Dr. Bock:

I'll tell you what I think, in a word: brilliant.

I have something rather controversial to add, and something I'm sure few, in any, will agree with.

First, when I was introduced to our Savior, the guy who witnessed to me never brought up the issue of sin. The main thrust of his gospel presentation was the LOVE of God for ME. Consequently, I never had a concept of an angry God needing to be appeased. I was told that God loved me and sent his son in order to express the extent of his love for every one.

Now to the controversial statement. Most Calvinists that I have known see sin as that which separates us from God. They have this concept that sin is so terrible that God could have thrown us all into the lake of fire, but due to his mercy and grace, chose to save some (the apply the wonderful doctrine of Election to this, which I disagree with). They have this paranoia about personal sins. And I think this misunderstanding of sin leads them to the Calvinistic system. They still have this fear (not reverence) for God.

On the other hand, I am convinced that personal sins are unrelated to one's eternal destiny. The consequences of personal sins only have a temporal effect. I also argue that Christ paid for all the sins of the world and that, by itself, does not mean all are saved. What separates an unbeliever from God is his/her rejection of God's offer of salvation. Every child born in the world is heaven bound unless, after a certain event (not age) takes place, and that event is the presentation of the Gospel in which they are free to accept or reject). Even though children who die as infants go to heaven, it is not because Christ paid for their sins; it is because there is no basis for their condemnation.

I argue that in Gen 3 and in Rom 5, as well as elsewhere, there is NO eternal consequences mentioned for sin. All the consequences of sin listed in Gen 3, for example, last only until the grave. This is why sin is never mentioned in any final judgment passage for the unbeliever.

No person will answer for sins, not even the unbeliever. I know my view is a bit radical, but I, like everyone else, approach Scripture with certain presuppositions. These presuppositions, and other factors, prevent me from seeing the Calvinist system as even remotely close to the truth.

I am not one of those who belittles Calvinists. I even worked for Dan Wallace for a while and consider him a friend and godly man. But I am convinced that sin is unrelated to salvation. When Adam and Eve sinned, they did not cease being God's children. In other words, they didn't need to become "born again." They remained God's children; God unilaterally restored their relationship. They were "separated" from God as a result of their sin, but they were not "unsaved."

Sorry for rambling. But your statements about the relationship to sin and the gospel, although we differ in many respects, was rather refreshing for me to hear. I am not in any way implying that you agree with my position; I am just saying that I enjoyed very much the way you presented sin.

Brett