Appendix D
The Positive Biblical Case for Grace Without a Deadline
Throughout this book, we have done something patient and careful. We have taken the texts that are said to prove a deadline at death, and we have examined them one by one. We have asked whether any of them actually says that God's saving offer expires the instant the heart stops. And we have found, again and again, that none of them does.
But there is another side to the argument. While the verse-chapters have been clearing away false barriers, a whole family of New Testament passages has been standing quietly in the background. These are the texts that speak of the scope of what Christ has done. They do not whisper. They announce, in bold and sweeping language, that what God accomplished on the cross reaches every human being. Paul calls it justification "for all" (Greek: eis pantas anthrōpous). He calls it making alive "all" who died in Adam (pantes zōopoiethēsontai). He calls it reconciling "all things" (ta panta) through the blood of the cross. He pictures every knee bowing and every tongue confessing that Jesus is Lord.1
These passages are not minor proof-texts. They form a connected thread running through Paul's letters. Taken together, they create a real problem for anyone who claims that grace is sealed off at the moment of death. If Christ's work truly covers "all," why do we shrink the offer to a single earthly lifetime?
This appendix develops the five passages that the verse-chapters have cited most often. For each one, I will present the text in its context and lay out the traditional reading fairly. Then I will explain why I believe the universal reading is stronger. I will also state where I land: these texts ground a genuine, biblical hope that God's grace is wider than we have been told. They do not, by themselves, prove that every person will be saved. Human freedom is real (see Chapter 7 and the discussion of middle knowledge). But they show that no one can draw a line at death and say, "Grace stops here."2
"Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men." (Romans 5:18, ESV)
Paul builds this sentence with a careful balance. One side: Adam's trespass brought condemnation to "all men" (eis pantas anthrōpous). The other side: Christ's act of righteousness brings justification and life to "all men." The same Greek phrase appears on both sides. The grammar is strict parallelism. The two groups are the same group.3
To see how deliberate this is, step back to the wider passage. Romans 5:12–21 is a single sustained comparison between Adam and Christ. Paul has spent the first four chapters of Romans proving that sin is universal. Everyone has sinned (Romans 3:23). Now, in chapter 5, he shows that the remedy is just as universal. The condemnation that spread to all through Adam is matched, point for point, by the justification that comes to all through Christ.4
Gregory MacDonald (Robin Parry) maps the contrasts Paul draws between Adam and Christ across the passage. In verse 15, the many who died through Adam are matched by the many to whom grace overflows through Christ. In verse 16, judgment from one sin is matched by justification arising from many sins. In verse 18, condemnation for all people is matched by justification and life for all people. In verse 19, the many made sinners are matched by the many who will be made righteous.5 At every turn, Paul insists that the second "all" is the same "all" as the first.
The Parallel That Will Not Bend
If the "all" who were condemned in Adam means every human being, then the "all" who receive justification and life in Christ must mean the same. You cannot stretch the first "all" to cover every person ever born and then shrink the second "all" to cover only believers. The grammar will not allow it. As Thomas Talbott puts it: Paul identified a single group, every sinful descendant of Adam. He then made two parallel statements about them. His second statement means that all of them will receive justification and life.6
The most common traditional reply takes one of two forms. Some scholars argue that the second "all" refers not to every individual but to "all kinds of people." This means Jews and Gentiles alike. Paul's concern throughout Romans is the Jew-Gentile question. So "all" in verse 18, they say, means "people from every group," not "every last person."7
Others accept that the same group is in view on both sides of verse 18 but argue that verse 17 limits the scope. There Paul says that those who "receive" the abundance of grace will reign in life. The word "receive" (lambanō), they say, implies a deliberate act of faith. Only those who actively receive grace benefit from it. Douglas Moo appeals to the "persistent stress on faith" in Paul's theology. He concludes that "only certain people derive the benefits from Christ's act of righteousness."8
Both of these moves have serious problems. Take the "all kinds of people" reading first. It is true that Paul cares about the Jew-Gentile question. But the immediate context will not bend that way. In verse 12, "all sinned" means every person, not "some from every group sinned." In Romans 3:23, "all have sinned" means every individual. The same word, in the same letter, cannot suddenly shrink to "a few from each category" when the topic turns from sin to salvation.9
David Burnfield puts the point sharply. Both the Arminian and the Calvinist interpret the word "all" to mean every single person when it refers to our condition in Adam. But the same word does not mean every person when it refers to our condition in Christ. Who is picking and choosing?10
Now take the "receive" argument. Parry points out that lambanō in verse 17 is used in the passive sense. It means "to receive" something given, not "to take" or "to grab." Vincent's Word Studies in the New Testament confirms this: Paul's meaning is "not believingly accept, but simply the recipients."11 The reference is to what God does for people, not to what people do for themselves. And even if "receive" did imply an act of faith, the reply is simple. Paul needs only to believe that one day all will believe. If faith is the means, and all will come to faith, then "all receive" and "all are justified" are fully consistent.12
Even some scholars who reject universal reconciliation have conceded the force of the text. The Reformed commentator John Murray admitted that the immediate context of Romans 5:18 places "no limitation on the universalistic scope of the second 'all men.'" He had to reach outside the passage to find reasons to restrict it.13 Neal Punt likewise conceded that the verse and its immediate context support a universal scope.14 When defenders of the traditional view admit this much, we should pay attention.
