Hell and everlasting punishment

[ahimsaman72]

mercygate:

Indeed, we need to preach Christ in a way that can be received by our hearers. Ultimately, to leave God’s eternal fire out of the equation, though, is to falsify the message. What are we saved *from? *Whether somebody disagrees with the message is really not our worry. There will be many who do not have ears to hear.

We are saved from sin - not from God. Sin is what separated Adam from God and the same is true today. The false message is one of everlasting torment as I’ve contended all along.

Counter productive of what? Bringing bodies into the building? You have two things going here, and they need to be kept distinct: one is the theology of the love and wrath of God, and the other is how best to evangelize.

It is counter-productive in that sense that the message of God is that He loves us enough to send us His Son to save us from sin, but that ultimately you can be a bad enough person that Christ cannot save you from eternal torment in hell. It’s talking out of both sides of the mouth - so to speak.

I’m stuck on the witness of Scripture (what my Protestant friends like to wave in my face as “the wole counsel of God,” and that our eternal God is “a consuming fire” – welcome news for some of us and a big turn-off for others.

And the witness of Scripture for the entire OT is one of silence in regards to fiery, tormenting hell. And the witness of Scripture for the NT is one of misunderstanding and misapplication of original languages. I spoke of the “fire” passage before. It’s the Greek word - “pur”. It is not a literal fire. Another Greek word is used for literal fire (Peter warming himself by the fire before the crucifixion).

You know, of course, scaring people is not what I’m aiming at. (But in Catholic theology, although the fear of Hell is far short of a perfect reason for fleeing sin, it’s good enough!)

Don’t make me go and do a “fear” count in Scripture :nerd:but I’ll bet it comes up pretty high on the reasons to “love” God. (I’ll bet a survey of the “fear” and “fear not” passages would yield some interesting results.)

“Fear not” is always related to being afraid. The same is not true of “fear”. The usage of fear is - to fear, revere, be afraid (in the Hebrew - yare’ {yaw-ray’}; and in Greek - phobos {fob’-os} which is fear, dread, terror. Of course, we should fear God because He is all-powerful, not because He is a cruel, unjust God.

But as the Gospels say again and again, many refuse to be reconciled. Gotta get that free will thing under control. We have freedom to deny him.

I agree that some passages seem to imply free-will. But, there are many, many passages which declare the sovereignty of God in all matters. Of course our actions are our own. We make the choice every day to sin or not to sin. But inevitably, God is in control of world events, natural phenomenon and judgement of His creation. If He created people with a free-will that could deny His will then He wouldn’t be all-powerful. It is God’s will that all would come to know Him. Since that is the case, how can our will over-ride His will?

That’s because you’re using the concept of Purgatory as your concept of Hell.

Not quite. It is close. The big difference is that only saints go through purgatory and wicked go to hell, whereas the universalist view is that all are judged, corrected and restored to relationship with God and end up with Him.

 

[mercygate]

ahimsaman72:

We are saved from sin - not from God.

Notwithstanding Romans 5:9? And what is it to be saved from sin if not to be saved from the righteous, just, consequences of sin, which put us outside the eternal love of God?

It is counter-productive in that sense that the message of God is that He loves us enough to send us His Son to save us from sin, but that ultimately you can be a bad enough person that Christ cannot save you from eternal torment in hell. It’s talking out of both sides of the mouth - so to speak.
I agree that some passages seem to imply free-will. But, there are many, many passages which declare the sovereignty of God in all matters.

Seem to imply free will? Free will is a sine qua non of the human condition. Without it, we cannot love. If we cannot love, we cannot obey God.

. . . the universalist view is that all are judged, corrected and restored to relationship with God and end up with Him.

No problem there with item 18 of the New Hampshire Confession?

 

[john_doran]

ahimsaman72:

A horse can be black, white, painted, reddish, but it is still a horse. It’s not a dog, cat or mouse.

Each time sheol is used it is used to refer to a place each time - not a place in one instance, a person the next instance and an animal in another instance. It’s speaking of the same “place”.

And, in the instances of the NT uses of “hell”, they always are referring to places as well - gehenna, hades and tartaros - not a place one time, a person one time and an animal one time.

i’m not sure how this responds to my point: how do you know, in each instance of its usage, which place sheol is being used to reference? the “grave” or “everlasting punishment”? how do you know? how do you know?

