ataul.thearmoury.org

From the Introduction of his book, Holiness, Ryle offers some timeless words of warning and concern for the body of Christ:

There is much in the attitude of professing Christians in this day which fills me with concern, and makes me full fear for the future.

There is an amazing ignorance of Scriptures among many, and a consequent want of established, solid religion. In no other way can I account for the ease with which people are, like children, "tossed to and fro, and carried about by every wind of doctrine." ( Ephesians 4:14.) There is an Athenian love of novelty abroad, and a morbid distaste for anything old and regular, and in the beaten path of our forefathers. Thousands will crowd to hear a new voice and a new doctrine, without considering for a moment whether what they hear is true.–There is an incessant craving after any teaching which is sensational, and exciting, and rousing to the feelings.–There is an unhealthy appetite for a sort of spasmodic and hysterical Christianity. The religious life of many is little better then spiritual dram-drinking, and the "meek and quiet spirit" which St. Peter commends is clean forgotten. ( 1 Peter 3:4.) Crowds, and crying, and hot rooms, and high-flown singing, and an incessant rousing of the emotions, are the only things which many care for.–Inability to distinguish differences in doctrine is spreading far and wide, and so long as the preacher is "clever" and "earnest," hundreds seem to think it must be all right, and call you dreadfully "narrow and uncharitable" if you hint that he is unsound! …All this is sad, very sad. But if, in addition to this, the true-hearted advocates of increased holiness are going to fall out by the way and misunderstand one another, it will be sadder still. We shall indeed be in evil plight.

For myself, I am aware that I am no longer a young minister. My mind perhaps stiffens, and I cannot easily receive any new doctrine. "The old is better." I suppose I belong to the old school of Evangelical theology, and I am therefore content with such teachings about sanctification as I find in the Life of Faith of Sibbes and Manton, and in The Life, Walk, and Triumph of Faith of William Romaine. But I must express a hope that my younger brethren who have taken up new views of holiness will beware of multiplying causeless divisions. Do they think that a higher standard of Christian is needed in the present day? So do I.–Do they think that clearer, stronger, fuller teaching about holiness is needed? So do I.–Do they think that Christ ought to be more exalted as the root and author of sanctification as well as justification? So do I.–Do they think that believers should be urged more and more to live by faith? So do I.–Do they think that a very close walk with God should be more pressed on believers as the secret of happiness and usefulness? So do I.–In all these things we agree. But if they want to go further, then I ask them to take care where they tread, and to explain very clearly and distinctly what they mean.

Finally, I must deprecate, and I do it in love, the use of uncouth and new-fangled terms and phrases in teaching sanctification. I plead that a movement in favor of holiness cannot be advanced by new-coined phraseology, or by disproportioned and one-sided statements–or by overstraining and isolating particular texts–or by exalting one truth at the expense of another–or by allegorizing and accommodating texts, and squeezing out of them meanings which the Holy Spirit never put in them–or by speaking contemptuously and bitterly of those who do not entirely see things with our eyes, and do not work exactly in our ways. These things do not make for peace: they rather repel many and keep them at a distance. The cause of true sanctification is not helped, but hindered, by such weapons as these. A movement in aid of holiness which produces strife and dispute among God’s children is somewhat suspicious. For Christ’s sake, and in the name of truth and charity, let us endeavor to follow after peace as well as holiness. "What God has joined together let not man put asunder."

It is my heart’s desire, and prayer to God daily, that personal holiness may increase greatly among professing Christians in England. But I trust that all who endeavor to promote it will adhere closely to the proportion of Scripture, will carefully distinguish things that differ, and will separate "the precious from the vile." ( Jeremiah 15:19.)

