ignorance or lack of opportunity to be saved. Nor does anyone go to hell for rejecting a distorted or garbled view of Jesus and his amazing love. No, emphatically not! You go to hell for rejecting Jesus, not a caricature of Jesus. You go to hell for spurning the amazing grace he showed us in the cross and resurrection, not for being ignorant of it. 
Now what I find interesting, however, is that many people who are not Calvinists believe that God gives everybody at least some chance to be saved, but not optimal grace. They hold that at least some ray of light has come into every life, or that everyone has heard the gospel at least one time. They affirm that everyone is given at least what we might call “minimal grace.”
But in order for that to happen, you have to be properly and truly aware of who he is and the truth and beauty of his love.  Only when you are properly informed of the truth can you freely, deliberately and decisively reject it. In other words: a decisive choice of evil is only possible given optimal grace. 
And why do they insist on this? Because they want to be able to say that God is fully just in damning such people. In other words, it is important that everyone have enough grace or opportunity for salvation that God can be just in sending to hell those who die without faith.  But optimal grace is not required for this. 
Now here is the question: If God can make sure everybody has at least some real opportunity to be saved, why could he not make sure that everyone has optimal grace? Does he lack the creativity, the wisdom, or the means to do this? And more importantly, if he could do this, is it not the case that he would do so?  Why would he not?
So here is one of the most fundamental issues in how we conceive of God, one that will profoundly shape not only our view of hell, but our entire theology. Does God genuinely, deeply, love all persons and desire to save them? Or is his only concern to give them enough revelation and grace that he can justly damn them if they die without faith? 

http://rachelheldevans.com/blog/hell-series-ask-a-traditionalist-1-response-walls

i) Ironically, this is a backdoor admission that classic Arminianism is self-contradictory. Sufficient grace is insufficient. Sufficient grace must be supplemented by postmortem opportunities to even the playing field. So Walls is conceding, in roundabout fashion, what Calvinists have been saying about Arminianism all along. Here's an Arminian torpedoing classic Arminianism. Conceding Calvinist objections to classic Arminianism. 

ii) Walls is right that on Arminian grounds, death is an arbitrary cut-off. But what about his alternative? Optimal grace is the Arminian equivalent of Munchausen syndrome by proxy. Munchausen syndrome by proxy is a form of child abuse in which a "loving" mother makes her child sick, then takes him to the ER to be treated for the illness she induced. 

According to Walls, the Arminian God places humans in a harmful environment, then takes them to the postmortem ER to cure them of the damage he caused them by placing them in that harmful environment in the first place.