I have come to realize that my inconsistency in writing here was mainly due to the fact that I am not much interested in politics, the news, or much else that invigorates the popular sphere. I am not gifted, as was Chesteron, I think, to have an opinion about everything. When I debate, it is usually about theology or grammar (and sometimes both).
As I have mentioned in the past, my background is basically Reformed, though I think I have been taught to emphasize the faithfulness of Jesus Christ substantially more than others. My theological coming of age coincided, not surprisingly, with the mental development that accompanies being a teenager, mainly with a series of sermons that went through Galatians verse by verse. This, incidentally, was also a healthy introduction to grammar.
My understanding of salvation, formed during this time, is usually somewhat different from those whom I have encountered online and at church. Salvation is pictured as a process in the New Testament, yet redemption a one-time occurrence. Most people use the word "saved" to mean "going to heaven," though I think this is probably not a precise use of the term (see, for example, 1Ti 2.15, 2Ti 4.16). I use the word "redeemed" instead.
Redemption—forgiveness purchased by the blood of Christ—has nothing to do with man's will or faith in Christ. It is, instead, purely a function of the faithfulness of Christ.
For a long time, my perspective of "free will" was basically the same as what is popularly espoused in the post-Enlightenment world—that is, that free will is the power of contrary choice. That free will so defined doesn't exist is patently obvious, something Edwards pointed out verbosely in Freedom of the Will. (Edwards, as far as I can tell, accepted that definition of free will.)
The Scriptures, I think, present the free will as a will capable of doing what is right; hence, prior to God working in us, we were "slaves of unrighteousness" (Ro 5). This is consistent with the Scriptures' representation of man dead in sin (Ga 5 and others) and resolves a surprising number of problems (in my head, anyway; YMMV).
I think these two points serve as a relatively quick introduction to ways in which my theology is probably different than is typically expressed. Should I write more, the entries will considerably less introspective and probably not as nice.