The margin of distance between universal atonement and universal reconciliation can be quite small. Those who follow the logic of the former often drift towards the latter. This is why I have recently argued in Altar to an Unknown Love  (Now at Monergism Books ) that there should have been no surprise when Rob Bell revealed his deference towards Universalism, or at least, potential Universalism.[1] Like many advocates of universal atonement, Bell assumes that each mention of the word “all” or “world” is necessarily universal in its scope:

So this reality, this forgiveness, this reconciliation, is true for everybody. Paul insisted that when Jesus died on the cross he was reconciling ‘all things, in heaven and on earth, to God. 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.[2]

It is for this reason that I say that the margin of distance between universal atonement and universal reconciliation is rather small. By logic alone, the connection of reason seems simple enough. If the texts which speak of Christ’s atonement are universal in their application, then might we assume the same for passages which speak of God’s reconciliation with the world? This is the core logic presented by Rob Bell in Love Wins. Consider this relevant excerpt from Altar to an Unknown Love:

Universal Reconciliation: This view takes the thought of Universal atonement to its next logical step and sees the work of Christ as being universally efficacious. Therefore, "…the death of Christ made it possible for God to accept man, and he has done so. Consequently, whatever separation exists between man and the benefits of God’s grace is subjective in nature; it exists only in man’s mind." Additionally, men must accept practically the reconciliation that is theirs positionally. This form of thinking is, in part, contained within the argument which Bell posits; however, Bell does not go so far as to say that there will be a practical reconciliation for all men without exception: "Can God bring proper, lasting justice, banishing certain actions-and the people who do them-from the new creation while at the same time allowing and waiting and hoping for the possibility of the reconciliation of those very same people? Keeping the gates, in essence open? Will everyone eventually be reconciled to God or will there be those who cling to their version of their story, insisting on their right to be their own little god ruling their own little miserable kingdom? Will everybody be saved, or will some perish apart from God forever because of their choices? Those are questions, or more accurately, those are tensions we are free to leave fully intact. We don’t need to resolve them or answer them because we can’t, and so we simply respect them, creating space for the freedom that love requires."[3] By refusing to resolve the end result of God’s supposed universal reconciliation of mankind, he shelters himself from the charge of holding to the traditional view of Universal Reconciliation – just as Lewis does. Bell’s partial use of Universal Reconciliation is most evident in the 7th chapter of his book – The Good News is Better than That, where his retelling of the parable of the prodigal son is embedded in the idea that the father’s love and forgiveness is already established, but the sons needed to discover and embrace that which was already theirs. His application of this is then applied to the whole of humanity. The Lord has already forgiven all,[4] but all do not yet understand and believe this. Their failure to believe and embrace this makes their lives hellish.[5] I would defer to Erickson at this point: "The message man needs to be told, then, is not that he has an opportunity for salvation. Rather, man needs to be told that he has been saved, so that he may enjoy the blessings that are already his."[6] The contradiction which Bell resultantly produces is that there will be, potentially, saved and forgiven people who will remain in a state of hellish abandonment: "This makes what Jesus does in his story about the man with the two sons particularly compelling. Jesus puts the older brother right there at the party, but refusing to trust the father’s version of his story. Refusing to join in the celebration. Hell is being at the party. That’s what makes it so hellish."[7] By leaving the future open, as he does, he grants himself the license to slip away from the question of the eternal state of those who are "in Hell" – that is, Hell by Bell’s definition. In some sense, Bell’s arguments reveal a kind of worst case scenario of what can happen when universal atonement/reconciliation and human free will arguments are given complete reign. However, reconciliation, when used in a salvific sense, is clearly the propriety of God’s chosen[8] and redeemed[9] people, as a gift of His grace. Had Bell presented more in the way of exegesis, he would have been delivered from his own logic:

Bell argues for an unbounded universalism of Christ’s atonement for, and reconciliation of, all men. His theology is based upon the reckless, but repeated argument: “all means all, all of the time.” Sadly, many argue thus, but it is easy to see that such thinking would produce a world of exegetical confusion throughout the Bible.[10] For example, when Paul said that he could “do all things through Christ” who strengthened him, he was not indicating an “all” which included the deeds of wickedness. The “all things” to which he refers is constrained by the domain established within the context: “all things through Christ.” Such contextual considerations are essential, but are consistently missed by Bell and others who argue like him – especially when dealing with texts which speak of Christ’s work of atonement and reconciliation. One text worth our consideration is 2 Corinthians 5. Those who argue for universal reconciliation will often consult verses 14-15 in conjunction with verse 19 in order to justify their position, but the context cannot be missed:

