a person who's never heard of Jesus

[shakewell]

It seems to me that a person who's never heard of Jesus or seen a Bible has enough revelation to say (from his heart of course), "God be merciful to me a sinner" and thusly be justified. (Luke 18:9-14)

 

[ZacharyB]

Very possible indeed ... because it's all about HEART-ATTITUDE.
For example: many Western believers today who have a Bible
simply refuse to believe that ALL of God's word is true for today.
The correct heart attitude is to NOT have UNBELIEF (which is deadly).
Sorry for the double negative.

P.S. true saving belief includes obedience to what has been revealed,
which, of course, does not apply to the ignorant person in your OP.

 

[Look Up]

It seems to me that a person who's never heard of Jesus or seen a Bible has enough revelation to say (from his heart of course), "God be merciful to me a sinner" and thusly be justified. (Luke 18:9-14)

The above argument of course has in effect been made before, if sometimes in somewhat varied forms. As posed above, the assertion holds certain presuppositions which may be worth noting, such as that the praying person has a true view of who God is, as opposed to a God after the imagination of the heart of the praying person: an idol. And the praying person is assumed to have a correct view of the sins s/he has committed (the law of God written on the heart) rather than a false view of morality.

I in turn assume the above OP assertion assumes ancient Israelites (e.g., Samuel, David, Isaiah) and OT saints outside the Abrahamic line and revelation (e.g., Enoch, Noah, Melchizedek) chronologically before the Jesus Incarnation stood in a category distinct from that intended by those who have "never heard of Jesus or seen a Bible." That is, I assume the assertion would consider such persons as more or less falling within the bounds of those who have heard sufficient special revelation from God to have access to what was sufficient to save in normal terms, hence not under present consideration.

The question then becomes either whether such an "outsider saving scenario" (those with no special revelation from God outside creation and conscience) is possible or whether the Bible suggests such a scenario is possible. Here at the moment I limit myself to asking whether the apostle Paul in Rom. 1-3 or his Romans epistle more broadly implied that such a scenario was possible.

In ch. 1 for example, Paul indicts all those who have received the knowledge of God in the creation--amounting to all without exception-- as culpable idolaters (again, ignoring for our purposes for example the Abrahamic believing line, cf. Rom. 4), and later after indicting most Jews too (ch. 2) as well as Gentiles (3:9), Paul summarizes that "none is righteous, no, not one; no one understands, no one seeks for God" (3:10-11), followed by a concatenation of OT allusions indicting human nature. If Jews are indicted as sinners, how much more Gentiles, "so that every mouth may be stopped, and the whole world held accountable to God" (3:19). In ch. 5, "death spread to all men, because all [descendants of Adam and Eve] sinned" (v. 12 ESV).

I don't see a plausible way to read Paul's epistle to the Romans to get around a claim that the Apostle refutes the assertion in the above OP unless the OP's language about "enough revelation to say ... God be merciful to me a sinner" places such a praying person in a different category than those who have merely the revelation of God in creation and conscience (i.e., NOT like pre-Abrahamic saints who received some revelation about God and His requirements in addition to that in creation and conscience).

Or does my above stated or implied assumption concerning the scope of "enough revelation to say" persons differ from your OP intent?

 

[samir]

It seems to me that a person who's never heard of Jesus or seen a Bible has enough revelation to say (from his heart of course), "God be merciful to me a sinner" and thusly be justified. (Luke 18:9-14)

You are correct. Paul confirmed it in Romans 1-2 when he said "For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead (Ro 1:20)." From this we know that everyone can see that God exists. For those who don't know Jesus, scripture says if they do good and seek God they will receive eternal life. "God “will render to each one according to his deeds”: eternal life to those who by patient continuance in doing good seek for glory, honor, and immortality. (Ro 2:6-7)." Though knowing Jesus helps, it is ultimately "not the hearers of the law are just in the sight of God, but the doers of the law will be justified (Ro 2:13)" By doing God's will as they know it through their conscience they can be saved according to the gospel. "for when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do the things in the law, these, although not having the law, are a law to themselves, who show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and between themselves their thoughts accusing or else excusing them) in the day when God will judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ, according to my gospel. (Ro 2:14-16)"

Paul even said those who have such great faith that can move mountains are nothing if they don't love God. "though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing (1Cor 13:2)"

Jesus said the same thing in Matt 7:21 when he said it's not those who profess Jesus with the lips who will be saved but those who do the will of God. "Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven."

Jesus summed up the gospel nicely in John 5 when he said it's what we do that determines our eternal destiny. "Do not marvel at this; for the hour is coming in which all who are in the graves will hear His voice and come forth—those who have done good, to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil, to the resurrection of condemnation."

So we see from scripture that those who don't know Jesus but who love God according to their ability and what God has revealed to them will be saved while those who profess Jesus with their lips but don't love God (as shown by their evil works in preferring sin to God) will not be saved.

 

[Look Up]

You are correct. Paul confirmed it in Romans 1-2 when he said "For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead (Ro 1:20)." From this we know that everyone can see that God exists.

