"RS: We are not judging God. We are merely accepting God’s testimony that he is a fair and just God and does not lie, and we make our subsequent conclusions on that basis."

DF: God is fair and just, but He says nowhere in scripture that an unrighteous, depraved, fallen sinner, can be saved by general revelation or by looking looking at nature. If fact, he says they ARE WITHOUT EXCUSE. The gospel is the power of God unto salvation.

RS: Read Romans 2:6-8 or Romans 2:14 again. In the latter, St. Paul says that some men disobey and some men “do instinctively the things of the law.” It is these same men who obey that , in vr. 13, are said to be “justified by their works.” Don, your problem is that you’ve already decided that you must exclude these passages from your understanding of how God works in salvation. Instead of believing that God wants to save the Amazon and is waiting for him to “do instinctively the things of the law,” you claim that God put him in the Amazon precisely because he doesn’t want to save him. That is a perversion of both God and salvation. 

RS: Read Romans 2:13-16:

DF: I read it, but using the analogy of scripture look at Gal 2:16--" knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law but by faith in Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, that we might be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law; for by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified"

RS: This is another problem you have, Don. You make your favorite verses rule out the ones that don’t fit into your preconceived theology, instead of trying to see the truth of both verses. Galatians 2:16 is not talking about people who don’t hear the Gospel, but people who have, namely, the Jews. Romans 2:13-15 is talking about Gentile men who have not had the Gospel preached to them as the Jews have, but who still can be justified by doing what the law requires.

DF: How can a unregenerate be born again? John 3 says you MUST be born again.

RS: God’s grace does it, and he can apply it any way he wishes.

RS: As with most Protestants, you take this scripture out of context. It is Romans 10:17. The context, beginning in verse 16, concerns the Jews who actually heard the Gospel but refused to obey it. In other words, the Gospel came to them by the word of Christ, verbally and directly, but they refused to listen. The verse is NOT teaching that someone must hear the Gospel in order to be saved. In fact, Paul directly answers and defeats your argument about general revelation, since in verse 18 he says that the Gospel was not only preached to the Jews directly by the word of Christ, but also, in Paul’s quote from Psalm 19:4 (“into all the earth went their voice, and to the ends of the world their words”), it was preached to them by the very creation of God as seen in the cosmos, not merely the actual preached word. According to Paul, both are sufficient to bring the message of God. One does so directly, the other indirectly.

DF: It's referring to the Israel. Yes, they heard the gospel but they rejected it. As for Psalm 19:4 that is a stretch to say the creation is the same as preaching the gospel, the Atonement, being regenerate, Born Again, Justified, sanctified, glorified,  adopted as Sons of God, etc.

RS: Don, your preconceived idea about the Gospel is now denying the very Scripture passage that says the creation is used of God to bring the message of God’s existence and the possibility for salvation. Go read Romans 10:18 again. It says that the Jews “heard” the “word of God” by the fact that God made the creation.  It’s the same thing that Paul says in Romans 1:18-20 and Romans 2:6-8 and 13-15.

DF: So if a man that doesn't know Christ, the gospel, hasn't been regenerated, is lost, living in the flesh can be saved, then there are two ways of salvation. The Cross and nature. If that's the case, Christ did not have to die, all one has to do is look at nature, hug a tree and worship whatever he thinks is the thing to worship. They do not have saving faith, and worship or works without faith is sin.

RS: Don, you haven’t been listening to me. I’ve never said there were two ways of salvation. I’ve made it very clear to you that anyone who is saved is saved by Christ’s atonement and nothing else. Let me say it again. The Gospel comes directly and indirectly, that is, by direct preaching and also indirectly by the creation; man’s conscience; and the law written on his heart by God. In whatever way the message comes to man, and whatever way he comes to repentance, it is Christ alone who saves him.

RS: They are in hell because THEY refused God, not because God arbitrarily decided not to give them the same opportunity to be saved. Scripture NEVER teaches that people are in hell because God didn’t give them the same opportunity to be saved. If you know of one, be sure to let me know.

DF: No, and God desiring all to be saved, is not talking about all without exception, and you know it. If God DESIRED all without exception to be saved, all would be and hell would be empty.