2 Corinthians 5: – 1. For we know that if the earthly tent which is our house is torn down, we have a building from God, a house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens. 2. For indeed in this house we groan, longing to be clothed with our dwelling from heaven, 3. inasmuch as we, having put it on, will not be found naked. 4. For indeed while we are in this tent, we groan, being burdened, because we do not want to be unclothed but to be clothed, so that what is mortal will be swallowed up by life. 5. Now He who prepared us for this very purpose is God, who gave to us the Spirit as a pledge. 6. Therefore, being always of good courage, and knowing that while we are at home in the body we are absent from the Lord— 7. for we walk by faith, not by sight— 8. we are of good courage, I say, and prefer rather to be absent from the body and to be at home with the Lord. 9. Therefore we also have as our ambition, whether at home or absent, to be pleasing to Him. 10. For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each one may be recompensed for his deeds in the body, according to what he has done, whether good or bad. 11. Therefore, knowing the fear of the Lord, we persuade men, but we are made manifest to God; and I hope that we are made manifest also in your consciences. 12. We are not again commending ourselves to you but are giving you an occasion to be proud of us, so that you will have an answer for those who take pride in appearance and not in heart. 13. For if we are beside ourselves, it is for God; if we are of sound mind, it is for you. 14. For the love of Christ controls us, having concluded this, that one died for all, therefore all died; 15. and He died for all, so that they who live might no longer live for themselves, but for Him who died and rose again on their behalf. 16. Therefore from now on we recognize no one according to the flesh; even though we have known Christ according to the flesh, yet now we know Him in this way no longer. 17. Therefore if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creature; the old things passed away; behold, new things have come. 18. Now all these things are from God, who reconciled us to Himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation, 19. namely, that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and He has committed to us the word of reconciliation. 20. Therefore, we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God were making an appeal through us; we beg you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God. 21. He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him. [bold, italics mine]

As already noted, the verses normally employed for the justification of universal reconciliation are found in verses 14 and 15, along with verse 19: “…one died for all, therefore all died; and He died for all, so that they who live might no longer live for themselves, but for Him who died and rose again on their behalf…God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and He has committed to us the word of reconciliation.” The universalist sees the words “all” and “world” and concludes that such expressions must be taken as an absolute universal expression, rather than having some contextual limitation. But the reader should observe that the expression “…one died for all, therefore all died…” raises some serious questions, especially for the proponents of Universalism. The often missed inferential particle (ara) gives us an important clue concerning Paul’s argument. Paul uses this particle rather sparingly, with only three occurrences in 2 Corinthians – one in our chapter in question – chapter 5. When Paul uses this word he is pointing the reader to a very central point in his broader argument, especially concerning what follows it: “therefore [ara] all died.” Should we skip over this expression, we would be bypassing Paul’s central thrust. And so we must ask – what does this expression mean, and can it refer to some universal idea such that all men (without exception) have “died” in some relation to Christ’s own death. Consider the following observations:

• When Paul speaks of the universality of death, he credits Adam for this, not Christ (Romans 5:12-19, 1 Corinthians 15:21). However, when he speaks of the death of men with respect to Christ, he normally refers to believers who have died with Christ (Romans 6, Col 2:20, 3:3, [Peter argues this as well in 1 Peter 2:24]). Such references to death speak of the believer’s conversion, transformation, and sanctification as a new creature in Christ: Romans 6:6: – “…knowing this, that our old self was crucified with Him, in order that our body of sin might be done away with, so that we would no longer be slaves to sin.” The reader should note that this concept of the believer’s mortification of sin as a new creation is thematic in Paul’s argument in 2 Corinthians, particularly chapters 4 and 5. We can trace this as far back as 2 Corinthians 4:10 where he indicates that as a disciple of Christ he was “…always carrying about in the body the dying of Jesus, so that the life of Jesus also may be manifested in our body.” As he further develops this idea of dying to self, he establishes an important basis for it in 2 Corinthians 5:17: “Therefore if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creature; the old things passed away; behold, new things have come.” It is this very passing away of the old along with the coming of that which is new in the resurrected Christ that is also emphasized in 2 Corinthians 5:14-15. The consistency of Paul’s reasoning on this is compelling, and leaves the Universalist with the question: what justification is there to argue that Paul has all men (without exception) in mind when he says “…one died for all, therefore all died.” A better understanding of this is that the reference to “all” points to all Christians whose “old self was crucified with Him.” The power of his reference to “all” in this context reminds us that there are not two classes of Christians, but only one: we are all new creations in Christ. 
• In keeping with the previous observations, the pronouns of 2 Corinthians 5 must not be missed either. Paul’s central emphasis is on the believer’s present endurance and sanctification in this life, which is made even more evident when we consider Paul’s references to “we,” and “us” as well as “you” when referring to the church itself. In other words, the principal community to which he refers is the community of confessing Christians. More specifically, verse 14 provides a key context that is often ignored: 2 Corinthians 5:14. “For the love of Christ controls us, having concluded this, that one died for all, therefore all died; 15. and He died for all, so that they who live might no longer live for themselves, but for Him who died and rose again on their behalf.” The premise of these verses refers to believers alone: for the love of Christ controls us.The word control [sunexei] speaks of the act of holding something together so that it won’t fall apart. In context, this idea of the believer being kept from falling apart in worldliness harmonizes with his conclusion in verse 15 whereby believers (who have died with Christ) “no longer live for themselves but for Him who died and rose again on their behalf.” All of this gives us the central essence of Christian discipleship: to serve the Lord, in love, living for him and not for ourselves. This is the very essence of the foremost commandment[11] and it is something that is entirely alien to the unbeliever apart from conversion – apart from their dying to self through faith in Christ. Until such conversion takes place, there is no sense in which it can be said that unbelievers have “died” with reference to Christ’s death.
• When we consider the broader context of this passage, along with its precious detail, we find no substance for any version of universalism – whether universal atonement or universal reconciliation; instead, what we find is that the application of Christ’s death and resurrection is very real for all Christians – not just for Paul and his companions. Paul’s use of the word all should be seen in view of the contextual limitation supplied. Just as we wouldn’t say that Paul could do “all things [universally] through Christ” – to include acts of wickedness – neither can we say that “all [universally] died” with reference to Christ’s death in contradiction to Paul’s use of this expression elsewhere. What Paul is saying is that all who are in Christ (for there is no distinction) have died with Him, and therefore they should “no longer live for themselves.” The fact that he had to explain this to the Corinthians is important, for their licentious conduct needed much correction. It is not that some Christians live for Christ, while others don’t, no, all who have genuinely died with Christ live for Him – no exceptions.

Overall, conversion is a transformative work of God’s grace which kills our worldly eros-love of self-centerdness, and transforms us with the precious constraint of His agape-love through our union with Christ. Sadly, Bell’s message to the lost is that they already have experienced an atonement for their sins, and therefore they have been reconciled with God. Clearly, reasoning like this guts the Gospel of its urgent and relevant message.

Such is the wide world of Universalism.

[1] The reader should note that I have not called Bell a Universalist per se – his theological commitments are too vague to warrant such a specific label.
[2] Rob Bell, Velvet Elvis, p146.
[3] Bell, Love Wins, p. 115.
[4] "Jesus forgives them all, without their asking for it." Ibid., p. 188.
[5] "…Jesus puts the older brother right there at the party, but refusing to trust the father’s version of his story. Refusing to join in the celebration. Hell is being at the party. That’s what makes it so hellish." Ibid., p. 169.
[6] Erickson, Christian Theology, p. 1017.
[7] Bell, Love Wins, p. 169.
[8] Colossians 1:1-2.
[9] Colossians 1:3-6.
[10] For a more extensive treatment of the scriptural uses of “all,” “mankind,” and “world” please consult – All Nations Under God.
[11] Mark 12:28-31.

Charles Haddon Spurgeon, 2 Corinthians 5:14 & “The love of Christ constraineth us.”