The above citation from "Ro 1:20" (and following) does not include enough context, and so misrepresents the passage as substantiation of the OP claim. To continue a bit further immediately after "... even His eternal power and Godhead" (depending on translation): "... so that people are without excuse. For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened." The passage Rom. 1:18-32 solely constitutes an indictment against those who know God in what has been made, and yet "by their unrighteousness suppress the truth" (v. 18), exchange the glory of the immortal God for [idols]" (v. 23), "exchanged the truth about God for a lie" (v. 25), "did not see fit to acknowledge God" (v. 28) and so on.

Yes, Paul here affirms people (especially Gentiles) know God because God revealed Himself in what has been made (v. 20 again, & v. 19), but they suppress what they know (v. 18 again), do not honor God and are unthankful (v. 21). That some such persons might have acknowledged God, confessed their sins, and begged God for mercy is simply not in Paul's view in Ro 1:20 or the passage.

For those who don't know Jesus, scripture says if they do good and seek God they will receive eternal life. "God “will render to each one according to his deeds”: eternal life to those who by patient continuance in doing good seek for glory, honor, and immortality. (Ro 2:6-7)." Though knowing Jesus helps, it is ultimately "not the hearers of the law are just in the sight of God, but the doers of the law will be justified (Ro 2:13)" By doing God's will as they know it through their conscience they can be saved according to the gospel. "for when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do the things in the law, these, although not having the law, are a law to themselves, who show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and between themselves their thoughts accusing or else excusing them) in the day when God will judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ, according to my gospel. (Ro 2:14-16)"

Paul continues to indict not only (chiefly) Gentiles in ch. 1 but also Jews in ch. 2. Partly he does this by presenting (relatively) righteous Gentiles for comparison. If Gentiles can obey the law (sometimes, for their conscience alternately "accusing or else excusing them" as above), how about Jews -- who "have no excuse" and "condemn" themselves because they practice the very sins they condemn, 2:1 cf. vv. 21-24, and have "hard and impenitent hearts" (v. 5).

Granted, "the doers of the law will be justified (Ro 2:13)" whether Jew or Gentile, for God shows no partiality (v. 10). How is it then that as I already cited above on this thread from the section, "'none is righteous, no, not one; no one understands, no one seeks for God' (3:10-11)"--and see the other passages I cite in context? And how is it then that Paul says, "No one will be declared righteous in God’s sight by the works of the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of our sin" (Romans 3:20, cf. 5:20, "The law was brought in so that the trespass might increase")?

... Jesus summed up the gospel nicely in John 5 when he said it's what we do that determines our eternal destiny. "Do not marvel at this; for the hour is coming in which all who are in the graves will hear His voice and come forth—those who have done good, to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil, to the resurrection of condemnation."

And in John 5 Jesus says “Very truly I tell you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not be judged but has crossed over from death to life" (v. 24). Those who truly believe do good.

So we see from scripture that those who don't know Jesus but who love God according to their ability and what God has revealed to them will be saved while those who profess Jesus with their lips but don't love God (as shown by their evil works in preferring sin to God) will not be saved.

I agree that "those who profess Jesus with their lips but don't love God (as shown by their evil works in preferring sin to God) will not be saved," or at least that the claim represents Scripture (e.g., Matt 7:21 as you cite, and through v. 23). What I do not think you have demonstrated in the post in question is the claim, "So we see from scripture that those who don't know Jesus but who love God according to their ability and what God has revealed to them will be saved." This latter claim, I think, at least needs closer inspection--but that is the issue of the OP. And see again my above post.

 

[samir]

The above citation from "Ro 1:20" (and following) does not include enough context, and so misrepresents the passage as substantiation of the OP claim. To continue a bit further immediately after "... even His eternal power and Godhead" (depending on translation): "... so that people are without excuse. For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened." The passage Rom. 1:18-32 solely constitutes an indictment against those who know God in what has been made, and yet "by their unrighteousness suppress the truth" (v. 18), exchange the glory of the immortal God for [idols]" (v. 23), "exchanged the truth about God for a lie" (v. 25), "did not see fit to acknowledge God" (v. 28) and so on.

Yes, Paul here affirms people (especially Gentiles) know God because God revealed Himself in what has been made (v. 20 again, & v. 19), but they suppress what they know (v. 18 again), do not honor God and are unthankful (v. 21).

I agree many people who have not heard of Jesus will end up in hell. I think it could be well over 90% of them which is why it's important to preach the gospel.

That some such persons might have acknowledged God, confessed their sins, and begged God for mercy is simply not in Paul's view in Ro 1:20 or the passage.

Paul said those who by patient continuance in doing good seek for glory, honor, and immortality will receive eternal life. He said there will be no partiality with God so that's true whether Jew or Gentile, Christian or non-Christian.

To be clear, no one can truly be good apart from God's grace so these would be non-Christians who accepted God's grace through faith based on what God has revealed to them. I'd consider them believers who have implicit faith in Christ.

Paul continues to indict not only (chiefly) Gentiles in ch. 1 but also Jews in ch. 2. Partly he does this by presenting (relatively) righteous Gentiles for comparison. If Gentiles can obey the law (sometimes, for their conscience alternately "accusing or else excusing them" as above), how about Jews -- who "have no excuse" and "condemn" themselves because they practice the very sins they condemn, 2:1 cf. vv. 21-24, and have "hard and impenitent hearts" (v. 5).

