How does God Judge those who never heard the gospel of Christ?

[Alfred Persson]

If you think you're refuting my position, then that again shows you're not at all understanding what I've stated. I have never sated anything other than a person can only be saved through Jesus.

All men are without excuse, although, like Fastfredy0 , I think there will be exceptions based on mental capacity. God is just, and in the end, every single person will know that they got the judgement they deserved.

Your "exception" = "saved in the name of mental capacity" because there was no belief in Christ.

That is "inclusivism", not "exclusivism" which means "only belief in Christ saves", no exceptions.

And there is salvation in none other, for there is no other name under heaven, that is given among men by which we must be saved!" (Acts 4:12 RPTE)

16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish, but have eternal life.
17 For God did not send his Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world should be saved through him.
18 He who believes in him is not judged. He who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the one and only Son of God. (Jn. 3:16-18 RPTE)


Of course God is Just, but your meager exceptions don't begin to indicate that.

 

[electedbyHim]

I have read a study on this top Millard J. Erickson.

Is There Opportunity for Salvation after Death? Millard J. Erickson

It is a shame I cannot post the whole article due to the size. It is very informative in this subject.

Here is part of this article.

Source at the bottom of post.

The View That Christ Actually Offered Salvation to Some Dead Persons​

Several passages, especially 1 Peter 3:18–20 and 4:6 , that refer to Jesus’ descent and preaching, play a crucial role in support of postmortem evangelism. Salvation after death is related to the belief that Jesus, between His death and resurrection, descended into Hades and there proclaimed the gospel to individuals enslaved there from Old Testament times. This is supported by the statement in the Apostles’ Creed, “He descended into hades,” which in turn is supposedly suggested in Acts 2:31; Ephesians 4:9–10; 1 Peter 3:18–20; and 4:6 . Two steps are required if one is to believe on biblical grounds that such an opportunity is given after death to all persons who have not believed during this life. First, it is necessary to demonstrate that 1 Peter 3:18–20 does indeed teach that Christ preached the gospel to individuals in hades between the first Good Friday and Easter, and that this was a genuine offer of salvation on the basis of belief. Second, one must demonstrate that the offer made to those Old Testament persons is also available to all persons who live and die after that time.

It is worth noting that the presence of the clause in the Apostles’ Creed, which undoubtedly was a major factor in inducing belief in the doctrine during the medieval period, did not occur until relatively late. It is not found universally in the creed until the eighth century, though it was found in some versions as early as patristic times. It is included in the Athanasian Creed, composed about the middle of the fifth century and accepted by both the Eastern and Western wings of the church.14

The tradition of a descent of Christ into hades goes back to early church history. Interestingly, however, it was not associated with 1 Peter 3:18–20 for some time. Selwyn says that “the outstanding fact in the Patristic evidence before A.D. 190 is that, despite the popularity of the doctrine of Christ’s ‘harrowing of hell,’ 1 Pet iii.18ff is never quoted as authority for it.”15 Loofs says Irenaeus “never quotes the passage at all, nor, in dealing specially with the Descensus, does he even allude to it,”16 though Irenaeus regarded 1 Peter as an authentic epistle. Clement of Alexandria, Origen, and Hippolytus, however, did mention the descent in relation to 1 Peter 3. According to Augustine Christ’s preaching was in His preexistent form to the people of Noah’s day. Three of the major interpretations of the passage (i.e., Christ preaching in Hades to men, or to angels, or to those living in the days of Noah) were held by some of the church fathers.

Questions on 1 Peter 3:18-20

Several issues are involved in the interpretation of this passage. Those questions and the major answers given to them are as follows:

1. Who did the preaching?

a. Jesus (most interpreters hold this view)​

b. Enoch17​

c. Noah, but Christ was actually preaching through him by the Holy Spirit18​

2. To whom was the preaching given?

a. Fallen angels19​

b. Humans, in hell20​

c. Humans, who repented just before they died in the Flood21​

d. People who lived in the time of Moses22​

3. What was preached?

a. The gospel, that is, the good news of the availability of salvation​

b. Christ’s triumph over death​

c. Judgment or condemnation23​

4. When was the preaching done?

a. In the days of Noah24​

b. Between Jesus’ death and resurrection​

c. After Jesus’ resurrection but before His ascension25​

d. At the time of an “invisible ascension” of Christ on Easter Sunday morning, just after His appearance to Mary26​

e. Throughout history, being symbolic of the universality of salvation, rather than a single literal occurrence27​

Dallas Theological Seminary. (1995; 2002). Bibliotheca Sacra Volume 152 (152:131-145). Dallas Theological Seminary.

 

[Fastfredy0]

How does God Judge those who never heard the gospel of Christ?​

Who didn't heard the gospel from Jacob to Christ?
... the Gentiles. Amos 3:2, Matt. 15:5

What was the outcome for those who didn't heard the gospel from Jacob to Christ?
... Ephesians 2:11 Therefore remember that formerly you who are Gentiles in the flesh and called uncircumcised by the so-called circumcision (that done in the body by human hands)— 12 remember that at that time you were separate from Christ, alienated from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers to the covenants of the promise, without hope and without God in the world.

