>> That’s news to me. Several years ago I saw a rather fundamentalist Christian defending annihilation. All of the other fundamentalist Christians considered him an egregious heretic. But I only have a passing awareness of fundamentalist perspectives. Perhaps annihilation is much more widely accepted as fitting the definition of Hell among fundamentalists or other denominations? Porphyry knows the Roman Catholic doctrinal tradition better than me, maybe he can enlighten me.

I think there is historical attestation of using 'hell' to mean any post-mortem state that does not include the vision of God.

This is how the "harrowing of hell" gets explained. Christ didn't go into a state of eternal conscious torment when he descended to hell (as the Apostles' Creed says he did), and those he led back were in hell only in the attenuated sense of being temporarily blocked from the vision of God (i.e., they were in the libus patrum; this is also attested in the traditional teaching that Jesus "opened the gates of hell"). 

Similarly, in traditional Catholic teaching there are only two final states for man: heaven and hell. And "hell," so taken, would include the limbus infantum, where there is no positive torment but only natural happiness. 

We also see the idea in Dante's first circle of hell; a place without positive punishment for virtuous pagans who can't be admitted to heaven. 

That said I think it is a very broad reading of the term. The vast majority of the time people talk about hell, in my experience, they mean eternal conscious torment. And I'm not aware, off hand, of "hell" being used historically to refer to annihilation--It might be there historically, but certainly not in the orthodoxy Catholic tradition. 

Well that certainly was not my intent as should have been clear from the following: (...)

Tjalling:

I did not take it that way, Robert. I meant only that the terminological issue and the substantive issue are separate.

As for the philosophical usage, either I am mistaken, or the question may require a somewhat larger breakfast table.

To be continued ...

Tjalling said
What remains after the correction
Robert, your experience is clear. In the theological tradition in which you were trained, hell did not function as an umbrella term including purgatory or annihilation. That alone is sufficient reason for me not to use it as though it were an agreed technical umbrella term.
I can show that, in Protestant circles in which I was formed, the wider question of final judgment was discussed under that heading [hell as an umbrella term that included Purgatory & Annihilation]. The same is true of some usage in philosophy. I understand that you want to be very precise and that you weigh my words carefully. If those points remain important to you, I am willing to address them separately.

Yes, I am always eager to learn more about this kind of thing. Thank you.

But they are not necessary to the argument I want to make, and I do not want a further terminological dispute to obscure it. ... a substantive question remains that cannot be made to disappear by a dictionary definition of hell

Well that certainly was not my intent as should have been clear from the following:

"I won’t have time to address your more substantive concerns for a while. I have Belgians friends coming to stay here for the night and have a lot to do to get ready for them. One of them has a doctorate in Philosophy so I may ask him to better educate me about the more broadly inclusive use of the term “Hell” in philosophical discussions."

By the way, I did ask my philosopher friend about this point over breakfast this morning. He too has no recollection of a philosophical use of the term "Hell" as an umbrella term that included Purgatory & Annihilation

But a substantive question remains that cannot be made to disappear by a dictionary definition of hell:

To be continued ...

Robert, your experience is clear. In the theological tradition in which you were trained, hell did not function as an umbrella term including purgatory or annihilation. That alone is sufficient reason for me not to use it as though it were an agreed technical umbrella term.

I can show that, in Protestant circles in which I was formed, the wider question of final judgment was discussed under that heading. The same is true of some usage in philosophy. I understand that you want to be very precise and that you weigh my words carefully. If those points remain important to you, I am willing to address them separately. But they are not necessary to the argument I want to make, and I do not want a further terminological dispute to obscure it. I will therefore not use hell as a technical umbrella term here.

What follows is not a defense of my original claim that Bart failed to mark his personal judgments. He did mark them, and I corrected that claim.

But a substantive question remains that cannot be made to disappear by a dictionary definition of hell: what did Bart’s historical argument establish, and what conclusion were his listeners finally invited to take away?

==========

My central concern is this: the rhetorical scope of the conclusion is broader than the evidential scope of the historical argument. Bart’s historical case removes eternal conscious torment from the teaching of the historical Jesus, but his conclusion, from “God is in the end merciful” to “in the end What Have We to Fear?”, invites a wider reassurance. Yet the historical Jesus as Bart reconstructs him still warns of exclusion, destruction, “the worst outcome you can possibly imagine,” and “a horrible death in fire.”