Granted, "the doers of the law will be justified (Ro 2:13)" whether Jew or Gentile, for God shows no partiality (v. 10). How is it then that as I already cited above on this thread from the section, "'none is righteous, no, not one; no one understands, no one seeks for God' (3:10-11)"--and see the other passages I cite in context?

Ro 3 has to be interpreted in context (it's a quote from the OT) and in agreement with the rest of scripture. I see this passage misinterpreted just as much as the "works are as filthy rags" passage that referred to Jews after they turned away from God - they were no longer righteous or sought God as they did previously and as a result their good deeds, not being done for God but from selfish motives, were like filthy rags, not pleasing to God. Since well over 100 passages in scripture refer to people as righteous, good, and seeking God, Romans 3 is a clear case of hyperbole and not meant to be taken literally.

And how is it then that Paul says, "No one will be declared righteous in God’s sight by the works of the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of our sin" (Romans 3:20, cf. 5:20, "The law was brought in so that the trespass might increase")?

I agree that following the law of Moses will not save anyone nor was it designed to save anyone. Salvation is only by grace so it can't be earned by works. Those who respond to God with faith and love will be saved by His grace. Scripture says those who love God obey his commandments.

And in John 5 Jesus says “Very truly I tell you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not be judged but has crossed over from death to life" (v. 24). Those who truly believe do good.

The words believe and faith in scripture have two definitions. One definition refers solely to agreeing with the doctrines of Christianity. Another definition includes works of love that result from agreeing with those doctrines. Only faith in the second sense saves, that is, faith that works through love but it's possible to believe everything Christ taught but choose not to follow Him and such a person won't be saved. Some people just love their sins so much they won't give them up even though they know in their heart that Jesus is the Son of God and that what he taught was true.

I agree that "those who profess Jesus with their lips but don't love God (as shown by their evil works in preferring sin to God) will not be saved," or at least that the claim represents Scripture (e.g., Matt 7:21 as you cite, and through v. 23). What I do not think you have demonstrated in the post in question is the claim, "So we see from scripture that those who don't know Jesus but who love God according to their ability and what God has revealed to them will be saved." This latter claim, I think, at least needs closer inspection--but that is the issue of the OP. And see again my above post.

Since Jesus is God, when I say "don't know Jesus but who love God" I mean they love Jesus without explicitly acknowledging it just as Jews who loved God in the OT implicitly had faith in Christ.

If a person was raised in a country where Christ was not preached, I believe he could learn of God from his creation, see that He loves us, and put his faith in Him and love and follow Him by following his conscience despite not knowing His name is Jesus and not knowing the doctrines of Christianity. Such faith would come from the grace of God revealing himself without revealing the name Jesus or all the teachings of Christianity. This isn't just an opinion. Scripture says God desires all men to be saved which strongly suggests it's possible for everyone to find salvation and we know they can know God from his creation. If you read Acts 10, you'll see that Cornelius was a devout and God fearing man whose alms were acceptable to God prior to Peter bringing him the gospel in Acts 11. We know he was justified before God before he heard the gospel because the good works of those without grace are not acceptable to God.

If such a person justified before God was close to death and hadn't yet heard the gospel, I believe God would supernaturally reveal it to him through internal inspiration so I would agree that no one will go to heaven without faith in Jesus.

 

[Greg J.]

We start out condemned (and that's not God's fault).

Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son. (John 3:18, 1984 NIV)

What does it take to change that?

Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. (John 14:6, 1984 NIV)

It matters whether an individual recognizes his sinful nature—unworthy of being judged righteous—and believes in the God who sacrificed his Son to pay for his sins, or some other God. It even matters a lot whether he believes he will be judged or not. One cannot entrust himself to the real God without knowing some of the Truth.

 

[shakewell]

The above argument of course has in effect been made before, if sometimes in somewhat varied forms. As posed above, the assertion holds certain presuppositions which may be worth noting, such as that the praying person has a true view of who God is, as opposed to a God after the imagination of the heart of the praying person: an idol. And the praying person is assumed to have a correct view of the sins s/he has committed (the law of God written on the heart) rather than a false view of morality.

I in turn assume the above OP assertion assumes ancient Israelites (e.g., Samuel, David, Isaiah) and OT saints outside the Abrahamic line and revelation (e.g., Enoch, Noah, Melchizedek) chronologically before the Jesus Incarnation stood in a category distinct from that intended by those who have "never heard of Jesus or seen a Bible." That is, I assume the assertion would consider such persons as more or less falling within the bounds of those who have heard sufficient special revelation from God to have access to what was sufficient to save in normal terms, hence not under present consideration.

The question then becomes either whether such an "outsider saving scenario" (those with no special revelation from God outside creation and conscience) is possible or whether the Bible suggests such a scenario is possible. Here at the moment I limit myself to asking whether the apostle Paul in Rom. 1-3 or his Romans epistle more broadly implied that such a scenario was possible.