 

[Alfred Persson]

I have read a study on this top Millard J. Erickson.

Is There Opportunity for Salvation after Death? Millard J. Erickson

It is a shame I cannot post the whole article due to the size. It is very informative in this subject.

Here is part of this article.

Source at the bottom of post.

The View That Christ Actually Offered Salvation to Some Dead Persons​

Several passages, especially 1 Peter 3:18–20 and 4:6 , that refer to Jesus’ descent and preaching, play a crucial role in support of postmortem evangelism. Salvation after death is related to the belief that Jesus, between His death and resurrection, descended into Hades and there proclaimed the gospel to individuals enslaved there from Old Testament times. This is supported by the statement in the Apostles’ Creed, “He descended into hades,” which in turn is supposedly suggested in Acts 2:31; Ephesians 4:9–10; 1 Peter 3:18–20; and 4:6 . Two steps are required if one is to believe on biblical grounds that such an opportunity is given after death to all persons who have not believed during this life. First, it is necessary to demonstrate that 1 Peter 3:18–20 does indeed teach that Christ preached the gospel to individuals in hades between the first Good Friday and Easter, and that this was a genuine offer of salvation on the basis of belief. Second, one must demonstrate that the offer made to those Old Testament persons is also available to all persons who live and die after that time.

It is worth noting that the presence of the clause in the Apostles’ Creed, which undoubtedly was a major factor in inducing belief in the doctrine during the medieval period, did not occur until relatively late. It is not found universally in the creed until the eighth century, though it was found in some versions as early as patristic times. It is included in the Athanasian Creed, composed about the middle of the fifth century and accepted by both the Eastern and Western wings of the church.14

The tradition of a descent of Christ into hades goes back to early church history. Interestingly, however, it was not associated with 1 Peter 3:18–20 for some time. Selwyn says that “the outstanding fact in the Patristic evidence before A.D. 190 is that, despite the popularity of the doctrine of Christ’s ‘harrowing of hell,’ 1 Pet iii.18ff is never quoted as authority for it.”15 Loofs says Irenaeus “never quotes the passage at all, nor, in dealing specially with the Descensus, does he even allude to it,”16 though Irenaeus regarded 1 Peter as an authentic epistle. Clement of Alexandria, Origen, and Hippolytus, however, did mention the descent in relation to 1 Peter 3. According to Augustine Christ’s preaching was in His preexistent form to the people of Noah’s day. Three of the major interpretations of the passage (i.e., Christ preaching in Hades to men, or to angels, or to those living in the days of Noah) were held by some of the church fathers.

Questions on 1 Peter 3:18-20

Several issues are involved in the interpretation of this passage. Those questions and the major answers given to them are as follows:

1. Who did the preaching?

a. Jesus (most interpreters hold this view)​

b. Enoch17​

c. Noah, but Christ was actually preaching through him by the Holy Spirit18​

2. To whom was the preaching given?

a. Fallen angels19​

b. Humans, in hell20​

c. Humans, who repented just before they died in the Flood21​

d. People who lived in the time of Moses22​

3. What was preached?

a. The gospel, that is, the good news of the availability of salvation​

b. Christ’s triumph over death​

c. Judgment or condemnation23​

4. When was the preaching done?

a. In the days of Noah24​

b. Between Jesus’ death and resurrection​

c. After Jesus’ resurrection but before His ascension25​

d. At the time of an “invisible ascension” of Christ on Easter Sunday morning, just after His appearance to Mary26​

e. Throughout history, being symbolic of the universality of salvation, rather than a single literal occurrence27​

Dallas Theological Seminary. (1995; 2002). Bibliotheca Sacra Volume 152 (152:131-145). Dallas Theological Seminary.

My view is on 1 Pet. 3:18 is unique and explains why early Christians did not quote this in support of preaching to dead humans. Christ made a special trip to a special group of half-human half-angel "men of renown" Gen. 6:4, who wouldn't believe Noah's preaching that God would forgive the abomination of elohim-human children. They gave the answer of a good conscience towards God just as the Church did, which reminded Peter of the symbol of baptism, being buried then raised with Christ.

Translations obscure the identity of these "spirits in prison" when they translate " who formerly were disobedient," (1 Pet. 3:20 NKJ) instead of "who formerly were disbelieving (544 ἀπειθέω)

544 ἀπειθέω apeitheo {ap-i-theh'-o}
Meaning: 1) not to allow one's self to be persuaded 1a) to refuse or withhold belief 1b) to refuse belief and obedience 2) not to comply with

Christ preached to the spirits in prison (1 Peter 3:18-22) | End Time News

18 For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit (ζῳοποιηθεὶς δὲ πνεύματι) : 19 By which also (ἐν ᾧ καὶ) he went and preached (2784 κηρύσσω kerusso) unto the spirits in

endtimenews.net

 

[electedbyHim]

My view is on 1 Pet. 3:18 is unique and explains why early Christians did not quote this in support of preaching to dead humans. Christ made a special trip to a special group of half-human half-angel "men of renown" Gen. 6:4, who wouldn't believe Noah's preaching that God would forgive the abomination of elohim-human children. They gave the answer of a good conscience towards God just as the Church did, which reminded Peter of the symbol of baptism, being buried then raised with Christ.