I will call this an inferential slide. I do not mean the familiar slippery-slope fallacy. I mean a smooth movement in which the authority of a narrower historical conclusion can be carried into a broader philosophical or existential reassurance without the additional argument becoming equally visible.

==========

The way Bart formally introduced the course matters: “What the Hell? Jesus’ teachings on the afterlife.”

The listener is therefore promised more than an account of the historical development of one later doctrine. The course is framed as an account of what Jesus taught about the afterlife.

Bart also defines his primary subject clearly: “What we think of hell, if we think of hell as eternal conscious torment, where souls go to this realm where they are tortured forever, that idea … is not in the Hebrew Bible at all, and it’s not what Jesus taught.”

Bart’s primary historical claim is therefore clear: eternal conscious torment was not the teaching of the historical Jesus.

The question is what remains once eternal conscious torment has been excluded from Jesus’ teaching, and whether the concluding reassurance is as carefully limited as the historical case itself.

==========

Bart’s own reconstruction leaves something extraordinarily severe in place. When he turns specifically to what he believes Jesus taught about the fate of those excluded from God’s Kingdom, he says that Jesus warned of:

“the worst outcome you can possibly imagine”;

people who are “really upset they’re not allowed into God’s kingdom” and are then destroyed;

people who “cease to exist” and are “burned to nothing”;

“If you’re not on God’s side, you’re destroyed”;

and “a horrible death in fire” after which they are “never brought back.”

These formulations have now been checked directly against the audio.

Bart also speaks of exclusion from the Kingdom, darkness, weeping and gnashing of teeth, destruction at God’s judgment, eternal punishment because it is never reversed, and never returning to life to enjoy God’s Kingdom.

His summary is unambiguous: “He himself believed in eternal annihilation, not eternal torment.”

This is not Dante’s Inferno. It is not eternal conscious torture. But it is hardly nothing to fear: Bart himself calls it “the worst outcome you can possibly imagine.”

==========

Near the end, Bart describes the growing interest in universalism as “a hopeful sign” and says:

“I think that God is in the end merciful.”

The concluding slide then reads, exactly:

IN THE END
What Have We to Fear?

The phrase “in the end” appears in both places, and that matters. The course was introduced as Jesus’ teachings on the afterlife. It has moved from the rejection of eternal conscious torment, through the judgment and irreversible destruction Bart attributes to Jesus, to universalism, “God is in the end merciful,” and finally, “in the end What Have We to Fear?”

Bart then says that understanding where the idea of hell came from can mitigate fear. He concludes:

“If you just use your reason enough, you realize this isn’t the original form of Christianity. And you probably realize it really doesn’t make sense. It almost certainly is not true.”

Every part of this closing passage has now been checked directly against the audio.

I am not claiming that Bart explicitly argues: Jesus did not teach eternal conscious torment; therefore universalism is true. He does not formulate that syllogism. But the broader movement is nevertheless present in the structure and cadence of the webinar, and it is one that a listener can reasonably hear.

The rhetorical scope of the conclusion is broader than the evidential scope of the historical argument.

==========

My strongest point here does not depend on a dictionary definition of merciful. It depends on the pragmatic meaning the word acquires in this particular closing passage.

Surrounded by universalism, punishment, penalty, fear, and the slide in the end What Have We to Fear?, “God is in the end merciful” is naturally heard as more than a statement that God has compassionate feelings. It suggests that, in the end, mercy has the final word.

That creates a dilemma.

If irreversible destruction, described as being “burned to nothing,” suffering “a horrible death in fire,” and being “never brought back,” is compatible with God’s final mercy, then something terrible remains to be feared, and the appeal to mercy does not by itself support universalism.

If final mercy excludes irreversible destruction, then the reassurance depends on a further judgment: that the destruction Bart attributes to the historical Jesus will not in fact occur.

Bart is entitled to hold that judgment. But it requires an additional philosophical or theological argument. The historical case that Jesus taught annihilation rather than eternal torment does not itself provide one.

==========

The appeal to reason is therefore important. The objection is not that Bart reasons or invites others to reason. The difficulty is that he associates sufficient use of the listener’s reason with a probable outcome matching his own further judgment:

“If you just use your reason enough…”
“You probably realize…”

A listener unable to assess every historical, exegetical and philosophical step independently may defer to an amiable, eloquent and highly respected scholar. Another may wonder whether failure to reach the conclusion shows that he has not used his reason enough.

