TO understand this, try this exercise. Presuppose that the message is this:
Heaven is not a reward for living a perfect life, but rather hell is the punishment for not working for God.
Therefore, if someone could NOT work for God (meaning it was impossible for them to work for God), they should not be punished with Hell.
Now, re-read the article, and see if everything pronounced makes sense. If so, it is probably what they were trying to say.
On the other hand, the bible indicates clearly what it takes to be "saved", and it has nothing to do with working for God, or having the ability to do so or not.
If one starts with the supposition that all humans are doomed to hell because of original sin, then hell is not punishment for not believing God, but rather for being born.
And Heaven is not the default state of man, but rather the place impossible to attain without devine intervention. And that intervention is not a right of man, but rather a gift of God.
And a gift is not earned, nor deserved, nor something you are entitled to. And if you never hear of the gift, there is no "special circumstance" that entitles you to the gift.
This does not mean that a person who it seems has an impossible task learning of God cannot be saved -- God could certainly provide a saving faith to any creature on the face of the earth -- he is after all all-powerful. But that would still be an act of God providing the gift, not an entitlement.
Suppose it was the case that everybody who doesn't have a chance for saving faith was automatically saved. Suppose also that salvation is an eternity in heaven, vs an eternity in hell, and that hell is much worse, and heaven much better, than anything that happens in this life.
Why, in that instance, wouldn't it be the act of greatest love to kill every newborn to ensure it's eternity, at the cost of a few years living this life? Of course, the perpetrator would go to hell, but would that be a small price to pay for the salvation of the world?
Further, wouldn't it be the best act of compassion to NOT send missionaries to corners of the world that have not heard of God, nor can they hear of God, if their salvation is assured by their "impossible task" of knowing God? Isn't our outreach to make it "possible" for them to know God an eternal death wish for many of them, if they were all destined for heaven before our arrival?
I can't get past that first sentence however, since there is none that does good, none seek after God. All my righteousness is like filthy rags. I dunno... I guess I can't reconcile those two concepts, except to know that Christ offers me forgiveness through his sacrifice, for his sake, not mine... he deserves those for whom he gave his life, whom he loves... and it is not me deserving anything.
In any case, just watch for this idea to grow -- the sign of belonging to the 'church' will become 'good works' (defined by people like Jim Wallis of www.sojo.net and Rick Warren who want to solve the entire world's worldly problems by teaming with government and other unredeemed people to accomplish the church's work) and that will be an entirely unbiblical 'church.'
This kind of talk really is frightening, to me. Pretty soon those who insist salvation is through Christ alone will be thought to be the old sticks-in-the-mud holding up the progress of the 'church' (I'm not speaking of any denomination in particular, btw) and will suffer persecution for it. This is I think what is spoken of in Revelation. Another partnering of religion and government as happened in the past... only this will be worldwide.