RS: There you go again, Don. Since 1 Timothy 2:4 (“God desire all men to be saved”) doesn’t fit into your preconceived theology, you claim that it doesn’t mean what it says it means, just like all Calvinists. Unfortunately for you, there is no passage that says God desired to save only some but the rest he didn’t desire to save. Or can you find me such a passage, Don? The missing piece in your theology is free will. With man’s free will to reject God, God can desire him to be saved but will not intrude upon his free will to reject God if the man so chooses. You need to get rid of your Calvinism, Don. It’s making you distort and ignore Scriptures you don’t like.

RS; But that is not what free will is.....

DF: Come on Robert, WHAT free will? We are all born under a death sentence. What's free about that? The only "free will" we have is to be able to act according to our essence and nature, which is a child of wrath and at enmity with God, until the Holy Spirit enables us to believe.

RS: Right, the Holy Spirit enables us to believe. We couldn’t do it without his prompting grace. But the decision to act on the Holy Spirit’s grace is from the gift of free will that the same Holy Spirit gave us. That’s what Scripture says, Don. It is constantly asking man to exercise his free will and accept God.

RS: Whatever. The point remains: all men are under the curse of sin and death from Adam and need salvation from Christ in order to be saved. You were implying that I don’t believe that.

DF: I'm not implying that, that's what you said. How in the world can someone who never heard the gospel, is at enmity with God, doesn't know Christ, be regenerated by hugging a tree? All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. The wages of sin is death. All die, therefore all have sinned. Without the Holy Spirit regenerating a person, they are lost, and you can't tell me our native can be regenerated. If so, show me scripture.

RS: I’ve already shown them to you but you don’t want to listen to them (Romans 1:18-20; 2:6-8; 2:13-15; 10:18). Like all Calvinists, you relegate these passages to the hypothetical and, in reality, you make St. Paul a liar.

DF: General revelation cannot save, but only further condemn. God hates sin, and the lost, unregenerate is sin. Looking at the trees won't do it.

RS: That’s right. Hugging trees never saved anyone. Only Christ saves. The tree merely shows the man that Christ made the tree and thus Christ requires his honor and obedience. Otherwise, how could he “be without excuse,” as you claimed earlier, Don? Obviously, even in your own truncated theology the man recognizes God’s existence by the fact that he can hug a tree that God made, since you say that that same man now has no excuse for knowing that God’s exists. You’re only problem is that you won’t let that same men repent and do the things God requires, but Paul says otherwise.

RS: Right, regeneration is from the Spirit of God who does the regeneration after man accepts God by faith when he sees his handiwork in the cosmos. That’s Paul’s argument in Romans 10:18.

DF: And HOW can a man, before being regenerated, while in the flesh, while still a child of wrath, at enmity with God, "accept" God? You are attributing to fleshly man, something that is impossible for him to perform. God regenerates, THEN the person is able to have faith. Like John 3:27 says, or 1 cor 4:7 states, all gifts our from above. And of course, Heb 12:2 says that God is the AUTHOR AND FINISHER OF OUR FAITH. We must be enabled to believe or we are lost.

RS: And I’ve said the same thing about a half dozen times to you already – we must be enabled to believe. Go back and read my posts about God’s prompting grace.

DF: It's not whether the fallen man accepts God, but the point is does God accept the sinner?

RS: According to Paul in Romans 2:13-14, there are some whom God does accept.

DF: Robert, this could go on and on and we are not going to agree. That's fine. I will finish your study of Romans and will enjoy it. I'll try not to start anymore arguments.

Peace

Don Fahrenkrug

RS: I hope you enjoy the rest of the study. Just remember one thing, Don: ALL Scripture is given for teaching, correction, training and service. When you find that your interpretation of one Scripture conflicts with your interpretation of another, then you are on the wrong track. Making Romans 2 hypothetical and, in turn, making Romans 3 the only reality, is not good exegesis. It will lead to a distorted view of both God and Scripture, as well as QCM.

Final Response:

Robert, I will indeed enjoy the rest of the bible study. I agree that scripture cannot contradict scripture and we have to be careful to keep things in context.

I've read some commentaries that make Romans 2 hypothetical,  and that's because they don't want to face head on Romans 2:6-10.