In ch. 1 for example, Paul indicts all those who have received the knowledge of God in the creation--amounting to all without exception-- as culpable idolaters (again, ignoring for our purposes for example the Abrahamic believing line, cf. Rom. 4), and later after indicting most Jews too (ch. 2) as well as Gentiles (3:9), Paul summarizes that "none is righteous, no, not one; no one understands, no one seeks for God" (3:10-11), followed by a concatenation of OT allusions indicting human nature. If Jews are indicted as sinners, how much more Gentiles, "so that every mouth may be stopped, and the whole world held accountable to God" (3:19). In ch. 5, "death spread to all men, because all [descendants of Adam and Eve] sinned" (v. 12 ESV).

I don't see a plausible way to read Paul's epistle to the Romans to get around a claim that the Apostle refutes the assertion in the above OP unless the OP's language about "enough revelation to say ... God be merciful to me a sinner" places such a praying person in a different category than those who have merely the revelation of God in creation and conscience (i.e., NOT like pre-Abrahamic saints who received some revelation about God and His requirements in addition to that in creation and conscience).

Or does my above stated or implied assumption concerning the scope of "enough revelation to say" persons differ from your OP intent?

The only significant category of person that I see in all of Scripture is that of a lost sinner in need of the Savior. In the case of someone who's never heard of Jesus or has never had access to Bible knowledge, I would think that the mere wrath of God that's revealed would be a sufficient motivation for him to say "God be merciful to me a sinner".

 

[shakewell]

Since Jesus is God, when I say "don't know Jesus but who love God" I mean they love Jesus without explicitly acknowledging it just as Jews who loved God in the OT implicitly had faith in Christ.

That's a good point. They would still be coming to the Father 'by Jesus', since He's God.

If a person was raised in a country where Christ was not preached, I believe he could learn of God from his creation, see that He loves us, and put his faith in Him and love and follow Him by following his conscience despite not knowing His name is Jesus and not knowing the doctrines of Christianity.

In reference to Acts 17:26,27 where God (who desires all men to be saved) deliberately puts each person in a specific location so that they'll seek Him, I heard a commentator once say that God is safeguarding the person from being indoctrinated with the errors of "nominal" Christianity. That really resonated with me.

 

[Greg J.]

... All this is from God, who reconciled us to himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation: that God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting men’s sins against them. And he has committed to us the message of reconciliation.We are therefore Christ’s ambassadors, as though God were making his appeal through us. We implore you on Christ’s behalf: Be reconciled to God. (bold mine, 2 Corinthians 5:18-20, 1984 NIV)

It's hard to believe we're responsible when it seems we are failing so badly, but consider all the people who have heard about Jesus but instead of being interested in more about him, mock the very idea of him. Part of being human is having an evil nature.

If you then, though you are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give the Holy Spirit to those who ask him!” (Luke 11:13, 1984 NIV)

God has forgiven us our evil nature and even paid for it himself. He offers us love and everything else. Is this the message you receive from your friends, family, culture, and society? If not, why not? What happens to those that don't want to accept the message? They sustain the environment of rejecting God and his sacrifice and pass it on to their children and friends.

 

[Look Up]

The only significant category of person that I see in all of Scripture is that of a lost sinner in need of the Savior. In the case of someone who's never heard of Jesus or has never had access to Bible knowledge, I would think that the mere wrath of God that's revealed would be a sufficient motivation for him to say "God be merciful to me a sinner".

The question follows whether your "think[ing] that the mere wrath of God that's revealed would be a sufficient motivation for him to say "God be merciful to me a sinner" also represents the thoughts of those under the wrath of God, and of course wherein the wrath of God consists in Rom. 1:18 which apparently you allude to. For starters, your response does not seem to wrestle with or well understand Paul's argument in Romans. Whatever the outcome, I think that needs addressing before your conclusion.

 

[Look Up]

I agree many people who have not heard of Jesus will end up in hell. I think it could be well over 90% of them which is why it's important to preach the gospel.

No disagreement with the above even if one could quibble about the source of your proposed percentage.

Paul said those who by patient continuance in doing good seek for glory, honor, and immortality will receive eternal life. He said there will be no partiality with God so that's true whether Jew or Gentile, Christian or non-Christian.

To be clear, no one can truly be good apart from God's grace so these would be non-Christians who accepted God's grace through faith based on what God has revealed to them. I'd consider them believers who have implicit faith in Christ.

Yes, but the above still misses the extent of Paul's indictment of Gentiles in 1:18-32. We are both working towards harmonizing Paul's arguments (one way or another), and what I had addressed earlier concerned Paul's claim for example that by the works of the law (= good works) no flesh (without exception, Jew and therefore how much less Gentile) will be justified before God (3:20)--as you agree below.

Granted, "no one can truly be good apart from God's grace," but "non-Christians who accepted God's grace through faith based on what God has revealed to them" seems not a condition within Paul's purview in Romans or elsewhere unless perhaps we are talking about OT saints (so my above post). Otherwise I wonder how Jesus and the apostles would have integrated your condition into the gospel mission that was reaching the "uttermost part of the earth." What do you mean?

