James Beilby argues that people who die without hearing the true gospel will receive an opportunity to respond to Jesus Christ after death. His theology maintains that explicit faith in Christ is necessary for salvation, but God’s justice and love require that everyone receive a genuine chance to hear and respond to the gospel message, whether in this life or the next.
Introduction: The soteriological problem of evil
What happens to people who die without ever hearing about Jesus? This question has troubled Christians for centuries. A grandfather in rural China who lived and died before missionaries arrived. A baby who dies in infancy. Someone with severe mental disabilities who cannot understand the gospel. A woman raised in an abusive religious cult who was taught a twisted version of Christianity that made her hate the very name of Jesus.
James Beilby, professor of systematic and philosophical theology at Bethel University, addresses this profound question in his 2021 book Postmortem Opportunity: A Biblical and Theological Assessment of Salvation After Death. His answer challenges traditional views while maintaining orthodox Christian beliefs about salvation through Christ alone.
“Those who die without a genuine opportunity to hear and respond to the gospel will receive an opportunity after death to do so.”
– James Beilby, Postmortem Opportunity, p. ix
Beilby calls this dilemma the “soteriological problem of evil” – if God loves all people and desires their salvation, how can He condemn those who never had a real chance to accept Christ? His solution preserves both God’s justice and love while maintaining that salvation comes only through explicit faith in Jesus Christ.
Beilby’s main theological arguments and core propositions
Beilby builds his case for postmortem opportunity on several foundational theological commitments. He maintains an orthodox position, insisting that “explicit, conscious, and intentional faith in Jesus Christ is necessary for salvation” and writes from “an orthodox strand” of Christianity, “assuming the ontological necessity of Jesus Christ for salvation.”
The theological foundation
At the heart of Beilby’s argument lies a simple but powerful claim about God’s character. God genuinely loves every single human being and desires relationship with them. This isn’t merely a general benevolence but a specific, personal love for each individual. Beilby draws on biblical passages like 2 Peter 3:9, which states that God “desires everyone to come to repentance,” and 1 Timothy 2:4, declaring that God “desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.”
“God loves each and every person and genuinely desires to be in relationship with them.”
– James Beilby, Core Theological Argument
This divine love creates what one reviewer from Christianity Today describes as a relatively straightforward argument:
“Beilby’s argument for this unconventional approach proves to be relatively simple: God desires every individual to be saved, and because a person can only be saved by placing conscious faith in Christ, God will make an opportunity in this life or the next for that person to respond in faith.”
– Christianity Today Review
The divine justice argument
Beyond love, Beilby argues from God’s perfect justice. How could a just God condemn someone who never had a genuine opportunity to hear about Jesus? This would be like a judge sentencing someone without allowing them to hear the charges or mount a defense. As the Christianity Today reviewer notes, “On his understanding, the God who loves all people will not condemn them without a hearing because this is his nature and the nature of salvation.”
Think about it this way: If a child grows up in North Korea, completely isolated from any Christian influence, and dies without ever hearing the name of Jesus, would a just God condemn that person to eternal hell? Beilby argues this would contradict God’s just nature. Justice requires that everyone receive a genuine opportunity to respond to God’s offer of salvation.
Categories of recipients
Beilby identifies two primary groups who would receive postmortem opportunity, carefully defining who qualifies for this divine provision:
The Unevangelized include several distinct categories:
- Those geographically beyond the reach of missionaries or evangelists – people in isolated tribes or closed countries
- Those who die in infancy before developing the capacity to understand the gospel
- Those who die without cognitive ability to understand the gospel due to severe mental disabilities
- Those in temporal isolation, such as people who lived before Christ or before the gospel reached their region
The “Pseudoevangelized” – a crucial new category Beilby introduces – includes those who heard a distorted or “bastardized” version of the gospel that actually prevented them from accepting the true message:
- African-American slaves who heard a gospel that promoted their oppression, taught from the “Slave Bible” that removed references to freedom
- Victims of abuse by Christian leaders, pastors, or family members who associated Christianity with their trauma
- Those raised in abusive religious cults that twisted the gospel message
- People who encountered only hypocritical Christian witnesses whose lives contradicted their message
- Those “on the trajectory towards faith but their lives were interrupted by an untimely death”
This distinction between the unevangelized and pseudoevangelized is revolutionary because it acknowledges that hearing about Jesus isn’t enough – the message must be presented in a way that allows genuine response. Someone sexually abused by a pastor may have “heard” the gospel, but their traumatic experience created an insurmountable barrier to accepting it.
The method of biblical reasoning
Beilby acknowledges that Scripture doesn’t explicitly state “people get a second chance after death.” Instead, he uses what he calls “reasonable inferences from Scripture.” His methodology follows this principle:
“Specific theological beliefs cannot contradict what Scripture clearly teaches and should be based on reasonable inferences from what Scripture does teach.”
– James Beilby, Methodological Principle
This approach resembles how Christians derive the doctrine of the Trinity – while the word “Trinity” never appears in Scripture, the concept emerges from synthesizing various biblical teachings about God’s nature. Similarly, Beilby argues that postmortem opportunity emerges from combining biblical teachings about God’s love, justice, and desire for universal salvation.
When postmortem opportunity could occur
Beilby explores three possible moments when postmortem opportunity might be offered, each with its own theological basis:
At the moment of death
Some theologians suggest that at the instant of death, when the soul separates from the body, God might provide a final opportunity for salvation. This view draws support from near-death experience accounts where people report encountering divine beings and experiencing life reviews. The moment of death represents a transition between earthly existence and eternal destiny, potentially allowing for one final divine encounter.
During the intermediate state
The intermediate state refers to the period between individual death and the final resurrection. During this time, souls exist in a conscious state awaiting the final judgment. Beilby explores whether this intermediate period might provide opportunity for those who never heard the gospel to encounter Christ and respond to His offer of salvation.