I pray that you and your family are doing well.

Don Fahrenkrug

R. Sungenis: Don, glad you think that way about Romans 2. That's a start in the right direction.

God be with you.

DF: I don't need to delete Romans 1 & 2. And I did read your comments.  Who are we to judge whether God is fair or not?

RS: We are not judging God. We are merely accepting God’s testimony that he is a fair and just God and does not lie, and we make our subsequent conclusions on that basis.

DF: No where in Scripture does it say General Revelation is enough to save someone. It is enough to condemn someone further, because they are without excuse for suppressing the truth. I think of evolutionists, who stick to their dogma and really do suppress the truth that the universe was created and didn't just happen.

RS: Read Romans 2:13-16:

13 For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified. 14 When Gentiles who have not the law do by nature what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15 They show that what the law requires is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness and their conflicting thoughts accuse or perhaps excuse them. 16 on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus.

Verse 13 says that the doers of the law will be justified (saved), and then Paul uses the Gentiles who obey the law (“do by nature what the law requires”) as examples of those who are doers of the law and will be justified because of their obedience. 

DF: You cannot be saved without faith, and faith comes by hearing and hearing by the preaching of the Word, as Romans points out.

RS: As with most Protestants, you take this scripture out of context. It is Romans 10:17. The context, beginning in verse 16, concerns the Jews who actually heard the Gospel but refused to obey it. In other words, the Gospel came to them by the word of Christ, verbally and directly, but they refused to listen. The verse is NOT teaching that someone must hear the Gospel in order to be saved. In fact, Paul directly answers and defeats your argument about general revelation, since in verse 18 he says that the Gospel was not only preached to the Jews directly by the word of Christ, but also, in Paul’s quote from Psalm 19:4 (“into all the earth went their voice, and to the ends of the world their words”), it was preached to them by the very creation of God as seen in the cosmos, not merely the actual preached word. According to Paul, both are sufficient to bring the message of God. One does so directly, the other indirectly.

DF: Your tribal man is in the natural state of the flesh, and the flesh cannot please God. In fact, the natural man not only has no ability to come to God, he is at enmity with God and is, by nature, a child of wrath. Eph 2:1-5

RS: Granted, but when God gives him grace to respond, as is apparently the case of the man in Romans 2:4-16, then the man can fight the natural tendencies of his flesh and begin to please God.

DF: Yes, a few gentiles joined Israel and were saved, but the gentile nations were not chosen by God. They were left in their paganism.

RS: Yes, but we are not talking about the nations at large but about individuals from those nations who fit the description of Romans 2:13-15. To claim that no individuals from those nations were saved without coming to Israel is not information the Scripture gives you.

DF: God doesn't gave the same opportunity to all,

RS: Not according to Scripture:

1 Timothy 2:3-4: “This is good, and it is acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.”

Romans 2:9-11:  There will be tribulation and distress for every human being who does evil, the Jew first and also the Greek, but glory and honor and peace for every one who does good, the Jew first and also the Greek. For God shows no partiality.

DF: since some are in hell.

RS: They are in hell because THEY refused God, not because God arbitrarily decided not to give them the same opportunity to be saved. Scripture NEVER teaches that people are in hell because God didn’t give them the same opportunity to be saved. If you know of one, be sure to let me know.

DF: Faith is a gift. If all without exception were given that gift, then why do some accept and some do not? If the difference is in the individual, then the one that accepts would have something to boast about, which contradicts scripture--1 Cor 4:7.

RS: No, because once again, you are taking Scriptures out of context and making illogical conclusions based on preconceived ideas. This is the perennial problem with most Protestant interpretations. Yes, faith is a gift, but that truth says nothing about how one acquires the gift. If he acquires it by a decision of his free will in cooperation with God’s moving grace (as opposed to your belief that God just gives it to him without the man’s cooperation), it is still a “gift” either way, because free will doesn’t mean that one is earning anything from God or that he can boast that God owes him something. Boasting involves the idea that one has God under contract and that God is obligated to give. But that is not what free will is. It means we respond to God’s grace, and if we respond positively, God still doesn’t owe us anything. Rather, he gives it to us by his intrinsic benevolence and good will. If we respond negatively and refuse the gift of faith, then, of course, God has no option but to send that individual to hell.