"For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive." (1 Corinthians 15:22, ESV)
Here is the Adam-Christ comparison stated with beautiful simplicity. The structure is the same as Romans 5:18. Paul uses the "as…so" formula (hōsper…houtōs), a literary device that demands strict balance on both sides. In Adam, all die. In Christ, all shall be made alive (pantes zōopoiethēsontai). If the "all" who die in Adam means every human being, then the "all" who are made alive in Christ must mean the same.15
Burnfield explains the logic clearly. The "as…so" formula is a simile that requires matching scope. It is like a balanced equation. You cannot write, "Just as my car has four wheels, so my motorcycle has two wheels." Both sides must match. Paul says all die in Adam. Then he says all will be made alive in Christ. The word "all" must define the same group on both sides, or the comparison falls apart.16
Common Objection: "In Christ" Limits the Scope
Traditional readers often argue that "in Christ" restricts the "all" to believers. Only those who are "in Christ" will be made alive. But notice what Paul actually wrote. He did not write, "All who are in Christ shall be made alive." He wrote, "In Christ shall all be made alive." The phrase "in Christ" names the means of the life-giving. It does not limit the group that receives it. The "all" made alive are made alive through Christ's work, just as the "all" who die are killed through Adam's sin. We had no choice about being "in Adam." The parallel tells us that Christ's saving work is just as far-reaching as Adam's ruin.17
The traditional alternative is to read the "making alive" as purely physical. On this view, Paul means only that all people will be raised from the dead. Some will rise to blessedness, others to judgment. Albert Barnes took this position because he saw what a spiritual reading would mean. He admitted that if Paul is speaking of spiritual death and spiritual life, the "natural and obvious interpretation" is universal salvation. He called it "difficult, if not impossible, to meet."18 But this purely physical reading creates its own problems. If the "all" made alive in Christ includes people raised only to suffer eternal torment, then Paul is contrasting something bad in Adam (death) with something worse in Christ (endless suffering). That is not a contrast. That is nonsense.19
The early church father Theodore of Mopsuestia saw this plainly. He asked where the resurrection could be called a gift if punishment without improvement awaits those who rise.20 Gregory of Nyssa agreed. He taught that the "subjection" Paul describes in the following verses (1 Corinthians 15:24–28) is not defeat but restoration. Christ subjects all things to himself so that God may be "all in all" (verse 28). And Christ himself is also "subjected" to the Father in this passage. The word clearly does not mean punishment. It means union. It means salvation.21
"And through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of his cross." (Colossians 1:20, ESV)
This verse sits inside the great Colossian hymn (1:15–20), one of the highest Christological passages in all of Paul. The hymn celebrates Christ as the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation, the one through whom all things were made. Then it makes a breathtaking claim about redemption. Through Christ, God reconciles to himself "all things" (ta panta), making peace through the blood of his cross.
