UPDATE: You can read my full review, HERE.
In the next few weeks I’ll receive my copy of Rob Bell’s new missive on “heaven, hell and the fate of every person who’s ever lived” called Love Wins. While some have speculated that it is universalism through and through—I have on good authority that this is the case—a recent re-read of Bell’s first book, Velvet Elvis, suggests this has been his trajectory for at least 7 years.
Consider his assertions in pages 145-146
We cannot earn what we have always had. What we can do is trust that what God keeps insisting is true about us is actually true.
Let’s take this further. As one writier puts it, “While we were still sinners, Christ died for us.” ((Romans 5:8)) While we were unable to do anything about our condition, while we were helpless, while we were unaware of just how bad the situation was, Jesus died.
And when he died on the cross, he died for everybody.
Everybody.
Everywhere.
Every tribe, every nation, every tongue, every people group. ((Revelation 5:9))
Jesus said that when he was lifted up, he would draw all people to himself. ((John 12:32))
All people. Everywhere.
Everybody’s sins on the cross with Jesus.
So this reality, this forgiveness, this reconciliation, is true for everybody. Paul insisted when Jesus died on the cross, he was reconciling “all things, in heaven and on earth, to God.” ((Colossians 1:20)) All things, everywhere.
This reality then isn’t something we make true about ourselves by doing something. It is already true. Our choice is to live in this new reality or cling to a reality of our own making.
I didn’t notice it the first time, but this is fairly universalistic. It seems it is the case that Rob Bell is a universalist, albeit a Christian one in some respects.
While it is true that humans cannot earn their salvation, it is not true that humans “have always had” it. Universal Salvation is not a condition into which humans are born. Universal Sin is the condition into which humans are born.
While it is true that Jesus died for every person on the planet, at just the right time, at just the right moment while we were dead in our rebellion, he did not create a new reality (or New Being in the language of Tillich) that is simply true for the whole world regardless of their personal decision to embrace Jesus as Lord and Messiah.
To support his claim Rob woefully misapplies Colossians 1:20 by making it do something that it isn’t doing: like other universalists, Rob uses Colossians 1:20 to argue for universal salvation where the context argues for no such thing. Rather than being soteriological, Colossians 1:20 fits within a broader Christological context (in Col 1:15-20) that argues the resurrected, exalted Jesus is the only Lord through whom reconciliation at the cosmic level is under taken.
In other words the point is that Jesus (and no one else) is the fix for the our universal, collective sin problem. Just as the first part of the Hymn of praise emphasized the universal significance of Christ at the creation event, so also does the second part emphasize the universal significance of Christ on the cross for the entire creation. It is through Jesus (and no one else) that the cosmos is restored, that humans can be rescued and re-created. Again, salvation is not in view, but who Jesus is; this verse and passage is not soteriological, but Christological.
Paul (and Jesus for that matter) is explicit for the necessity for new birth through repentance and confession. Being “in Christ” is a state that one comes into after leaving behind the old through deliberate, explicit faith by confessing Jesus as Lord and believing that God raised Him from the dead, by believing the gospel. There are some who are in Christ and some who are not.
Rob, however, believes that somehow all are in. We do not make this New Reality true by doing something, presumably by following the traditional evangelical route of receiving Christ as Lord and Messiah. Instead in his words, this New Reality/Being “is already true.” We just have to live as if it is.
Bell made a similar suggestion—that the story is about “renewing all things”—in his July 2009 Poets, Prophets, Preachers conference in Grand Rapids. I live-blogged through this conference and was surprised with his overt universalist statement in his session entitled “The Story We’re Telling”:
The story is about:
Renewing all things
Restoring all things
Reconciling all things (col 1)
ALL THINGS= means ALL THINGS. Jesus, Peter, Paul is about reconciling and rewnewing…ALL THINGS.
(then [Rob] said there are a whole lot of theological things that could be said…but didnt say them…UNIVERSALISM?!)
Though others doubt that Rob is a universalist, I find that hard to believe based on this and other things he has said; it appears he is just that. While he and others would suggest he is a Christian universalist, I’m not so sure that’s the case. From what I have read from others, those claiming to be Christian universalists are really pluralistic universalists parading around as such. Their Jesus really isn’t necessary because of their view of our problem (sin), solution (salvation), and even their perspective on Jesus Himself as its bearer.