DF: John 3:27: "John answered and said, “A man can receive nothing unless it has been given to him from heaven."

RS: Certainly. But what is given from heaven can also be refused by someone on earth. THAT is why people go to hell. Not because God didn’t give him the same thing he gave someone else.

DF: Or James 1:17--"Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and comes down from the Father of lights, with whom there is no variation or shadow of turning."

RS: Certainly.

DF: Phil 1:29--" For to you it has been granted on behalf of Christ, not only to believe in Him, but also to suffer for His sake,"

RS: No argument from me.

DF: You say the man can be saved if he does what God requires. And what might that be?

RS: Read Romans 2:13-15. That is your answer.

DF: How can that natural man, dead in trespasses and sin and at enmity with God, the one who is in the flesh and CANNOT please God, that man that is spiritually dead, how can that man do anything toward God?

RS: He can do so after God gives him the grace to do so. The problem I see here, Don, is that you have imbibed the Calvinistic “total depravity” presupposition, and do not believe that God gives prompting grace to the man who is dead in trespasses and sins. But the Catholic Church teaches that God gives all man actual grace to respond to him, but prior to that actual grace he is absolutely dead in trespasses and sins and cannot respond. From that prompting grace, man decides with his free will whether he will respond positively or negatively, and his decision will determine his eternal destiny. This is covered in the Council of Trent, Session 6, Chapters 4-5.

DF: 1 Cor 2:14--"But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned."

RS: That’s right. The “natural man” must be prompted by the grace of God in order to respond.

“RS: Has nothing to do with what we are talking about, since I never said the Amazon was not under condemnation for sin.”

DF: It's not the Amazon, but the people who are under condemnation. I assume that's what you meant.

RS: Whatever. The point remains: all men are under the curse of sin and death from Adam and need salvation from Christ in order to be saved. You were implying that I don’t believe that.

DF: Romans 2:13-15--for not the hearers of the law are just in the sight of God, but the doers of the law will be justified; 14 for when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do the things in the law, these, although not having the law, are a law to themselves, 15 who show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and between themselves their thoughts accusing or else excusing them)"

And the law saves no one, according to Paul in Galatians.

RS: Again, you are taking things out of context, or, even worse, conflating texts that are talking about two different things. In Galatians, Paul is teaching that the law, in and of itself, cannot save anyone (Galatians 3:10-11). No argument from me or the Catholic Church. Canon 1 of Trent says the same: “If anyone shall say that man can be justified before God by his own works which are done either by his own natural powers, or through the teaching of the Law, and without divine grace through Christ Jesus: let him be anathema.” But Paul also teaches that works done under the grace of God are rewarded by grace, not law. This is precisely what he teaches in…

Romans 2:6-8: “For he will render to every man according to his works: to those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life; but for those who are factious and do not obey the truth, but obey wickedness, there will be wrath and fury.”

 And the same in James 2:21-24:

“Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he offered his son Isaac upon the altar? You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by works, and the scripture was fulfilled which says, "Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness"; and he was called the friend of God. You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.”

DF: A person that never heard the gospel would not know Christ or the gospel.

RS: Granted, but that doesn’t mean he can’t be saved. You are still working under your unproven premise from Romans 10:17, the one you took out of context.

DF: Regeneration is NOT by looking at nature.

RS: Right, regeneration is from the Spirit of God who does the regeneration after man accepts God by faith when he sees his handiwork in the cosmos. That’s Paul’s argument in Romans 10:18.

DF: We can speculate or wish, or hope God saves without means, but that isn't what the scriptures teach.

RS: Right, the means is the Holy Spirit, the Person who goes where He wills without us necessarily knowing how he does so and when he does so (John 3:8: “The wind blows where it wills, and you hear the sound of it, but you do not know whence it comes or whither it goes; so it is with every one who is born of the Spirit.”)

DF: How does the lost man, by nature a child of wrath, know about the Atonement or even care about it? Those things are spiritually discerned and CANNOT be understood by the natural man.

RS: By God’s prompting grace.

DF: There is no scripture whatsoever that says regeneration can occur to someone who knows nothing about Christ, nothing about the gospel, and is at enmity with God.