Both Old and New Testament usages are specific to places or areas. So, your “truck 5 tons” and “tons of homework” analogy do not apply here.

sure it does - if one of the places being described is a place of everlasting punishment.

and how do you know it’s not?

A lot rides on the word “hell” itself. Everyone has their own preconceived notions based on what they have heard it means or implies. Sooner or later these preconceived notions develop into doctrines and beliefs to the point that people believe them as fact.

see, that’s a theory of scriptural interpretation and/or semantic development as it relates to doctrinal development, and it’s not a theory to which i adhere. it’s a theory to which ***many ***people do not subscribe.

maybe it would be better to discuss that theory first, and then the particular text to which you apply it…

 

[ahimsaman72]

mercygate:

Notwithstanding Romans 5:9? And what is it to be saved from sin if not to be saved from the righteous, just, consequences of sin, which put us outside the eternal love of God?

Seem to imply free will? Free will is a sine qua non of the human condition. Without it, we cannot love. If we cannot love, we cannot obey God.

No problem there with item 18 of the New Hampshire Confession?

Romans 5:8-10

1. But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.
2. Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him.
3. For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life.

While we were yet sinners Christ died for us - because of God’s love for us. This passage shows that we were “yet sinners, were enemies” of God. We were separated because of our sin. We were sinners and enemies but have now been reconciled to God. This is clear to me.

God has been angry about sin for a long time. He has shown wrath. He has also shown love - which is expressed in the passage you cited. I don’t follow your reasoning.

I admitted we make choices in our lives. We choose to love, hate, be angry. We experience all emotions which are part of us - of course. But it is also true that God hardens and softens people’s hearts. He also blinds some. Sovereignty of God and free-will of humans is inter-related. But when it comes to salvation and reconciliation there is no choice that humans make. God chose to send His Son, Jesus to die for our sins and redeem us from the *curse *of sin. He chose. We didn’t choose that. God has provided the way of salvation and will reconcile all men to Himself.

I don’t follow the New Hampshire Confession - ???

Peace…

 

[mercygate]

ahimsaman72:

I don’t follow the New Hampshire Confession - ???

Peace…

Why the question marks? Can you educate us without going off topic? I thought Baptists generally agreed on the New Hampshire Confession, or at least on some adaptation of it.

 

[ahimsaman72]

The following are only a few of the reasons why Sheol-Hadees in the Old Testament denotes a condition of temporal punishment:

1 *Hell is in this world. The Lowest Hell is on earth. *Deut. xxxii:22,24,25. “For a fire is kindled in mine anger, and shall burn unto the lowest Hell (Sheol–Hadees) and shall consume the earth with her increase, and set on fire the foundations of the mountains.” See Jonah ii:2; Rev. vi:8.

2 Hence David, after having been in Hell, was delivered from it. Ps. xxx:3; II Sam. xx:5,6. “O Lord, thou hast brought up my soul from the grave; thou hast kept me alive, that I should not go down to the pit. When the waves of death compassed me, the floods of ungodly men made me afraid. The sorrows of Hell (Sheol–Hadees) compassed me about; the snares of death prevented me,” so that there is escape from Hell. Ps. xviii:5,6; cxvi:3; lxxxvi:12,13; Rev. xx:13; Ps. xvii:5, xxx:3.

3 *Jonah was in the fish only seventy hours, and declared he was in hell forever. *He escaped from Hell. Jon. ii:2, 6: “Out of the belly of Hell (Sheol–Hadees) cried I, and thou heardest my voice, earth with her bars was about me forever.” Even an eternal Hell lasted but three days.

4 It is a place where God is, and, therefore, must be an instrumentality of mercy. Ps. cxxxix:8: “If I make my bed in Hell (Sheol–Hadees) behold thou art there.”

5 Men having gone into it are redeemed from it. I Sam. ii:6: “The Lord killeth and maketh alive; he bringeth down to the grave (Sheol–Hadees) and bringeth up.”

6 Sheol is precisely the same word as Saul. If it meant Hell would any Hebrew parent have called his child Sheol? Think of calling a boy Hell!

7 Nowhere in the Old Testament does the word Sheol, or its Greek equivalent, Hadees, ever denote a place or condition of suffering after death; it either means literal death or temporal calamity. This is clear as we consult the usage.