Parry points out that the "all things" reconciled in verse 20 are clearly the same "all things" created in verse 16. There is no ambiguity. Every single created thing, visible and invisible, is included. This is not "all without distinction" (some of every kind of thing). This is "all without exception" (every single thing in creation).22
The word Paul uses for this act is "reconcile" (apokatallasō). This verb appears only three times in the New Testament. It is used here, in Colossians 1:22 (reconciling believers), and in Ephesians 2:16 (reconciling Jews and Gentiles through the cross). In every case, the word carries a full redemptive meaning. It is the repair of a broken relationship. It is the restoration of peace. Paul reinforces this by saying the reconciliation comes through "making peace through the blood of his cross." When Paul speaks of peace with God through the cross, he means salvation (see also Romans 5:1, 10).23
Marvin Vincent on the Scope of Colossians 1:20
The respected lexicographer Marvin Vincent, commenting on this verse, wrote that the "all things" must be taken in the same sense as in verses 16, 17, and 18. It refers to the whole universe, both material and spiritual. He concluded that Paul's declarations about the fate of evil, alongside passages like Ephesians 1:10, "seem to point to a larger purpose of God in redemption than is commonly conceived."24
— Marvin Vincent, Word Studies in the New TestamentSome scholars have tried to read the reconciliation here as mere "pacification" rather than salvation. Peter T. O'Brien argued that the principalities and powers are reconciled "through subjugation" against their will, not through redemption.25 But as Talbott points out, this reading confuses two things. It confuses the idea that only believers experience reconciliation now with the idea that only believers will ever experience it. The universalist fully agrees that faith is the means of reconciliation. The point is that God's reconciling work will not stop until every creature has been brought to faith. O'Brien's true premise (only those who accept the word are reconciled) fits just as well with the conclusion that someday all will accept it.26
"So that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father." (Philippians 2:10–11, ESV)
Paul is quoting Isaiah 45:23 and applying it to Jesus. In the original passage, Yahweh speaks: "To me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear allegiance" (Isaiah 45:23). The context in Isaiah is salvation. Just one verse earlier, God says: "Turn to me and be saved, all the ends of the earth!" (45:22). Those who bow and swear allegiance do so in response to a call to be saved. This is not the language of forced submission. It is the language of willing worship.27
The traditional view holds that the bowing in Philippians 2 includes both willing and unwilling confession. Believers will confess gladly. Unbelievers will be forced to acknowledge Christ as Lord under compulsion, but this forced confession will not save them. MacArthur, Gaffin, and Beale, among others, have taught this view.28
Several things make this reading difficult to sustain. First, the verb Paul chose for "confess" is exomologeō (Strong's 1843). This word carries the sense of open, heartfelt acknowledgment. It is the same word used in Romans 14:11, where the NASB translates it as "give praise." Marvin Vincent defines it as a confession "from the heart" and a confession "to one's honor; thence to praise."29 There is no example in the New Testament where this word means a forced or grudging admission. Thomas Johnson noted that every use of it conveys a willing confession. The idea of a coerced acknowledgment does not fit the word Paul selected.30
The Contradiction in the "Forced Worship" Reading
The traditional view asks us to believe something strange. It says God will not force anyone to accept him during this life. Those who go to hell have only themselves to blame because they rejected Christ freely. But after death, God will force the condemned to bow and confess against their will. As Burnfield asks: would it not have been more loving for God to compel people to believe before they died, so they would end up in heaven?31 The forced-worship reading also ignores a basic truth about God: he has never accepted false worship. The prophets make this clear. If God rejects sacrifices offered with impure hearts (Isaiah 1:11–13), why would he welcome a coerced confession from a damned soul?