The issue is therefore not only what a listener could isolate as the strict logical conclusion after careful analysis. It is also what the webinar as a whole was likely to leave as its practical and existential takeaway.

The audience Q&A record shows that broader inferences were genuinely available. Listeners asked:

“If there is no hell doesn’t that negate the significance of the cross? Also what happens to the need for salvation?”

“If he is not saving me from hell, what am I missing?”

Another thanked Bart for emphasizing “that this fear of hell is unfounded.”

These questions did not create my concern, prove causation, or show superficial listening. They show that the movement was available. No speaker controls every inference, but an expert addressing a general audience whose backgrounds he cannot know bears a responsibility to guard against foreseeable and avoidable inferential slides beyond what the evidence establishes.

==========

So what do I fear?

As a Christian, I fear that Jesus’ warnings may be real. I also fear that imprecise argument can blur the distinction between rejecting eternal conscious torment and rejecting judgment itself, while the importance of the matter could hardly be greater.

What is ultimately at stake for me is the listener’s anchor, especially the anchor of a listener who may not be able, in real time, to keep historical reconstruction, personal judgment, and broader implication sharply distinguished.

I am not arguing that a religious or naturalistic anchor should be protected against evidence. Evidence may require us to reconsider even our deepest convictions. But the responsibility runs in both directions: an anchor should not be loosened by imprecision or by an inference the evidence has not earned, but neither should it be held in place by fear, coercion, or claims the evidence cannot support.

An anchor deserves careful handling, even when it belongs to someone else’s boat.

Nor do I want to return to fire-and-brimstone preaching, to believers being made afraid that they are unworthy of God’s grace, or to centuries in which hell was used as a whip over human consciences. We need not choose between a divine torture chamber and a world in which judgment, salvation, the cross, and the fate of human beings no longer matter.

Eternal conscious torment has been removed from the teaching of the historical Jesus. But the historical Jesus as Bart reconstructs him still leaves “the worst outcome you can possibly imagine” in place.

I do not see gratitude to Bart and concern for his listeners as competing obligations. Taking his work seriously includes examining critically what an audience may reasonably take from it.

No one owes me agreement or a response, and I am not asking anyone to choose between loyalty to Bart and engagement with my argument. Individual details may of course be challenged, and where correction is needed I will accept it. I hope only that disagreement over a secondary point will not displace the central question.

==========

My central question remains:

How is a listener expected to keep the final reassurance strictly limited to eternal conscious torment when the closing sequence has moved through universalism, “God is in the end merciful,” and “in the end What Have We to Fear?”, while the historical Jesus as Bart reconstructs him still leaves “the worst outcome you can possibly imagine” in place?

Stephen:
Spinoza did not deny the existence of Jesus.

[The YouTube videos posted by Stephen are not on YouTube today.

Steefen, author of Historical Accuracy of the Bible by Steve Campbell:

Jesus NEVER existed: Spinoza Reveals the TRUTH
YouTube Channel: The Big Why

Tjalling said
... I assumed that its broader classificatory use would be understood. That assumption arose from my own experience. I have belonged to six churches, and in the circles within them where biblical and theological questions about final judgment were seriously studied, hell was not treated simply as another name for eternal conscious torment. ... 
The word hell is also used in this broader way in theology, the history of Christian doctrine, and philosophy. That is why its function as an umbrella term seemed natural to me. But it does not follow that this is the ordinary meaning carried by the word for everyone. Many believers and non-believers use hell much more narrowly to mean eternal conscious torment. ...

Sorry, but if I may, I would like to continue to push back on this theological justification for the use of "Hell" to include Purgatory and Annihilation. In my experience this is not true. While I have an ungraduate* and three graduate degrees in theology, my focus was on philology, classics, andcritical study of scripture, philology, and classics and most of the specifically theological focus was heavily influenced by the Catholic tradition. In these studies I never encountered the term "Hell" being used to include Purgatory or Limbo or Annihilation doctrine. It is theologians who seem most inclined to use these terms more precisely in my experience. And it is in less technical fields were the "Hell" is used more casually and more inclusively, for example, Jean-Paul Sartre's, "Hell is other people." Now in the study center of scripture one might describe what Jesus may have meant by "Gehenna" as something akin to Annihilation or the last judgment and the second death, eternal and definitive, but in this case such is not a theological description of Hell but a description of what Jesus may have meant in Aramaic teachings. Or someone might try to refine our theological understanding by saying something like, "Hell is ultimately total separation from God." That isbnot so much a more inclusive use of the term to include Purgatory or Limbo or Annihilation by more an attempt to avoid any popular or new technical use of the term. 