8 *Jacob wished to go there. *Gen.xxxviii:35: “I will go down into the grave (Sheol–Hadees) unto my son mourning.”

9 If the word means a place of endless punishment, then David was a monster. Ps. lv:15: “Let death seize upon them, and let them go down quick into Sheol–Hadees.”

10 Job desired to go there; xiv:13: “Oh that thou wouldst hide me in Sheol–Hadees.”

11 Hezekiah expected to go there. Isa. xxxviii:10: “I said in the cutting off of my days, I shall go to the gates of Sheol–Hadees.”

12 Korah, Dathan and Abiram (Numbers xvi:30-33) not only went there, “but their houses, and goods, and all that they owned,” “and the earth opened her mouth and swallowed them up, and their houses, and all the men that appertained unto Korah, and all their goods. They, and all that appertained to them, went down alive into Sheol–Hadees, and the earth closed upon them; and they perished from among the congregation.”

13 It is in the dust. Job xvii:19: “They shall go down to the bars of Sheol–Hadees, when our rest together is in the dust.”

14 It has a mouth, is in fact the grave. See Ps. cxli:7: “Our bones are scattered at Sheol’s–Hadees’ mouth, as when one cutteth and cleaveth wood upon the earth.”

cont.

 

[ahimsaman72]

15 The overthrow of the King of Babylon is called Hell. Isa. xiv:9-15, 22-23: “Hell (Sheol–Hadees) from beneath is moved for thee to meet thee at thy coming; it stirreth up the dead for thee, even all the chief ones of the earth; it hath raised up from the thrones all the kings of the nations. All they shall speak and say unto thee, art thou also become weak as we? art thou become like unto us? Thy pomp is brought down to the grave and the noise of thy viols; the worm is spread under thee, and the worms cover thee. For I will rise up against them saith the Lord of hosts, and cut off from Babylon the name, and remnant, and son, and nephew, saith the Lord. I will also make it a possession for the bittern, and pools of water; and I will sweep it with the besom of destruction, saith the Lord of hosts.” All this imagery demonstrates temporal calamity, a national overthrow as the signification of the word Hell.

16 The captivity of the Jews is called Hell. Isa. v:13-14: “Therefore my people are gone into captivity, because they have no knowledge; and their honorable men are famished, and their multitude dried up with thirst. Therefore Sheol–Hadees hath enlarged herself and opened her mouth without measure; and their glory, and their multitude, and their pomp, and he that rejoiceth, shall descend into it.”

17 *Temporal overthrow is called Hell. *Ps. xlix:14: “Like sheep they are laid in the grave; death shall feed on them; and the upright shall have dominion over them in the morning; and their beauty shall consume in Sheol–Hadees, from their dwelling.” Ezek.xxxii:26-27: And they shall not lie with the mighty that are fallen of the uncircumcised, which are gone down to Sheol–Hadees, with their weapons of war, and they have laid their swords under their heads." Men are in hell with their swords under their heads. This cannot mean a state of conscious suffering.

18 All men are to go there. No one can escape the Bible Hell, (Sheol–Hadees) Ps. lxxxix:48.

19 There is no kind of work there. Eccl. ix:10.

20 *Christ’s soul was in Hell *(Sheol–Hadees) Acts ii:27-28.

21 *No one in the Bible ever speaks of Hell *(Sheol–Hadees) as a place of punishment after death.

22 It is a way of escape from punishment. Amos vii:2.

23 *The inhabitants of Hell *(Sheol–Hadees) are eaten of worms, vanish and are consumed away. Job. vii:9-24. Ps. xlix:14.

24 Hell (Sheol–Hadees) is a place of rest. Job xvii:6.

25 It is a realm of unconsciousness. Ps. vi:5. Is xxxviii:18. Eccl. ix:10.

26 All men will be delivered from this Hell (Sheol Hadees). Hos. xiii:17.

27 This Hell (Sheol–Hadees) is to be destroyed. Hos xiii:14: “Oh grave I will be thy destruction.” I Cor.xv:55: “O death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory?” Rev. xx:13-14: “And death and Hell delivered up the dead which were in them, and death and Hell were cast into the lake of fire.”

from:

Bible Threatenings Explained by J. W. Hanson, D.D

sheol (hell) is “the place of the dead”. It is where all men - wicked and righteous go after death. It cannot be a fiery, burning hell in one instance and a place of rest or unconsciousness the next instance. It is a location or condition of being.