Translations obscure the identity of these "spirits in prison" when they translate " who formerly were disobedient," (1 Pet. 3:20 NKJ) instead of "who formerly were disbelieving (544 ἀπειθέω)

544 ἀπειθέω apeitheo {ap-i-theh'-o}
Meaning: 1) not to allow one's self to be persuaded 1a) to refuse or withhold belief 1b) to refuse belief and obedience 2) not to comply with

Christ preached to the spirits in prison (1 Peter 3:18-22) | End Time News

18 For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit (ζῳοποιηθεὶς δὲ πνεύματι) : 19 By which also (ἐν ᾧ καὶ) he went and preached (2784 κηρύσσω kerusso) unto the spirits in

endtimenews.net

From the same study about the views on 1 Peter.

Six Major Views on 1 Peter 3:18-20

Taking into account all possible combinations of the above answers would theoretically allow for 180 different theories. Since, however, the position taken on one of these questions in many cases severely limits the available options, the actual number is considerably less. The number tends to reduce to the following six interpretations.

1. Christ “in spirit” preached through Noah when Noah was building the ark. This was a message of repentance and righteousness, given to unbelieving persons who were then on earth but are now “spirits in prison” (i.e., persons in hell).

2. Between His death and resurrection Christ preached to humans in Hades, giving them a message of repentance and righteousness, thus giving them opportunity to believe and be saved, though they had not availed themselves of such an offer during their time on earth.

3. Between His death and resurrection Christ went to people in Hades and announced that He had triumphed over them and that their condemnation was final.

4. Between His death and resurrection Christ proclaimed release to people who had repented just before the Flood. He led them from imprisonment in purgatory to heaven.

5. Between His death and resurrection or between His resurrection and ascension, Christ descended into Hades and proclaimed His triumph over the fallen angels who had sinned by mating with women before the Flood.

6. The reference to Jesus’ preaching is not to be taken literally. It is symbolic, conveying in this graphic form the idea that redemption is universal in its extent or influence.

Examination of the passage requires much more attention than can be given in the space of this article. Several issues need to be addressed, however, which should narrow considerably the number of viable options.

A basic question pertains to what was preached, and that centers on the meaning of the word κηρύσσω in 1 Peter 3:19 and 4:6 .

According to views three and five above, this means preaching either judgment or a triumph over the hearers. In views one and two the preaching was the proclamation of the need to repent and the possibility of forgiveness. In view four it means a declaration of forgiveness and liberation. Thus in views one, two, and four the preaching was “good news,” while in views three and five it was “bad news.” Which meaning is to be understood here?

The word used here is simply the broad word for proclamation. It is not necessarily restricted to evangelization or declaration of good news, or the message of salvation. The idea of bad news here, however, seems to be problematic on one or two grounds. For one thing, it is not consistent with the rest of Jesus’ preaching. While He certainly spoke words of harsh criticism and even condemnation of the Pharisees, it is difficult to find parallels to Jesus “lording it over” persons who were already in prison and incapable of harming or misleading others. Further, the context does not seem to fit this interpretation well. The argument of 1 Peter 3 seems to be concerned with the matter of bearing witness, or giving an account of one’s faith. In fact verse 15 speaks of believers doing this witnessing “with gentleness and respect.” This hardly seems consonant with a declaration of condemnation or victory by Christ. This, then, seems to favor interpretations one or two.

Who were the recipients of the message? Were they humans or angels? Much has been made of the idea of a parallel with the Book of Enoch, in which Enoch preached to the angels who were disobedient in the time of Noah. The claim is then made that this tradition would have been familiar to Peter’s readers and that he merely modeled his argument along that line. Further, there is the claim that the “sons of God” in Genesis 6 were angels. Genesis 6 is then linked with 2 Peter 2:4 and Jude 6. Then 1 Peter 3:19 is associated with these several verses and with the idea of preaching to fallen angels.

There is much to commend this view, since there was considerable interest in angels at that time. Yet there are problems with it. For one thing, there is no assurance that the “sons of God” in Genesis 6 refers to angels. This is a highly disputed passage. Further, the idea of angels mating with humans to produce offspring seems to contradict Jesus’ statement in Matthew 22:30. (Some say Matthew 22:30 indicates that though they do not marry, they do mate. That seems to be a remote interpretation, however.)

What of the view that this was a declaration of deliverance to those who repented in the time of the Flood, but who did so too late to avoid perishing? This view faces several difficulties as well. For one thing, there is no reference to such repentance in the account of the Flood. For another, this creates a special class for these persons, as compared with the rest of those who lived and died in Old Testament times. Why should this be? Presumably, if others in the Old Testament who repented were spared spiritually, these would be spared also, though they perished physically in the Flood. Why should this preaching then focus on them?