This connects with the traditional Christian teaching about Christ’s descent to the dead between His crucifixion and resurrection. If Christ could preach to souls during that time, perhaps similar opportunities continue for those who die without hearing the gospel.
At the final judgment
The third possibility places postmortem opportunity at the moment of final judgment itself. Rather than judgment being merely a pronouncement of predetermined verdicts, it could include a final opportunity for response. Beilby suggests that “it is possible to believe that the judgment that an unevangelized person experiences includes an opportunity to hear the gospel and that they are judged by their response to that offer.”
This doesn’t mean judgment becomes a “do-over” for those who consciously rejected Christ in life. Rather, it provides a first genuine opportunity for those who never had one. The judgment becomes both revelation and decision point for the unevangelized.
Addressing biblical objections to postmortem opportunity
Critics of postmortem opportunity often cite specific biblical passages that seem to close the door on salvation after death. Beilby carefully addresses each of these objections with detailed biblical interpretation.
The Hebrews 9:27 challenge
Perhaps the most frequently cited objection comes from Hebrews 9:27: “It is appointed for man to die once, and after that comes judgment.” This verse seems to establish a clear sequence – death, then judgment, with no opportunity for salvation in between.
Beilby provides a contextual interpretation that challenges this surface reading. He argues that Hebrews 9:27 establishes a parallel between human death and Christ’s sacrificial death. The passage continues in verse 28: “so Christ, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time, not to deal with sin but to save those who are eagerly waiting for him.”
“Just as human beings only die once, and after that face judgment (Heb 9:27), so Christ will only die once to pay the price for human sin, and after that ‘appear a second time’ to bring salvation to those who are being judged (Heb 9:28).”
– Beilby’s interpretation of Hebrews 9:27-28
The broader context of Hebrews 9 compares the old covenant’s system of repeated animal sacrifices with Christ’s single, sufficient sacrifice. The point isn’t to establish a rigid timeline prohibiting postmortem opportunity, but to emphasize that Christ’s death, like human death, happens only once. Beilby notes that this passage “says more about the permanence of death than the timeline for God’s judgment.”
Furthermore, Beilby makes a crucial observation about what judgment might include:
“It is possible to believe that the judgment that an unevangelized person experiences includes an opportunity to hear the gospel and that they are judged by their response to that offer.”
– James Beilby, on judgment including opportunity
Death as the end of salvific opportunity
Traditional theology often teaches that death marks the absolute end of any possibility for salvation. Once someone dies, their eternal fate is sealed. Beilby directly challenges this assumption, arguing that “death is not the end of salvific opportunity and that some might receive their first and only opportunity to hear the gospel and respond to God’s salvific offer after death.”
Importantly, Beilby doesn’t argue for unlimited postmortem chances. He restricts this opportunity to specific groups: the unevangelized, the pseudoevangelized, and those lacking cognitive capacity. Someone who clearly heard and rejected the gospel in life wouldn’t receive another chance after death. The opportunity is for those who never had a genuine opportunity, not those who squandered the opportunities they received.
The parable of the rich man and Lazarus
Luke 16:19-31 tells Jesus’ parable of a rich man who ends up in torment after death while the poor man Lazarus rests in Abraham’s bosom. The rich man begs Abraham to send Lazarus to warn his brothers, but Abraham refuses, saying they have “Moses and the Prophets” to warn them. This parable seems to suggest that death creates an unbridgeable chasm with no possibility of changing one’s destiny.
While the sources don’t provide Beilby’s detailed treatment of this parable, reviewers indicate he addresses it by examining its contextual meaning and literary purpose. Parables primarily teach specific lessons rather than providing systematic theology about the afterlife. This parable’s main point concerns the danger of wealth and ignoring God’s commands in this life, not necessarily establishing rigid rules about postmortem possibilities.
The book of life passages in Revelation
Revelation mentions the “book of life” containing names of the saved, written “from the foundation of the world” (Revelation 13:8, 17:8). This seems to suggest that salvation is predetermined before birth, leaving no room for postmortem decisions. While Beilby’s specific treatment of these passages wasn’t detailed in the available sources, his overall approach emphasizes that predestination language in Scripture doesn’t negate human responsibility or God’s genuine desire for all to be saved.
Biblical evidence supporting postmortem opportunity
While critics focus on passages that seem to oppose postmortem opportunity, Beilby builds a positive biblical case from several key texts that suggest salvation possibilities after death.
Christ’s descent to the dead: 1 Peter 3:18-20
This passage stands at the center of Beilby’s biblical argument:
“For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit, in which he went and proclaimed to the spirits in prison, because they formerly did not obey, when God’s patience waited in the days of Noah…”
– 1 Peter 3:18-20
This mysterious passage has generated enormous debate throughout Christian history. Martin Luther himself confessed confusion about its meaning. Biblical scholars identify three main interpretations:
View 1: Christ preached through Noah to Noah’s contemporaries before the flood. This interpretation avoids postmortem implications but requires reading “spirits in prison” as living humans in Noah’s time.
View 2: Christ descended to hell or Hades between His death and resurrection to preach to the dead. This traditional interpretation, dominant in early Christianity, directly supports postmortem evangelism.
View 3: Christ proclaimed victory over demonic powers after His resurrection. This view sees the “spirits” as fallen angels rather than human souls.
Beilby likely favors the second interpretation, seeing Christ’s descent as establishing a precedent for postmortem gospel proclamation. If Christ preached to those who died in Noah’s flood – people who lived before the incarnation and never heard of Jesus – this suggests God provides opportunities for those who die without hearing the gospel.
The gospel preached to the dead: 1 Peter 4:6
Just one chapter later, Peter writes:
“For this is why the gospel was preached even to those who are dead, that though judged in the flesh the way people are, they might live in the spirit the way God does.”