For them Jesus isn’t necessarily the point. Love is (which incidentally was Paul Tillich’s, too, a German liberal theologian).
I want to affirm that rescue and re-creation is available for every single person on the planet, while also saying that sadly not everyone will receive this possibility by receiving Jesus as Lord and Messiah. This is why I’m helping cultivate a new expression of the Church in Grand Rapids, one which I hope will create experiences for people to explore and find the new life offered through Jesus.
Not everyone will be rescued and re-created, but praise God that the possibility is there to receive it, in faith.
It might be better to call Paul Tillich a "Christian existentialist philosopher" (as, I see they do in the Wikipedia entry here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Tillich ). As with many of the theologians of his era, he was (in part) reacting against the classical liberal theological tradition that had gone before him. You seem to be using the term "liberal" purely as a pejorative (the way most people use the word "fundamentalist").
Hi Craig. I assure you I don't mean "liberal" pejoratively, but I understand where you're coming from. Too many certainly throw that word around as much as "fundamentalist"!
I use it literally as someone who is currently in a post-graduate ThM program in Historical Theology. Actually, my thesis project is examining modern and postmodern conceptions of Kingdom of God language, tracing its development from Schleiermacher to Ritscle to Tillich to McLaren. Yes Tillich is an existential theologian/philosopher, and thus his theology different in some regard to Schleiermacher. Make no mistake, though: in many ways Tillich is cut from the cloth of Schleiermacher. I'm currently working on an examination of Tillich's gospel and the the resemblance is sure there.
Anyway, I say this all this to say I do mean that Tillich is a liberal theologian in the same vein as Ritschl and Schleiermacher, and also McLaren and Bell.
Thanks for the clarification.
Jeremy,
I love your blog. I came across another site that reminded me almost exactly of your blog, except they write a little more, but the same jist. Here is the link http://apprising.org/?s=ROB+BELL .
I think you should really resonate with their critiques too! Keep defending the faith like you do.
Sam…or is it John…or is it Joe. I can't keep you straight with all the anonymous names you use! I thought you weren't coming back?
At any rate, I do know Ken, I do know his work. I'm giggling (yes I just used the word 'giggle') at your association, though, and find it funny that the only way you can engage my ideas is using ad hominems.
Try dealing with the ideas. I'll respect you–and so will the world–for it.
Jeremy, don't you think it's possible that Rob isn't really affirming anything universalistic when he says, "Our choice is to live in this new reality or cling to a reality of our own making." Couldn't choosing to "live in this new reality" be a way of saying new birth, etc? And because he seems open to the possibility that we could indeed "cling to a reality of our own making" it makes me think he'd be open to the idea that we could do so indefinitely… i.e. eternal separation from God.
In some ways it reminds me of the way C.S. Lewis thought/wrote about hell in The Great Divorce. Christ has made a way for all who would come, in that people from hell can take bus tours to the outskirts of heaven, but some just don't want to come because they don't really like God, or they'd rather cling to their pride than enter into eternal happiness.
It feels like a big stretch to argue he is a universalist from the passage above.
Some of us are convinced that by our very nature we are good and "universal sin" is part of the fall. In other words, the condition into which humans are born is universal goodness — though they are not unaffected by the fall. Thus, repentance is expected, continually. You may consider this liberal, but methodologically, it is only liberal on the basis of your articulation of the historic Christian faith i.e. the 'rule of faith' as you call it. Again, methodologically, I just can't hold 'interpreted history' in such high regard. Thus, the theological interpretation to which I subscribe evokes the need for reinterpreting Scripture on the basis of communal embodiment. Theological interpretation as I espouse brings theology and interpretation closer together and closer to the present reality.
So in other words, "some of us" are Pelagian.
The view you describe is both Pelagian and Liberal not because I say they are but because those in history who held the same positions were German Liberals…or a British monk in the case of Pelagius. When I use terms like Liberal or Pelagian I don't use them pejoratively. Rather I use them as a practitioner to describe actual, literal views and positions espoused by actual, literal people and actual, literal theological movements—not because I disagree with them or because they disagree with, in your words, "[my] articulation of the historic Christian faith." That would be stupid.