Ro 3 has to be interpreted in context (it's a quote from the OT) and in agreement with the rest of scripture. I see this passage misinterpreted just as much as the "works are as filthy rags" passage that referred to Jews after they turned away from God - they were no longer righteous or sought God as they did previously and as a result their good deeds, not being done for God but from selfish motives, were like filthy rags, not pleasing to God. Since well over 100 passages in scripture refer to people as righteous, good, and seeking God, Romans 3 is a clear case of hyperbole and not meant to be taken literally.

In Rom. 3:13-18 Paul quotes or alludes to many OT passages (many more could be added), particularly from the Psalms, as Scripture support for his claims for example that "no one seeks God ... no one does good, not even one" (vv. 11, 12--though the Good Shepherd seeks and finds lost sheep). Global and universal indictment of the "whole world" (v. 19)--Jew and Gentile--is necessary to demonstrate that "not by the works of the law" can any person be justified (3:20 again), opening the way for "the righteousness of God" (3:21 alluding to 1:16-17) which "has been manifested apart from the law" (and how much more apart from Gentile works), "although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it--the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe" etc., vv. 21-22.

For Paul's indictment of humanity in chs. 1-3 to be "hyperbole," Paul would have had to admit there was exception to righteousness by faith in Jesus, that is in the sole option, righteousness by the works of the law. This fundamentally misinterprets Paul.

Granted, as (for example) Paul notes even in Romans, there are relatively righteous persons--the godly Gentile (2:7 as you cite, used to indict the Jew), Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, the 7000 who did not bend the knee to Baal (Rom. 4, 9, 11) and so on. But are they exempt from sin? Indeed is not the OT and NT awash with a history of sinful persons, even the most righteous of them (excepting only Jesus)? Again from Adam, "death spread to all, because all sinned" (5:12)--the whole human race. All persons without exception (save Jesus) "have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" (Rom. 3:23), "and are justified [where they have faith] by His grace as a gift [not by works], through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus" (v. 24).

For Paul to imply exception to the indictment is to imply the possibility of a competitor gospel, a different source of righteousness, in the works of the law (by Jew or Gentile).

I agree that following the law of Moses will not save anyone nor was it designed to save anyone. Salvation is only by grace so it can't be earned by works. Those who respond to God with faith and love will be saved by His grace. Scripture says those who love God obey his commandments.

Given the above, Rom. 3 cannot be "non-literal" or hyperbole; there must be an alternate explanation for righteous Gentiles in ch. 2 and righteous persons noted in the OT; see further above.

The words believe and faith in scripture have two definitions. One definition refers solely to agreeing with the doctrines of Christianity. Another definition includes works of love that result from agreeing with those doctrines. Only faith in the second sense saves, that is, faith that works through love but it's possible to believe everything Christ taught but choose not to follow Him and such a person won't be saved. Some people just love their sins so much they won't give them up even though they know in their heart that Jesus is the Son of God and that what he taught was true.

I agree with the immediately above save for a quibble that the conceptual ("sense") distinction regarding faith does not lie in the semantics (the mere words) but in the difference of quality to the faith/belief (or kind of faith/belief) as evident in varied contexts (some already cited on this thread).

Since Jesus is God, when I say "don't know Jesus but who love God" I mean they love Jesus without explicitly acknowledging it just as Jews who loved God in the OT implicitly had faith in Christ.

If a person was raised in a country where Christ was not preached, I believe he could learn of God from his creation, see that He loves us, and put his faith in Him and love and follow Him by following his conscience despite not knowing His name is Jesus and not knowing the doctrines of Christianity. Such faith would come from the grace of God revealing himself without revealing the name Jesus or all the teachings of Christianity. This isn't just an opinion. Scripture says God desires all men to be saved which strongly suggests it's possible for everyone to find salvation and we know they can know God from his creation. If you read Acts 10, you'll see that Cornelius was a devout and God fearing man whose alms were acceptable to God prior to Peter bringing him the gospel in Acts 11. We know he was justified before God before he heard the gospel because the good works of those without grace are not acceptable to God.

If such a person justified before God was close to death and hadn't yet heard the gospel, I believe God would supernaturally reveal it to him through internal inspiration so I would agree that no one will go to heaven without faith in Jesus.

I have read of varied claims to supernatural revelation (historically recent, and probably ancient even if no record has survived to our day) and cannot dismiss them out of hand, though each would have to be considered on its own merits. And such considerations would take us too far afield for this thread, I think--or at least for the moment.

Centurion Cornelius of Caesarea (the port city to Jerusalem, if you will), was, as you wrote, "a devout man who feared God [not idols] ... and gave alms ... and prayed continually to God" (Acts 10:1-2), meaning he was essentially or very like a Jewish proselyte at some stage of conversion. Peter reasonably assumes of Cornelius and his household, "you yourselves know what happened throughout all Judea ... how God anointed Jesus of Nazareth ... He went about doing good and healing all who were oppressed by the devil ..." (vv. 37-38).

