Calvinist C. Michael Patton recently did a post entitled Calvinism and the Divine Decrees – Correcting a Misunderstanding. In the post Patton argues for the Infralapsarian view of Calvinism. The infralapsarian view is a less extreme form of Calvinism. It states that in the logical order of God's decrees, God first decreed the creation of man and then allowed for the fall.

Patton's post has been criticized by Supralapsarian Calvinist "Tur8infan" of Alpha and Omega Ministries (James White's organization). That post can be found here: Response to C. Michael Patton on the Divine Decrees and Hyper-Calvinism. The Supralapsairan view is the most extreme form of Calvinism. It states that God decreed the fall of man before the creation of Adam was decreed.

I have come to appreciate Dr. Olson's perspectives on Arminian apologetics over the past few years. The Society of Evangelical Arminians recently posted a well written commentary by Olson considering Scot McKnight's recent blog posts taking the "Neo-Reformed" theological sects to task. There is a growing albeit relatively small sect prospering in some internet circles and among a handful of well known Calvinist ministries that has become somewhat militant in their sectarian zeal. Castigating non-Calvinists as being on the very edge of orthodoxy if not implying having been cast over the precipice, these zealous defenders of their mostly rejected dogma appear to have staked a claim of exclusiveness with regard to scriptural and Christian truth. These souls are encountered regularly on the various discussion boards and Calvinist blogs promoting an almost vitriolic assault on a broad expanse of Christian evangelicalism.

C. Michael Patton has written a couple of posts on the tendency of fellow Calvinists to treat Arminians in an unloving way. Here are some of the relevant posts:

Calvinists, Let's Calm Down (5-15-09)

Calvinists Often Make the Worst Calvinists(9-30-08)

Why Do I (A Calvinist) Go to An Arminian Church? (04-28-09)

One of our members, well known Arminian theologian Roger Olson, has weighed in on the controversy stirred up by Scot McKnight's recent comments about those he has labeled the "Neo-Reformed" (see our recent post about McKnight's comments). Roger has made his view available for posting here at SEA. Here are his comments:

I appreciate and agree with everything Scot McKnight has written in his 
blog postings “Who are the NeoReformed?” (See his blog The Jesus 
Creed.) He was very judicious about naming names. Namely, naming names 
would only inflame the controversy and make things worse. “If the shoe 
fits [someone]....”