What happens to people who never hear the Gospel....

[Kurieuo]

Err, yes... I think... try not to be so literal with my questions.

[crochet1949]

You're trying to come up with examples of situations with a 'no win' outcome for a person. I'm simply suggesting that there Aren't really 'those' situations. Why Not be literal? We're in a Real world. You're trying to have an 'exception clause' for God's salvation -- suggesting that there's an Oops with God. That He somehow Forgot some people. He's omniscient knows All. (I'm waving back)

[Kurieuo]

No, my examples and questions had multiple facets in meaning.

Like there is nothing necessarily unfair about someone being saved, while others aren't. Sometimes, there are logically necessary conditions in place which result in such situations. That's just what happens in a logically coherent and non-contradictory world like ours, things happen that are bound by logically necessary constraints which if broken would result in a contradiction.

If you walk in front of a bus doing 100km/h (60m/h), then it's going to hit you. Now, actually, not even that is a logically necessary restraint, but merely a physically necessary one since God's existence adds a lot more possibilities (e.g., making the bus go straight through you or perhaps rapturing you).

Logical impossibilities are much more strict and result in contradictions. For example, God creating square circles, or creating a rock so massive that he cannot in any form lift it (this is ultimately asking God to defeat Himself which is just logically absurd). Can Mike Tyson win against himself in a boxing match?

CS Lewis said on non-logical possibilities that they aren't really "things", but rather "no things". Just because someone talks nonsense and acts like it's a thing, doesn't mean it is a thing, If they talk nonsense then they're talking about no thing at all. God is quite capable of doing no thing. You see, "nonsense remains nonsense even when we talk it about God."

Now, in my examples previous examples, one facet is that they show some necessary restraints on our physical world. While God could intervene to save people in an Amazon tribe who have been bitten by a deadly snake, God doesn't. Many people have died there from such I'm sure, as well as in Western countries where even a antidote of some sort might exist. We call such a natural part of life, and for us as Christians, it's all part of this stable yet temporal world that God has put in place. Unless some rapturing happens, our time will come as well. It's unfair that any of us escape death perhaps, but not unfair that we die according to the natural rules of this world wherein we physically live.

BUT, some claim "IT'S JUST NOT FAIR" that some should die from a snake bite when a cure exists! We should help EVERYONE. They exclaim, "God shouldn't let a person die if a cure exists! God loves us all the same!" And then they procede to tell people bitten by the most deadly Serpent that they are loved, God loves us all including them and and an Andidote exists but it's actually different from what their medicine men can brew up. BUT, it's narrow minded to think God wouldn't let your medicine help, He loves you afterall, so if you take what your medicine man brews up then surely you'll live just like the person who takes the Antidote?

Now would anyone here be willing to trust such a person, that they would actually be cured of deadly snake venom through drinking whatever plant and muck the medicine man brews up? Add in we sincerely want it to work, and God loves this person, we love this person and the like. Would we bank our physical life on it to the extent that if the real Antedote appeared we'd keep with what the medicine man was offering?

Really, it the parallels weren't obvious already, this is a very similar situation when it comes to Christ. Only where God could perhaps intervene to physically save someone bitten by a deadly snake, Christ is more strictly the logically necessary Antidote. Christ is a logical necessity in order for those who have strayed from God to be made righteous before God. Jesus is the cure, the only cure, the logically necessary cure, and it is one God provided that only some will find and take. To say there exists another cure for our condition is to say square circles exist. Good can conquer evil, but Good cannot be evil.

All of us Christians, if truly Christ-like, would love there to be more with God, but sadly it's not possible. Not just in a physically impossible way, but in a logically impossible way like 1+1 and 1+2 both equaling 2 in the same metric system.

So then, to try understand what is being missed that we cold-hearted exclusivists are missing in relation to Christ not being the only antidote, I'd appreciate responses to these questions. That is, to any Christian who thinks someone can be saved aside from Christ i.e., because God loves us all:

• 1) Besides the end destintation of "hell", what is it that people are ultimately being saved from?
  
  2) Do you believe it is possible for God to save everyone?
  
  3) If possible, then how would God do it?

[IceMobster]

Thomas of Aquinas called it ignoratio invincibilis. If it is not their fault for not hearing the Gospel, God obviously has a plan for them and they are not ending up in hell.

So then, to try understand what is being missed that we cold-hearted exclusivists are missing in relation to Christ not being the only antidote, I'd appreciate responses to these questions. That is, to any Christian who thinks someone can be saved aside from Christ i.e., because God loves us all:

• 1) Besides the end destintation of "hell", what is it that people are ultimately being saved from?
  