And by the way the idea that you can't hold 'interpreted history' in high regards is funny because you know as well as I do that history is interpreted; good luck finding one that isnt…
Now for the "interpretive side"—what do "some of us" do with Romans 5 and 1 Cor 15…specifically the Adam Christology that Paul posits in each and throughout the Pauline corpus?
I, too, want to bring biblical interpretation and historical/systematic theology into a closer marriage than has been before…which is why I write what I do.
Speaking of theological interpretation…what exactly do you mean "the need for reinterpreting Scripture on the basis of communal embodiment"? You are unclear and imprecise.
Hey, just thought I’d chime in with a few thoughts. I’ll probably just break them down by bullet points. Please read them as a academic back and forth, just wanna say that I don’t mean anything personal, just interacting with the ideas thrown out.
1. you mention that ‘universal sin’ is part of the fall…so everyone post adam would have to be born into this category right? Knowing Jeremy as long as I have, I have no doubt that he affirms the goodness of being created in the image of God, he def starts his Soteriology with Gen 1 and not Gen 3.
2. You mention the ‘rule of faith’ I don’t think this is purely a methodological issue, its more of a historical one. I dont really think it falls down the lines of Baptist/Reformed. In fact the ‘rule of faith’ as seen in the early church fathers precedes, by a large number of years, the baptist-reformed movement. Rather I would want to say that a majority of church history, with notable exceptions, held to the universal sin.
3. you mention that you can’t hold “‘interpreted history’ in such high regard” all history is interpreted, so good luck finding one that isnt…I think the issue is which interpreted history we will hold in high regard. Furthermore, theological interpretation is precisely about holding the interpreted history in high regard, and at this point I think you methodologically remove yourself from theological interpretation of scripture.
En toto, I think I would say that, from my experience in studying and understanding Paul, that it is hard pressed to find wiggle room on this issue. I think everyone knows that I see some room for interpreting Paul different ways, but I would think a majority of scholars agree that at least Paul understood humans as universally cracked. The question then becomes, what will we do with Paul’s analysis and here our theology begins.
I don't take the liberal and Pelagius comment as pejorative, nor personal. Though I think you are taking my words 'all the way to Pelagius.'
I don't deny the affects of sin — nor the universal goodness re-established by Christ for all people. That all people live into the calling of Jesus Christ i. e. join the mission of God via the Church is another thing. For clarity sake, I am unwilling to deny that God might actually redeem all things.
That I am looking for uninterpreted history is a leading comment and that is nowhere near what I was suggesting. Personally, I see the rule of faith even narrower than Jeremy. "Christ had died, Christ has risen, Christ will come again." Then, the biblical narrative and my theology develops from there.
By "the need for reinterpreting Scripture on the basis of communal embodiment," I mean that Scripture forms and informs our embodiment of the Gospel / and / our embodiment (liturgy / practices / etc) form and inform our interpretation of Scripture. In other words, interpretation is participatory, not linear. Thus, interpretation is theological in the sense that we bring something to the text with us, for example, one might bring his or her understanding of the "rule of faith" with them to the text. Then, it is interpreted theological for a particular purpose.
I do need clarification on one thing regarding Salvation and the biblical texts you mention. Are you suggesting a double predestination as in "some are destined to hell and some to heaven? Because that's what is sounds like — I don't know how that is not Reformed / Baptist.
I'm confused how pointing to Romans 5 and 1 Cor 15 as a Scriptural reference point in response to your suggestion that we are born into universal goodness has anything to do with double predestination?
I have said it before—perhaps you'll believe me this time—that I am NOT Reformed. I do not believe in double predestination, let alone predestination.
I would be interested how you, to us your words, methodologically arrive at your understanding of the rule of faith? In your estimation is Nicene Christianity too broad? And where do you get your three-fold "Christ statement"?
Another question: how, specifically, do you see a participatory hermeneutic playing itself out theologically? To say "interpretation is participatory" is incredibly vague and, again, unclear and imprecise.
One more question: I read you as saying traditional non-participatory modes of interpreting are "linear." What does that mean? How so? So, for example, the theological belief that Jesus was physically resurrected from the dead by God is linear? Not to beat the drum here, but you're not clear in what you mean when you use the term "linear."
I do think the tripart 'rule of faith' is far to limited in two ways. One, it completely leaves out the OT. It seems clear from the patristics that the rule of faith must hold together both testaments. Furthermore, Metzger in his book on canon uses Irenaeus to show that the rule of faith was shorthand for the apostles creed.