– 1 Peter 4:6
This verse more explicitly states that the gospel was preached to the dead. While some interpret “dead” as spiritually dead or as those who heard the gospel while alive but have since died, the most natural reading suggests actual proclamation to those who have physically died. Combined with 1 Peter 3:18-20, these passages provide biblical foundation for postmortem evangelism.
Christ’s victory over death: Ephesians 4:8-10
Paul writes about Christ’s triumph:
“Therefore it says, ‘When he ascended on high he led a host of captives, and he gave gifts to men.’ (In saying, ‘He ascended,’ what does it mean but that he had also descended into the lower regions, the earth? He who descended is the one who also ascended far above all the heavens, that he might fill all things.)”
– Ephesians 4:8-10
This passage describes Christ’s descent “into the lower regions,” traditionally understood as the realm of the dead. The imagery of leading “a host of captives” suggests liberation of souls previously held in death’s domain. While interpretations vary, Beilby sees this as supporting evidence for Christ’s salvific work among the dead.
Amy Peeler’s assessment of Beilby’s biblical work
Amy Peeler from Wheaton College provides important scholarly validation of Beilby’s biblical interpretation:
“Beilby’s scriptural and theological arguments are cogent, careful, and convincing. He does not claim too much for any of the passages but simply shows how those texts that might seem to close the door to Postmortem Opportunity, when considered fully and in context, do not.”
– Amy Peeler, Wheaton College
This scholarly endorsement highlights Beilby’s careful exegetical method – he doesn’t overstate his case but demonstrates that Scripture doesn’t definitively rule out postmortem opportunity.
Historical theological support from early church fathers
Beilby dedicates significant attention to historical theology, demonstrating that postmortem opportunity has deep roots in Christian tradition. Far from being a modern innovation, the concept appears throughout patristic writings.
Clement of Alexandria (c. 150-215 AD)
Clement of Alexandria, one of the most influential early Christian theologians, explicitly taught postmortem salvation opportunities. His writings reveal a sophisticated understanding of how God’s justice and mercy operate after death:
“God’s punishments are saving and disciplinary [in Hades] leading to conversion, and choosing rather the repentance than the death of the sinner, and especially since souls, although darkened by passions, when released from their bodies, are able to perceive more clearly because of their being no longer obstructed by the paltry flesh.”
– Clement of Alexandria
Notice Clement’s logic: souls actually see more clearly after death because physical limitations no longer obstruct their perception. This enhanced clarity could enable better understanding and acceptance of the gospel. Clement portrays God as a divine physician whose punishments serve therapeutic rather than merely retributive purposes:
“Earthly fathers don’t punish their children to hurt them. They chasten their children with a view to correcting them. And, that’s what God, our Heavenly Father, does. Punishing for the sake of punishing would simply be returning evil for evil. God doesn’t do that.”
– Clement of Alexandria on divine discipline
For Clement, God’s universal sovereignty and goodness logically require postmortem salvation opportunities. He believed God is “the Lord of the universe, and He has arranged all things with a view to the salvation of the universe,” making postmortem salvation consistent with God’s character as absolutely good and sovereign.
Origen (c. 185-254 AD)
Origen, perhaps the most brilliant theologian of the early church, developed the doctrine of apokatastasis – universal restoration of all creation to God. Leading Origen scholar Ilaria Ramelli’s research demonstrates that “not only did Origen embrace the doctrine of apokatastasis, but that it was central” to his entire theological system.
For Origen, apokatastasis wasn’t merely one doctrine among many but was “interwoven with his anthropology, eschatology, theology, philosophy of history, theodicy, and exegesis.” He taught that Christ’s descent into Hades involved active evangelization of the dead, with salvation opportunities extending beyond physical death. Remarkably, Origen believed the final restoration would include “all intelligent creatures returning to friendship with God,” even Satan himself.
Origen’s interpretation of 1 Corinthians 15:28 – “that God may be all in all” – provided biblical foundation for universal restoration through postmortem opportunity. While the church later condemned some of Origen’s specific ideas, his influence on Christian thought about the afterlife remains profound.
Gregory of Nyssa (c. 335-394 AD)
Gregory of Nyssa, one of the Cappadocian Fathers who helped establish orthodox Trinitarian doctrine, explicitly taught universal salvation through postmortem purification. His vision was thoroughly Christocentric:
“The punishment by fire is not, therefore, an end in itself, but is ameliorative; the very reason of its infliction is to separate the good from the evil in the soul.”
– Gregory of Nyssa, De anima et resurrectione
Gregory compared postmortem punishment to gold refined in a furnace – the fire’s purpose isn’t destruction but purification. He believed Christ would make “all worthy of the encounter with the Father,” with universal submission being “salvific submission.” Gregory envisioned a time when “all shall be fashioned after Christ, and in all that one character shall shine, which originally was imprinted on our nature.”
Other patristic witnesses
The belief in postmortem opportunity extended beyond these major figures. Tertullian taught that “Christ has descended into Hades to deliver the Good News,” establishing early precedent for postmortem evangelism. Athanasius declared that “Jesus delivered from hell both Jews and Gentiles who accepted the gospel and that postmortem evangelism continues even today.” Justin Martyr taught that those who lived according to the logos (divine reason) could be considered Christians even without explicit knowledge of Christ.
This widespread patristic support demonstrates that postmortem opportunity wasn’t a fringe belief but appeared throughout early Christianity. As Ilaria Ramelli’s research reveals, “the pre-existence of the human nature and the connected doctrine of universal salvation was rather the rule than the exception in early Christianity.”
Medieval and Reformation developments
During the medieval period, concepts of postmortem opportunity evolved into the doctrine of purgatory. Early medieval authors like Pope Gregory I (540-604), Isidore of Seville (d. 636), Julian of Toledo (642-690), and Bede ‘the Venerable’ (d. 735) all contributed to developing ideas about postmortem purification. Bede became the first medieval author to suggest that serious crimes could be purged after death, provided the person repented and confessed on their deathbed.