There is a further point. Paul says the confession is made "to the glory of God the Father." In Paul's thinking, the Father's glory is always connected to the triumph of saving love, not to the spectacle of forced submission. Matthew Hronich argues that the confession Paul describes is a confession in the Holy Spirit. Paul himself says in 1 Corinthians 12:3 that no one can say "Jesus is Lord" except by the Holy Spirit. If every tongue will confess, and such confession can only come by the Spirit, then the Spirit will eventually bring every person to a genuine, willing confession.32
"For to this end we toil and strive, because we have our hope set on the living God, who is the Savior of all people, especially of those who believe." (1 Timothy 4:10, ESV)
This verse makes a claim that should stop us in our tracks. God is called "the Savior of all people" (pantōn anthrōpōn). The word "especially" (malista) does not narrow the scope to believers only. It highlights believers within a larger group. Paul uses the same grammar in several other places. Each time, "especially" means "including, and in particular," not "only."33
Burnfield traces this pattern through Paul's letters with care. In Galatians 6:10, Paul writes: "Let us do good to all people, and especially to those who are of the household of faith." No one reads this as meaning we should do good only to fellow believers. In 1 Timothy 5:8, Paul says to provide "for his own, and especially for those of his household." Again, "especially" does not exclude the wider group. It highlights a subset within it. In 2 Timothy 4:13, Paul asks for "the books, especially the parchments." He wants all of them, but the parchments most of all. The pattern is consistent. "All" is the full group. "Especially" singles out a priority within it.34
If we apply the same grammar to 1 Timothy 4:10, the meaning is plain. God is the Savior of all people, and believers experience that salvation in a special or primary way. The verse does not say God is the Savior only of believers. It says he is the Savior of all, with believers being the "especially" group. The traditional attempt to confine God's saving work to the smaller group runs against Paul's own usage of malista everywhere else.
There is a further problem with the traditional reading. If "Savior of all people" really means "Savior only of believers," then the word "Savior" is drained of its meaning. A doctor who can heal all diseases but chooses to treat only patients who ask nicely is not "the healer of all." A king who could rescue all his people from slavery but ransoms only a handful is not "the savior of the nation." When Paul calls God the Savior of all people, the word means what it says. God saves. And the scope of that saving is "all people."39
"For God has consigned all to disobedience, that he may have mercy on all." (Romans 11:32, ESV)
This verse deserves a brief treatment because it ties the whole argument together. Paul has just spent three chapters (Romans 9–11) wrestling with the fate of Israel. He has traced how the Jews stumbled, how their stumbling opened the door to the Gentiles, and how God's plan is moving toward a goal. That goal is stated here: God has shut up all in disobedience so that he may have mercy on all.
The traditional reading, offered by N. T. Wright and Thomas Schreiner among others, takes the "all" here as a reference to Jews and Gentiles as groups. God has shown that both groups are guilty, and both groups can receive mercy. The verse is about the breadth of ethnic inclusion, not about every individual person.40
This reading has some support in the context of Romans 9–11, which does focus on the Jew-Gentile question. But there are reasons to push further. Paul's language is not "Jews and Gentiles" but simply "all" (tous pantas). The same Paul who wrote "all have sinned" in Romans 3:23 (meaning every individual) and "condemnation for all" in Romans 5:18 (meaning every person) now writes that God has mercy on "all." The word has not changed its scope between chapters.
Burnfield traces the logic of Romans 11 from the "partial hardening" of Israel (verse 25) through the "fullness" (plērōma) of the Gentiles to the climactic statement in verse 32. The Greek word plērōma, he notes, means "the entire number or quantity." It appears in verse 12 for the "full restoration" of the non-elect Jews, and again in verse 25 for the "fullness" of the Gentiles. If both groups will be fully restored, then Paul's summary in verse 32 (mercy on all) is not a vague wish but a statement of God's plan.41
Talbott groups this verse with Romans 5:18 and 1 Corinthians 15:22 as part of a single pattern. In each text, he observes, we encounter a contrast between two universal statements. In each case, the first "all" sets the scope for the second. The "all" who are disobedient sets the scope for the "all" who receive mercy. The grammatical evidence, Talbott writes, seems decisive.42
Any one of these passages, taken alone, might be explained away. A reader could insist that "all" means "all kinds" in Romans 5:18. Another could argue that "in Christ" limits the scope in 1 Corinthians 15:22. Yet another could propose that "reconcile" in Colossians 1:20 means mere pacification. Each of these moves is possible, though none of them is natural.
