If the Church says Christ died for all… But some through no fault of their own might not know Him before they die. And of those who do, no one but the Lord knows where their heart is at their moment of death. So as PRmerger and concretecamper said, they leave it to the Lord. But whoever is saved the CC says it is thru Christ and His Church. If these are the things the CC is saying, how is that heretical? I would think Christ is capable of saving someone who was never taught about Him thru no fault of their own or anyone whose heart in the end warrants salvation. So I must agree with PRmerger and concretecamper, it is best left to the Lord.
I do agree that it is up to God’s judgement. Christ is capable of anything, but that doesn’t mean he’ll do anything. So far, Jesus has never said, “I will save those who don’t know of me or don’t believe in me.” Does that necessarily mean He won’t save them? No, as I said, He’s capable of anything. But if we assume that a person can be saved without Christ, using non-Scriptural theories and speculations, we are doing a disservice to God (presuming to know His plans on things he has not taught us) and to those who have not accepted Christ (by not giving them a chance to hear of Him, because why bother?)
The whole doctrine of the salvation of non-Christian has again and again thrown people into confusion, because it all boils down to one question eventually: why evangelize, then? Aren’t we doing a soul a favor when we leave them in ignorance of the Gospel, so when they arrive before God it’s totally not their fault that they did not accept Jesus? Why put people in that risk? And the answer I always get is, because God told us to evangelize regardless. But that makes God nonsensical and petty, that He would command us to do pointless tasks just to see us run around and perform them. It’s like when your boss sends you out for coffee he has no intention of drinking.
That’s why I think such speculation should be avoided altogether rather than made official. It only causes a flurry of confusion concerning the role of the Church, of the Gospel, and of Christ. There are a thousand definitions of what “may” means, along with “invincible”, “vincible”, and “ignorance”. If that would’ve warranted major theological theory and acceptance, don’t you think it would’ve been mentioned explicitly in the Bible?
And tbh I find it rather annoying that the church could ascribe to such a doctrine while at the same time vociferously promoting its own views on morality in public discourse and politics. If I were gay and had a same-sex marriage, and believed I was doing the right thing, who are you to say I can’t, if I can be saved anyway? Why have all these rules and obligations if, at the end of the day, I’m saved anyway? Again, I’m told this is because as members of the church, more is expected of us, which brings us back to why evangelizing would be a bad thing, since being a Christian means accepting a particular moral compass that many people would not find easy to conform to. But not their fault, right?
If one takes the certain position often expounded, the only soul that is definitively bound for hell is the one that KNOWS that Christ is necessary to salvation yet openly and consciously rejects Him nonetheless. This is essentially universalism, since who would willingly damn himself?
To say “Well, maybe Jesus gives them one last chance at death” often ignores the fact that that is a very big, fat MAYBE. God has never told us that that happens, so we can’t assume it does, even if it makes us feel more comfortable with the world or “what I would do if I were God”.