The Protestant Reformation brought significant changes. Sixteenth- and seventeenth-century Reformers generally “denied Purgatory’s existence altogether” and reverted to a simpler heaven/hell framework. However, Beilby notes that “postmortem purgation on the Last Day continues to have a place in modern Protestant theologies.” Luther himself maintained belief in Christ’s descent into hell as victorious conquest, though he rejected universalist implications.
Eastern Orthodox continuity
Eastern Orthodox Christianity preserved patristic teachings about postmortem opportunity more consistently than Western Christianity. Orthodox theology teaches that Christ’s descent “transformed Hades, liberated all, and opened the way back to the Father.” Unlike Western limitations, Orthodox teaching holds that “Hades is forever transformed and defeated by this descent.”
Orthodox liturgical practices reflect this belief. Prayers for the dead, including memorial services on the 3rd, 9th, and 40th days after death, imply belief in ongoing spiritual development after death. Orthodox teaching maintains that “our prayers can benefit the departed,” suggesting continued possibility for spiritual progress. During Christ’s descent, He “offered them all the chance of salvation, though not all accepted it.”
The Orthodox distinction between Hades (temporary) and Hell (final punishment) allows for postmortem opportunity before final judgment. Figures like Maximus the Confessor and Isaac the Syrian maintained hope for ultimate universal salvation through postmortem purification.
How Beilby differentiates his view from universalism
One of the most common criticisms of postmortem opportunity is that it leads inevitably to universalism – the belief that everyone will ultimately be saved. Beilby carefully distinguishes his position from universalism while maintaining genuine postmortem opportunity.
Not universal salvation
Beilby explicitly rejects the idea that everyone will be saved. He states clearly that “unbelievers who consciously reject Christ will be consigned to hell.” This isn’t universalism wearing orthodox clothing – Beilby genuinely believes some people will be eternally lost. The difference is that they will be lost only after receiving a genuine opportunity to accept Christ, not because of circumstances beyond their control.
No guaranteed acceptance
Even when people stand directly before God in the afterlife, Beilby doesn’t assume they’ll automatically accept the gospel. He “does not presume that those who die and stand before God will receive the gospel message positively, even when they hear it directly from the source.” Think about this remarkable claim – even encountering God face-to-face doesn’t guarantee acceptance. Some may still choose rejection over submission.
This preserves human free will even in the afterlife. God doesn’t overwhelm human choice with His divine presence. People retain the genuine ability to reject God’s offer of salvation, even when that offer comes directly from God Himself in the clearest possible terms.
Limited scope
Beilby restricts postmortem opportunity to those who “failed to receive a sufficient chance at salvation in this life.” This isn’t a second chance for those who heard and rejected the gospel. If someone clearly understood the gospel message and consciously rejected it during their lifetime, they don’t receive another opportunity after death. The postmortem opportunity is specifically for:
- The genuinely unevangelized who never heard
- The pseudoevangelized who heard distorted versions
- Those lacking cognitive capacity to understand
- Those who died before having opportunity to respond
This limited scope prevents the moral hazard of people postponing their response to the gospel, thinking they’ll get another chance after death.
Explicit faith requirement
Unlike inclusivism’s acceptance of “unconscious or implicit faith,” Beilby insists salvation requires “explicit faith in Christ.” This distinguishes his view from theologians who argue people can be saved through general revelation or anonymous Christianity. For Beilby, everyone must consciously confess Christ as Lord – if not in this life, then in the next. There’s no salvation without knowing and accepting Jesus.
Functional annihilationism
In his treatment of hell, Beilby argues for what he calls “functional annihilationism.” Those in hell “stay alive but no longer image God” rather than being completely annihilated. This represents eternal spiritual death rather than non-existence. People in hell continue existing but lose their capacity to reflect God’s image – the very essence of what makes humans truly human.
This view maintains the seriousness of rejecting God while avoiding the philosophical problems of eternal conscious torment. Those who ultimately reject God, even after postmortem opportunity, face genuine eternal consequences.
Theological arguments about God’s universal salvific will
Central to Beilby’s case is the biblical teaching that God desires all people to be saved. This isn’t merely divine preference but reflects God’s essential nature as love itself.
Biblical foundation for universal salvific will
Scripture repeatedly affirms God’s desire for universal salvation. Second Peter 3:9 declares that God is “not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance.” First Timothy 2:4 states God “desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.” Ezekiel 18:23 asks, “Have I any pleasure in the death of the wicked…and not rather that he should turn from his way and live?”
These passages present God’s salvation desire as universal in scope – extending to every single human being. Beilby argues we must take these statements seriously. If God genuinely desires everyone’s salvation, wouldn’t He ensure everyone receives a genuine opportunity to be saved?
The problem of ineffective divine desire
Traditional theology faces a dilemma: If God desires all to be saved but many die without hearing the gospel, does this mean God’s desires go unfulfilled? This seems to diminish either God’s sovereignty (He can’t accomplish what He desires) or His love (He doesn’t really desire everyone’s salvation).
Beilby’s postmortem opportunity resolves this tension. God’s universal salvific will is effectual – He ensures everyone receives opportunity for salvation. Those who are ultimately lost have genuinely rejected God’s offer, not simply lacked opportunity to hear it. This preserves both divine sovereignty and genuine human freedom.
Divine justice and the unevangelized
The question of divine justice becomes acute when considering the unevangelized. How can a just God condemn someone who never heard about Jesus? Traditional answers often seem unsatisfying:
The exclusivist response: “They’re condemned for rejecting general revelation” – But can someone really be held eternally responsible for not responding to stars and conscience with explicit faith in Jesus?