  2) Do you believe it is possible for God to save everyone?
  
  3) If possible, then how would God do it?

1) Sin and evil.
2) It is possible but not probable.
3) How would God kill someone? Easily, no? He is all powerful. So, what is the problem of God doing it? If He wills it, it will be done.

This quote of yours is the only thing I've read from this topic.

[PaulSacramento]

In the end, we have to be clear what we think we are being saved from and I don't think that everyone is on the same boat on that.

[Kurieuo]

Thomas of Aquinas called it ignoratio invincibilis. If it is not their fault for not hearing the Gospel, God obviously has a plan for them and they are not ending up in hell.

I'm not sure that is entirely correct of Aquinas' thinking, I haven't read it and Jac could likely weigh in, but Aquinas has a strong natural theology also.

You for example, although you are aware to some Gospel and Christ, have responded to a natural revelation of sorts regarding God's existence. There needs to be something more evidently, but I wouldn't be surprised if Christ finally gave you the revelation that you seem to be seeking in some way.

The general tune Christians take is that if one hasn't received the Gospel, they can still respond to God's natural revelation in the world. Or, they make a possibility for babies, mentally retarded and children below a morally culpable age, perhaps based upon skant Scripture and wishful thinking in a loving desire for more to be saved.

Ultimately Christians must rest upon God and trust to Him such fringe cases. For us who aren't in these fringe groups though, the question of whether or not we accept Christ is ever more pressing. Would we, for example, pass up an antedote to a snake bite because we don't know whether a baby who might have been similarly bitten has some dose of their own?

So then, to try understand what is being missed that we cold-hearted exclusivists are missing in relation to Christ not being the only antidote, I'd appreciate responses to these questions. That is, to any Christian who thinks someone can be saved aside from Christ i.e., because God loves us all:

• 1) Besides the end destintation of "hell", what is it that people are ultimately being saved from?
  
  2) Do you believe it is possible for God to save everyone?
  
  3) If possible, then how would God do it?

1) Sin and evil.
2) It is possible but not probable.
3) How would God kill someone? Easily, no? He is all powerful. So, what is the problem of God doing it? If He wills it, it will be done.

This quote of yours is the only thing I've read from this topic.

Thanks IM, liked seeing someone respond to these questions.

1) I think there's something more foundational than "sin and evil" even. Certainly, we commit acts against God (sin). Yet, even Christians continue sinning right? So given becoming a Christian clearly doesn't save one from sin, one needs to be more specific in detailing what one exactly means by being saved from sin.

Sin and evil aside though, there's something more foundational we're being saved from. And many Christians likely hate to hear it, especially if they see a one-sided God who only loves. I see in sermons that it use to be always taught in the early-mid 20th century, but today I hardly ever hear of it. People just use religious words and phrases that carry little to no meaning. Perhaps it runs against a politically correct soceity.

2) Yes, if sin and evil were what needed dealing with, it is possible...

3) It is possible as I see it, because God could save everyone from sin and evil by withholding from having ever created them, or if when He creates us then creating us like robots without the ability to turn against Him, right? But then, without a truly free decision how could the greatest good be had, which many believe is love?

Understand "sin" is simply going against God, missing the mark (that mark being God's standards). It has taken on an evolved meaning today to simply mean being bad or doing something wrong. The evolution is understandable, since ultimately, an act is bad or wrong because it isn't good, and if God represents Goodness, then a truly bad or wrong thought or action goes against God and therefore a sin.

So then, to ensure that people do not go against Himself, I see either God 1) needs to NOT create intelligent morally-capable creatures, or 2) take away their freedom to think/commit acts against Himself.

[IceMobster]

I'm not sure that is entirely correct of Aquinas' thinking, I haven't read it and Jac could likely weigh in, but Aquinas has a strong natural theology also.

Umm, the not ending up in hell is what I added and am not sure of it. For the rest, I am pretty sure.

You for example, although you are aware to some Gospel and Christ, have responded to a natural revelation of sorts regarding God's existence. There needs to be something more evidently, but I wouldn't be surprised if Christ finally gave you the revelation that you seem to be seeking in some way.

I am all for it, even though I don't really search for it that much. Idk, just got kinda dull towards it.

Ultimately Christians must rest upon God and trust to Him such fringe cases. For us who aren't in these fringe groups though, the question of whether or not we accept Christ is ever more pressing. Would we, for example, pass up an antedote to a snake bite because we don't know whether a baby who might have been similarly bitten has some dose of their own?