How much owest thou unto my Lord? Has he ever done anything for thee? Has he forgiven thy sins? Has he covered thee with a robe of righteousness? Has he set thy feet upon a rock? Has he established thy goings? Has he prepared heaven for thee? Has he prepared thee for heaven? Has he written thy name in his book of life? Has he given thee countless blessings? Has he laid up for thee a store of mercies, which eye hath not seen nor ear heard? Then do something for Jesus worthy of his love. Give not a mere wordy offering to a dying Redeemer. How will you feel when your Master comes, if you have to confess that you did nothing for him, but kept your love shut up, like a stagnant pool, neither flowing forth to his poor or to his work. Out on such love as that! What do men think of a love which never shows itself in action? Why, they say, “Open rebuke is better than secret love.” Who will accept a love so weak that it does not actuate you to a single deed of self-denial, of generosity, of heroism, or zeal! Think how he has loved you, and given himself for you! Do you know the power of that love? Then let it be like a rushing mighty wind to your soul to sweep out the clouds of your worldliness, and clear away the mists of sin. “For Christ’s sake” be this the tongue of fire that shall sit upon you: “for Christ’s sake” be this the divine rapture, the heavenly afflatus to bear you aloft from earth, the divine spirit that shall make you bold as lions and swift as eagles in your Lord’s service. Love should give wings to the feet of service, and strength to the arms of labour. Fixed on God with a constancy that is not to be shaken, resolute to honour him with a determination that is not to be turned aside, and pressing on with an ardour never to be wearied, let us manifest the constraints of love to Jesus. May the divine loadstone draw us heavenward towards itself.

Spurgeon, C. H. (2006). Morning and evening : Daily readings (Complete and unabridged; New modern edition.) (October 21 AM). Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers.

For more information, go to: www.legacyoflewis.com

General Introduction: For the past century, the world of professing Christendom has faced several contests concerning the nature of God’s justice and love, as well as the doctrines of Heaven and Hell. Rob Bell’s book, Love Wins, is just another illustration of this reality. The entire protest revolving around Bell’s book was fairly dramatic, however, it produced more smoke and heat than productive light. Despite the loud complaints leveled against the controversial author of Love Wins, what he unveiled in his book should have produced little surprise. There is a very important and untold story behind the whole Bell debate that must be passed on for the sake of future generations. The mystery and oddity of this conflict has revealed a systemic problem – one that is much greater than the protests surrounding Rob Bell.

Altar to an Unknown Love addresses the untold story which stands behind the scenes of Bell’s particular views of theology. What the reader may find surprising is that Bell’s teachings are remarkably familiar, and have even been promoted, whether directly or indirectly, by some of Bell’s loudest critics. All of this points to a great opportunity for the church in the present day. The conflict surrounding Rob Bell actually supplies an opportunity to rediscover our need to go back to the Scriptures themselves, rather than to the teachings and traditions of men. This is an opportunity for the church to rediscover the priority of Sola Scriptura, now, and for the generations to come.

Chapter 1 – The Art and Thought of Man
Chapter 2 – The Greatest Love of All
Chapter 3 – The Affections of Love
Chapter 4 – The Freedom of Love
Conclusion – A Solemn Message from Hell
Appendix
Part I: Love Wins – A Message of Uncertainty
Part II: Love Wins – A Missed Opportunity
Part III: C.S. Lewis and the Use of Language

Now Available at:

Indeed, has Paul Really Said?: A Critique of N.T. Wright’s Teaching on Justification, is now available for direct distribution in the UK (eden.co.uk). We anticipate that more distributors will be carrying it soon.

Main Information Page

General Description: It was Martin Luther who said that the doctrine of justification by faith is “the doctrine by which the church stands or falls.” In reflection of this reality, Indeed, has Paul Really Said? is set forth as a modern-day defense of the crucial doctrine of justification against those who seek to undermine it by means of the theological innovations of men like N. T. Wright. In particular, Indeed, has Paul Really Said? is a directed critique of Wright’s own work: What Saint Paul Really Said (Eerdmans Publishing, 1997). But rather than perusing every nuance of Wright’s position, this book simplifies matters by revealing the Achilles’ Heel of Wright’s teaching regarding the expression – the righteousness of God – through four comprehensible and reproducible evaluations regarding:

1. A Lexical Analysis of the terms – righteousness, justification, and the expression – the righteousness of God;

2. The forensic [judicial] connotation of these terms;

3. The relevance of Paul’s background as a Pharisee;

4. The manner in which justification is revealed within the whole counsel of God’s Word.

The appendix contains five critical responses from N.T. Wright, including his statement of having “significantly” influenced John Piper’s work, The Future of Justification, before it was published. From beginning to end, Indeed, has Paul Really Said? clearly reveals that the doctrine of Justification requires the strongest possible defense that can be afforded by those who seek to herald the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Anything less than this will prove to be a great danger to the church. This is true for our generation, just as it has been in every generation. Copyright Year: © 2008

Here in America, very little is known about the degrading nature of Sharia law; but one need not go very far to see its toxic influence in any nation.