The inclusivist response: “They can be saved through implicit faith” – But this seems to make explicit faith in Christ unnecessary, undermining the Great Commission.
The universalist response: “Everyone will ultimately be saved” – But this ignores biblical warnings about judgment and the possibility of rejecting God.
Beilby’s solution maintains that explicit faith in Christ is necessary while ensuring everyone receives genuine opportunity for such faith. Divine justice is preserved because no one is condemned without a real chance to accept salvation.
How Beilby addresses the “second chance” objection
Critics often dismiss postmortem opportunity as giving people a “second chance” after death, creating moral hazard and undermining evangelism urgency. Beilby addresses this objection with several important clarifications.
First opportunity, not second chance
For the unevangelized and pseudoevangelized, postmortem opportunity isn’t a “second” chance but their first genuine opportunity to hear the true gospel. A person born in medieval Japan couldn’t have heard about Jesus – their postmortem encounter would be their first chance, not their second. Similarly, someone raised in an abusive cult who heard only a distorted gospel never had a genuine first opportunity.
The language of “second chance” assumes someone already had a legitimate first chance. Beilby argues many people never received that first genuine opportunity, making postmortem opportunity a matter of divine justice rather than excessive mercy.
Divine determination, not human assumption
Crucially, “It is God, and not you, who deems someone to be in need of a Postmortem Opportunity.” Humans can’t determine their own eligibility for postmortem opportunity. Someone can’t live in rebellion thinking, “I’ll just wait for my postmortem chance.” Only God knows who genuinely lacked opportunity versus who rejected legitimate opportunities.
This divine determination prevents people from gambling with their eternal destiny. You can’t plan on postmortem opportunity because you don’t know if you’ll qualify. The only safe response is to accept the gospel when you hear it clearly presented.
No excuse for rebellion
Beilby’s view “does not give anyone an excuse to continue living a life of sin and rebellion against God when they have heard the gospel.” Those who have genuinely heard and understood the gospel must respond in this life. Postmortem opportunity is specifically for those who lacked genuine opportunity, not those who postponed their decision.
This maintains evangelism urgency while acknowledging that not everyone has equal access to the gospel. Christians should still urgently share the gospel because they can’t know who has or hasn’t had genuine opportunity, and because accepting Christ in this life brings immediate blessings of relationship with God.
Near-death experiences and postmortem theology
While Beilby doesn’t extensively discuss near-death experiences (NDEs) in available sources, these phenomena provide intriguing empirical data relevant to postmortem theology. Thousands of people who clinically died and were resuscitated report conscious experiences during the time they were “dead.”
Life reviews and moral accountability
One of the most consistent NDE elements is the “life review,” where individuals experience their entire lives, often from the perspective of others they affected. Research indicates that “NDErs typically describe their life review from a third-person perspective…including an awareness of what others were thinking and feeling when they interacted with them.”
These life reviews often include profound moral dimensions. People report feeling the pain they caused others and the joy they brought through kindness. This aligns with theological concepts of divine judgment that considers the full impact of our actions. One experiencer reported: “I was the very people that I hurt, and I was the very people I helped to feel good.”
The life review phenomenon suggests consciousness continues after clinical death and includes moral evaluation – both consistent with postmortem opportunity theology.
Encounters with divine beings
Many NDErs report meeting a being of light or divine presence. Remarkably, “approximately one-third of NDErs who recall meeting a divine being testify that it was Jesus,” though descriptions vary across religious backgrounds. These encounters typically involve communication about love, purpose, and often include being told to return to earthly life.
Common themes in divine encounters include:
- Overwhelming sense of unconditional love
- Communication without words – direct thought transfer
- Review of life’s purpose and meaning
- Choice or command to return to complete earthly tasks
These experiences suggest the possibility of postmortem encounters with the divine, though they don’t definitively prove postmortem evangelism.
Cross-cultural and cross-religious NDEs
Intriguingly, positive NDEs occur across all religious backgrounds, including non-Christians and atheists. This raises theological questions: Why do non-Christians often report blissful afterlife experiences? Does this support universal salvation or postmortem opportunity?
From Beilby’s framework, these experiences might represent initial postmortem encounters where individuals experience God’s love before making ultimate decisions about accepting or rejecting Christ. The positive nature of many non-Christian NDEs doesn’t necessarily indicate final salvation but could represent God’s gracious approach to those who lacked earthly opportunity to know Him.
Theological interpretation of NDEs
NDEs provide fascinating data but require careful theological interpretation. They suggest:
1. Consciousness continues after death – Supporting the idea that physical death doesn’t end personal existence
2. Moral evaluation occurs – Life reviews involve moral assessment of earthly actions
3. Divine encounters are possible – Many report meeting beings of light or divine presences
4. Return is sometimes possible – Near-death isn’t necessarily final, suggesting flexibility in the dying process
While NDEs don’t prove postmortem evangelism, they provide empirical support for consciousness after death and divine encounters in the transition between life and whatever comes next.
Comparison with other postmortem theologians
Beilby’s work doesn’t exist in isolation but engages with a rich tradition of contemporary theologians exploring similar questions. Understanding how his view compares with others helps clarify his unique contribution.
Jerry Walls and purgatorial sanctification
Jerry Walls, author of a trilogy on the afterlife, represents the most philosophically sophisticated Protestant defense of purgatory. His works – Hell: The Logic of Damnation, Heaven: The Logic of Eternal Joy, and Purgatory: The Logic of Total Transformation – argue for purgatory as completing sanctification rather than satisfying divine justice.
Similarities with Beilby: Walls strongly endorses Beilby’s work, calling it “biblically engaged, theologically robust, and philosophically sophisticated.” Both reject Calvinist determinism, insisting on libertarian free will. Walls agrees that “some traditional views of hell can only be defended philosophically if modified to allow purgatory or the granting of some way to receive the gospel upon or after death.”
