Every so often I hear the question about the "man in Africa" who never heard the gospel, or the "man who lived on a deserted island" and was never told about Jesus. Is salvation possible for these people apart from Christ? Will God reveal himself to this person in a different way? Will this person be judged according to the same standards as people who have heard the gospel? Is this situation addressed anywhere in scripture?This is a classic question. It actually occurs in a much bigger theological debate concerning the extent of salvation: Who is going to heaven? What about sincere people of other religious faiths? This is a more complicated question than you asked, though, so I’ll dodge it in order to get to the specific topic you raised. I am assuming, then, that we agree that those who knowingly reject the gospel are doomed, and that salvation is only in Jesus Christ.
But what about those who have not had an opportunity to reject Christ? What about people who have lived and died in false religious systems without ever hearing the name of Jesus? What about a guy who lived on a deserted island his whole life, without any religious influences? Can these people (who do not knowingly reject Christ) be saved by a more primitive faith in the Creator?
I tend to think they can be, but let me highlight both sides on this, and give some critical Bible passages to support each position.
A standard passage used to defend this is Romans 1:
For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. (Rom. 1:18-20; NASB)
In this passage, Paul argues that there is enough of God revealed in the creation to hold pagans accountable for their sexual perversion, even pagans who never had the truth that Israel possessed. If there is enough of God revealed in the creation to condemn people (who didn’t have the scriptures), then it seems as though there would be enough of Him revealed there to save people as well, if those people responded to the Creator and lived in obedience to His natural design. Paul doesn’t bring this idea into his argument explicitly (it would be extraneous to his point), but notice in Rom 2:5-8 where he highlights both options--those who live perversely and are condemned, and those who live uprightly and are saved. This passage focuses on the evidence of faith, not its content. (In other words, it’s not so important how much truth you possess, but how you live in connection with what you do know.) What Paul is doing in Romans 2 is debated, though. I feel confident that Paul would allow at least the possibility of salvation apart from the law in ancient times, though he would probably remark that he wouldn’t know if anyone was actually saved in that way. So, following Romans 1, I think we might say that the savage on the deserted island could (in theory) be saved, but probably no one actually (apart from God’s special revelation in scripture) ever has been.
Along these same lines, let me refer you to Luke 12:47-48, where Jesus makes it clear that judgment is a function of what a person knows. Those who do wrong but are ignorant of it are not accountable the same way as people who commit sins intentionally. This is a principle taught throughout the Bible. It suggests that the person who never hears about Jesus will only be held accountable for what they do know. Remember also that people in the Old Testament were saved on the basis of their faith (see Gen 15:6), even though they did not know about Jesus Christ specifically. The critical issue seems to be trusting in whatever truth one possesses about God, not in possessing a complete truth. This is also how children get into the kingdom, isn’t it?
This is the contrary position, and it has some things in its favor. Realize that while this seems unfair to us (that some people are born in conditions where they might not hear about Jesus), it’s still the case that God ultimately decides who will be saved and who will not be. (See my write-up on predestination on the "theological questions" page.) So it’s not so much a question of fairness as it is of God’s plan. This may not make you feel any better about it, though!
A couple of verses suggest that what brings condemnation is not that a person does not have enough faith, or that they did not obey what they knew, but rather that they specifically did not trust in Jesus. The reason is irrelevant--whether they didn’t hear, or whether they heard and rejected. Either way, there is no way to apply Jesus’ atoning work to their lives. Here’s a verse:
"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 only begotten Son of God." (John 3:18; NASB)
Notice that Jesus is saying that what brings judgment is a failure to believe in His name. He does not allow for people who believe in God but leave Him out. Another interesting passage is in Romans 10:
How then shall they call upon Him in whom they have not believed? And how shall they believe in Him whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear without a preacher? . . . So faith comes from hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ. But I say, surely they have never heard, have they? Indeed they have; "Their voice has gone out into all the earth, and their words to the ends of the world." (Rom 10:14, 17-18; NASB)
In this passage, Paul is arguing that saving faith is derived from a proclamation of Christ, which leaves Israel without excuse for their rejection of Him. It is implied that one cannot believe unless one hears the gospel. It is also implied that there is no other name which can save (see Acts 4:12 on this also). Paul also rejects the excuse that they haven’t heard the gospel (since most Jews would have lived outside of Judea even in the first century), since the gospel has gone out to the ends of the world.
This position isn’t as compelling as the former, though, since Paul and Jesus are not considering the strange case of people who live without any connection to the proclamation of Christ or the Law at all. The Bible is singularly concerned with people who are confronted with the truth and either accept it or reject it. What this suggests, in the final analysis, is that we can’t be sure about the guy on the deserted island. I have some reason to think that people like that could be saved (for reasons highlighted in position 1, above), but I don’t know if (in reality) anyone ever trusts in the Creator without knowing something more about Him than His handiwork. But I think I have to say that it is theoretically possible, and God will sort it out with justice on the final day. (This is wisdom, not a cop-out!)