But take them together. Romans 5:18 says justification and life come to all. 1 Corinthians 15:22 says all will be made alive in Christ. Colossians 1:20 says all things will be reconciled through the cross. Philippians 2:10–11 says every knee will bow and every tongue confess. 1 Timothy 4:10 says God is the Savior of all people. Add to these Romans 11:32, where God has shut up all in disobedience so that he may have mercy on all.35 And Titus 2:11, where the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation to all people.36
This is not a single verse plucked from context. This is a connected series running through six of Paul's letters. As Thomas Allin observed long ago, we are not dealing with a few stray passages where "all" might be used loosely. We are dealing with a chain in which link follows link. The universal scope of Christ's kingdom is the central thought.37
The Intertextual Tension
Here is the challenge these passages pose to the traditional reading of the "deadline" texts. Romans 5:18 says Christ's act of righteousness leads to justification for all. The same Paul writes in 2 Thessalonians 1:9 about "eternal destruction." One of two things must be true. Either Paul contradicts himself, or the "eternal destruction" does not mean what the traditional view claims. The traditional response is to shrink the "all" to fit the "destruction." This book takes the other approach: let the "all" stand and reexamine the "destruction" (see Chapter 12 and Appendix B). Neither approach is without cost. But the cost of shrinking "all" is higher. It requires Paul to say one thing and mean its opposite.
Let me be honest about what I am claiming and what I am not.
I am not claiming that these five passages prove that every person will certainly be saved. Human freedom is real. The possibility that a creature could reject God forever, even in the face of overwhelming love, cannot be ruled out on logic alone. This book defends the span of the offer (grace continues through death, through Hades, and to the final judgment), not a guaranteed outcome. Conditional immortality remains a live option. Those who finally and freely refuse God at the last judgment may cease to exist rather than live forever in torment (see Appendix C). A conservative, Christ-centered universalism, the hope that love wins all, is also a live option. What is not a live option, given these texts, is the claim that God's grace expires at the moment of death.38
What I am claiming is this. These passages, taken together, express at minimum a universal saving intention on God's part. They also express a cosmic reconciliation accomplished in Christ's blood. That intention and that accomplished work are flatly incompatible with any theology that seals grace off at the instant the body fails. If God truly intends to justify all, make all alive, reconcile all things, and be confessed as Lord by every tongue, then a theology that closes the door at the deathbed is in deep tension with the Bible it claims to follow.
The traditional "deadline" texts (see the verse-chapters throughout this book) have been shown, one after another, to say less than their defenders claim. They speak of judgment, urgency, and consequences. None of them says, "Grace ends when you die." Meanwhile, the universal-scope passages speak loudly of an "all" that covers every person who fell in Adam. The honest reader must ask: which set of texts is being stretched beyond its natural meaning? The texts that never mention a death-deadline? Or the texts that say "all" and mean all?
What This Means at the Deathbed
If Christ's saving work truly reaches "all" who fell in Adam, then the dying person is included in that "all." The last breath does not erase anyone from the scope of Romans 5:18. The final heartbeat does not remove anyone from the "all things" God reconciles through the blood of the cross. These passages do not merely allow for a saving encounter at the threshold of death. They demand it. A God whose stated purpose is to justify all and reconcile all things would not abandon those very persons at the moment they need him most.
This is the positive backdrop against which the rest of the book's argument unfolds. The verse-chapters have cleared away the barriers one by one. This appendix plants the flag. The scope of what Christ did is universal. The invitation has no expiration date. And the God who spoke these promises through Paul is the same God who turned to a dying criminal on a cross and said, today (see Chapter 24).
↑ 1. The five passages treated in this appendix are Romans 5:18; 1 Corinthians 15:22; Colossians 1:20; Philippians 2:10–11; and 1 Timothy 4:10. Related texts include Romans 11:32; Titus 2:11; Hebrews 2:9; and 1 John 2:2. For a fuller list, see James Beilby, Postmortem Opportunity: A Biblical and Theological Assessment of Salvation after Death (Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2021), ch. 8, and Gregory MacDonald [Robin Parry], The Evangelical Universalist, 2nd ed. (Eugene, OR: Cascade, 2012), chs. 6–7.
↑ 2. On human freedom and God's grace, see the discussion of middle knowledge and optimal grace in Chapter 7. See also Tim Stratton, Human Freedom, Divine Knowledge, and Mere Molinism (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2020), chs. 8–10.
↑ 3. The Greek phrase eis pantas anthrōpous ("to all men") appears identically in both the protasis and the apodosis of Romans 5:18. For the grammatical analysis, see Thomas Talbott, The Inescapable Love of God, 2nd ed. (Eugene, OR: Cascade, 2014), ch. 5.
