Skip to main content

Can a person that has never heard the Gospel be saved?

This is proposed as an answer to the question of “What about persons with no access to the preaching of the Gospel?”

While the “normative” process of salvation requires the hearing of the gospel (Rom 10:14), confession, and faith (Rom 10:8-10), Christ has enabled the salvation of the elect and the Holy Spirit works as He wills in that process just as He does with all spiritual gifts (John 3:8, 1 Cor 12:11, Heb 2:4). It seems entirely feasible that, lacking ordinary means, a person can be saved without the explicit preaching of the Gospel, just as the OT elect were. The promise of the Gospel (Rom 5:8) was present at the Fall (Gen 3:15) as a component of the eternal covenant (Heb 13:20) and covers the entirety of the elect retroactively without the explicit preaching of the Gospel. If that is so, why can the effectivity of the Gospel not also be graciously applied proactively (again, lacking ordinary means)?

This in no way invalidates the command to share the gospel with all people and nations (Mark 16:15, Matt 28:19-20) which is a component of our good works that coincides with our true faith (James 2:26).

WCF 10.3 - "Elect infants, dying in infancy, are regenerated, and saved by Christ, through the Spirit, who worketh when, and where, and how He pleaseth: so also are all other elect persons who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word."

WCF = Westminster Confession of Faith


Comments

  1. jazzycatDecember 16, 2021 at 6:27 AM

    Genesis 18:25 covers this nicely... To anyone that would suggest some infants dying in infancy are saved and others are not based on their parents faith or lack thereof is unbiblical IMO. I have heard that view expressed by some.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Eckhart Tolle - Christian Response

Unbelievable! ...The extent man not founded upon Christ will go and follow in their quest and pursuit of self and attempts to explain away reality and sin. Here's Oprah's spiritual sage... Response: 1. He resurrects errors of the past which deny reality by seeking to replace it with forms. 2. By reducing the past to forms (or photo albums) he not only denies the reality of the past but the extent of it's connectedness and relationship to the present. This error he also translates in regard to the future. 3. He establishes a false premise that one can separate the reality of the present ("now") from reality itself, which he vests in onesself (though he inconsistently goes on to suggest that life is found in abandoning oneself) 4. He has no grounds or basis for assuming reality is found in self (and apart from everything else, or only what one want's to allow) 5. By denying the truth of God, he falsely asserts that the future is no longer problematic...
73 comments
Read more

Why “Sky Daddy” Fails: Debunking a Lazy Insult Against God

Why “Sky Daddy” Fails: Debunking a Lazy Insult Against God Tags: #christianity #apologetics #faith #logic #theology There’s a term some atheists like to throw around—“sky daddy.” You’ve probably seen it in comment sections or memes, tossed like a grenade meant to shut down the conversation. It's not meant to spark discussion; it’s meant to ridicule. But here’s the thing: It’s not an argument. It’s a caricature. And like most caricatures, it reveals more about the one mocking than the one being mocked. 1. It’s Based on a Straw Man No serious Christian believes God is some bearded man living in the clouds. That’s a cartoon version. The actual Christian claim is far richer, deeper, and more philosophically grounded. Scripture describes God as: Eternal (Psalm 90:2) Spirit, not material (John 4:24) The sustainer of all things (Colossians...
Post a Comment
Read more

Why You Shouldn't Trust Methodological Naturalism Beyond Practical Science

#apologetics #christianity #worldview 1. The Scope of the Tool Is Narrow Methodological naturalism is the operating assumption of modern science: it limits investigation to natural causes. That’s fine when you're studying combustion engines or bacterial infections. But it’s not a philosophy of truth—it’s a restriction. MN says, “Even if supernatural causes exist, we will act as though they don’t.” That may help in a chemistry lab. It collapses entirely when asking where laws of logic, morality, or the universe itself come from. Using MN to study metaphysics is like using a metal detector to search for love—it simply can’t detect what it refuses to consider. 2. It Silently Smuggles in Metaphysics Naturalistic science pretends to be neutral. It’s not. It assumes that only material causes are valid. But that’s not a scientific conclusion—it’s a metaphysical stance. Ask: What test confirmed that only physical things exist? None. It’s a belief baked into the method, not a discove...
Post a Comment
Read more

Search This Blog