How can a pencil be both sharp and dull at the same time?
How can the desk be clean and dirty at the same time?

 

[ahimsaman72]

mercygate:

Why the question marks? Can you educate us without going off topic? I thought Baptists generally agreed on the New Hampshire Confession, or at least on some adaptation of it.

I know of the Philadelphia Confession of the Baptist Faith, but haven’t seen a New Hampshire one. Actually, Southern Baptists have no recognized confession. They have the “Baptist Faith and Message” which is representative of their beliefs.

 

[Trelow]

newadvent.org/cathen/07207a.htm

 

[mercygate]

Getting an education here. (This is one of the best threads ever on these forums)

Impressed by the undeniable marshalling of quotes referring to the temporality of “hell” in the OT, I did a little research and found that ahimsaman72 is not the first person to notice this!

The development of the theology of eternal justice begins in the Book of Ecclesiastes and is carried out more thoroughly in the NT. OK. I’m good with that. But how do we get around the NT? Isn’t the NT Scripture? We can’t leave it out of our theology.

 

[ahimsaman72]

newadvent.org/cathen/07207a.htm

A quote from this website:

• “Hence theologians generally accept the opinion that hell is really within the earth. The Church has decided nothing on this subject; hence we may say hell is a definite place; but where it is, we do not know.”*

Further down on the same page:

• “Moreover, if all men were fully convinced that the sinner need fear no kind of punishment after death, moral and social order would be seriously menaced*.”

I’m amazed that these two statements are made.

First, the Church admits it doesn’t even know where “hell” is, but can definitively describe its character as eternal and a place of punishment after death.

Second, the Church freely admits the view that moral and social order would be seriously menaced if the sinner did not fear punishment after death.

Which bolsters the claim that the fiery, tormenting hell is of heathen origin and is proposed by the majority of Christians for no other good reason but that to suppose men would not behave without the fear of it.

 

[john_doran]

wow. that’s a lot of work you did, collecting all of those quotes. but i’m afraid you have once again totally missed my point.

look, i don’t dispute that there is more than one meaning associated with each of sheol, ainios, ge (ben) hinnom, tartarro, and hades. i also don’t dispute that sheol, for example, doesn’t always mean “place of everlasting punishment”.

my question to you, though, is how do you know that it never means “place of everlasting punishment”?

and it’s just no answer to that question to give me 4 or 400 quotes from the old testament and simply state that it doesn’t mean “place of everlasting punsihment” in any of them.

how do you know it doesn’t?

but in the end, it just doesn’t matter whether or not sheol is ever used to refer to a place of everlasting punishment, since the church’s belief in such a place doesn’t depend on any such reference…

 

[ahimsaman72]

mercygate:

Getting an education here. (This is one of the best threads ever on these forums)

Impressed by the undeniable marshalling of quotes referring to the temporality of “hell” in the OT, I did a little research and found that ahimsaman72 is not the first person to notice this!

The development of the theology of eternal justice begins in the Book of Ecclesiastes and is carried out more thoroughly in the NT. OK. I’m good with that. But how do we get around the NT? Isn’t the NT Scripture? We can’t leave it out of our theology.

I’m glad you have found this thread useful and educational.

About a year ago, I stumbled onto a website,
www.what-the-hell-is-hell.com
and began to read. I didn’t stop reading for months.

There’s a wealth of info available - mostly online because books on the subject were written in the 1700’s and 1800’s and are no longer published and if in existence they are very rare. Some publishers have begun to print some of these older books like Concordant Publishing at www.concordant.org

Oh, dear friend you are exactly right. We could never leave the NT out of our theology. Both the Old and New Testaments must be faithfully studied and used for our theology.

As I have mentioned before - in the New Testament you must look carefully at the words rendered “hell”. I don’t know which translation you use, but if you use the official NAB Catholic Bible you will find that the proper names of the places usually rendered “hell” are used.