Differences: Walls focuses on purgatory as sanctification for Christians, while Beilby emphasizes evangelism for the unevangelized. Walls approaches the issue primarily through philosophical theology, examining divine attributes and human freedom. Beilby grounds his argument more in biblical exegesis and theological inference. Walls’ purgatory potentially applies to all Christians needing purification, while Beilby’s postmortem opportunity specifically targets those who never heard the gospel.
Gabriel Fackre’s divine perseverance
Gabriel Fackre advocates what he calls “divine perseverance” rather than “postmortem evangelism.” In his contributions to What About Those Who Have Never Heard?, Fackre argues that God’s persistent love ensures everyone hears the gospel, whether in this life or the next.
Similarities: Both Fackre and Beilby affirm that explicit faith in Christ is necessary for salvation. Both believe God provides postmortem opportunities for the unevangelized. Both distinguish their positions from inclusivism by maintaining that knowledge of Christ is ultimately necessary.
Differences: The terminology reflects different emphases – Fackre’s “divine perseverance” emphasizes God’s persistent love, while Beilby’s “postmortem opportunity” focuses on human response opportunity. Fackre embeds his view within narrative theology, while Beilby uses traditional systematic theology. Beilby provides more extensive biblical exegesis, while Fackre relies more on theological reasoning about God’s character.
Eastern Orthodox perspectives
Metropolitan Hilarion Alfeyev’s Christ the Conqueror of Hell presents Orthodox teaching that Christ’s descent into Hades was “an event of cosmic significance opening the path to universal salvation.” Orthodox theology maintains that “Hades as a place of divine presence, a place where the spiritual fate of a person may still change.”
Common ground: Both Orthodox theology and Beilby see Christ’s descent as opening salvific possibilities for the dead. Both use 1 Peter 3:18-20 and 4:6 as key supporting texts. Both maintain that death doesn’t necessarily finalize one’s spiritual fate.
Differences: Orthodox theology tends toward more universalistic interpretations, with Christ potentially saving all in Hades. Beilby is more restrictive, focusing on the genuinely unevangelized. Orthodox interpretation relies heavily on patristic tradition, while Beilby employs modern critical exegesis. The Orthodox emphasize liturgical practices (prayers for the dead), while Beilby focuses on theological argumentation.
Clark Pinnock’s inclusivism
Clark Pinnock, in A Wideness in God’s Mercy, advocated both inclusivism and postmortem opportunity. He argued that people could be saved through general revelation while also maintaining that “Scripture does not require us to hold that the window of opportunity is slammed shut at death.”
Key difference: Beilby explicitly rejects inclusivism, arguing that general revelation cannot save. While Pinnock saw postmortem opportunity as supplementing inclusivism, Beilby sees it as necessary precisely because inclusivism is inadequate. Beilby insists on explicit faith in Christ, while Pinnock allowed for implicit faith through general revelation.
John Sanders and the inclusivist alternative
John Sanders, in No Other Name, argues primarily for inclusivism – that people can be saved by responding to general revelation, though ultimately saved by Christ’s work.
Fundamental disagreement: Sanders believes salvation is possible through general revelation response; Beilby explicitly rejects this. Sanders discusses “eschatological evangelization” as one option but prefers inclusivism; Beilby rejects inclusivism in favor of postmortem opportunity. Both engage similar biblical passages but reach opposite conclusions about general revelation’s sufficiency.
The distinction between unevangelized and pseudoevangelized
One of Beilby’s most innovative contributions is introducing the category of the “pseudoevangelized” alongside the traditional “unevangelized.” This distinction profoundly impacts who qualifies for postmortem opportunity.
Understanding the unevangelized
The unevangelized category is relatively straightforward, including those who never heard the gospel due to circumstances beyond their control:
Geographic isolation: People in remote locations unreached by missionaries – Amazon tribes, closed countries like North Korea, historical civilizations before Christianity arrived.
Temporal isolation: Those who lived before Christ or before the gospel reached their region. Every person who died before 33 AD falls into this category, as do those in regions where Christianity arrived centuries later.
Developmental limitations: Infants who die before developing capacity for faith, people with severe cognitive disabilities who cannot comprehend the gospel message.
These groups clearly never had opportunity to respond to the gospel. Their lack of faith stems from lack of opportunity, not rejection of Christ.
The revolutionary category of the pseudoevangelized
Beilby’s introduction of the “pseudoevangelized” category addresses a crucial pastoral and theological problem. These are people who technically “heard” about Christianity but in such distorted form that it prevented rather than enabled genuine faith.
Victims of religious abuse: Consider a child sexually abused by a pastor who preached about God’s love while violating that child. That person may have “heard” the gospel hundreds of times but associated it with trauma and betrayal. Can we say they genuinely rejected Christ, or did they reject a monstrous distortion presented in Christ’s name?
Recipients of oppressive theology: African-American slaves were taught Christianity from the “Slave Bible,” which removed passages about liberation and emphasized obedience to masters. They heard that God ordained their slavery and that suffering silently would earn them heaven. This wasn’t the true gospel but a perversion designed to maintain oppression.
Those raised in cults: People raised in groups like Westboro Baptist Church or abusive fundamentalist sects hear constant talk about God and Jesus but in frameworks of hate, fear, and control. They may know Bible verses but have never encountered the actual gospel of God’s love and grace.
Those on faith trajectories: Some people are moving toward faith when death interrupts. A skeptic beginning to explore Christianity who dies in an accident before reaching commitment. A teenager questioning childhood faith who doesn’t live to resolve those questions.
Why this distinction matters theologically
The pseudoevangelized category addresses a crucial question: What constitutes genuine gospel presentation? Beilby argues that hearing words about Jesus isn’t enough – the message must be presented in a way that allows authentic response.
This has profound implications:
It takes trauma seriously: Recognizing that religious trauma can create insurmountable barriers to faith validates survivors’ experiences while maintaining hope for their ultimate salvation.