In other words in terms of knowledge and commitment, Cornelius as Peter meets him is more like a righteous, believing Jew of the day (obviously not in all respects such as clean food practices) and a poor example of someone who "learn[ed] of God [merely] from his creation," and "put his faith in Him and love and follow Him by following his conscience despite not knowing His name is Jesus and not knowing the doctrines of Christianity." I agree that Cornelius probably "was justified before God before he heard the gospel" from Peter.

We remain, I think, still asking about what "enough revelation to say" of the OP might mean, to which we add as you wrote the importance of preaching the gospel.

 

[samir]

No disagreement with the above even if one could quibble about the source of your proposed percentage.

My source is basically a wild guess. I have no idea but given what scripture says about the wide road to perdition and narrow path to heaven, I think it's likely over 50% though I could be wrong.

Yes, but the above still misses the extent of Paul's indictment of Gentiles in 1:18-32. We are both working towards harmonizing Paul's arguments (one way or another), and what I had addressed earlier concerned Paul's claim for example that by the works of the law (= good works) no flesh (without exception, Jew and therefore how much less Gentile) will be justified before God (3:20)--as you agree below.

Ro 1:18-32 is about the wrath of God on the unrighteous. It shows they are in need of a savior.

Granted, "no one can truly be good apart from God's grace," but "non-Christians who accepted God's grace through faith based on what God has revealed to them" seems not a condition within Paul's purview in Romans or elsewhere unless perhaps we are talking about OT saints (so my above post).

Ro 2:1-16 refers to the justice of God taught in both testaments. The unrighteous mentioned in Ro 1:18-32 will be punished while those who do good will be rewarded with eternal life. Why would Paul mention "eternal life to those who by patient continuance in doing good seek" and conscience excusing a person if everyone who didn't hear the gospel went to hell?

Otherwise I wonder how Jesus and the apostles would have integrated your condition into the gospel mission that was reaching the "uttermost part of the earth." What do you mean?

Cornelius was a good example of a non-Christian who responded with faith when God revealed himself to him through his creation and the teaching of Judaism. He put his faith in what God revealed to him and lived to please Him. There's really no need to incorporate that into the gospel. The apostles were to preach to everyone to bring as many people to Jesus as possible even though God could reveal himself to people in other ways. I'd say those who heard the gospel are more likely to believe and be saved than those who've never heard it so it's best to bring it to everyone. Although I believe Cornelius was justified in Acts 10, I believe he still needed to accept the message of salvation that he heard in Acts 11 to get to heaven (thought God could reveal it supernaturally through internal inspiration if no one brought it to him).

In Rom. 3:13-18 Paul quotes or alludes to many OT passages (many more could be added), particularly from the Psalms, as Scripture support for his claims for example that "no one seeks God ... no one does good, not even one" (vv. 11, 12--though the Good Shepherd seeks and finds lost sheep). Global and universal indictment of the "whole world" (v. 19)--Jew and Gentile--is necessary to demonstrate that "not by the works of the law" can any person be justified (3:20 again), opening the way for "the righteousness of God" (3:21 alluding to 1:16-17) which "has been manifested apart from the law" (and how much more apart from Gentile works), "although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it--the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe" etc., vv. 21-22.

They are Old Testament quotes but to interpret them literally would contradict scripture and make Jesus a liar. If there were truly "none who seeks after God" then Jesus was lying when he said "those who hunger and thirst for righteousness... shall be filled (Matt 5:6)"

For Paul's indictment of humanity in chs. 1-3 to be "hyperbole," Paul would have had to admit there was exception to righteousness by faith in Jesus, that is in the sole option, righteousness by the works of the law. This fundamentally misinterprets Paul.

The hyperbole is in Ro 3:10-18. I interpret the rest of chs. 1-3 literally.

I believe Paul used hyperbole (which is an exaggeration meant to emphasize his point) in Ro 3:10-18 to show humanity as a whole was sinful and in need of a savior and that no one will be justified on his own, apart from Jesus.

Granted, as (for example) Paul notes even in Romans, there are relatively righteous persons--the godly Gentile (2:7 as you cite, used to indict the Jew), Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, the 7000 who did not bend the knee to Baal (Rom. 4, 9, 11) and so on. But are they exempt from sin? Indeed is not the OT and NT awash with a history of sinful persons, even the most righteous of them (excepting only Jesus)? Again from Adam, "death spread to all, because all sinned" (5:12)--the whole human race. All persons without exception (save Jesus) "have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" (Rom. 3:23), "and are justified [where they have faith] by His grace as a gift [not by works], through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus" (v. 24).

Scripture doesn't say they were relatively righteous. It says they were righteous. Righteous doesn't mean perfect or without sin. I agree all of those OT saints sinned and needed a savior.

All persons without exception (save Jesus) "have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" (Rom. 3:23), "and are justified [where they have faith]

I disagree with that interpretation. Faith isn't mentioned as necessary for justification in that verse and there are millions of people who never committed any sins during their life (all those who died in the womb and those who died before the age of reason).

I interpret it as follows:

"For there is no difference [between Jew and Gentile]; for all [meaning both Jews and Gentiles, not every human being] have sinned and fall short of the glory of God with both Jews and Gentiles able to be justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus"

I do agree everyone who has had the use of reason has sinned and needs to be justified by faith in Jesus.