↑ 4. MacDonald [Parry], The Evangelical Universalist, ch. 6. Parry notes that Romans 5:12–21 aims to show that Christ's redemption is as wide as sin's corruption in that it reaches everyone. See also Richard Bell, "Rom 5:18–19 and Universal Salvation," New Testament Studies 48, no. 3 (2002): 417–32.
↑ 5. MacDonald [Parry], The Evangelical Universalist, ch. 6. The table of contrasts between Adam and Christ (vv. 15–19) is laid out in full. Each verse maintains strict parallelism between the scope of Adam's ruin and the scope of Christ's remedy.
↑ 6. Talbott, The Inescapable Love of God, ch. 5. Talbott writes: "To all appearances, Paul here identified a single reference class, one that includes every sinful descendant of Adam, and he then made two distinct but parallel statements about the members of this one class."
↑ 7. This reading is offered by F. F. Bruce among others. Beilby summarizes it: "The 'all' of Romans 5:18 is, to use F. F. Bruce's words, 'All without distinction rather than all without exception.'" See Beilby, Postmortem Opportunity, ch. 8. N. T. Wright and Thomas Schreiner also take this approach for Romans 11:32, reading the "all" in context of the Jew-Gentile argument of Romans 9–11.
↑ 8. Douglas J. Moo, The Epistle to the Romans, New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996), 343–45. Moo appeals to the "deliberately worded v. 17" and the "persistent stress on faith" to argue against a universalist reading.
↑ 9. Talbott, The Inescapable Love of God, ch. 5. Talbott recalls sitting in a Calvinist church where the pastor would read texts like Ephesians 1:11, exclaiming, "Not just some things, but all things!" But the same pastor would never read the second half of Romans 5:18 in the same way. Talbott concluded that neither this pastor nor any other Calvinist had a plausible criterion for determining when "all" does and does not really mean all.
↑ 10. David Burnfield, Patristic Universalism: An Alternative to the Traditional View of Divine Judgment, 2nd ed. (2016), ch. 4. Burnfield traces how both Arminian and Calvinist commentators interpret "all" to mean every person when speaking of sin (Romans 3:23) but reduce the same word to something less than every person when speaking of salvation.
↑ 11. Marvin R. Vincent, Word Studies in the New Testament (New York: Scribner's, 1887), comment on Romans 5:17. Vincent writes that lambanō here means "Not believingly accept, but simply the recipients." See also MacDonald [Parry], The Evangelical Universalist, ch. 6, and Burnfield, Patristic Universalism, ch. 4.
↑ 12. MacDonald [Parry], The Evangelical Universalist, ch. 6. Parry writes: "Paul needs only to believe that one day all will believe (and I shall argue later that he did), and his statements are easily fitted together. This enables him to maintain that salvation is only for believers, that not all are currently believers, and also that 'the many will be made righteous.'"
↑ 13. John Murray, The Epistle to the Romans, 2 vols. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1959–65), 1:192–93. Murray conceded the force of the immediate context and appealed to the wider context of Pauline thought (particularly 2 Thessalonians 1:8–9) to resist the universalist reading.
↑ 14. Neal Punt, as cited in Talbott, The Inescapable Love of God, ch. 5. Punt conceded that "Romans 5:18 and its immediate context place no limitation on the universalistic scope of the second 'all men.'"
↑ 15. On the hōsper…houtōs ("as…so") construction and its requirement of strict parallelism, see Talbott, The Inescapable Love of God, ch. 5, and Burnfield, Patristic Universalism, ch. 4. See also Marvin R. Vincent, Word Studies, comment on 1 Corinthians 15:22: "What the all means in the one case it means in the other."
↑ 16. Burnfield, Patristic Universalism, ch. 4. Burnfield's analogy: "Just as my bicycle has two wheels, so my motorcycle has two wheels" works because the balance is maintained. "Just as my car has four wheels, so my motorcycle has two wheels" fails because both sides do not match.
↑ 17. Burnfield, Patristic Universalism, ch. 4. Burnfield notes that Paul did not write "all who are in Adam die" and "all who are in Christ will be made alive." He wrote that "in Adam all die" and "in Christ all will be made alive." The "all" modifies who was affected by Adam's and Christ's actions, not who already belongs to one or the other. See also MacDonald [Parry], The Evangelical Universalist, ch. 6.