It demands gospel integrity: Christians bear responsibility for presenting the gospel accurately. Distorting the message doesn’t just fail to save – it may actually prevent salvation in this life.
It explains rejection patterns: Many who reject Christianity aren’t rejecting Christ Himself but the distorted versions they encountered. Their hostility toward Christianity may stem from genuine wounds inflicted by false representations.
It maintains divine justice: God wouldn’t condemn someone for rejecting a false gospel they couldn’t distinguish from the true message. Justice requires that people receive genuine opportunity to respond to accurate gospel presentation.
Theological arguments about implicit vs explicit faith
A crucial element of Beilby’s theology involves the nature of saving faith – must it be explicit faith in Jesus Christ, or can implicit faith in God suffice?
Beilby’s insistence on explicit faith
Beilby maintains uncompromisingly that “explicit, conscious, and intentional faith in Jesus Christ is necessary for salvation.” This isn’t mere theological preference but flows from his understanding of salvation’s nature. Salvation isn’t just forgiveness but relationship with God through Christ. Relationship requires knowledge, recognition, and conscious commitment.
Think about human relationships – you can’t have a genuine relationship with someone you don’t know exists. Similarly, Beilby argues, salvation as relationship with God through Christ requires knowing Christ explicitly. This distinguishes his view from inclusivists who argue for salvation through implicit or anonymous faith.
The inclusivist alternative
Inclusivists like Clark Pinnock and John Sanders argue differently. They suggest people can respond to God through general revelation – creation, conscience, and religious intuition – without knowing about Jesus. In this view, a devout Hindu who seeks truth and loves others might have implicit faith in Christ without knowing His name.
Inclusivists often cite biblical examples:
- Old Testament saints saved without knowing Jesus’ name
- Cornelius called “God-fearing” before hearing the gospel (Acts 10)
- Athenians worshiping an “unknown god” (Acts 17)
They argue these examples show God accepts sincere seekers who respond to available light, crediting them with implicit faith in Christ.
Why Beilby rejects implicit faith
Beilby finds the inclusivist position biblically inadequate for several reasons:
Biblical emphasis on confession: Romans 10:9 requires confessing “Jesus is Lord” for salvation. This demands explicit knowledge and acknowledgment, not implicit faith.
The Great Commission’s urgency: If implicit faith sufficed, why did Jesus command urgent global evangelization? The apostles’ willingness to suffer and die for evangelism suggests explicit faith is necessary.
Biblical exclusivity: Jesus declared “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me” (John 14:6). This seems to require conscious faith in Christ specifically.
Salvation as relationship: Biblical salvation involves adoption as God’s children, the indwelling Holy Spirit, and participation in Christ’s body. These relational realities seem impossible without knowing Christ explicitly.
Postmortem opportunity as the solution
Beilby’s postmortem opportunity theology resolves the tension between requiring explicit faith and acknowledging that many lack opportunity for such faith. Rather than lowering the requirement to implicit faith, God provides postmortem opportunity for explicit faith for those who lacked earthly opportunity.
This solution maintains several theological commitments:
- Salvation requires explicit faith in Christ (biblical fidelity)
- God desires all people’s salvation (divine love)
- God ensures everyone has genuine opportunity (divine justice)
- Human response remains free (human responsibility)
Implications for world religions
Beilby’s view has specific implications for adherents of other religions. A devout Muslim, Hindu, or Buddhist hasn’t exercised explicit faith in Christ, regardless of their sincerity or devotion. Their implicit theism or moral virtue doesn’t constitute saving faith. However, if they lacked genuine opportunity to hear the gospel (perhaps hearing only distorted presentations), they would receive postmortem opportunity for explicit faith in Christ.
This maintains Christianity’s exclusive truth claims while addressing the problem of those who never heard. It takes seriously both the biblical insistence on faith in Christ and the biblical affirmation of God’s universal love.
Academic reception and critical responses
Beilby’s work has generated significant academic discussion, with both enthusiastic endorsements and thoughtful critiques from leading scholars.
Positive scholarly endorsements
Several prominent theologians have praised Beilby’s careful scholarship and balanced approach:
“Beilby’s defense of the controversial idea of postmortem conversion is biblically engaged, theologically robust, and philosophically sophisticated. It is hard to imagine a better or more thorough treatment of this complex set of issues. Indeed, this book is a model of how philosophical theology ought to be done.”
– Jerry L. Walls, Houston Baptist University
“Beilby’s scriptural and theological arguments are cogent, careful, and convincing. He does not claim too much for any of the passages but simply shows how those texts that might seem to close the door to Postmortem Opportunity, when considered fully and in context, do not.”
– Amy Peeler, Wheaton College
“Well-anchored in Scripture and Christian orthodoxy, Jim Beilby’s book provides a careful and wise exploration of Postmortem Opportunity.”
– Paul Copan, Palm Beach Atlantic University
Steve Wilkens from Azusa Pacific University praised Beilby’s ability to draw on “exegetical, philosophical, and theological resources” while “avoiding speculative conclusions.” This scholarly recognition highlights the academic rigor of Beilby’s work.
Critical perspectives
Critics have raised several objections to Beilby’s thesis:
Lack of explicit biblical support: Rhyne Putman in Christianity Today notes that “Without an explicit statement in Scripture promising postmortem opportunity, his argument rests on disputed texts and inferences from other disputed concepts and ideas.” This criticism highlights that Beilby’s case relies on theological inference rather than clear biblical statements.
Weak treatment of certain passages: One critic argued the work was “weak on specific Bible teaching – of which there is considerably more than stated here,” particularly noting inadequate treatment of Romans 1:18-20 regarding general revelation and human responsibility.
