qaz, your last deduction is not correct. I mislead you by emphasizing the special difficulty of insisting that those who lack all cognitive doctrinal info are all hopelessly toast. But I also see some who hear a ‘Christian’ message, but do not grasp what Jesus actually stood for, and thus cannot understandingly or hopelessly choose to reject it, and can be judged by the Bible standard I cited of pursuing what they do recognize as right.
But for a two way street, before trying to explain away your counter texts, I should insist that You explain why the texts I cited do not mean ‘there’s simply no way’ your reading of other texts can be right
Yet I’ll say Mark 16:16 is not even in any of the oldest manuscripts (and anyway many Christians reject that not being baptized ultimately even requires condemnation) . I also doubt that John is trying to address whether lacking right cognitive knowledge about Jesus means requiring that all such are hopeless toast. I appreciatively sense he recognize that the fullest reality of God and of the teaching of what he wants in our life is manifest in Jesus. Thus he rightly observes that one who sees this message and chooses to reject it is choosing to reject e.g. embracing the very life of love that Jesus and the inner moral law of our conscience bear witness to, and thus while in that position is condemned to reap the painful consequences of choosing that direction (indeed I’d affirm that rejecting Jesus condemns in that way).
If I’m wrong, and John actually intended to literally assert that not having cognitive knowledge or correct belief is what decisively matter to the Almighty, I still would not assume other texts cannot be saying what I said. For I reject the fundamentalist premise that one supposed proof text means I can avoid grappling with other texts that seem to challenge it, as if all texts are bound to be saying the same thing. Several of my papers present many examples that this is not the nature of the Bible we find, wherein there are plain and vigorous differences in approaches to many vital questions.
Thus, in sum, I think it’s too dogmatic to assert ‘there’s simply no way’ any text can challenge your reading of another.