RS: So Paul’s is speaking about men in Romans 2:6-8 who obey and are rewarded with eternal life, and he believes they do so without being regenerated?? And he also speaks about the same man being “justified by works” in Romans 2:13, and says this is the same man who obeyed his conscience in doing God’s will in verses 14-15, but he gets this justification without being regenerated?? You need to read all of Scripture, Don, not just the passages that give you one side of the story without the other side. Scripture needs to be read in context, not proof-texts.

Don,

Thanks for the discussion, but you should read what I say more carefully. See my comments below.

Robert

Buy Robert, my friend, God is not obligated to save anyone at all. He does out of his mercy and for his glory.

RS: I never said he was. I said that to be fair and just God gives everyone the same opportunity to be saved.

You are making things up to fit your theology, not going my the Scriptures. The wages of sin is death. All sin and fall short of the glory of God. Therefore, the man in the jungle has sinned and is under a death sentence, unless regenerated.

RS: I never said he wasn't under a death sentence. I said he could be saved just like everyone else if he does what God requires.

Looking at nature is enough to show there is a God that created everything, but general revelation is not enough to save. You can't look at the stars or the trees and come up with the gospel. Nature doesn't tell you that Christ died for your sins, was buried, and raised on the third day. Rather basic stuff.

There are no scriptures whatsoever that say that person that has never heard the gospel can be saved by general revelation. We are not to question God, as Paul stated in Romans. Who in the heck are we to judge God?

RS: According to Paul, you don't need explicit knowledge of Christ to be saved, per his argument in Romans 2:13-15. All one needs is an Atonement provided by Christ, outside of which no one can be saved.

If God put a person in the jungle out of touch with civilization, my guess is he knows what he is doing, and like Acts 17:26 states, he determines when we are born, to what set of parents, and where we will be born.

RS: Putting a person in the jungle has nothing to do with whether he can be saved or not. You are mixing apples and oranges. Paul was merely trying to tell the Athenians that the real God knows and does everything, and they don't need to worship their multitudinous false gods.

Look at the OT. God chose Israel, but let the gentile nations go their condemned way. Was the "unfair" of God? Of course not.

RS: Not really. Romans 2:13-15 says the Gentiles could be saved with the knowledge and conscience they had. By the same token, Paul says that only a remnant of Jews were saved in Israel (Rom 11:5). God was fair to both.

I am correct on all points, and you are incorrect. There are no scriptures that say you can be saved without faith in Christ.

RS: But those Scripture are concerned only with people who actually hear about Christ. Obviously, if they hear about Christ and reject him, then cannot be saved. We are talking about those who don't hear about Christ. Paul is clear that they too can be saved.

According to Augustine, the transmission of Adam's sin was immediate, not mediate. As you know, Romans 5 is clear on that.

RS: Has nothing to do with what we are talking about, since I never said the Amazon was not under condemnation for sin.

You are saying that a person can be saved without Christ,

RS: Nope, never said that. All that are saved are saved by Christ's atonement. There is no other name under heaven by which men are saved.

without any knowledge of the gospel,

RS: Paul says God wrote his laws on their heart (Romans 2:14-15) and by their works they will be justified or condemned (Romans 2:9-13). When the Gospel proper comes with the advent of Jesus Christ, men now have much more of responsibility to repent and do the work of God than those they didn't have the Gospel proper preached to them, but all of them can be saved with what God gave them.

and without being regenerated. Prove it by scripture.

RS: Don't need to prove it by Scripture, since I never said it.

Now, my friend, I know you are a busy fellow and don't have time to argue with me.

RS: I'm in this for the truth, Don. It doesn't matter with whom I argue the points to get to the truth.

I took your bible study because I want the Catholic, Arminian view from the best. And you are the best Catholic Theologian/Apologists in the country, if not the world. So I take your comments seriously and I will continue the study.

RS: Thanks for the compliment! But if you want to take my comments "seriously," then try not to 'read into' them.

If you go by Scripture, I am right and you are wrong on this. This guy in the jungle being saved by general revelation is about as bad as Paragraph 841 that the demonic, false, pagan, violent, bloodthirsty, lunatics and morons that go by the pagan religion of Islam, worship the same God we do. Wrong! They worship a pagan, unknown, and unknowable God. Be worship a Triune God.