The following is a repost of an article written for the Winston Salem Journal in December of 2005. For the sake of my own soul I find that the principles of Scripture below were needed then, and in view of the calamities taking place throughout the world, they are just as needful today:

It was during this same week last year that the world beheld a great tragedy which claimed over 200,000 lives: On December 26, 2004, a massive earthquake struck off the coast of Sumatra, unleashing a tsunami disaster that the modern world had never before witnessed. For that entire week the death toll had to be revised daily as only estimates could be offered in the wake of this massive calamity; and through it all, the entire world was paralyzed with grief and shock as many considered their own frailty, the brevity of life, and even the uncertainty of the future.

Unfortunately, it sometimes takes a calamity like this for people to think this way at all!

Within the human heart there is this great tendency to deny the fact that none of us have the promise of life on this earth tomorrow, or even for the next hour. With that in mind, it is probably the case that those who perished in the 2004 tsunami were probably going about their lives as most people do in the world; there was no sense of imminent danger; in most areas affected the weather was quite beautiful and they were just a few days away from entering into the dawn of a new year. All was well, and life seemed to be quite normal, and yet in one brief moment their lives had ended without much of a warning at all. Now, one year later, life goes on, a new year approaches and within the calm of daily life many are making their plans and New Year’s resolutions for 2006 – just like those who perished just last year. I can assure you that when it comes to learning the lessons of life, if even through a calamity, we all tend to have a short memory and thus we too often live with the presumption of tomorrow; but such an attitude as this is very dangerous. The Bible warns us about such attitudes, as in the case of this exhortation from James chapter 4:

James 4:13-16: 13 Come now, you who say, “Today or tomorrow, we shall go to such and such a city, and spend a year there and engage in business and make a profit.” 14 Yet you do not know what your life will be like tomorrow. You are just a vapor that appears for a little while and then vanishes away. 15 Instead, you ought to say, “If the Lord wills, we shall live and also do this or that.” 16 But as it is, you boast in your arrogance; all such boasting is evil.

James reveals the true heart of mankind when he mimics those who say “today or tomorrow, we shall go to such and such a city, and spend a year there…” He refers to such presumption (of which we are all prone to do) as “boasting…arrogance” and then he calls it all “evil.” James wastes little time in getting to the very heart of our human weakness – we all tend to live presumptuously, assuming that tomorrow, next week, next month or next year will certainly come. However, James corrects such thinking by reminding us all of our frailty as humans, calling us a “vapor that appears for a little while and then vanishes.” But James does more than just identify our tendency towards error; he offers us some very important medicine by pointing us to the necessity of having genuine faith and trust in God, for he says: “Instead, you ought to say, ‘If the Lord wills, we shall live and also do this or that.’” Yes: If the Lord wills, we shall live. Think about that for a moment. That is not the confession of an arrogant, presumptuous person, rather it is the humble cry of one who trusts the Lord and understands that all that we have in life, we have by the gift of God Himself (James 1:17). With this in mind, allow me to break from tradition for a moment and wish you, not a “Happy New Year,” but a “Happy New Day.” You see, while it isn’t sinful to make plans per se, it is sinful for us to presume upon the Lord that we will be able to fulfill those plans in the future (Proverbs 16:9). But instead of presuming in this manner, we ought to say “If the Lord wills, we shall live” and if He grants us another day of life, then we ought to give thanks and use every moment for His glory. So in view of this important truth from God’s Word, I do wish you a Happy New Day and offer you the following New Day Resolution: “behold, now is ‘the acceptable time,’ behold, now is ‘the day of salvation’” (2 Corinthians 6:2). Please remember, you don’t have the promise of tomorrow, and thus I ask you – what will you do with this day that has been granted to you as a gift from God? Call upon the Lord Jesus Christ today for the forgiveness of your sin and for eternal life and joy in Him. This I can assure you, that everyone who calls upon the name of the Lord will be saved (Romans 10:9-13)!