我相信預定論是改革宗的根基，然而抱着它作為偶像也是荒唐。

Both Arminians and hyper-Calvinists err at this point.

我相信John Frame也是反對 hyper-Calvinists，這篇大作沒有展開，但在其他地方有闡述。

同時文中也提到了這樣一個觀點：

Confessions are not Scripture, and they should not be treated as infallible or as ultimately normative. Indeed, I believe it is important that in a church fellowship it be possible to revise the creeds, and for that purpose, it must also be possible for members and officers to dissent from the creed within some limits. Otherwise, the creed will, practically speaking, be elevated to a position of authority equivalent to Scripture. 

事實上，Frame在文中提到：

 In the case of the Reformed faith, the doctrinal system is far more than five points; it is a comprehensive understanding of Scripture, and thus a comprehensive world-and-life view.

還有：

Calvinism has been a very “progressive” kind of theology. Reformed theology, typically, has not simply reiterated the statements of Calvin and the confessions. It has gone on to develop new applications of Scripture and Reformed doctrine. In the seventeenth century, there was a significant development in Reformed thinking about God’s covenants. In the eighteenth century thinker Jonathan Edwards, there is new teaching on the subjective dimensions of the Christian life. In the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, there was the remarkable development, under Vos and others, of “biblical theology,” the analysis of Scripture as a history of redemption. In the twentieth century there was Van Til’s apologetics and Meredith Kline’s Structure of Biblical Authority.

結論講的好：

You can see that the Reformed Faith is exceedingly rich!

 None of us can maintain a perfect balance of emphasis. And different situations require of us different emphases, as we “contextualize” our theology to bring God’s word to bear on the situations we are in.