RS: You're mixing apples and oranges again. General revelation doesn't save anyone. Christ saves, period. General revelation (Romans 1:18-20) and the conscience and laws written on his heart (Romans 2:14-15) can be used of God to bring him to repentance and justification (Romans 2:4-13), but all is done by, with and through Christ. If that is not true, then I suggest you delete Romans 1 & 2 from your Bible, since you are not paying attention to what Paul says there.

I will try and restrain myself with my comments and enjoy the bible study.

I wish you, your family and your 34 kids a fantastic day.

Sincerely,

Don Fahrenkrug

RS: Wrong again. I have 10 kids! God be with you, Don.

ROBERT:

In Quanto Conficiamur Moerore:  "...God will not permit, in accord with his infinite goodness and mercy, anyone not guilty of a voluntary fault to suffer eternal punishment."

That's a rather interesting statement. What happened to Original Sin? All sin "in Adam," therefore we are all born under a death sentence, including the lost little tribal man in the deepest jungles of the Amazon. No exceptions other than Christ.

If that tribal man can be saved without knowing that Jesus Christ lived, died, was buried and rose on the third day, for the forgiveness of our sins, THEN why did Christ have to die? If this man can be saved by hugging a tree and giving thanks to God for the tree, the Cross was unnecessary.

I would think that the tribal man who has never heard the gospel has ALREADY BEEN JUDGED. According to Acts 17:26:

"and he made of one every nation of men to dwell on all the face of the earth, having determined their appointed seasons, and the bounds of their habitation"

Since God knows "completely, the minds and souls of men, etc..." by Him putting that person in the Amazon, he's been judged; otherwise God would have been him in the United States next door to the Immaculate Conception church, so to speak. But no, he stuck him in the jungle.

On this one I believe the Protestant interpretation is correct. General Revelation can only further condemn, not save.

Don Fahrenkrug

R. Sungenis: Don, take this kindly, but you are incorrect on all counts. First, QCM is not dealing with the topic of Original Sin but with the topic of Actual Sin. Catholic theology must be read in context. Second, yes, there are no exceptions outside of Christ, but this doesn't mean that the man in the Amazon is saved without Christ. Having conscious knowledge about Christ is not the same as being saved by Christ. Third, if one does not have conscious knowledge about Christ the corollary cannot be that Christ died in vain. Christ can apply his atonement to whomever he wishes. Although water Baptism and explicit knowledge of Christ are the normal means, Christ can use extraordinary means, since God is greater than his sacraments and greater than man's predicament of global isolation. If we were dependent on everything being perfect before we received salvation, hardly anyone would be saved. Christ's salvation must work not only through man's sin but also through the consequences of that sin (e.g., that a man in the Amazon may not have had the privilege of actually hearing about Christ in his lifetime). As Jesus said about the sabbath ("the sabbath was made for man, not man for the sabbath") and allowed abnormal circumstances to be remedied on the sabbath (e.g., saving an ox that fell into a ditch), so it is with salvation. Salvation was made for man, not man for salvation. There are abnormal circumstances we confront in this sinful world (e.g., an Amazon who cannot hear the Gospel). But if we allow salvation only for certain candidates (e.g., those that actually hear about Christ) then we make man for salvation, not salvation for man. Fourth, it is incorrect to say that God put the man in the Amazon because he doesn't intend to save him. This is an ex post facto fallacy. Not even Protestant theology teaches that God put him in the Amazon because he doesn't intend to save him. No, the solution is that every man has the opportunity to be saved despite his condition, otherwise God would not be just. God's integrity is at stake here, and thus you can depend upon it that God is fair to everyone, otherwise Christianity isn't worth the paper it's written on. According to Romans 1-2, the Amazon man knows God exists and what God requires of him. QCM is merely saying that if he obeys those requirements, he can have Christ's atonement applied to him and thus have eternal life, regardless whether or not he actually hears of Christ before he dies. That is exactly what we would expect from a fair and rational God. This is why Catholicism has the only answer, since it shows that God is fair and rational, not arbitrary and capricious.