For Paul to imply exception to the indictment is to imply the possibility of a competitor gospel, a different source of righteousness, in the works of the law (by Jew or Gentile).

I believe everyone, without exception, is under sin and needs a savior. There is only one source of righteousness and that is in Jesus.

Given the above, Rom. 3 cannot be "non-literal" or hyperbole; there must be an alternate explanation for righteous Gentiles in ch. 2 and righteous persons noted in the OT; see further above.

I don't think the righteous Gentiles in Ch. 2 were saved apart from Jesus nor by good works done without God's grace. I believe they were saved the same way as everyone else - because Jesus died on the cross for their sins and they responded to God's revelation with faith and loved God.

I agree with the immediately above save for a quibble that the conceptual ("sense") distinction regarding faith does not lie in the semantics (the mere words) but in the difference of quality to the faith/belief (or kind of faith/belief) as evident in varied contexts (some already cited on this thread).

I believe there is only one quality or type of faith. I define faith as "an intellectual assent to divinely revealed truth" meaning a person assents with his mind to the truth that God has revealed which is how the early Christians defined faith. Whether that faith saves or is dead depends on how a person responds to it. If a person, after assenting to God's revelation that he is a sinner, fears God's justice, considers the mercy of God, and begins to hope that God will be benevolent to him because of Christ's sacrifice on the cross, leading him to begin to love Him and therefore becomes moved by a hatred and detestation of his sins, and resolves to live a new life in accordance with the will of God then his faith will save him. When scripture says "he who believes will be saved" I believe it's referring to faith that works through love and not people who believe but don't respond to that faith by loving God.

I agree that Cornelius probably "was justified before God before he heard the gospel" from Peter

We remain, I think, still asking about what "enough revelation to say" of the OP might mean, to which we add as you wrote the importance of preaching the gospel.

I understood the OP as asking whether it's possible for someone who's never heard of Jesus to be justified and Cornelius shows it is possible.

 

[sdowney717]

My source is basically a wild guess. I have no idea but given what scripture says about the wide road to perdition and narrow path to heaven, I think it's likely over 50% though I could be wrong.



Ro 1:18-32 is about the wrath of God on the unrighteous. It shows they are in need of a savior.



Ro 2:1-16 refers to the justice of God taught in both testaments. The unrighteous mentioned in Ro 1:18-32 will be punished while those who do good will be rewarded with eternal life. Why would Paul mention "eternal life to those who by patient continuance in doing good seek" and conscience excusing a person if everyone who didn't hear the gospel went to hell?



Cornelius was a good example of a non-Christian who responded with faith when God revealed himself to him through his creation and the teaching of Judaism. He put his faith in what God revealed to him and lived to please Him. There's really no need to incorporate that into the gospel. The apostles were to preach to everyone to bring as many people to Jesus as possible even though God could reveal himself to people in other ways. I'd say those who heard the gospel are more likely to believe and be saved than those who've never heard it so it's best to bring it to everyone. Although I believe Cornelius was justified in Acts 10, I believe he still needed to accept the message of salvation that he heard in Acts 11 to get to heaven (thought God could reveal it supernaturally through internal inspiration if no one brought it to him).




They are Old Testament quotes but to interpret them literally would contradict scripture and make Jesus a liar. If there were truly "none who seeks after God" then Jesus was lying when he said "those who hunger and thirst for righteousness... shall be filled (Matt 5:6)"



The hyperbole is in Ro 3:10-18. I interpret the rest of chs. 1-3 literally.

I believe Paul used hyperbole (which is an exaggeration meant to emphasize his point) in Ro 3:10-18 to show humanity as a whole was sinful and in need of a savior and that no one will be justified on his own, apart from Jesus.



Scripture doesn't say they were relatively righteous. It says they were righteous. Righteous doesn't mean perfect or without sin. I agree all of those OT saints sinned and needed a savior.



I disagree with that interpretation. Faith isn't mentioned as necessary for justification in that verse and there are millions of people who never committed any sins during their life (all those who died in the womb and those who died before the age of reason).

I interpret it as follows:

"For there is no difference [between Jew and Gentile]; for all [meaning both Jews and Gentiles, not every human being] have sinned and fall short of the glory of God with both Jews and Gentiles able to be justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus"

I do agree everyone who has had the use of reason has sinned and needs to be justified by faith in Jesus.



I believe everyone, without exception, is under sin and needs a savior. There is only one source of righteousness and that is in Jesus.



I don't think the righteous Gentiles in Ch. 2 were saved apart from Jesus nor by good works done without God's grace. I believe they were saved the same way as everyone else - because Jesus died on the cross for their sins and they responded to God's revelation with faith and loved God.




I believe there is only one quality or type of faith. I define faith as "an intellectual assent to divinely revealed truth" meaning a person assents with his mind to the truth that God has revealed which is how the early Christians defined faith. Whether that faith saves or is dead depends on how a person responds to it. If a person, after assenting to God's revelation that he is a sinner, fears God's justice, considers the mercy of God, and begins to hope that God will be benevolent to him because of Christ's sacrifice on the cross, leading him to begin to love Him and therefore becomes moved by a hatred and detestation of his sins, and resolves to live a new life in accordance with the will of God then his faith will save him. When scripture says "he who believes will be saved" I believe it's referring to faith that works through love and not people who believe but don't respond to that faith by loving God.



