Then you haven't been reading closely enought. I have stated that I cannot speak for all Protestants who believe in free will. I have also stated that most Protestants are not Calvinists. And I have stated that most Protestants today do believe in free will. I stand by that statement because it is true.
Here is an essay by a Calvinist who says "Most modern Protestants are Arminian." Althought I do not agree with his characterization of Arminianism in many of its details, that is one of the few statements made by a Calvinist that I would agree with.
Absolutely correct. The problem is that "free will" or "cooperating" is a Catholic concept. That's why there is very little differences between today's Protestants and Catholics. The core theology is the same. Most Protestants today are no longer Calvinists. During the Reformation almost all Protestants were Calvinists.
This was a very incisive statement. First, sola scriptura is in itself not scriptural; all it is, is a self-serving attempt of various failed theologians to get from under the authority of the Church in reading the Scripture, much like amateur science is done outside of the academia for fear of professional criticism.
Second, the scripture is not read by the prooftexters, period. Isolated verses are taken out of context -- both historical and literal context, -- and slapped together to fit one theological speculation or another. Often the context shows the meaning that is the exact opposite of what the quote is intended by the prooftexter to prove. For example, the oft-quoted "all scripture is profitable" from Timothy actually says that a bishop of the Church, having received the Holy Spirit through the sacramental laying of the hands, can use the scripture in a salutary fashion as a complement to the oral instruction. Even the quote alone, outside of the context of the entire letter, does not say that the scripture is sufficient, -- yet it is brazenly quoted as if it does.
It would be much easier on everyone if the Protestant prooftexters dropped their habit of dragging along into every conversation scores of single-liners from the scripture that they do not understand, and instead quoted something that at least amounts to a complete thought from Calvin, Luther, and Spurgeon.
OK, after reading this, and Harley's "absolutely correct" I rethought it. Originally, I went to a site that gave the world populations of different denominations. I presumed that the majority of followers would be followers of their own self-professed doctrine. Apparently, I'm being told this isn't the case, and in that event I owe you an apology.
The kicker is that from some tiny space in the back of my mind, I remembered something from the original post. To paraphrase Arlo Guthrie "Remember Luther and Erasmus? This is a thread about Luther and Erasmus." :) Anyway, it's near to the end and here it is:
The error of "semi-Pelagianism" is still alive in the church today. Much of the church world sides with Erasmus today, even among those who claim to be "Reformed." If a "Reformed" or Lutheran church denies what Luther says and sides with Erasmus, they despise the reformation of the church in the sixteenth century. They might as well go back to the Roman Catholic Church. ...
...Also, in this synergistic view of salvation, we see the principles of the bilateral, conditional covenant view which is in many "Reformed" churches. If God and man work together in salvation, then the covenant must be a pact in which both God and man must hold up each one's end of the agreement.
OOPS! Looks like I'm toast on this one. OK, I was wrong. :)