In debates about any topic, you are likely to find somebody who makes an argument that fails for the following reason: they didn’t think through the logical implications of their argument. They didn’t think about how their reasoning would lead to a conclusion that, for one reason or another, they wouldn’t want. The topic of hell is no exception. It is not uncommon for traditionalist arguments to fall flat for this reason.
Of course, annihilationists can be guilty of this as well. Hopefully, as we think about the overall idea of logical implications more and more, we will not only see flaws in the arguments of others, but also in our own (when they exist), so that we can keep improving.
Continue reading “Hell and the Logical Implications of One’s Arguments (Part 1)”
Rethinking Hell contributor Nick Quient joins guest contributor Ronnie Demler to respond to various comments made about hell and annihilationism by Hank Hanegraaff, the “Bible Answer Man” and President of the 