I can see what you mean, but me saying (atm) that I accept Christ as God would be a lie. No matter what example you put up.

1) I think there's something more foundational than "sin and evil" even. Certainly, we commit acts against God (sin). Yet, even Christians continue sinning right? So given becoming a Christian clearly doesn't save one from sin, one needs to be more specific in detailing what one exactly means by being saved from sin.

Idk, I haven't given it much thought. It is simply the Christian's views that I had talking, I suppose.

Sin and evil aside though, there's something more foundational we're being saved from. And many Christians likely hate to hear it, especially if they see a one-sided God who only loves. I see in sermons that it use to be always taught in the early-mid 20th century, but today I hardly ever hear of it. People just use religious words and phrases that carry little to no meaning. Perhaps it runs against a politically correct soceity.

You are talking of escaping the God's wrath, I suppose?

3) It is possible as I see it, because God could save everyone from sin and evil by withholding from having ever created them, or if when He creates us then creating us like robots without the ability to turn against Him, right? But then, without a truly free decision how could the greatest good be had, which many believe is love?

Your point being? I mean, what does this what you wrote have to do with God's plan on saving people via not the means of Christ?

Understand "sin" is simply going against God, missing the mark (that mark being God's standards). It has taken on an evolved meaning today to simply mean being bad or doing something wrong. The evolution is understandable, since ultimately, an act is bad or wrong because it isn't good, and if God represents Goodness, then a truly bad or wrong thought or action goes against God and therefore a sin.

Sin is a bad act which goes against God. Yes.

So then, to ensure that people do not go against Himself, I see either God 1) needs to NOT create intelligent morally-capable creatures, or 2) take away their freedom to think/commit acts against Himself.

3) Chriiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiist!
4) I disagree with all the 3 points above, lol. I don't see how we must be 1) or 2) in order to be saved. What if a person is neither (of the 3)?

Idk, like, I don't have an answer. I knew you will wreck me, anyway.
And I can see the flaws in my views you are trying to point out but I haven't experienced neither of the Gods (TROLOLOLOLO), so yeah that's a problem I suppose... One is mandatory, the other well, despite you trying to prove otherwise here, not so much, imo.

[Kurieuo]

1) I think there's something more foundational than "sin and evil" even. Certainly, we commit acts against God (sin). Yet, even Christians continue sinning right? So given becoming a Christian clearly doesn't save one from sin, one needs to be more specific in detailing what one exactly means by being saved from sin.

Idk, I haven't given it much thought. It is simply the Christian's views that I had talking, I suppose.

It's just the nature of the Christian religious language, right? I mean, the often heard phrase, "Jesus saves us from our sin.

Sin and evil aside though, there's something more foundational we're being saved from. And many Christians likely hate to hear it, especially if they see a one-sided God who only loves. I see in sermons that it use to be always taught in the early-mid 20th century, but today I hardly ever hear of it. People just use religious words and phrases that carry little to no meaning. Perhaps it runs against a politically correct soceity.

You are talking of escaping the God's wrath, I suppose?

Did I say God's wrath somewhere? People normally say "punishment" even, perhaps shy of the term. I feel God's wrath is very much it. We're not being saved from sin, or hell, though such is wrapped up in it, but ultimately God's wrath.

Only when talking of God's wrath it's not whimsical, tyrannical, angry wrath of some king say, but rather extends out of God's holy and righteous nature. God is complete purity, as one might expect Him to be as the source of all things. As such, God must necessarily in who God is absolutely detest any and all sin, that even the slightest needs total dealing with. The slightest iota is like an all out war of nuclear scale against God, who God is and all He stands for and represents.

So total is God's righteousness, you know our good works are like filthy rags to God; perhaps my thinking or feeling of self-grandeour often associated with an act that makes me feel good, an idle thought perhaps that suggests "I'm good or better than others" via helping and doing something for others as I just ought, my good work is now muddied to God.

Until the full weight of an act of sin, even our thoughts Christ said, all ruin our purity and such is an affront to God's righteousness and it must be dealt with completely. Hence, God's wrath, God's righteous (not whimsical) wrath, which must deal with any and all dissent.

Now, if one talks of God's love without talking of God's righteouss (or vice-versa), then they have an incompletely picture of God. Perhaps more a god of their own making. Both are facets of God, which can be seemingly contradictary, and hence we have the righteous aspect of God in the OT that seems to contradict the loving God of the NT. Such that some, like Kenny here, believe the OT God is a warring and violent God whereas the NT one Christ represents is one of love.