Btw, Jeremy def doesn't buy into double predestination or supralapsarianism. I still remember him saying "that's sounds like HERESY" when it was brought up in a systematic theology 3 class 🙂
What's the point of all this? Are we really doing anything here to further the Kingdom by bashing other believers theology?
Matt I think you have missed THE point. Kingdom is a theological term, so yes it does matter what other believers believe, seeing as it has a bearing on that 'kingdom' and it's 'furthering.' furthermore I don't believe this is bashing but rather engaging ideas in an academic context.
OK my friend — we are clearly on two different wavelenghs here. How do we get back to an appropriate conversation that doesn't suggest the other is not being clear? In other words, I do think you should stop beating that drum, and its a bit obnoxious. Let's be honest, we actually don't know each other that well and I don't want to suggest you are something that you claim you are not.
As far as your question of the Resurrection: If the resurrection is understood merely as a historical event i.e. linear history, and not something eucharistic or participatory, then its just that, an event. If you think I am not being clear regarding participatory language, maybe you should read some of the nouvelle theologians, or some Eastern Orthodox theologians. (I'm not suggesting you haven't)
Personally, I dont think asking someone to define terms is obnoxious. Its just a part of writing, everyone has to be on the same page with the terms we're using. A term such as 'interpretation is participatory" begs for further explanation, it just does. Just saying…
Answer to "Where do you get your three-fold "Christ statement?"
In Roman Catholic, Lutheran, and some Anglican churches the Memorial Acclamation is a part of the Eucharistic Prayer. The celebrant says,
"Let us proclaim the mystery of faith", inviting the congregation to recite one of the following four acclamations:
Christ has died, Christ is risen, Christ will come again.
Dying you destroyed our death, rising you restored our life. Lord Jesus, come in glory.
When we eat this bread and drink this cup, we proclaim your death, Lord Jesus, until you come in glory.
Lord, by your cross and resurrection, you have set us free. You are the Saviour of the world.
I don't think I was clear in my question. I know where it comes from and what it means. I say it every week! What I don't understand is how you can say its a 'rule of faith.' I agree with Jason: it's far too limiting and a-historic.
I understand Jason's concern with missing the OT 🙂 I agree that we can't separate Jesus from the larger narrative, but as a foundation of my Christian faith – the mystery that I participate in, is built upon the basic notion that Christ has died, Christ has risen and Christ will come again.
Each and every time I respond to that statement, the entire narrative of Scripture flashes before my eyes. I'm quite convinced that if one has been properly taught the biblical narrative, that such a three-fold statement would not be too limiting.
How is proclaiming Christ's death, resurrection, and return a-historical? Such a proclamation is both historical and sacramental (participatory), especially as it is part of the Eucharistic prayer.
What I mean to say is that reducing the rule of faith to thisthree-fold statement is not the way the Church has understood the Christian faith, even the narrative of the bible.I get what it mean. I applaud what it means. I embrace what it means. My problem is that it says nothing of our need for salvation, the nature of salvation itself, and the nature of the one who bore our salvation, Jesus Christ.When has the church understood the Christian 'rule of faith' to boil down to Christ's death, resurrection, and return? Yes the statement is historical, but your definition of the rule of faith is not (unless I'm misunderstanding what your saying about the rule of faith…)
1) I do see your concern of reducing the biblical narrative to these three points. I don't, however, think that is what I'm doing. I am just acknowledging that it is what I'm bringing with me to the text as a 'rule of faith.' Its one of the few things theologically I'm confident in right now. That I believe Christ has died, was risen, and will return, is a huge thing.
Interestingly, N. T. Wright thinks the Creeds are not sufficient enough to evoke the biblical narrative. Personally, I'm convinced that any form of language / interpretation / theology reduces the larger narrative of Scripture – which is why it must be taught. I'm convinced that by its very nature, theology is reductive.
2) I also see your concern with the missing link of salvation, though I think evoking the name of Jesus is quite salvific in and of itself.
3) By 'rule of faith' I merely mean something we bring with us to Scripture for guiding our reading / interpreting. I think its great that the Creeds as a 'rule of faith' guide your reading of Scripture. I have no problem with that. Though I do think even the Creeds can be interpreted, not just read. Rightly or wrongly, I want to acknowledge that understanding the Creeds is an interpretive endeavor, too.