Obviously your experience is quite different. I don't know in which churches your theological views were developed. Perhaps a theological tradition that simply denies the existence of Purgatory as a papal invention to profit from the ecclesiastically imposed guilt feelings of the faithful or laughs at the invention of a place called Limbo. Rest assured, the vast majority of Catholic theologians today hold very similar views. You can tell us if you like, but please do not feel obligated to do so. 

*With a minor in Philosophy. 

A more defensible statement is that it is often used as an umbrella category in theology, the history of Christian doctrine, and philosophy ... 

I am entirely open to becoming better educated about this if you care to do so. As I indicated above my educational bias was toward more peripheral matters indirectly related to theology, church history, and philosophy. 

I won't have time to address your more substantive concerns for a while. I have Belgians friends coming to stay here for the night and have a lot to do to get ready for them. One of them has a doctorate in Philosophy so I may ask him to better educate me about the more broadly inclusive use of the term "Hell" in philosophical discussions. 

I have to conclude that I was not sufficiently precise. Because precision has been central to my concern throughout this discussion, I owe the participants in this thread, and Bart, a serious correction and a sincere apology. I will begin with a problem of definition, because resolving it is necessary before I can address a second and more serious problem. Ordinarily, I would begin with the most serious issue, but here the order matters. The most important part of this post therefore comes later.

My basic error was simple: I used the word hell without first defining it, because I assumed that its broader classificatory use would be understood. That assumption arose from my own experience. I have belonged to six churches, and in the circles within them where biblical and theological questions about final judgment were seriously studied, hell was not treated simply as another name for eternal conscious torment. The larger question was whether all human beings would ultimately be reconciled to God and share in eternal life, or whether some would finally be lost. Eternal conscious punishment, annihilation, and universalist accounts of temporary purgative judgment were understood as radically different answers within that larger discussion.

The word hell is also used in this broader way in theology, the history of Christian doctrine, and philosophy. That is why its function as an umbrella term seemed natural to me. But it does not follow that this is the ordinary meaning carried by the word for everyone. Many believers and non-believers use hell much more narrowly to mean eternal conscious torment. That association has been powerfully reinforced by the cultural imagination. Dante’s Inferno, depictions of the Last Judgment, later art and literature, and centuries of preaching have made fire and unending suffering the images most readily evoked by the word.

In much popular discussion, therefore, the question “Does hell exist?” effectively becomes “Does eternal conscious torment exist?” Once eternal conscious torment is rejected, the wider possibilities of judgment, exclusion, destruction, or temporary purgation can easily disappear from view. I failed to recognise that this narrower use of the word was operating in this thread. My own background explains that failure, but it does not excuse it. I should have defined my use of hell in post #1 instead of treating my own linguistic and theological experience as common ground.

I therefore withdraw my unqualified statement that hell is “an ordinary umbrella term.” A more defensible statement is that it is often used as an umbrella category in theology, the history of Christian doctrine, and philosophy, while many contemporary English speakers use it much more narrowly for eternal conscious torment. To be even more precise, I also withdraw my later statement that, whenever I had used hell in this thread, I meant final separation from God. The broader umbrella can also include temporary purgative judgment within universalist accounts, which does not end in final separation because all are ultimately reconciled to God. None of this requires these radically different models to be equated. Eternal conscious torment, irreversible destruction, and temporary purgative judgment remain profoundly different claims.

Bart’s reconstruction rejects eternal conscious torment, but it still includes judgment, exclusion, distress, and irreversible destruction. My concern was that the movement from that historical reconstruction to the broader conclusion that the traditional teaching “almost certainly is not true” was not sufficiently marked. There is an uncomfortable symmetry here that I should not evade. I have asked whether the lectures should have defined more carefully what was being rejected under the heavily laden word hell. I cannot fairly ask that of another speaker while leaving my own use of the same word undefined. So I correct my own usage first.

I now come to the more serious part of my correction and apology.

