Sovereignty of God and Calvinism

Hi all,

Another thought on which I would like feedback from those in the reformed circles.

I absolutely support the sovereignty of God and believe that the 5 points were formulated, in a large part, to defend this doctrine. A such I do agree basically with all five points. My disagreement is with the degree of importance "calvinists" give the 5 points as absolutes - but that is another thread...

The position of the Franciscans, like Occam and Biel, seems to be in a way very compatible with God's absolute sovereignty - perhaps even more so than the stricter calvinist positions. This stance, associated with the name "nominalism" suggests that God is so completely "other" that He is not bound by any description or rule. This concept easily fits the idea of a covenant since the nominalist sees God as able to do whatever He wants. That is He could damn the righteous and justify the guilty if He wanted. Obviosuly He does not because this is not what God does - but He could if He so wanted. As such He could easily enter into a very very unequal covenant. In fact I think Melanchthon ended up surprisingly close to the nominalists in his attemopt to distance Lutheranism from Osiander. Indeed while reformed thought in general is a definite move towards orthodoxy (away from catholic heterodoxy) it from monolithic on any salient issue, including imputation of righteousness, piety, the atonement. This heterogeneity of thought is to me a bit incompatible not with reformed theology - but with the rigidity imposed on it by many well-meaning orthodox practitioners.

So my question then is this...

Is there room for some movement in "calvinist" doctrines.

For example the atonement must be limited from an a posteriori perspective (since not all are saved) but seems in another way not limited given the apparent choice given the believer...