Yet, if God exists, then God must neccessarily be both completely righteous and completely loving (as the source of both), how the two are paired together seems to be something only Christianity seems to tackle in uniting.

3) It is possible as I see it, because God could save everyone from sin and evil by withholding from having ever created them, or if when He creates us then creating us like robots without the ability to turn against Him, right? But then, without a truly free decision how could the greatest good be had, which many believe is love?

Your point being? I mean, what does this what you wrote have to do with God's plan on saving people via not the means of Christ?

My point was in response to if our being "saved from sin", if such is what we're saved from. Then, I only see two real possibilities in order to save everyone:

1) Not create anyone, and therefore everyone is saved because noone exists, so really noone is saved but then that's everyone right? So then noone will sin, because noone exists to sin.

2) Withhold any intelligence from people when creating, so that they can't really go against you. So, now we're all just made to be God's lap dogs. I guess we're all happy, but we don't really have a decision to be anything other than God's lap dog. We didn't really choose to love God. More like robotic lap dogs.

My point really being that without free beings, truly free beings who have a choice to either remain with or turn against God (i.e., sin), there can be no choice to freely love God.

So then I'd say that creating "creatures who are free to go against God" and "100% of those creatures remaining loyal to God" such is really a logical impossibility. Or, while it is possible that all presumable might choose God, this isn't an outcome that God can logical control in a legimately manner wherein all are truly free.

Why? Because God releases control over, forsakes or empties Himself of, in order to give us space to move and make decisions. In doing this, yes, God is God and completely powerful, but God is also relational and His desire for true relationship means God exercises His power to give creatures freedom to choose between two options: God or not God.

Indeed, when we choose not God, which seems to be all of us in our carnel natures, well now God needs to make a path back to Himself. Without this making a path back, God's creation of us is incomplete because God didn't intend for us to just live in a world and sin, but the completed picture is one of relationship with His human creation. It just so happens our sinning and being reconciled is part of that completely picture. However, as I mentioned previously, God's complete purity, the smallest going against Him is like all-out nuclear war.

And so, the story goes, God provides a way for us to be cloaked in righteousness, even His own rightousness by associating with a sinful humanity and yet remaining pure. Nonetheless He (Christ) received a penalty for sin which is death. How I make sense of this, is that in Christ a loophole is found that meets the demands of God's Righteousness. In allowing Christ who did no wrong to be put to death, now righteousness (God) owes a debt to the one (Christ) who ought to have received no penalty of death. And in this debt righteousness owes to Christ, Christ asked us to be forgiven while hung on the cross. Now should Righteousness not honour it's debt owed to Christ, or should Righteousness seek further payment..? the injustice of Christ's death needs to be settled, and really the only course of action is to honour Christ and forgive. Now, grace and forgiveness abound whereas before only God's righteous wrath was once only possible in response to the smallest sin. Yet, only in Christ can we be reckoned righteous, on account of Christ.

Idk, like, I don't have an answer. I knew you will wreck me, anyway.
And I can see the flaws in my views you are trying to point out but I haven't experienced neither of the Gods (TROLOLOLOLO), so yeah that's a problem I suppose... One is mandatory, the other well, despite you trying to prove otherwise here, not so much, imo.

If I wrecked you before, well I've probably most certainly wrecked you with more theology above.

It seems to me true what you say, it's like you're just waiting for God to open up already, but there are still vines that need cutting. Really I have no answers except that if what Christ said is true, if you keep seeking then He promises to open that door (and it'll meet you both rationally and heart). Sounds a bit stupid to you now I'm sure, but time will tell.

[PaulSacramento]

I tend to follow one verse in particular when asked this very question and I follow this verse because it addresses this question as explicit as anywhere else in the NT:

In John Chapter 5:

19 Therefore Jesus answered and was saying to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, the Son can do nothing of Himself, unless it is something He sees the Father doing; for whatever the Father does, these things the Son also does in like manner. 20 For the Father loves the Son, and shows Him all things that He Himself is doing; and the Father will show Him greater works than these, so that you will marvel. 21 For just as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, even so the Son also gives life to whom He wishes. 22 For not even the Father judges anyone, but He has given all judgment to the Son, 23 so that all will honor the Son even as they honor the Father. He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent Him.

24 “Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life.

