Am I into the cult yet?

Before I go on, I just want to check with the watchdogs as to whether I've strayed off orthodoxy yet. I'm saying that on even a very conservative basis one can argue that being a member of God's Kingdom and being a Christian are not identical.

Obviously any follower of God who died before Jesus' resurrection must be considered a Kingdom colleague. There are some who take a dispensational view of theology who would argue that God's way of dealing with human beings differs from dispensation to dispensation, and that in this dispensation of grace (as opposed to law, for instance) that the basis of salvation is different. This is a pretty suspect view (if still common enough in limited circles) and I'm not aware that it would be considered mainstream even in evangelicalism.

I suppose there are some people who think that babies who die in infancy, and people who are cognitively challenged are still tainted by original sin and must accept Christ or go to Hell, but again this is a minority view.

And the notion that people who have never heard the Gospel might still make it on the basis of attempting to live a life of godlines--based on their ability to apprehend and obey God's revelation of himself via creation, conscience or some other mean--has found support in the Roman Catholic church and other conservative circles.

I hope, then, that so far I've passed the litmus test.

But with the exception of children who die young, or the mentally challenged, the examples above represent people who have made some kind of effort or commitment to align themselves with God or godliness. It could be argued, then, that they all were destined for Hell first, and then made a decision to serve God (or conscience), thus passing over a threshold and entering the Kingdom at that point.

But what damage would it do to Scriptural principles if we were to alter this argument as follows?: What if human beings had to make the decision not to serve God (or conscience), rather than the decision to serve him.