Pannenberg holds a rather different view, namely, that this passage is to be understood symbolically. In an exposition of the Apostles’ Creed he discusses the tradition in the early church of Christ’s preaching in Hades and notes that this tradition is found in the New Testament only in 1 Peter 3:18–20 and 4:6 . That Pannenberg does not take this descent and preaching literally is indicated by his comment that the controversy between Lutheran and Reformed theologians over whether it was the crucified or the risen Lord who descended into hell could come only to the kind of mind that confuses the image with the thing itself.28 This is made clearer still in his book, Jesus: God and Man, in which he speaks of the “increasingly mythological conception of Jesus’ preaching in the realm of the dead or in hell” which attached itself to the statements in 1 Peter. He says 1 Peter 3:18–20 and 4:6 should be thought of as referring to “the universal significance of Jesus’ vicarious death under the curse.”29

The proclamation of the missionary message of primitive Christianity by Jesus himself in the realm of the dead is not, like the crucifixion, a historical event. The pictorial character of this concept is not simply a part of the mode of expression, as is the case with the resurrection which still is a specific, historically definable event. The symbolic language about Jesus’ descent into hell and his proclamation in the realm of the dead is just what has been falsely asserted about Jesus’ resurrection, namely, a statement about the real significance of another event, his death.30

It is difficult to ascertain the basis of Pannenberg’s position. In his view neither biblical nor ecclesiastical tradition per se carries authority. Thus it is somewhat puzzling to know why he considers this a viable view. He seems to say that this idea in the Scriptures is acceptable only because of extrabiblical writings.

 

[Little Owl]

As belief or non-belief in Christ are the only grounds for salvation or condemnation (Matthew 21:42; Mark 12:10; John 3:16-18; 5:24; 14:6; 20:31; Acts 4:11-12; Rom. 10:9; 1 Tim. 2:5-6; 1 Peter 2:6-8; 1 John 5:11-12), how does God judge those who never heard of Christ or heard disinformation about Him?

Who have never heard?

He doesn't.

 

[Alfred Persson]

From the same study about the views on 1 Peter.

Six Major Views on 1 Peter 3:18-20

Taking into account all possible combinations of the above answers would theoretically allow for 180 different theories. Since, however, the position taken on one of these questions in many cases severely limits the available options, the actual number is considerably less. The number tends to reduce to the following six interpretations.

1. Christ “in spirit” preached through Noah when Noah was building the ark. This was a message of repentance and righteousness, given to unbelieving persons who were then on earth but are now “spirits in prison” (i.e., persons in hell).

2. Between His death and resurrection Christ preached to humans in Hades, giving them a message of repentance and righteousness, thus giving them opportunity to believe and be saved, though they had not availed themselves of such an offer during their time on earth.

3. Between His death and resurrection Christ went to people in Hades and announced that He had triumphed over them and that their condemnation was final.

4. Between His death and resurrection Christ proclaimed release to people who had repented just before the Flood. He led them from imprisonment in purgatory to heaven.

5. Between His death and resurrection or between His resurrection and ascension, Christ descended into Hades and proclaimed His triumph over the fallen angels who had sinned by mating with women before the Flood.

6. The reference to Jesus’ preaching is not to be taken literally. It is symbolic, conveying in this graphic form the idea that redemption is universal in its extent or influence.

Examination of the passage requires much more attention than can be given in the space of this article. Several issues need to be addressed, however, which should narrow considerably the number of viable options.

A basic question pertains to what was preached, and that centers on the meaning of the word κηρύσσω in 1 Peter 3:19 and 4:6 .

According to views three and five above, this means preaching either judgment or a triumph over the hearers. In views one and two the preaching was the proclamation of the need to repent and the possibility of forgiveness. In view four it means a declaration of forgiveness and liberation. Thus in views one, two, and four the preaching was “good news,” while in views three and five it was “bad news.” Which meaning is to be understood here?

The word used here is simply the broad word for proclamation. It is not necessarily restricted to evangelization or declaration of good news, or the message of salvation. The idea of bad news here, however, seems to be problematic on one or two grounds. For one thing, it is not consistent with the rest of Jesus’ preaching. While He certainly spoke words of harsh criticism and even condemnation of the Pharisees, it is difficult to find parallels to Jesus “lording it over” persons who were already in prison and incapable of harming or misleading others. Further, the context does not seem to fit this interpretation well. The argument of 1 Peter 3 seems to be concerned with the matter of bearing witness, or giving an account of one’s faith. In fact verse 15 speaks of believers doing this witnessing “with gentleness and respect.” This hardly seems consonant with a declaration of condemnation or victory by Christ. This, then, seems to favor interpretations one or two.

Who were the recipients of the message? Were they humans or angels? Much has been made of the idea of a parallel with the Book of Enoch, in which Enoch preached to the angels who were disobedient in the time of Noah. The claim is then made that this tradition would have been familiar to Peter’s readers and that he merely modeled his argument along that line. Further, there is the claim that the “sons of God” in Genesis 6 were angels. Genesis 6 is then linked with 2 Peter 2:4 and Jude 6. Then 1 Peter 3:19 is associated with these several verses and with the idea of preaching to fallen angels.

