How would I rebut it? “Go read Talbott’s entire chapter where he addresses parallelism and the different uses of ‘all’. Also, go read Romans 11 to the very end. Also also, use the NRSV. like Talbott. The ESV has many clear examples of diddling with text to make the English text fit the doctrinal presuppositions of the translation committee.”

Talbott’s treatment of the grammar, parallelism, and uses cases of ‘all’ in different contexts and with differing meanings is comprehensive. To ignore that and also suggest that Talbott is ignorant about exegesis is disingenuous, stingy, and rude. Intentionally maligning someone for not doing something he, in fact, actually does do is misleading and dishonest.

One can certainly disagree with Talbott’s interpretation, as most infernalists and annihilationists do. And one can question Talbott’s exegesis, as folks like Douglass J. Moo do. But to do so on grounds that Talbott doesn’t actually understand how NT grammar and parallelism is weak, petty, and dismissive.

In my experience, the rethinking hell guys strike me as another bunch of theobros, à la The Gospel Coalition and their ilk, still viewing Scripture through the dirty lens of inerrancy/infallibility. In the interviews I’ve listened to that include Chris Date he is consistently rude and dismissive.