The Bible says little or nothing, but most Protestants believe that such people are not fully accountable for sin, and hence are not separated from God in the first place.
IOW, there is no scriptural basis for such a belief. Wishful thinking?
Catholics believe that they have inherited sin from Adam and will spend eternity in a state called limbo ("the edge"), where they lack the joys of Heaven but are not punished for sin.
Looks like they don't see an out for babies. At least they're not tortured forever.
2. Those to whom the Gospel is never preached, or who, due to prior prejudice or misinformation, are unable to understand it when they hear it.
Be careful what you say about this case.
What is this, how to talk to a Universalist?
My opinion is the following (and you are welcome to disagree):
a. It is possible for a non-Christian to realize his need for God's mercy and seek it.
Again, he can't find it in scripture. But scripture clearly says you are bound for Hell from the beginning and ONLY free will acceptance keeps you out.
b. In my opinion, God will not turn away people who seek His mercy, even if their understanding of Him is vague and they lack historical knowledge of Christ.
By his own admission, he has no scriptural basis for saying that. Matter of fact, it goes against the claim that all humans are bound for Hell unless they have accepted Christ.
You can't have it both ways.
Ken God can save who he wants whether you agree with him or not. Would you rather he pick 8 people and drown the rest ? Would that be more fair in your eyes ?
You need a savior, like it or not. You know the gospel message and are therefore fully accountable, like it or not. You have rejected that message and like it or not, the bible is very clear about those who reject the message.
If you hear wavering from me and others about those who do not hear the message its because the bible is not clear about the issue and there are many cases in old testament law where a person is not accountable when an act is done in ignorance. However, whether God condemns those who never hear or not, still doesn;t make him less than God or make his revealed plan false.
God never checked with others in Noah's time. He never cleared his plan with the residents of Saddam and Gomorrah. He never cleared his plan with you and that seems to make you really angry about it. Why do you reject him ?
Joh 13:18 "I am not referring to all of you; I know those I have chosen. But this is to fulfill the scripture: 'He who shares my bread has lifted up his heel against me.'
Who are the chosen? Very simply they are the "us" that Paul refers to in the verse surrounding this one. Rom 8:31,32"If God is for us, who can be against us? He who did not spare his own Son, but gave him up for us all-- how will he not also, along with him, graciously give us all things?" Rom 8:33,34 "Who is he that condemns? Christ Jesus, who died-- more than that, who was raised to life-- is at the right hand of God and is also interceding for us. Who shall separate us from the love of Christ?"
The elect is a category of people - the believers in Christ. Everyone in this category is the "elect" of whom Paul speaks. That is what the context indicates. It is not a mysterious or unknown group. Peter also speaks who they are, saying: "But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people belonging to God." 1Pe 2:9 The chosen are the "you" he is addressing. And the apostle John even speaks to individuals, knowing their "elect" status - 2Jo 1:1 "To the chosen lady and her children" As does Paul, Ro 16:13 "Greet Rufus, chosen in the Lord."
So on a categorical basis, we can view "election" as an elevator named "believers in Christ" predestined to go up. But on an individual basis we can view it as God foreknowing who would chose to get on the elevator and therefore being chosen according to God's foreknowledge.
The difference between categorical and individual election is that for individual election one can speak of being "elect" but not yet saved.
Since once-elect, always elect, and since the elect are the believers - the redeemed - the saved - the one's born of God, therefore, once a person enters into such a category, they will remain and go on to glory. And this is in accordance with God's foreknowledge. Predestination implies Eternal Security. Ro 8:29 "For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the likeness of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers."
Eph 1:11-13 "In him we were also chosen, having been predestined according to the plan of him who works out everything in conformity with the purpose of his will, in order that we, who were the first to hope in Christ, might be for the praise of his glory. And you also were included in Christ when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation. Having believed, you were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit."
Predestination for salvation is only spoken of in the context of faith in Christ. What I mean is that Biblical predestination cannot be used as a basis to support the idea that some are predestined to be saved apart from faith in Christ - like through infant baptism. Notice also the order of salvation presented here.
This verse refers to the unbeliever's condemnation and murder of Christ. How was God involved in this process. Was he simply a puppet master who murdered Christ through his puppet like control of the unbelievers?
Indeed that popular Calvinist reformer, Zwingli views God as the cause of all human sin. Even those of a Reformed Theology note this: "Zwingli's understanding of predestination as indistinguishable from providence, logically inclines him to the conclusion that God is the cause of human sin." Though Calvin himself objected to this line of reasoning saying, "Our adversaries load us with illiberal and disgraceful calumny, when they cast it in our teeth that we make God the author of sin, by maintaining that his will is the cause of all things that are done." And also saying, "removing as I do from God all the proximate cause of the act in the Fall of man, I thereby remove from him also all the blame of the act leaving man alone under the sin and the guilt" But much of his theology simply doesn't hold to this idea, such as the idea of people being reckoned guilty even before they commit any act of sin.If you take into account God's foreknowledge of how people would respond to circumstances, then much of the way which God brought about this sacrifice of atonement makes sense. God wanted an event to occur. Yet he didn't force it outright in puppet like fashion, but from his foreknowledge fashioned a plan using his counsel (which is the word "will" here). This is not unlike people who have knowledge of how people react to things and manipulate the circumstances so as to bring out a desired result. But of course God having perfect knowledge eliminates all possibility of failure, while at the same time not forcing people to kill Christ.
Look at Jesus' behavior in the gospels. He behaved in such a way, stepping on the pride of the religious leaders, that it was inevitable that he would be crucified. He need not control the outcome as if a puppet master. Thus God is innocent of the blood of Christ. He simply placed him, as a willing sacrifice, in circumstances that would lead to his death, being brought about by sinners who were not directly being controlled by God.