There is much to commend this view, since there was considerable interest in angels at that time. Yet there are problems with it. For one thing, there is no assurance that the “sons of God” in Genesis 6 refers to angels. This is a highly disputed passage. Further, the idea of angels mating with humans to produce offspring seems to contradict Jesus’ statement in Matthew 22:30. (Some say Matthew 22:30 indicates that though they do not marry, they do mate. That seems to be a remote interpretation, however.)

What of the view that this was a declaration of deliverance to those who repented in the time of the Flood, but who did so too late to avoid perishing? This view faces several difficulties as well. For one thing, there is no reference to such repentance in the account of the Flood. For another, this creates a special class for these persons, as compared with the rest of those who lived and died in Old Testament times. Why should this be? Presumably, if others in the Old Testament who repented were spared spiritually, these would be spared also, though they perished physically in the Flood. Why should this preaching then focus on them?

Pannenberg holds a rather different view, namely, that this passage is to be understood symbolically. In an exposition of the Apostles’ Creed he discusses the tradition in the early church of Christ’s preaching in Hades and notes that this tradition is found in the New Testament only in 1 Peter 3:18–20 and 4:6 . That Pannenberg does not take this descent and preaching literally is indicated by his comment that the controversy between Lutheran and Reformed theologians over whether it was the crucified or the risen Lord who descended into hell could come only to the kind of mind that confuses the image with the thing itself.28 This is made clearer still in his book, Jesus: God and Man, in which he speaks of the “increasingly mythological conception of Jesus’ preaching in the realm of the dead or in hell” which attached itself to the statements in 1 Peter. He says 1 Peter 3:18–20 and 4:6 should be thought of as referring to “the universal significance of Jesus’ vicarious death under the curse.”29

The proclamation of the missionary message of primitive Christianity by Jesus himself in the realm of the dead is not, like the crucifixion, a historical event. The pictorial character of this concept is not simply a part of the mode of expression, as is the case with the resurrection which still is a specific, historically definable event. The symbolic language about Jesus’ descent into hell and his proclamation in the realm of the dead is just what has been falsely asserted about Jesus’ resurrection, namely, a statement about the real significance of another event, his death.30

It is difficult to ascertain the basis of Pannenberg’s position. In his view neither biblical nor ecclesiastical tradition per se carries authority. Thus it is somewhat puzzling to know why he considers this a viable view. He seems to say that this idea in the Scriptures is acceptable only because of extrabiblical writings.

I don't agree. Fallen angels are in eternal chains.

And the angels who did not keep their proper domain, but left their own abode, He has reserved in everlasting chains under darkness for the judgment of the great day; (Jude 1:6 NKJ)

Apocraphal books are satanic disinformation at worst, human speculation at best.

My view is the 7th you never considered, that unlike all those others, fits the scripture.

What I believe is here:

Christ preached to the spirits in prison (1 Peter 3:18-22) | End Time News

18 For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit (ζῳοποιηθεὶς δὲ πνεύματι) : 19 By which also (ἐν ᾧ καὶ) he went and preached (2784 κηρύσσω kerusso) unto the spirits in

endtimenews.net

 

[Alfred Persson]

Who have never heard?

He doesn't.

People born before Christ came. Many others. Recently they found a tribe of savages in the Amazon forest who never had any contact with modern society. If I recall correctly, a Christian went to preach the gospel to them.

 

[Alfred Persson]

How does God Judge those who never heard the gospel of Christ?​

Who didn't heard the gospel from Jacob to Christ?
... the Gentiles. Amos 3:2, Matt. 15:5

What was the outcome for those who didn't heard the gospel from Jacob to Christ?
... Ephesians 2:11 Therefore remember that formerly you who are Gentiles in the flesh and called uncircumcised by the so-called circumcision (that done in the body by human hands)— 12 remember that at that time you were separate from Christ, alienated from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers to the covenants of the promise, without hope and without God in the world.

That is correct. Its appointed they die, and then during the Judgment they hear, perhaps for the first time, the gospel. Then they learn there is hope, God exists. They don't have to be strangers, they can repent and Christ will bear the sins of the "many" who believe. Then, they eagerly wait for salvation from hell, at the second coming of Christ:

26..... But now once at the end of the ages, he has been revealed to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.
27 Inasmuch as it is appointed for men to die once, and after this, judgment,
28 so Christ also, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time, without sin, to those who are eagerly waiting for him for salvation. (Heb. 9:26-28 RPTE)

For to this end the Good News was preached even to the dead, that they might be judged indeed as men in the flesh, but live as to God in the spirit. (1 Pet. 4:6 RPTE)

 

[Free]

All men are without excuse, although, like Fastfredy0 , I think there will be exceptions based on mental capacity. God is just, and in the end, every single person will know that they got the judgement they deserved.

Your "exception" = "saved in the name of mental capacity" because there was no belief in Christ.

That is "inclusivism", not "exclusivism" which means "only belief in Christ saves", no exceptions.

And there is salvation in none other, for there is no other name under heaven, that is given among men by which we must be saved!" (Acts 4:12 RPTE)

16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish, but have eternal life.
17 For God did not send his Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world should be saved through him.
18 He who believes in him is not judged. He who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the one and only Son of God. (Jn. 3:16-18 RPTE)


Of course God is Just, but your meager exceptions don't begin to indicate that.

