Stephen and the rich man on the cross do not exhaust the biblical possibilities since the doctrine of the bible teaches us what is required for salvation. The Philippian jailer asked Paul, "What must I do to be saved?" Paul said, "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved."
Therefore, I'd add the name of that jailer and anyone in the Bible who believed in the Lord Jesus Christ since that is the criterion set forth.
I would also add any person since then who has believed. I'd also add Abraham because of the parable of the rich man and Lazarus. Because of the statement, "his faith was credited to him as righteousnes," I would add those who were believers in the true God in Old Testament times. We are told that Melchizadek was High Priest of God at Salem, and that Abraham subjected himself to that man.
But, you are correct, I cannot think of even one example of an unbeliever who I would claim is saved.....whether in the Bible or outside of it.
Not one of the people you cite has evidence, internal to the biblical text, that he was, in fact, saved. We only know that they asked what must be done, or that the path to salvation was made open to them.
Granted, most of these people doubtless *were* saved, but that's not the point. There is nothing in the Bible that states categorically that they were saved. Since you insist on biblical evidence of the establishde fact, in retrospect, of their salvation, I would submeit to you that there is no direct evidence, only indirect evidence.
It does no good to cite passages supporting a once-saved-always-saved solution to these cases. Harmonization of the entire text shows, as many of us have demonstrated many times here, that there are many qualifying texts that demonstrate that the personal knowledge of salvation, while in this life, is conditional at best. Therefore, even St. Paul, who, if once-saved-always-saved were a correct notion, would certainly qualify, says in many passages (Philippians 2:12, 1 Corinthians 9:24-27 are two examples) that both he and his hearers do not have certain assurance of salvation. They have a moral assurance, provided that they maintain their walk in grace. Therefore, none of your cases *proves* anything, they only provide a certain likelihood that many, if not most, of these people are, in fact, now in heaven.
Therefore, strictly speaking, you cannot prove *anyone* is in saved other than the Good Thief. Not rejecting Tradition, the ancient voice of the Church, I do not have that problem, and know of many people who are in heaven. You will reject the authority that projects that knowledge, obviously, so we won't get anywhere discussing it. But, here again, we have a situation that touches on the issue of "authority," and its vital role in interpreting non only Scriptural quotations, but also matters only indirectly dealt with or defined by Scripture, such as the nature of the Trinity, the duel nature of Christ as a divine person, etc.
It's interesting that so many on this forum constantly remonstrate with the Catholics about what was said at such-and-such ancient ecumenical council, or commentary from the Fathers about the subject matter from them. What doesn't seem to be realized is that, as a foundation to the quotes cited, there is the blaring notion that the Church, in such councils, *knew* it had the *authority* to decide issues definitively. This seems lost on so many people. The Church has authority. It maintains that authority today. Those other Christians who do not partake of it are lost to a multiplicity of differing interpretations, and even fundamental questions involving requirements for salvation cannot be answered with consistency across the board.
I have my answer, because the Church, whose members wrote the New Testament under inspiration, and whose members discerned, vetted, compiled, canonized and interpreted Scripture with authority, can settle such matters.