If we say that a person who has never heard the gospel is going to be judged by their works according to the law written on the hearts, is this not contrary to John 14:6?

This text is from a transcript of a talk by David Gooding, entitled ‘God’s Power for Salvation’ (2005).

I'm very grateful to the question here and for the opportunity it gives me to say something, perhaps more distinct than I said before. I am not saying that anybody is saved by their works. People who live in Belfast are not saved by their works. People who live in the jungle are not saved by their works. That is the universal law. We are saved, if we are saved at all, by faith, not by works. That is salvation. What I was talking about is judgment by works. So, let us think together.

The one thing you shouldn't do (and you won't anyway, but I'll remind you) is to take me as though I were the Pope. I'm not saying these things ex cathedra. You should question everything I say, but please, question it by Scripture.

Not saved by works

Look again at those Scriptures that say that people are judged 'by their works'. That is what Scripture says.

So, is that clear? There is a difference between judgment and salvation, isn't there? Judged by your works, you are sinners. You won't dispute it, I think. You are not saved by your works; but you are judged by your works, and you must accept God's judgment on them and of your sinnership and how you can't save yourself. And your only salvation is through the salvation that God has provided, which he gives you free and for nothing. But you are judged by your works. They are judged 'according to their works' (Revelation 20:12). Whether anybody is sent to the lake of fire or not is for a particular reason. It doesn't say that certain people's works, having been judged, were found to be so bad that, of course, they had to be sent to the lake of fire; whereas some people's works that were found to be just a little bit bad (but not all that bad) were allowed into heaven. It doesn't say that. It's very clear that they are judged according to their works, but what determines whether someone is sent to the lake of fire or not? It is whether that person's name is written in the Book of Life or not. It is very clear and very precise (see Revelation 20:11–15).

No other name

Now, I want to answer the second half of this question: 'Is this not contrary to John 14:6?' So, let's look at what John 14:6 says. Here is our Lord speaking:

Jesus said unto him, 'I am the way, and the truth, and the life: no one comes unto the Father, but by me.'

And just to show I sincerely believe it, I can add to that the words the apostle spoke before the Sanhedrin. Shall we look at them? This is Acts 4, and Peter is talking to the Sanhedrin:

be it known unto you all, and to all the people of Israel, that in the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified, whom God raised from the dead, even in him does this man stand here before you whole. He is the stone which was set at nought of you the builders, which was made the head of the corner. And in none other is there salvation: for neither is there any other name under heaven, that is given among men, [whereby] we must be saved. (Acts 4:10–12)

This agrees of course with John 14:6. 'No one comes unto the Father,' says our Lord Jesus, 'but by me.' There is 'no other name given under heaven among men whereby we must be saved.' It is the name of him whom the Jewish rulers crucified: Jesus.

Those who have never heard

That raises what I think this question has at its heart: 'What about those who have never heard of Jesus?' Is it impossible that they should be saved because they have never heard of Jesus, since no one comes to the Father except by him, nor is there 'any other name under heaven whereby we must be saved'?

Now, I am going to give you the answer that I myself believe because, at the moment at least, I am persuaded of it unless you can persuade me of it differently. I say it with bated breath because I am aware of great men of God who would deny what I am about to say. Therefore you must ponder it, and you mustn't accept what I say simply because I say it (as you won't, of course). You must ponder it seriously and come to make up your own mind on it.

There is no name under heaven, other than that of Jesus, by which we must be saved. No one comes to the Father but by him. I want you first to answer these questions to yourself:

Who is Jesus?

Did the one we call Jesus just begin to exist at Bethlehem? Is that what you hold?

Who is this Jesus that died for you at Calvary?

Would you think he began at Bethlehem or would you hold with the Gospel by John that he is 'the word made flesh' (John 1:14)?

You would believe that? I'm glad you do. You would be a heretic if you didn't!

In the beginning was the Word [eternally existent], and the Word was with God and the Word was God. (John 1:1)

It is not that he was God in those days and then ceased to be. He was God. He is God. He was God therefore. And that Word was made flesh without ceasing to be the Word of God. The Bible does not say that 'God died for us' on the cross. But the Bible gives us to understand very clearly that the one who died was God incarnate. And if he wasn't, you and I are not saved of course. It would be impossible for a mere man to bear that load of sin and take away the sin of the world.

'There is no other name given among men whereby we must be saved . . .' The name here is 'Jesus'. I am simply asking you who Jesus was and is.

Case law in Romans

Now, let's look at what Romans is going to tell us emphatically as it holds in front of us the case law on these matters of how we are justified. It is the legal precedent that establishes for all time on what grounds anybody can be justified.

For what says the Scripture? 'And Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned unto him for righteousness.' (Romans 4:3)

Pray notice exactly what it says. It doesn't say, 'Abraham believed God, and the righteousness of Christ was imputed to him.' It doesn't say that, does it? It says, 'Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him for righteousness'. I stress it because some theologians deny it, and they want to read the verse: 'Abraham believed God, and the righteousness of Christ was imputed to him.' That is not what it says. 'Abraham believed God and it was counted to him for righteousness.'

Now, I am going to ask you: was Abraham saved? Was he already justified from that point on? What do you hold? Tell me honestly out of the depths of your heart and conscience. Was Abraham justified at that stage and saved and accepted by God and made ready for heaven? Why doesn't it say, 'And Abraham believed Jesus?' Are you saying, my dear brother, that a man could be saved without believing in Jesus? Or what are you saying? Do you see my point?