↑ 18. Albert Barnes, Notes on the New Testament: 1 Corinthians (London: Blackie & Son, 1884), comment on 1 Corinthians 15:22. Barnes admitted that a spiritual reading would furnish "an obvious argument for the doctrine of universal salvation, which it is difficult, if not impossible, to meet."
↑ 19. Burnfield, Patristic Universalism, ch. 4. Burnfield writes: "If the majority of those 'made alive' in Christ are raised simply to be thrown into eternal torment, then Paul's argument reduces to nothing more than contrasting something bad in Adam (death) with something worse in Christ (eternal torment), which would be nonsense."
↑ 20. Theodore of Mopsuestia, as cited in Burnfield, Patristic Universalism, ch. 4. Theodore asked: "Where will the resurrection be regarded as a gift, if punishment without improvement is assigned to those who rise again?"
↑ 21. On Gregory of Nyssa's reading of the "subjection" in 1 Corinthians 15:28 as union with God and restoration rather than punishment, see Steven Harmon, Every Knee Should Bow: Biblical Rationales for Universal Salvation in Early Christian Thought (Dallas: University Press of America, 2003), 70, 132. See also Burnfield, Patristic Universalism, ch. 4, and the related discussion of Origen's interpretation of "subjection" as salvation.
↑ 22. MacDonald [Parry], The Evangelical Universalist, ch. 5. Parry writes: "It is not 'all without distinction' (i.e., some of every kind of thing) but 'all without exception' (i.e., every single thing in creation)."
↑ 23. On the verb apokatallasō and its exclusively redemptive meaning, see MacDonald [Parry], The Evangelical Universalist, ch. 5. The connection between reconciliation and peace with God as salvation is drawn from Romans 5:1, 10 and Ephesians 2:14–16. See also Burnfield, Patristic Universalism, ch. 4, on the Colossians 1:20–Ephesians 2:14–16 parallel.
↑ 24. Vincent, Word Studies in the New Testament, comment on Colossians 1:20. The full passage: "The range of discussion opened by these words is too wide to be entered here. Paul's declarations elsewhere as to the ultimate fate of evil men and angels, must certainly be allowed their full weight; yet such passages as this and Eph i:10, seem to point to a larger purpose of God in redemption than is commonly conceived." As quoted by Burnfield, Patristic Universalism, ch. 4.
↑ 25. Peter T. O'Brien, Colossians, Philemon, Word Biblical Commentary (Waco: Word, 1982), comment on 1:20. O'Brien wrote that the reconciliation of the principalities and powers "is in mind" but that they submit "against their will to a power they cannot resist."
↑ 26. Talbott, The Inescapable Love of God, ch. 6. Talbott identifies in O'Brien the same fallacious inference he finds in Murray and Thiselton: the true premise that only those who gladly accept the word of reconciliation experience reconciliation does not entail that only some will ever accept it. "That premise, which Christian universalists also accept, even insist upon, is quite consistent with the Pauline conclusion that someday all will gladly bow before their Lord."
↑ 27. MacDonald [Parry], The Evangelical Universalist, ch. 6. On the Isaianic context, see also Matthew Hronich, Once Loved, Always Loved: A Fresh Defense of Universal Restoration (forthcoming), ch. on Philippians 2, and Burnfield, Patristic Universalism, ch. 4. Burnfield notes that Isaiah 45:22 is a call to "turn to me and be saved," not a command to submit under coercion.
↑ 28. Burnfield, Patristic Universalism, ch. 4, names MacArthur, Gaffin, and Beale as representatives of the forced-confession view. Beilby, Postmortem Opportunity, ch. 8, summarizes the traditional position: "Some might bow grudgingly."
↑ 29. Vincent, Word Studies in the New Testament, comments on Philippians 2:11 and Romans 14:11. On Philippians 2:11, Vincent says the word has the idea of "frank, open confession" and adds, "There is no objection to adding the idea with thanksgiving." On Romans 14:11, he defines it as "primarily to acknowledge, confess, or profess from the heart. To make a confession to one's honor; thence to praise."
↑ 30. Thomas Johnson, as cited in Burnfield, Patristic Universalism, ch. 4: "Every use of the word [exomologeō] in the New Testament connotes a voluntary confession. This includes all the cognate verbs, homologeō; and the related noun, homologia. Inherent in the nature of confession is willing and, sometimes, joyful acknowledgment."
