This is interesting to me because my husband and I were very comfortable with his use of scripture. Of course we, as American Christians, are quick to find ways of discrediting this book, not because it is false teaching, but because it is difficult. It’s tough for us to realize that the guy we are supposed to be modeling our lives after was virtually homeless, broke, and hung out with twelve dudes with the sole purpose being to spread the gospel to the nations. But that’s just too hard for us Americans. Better to sit back in our four bedroom home with the white picket fence, two kids and a dog, attending a church building on Sundays and never having to give a care in the world about everyday comforts.

I am amazed at how easily the Devil gets a hold of Christians to convince them NOT to do what Jesus so clearly called us to: Yes, IN SCRIPTURE.

I was taught that Jesus died for every single sin of every single person, lost or saved. The only sin He couldn’t die for was the refusal to get saved. Rob’s theology is a logical extension on that idea.

The biggest difference between Rob and non-calvinistic convention is the idea that salvation can occur beyond the grave. And to be fair to Rob, both calvinists and non-calvinists already admit to variation on that view in the “age of accountability” issue.

Anyone dieing before the age of accountability automatically goes to heaven, i.e., they are saved beyond the grave even though they weren’t officially saved before.

But accepting “age of accountability” opens the door to discussions on other unresolved questions stemming from the concept. Rob is just walking through the door and exploring the concepts further.

This may reconcile itself with his anti-calvinistic view in that this view still contemplates evangelism (as opposed to the supine election approach).

Just wondering as I have not read the book but your review is intriguing and will cause me to do so!