I also understand your concern that the church has not historically used this as THE rule of faith — I guess I am less concerned about that. Maybe I'm more influenced by Gadamer that I've ever let on before 🙂
I would just supplement this with the fact that we have within the NT and even the OT a 'reduction' of the larger narrative of scripture, For the OT, mainly about exile and restoration, and with the NT mainly to key points about the Messiah.
Two examples, try tracing 'Adam' through the OT…outside of Genesis he doesn't appear much (although he pops back up in the Second Temple period). For the OT none of the OT 'land theology' makes it into the NT, also Peter's speeches in Acts are quite reductionistic in regards to the OT, however the narratives are adapted towards Luke's purpose.
I also think from a church history standpoint, that a /interpretation/theology/language is practically needed to manage this large sprawling narrative, if that makes sense. I guess I would object to leaving it at a 'theology/interpretation/language" level, but we do need something to grant access to such a large narrative. I think, and I may be wrong, but that the early church saw these as ways to get into the story, not as ends in themselves. If they becomes 'ends in themselves' I think it's right to reject them.
I hope those two paragraphs make sense, I do have a small headache, and its friday, so forgive me for any lapses in thought!
Jason, you said, "I would just supplement this with the fact that we have within the NT and even the OT a 'reduction' of the larger narrative of scripture."
Sounds like a classic case for historical-criticism i.e. Scripture doesn't contain the whole of the biblical narrative. Now, I get what you mean when you follow this statement up with your examples, implying one can't always trace themes that start somewhere in the text all the way through. But, reading that first sentance by itself made me laugh because of all our conversation on history and theology. I hope you get the joke too. Its not intended to bash 🙂
Answer to "In your estimation is Nicene Christianity too broad?"
No, it is not too broad. But, when read (interpreted) from a Western perspective, it has the tendency to set the Eastern churches aside.
Answer to "how, specifically, do you see a participatory hermeneutic playing itself out theologically?
I presume interpretation has its locus in the church and if interpretation is merely meant to produce a theological construct, then it is not participatory i.e. lived, embodied, practiced or sacramental.
With a sacramental (participatory) ontology one understands participation in the life of the triune God as theo-centrically mystical. Not in weird way, but as in a participation with the divine — the eucharist being the primary place Christians are to participate in the life of the triune God in order to go forth in peace and mission.
Thanks for your answer, but what I meant by my question was "specifically" how might this hermeneutic play itself out?
Take The Resurrection, for instance. Some interpret it literally and some symbolically. When your sacramental/participatory hermeneutic is applied to the Resurrection, what is the hermeneutical and theological result?
Thanks Jeremy,
I just didn't want this to get too harry. Now you are making me think through my statements and that is what this is all about, right.
OK, now we are getting somewhere. As far as the literal vs symbolic interpretation of the resurrection goes, I think both are important. Literally, it is quite significant, as you have clearly pointed out before and to which I agree. If it didn't happen, then what's the point. Symbolically, in a very narratively theological sense, it inaugurates the new creation, in which we are to participate in God's mission of restoring the world.
This may not be clear because I'm still working through a sacramental / participatory theology.
As far as how we sacramentally participate in the resurrection — it begins with our participation in God's restoration of the world, as noted above. Thus, our participation is salvific in nature, and requires our participation in a spiritual and material sense.
Another way to put this: I don't want to separate the mystical union we experience / participate in with the triune God in our salvation, nor do I want to reject the expectation that our actions (works some might say) are somehow separated from our faith. In that sense, I don't want to give way for the faith vs works mentality of reformers.
Is this helping you — its helping me.
I'm still working this through on a personal manner, but for a start, I think it is salvific. As far as the purpose of salvation, I'm quite sure you and I would be on the same page as far as mission goes.
Answer to: I read you as saying traditional non-participatory modes of interpreting are "linear." What does that mean?
Traditional non-participatry modes of interpreting would be to read history as merely linear. Or, "just the facts, man."
Karl Barth's view of the elect is where Bell goes in his book
In addition – he articulates an eastern orthodox/ CS Lewis view of hell.
He recently preached on judgement.
Hold your judgement.
Your reasoning is very reductionist.
I dont think he will part with tim keller and n.t. wright (2 people he constantly references)
Please be more responsible brother.
