I think it's a little different across sects, but I grew up around a lot of baptists and the line was that anyone who asks was forgiven at any point, so I think this falls into the repentant category, though I don't think it actually requires repent. Lots of tough questions around someone who lives a virtuous life who asked forgiveness at an early age versus an evil person asking for forgiveness on their death bed and them both ending up in the same place.

A verse you might want to consider is "... we have our hope set on the living God, who is the Savior of all people, especially of those who believe." My interpretation is that forgiveness is available to all but made effective only in those who respond in faith. The scriptures do not say anything about those who are ignorant about God's salvation.

While that is true for certain denominations, it is most definitely not universal[1].

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_views_on_Hell

I'm an atheist so I don't really have a dog in this particular fight, but Jesus was pretty clear about this:

Mark16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

It’s a bit more subtle than that, which is why it’s tricky quoting verses out of context. The question arises in this one “who’s ‘he’”? The previous verse has an answer:

> 15 He said to them, “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation. 16 Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.

So “he” is someone who’s been exposed to the gospel.

On this basis, many Christians believe that those who’ve not been exposed to the gospel (the degree of exposure that counts seems a point of disagreement) may still go to heaven.

Notably, it’s not 100% clear (here, anyway) this doesn’t just mean those to whom Jesus’ direct disciples preach. It also promises they’ll be accompanied by a whole mess o’ very clear miracles wherever they go, which I’m pretty sure isn’t the case these days (or then, but you know what I mean). The expectations for those who are presented with proof in the form of Jesus-wizards, and those who chat with a preacher in line at Wal-Mart, might reasonably be very different.

(Not a believer, for the record)

Not all Christian sects (nor individual Christians) are textual literalists. (Probably most aren't, with respect to arbitrary single verses. There's a lot of random crap in there. E.g., https://www.salon.com/2014/05/31/11_kinds_of_bible_verses_ch... )

I didn't say they were. I just said that Jesus was pretty clear about this.

Sure. Even that is somewhat debatable; Mark wasn't written until 3-4 decades after Jesus' death.[0]

> The Church has consequently derived its view of Jesus primarily from Matthew, secondarily from John, and only distantly from Mark.

[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Mark