Limited positive evidence: Another reviewer observed, “I see little direct evidence of post-mortem opportunity in the Biblical data,” suggesting that while Beilby shows Scripture doesn’t rule out postmortem opportunity, positive evidence remains thin.
Missionary urgency concerns: Some critics worry that postmortem opportunity undermines evangelism urgency. If people get chances after death, why sacrifice for missions now? Beilby addresses this by noting we can’t know who qualifies for postmortem opportunity and that accepting Christ in this life brings immediate blessings.
The broader theological conversation
Beilby’s work contributes to growing evangelical reconsideration of traditional views about the afterlife. Alongside scholars like Jerry Walls, Robin Parry, and others, Beilby represents a movement toward more hopeful eschatologies while maintaining evangelical commitments to biblical authority and salvation through Christ alone.
This conversation reflects broader cultural shifts:
- Increased awareness of global religious diversity
- Recognition of religious trauma and spiritual abuse
- Questions about divine justice in an interconnected world
- Desire for theological frameworks addressing contemporary pastoral needs
Conclusion: The hope and limits of postmortem opportunity
James Beilby’s postmortem opportunity theology offers a carefully constructed middle path between exclusivism and universalism. His view maintains that explicit faith in Jesus Christ is absolutely necessary for salvation while ensuring that God’s justice and love extend genuine opportunity to every person who has ever lived.
The coherence of Beilby’s vision
Beilby’s theology achieves remarkable coherence by holding together several crucial commitments:
Biblical fidelity: While acknowledging that Scripture doesn’t explicitly teach postmortem evangelism, Beilby shows that biblical texts about God’s character, Christ’s descent, and divine justice create space for this doctrine. His careful exegesis demonstrates respect for biblical authority while engaging in theological construction.
Orthodox boundaries: Unlike universalists, Beilby maintains that some will be finally lost. Unlike inclusivists, he insists on explicit faith in Christ. His view remains within orthodox Christianity while pushing at traditional boundaries.
Pastoral sensitivity: The category of the pseudoevangelized shows deep pastoral concern for those wounded by distorted Christianity. Beilby takes seriously the ways bad theology and religious abuse create barriers to faith.
Theological sophistication: By engaging biblical, historical, philosophical, and systematic theology, Beilby demonstrates how complex theological questions require interdisciplinary approaches.
Remaining questions and tensions
Despite its strengths, Beilby’s view leaves some questions unresolved:
The mechanics of postmortem encounter: How exactly does postmortem evangelism work? What form does the gospel take when presented directly by God? How does free will operate in divine presence?
The scope of pseudoevangelization: Who determines whether someone was genuinely evangelized or pseudoevangelized? How distorted must the gospel be before it doesn’t count? These boundaries remain fuzzy.
The relationship to traditional doctrine: How does postmortem opportunity relate to traditional teachings about particular judgment, purgatory, and the intermediate state? Further theological development is needed.
The practical implications
If Beilby is correct, several practical implications follow:
Evangelism remains urgent but takes on different character. Rather than racing against death to save people from default damnation, evangelism invites people into immediate relationship with God. The focus shifts from avoiding hell to experiencing abundant life now.
Pastoral care for the grieving can offer more hope. Parents who lost unbaptized infants, those whose loved ones died without clear faith, and those worried about unevangelized ancestors can trust God’s justice and love to provide opportunity.
Victims of religious abuse receive validation. Their rejection of toxic Christianity doesn’t necessarily mean rejecting Christ. God understands the difference between rejecting distortion and rejecting truth.
Interfaith dialogue can proceed with both conviction and humility. Christians can maintain that Christ is the only way while trusting God to ensure everyone receives genuine opportunity to respond to Him.
The ultimate hope
Beilby’s postmortem opportunity theology ultimately presents a God who is both more just and more loving than traditional theology sometimes suggests. This God doesn’t condemn people for circumstances beyond their control. He doesn’t allow historical accidents or human failure to thwart His desire for relationship with every person He created.
At the same time, this God respects human freedom so deeply that even postmortem encounter doesn’t guarantee acceptance. People can still choose rejection over relationship, self over surrender, isolation over love. The tragedy of hell remains real, but it results from genuine rejection rather than unfortunate circumstances.
Perhaps most significantly, Beilby’s view means no one is beyond hope in this life. The worst sinner, the most hardened skeptic, the most wounded victim of religious abuse – all might still respond to genuine gospel presentation, whether in this life or the next. This doesn’t diminish the importance of earthly evangelism but rather increases it, knowing that we participate in God’s patient work of ensuring everyone hears the true gospel.
As Amy Peeler concludes in her endorsement, “Such a suggestion aligns with what I have found to be true of the character of God.” In the end, postmortem opportunity theology is about the character of God – a God whose love pursues every lost sheep, whose justice ensures fair hearing for all, and whose patience extends beyond the grave itself in the quest to bring His children home.
A final word on mystery and hope
Beilby maintains appropriate theological humility about these matters. He doesn’t claim to know exactly how postmortem opportunity works or precisely who qualifies. He simply argues that biblical theology, carefully considered, points toward a God who ensures everyone receives genuine opportunity to respond to the gospel.
In a world where billions have died without hearing of Christ, where religious trauma creates seemingly insurmountable barriers to faith, where children die before reaching the age of accountability, Beilby’s theology offers hope without compromising biblical truth. It suggests that the God revealed in Jesus Christ is even more determined to save than we imagined, even more just than we hoped, and even more patient than we dared believe.
This doesn’t make Christianity easier – explicit faith remains necessary. It doesn’t make hell less real – final rejection remains possible. But it does mean that every person’s story with God remains unfinished until they’ve had genuine opportunity to respond to His love. And for those carrying grief about loved ones who died outside explicit faith, for those wounded by toxic religion, for those troubled by the fate of the unevangelized, this theology offers profound hope rooted in the character of God Himself.
© 2025, Matthew. All rights reserved.