Is a two or three year-old saved without knowing the gospel, without putting their faith in Christ? Why or why not?

 

[Alfred Persson]

...

Several passages, especially 1 Peter 3:18–20 and 4:6 , that refer to Jesus’ descent and preaching, play a crucial role in support of postmortem evangelism. Salvation after death is related to the belief that Jesus, between His death and resurrection, descended into Hades and there proclaimed the gospel to individuals enslaved there from Old Testament times. This is supported by the statement in the Apostles’ Creed, “He descended into hades,” which in turn is supposedly suggested in Acts 2:31; Ephesians 4:9–10; 1 Peter 3:18–20; and 4:6 . Two steps are required if one is to believe on biblical grounds that such an opportunity is given after death to all persons who have not believed during this life. First, it is necessary to demonstrate that 1 Peter 3:18–20 does indeed teach that Christ preached the gospel to individuals in hades between the first Good Friday and Easter, and that this was a genuine offer of salvation on the basis of belief. Second, one must demonstrate that the offer made to those Old Testament persons is also available to all persons who live and die after that time.

That is clearly wrong. The necessary thing is to show the Bible teaches redemption from Hades/Sheol:

A Survey of Scriptures where Postmortem Opportunity for Salvation may be taught:

Dt. 32:39 [#A]; 1Sam. 2:6 [#B]; 2Sam. 22:5-7 [#C]; Ps. 16:10-11 [#D]; Ps. 30:1-4 [#E]; Ps. 40:1-3 [#F]; Ps. 49:12-15 [#G]; Ps. 56:13 [#H]; Ps. 68:18-20 [#I]; Ps. 69:13-18 [#J]; Ps. 71:19-23 [#K]; Ps. 86:13 [#L]; Ps. 102:18-22 [#M]; Ps. 116:1-9 [#N]; Hos. 13:14 [#O]; Jon. 2:1-10 [#P]; Zec. 9:9-11 [#Q]; Mt. 12:30-32[#R]; John 5:28-29[#S]; Rm. 11:25-36[#T]; 1 Pt. 3:18-22[#U]; 1 Pt. 4:6[#V]; 1 Cor. 5:5[#W]; Eph. 4:8-10[#I]; Heb. 9:27-28[#X]; Rev. 20:11-15[#Y];Luke 16:19-31[#Z]; John 3:16-18[#ZA]

Click the hastag #Letter for my commentary on the verse.

 

[Free]

That is clearly wrong. The necessary thing is to show the Bible teaches redemption from Hades/Sheol:

A Survey of Scriptures where Postmortem Opportunity for Salvation may be taught:

Dt. 32:39 [#A]; 1Sam. 2:6 [#B]; 2Sam. 22:5-7 [#C]; Ps. 16:10-11 [#D]; Ps. 30:1-4 [#E]; Ps. 40:1-3 [#F]; Ps. 49:12-15 [#G]; Ps. 56:13 [#H]; Ps. 68:18-20 [#I]; Ps. 69:13-18 [#J]; Ps. 71:19-23 [#K]; Ps. 86:13 [#L]; Ps. 102:18-22 [#M]; Ps. 116:1-9 [#N]; Hos. 13:14 [#O]; Jon. 2:1-10 [#P]; Zec. 9:9-11 [#Q]; Mt. 12:30-32[#R]; John 5:28-29[#S]; Rm. 11:25-36[#T]; 1 Pt. 3:18-22[#U]; 1 Pt. 4:6[#V]; 1 Cor. 5:5[#W]; Eph. 4:8-10[#I]; Heb. 9:27-28[#X]; Rev. 20:11-15[#Y];Luke 16:19-31[#Z]; John 3:16-18[#ZA]

Click the hastag #Letter for my commentary on the verse.

The issue is, you eisegete every single one of those texts by reading into them rather than letting them speak for themselves within their genres and contexts, and without understanding literary devices such as figures of speech and metaphors. Not a single one of those verses teaches a "postmortem opportunity for salvation." The Bible is absolutely clear--either put your faith in Christ before death and before Christ returns, or face eternity without God.

 

[Alfred Persson]

The issue is, you eisegete every single one of those texts by reading into them rather than letting them speak for themselves within their genres and contexts, and without understanding literary devices such as figures of speech and metaphors. Not a single one of those verses teaches a "postmortem opportunity for salvation." The Bible is absolutely clear--either put your faith in Christ before death and before Christ returns, or face eternity without God.

In other words, I interpret them for what they say and do not use the various devices protoCatholics use to deny redemption from Sheol/Hades is clearly taught in the Holy Scripture.

Perhaps a few of those verses don't support postmortem opportunity. I admit that on some of them. But the vast majority do and your blanket rejection is just an opinion.

To make your opinion "authoritative", you need the authority of scripture. You have to document precisely how I got a "proof text" wrong. Until then, your objection is like "one hand clapping".

Its odd, on a forum for discussion of scripture, that someone doesn't do that. Prove I got it wrong. Show the phrase, the context....that contradicts my take on the verse.

