A new friend of mine, Nolan, posted something here that struck a nerv with me recently. He noted that a lot of my blog is polemic against various ideas that float around in Christendom. He noted that this was perfectly valid, and in my mind I noted that the topic of the discussion we were having was based on a most polemic document; the Second Synod of Dort.
Chasing bad, or thought to be bad, theology around isn't always helpful. In fact I think it is often anything but helpful. That was a large point I made in my book Fail-Safe for Fallacy. The first time I looked at, and argued against, the "Doctrines of Grace" popularly called by the acrostic TULIP I made it clear that it is easy to argue against something but much harder to develop something that is true.
Over the last couple of years I've been feeling I should develop a Soteriological Thesis. The late Dr. Robb Lawson and I worked on a project together that we were calling The Grace Reformation. I believe it was a noble idea, but the perspective was too broad and so it was beyond my abilities and beyond Robb's ability to keep me motivated. :)
Over Christmas I have decided to limit the thesis to the methodology by which a person who is unsaved becomes eternally saved. I have a well-known dislike for systems that give answers to people who haven't (and so won't) read their bibles but I think the time has come to truly test what I believe.
This year I will be writing a book that introduces the thesis which is reasonably well developed in my mind, but has not been committed to writing as of yet.
