>>689961
>The typical response may be, "Well those who don't know the Gospel will be saved out of ignorance." Well then, why even spread the Gospel in the first place if they were already saved?
>It might be responded, "Well then not even ignorance saves a person, they must know the Gospel and accept Christ to be saved, ignorant or not."
Your two positions are extremes that are both wrong.
People who do not know the gospel may be saved through a reception of extraordinary grace from god, which they would then need to cooperate with to the best of their ability given their ignorance.
The key is that anyone saved outside of knowing the gospel would be an extraordinary case. It's rare, and isn't defined as to what this extraordinary grace would look like. You cannot assume a person has received the extraordinary grace necessary for salvation just on account of their ignorance.
Thus, it is most rational to spread the gospel, because following the methods given to us in divine revelation, we have an assured method for attaining salvation.
A person who would have been saved on account of extraordinary grace who encounters the gospel would doubtlessly accept it, thus being nothing more than a boon for him, as he now can be even closer to the unknown god that he had loved anyway.
>So then, why doesn't God just reveal Christianity to everyone?
well, he did make sure that christianity was born in palestine…so that it could spread to the greeks…who taught the romans…who became the forefathers of the modern europeans…who took it to every savage on earth with their various empires.
The only peoples on earth who still fall under russel's expectations are the small villages of uncontacted tribes…who for all we know, may indeed experience extraordinary graces from time to time (doubtful, though…most uncontacted tribes are exceedingly violent and sexually degenerate).