I understood the OP as asking whether it's possible for someone who's never heard of Jesus to be justified and Cornelius shows it is possible.

Any ambiguity of Cornelius salvation before hearing the gospel, God clearly puts to rest since He sent Peter to him to preach the gospel. What you are really seeing is the election of Cornelius and his household to be saved. God was working in Cornelius beforehand, before He revealed the entire truth to Cornelius, and this must occur in this life we live now in the flesh, because after we die, it is too late, since then comes the judgement.

 

[samir]

Any ambiguity of Cornelius salvation before hearing the gospel, God clearly puts to rest since He sent Peter to him to preach the gospel. What you are really seeing is the election of Cornelius and his household to be saved. God was working in Cornelius beforehand, before He revealed the entire truth to Cornelius, and this must occur in this life we live now in the flesh, because after we die, it is too late, since then comes the judgement

Another thing to consider is the fate of those who die shortly after they began to have the use of reason. If they sought God and followed their conscience but God sent them to hell because they didn't have enough time to learn more about Jesus then it seems to go against the verse that says God desires all men to be saved.

 

[shakewell]

Something to consider in the case of Cornelius, is that when Peter recounted the incident at Jerusalem in chapter 11, it's worded like this:

[Peter] shall tell thee [Cornelius] words, whereby thou and all thy house shall be saved. vs. 14

That seems to imply that Cornelius hadn't been saved yet. But it could mean that the group as a whole (Cornelius & his household) hadn't been saved yet. Or it could be a reference to the future aspect of salvation for someone who's already saved. I'm not really sure.

 

[shakewell]

The question follows whether your "think[ing] that the mere wrath of God that's revealed would be a sufficient motivation for him to say "God be merciful to me a sinner" also represents the thoughts of those under the wrath of God, and of course wherein the wrath of God consists in Rom. 1:18 which apparently you allude to.

Any one individual sinner's thoughts of wanting to get out from under the wrath of God wouldn't "represent" the thoughts of the rest of the people who are under the same wrath. If he says, "God be merciful to me a sinner", he's only representing himself.

 

[samir]

Something to consider in the case of Cornelius, is that when Peter recounted the incident at Jerusalem in chapter 11, it's worded like this:

[Peter] shall tell thee [Cornelius] words, whereby thou and all thy house shall be saved. vs. 14

That seems to imply that Cornelius hadn't been saved yet. But it could mean that the group as a whole (Cornelius & his household) hadn't been saved yet. Or it could be a reference to the future aspect of salvation for someone who's already saved. I'm not really sure.

Scripture speaks of believers having been saved (past tense), being saved (present sense), and having hope they will be saved (future tense) so I'd say it's a reference to the future aspect of salvation for someone who's already justified. I still think he needed to accept the gospel for salvation even though he was already justified before God.

 

[jimmyjimmy]

It seems to me that a person who's never heard of Jesus or seen a Bible has enough revelation to say (from his heart of course), "God be merciful to me a sinner" and thusly be justified. (Luke 18:9-14)

I find several points of contention with your thesis. First, you assume that the publican was not a Jew. He may very well have been. Matthew was. Even if he were not a Jew, he was living among them, so he would have known much more about God than natural revelation would have given him.

Second, the very means and method that God uses to bring sinners to Himself is the Gospel and it proclaimed/preached. We are added to the church through the preaching of the gospel (Acts 2:41). There is no salvation outside of this.

Third, natural revelation is only enough to make a person accountable, but not enough to bring him to salvation. Trees and stars tell only of God's "eternal power" and "divine nature". They are limited in what they reveal about Him. You will notice in Romans 1 two things. One, the knowledge that natural revelation brings is suppressed by men. Unregenerate men do not take natural revelation and use it to turn to God in repentance. They snuff out any and all light they see. (John 3:19). Two, the outcome of natural revelation is "the wrath of God". Natural revelation holds the guilty "without excuse". Any revelation adds to guilt because it is "suppressed in unrighteousness".

The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened.22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles.
​

I'll leave it at that for now.

 

[sdowney717]

Hi thatBrian, exactly natural revelation brings no eternal salvation, belief in Christ, those verses tell us of God's great power creating all things, so men are without excuse. Only supernatural revelation brings salvation.

Like Jesus says clearly and plainly, why all people do not believe.
Luke 10
21 In that hour Jesus rejoiced in the Spirit and said, “I thank You, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that You have hidden these things from the wise and prudent and revealed them to babes. Even so, Father, for so it seemed good in Your sight. 22 All things have been delivered to Me by My Father, and no one knows who the Son is except the Father, and who the Father is except the Son, and the one to whom the Son wills to reveal Him.”

23 Then He turned to His disciples and said privately, “Blessed are the eyes which see the things you see; 24 for I tell you that many prophets and kings have desired to see what you see, and have not seen it, and to hear what you hear, and have not heard it.”

And it is not of the will of man or man's desire as v23 and Romans 9 says.