 

[Alfred Persson]

Click #Hastag Letter for my commentary on verses that support Postmortem Opportunity. If you disagree, start a thread on how I got XYZ scripture wrong, or do it here. Notice, I say "may be taught". Prove its not.

First Prove I got the scripture I cited for proof, wrong. Then you can cite other scripture that supports your opinion.

A Survey of Scriptures where Postmortem Opportunity for Salvation may be taught:

Dt. 32:39 [#A]; 1Sam. 2:6 [#B]; 2Sam. 22:5-7 [#C]; Ps. 16:10-11 [#D]; Ps. 30:1-4 [#E]; Ps. 40:1-3 [#F]; Ps. 49:12-15 [#G]; Ps. 56:13 [#H]; Ps. 68:18-20 [#I]; Ps. 69:13-18 [#J]; Ps. 71:19-23 [#K]; Ps. 86:13 [#L]; Ps. 102:18-22 [#M]; Ps. 116:1-9 [#N]; Hos. 13:14 [#O]; Jon. 2:1-10 [#P]; Zec. 9:9-11 [#Q]; Mt. 12:30-32[#R]; John 5:28-29[#S]; Rm. 11:25-36[#T]; 1 Pt. 3:18-22[#U]; 1 Pt. 4:6[#V]; 1 Cor. 5:5[#W]; Eph. 4:8-10[#I]; Heb. 9:27-28[#X]; Rev. 20:11-15[#Y];Luke 16:19-31[#Z]; John 3:16-18[#ZA]

 

[Free]

In other words, I interpret them for what they say

That is precisely what you don't do because you ignore literary devices, among other things, which are basic to understanding communication.

and do not use the various devices protoCatholics use to deny redemption from Sheol/Hades is clearly taught in the Holy Scripture.

Except that it isn't taught anywhere. In fact, it's the opposite that is clearly taught.

Perhaps a few of those verses don't support postmortem opportunity. I admit that on some of them. But the vast majority do and your blanket rejection is just an opinion.

To make your opinion "authoritative", you need the authority of scripture. You have to document precisely how I got a "proof text" wrong. Until then, your objection is like "one hand clapping".

Its odd, on a forum for discussion of scripture, that someone doesn't do that. Prove I got it wrong. Show the phrase, the context....that contradicts my take on the verse.

Already addressed those, or many of them, a while back, HERE.

Click #Hastag Letter for my commentary on verses that support Postmortem Opportunity. If you disagree, start a thread on how I got XYZ scripture wrong, or do it here.

No, not in a new thread; it should be done in this one. There are too many threads on this topic already.

How about addressing my post #30?

 

[Alfred Persson]

That is precisely what you don't do because you ignore literary devices, among other things, which are basic to understanding communication.


Except that it isn't taught anywhere. In fact, it's the opposite that is clearly taught.


Already addressed those, or many of them, a while back, HERE.


No, not in a new thread; it should be done in this one. There are too many threads on this topic already.

How about addressing my post #30?

Friend, you haven't contradicted my commentary on any verse. I want you to try. Do it now. Don't claim you did it, do it now. Cite the verse, copy paste what I said, and then pinpoint how I got it wrong.

Otherwise, I only hear one hand clapping. It makes no sound, does nothing actually.

You should create a new thread when you do this. You have my permission to use my name. Alfred Persson is wrong about "xyz verse", here's the proof!

 

[Free]

Friend, you haven't contradicted my commentary on any verse. I want you to try. Do it now. Don't claim you did it, do it now. Cite the text, copy paste what I said, and then pinpoint how I got it wrong.

Otherwise, I only hear one hand clapping. It makes no sound, does nothing actually.

Since you seem unwilling to click a link, I'll just copy and paste:

Deu 32:39 “‘See now that I, even I, am he, and there is no god beside me; I kill and I make alive; I wound and I heal; and there is none that can deliver out of my hand.

Nothing even implied about a PMOS. It plainly and simply states that God can kill and make alive. This is about physical death and living, not salvation after death. Not even close.


1Sa 2:6 The LORD kills and brings to life; he brings down to Sheol and raises up.

Again, no PMOS is even implied. It could possibly be referring to resurrection, but it could also just mean that God brings life, and so "raises up," in general. That would be supported by verses 5 and 7.


2Sa 22:5 “For the waves of death encompassed me, the torrents of destruction assailed me;
2Sa 22:6 the cords of Sheol entangled me; the snares of death confronted me.
2Sa 22:7 “In my distress I called upon the LORD; to my God I called. From his temple he heard my voice, and my cry came to his ears.

But, what is the context?

2Sa 22:1 And David spoke to the LORD the words of this song on the day when the LORD delivered him from the hand of all his enemies, and from the hand of Saul.

Again, no PMOS is even implied. David is clearly speaking figuratively of when God delivered him from his enemies. Nothing more. Don't you find it odd that you keep insisting David is speaking literally, when no such incident is mentioned in Scripture? Besides, even if David had died and come back to life, how would that even imply a PMOS? That's a resurrection but that doesn't necessarily mean he would have been saved while dead.