Remember – it is Gods heart that all will be saved –
1 timothy 2:4
Here is what Eugene Peterson said about the book…
“In the current religious climate in America, it isn’t easy to develop an imagination, a thoroughly biblical imagination, that takes in the comprehensive and eternal work of Christ in all people and all circumstances in love and for salvation. Rob Bell goes a long way in helping us acquire just such an imagination. Love Wins accomplishes this without a trace of soft sentimentality and without compromising an inch of evangelical conviction in its proclamation of the good news that is most truly for all.”
– Eugene H. Peterson, Professor Emeritus of Spiritual Theology, Regent College, and author of The Message
Again, I do want to hold of final judgment on the actual book until I receive my own copy. My initial comments are based 1) on conversations with people who have read it and 2) Bell's own words as I've outlined above.
Perhaps my reasoning is reductionistic and I should heed your caution to wait and see and pay more attention to his nuance, which from what I understand he does do in the book. I'm not as convinced as you are that he will reflect Wright, especially his views of final eschatological judgment. Are you suggesting Wright has a similar position as Rob as his suggestion that "this reality, this forgiveness, this reconciliation, is true for everybody."? In fact is that what Paul says?
Regarding responsibility: I do want to be careful and responsible in what I say about Bell's theology, but I have also seen far too many times—both in person with Rob and through podcasts—how he has made passages do and say things they just are not doing and saying. Case in point: Col 1:20 (and even the parable of the 2 sons that appears just before this quoted section). I simply do not trust the results of Bell's exegesis.
Regarding your Peterson quote: as I said the first time you posted this, Bell has already compromised several evangelical convictions, so I find this hard to believe. And considering McLaren also endorsed the book, I have little hope. But again, we shall see…
Hey Jeremy,
I find your analysis of this Velvet Elvis passage weak. Even more weak do I find your conclusions about Rob's theology. Rob is saying two things here: (1) Jesus died, (2) and he did so for all people. About the Colossians 1 verse, all Rob says is just what the verse says. I understand the christological context of the verse, but Rob does not conclude that by "reconciling" Paul meant "saved every human being for eternity". It seems like you're trying to find whatever you can in order to label him a universalist. If you are a Christian, you might want to figure out whether you're just out to get him.
Anyway, I finished Love Wins last weekend. And you can be rest assured: Rob Bell does not state that every human being WILL BE saved. What he DOES say is that the gates of the New Jerusalem will never be shut (Rev. 21:25). Rob believes that Jesus is the exclusive Savior of the world, but an inclusive one at that. All are welcome to participate in eternal life, but it may be that not all will choose this eternal life.
Jeremy, if you are going to criticize Rob Bell for his view, then you might as well criticize C.S. Lewis for his, because they are the same. But, as Nate Dawson said, you also might as well criticize the Eastern Orthodox Church, which many evangelicals have been turning to as the truest church. St. Gregory of Nyssa even believed that we have no reason to give up holding out the possibility that every single person in the world may choose life-giving belief in Christ. He is venerated in the following communions: Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic, Anglican, Lutheran.
I'd love to discuss this with you. Tell me what you think.
-Seth
Getting back to Rob's book. Those were some tangents, ah!! Anyway, I am interested in your concern of the possibility of Rob's universalism. There are many forms of it. Does your concern arise because the church hasn't historically subscribed to it? I have a friend who calls himself an evangelical universalist (not its not me) :), and others who are Catholic universalists.
How about Bell's comment, in the same book, that "Hell is full of people God forgives." If hell is "full" of anything, doesn't that mean no universalism?
Rob seems to believe that Hell is a state of existence on Earth. Hell on Earth — the result of living a bad life. I believe that explains this quote.
Taylor,
Regardless of Bell's book, or Barth, or Wright. The 21st century needs to know God's Word.
God desires for all to be saved, yet tragically God knows many will perish.
Love wins eternally when we respond in belief to the unmerited grace of God.
Love burns eternally when people respond in unbelief to the unmerited grace of God.
Jesus Christ will no longer be good news for millions of people when he returns again to judge the living and the dead.
"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world but in order that the world might be saved through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God. And this is the judgment; the light has come into the world, and people loved the darkness rather than the light because their deed were evil." (Jesus – John 3:16-21)
Praise God for His love and mercy, may people respond before it's to late…