2 responses

1. 

   Adrian Warnock

   13 December 2010

   It is odd to me that having been around Calvinists you find the distinctions hard to make. There are definitely many Calvinists who do not want to be as “hard” and hence soften or even deny some of the five points. I know that many argue the points stand or fall together, but I do believe that one’s understanding of them can be very nuanced and different. Certainly the double predestination item is a critical one that MANY do not hold, including myself. I have given two second names to the Reformed Arminian group. It was not a term unique to me, and some use it, presumably to strongly identify with much of what the reformers stood for. I suspect that one reason some like the label is that many today argue that Calvin himself was not a five point calvinist!

   Reply
   1. 

      Simplepastor

      14 December 2010

      Hi Adrian, thanks for leaving a comment. I guess I should have made myself a bit clearer, it’s not that I don’t see that people try and make the distinctions that you discuss (because you’ve rightly captured that they do) but that theologically those distinctions don’t really hold. So I would argue where you have seven positions that to have a consistent position theologically at best there are only 4. Hypercalvinism, strong calvinism, classical (reformed) arminianism, and strong ‘arminianism’ (although actually it’s soft as it’s further from the strong core of arminianism rooted in the reformation). I think that people do try and soften their stances but I’m not sure they should or can to be consistent. I don’t think Driscoll’s limited/unlimited really makes any sense in the overall scheme. I still maintain that open theism isn’t really arminianism at all. I’m sure you’ve seen Roger Olsen’s comment on your post by now but it’s quite helpful. https://www.patheos.com/blogs/rogereolson/2010/12/is-there-an-arminocalvinist-spectrum/

      Reply