Let me put it the other way round. Is it enough for a man to believe God and for it to be counted to him for righteousness? Or has that all gone out of fashion, and it is not enough nowadays?

Now, two further questions to get you thinking. This God that Abraham believed in, was he already a Trinity, or wasn't he? What do you believe about that? Did God become a Trinity when Jesus was born, or were there always three persons in the godhead? Always, you say? Are you telling me that when Abraham believed, the God he believed in was a Trinity?

Second question: did he know that God was a Trinity?

Well, let's leave it doubtful. But Abraham is cited to us by this serious apostle of Christ as the 'case law' that settles for all time on what grounds a man is justified.

Of course, another thing has to be said. It must be said that Jesus who was born of a virgin was the Word incarnate. Anybody who nowadays, having met Jesus (so to speak), who has read of Jesus and knows about him and who would say to you, 'I believe in God, but I don't believe in Jesus', that person doesn't believe in God, actually.

Saul of Tarsus was like that. He would have told you he believed in God, but when God incarnate appeared on earth, Saul of Tarsus did everything he could to obliterate his name from off the face of the earth. And when the voice called to him out of heaven amidst the glory, he instinctively realized what this glory meant. This was the shekinah glory of God. And he said, 'Who are you Lord?' Kýrios is the Greek translation of Jehovah. 'Who art thou Lord?' He came to see that Jesus is the Son of God, and that if you reject Jesus, you reject God. That still is to be applied.

But we have to consider those who had never heard of Jesus because Jesus had not yet come. Does that mean that people like Abraham and Hannah and others in the Old Testament who didn't know that he would be called 'Jesus' (because that wasn't told us until Mary and Joseph were told) are saved by their works rather than by the work of Christ? Of course not! And I'm going to point now to Romans 3:

the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: whom God set forth to be a propitiation, through faith, by his blood, to show his [that is, God's] righteousness, because of the passing over of the sins done aforetime,

('Aforetime' is in contrast to this present day, as verse 26 says.)

in the forbearance of God; for the showing, I say, of his righteousness at this present [time]: that he might himself be just, and the justifier of him that has faith in Jesus. (Romans 3:24–26)

Notice the two periods. The 'sins done aforetime' does not refer to the sins we did before we got converted. Paul is talking about the sins done in the centuries before Christ came, even the sins done by those who believed in God and tried to serve God. And God did not execute his wrath but forbore in his mercy. How was God righteous to forebear? Well, because of this 'propitiation'. The work of Christ was at that time still future. Its value, of course, is eternal and covers those who sinned and repented and believed in God in those centuries before Christ came.

But now I had better test as to whether my theology here is right. So, let me ask you. Was Noah forgiven? Do you hold that he was forgiven? And you are expecting to meet him in heaven? Well, if you do, then you must hold that the man was forgiven. On what ground was Noah forgiven?

He believed God. Yes, but there's no forgiveness without sacrifice, is there? On what ground was he forgiven? Well, if you don't know, ask him when you get to heaven. That would be an interesting topic of conversation.

Noah offered a lot of animal sacrifices. Was he forgiven on the basis of those animals? You either think he was or he wasn't. What do you think? If you don't think he was forgiven on the basis of those animals, then why not? The blood of bulls and goats can't take away sin (see Hebrews 10:4). They were but shadows of the coming thing. So, people were forgiven in those days on the basis of the sacrifice of Christ that as far as history was concerned was yet to be, yes? And because of that sacrifice, already in the mind of God, God could have forbearance with those folks. Am I reading it right or not?

One man over here thinks I am. Well, that's one encouragement to me. Do go away and think about it anyway. I warn you that dear believers divide over this matter, and some people will say that what I am saying is not only wrong but shocking. They say, 'Well if that is true, then we don't need to go and preach the gospel to the heathen.'

That strikes me as an extraordinary statement. Would you have bothered to tell the Jews like Martha and Mary about the sacrifice of Jesus, or not? I myself would go to the ends of the earth, if God called me to do it, to tell folks who have never heard of Jesus, about him. There is such inestimable wealth in Jesus! Well, of course so. And I am not suggesting that all the heathen that have never heard of Jesus are queuing up to be saved either. They need to be brought to repentance, hence Romans 1–3. They do seriously need to be brought to repentance. All I am saying is that when people repented and believed God in those far off days before the coming of Christ, like Abraham, they were justified. How, and on what grounds? Through the propitiation that one day Christ would effect.

So his death accounts for and covers the sins done 'aforetime'. But notice the exact language of Romans 3:26:

For the showing, I say, of his righteousness at this present season: that he might himself be just, and the justifier of him that has faith in . . .

Now notice the term: 'Jesus' of course! How can anybody have faith in Jesus when they didn't even know his name? Mary herself didn't know his name was to be Jesus until she was told by the angel (Luke 1:31). But now Jesus is the name, of course it's the name! And in that name we go and preach to the heathen as well; of course we do. And if anyone won't have Jesus, by definition, he is rejecting God, because of who Jesus is. You believe that Jesus is God incarnate, don't you? Of course you do.

I have said enough on that topic to provoke you at any rate. Do think about it. Ponder it long and large. Be careful how you talk to other folks about it too. And if they say that Gooding is a heretic say, 'Yes, well we have our suspicions . . . but on the other hand he is a moderately decent chap and seems to believe in the deity of Christ!' Be kind and gentle to people. Don't destroy their evangelical zeal; but do think through the problem. It is an important matter when it comes to the justice of God's judgments.