↑ 31. Burnfield, Patristic Universalism, ch. 4. Burnfield observes: "The traditional view asks us to believe that God will grant us all the freedom in the world even to our own eternal damnation while we're alive on earth and will only force His will on us after we're dead and it's too late."
↑ 32. Hronich, Once Loved, Always Loved, ch. on Philippians 2. On the connection between 1 Corinthians 12:3 ("no one can say 'Jesus is Lord' except by the Holy Spirit") and the universal confession of Philippians 2:11, see also Beilby, Postmortem Opportunity, ch. 8.
↑ 33. On the function of malista in 1 Timothy 4:10, see I. Howard Marshall, The Pastoral Epistles, International Critical Commentary (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1999), comment on 1 Timothy 4:10. Marshall notes that the word "especially" identifies a subset within a larger group, not the only members of the group.
↑ 34. Burnfield, Patristic Universalism, ch. 4. Burnfield traces Paul's use of malista through Galatians 6:10; 1 Timothy 5:8; 1 Timothy 5:17; 2 Timothy 4:13; Philippians 4:22; and Titus 1:10, demonstrating that in every case, "especially" means "including, and in particular," not "only."
↑ 35. Talbott, The Inescapable Love of God, ch. 5. Talbott groups Romans 5:18; 11:32; and 1 Corinthians 15:22 together: "In each of these texts, we encounter a contrast between two universal statements, and in each case the first 'all' determines the scope of the second."
↑ 36. Vincent, Word Studies in the New Testament, comment on Titus 2:11, confirms that "to all men" modifies those who are brought salvation, not simply those who witness the appearance of grace. Burnfield, Patristic Universalism, ch. 4, also cites Vincent on this point.
↑ 37. Thomas Allin, Christ Triumphant: Universalism Asserted as the Hope of the Gospel on the Authority of Reason, the Fathers, and Holy Scripture, ed. Robin Parry (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2015). Allin wrote: "Here we are not dealing with some few passages, in which it might be possible to say that 'all' was used in a lax sense; we have a connected series in which link follows link; a series in which the actual, not the potential, universality of Christ's kingdom is the central and essential thought." As quoted by Burnfield, Patristic Universalism, ch. 4.
↑ 38. On the compatibility of the book's argument with conditional immortality, eternal conscious torment, and universal reconciliation, see the discussion of the author's position in Chapter 1 and Appendix C. The argument defended throughout is about the span of the offer (from the deathbed to the final judgment), not about the final outcome for those who refuse.
↑ 39. On the force of "Savior" (sōtēr) as applied to God in the Pastoral Epistles, see Marshall, The Pastoral Epistles, comment on 1 Timothy 4:10. Marshall notes that the title "Savior" in the Pastorals carries its full soteriological weight, not a diluted sense of "potential savior" or "preserver." See also George W. Knight III, The Pastoral Epistles, New International Greek Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1992), comment on 1 Timothy 4:10.
↑ 40. N. T. Wright argues that Romans 11:32 concludes Paul's case "that God's mercy is not for Jews only, nor for Gentiles only, but for all—Jews and Gentiles alike." Schreiner reads the verse similarly, in context of the Jew-Gentile argument of Romans 9–11. See Beilby, Postmortem Opportunity, ch. 8, summarizing these positions.
↑ 41. Burnfield, Patristic Universalism, ch. 4. On plērōma, Burnfield cites Lightfoot's definition: "the full tale, the entire number or quantity." See also J. B. Lightfoot, Notes on Epistles of St Paul from Unpublished Commentaries (London: Macmillan, 1895), comments on Romans 11:12 and 11:25. Burnfield's argument is that if plērōma means "the entire number" of Jews in verse 12 and "the entire number" of Gentiles in verse 25, then Paul's summary in verse 32 ("mercy on all") refers to the entirety of both groups.
↑ 42. Talbott, The Inescapable Love of God, ch. 5. Talbott writes: "In each of these texts, we encounter a contrast between two universal statements, and in each case the first 'all' determines the scope of the second." He applies this principle to Romans 5:18, Romans 11:32, and 1 Corinthians 15:22 as a unified set.