I need to correct an important part of my earlier criticism. I said that the movement from historical reconstruction to philosophical judgment was not marked. Having rewatched the relevant passages, I can see that this was too strong. Bart did mark several evaluative statements as his own, using phrases such as “my view,” “to me,” “I think,” and “in my view.” My earlier summary omitted those markers and consequently represented the passage less accurately than I should have done. I therefore withdraw the claim that Bart presented his philosophical judgment simply as though it were itself the conclusion of the historical argument.

I have tried to understand how I missed this despite listening with the intention of being precise. I can now see that fatigue affected what I retained by the end of the lectures. Some formulations registered with me and others did not. That may explain the error, but it does not excuse my reporting the passage more categorically than the recording supports. Bart, I am sincerely sorry. That I made this error and then wrote as I did weighs heavily on me.

My remaining concern must therefore be stated differently, and I hope Robert and others will continue to examine it critically. Marking a conclusion as one’s personal view distinguishes it from a historical finding, but it does not by itself explain the relationship between that view and the historical argument preceding it. In the concluding passage, Bart moves among several different considerations: the historical origins of eternal conscious torment, alternative interpretations of biblical texts, the growing appeal of universalism, God’s ultimate mercy, the damaging effects of beliefs about divine punishment, and finally the judgment that the idea does not make sense and is almost certainly untrue.

Those considerations are not interchangeable. The damaging history and effects of eternal conscious torment may give us strong reasons to examine the doctrine with particular care, and perhaps to welcome its decline pastorally. But those effects are not evidence that universalism is true. Nor does demonstrating that a doctrine was not the original form of Christianity establish by itself that the doctrine makes no sense or is almost certainly false.

The final wording also seems to go beyond merely stating what Bart himself finds persuasive:

“If you just use your reasoning enough, you realize…”

“You probably realize it really doesn’t make sense.”

That wording suggests not only that this is Bart’s own conclusion, but that sufficient use of reason should lead the listener to recognise the same conclusion. I did not hear a separate argument establishing that stronger claim.

The vocabulary contributes to the difficulty. Earlier in the course, Bart used hell and hellfire for the annihilation he attributed to Jesus. In the conclusion, however, “the idea of hell” appears to refer more narrowly to eternal conscious torment. The immediate antecedent of “it” may therefore be eternal torment, but the listener has to perform that narrowing while several broader matters, including universalism, the absence of a literal hell, divine mercy, punishment, and penalty, have just been discussed together. My corrected concern is therefore not that Bart entirely failed to distinguish his personal evaluation from his historical reconstruction. He did use language marking several conclusions as his own. My question is whether the presentation made sufficiently clear which considerations supported which conclusions, and whether the changing scope of the word hell was clear enough for a lay audience to follow that movement accurately.

Robert also asked whether my concern was based, not on my own critical assessment of the lectures, but on what other participants had “superficially absorbed” or “casually regurgitated.” It was not. My concern arose from my own assessment of the lectures. The questions in the Q&A did not create it. I cited them as evidence that the broader inference I was concerned about was in fact available to listeners and was made by at least some of them.

Nor do I think the descriptions “less critical,” “superficial,” and “casually regurgitated” are warranted by the evidence available to us. A few brief questions do not tell us how critically those participants had listened or how carefully they had considered what they heard. Before locating the problem in the listeners, we should first ask whether the presentation itself made that inference reasonably available.

The question of responsibility cannot be removed from this discussion, because responsibility for one’s words has been central both here and in the Sophisticated Christianity thread. I am not making a general judgment about Bart’s character, nor am I claiming that he is generally an irresponsible scholar or teacher. I am asking a more specific question: whether, in this particular passage, he fully met his responsibility to help a lay audience distinguish what had been established historically from what was subsequently being offered as reasonable and probably true.

That responsibility does not disappear merely because the evaluative conclusions were marked as his personal views. A speaker also bears some responsibility for making clear how the considerations he presents relate to the conclusions he invites his audience to draw, especially when the subject may unsettle or reshape deeply held religious or naturalistic convictions. Nor do I see why making a few explicit distinctions would render the presentation meaningfully less successful. It might make the conclusion slightly less seamless. But if the purpose is education rather than persuasion alone, greater clarity about where historical reconstruction ends and philosophical evaluation begins would seem to me part of its success.