Psa 16:10 For you will not abandon my soul to Sheol, or let your holy one see corruption.
Psa 16:11 You make known to me the path of life; in your presence there is fullness of joy; at your right hand are pleasures forevermore.

Psa 30:1 A Psalm of David. A song at the dedication of the temple. I will extol you, O LORD, for you have drawn me up and have not let my foes rejoice over me.
Psa 30:2 O LORD my God, I cried to you for help, and you have healed me.
Psa 30:3 O LORD, you have brought up my soul from Sheol; you restored me to life from among those who go down to the pit.
Psa 30:4 Sing praises to the LORD, O you his saints, and give thanks to his holy name.

Psa 40:1 To the choirmaster. A Psalm of David. I waited patiently for the LORD; he inclined to me and heard my cry.
Psa 40:2 He drew me up from the pit of destruction, out of the miry bog, and set my feet upon a rock, making my steps secure.
Psa 40:3 He put a new song in my mouth, a song of praise to our God. Many will see and fear, and put their trust in the LORD.

Again, nothing in these to even imply PMOS. It is, once again, David thanking God for his deliverance.


Hos 13:14 I shall ransom them from the power of Sheol; I shall redeem them from Death. O Death, where are your plagues? O Sheol, where is your sting? Compassion is hidden from my eyes.

This certainly does not imply a PMOS. This is speaking of God's eventual redemption of his people from the power of death, and ultimately fulfilled when Christ returns:


1Co 15:51 Behold! I tell you a mystery. We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed,
1Co 15:52 in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we shall be changed.
1Co 15:53 For this perishable body must put on the imperishable, and this mortal body must put on immortality.
1Co 15:54 When the perishable puts on the imperishable, and the mortal puts on immortality, then shall come to pass the saying that is written: “Death is swallowed up in victory.”
1Co 15:55 “O death, where is your victory? O death, where is your sting?”

A PMOS is also not even implied in Jon 2:1-10, Mat 12:30-32, John 5:28-29, Rom 11:25-36, 1 Cor 5:5, Eph 4:8-10, and 1 Pet 3:19. The closest you get are Zech 9:11 and 1 Pet 4:6. But, Zech 9 is talking about God delivering the Israelites and there is much debate as to what Peter is referring to. The most we can say is that there could be the possibility that God will give the righteous who died in the OT an opportunity to believe in Christ. However, given that a couple of them seemed to have gone to heaven apart from that, it could also be that the righteous who died under the old covenant, such as Abraham, were declared righteous by God are had salvation already. Who knows.

What we do know, is that there is not only not a single explicit statement about a PMOS and no clear implicit ones, but there are at least a couple of passages which explicitly state that there isn't one. Heb 9:27-28 and Rev 20:11-15 actually prove your position to be incorrect. I have no idea how you can think those support a PMOS. You're reading something into those passages which isn't there.

You are far too strong in your position on this, going well beyond any clear statement of Scripture and ignoring context in the process. This should be a very lightly held, humble opinion on your part, not a response-demanding, Protestant-bashing, strongly held position as though it was an absolute certainty.

 

[Free]

Are you going to address my post #30?

 

[Alfred Persson]

Since you seem unwilling to click a link, I'll just copy and paste:

Deu 32:39 “‘See now that I, even I, am he, and there is no god beside me; I kill and I make alive; I wound and I heal; and there is none that can deliver out of my hand.

Nothing even implied about a PMOS. It plainly and simply states that God can kill and make alive. This is about physical death and living, not salvation after death. Not even close.


1Sa 2:6 The LORD kills and brings to life; he brings down to Sheol and raises up.

Again, no PMOS is even implied. It could possibly be referring to resurrection, but it could also just mean that God brings life, and so "raises up," in general. That would be supported by verses 5 and 7.

Before I begin, I need you to clarify.

If God kills a person, are they dead in hades? So if He made that person alive, did he rise from Hades?

1 Samuel 2:6 says God brings down to hell, and raises up [from hell]

How can that not imply "salvation from hell"? How is a body raised from hell? Only a soul can be raised from hell, and reunited with its resurrection body. Therefore, the soul was first redeemed from hell, postmortem salvation.

Do you believe souls exist in hades?

When God raises someone up from hell, doesn't that imply He forgave something that put them into hell?

 

[Free]

Before I begin, I need you to clarify.

If God kills a person, are they dead in hades?

That seems to be the case.

So if He made that person alive, did he rise from Hades?

That would seem to be the case.

1 Samuel 2:6 says God brings down to hell, and raises up [from hell]

How can that not imply "salvation from hell"? How is a body raised from hell? Only a soul can be raised from hell, and reunited with its resurrection body. Therefore, the soul was first redeemed from hell, postmortem salvation.

First, it’s Sheol, not hell. Second, being brought back to life says absolutely nothing about salvation. After all, we see in Rev 20 that all will be resurrected to face judgement and most will be sent to hell as a result.

Do you believe souls exist in hades?

Possibly. Does Hades still exist post-resurrection?

When God raises someone up from hell, doesn't that imply He forgave something that put them into hell?

No, it doesn’t imply anything. Besides, has anyone been raised from hell? Has anyone been in hell yet?