For example, Gehenna is left alone. Hades is left alone and Tartaros is left alone. In the KJV and most other translations they have been arbitrarily used generally under the term “hell”. This is a gross error. The NAB translators did a fine job in leaving these words stand as they should be instead of making them all fall under the umbrella of “hell”. The Greek words used in conjunction with “hell” are explained briefly here:

"The Greek word “tartarus” occurs one single time in the entire Bible and it is found in 2 Peter 2:4. It is the place where sinning messengers (angels) are reserved unto judgment…

In 1 Cor. 15:55, the King James’ Greek text contains the Greek word “Hades.” They translated the Greek word “Hades” into the English word "grave," but they gave an alternative translation “Hell” in the margin. In Rev. 20:13,14, The Greek Text contains the word “Hades” which they translated into the English word “Hell.” In the margin they put the alternative translation of “grave.”…

Another Greek word “Gehenna” occurs 12 times in the New Testament; 11 times in the Gospels and one time in the Epistle of James. Jesus used “Gehenna” about 7 times. Some of the occurrences of “Gehenna” are in parallel passages, that is, they refer to the same event. “Gehenna” is the Greek form of the Hebrew “ge-hinnom.” It literally means “valley of Hinnom” Sometimes it is referred to as the “valley of the sons of Hinnom.” In the Old Testament “Tophet(h)” also refers to this place. (See Young’s Concordance under Hinnom) “Gehenna" is a valley that lays on the west and southwest of Jerusalem. In the valley, Israel offered up its children as a burnt offering to a god who came to be known as Moloch. (The spelling varies)”

from
tentmaker.org/books/asw/Chapter14.html

 

[john_doran]

ahimsaman72:

First, the Church admits it doesn’t even know where “hell” is, but can definitively describe its character as eternal and a place of punishment after death.

i have no idea why that should be surprising: what does one have to do with the other?

Second, the Church freely admits the view that moral and social order would be seriously menaced if the sinner did not fear punishment after death.

that article wasn’t written by “the Church”; it was written by an individual expressing his own socio-theological opinion.

Which bolsters the claim that the fiery, tormenting hell is of heathen origin and is proposed by the majority of Christians for no other good reason but that to suppose men would not behave without the fear of it.

do you actually believe that? i assume you’re being serious, but it’s difficult to imagine that anyone would really, seriously propose this as a piece of sound reasoning.

 

[ahimsaman72]

john doran:

wow. that’s a lot of work you did, collecting all of those quotes. but i’m afraid you have once again totally missed my point.

look, i don’t dispute that there is more than one meaning associated with each of sheol, ainios, ge (ben) hinnom, tartarro, and hades. i also don’t dispute that sheol, for example, doesn’t always mean “place of everlasting punishment”.

my question to you, though, is how do you know that it never means “place of everlasting punishment”?

Because there are no instances where the context and subject matter tell us it is such. And, that information is based on the work of Hebrew and Greek scholars and theologians both Catholic and protestant.

and it’s just no answer to that question to give me 4 or 400 quotes from the old testament and simply state that it doesn’t mean “place of everlasting punsihment” in any of them.

how do you know it doesn’t?

but in the end, it just doesn’t matter whether or not sheol is ever used to refer to a place of everlasting punishment, since the church’s belief in such a place doesn’t depend on any such reference…

I rely on the work of great and learned men who spent their lifetimes studying and researching such topics. And I understand that in the end you will have to appeal to a dependence on your church’s teaching. I don’t fault you for that.

But, my friend, I admonish you to search diligently for yourself the truths that can be found in God’s revealed Word. That’s all. My intent here was not to say one church is wrong or one is right. The intent was to look specifically at the teachings and see where the evidence itself lies, regardless if the evidence resides in Catholic Church teaching or any other church teaching.

 

[ahimsaman72]

john doran:

i have no idea why that should be surprising: what does one have to do with the other?

that article wasn’t written by “the Church”; it was written by an individual expressing his own socio-theological opinion.

do you actually believe that? i assume you’re being serious, but it’s difficult to imagine that anyone would really, seriously propose this as a piece of sound reasoning.

Thomas B. Thayer (a Univeralist) wrote a book entitled, “The Origin and History of the Doctrine of Endless Punishment”, which you can find here:
tentmaker.org/books/OriginandHistory.html

In it he proposes that such is the case. It is compelling. It is sound reasoning and there is some evidence to support the claim. It is compelling enough for me to say it is true. I see no good evidence to disqualify it.