25 Truly, truly, I say to you, an hour is coming and now is, when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God, and those who hear will live. 26 For just as the Father has life in Himself, even so He gave to the Son also to have life in Himself; 27 and He gave Him authority to execute judgment, because He is the Son of Man. 28 Do not marvel at this; for an hour is coming, in which all who are in the tombs will hear His voice, 29 and will come forth; those who did the good deeds to a resurrection of life, those who committed the evil deeds to a resurrection of judgment.

Note this part:

24 “Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life.

Belief in Christ saves us from JUDGMENT and gives us Life after death ( passed out of death into life).

And here is what happens to the rest since believers will NOT be judged:

28 Do not marvel at this; for an hour is coming, in which all who are in the tombs will hear His voice, 29 and will come forth; those who did the good deeds to a resurrection of life, those who committed the evil deeds to a resurrection of judgment.

ALL will be resurrected in those that do not believe in Christ will be judged and those that have done good will live and those that have not will be judged accordingly.

So, what happens to non-believers, those that have never heard the Gospel?
They will be judged on what they have done and why they have done it.

[crochet1949]

Revelation 20:10 to end of chapter addresses some of this. "The devil, who deceived them, was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone where the beast and the false prophet are. And they will be tormented day and night forever and ever.

Then I saw a great white throne and Him who sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away. And there was found no place for them.

And I saw the dead, small and great , standing before God, and books were opened. And another book was opened, which is the Book of Life. The dead were judged according to their works, by the things which were written in the books.
The sea gave up the dead who were in it, and Death and Hades delivered up the dead who were in them, And they were judged, each one according to his works.

Then Death and Hades were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death. And anyone not found written in the Book of Life was cast into the lake of fire.


It sounds like Everyone will stand before the great White Throne and Him who sat on it. (God). Believers will be judged according to what they have done during their life as believers for God. Other parts of Scripture talk about crowns that believers can be earning / rewards for their Godly good works. That they will put them at the feet of Jesus.
And non-believers will Also be judged. They will acknowledge God at This point -- they may have denied His existence all their lives, but at This point, They , too , Will acknowledge His existence. And there is Some evidence that there are degrees of punishment in hell.

But Hell will still be a lake of fire and brimstone. The question has been asked -- what is a person being saved From? An eternity in hell -- utter darkness -- whailing - knashing of teeth. The Absence of God / the Light of God. God's love. God is the true Light of this world. God tells us enough about hell that it's a place we Should want to stay Out of.

Part of the problem these days -- is that preaching about hell and sin is Not popular. People respond Best to hearing about God's Love. And there has been such a 'thing' about God being dead that people tend to Not take Him seriously.
And Why take seriously anything that the Bible teaches seriously -- seems that the politically correct concept is that the Bible is simply a book of fairy tales / mythology. Not to be taken literally. Glean some good moral teaching from it and let it go at that.
And people don't want to hear about any 'god' who'd Send people to hell. That is IF hell really Does exist.

Is it possible for God To save Everyone? John 3:16 " For God so love the Word, that He gave His only son -- so that whosoever believes on Him will not perish but have eternal life" His grace is sufficient for ALL. The thing Is -- He also knows that not everyone Will believe on Him. And He knows who Won't. He's the Only One with that knowledge.
So - there is a spiritual tug of war taking place. Satan wants all the company he can get / you and me / to join him there. Once we'd Be there, we'd Know what had happened and We won't be able to get out and Satan will be laughing at us. He knows how to deceive people into following him. He whispers in our ears that we've done something that's simply Too bad for God to forgive us. It's probably a 'secret sin' that satan tells us that we simply Can't be forgiven of. But God already knows our hearts. We simply need to acknowledge that particular sin to Him -- admit we need His help / forgiveness. So - a lot of times it's our personal pride that keeps us From God.
And - How do we know what Does please God? Just ask Him -- He'll let us know what the Good thing is and what the Bad thing is. We Do know that stealing, lying, murder , committing adultery , using God's name in vain are wrong things. And the things we Wonder about -- well -- That would be an indication that it's best to Not do them.

[Kurieuo]

@PaulS, I can agree with that. Here's a passage which brings together both concepts of God's righteous judgement and wrath:

• But because of your stubbornness and unrepentant heart you are storing up wrath for yourself in the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God (Romans 2:5)

Also, a video I came across that I'd recommend, especially if any have issues with understanding God's wrath, whether it's why can't God's love reach those sincere in another faith outside of the Gospel of Christ, or whether it's confusion over the OT God who appears so wrathful vs the apparently more loving God who Christ represents in the new: