What About Those Who Never Heard The Gospel?

In a previous article, I went over how Jesus is the only Way to heaven. Despite presenting various reasons for this being the truth, some may still object. Unless the evidence isn’t convincing to them (in which case, we may have to rearticulate our reasons), why would somebody continue to deny Jesus being the only way to salvation?

In a publication called “Politically Incorrect Salvation” (hyperlink) by Christian Philosopher, Dr. William Lane Craig, he identifies what he believes to be the root problem nonbelievers have with Jesus being the only way:

“The problem seems to be that the existence of an all-loving and all-powerful God seems incompatible with the claim that persons who do not hear and embrace the gospel of salvation through Christ will be damned. Closer analysis reveals the problem to be counterfactual in nature: God could not condemn persons who, though freely rejecting God’s sufficient grace for salvation revealed through nature and conscience, would have received His salvific grace mediated through the gospel.” - Craig, "Politically Incorrect Salvation"

Before unpacking this problem, let us first work through the various alternate issues nonbelievers contend with in disagreeing with Christian Particularism. This will be a summary of the work Dr. Craig has done in “Politically Incorrect Salvation”. For a quick answer to this question, please click here.

An all-loving God would never send people to hell!

This is an objection that appears on the internet frequently. However, Dr. Craig doesn’t think this is the real problem that nonbelievers have with Christian Particularism. Since the God of the Bible is in question by the nonbeliever, we are within our intellectual rights to turn to the Bible to support our case.

Scripture makes it very clear in both the Old and New Testaments that God’s will and desire is that all people should be saved, and not perish! Starting with the New Testament, we read in 2 Peter 3:9 by the Apostle Peter:

“The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance.” - 2 Peter 3:9 ESV

Some may object by saying, “but that’s the New Testament God, what about the Old Testament God who was full of wrath?” Now, there’s plenty to be said about God being the same in both periods of time and Scripture teaches that God is everlasting and unchanging.

For the time being, however, let us review two passages from both the Old and New Testaments supporting God as unchanging. In Malachi 3:6 from the Old Testament we read:

“For I the LORD do not change; therefore you, O children of Jacob, are not consumed.” - Malachi 3:6 ESV

Then, in the New Testament from Hebrews 1:12 it says:

“You will fold them up like a cloak and discard them like old clothing. But you are always the same; you will live forever.” - Hebrews 1:12 ESV

Nonetheless, you still may hear the objection that the God of the Old Testament was not as “loving” as the God of the New Testament after presenting them these two passages. If this is the case, we can present Ezekiel 33:11-12 where we read:

“Say to them, ‘As surely as I live, declares the Sovereign LORD, I take no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but rather that they turn from their ways and live. Turn! Turn from your evil ways! Why will you die, people of Israel?’ Therefore, son of man, say to your people, ‘If someone who is righteous disobeys, that person’s former righteousness will count for nothing. And if someone who is wicked repents, that person’s former wickedness will not bring condemnation. The righteous person who sins will not be allowed to live even though they were formerly righteous.’” - Ezekiel 33:11-12 ESV

Therefore, from these three passages, we can see God does not want people to perish. Instead, He draws people to Himself by His grace. The drawing to God, however, does not guarantee the acceptance of God. As free beings, we are free to make the well-informed decision to accept or reject Christ. Therefore, nobody is sent to hell by God; people instead send themselves.

As an illustration, do you die from a disease because you didn’t go to the doctor? Not necessarily! It’s the disease that kills, not the lack of visiting the doctor. Would going to the doctor help cure you? Possibly, but you could have still died from the disease even if you went to the doctor.

In the same way, people aren’t sent to hell merely because they aren’t Christians (have faith in Jesus). They go to hell because they have sinned, and sin is the disease that kills. Hell is the just punishment for sins. Since God is perfectly Just (which makes Him perfectly Loving), He cannot allow sin to go unpunished. With this being said, people can certainly avoid going to hell by going to the Great Physician (Jesus), just as sick people can avoid dying from their illness by seeing a doctor.

At this point, it’s worth clarifying what hell actually is according to Scripture versus what the culture has made it out to be. Hell is not a place full of fire with a red monster with horns on his head – that is fiction. Hell is simply this, the separation from God. If people choose to be separate from God in this life, God surely will not force them to be with Him in eternity – He does not force free beings against their will. Otherwise, they wouldn’t be free beings, and a loving God respects your choice to be with Him or not.

Therefore, we should not say that God is the one who sends people to hell, for that would imply that he makes us sin (which is the precursor to being in hell). As we read in James 1:13-16:

“Let no one say when he is tempted, ‘I am being tempted by God,’ for God cannot be tempted with evil, and He himself tempts no one. But each person is tempted when he is lured and enticed by his own desire. Then desire when it has conceived gives birth to sin, and sin when it is fully grown brings forth death. Do not be deceived, my beloved brothers.” - James 1:13-16 ESV

Unfortunately, I have seen people on the internet claim that “hell is going to be a party” or something to the effect that it won’t be that bad. Possibly after hearing it’s merely the separation from God, they may feel reassured in their position. However, in Lee Strobel’s book, “The Case for Faith”, J.P. Moreland (Christian Philosopher and professor at the Talbot School of Theology) is interviewed and gives his insight on hell:

“Make no mistake: hell is punishment – but it’s not a punishing. It’s not torture. The punishment is separation from God, brining shame, anguish, and regret. And because we will have both body and soul in a resurrected state, the misery experienced can be mental and physical. But the pain that’s suffered will be due to the sorrow from final, ultimate, unending banishment from God, his kingdom, and the good life which we were created in the first place. People in hell will deeply grieve all they’ve lost. Hell is the final sentence that says you refused regularly to live for the purpose for which you were made, and the only alternative is to sentence you away for all eternity.” - Lee Strobel, "Case for Faith", pg. 111

Therefore, let us be clear that (1) hell is not a fun place to be and (2) it is a destination reached of humanity’s own doing. As notable Christian apologists and author, C.S. Lewis has said in his book “The Problem of Pain,”

“I willingly believe that the damned are, in one sense, successful, rebels to the end; that the doors of hell are locked on the inside.” - C.S. Lewis, "The Problem of Pain, pg. 130

Why is God so mean?!

You may be thinking, as some have raised in the past, “What if the punishment of hell is so horrific that mere human beings can’t fully understand the consequences of their decision to accept or reject Christ?” In other words, you would be implying that human beings cannot fathom the full scope of what the punishment of hell entails, and therefore, they shouldn’t be held responsible for making such a decision.

It’s also commonly argued that the consequence of sin (eternal punishment in hell) is not a fair punishment for the sinful acts themselves (both “big” and “small”) – making such an action unreasonable.  In other words, why an infinite punishment for finite actions?

What are we to make of these arguments? It seems evident from these objections that the mistake being made is assuming that God’s judgement and the resulting consequence for sin is optional. This implies that God could have chosen a lesser way of handling sin or maybe not have punished for such actions in the first place at all.

There’s a lot to unpack from the objections mentioned above, but the error underneath the objections raised seems clear to me. In that if God were to just simply let all sin go unpunished, that would entail God overlooking the moral evil that was done. If this were to be the case, God’s holiness would be severely compromised, and He would not have the virtue of Justice.

Furthermore, even if God were to decide to pardon everyone and therefore make all fit for heaven, this would result in God forcing those who want nothing to do with Him into His presence (heaven) eternally against their free will – that isn’t loving. Forcing free beings to do something is a logical impossibility, and thus, something God cannot do (more on this later). As Dr. Craig states:

“So long as God respects the human freedom He has bestowed, He cannot guarantee that everyone can be made willing and fit for heaven. Thus, the consequences of sin are not arbitrarily up to God. They follow from the necessity of His moral nature and the character of human agency.” - Craig, "Politically Incorrect Salvation"

This is related to what is commonly referred to as “The Euthyphro Dilemma”. This is found in Plato’s dialogue “Euthyphro”. It essentially states: is a thing good simply because God says it is? Or does God say a thing is good because of some other quality it has? Both questions in this “dilemma” are problematic for the Christian. The first question makes morality arbitrary – God could have said anything is good and it would be so (such as rape, or harming babies).

The latter implies God is not the standard of morality and instead He appears to be at the mercy of an outside standard – something other than Him in which goodness comes from. If this were true, whatever this goodness is, would be above God.

Many philosophers have wrestled with this dilemma in the past and have found a third option that can be presented. Namely, it is that God wills something because He is good. God is the standard of goodness, and His will reflects His nature. This is what Dr. Craig is alluding to in his quote above. Something is sinful, not because He says so or because there is a standard higher than Himself, but because it goes against His nature where goodness and the standard of morality is grounded in.

What about the question regarding human beings not able to comprehend the full scope of the punishment for their sins? I don’t believe anybody other than God Himself knows the full horror of hell or the glory of heaven – this is because we are merely finite beings. But from this, it doesn’t logically follow that too heavy of a burden is placed on free beings to make their decision. Even if the entire scope of the infinite loss or infinite gain is not fully known, human beings are nonetheless still given sufficient information and the freedom to make such a decision.

Regarding the punishment for sin not being proportionate with the sinful action itself, I believe this is simply a misunderstanding. The time it takes to commit a crime does not dictate the length of the punishment. It doesn’t take long to commit murder, at least not equivalent to a lifetime (as the punishment in prison can be for such a crime)– which few would argue is an unfair punishment for such an action. Murder may take seconds, but the punishment is much longer.

Why is this the case? I believe it to be the case because human beings have unique value (Genesis 1:27) and that comes with God-given rights – being made in the image of God. Therefore, it’s not so much the act of murder itself that results in such a punishment, but the object on the receiving end of the act.

In the same way, crimes against God, who is infinite, are the most severe and demand eternal punishment because the object sin is committed against is God Himself (Psalms 51:4). The issue then appears to be brought back to the decision we all must make – trust in Jesus for the forgiveness of our sins so we are cleansed before God or face the just punishment for our actions against Him.

Some still may not be satisfied with this response, and I can sympathize with that. However, it’s likely because a major piece of the equation here is being left out! Namely, the amazing grace of God performed specifically through the Holy Spirit. As Dr. Craig points out:

“God has not left us to make this momentous choice on our own; rather it is the work of the Holy Spirit to convict people of sin and righteousness and judgment (John 16:8) and to draw them to Himself (John 6:44). God lovingly solicits and enables the human will to place one’s faith in Christ.” - Craig, "Politically Incorrect Salvation"

While this doesn’t mean it is God who makes the decision for us, it does mean that He has given us the gift of the Holy Spirit to help us freely make such a decision – if we so choose to allow Him to work in us. Therefore, God is ready and willing to equip anyone for salvation, as long as we are receptive to such a gift. Dr. Craig concludes this point with this:

“When someone refuses to come to Christ and be saved, therefore, it is only because he has willfully ignored and rejected the drawing of God’s Spirit on his heart. Therefore, I cannot see that in providing us with the freedom to determine our destiny by deciding for or against Christ, God has placed an unreasonable demand upon us.” - Craig, "Politically Incorrect Salvation"

They just didn't know, that's not fair!

So far, we have seen that the real issue with Christianity being the only way to heaven (Christian Particularism) isn’t an all-loving God sending people to hell, humans not being able to fully comprehend their eternal destiny, or the sin being disproportionate to the punishment. What else can the problem be that some have with Christian Particularism?

Could it be that some think God wouldn’t send people to hell because they were misinformed or uninformed about Jesus? This also doesn’t seem to be the real problem Dr. Craig thinks people have with Christian Particularism. However, it’s worth addressing.

Somebody who responds obediently to the general revelation of God will be presented with the message of salvation through Christ. Let’s unpack this further. God has given everybody what is called “general revelation”. This general revelation is seen in nature and conscience.

From the Old Testament, we see the general revelation of nature displayed in Psalm 19:1-4:

“The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of His hands. Day after day they pour forth speech, night after night they display knowledge. There is no speech or language where their voice is not heard. Their voice goes out into all the earth, their words to the ends of the world.” - Psalm 19:1-4 ESV

Though poetically written, this passage is explaining that God’s existence and power can clearly be seen through observing the created order (the universe). The order, complexity, and awe of creation speaks volumes to the existence of a powerful and glorious Creator.

In the New Testament, we see the general revelation of nature described in Romans 1:20 where the Apostle Paul writes:

“For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities – His eternal power and divine nature – have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.” - Romans 1:20 ESV

Staying in the New Testament, we also see the general revelation of conscience (morality) displayed in Romans 2:15 by the Apostle Paul when he writes of the Gentiles (non-Jews) regarding God’s moral law:

“They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them.” - Romans 2:15 ESV

From this passage, we can conclude that God’s moral law has been given to the Jews (via the Torah) and put on the hearts of non-Jews (Gentiles) – leaving no person without possession of consciousness.

Some philosophers may argue that responding to such general revelation can result in eternal life (Romans 2:7). However, there are two issues I have with this view. First, the Bible makes it very clear (especially in Romans 1:21 and Romans 1:25) that people do not in general live up to even just the mere general revelations provided by God. Secondly, it appears abundantly clear from Scripture that Jesus is essential for salvation – even for those who respond to general revelation obediently (Acts 10:23-48).

God will not supernaturally draw anyone to Himself then deny him the information about Jesus that he needs to respond to God’s movement in his heart. Greg Koukl, President and Founder of Stand To Reason, gives biblical support for this:

“Biblical examples abound. Rahab responded to her rudimentary knowledge of the God of Israel, and God brought the Jewish spies right to her door (Josh. 2:1). Phillip “preached Jesus” to the Ethiopian eunuch who was reading Isaiah on the road to Gaza (Acts 8:26–39). Peter brought “the words by which you will be saved” to the household of Cornelius, the God-fearer (Acts 10:23–48, 11:14). The Lord “opened” Lydia’s heart “to respond to the things spoken by Paul” (Acts 16:14). Each was given the specifics of Christ himself in response to their seeking.” - Greg Koukl, "The Heathen and the Unknown God Part 2"

To be in relationship with God and receive salvation, we must come on God’s terms, and only God can tell us what those terms are. Fortunately, He has told us through His written word (the Bible). This type of revelation (including appearances of God, dreams, visions, and Jesus Himself) are called “special revelation.” The basis of salvation, the common denominator through all the ages, has been man’s expression of active faith in the mercy and the promise of God.

At this point, you may be wondering, “what about those who were in good standing with God before Jesus was born, are they saved?” The answer is a resounding yes! This is because all past Old Testament patriarchs demonstrated trust in the mercy and promise of God. The specific content of this revelation, however, has grown through time. Abraham knew a little, David knew a bit more, the prophets even more, and the apostles (plus you and I through their testimony) were the best informed of all.

Through obedience to the general revelation that is available to all (nature and the moral law), God will reveal Himself according to His will. In fact, today, a person’s response to Jesus serves as an acid test of what somebody really thinks of the Father (John 5:23; John 15:23). Therefore, someone who responds obediently to the general revelation of God will be presented with the message of salvation through Christ.

All this to say, it does not appear that Christian Particularism is undermined merely because God condemns people who weren’t “clearly informed” about Jesus.

The "Walking Bear"

At this point, Dr. Craig proposes that maybe the problem people have with Christian Particularism has to do with God seemingly not bringing the Gospel to people who He knew would accept it if they heard it, even though they reject the general revelation that they have been given.

To illustrate this circumstance, he uses a fictional character named “Walking Bear.” This character is said to have lived somewhere in India prior to Christian missionaries arriving where he lives, and he apparently observes the beauty of nature with great awe – concluding a Creator of the universe exists. He also senses the demands of God’s moral law placed on his heart. However, he eventually twists his worship from the Creator, ignores the moral demands on his heart, and begins worshiping false gods (idols).

Given God provided him with the general revelation and “Walking Bear” freely spurned it, God is not unjust here. However, is God unloving for condemning “Walking Bear?” Is “Walking Bear” just unlucky to not have lived at a time when Christian Missionaries made it to his place of living prior to twisting the revelation he was given? Does this make God not powerful enough to send Christian missionaries to “Walking Bear” sooner? Is this situation not different than supposedly billions of people living today who haven’t heard the Gospel yet (if ever) but would have believed only if they were presented with the Gospel? What are we to make of God’s Justice when it comes to them?

This appears to be the real problem most people have with Christian Particularism. Specifically, it seems some think Christian Particularism isn’t consistent in that God being all-powerful and all-loving while also people existing and never hearing the gospel (thus, being lost) is contradictory. Dr. Craig makes note of something very important with this objection:

“But why think that these two affirmations are inconsistent? After all, there’s no explicit contradiction between them. So, the post-modernist or universalist [the one raising this objection] must think that these two statements are implicitly contradictory. But in that case there must be some hidden assumptions which need to be surfaced in order to show that these two statements are in fact inconsistent.” - Craig, "Politically Incorrect Salvation"

He then goes on to list the two hidden assumptions that are potentially being raised:

1. If God is all-powerful, then He can create a world in which everybody hears the gospel and is freely saved.

2. If God is all-loving, then He prefers a world in which everybody hears the gospel and is freely saved.

For Christian Particularism to be false given this objection, these two premises must be necessarily true. Are they necessary true? It doesn’t appear to be so, but let’s dive into why this is the case.

Is God strong enough?!

Let us start by tackling the first hidden assumption. Namely, “if God is all-powerful, then he can create a world in which everybody hears the gospel and is freely saved.” I would like to begin my response to this assumption by giving an illustration.

Imagine I hand the strongest person in the world a paper clip and tell him to make it into a square – should be no problem. Then, imagine I ask him to make the paper clip into a circle – this possibly requires a bit more effort but nonetheless easily achievable for this man of such great strength.

Now, however, imagine I ask him to make the paperclip into a square circle. Would he, with all his strength, be able to succeed? Of course not! Even all the steroids in the world wouldn’t be able to help him make a square circle. Why? Because something cannot be a square and a circle at the same time, it’s a logical impossibility.

In the same way, as long as people have free-will, there is no guarantee that all people in the world will freely be saved. Sure, God could use His might to force everybody to repent and eventually be saved, but that would terminate the possession of free-will and can even be considered as Dr. Craig puts it as, “a sort of divine rape.” It is logically impossible to make someone do something freely. This free-will that God has given us, is a good thing! For without it, we lose our ability to share intimacy not only with each other, but also with God Himself.

To illustrate this point, I typically resort to my marriage. My wife genuinely loves me, and I love her just as much back. However, this love was something that came about because she was free to choose to love me, out of the host of other options available to her. If I were to force her to love me against her will, the love we would share wouldn’t even come to close to what it is today? Why? Because with free-will, or the freedom to choose one thing over another, involves trust, commitment, hope, and persistence – all things that cannot be had without freedom. C.S. Lewis makes this point very well in “The Case for Christianity”:

“Why then, did God give them free will? Because free will, though it makes evil possible, is also the only thing that makes possible any love or goodness or joy worth having. A world of automata – of creatures that worked like machines – would hardly be worth creating.” - C.S. Lewis, "Mere Christianity", pg. 52-53

So long as God desires human beings to be free creatures (which is something He chose to do from the beginning), then it logically follows that He therefore cannot make all people freely embrace His salvation. In the case of “Walking Bear,” even if every single person in the world was presented with the gospel, it still can result in people freely rejecting His salvation and thus being lost. From this, we can conclude that hidden assumption number 1 is not necessarily true.

At this point, some may be wondering, “did he just write that there’s something God cannot do?!” Yes, that is correct, and God’s Word does not shy away from talking about what God can’t do either! God cannot act contrary to His own character and nature. In Titus 1:2, the apostle Paul writes:

“In hope of eternal life, which God, who never lies, promised before the ages began.” - Titus 1:2 ESV

From this passage, we can know that God cannot lie. Since He is holy (Isaiah 6:3; 1 Peter 1:16), God cannot sin. Most relevant to the point I’m raising here, because He is just, God cannot merely overlook sin (Habakkuk 1:13; Romans 1:18).

Given we have shown assumption number 1 to be false, the root problem most people have with Christian Particularism has already been invalidated. However, let us tackle hidden assumption number 2 next.

God prefers a world that...

Hidden assumption number 2 states, “if God is all-loving, then He prefers a world in which everybody hears the gospel and is freely saved.” Along with hidden assumption number 1 above, this also doesn’t seem to be necessarily true – let’s unpack this further.

Just because God is all-loving, does that mean he necessarily prefers one of these worlds described in the hidden assumption to be the actual world? It doesn’t seem to be so. Mainly, because these worlds could possibly have over-riding deficiencies in other areas. Dr. Craig gives his thoughts on the matter:

“Suppose, for example, that the only worlds in which everybody hears and believes the gospel are worlds with only a handful of people in them. In any world in which God creates more people, at least one person refuses to receive God’s salvation. Now I ask you: must God prefer one of these radically unpopulated worlds to a world in which multitudes do freely receive His salvation, even though others freely reject it? I think not.” - Craig, "Politically Incorrect Salvation"

As long as God has provided sufficient grace for salvation to all, regardless of the world He creates, He is no less loving for preferring one of the worlds that is more populated and would therefore result in more people freely accepting His salvation. This is true even if it implies that some people will freely reject His gracious offer of salvation and be lost.