My correction is therefore substantial. Bart did mark several evaluative conclusions as his own, and I was wrong to say otherwise. I sincerely apologise for that misrepresentation. What remains is a narrower question: not whether the transition was marked at all, but whether the reasoning connecting the historical findings, the moral and pastoral considerations, and the final philosophical conclusion was made sufficiently explicit.

The reason I began this thread, and have continued to pursue the question, is my concern for listeners both within and outside Christian belief. After hearing the conclusion, will they retain the important historical finding that, on Bart’s reconstruction, Jesus still proclaimed judgment, exclusion, and irreversible loss? Or will the stronger impression remain that hell, whatever the word may encompass, necessarily makes no sense and almost certainly does not exist?

The questions in the Q&A do not prove what the lectures caused people to believe, nor do they tell us how those participants understood the course as a whole. They do show, however, that the broader movement I was concerned about, from the rejection of eternal conscious torment to the disappearance of judgment, salvation, and the significance of the cross, was not merely hypothetical. That is why I still believe the narrower question deserves examination, even after correcting my own serious misrepresentation.

I am grateful to Robert for continuing to ask the questions that forced me to undertake this examination. I am sorry that I did not provide at the outset the clarity and accuracy that I have been asking of others throughout this discussion.

Over the years I have occasionally considered the idea of starting a thread where participants to this forum could discuss particulars where we disagree with Prof Ehrman.  All the regulars have at some point provided examples.  Assuming he had time to look it over it might even provide Prof Ehrman with some amusement.  

Tjalling said
... I had assumed that, on a forum devoted to early Christianity, it would be common ground that “hell” has historically covered more than eternal conscious torment. I find it genuinely surprising that the discussion here appears to begin from the much narrower equation of hell with eternal conscious torment.

The above statement does not seem to correspond well to the following:

Your historical question is a good one. Early proponents of what we now call conditionalism need not have used an exact equivalent of the modern English umbrella term “hell.” They spoke of death, destruction, fire, Gehenna, exclusion and the loss of life. The later taxonomy places these statements alongside other accounts of final judgment, it does not claim that the writers themselves all used the same classificatory vocabulary. The precise history of terms such as “hell” and “damnation” would require more careful source work than I can do from memory.
... I would need to read myself back into some of the material, since parts of it have faded from memory ...

New topic:

... If it [successful] means enabling a lay audience to distinguish what the historical evidence establishes from the philosophical interpretation that follows, then I think success also requires that transition to be marked.

I'm pretty sure such an approach would be decidedly less successful. I don't recall many books, blogs, courses on philosophy and theology attracting an audience anywhere near the size of Bart's. 

You say that what is at stake should be left to each listener to determine. Of course the listener must finally judge what he believes. But does that remove the speaker’s responsibility for the weight his words carry?

Of course not.

I have live seen evangelical apologetic work completely unsettle non-believers’ confidence in their naturalistic worldview through arguments that did not adequately support the conclusions being urged upon them. Would you also leave that entirely to the listener, or would you expect the Christian speaker to take responsibility for the effect of overstated claims?

Of course. I am occasionally irritated by a few of Bart's over-simplifications, and I enthusiastically disagree wth some of his methodology and conclusions, but I hardly think he is being irresponsible. 

That is why the preceding and following points are inseparable for me. I am not asking a speaker to preserve anyone’s anchor against evidence. I am asking that no one’s anchor, religious or naturalistic, be loosened by a conclusion carrying more authority than the evidence has earned.

And this was is based not on your own critical assessment of Bart course presentations, but on what some other less critical members have superficially absorbed or casually regurgitated when commenting briefly on the same presentations, correct?

Which is why I am circumspect in my occasional encounters with folks going through a crisis of faith.  I know what I went through to get where I am today.  I've found the best course of action is, first, to point out that their questions are not illegitimate and then, perhaps even more importantly, that they're not alone.  I will describe my own train of thought if asked but even there I insist that my perspective not be privileged in any way.  No matter where you wind up, this is always a troubled path.  If I can't make it better then I sure as heck don't want to make it worse. 

I have seen evangelical apologetic work completely unsettle non-believers’ confidence in their naturalistic worldview through arguments that did not adequately support the conclusions being urged upon them.

And there is the example of believers whose faith was undermined by their own teacher's bad arguments.    Lots of questioners don't walk out.  They are pushed out.   I think I was one of those.