Either way, it is not a doctrine (endless punishment) that is true - whether the origin was heathen or supposedly Christian.

 

[Trelow]

CCC
1033 We cannot be united with God unless we freely choose to love him. But we cannot love God if we sin gravely against him, against our neighbor or against ourselves: "He who does not love remains in death. Anyone who hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him."612 Our Lord warns us that we shall be separated from him if we fail to meet the serious needs of the poor and the little ones who are his brethren.613 To die in mortal sin without repenting and accepting God’s merciful love means remaining separated from him for ever by our own free choice. This state of definitive self-exclusion from communion with God and the blessed is called “hell.”

1034 Jesus often speaks of “Gehenna” of “the unquenchable fire” reserved for those who to the end of their lives refuse to believe and be converted, where both soul and body can be lost.614 Jesus solemnly proclaims that he "will send his angels, and they will gather .Ê.Ê. all evil doers, and throw them into the furnace of fire,"615 and that he will pronounce the condemnation: "Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire!"616

1035 The teaching of the Church affirms the existence of hell and its eternity. Immediately after death the souls of those who die in a state of mortal sin descend into hell, where they suffer the punishments of hell, "eternal fire."617 The chief punishment of hell is eternal separation from God, in whom alone man can possess the life and happiness for which he was created and for which he longs.

1036 The affirmations of Sacred Scripture and the teachings of the Church on the subject of hell are a call to the responsibility incumbent upon man to make use of his freedom in view of his eternal destiny. They are at the same time an urgent call to conversion: "Enter by the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is easy, that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many. For the gate is narrow and the way is hard, that leads to life, and those who find it are few."618

Since we know neither the day nor the hour, we should follow the advice of the Lord and watch constantly so that, when the single course of our earthly life is completed, we may merit to enter with him into the marriage feast and be numbered among the blessed, and not, like the wicked and slothful servants, be ordered to depart into the eternal fire, into the outer darkness where "men will weep and gnash their teeth."619

1037 God predestines no one to go to hell;620 for this, a willful turning away from God (a mortal sin) is necessary, and persistence in it until the end. In the Eucharistic liturgy and in the daily prayers of her faithful, the Church implores the mercy of God, who does not want “any to perish, but all to come to repentance”:621

Father, accept this offering
from your whole family.
Grant us your peace in this life,
save us from final damnation,
and count us among those you have chosen.622

 

[john_doran]

ahimsaman72:

Because there are no instances where the context and subject matter tell us it is such. And, that information is based on the work of Hebrew and Greek scholars and theologians both Catholic and protestant.

as dave mentioned before, it’s more than a little disingenuous for you to refer to the work of “catholic” scholars when you mean only origen and gregory of nyssa.

in fact, the vast majority of “catholic” scholars - scriptural, linguistic, theological, and otherwise - believe the (scriptural and theological) evidence conclusively favors the existence of a place of everlasting punishment reserved for impenitent sinners, whether angelic or human.

I rely on the work of great and learned men who spent their lifetimes studying and researching such topics. And I understand that in the end you will have to appeal to a dependence on your church’s teaching. I don’t fault you for that.

thanks, i guess.

just how do you pick which learned men to believe?

and how do they know which interpretation is the correct one?

But, my friend, I admonish you to search diligently for yourself the truths that can be found in God’s revealed Word. That’s all. My intent here was not to say one church is wrong or one is right. The intent was to look specifically at the teachings and see where the evidence itself lies, regardless if the evidence resides in Catholic Church teaching or any other church teaching.

ahh, but you see - the teaching of the Catholic Church IS evidence - it is the only definitive evidence there is…

 

[Trelow]

Can’t argue with the CCC, at least I wouldn’t recommend it.

 

[john_doran]

ahimsaman72:

Thomas B. Thayer (a Univeralist) wrote a book entitled, “The Origin and History of the Doctrine of Endless Punishment”, which you can find here:
tentmaker.org/books/OriginandHistory.html

In it he proposes that such is the case. It is compelling. It is sound reasoning and there is some evidence to support the claim. It is compelling enough for me to say it is true. I see no good evidence to disqualify it.

i’m sure the guy’s sharp as a tack.

however, it’s irrelevant to the present debate, since the argument commits the genetic fallacy: arguing to the falsity of a poposition from the manner of its origin.