Also, as mere finite human beings, it is unreasonable to think we can even come close to knowing the preferences of God – unless He has already revealed it to us. We may think God prefers one thing over another. However, there could be other variables that our finite minds cannot handle or do not have access to understanding, which plays into the preferences of God when choosing to create the actual world from the various possible worlds.

Therefore, both hidden assumptions are not necessarily true which it follows logically then that there is no inconsistency with God being all-powerful and all-loving while also some people never hearing the gospel and being lost.

Wait! There's more...

Dr. Craig doesn’t stop there, however. In his article, he goes even further in showing that it’s actually consistent to affirm Christian Particularism despite some not hearing the gospel and being lost.

As we saw earlier in this article from Ezekiel 33:11-12, God wants as many people as possible to freely be saved while having the least amount of people possible being lost (if they so choose). Therefore, He aims to achieve an optimal balance between the saved and the lost – creating no more of those who are lost than is required to accomplish the highest number of freely saved beings possible.

It’s possible, however, that this world with all its history and the future yet to come, is exactly the world in which that optimal balance is met! To achieve the most people possible that are freely saved, it could be that God also had to create the exact amount of people we see today who reject God and are lost. Even if this is only a possible scenario, it follows that it’s consistent to affirm God being all-powerful and all-loving while also some people never hearing the gospel and being lost.

You might be wondering, “what about those who are lost because they never heard the gospel, but would have been saved only if they would have heard it?” Going back to “Walking Bear,” wouldn’t it be loving of God to at least present him with the gospel to give him a chance? Wouldn’t “Walking Bear” accept salvation if God had only provided the means for him to hear the gospel before twisting the general revelation he did receive? Aren’t all people who don’t hear the gospel in the same boat as “Walking Bear?” Scripture seems to teach that there simply are no such people.

It could very well be that many who never hear the gospel would not have believed even if they would have heard it. Given God is all-knowing, it’s also possible that God has ordered the world in such a way that all people who never hear the gospel are precisely those who would not have believed it even if they had been presented with the Gospel. This concept is also taught in Scripture:

“From one man he has made every nationality to live over the whole earth and has determined their appointed times and the boundaries of where they live. He did this so that they might seek God, and perhaps they might reach out and find him, though he is not far from each one of us.” - Acts 17:26-27 ESV

Even though he knows some will reject the gospel despite every effort to get them to accept it, God still provides His general revelation to them. Thus, God exhibits extraordinary love towards those individuals even though He knows their ultimate decision, so bringing the gospel to them would be of no additional help. Therefore, knowing beforehand who wouldn’t accept the gospel despite every opportunity presented to them, God can arrange the world in such a way where these are the specific people who never hear the gospel.

While ensuring that we maintain our God-given free-will, God is ultimately responsible for who is saved and who is lost as it is He who decrees the circumstances to create as well as where people are placed according to the knowledge He has of what they would choose in every possible circumstance. Here’s how Dr. Craig describes this divine sovereignty of God:

“But this is simply a description of divine sovereignty, and I take it to be a positive, biblical feature of this account that it affirms a strong doctrine of divine sovereignty. At the same time, it affirms that in whatever circumstances people find themselves, God wills their salvation, and by the Holy Spirit He supplies sufficient grace for their salvation, and those persons are entirely free to embrace this salvation. Should they reject God’s every effort to save them, it is they, not God, who are responsible in the sense of being culpable.” - Craig, "Politically Incorrect Salvation"

This solution that Dr. Craig has raised in his article and the one that I am summarizing here is only a possible solution. However, given it is possible, the idea that it is a logical impossibility that God being all-powerful and all-loving as well as people never hearing the gospel and being lost is not valid.

References:

C.S. Lewis, "The Problem of Pain", pg. 130

C.S. Lewis, "Mere Christianity", pg. 52-53

Greg Koukl, "The Heathen and the Unknown God Part 2", Stand To Reason,  https://www.str.org/w/the-heathen-and-the-unknown-god-part-2?p_l_back_url=%2Fsearch%3Fq%3DThose%2Bwho%2Bnever%2Bheard

Lee Strobel, "Case for Faith", pg. 111

William Lane Craig, "Politically Incorrect Salvation", Reasonable Faith, https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/scholarly-writings/christian-particularism/politically-incorrect-salvation