Ligonier? So you're a reformed guy? That explains a lot.

So now I must refute a professional theologian, and I'm just some guy. However, I will try to do it, as opposed to what you are doing, which is passing the buck to someone else to do your thinking for you.

I will answer each of these arguments in turn. First is the argument from hellfire. Many passages use this language without interpreting it. It is possible, therefore, to read various views into such passages, including annihilationism. However, we do not want to read our ideas into the Bible, but to get our ideas from the Bible. And when we do, we find that some passages preclude an annihilationist understanding of hellfire. These include Jesus’s description of hell in the parable of the rich man and Lazarus as a “place of torment” (Luke 16:28) involving “anguish in this flame” (v. 24).

It's good that the author here recognizes that this is a parable. I agree, and think we should all be grateful. Consider the idea that you are in heaven and can see and hear the dead in hell being tormented forever, while they cry out to you for relief. Now imagine that your son is down there. Maybe your mother was never really saved in life, and now you live in heaven listening to her for eternity crying out in agony for relief. Sound like heaven?

The idea that taking the description of the afterlife in this parable as literal is rediculous. The parable has a main point, which is to demonstrate that the commonly held idea that the rich are blessed by God, and righteous, while the poor are cursed by God and thus sinners, is a faulty idea. We don't take the elements of the parable of the sower literal. We don't take the parable of the mustard seed literal. The only reason to take this as literal is to support an otherwise Biblical unsupportable doctrine.

When the last book of the Bible describes the flames of hell, it does not speak of consumption but says the lost “will be tormented with fire and sulfur in the presence of the holy angels and in the presence of the Lamb. And the smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever, and they have no rest, day or night” (Rev. 14:10–11).

Again, this is from a book that explicitly states it is recording a prophetic vision. What you take literally says more about you than about the afterlife. Read the entire chapter and tell me what parts you take literally and why.

Also, the verse doesn't say they will be tormented forever, just that the smoke goes up forever. This is clearly a reference to Isiah 34:9-10: "Its streams will be turned into pitch, And its loose earth into brimstone, And its land will become burning pitch. It will not be quenched night or day; Its smoke will go up forever. From generation to generation it will be desolate; None will pass through it forever and ever." Now, is Edom still burning?

Second is the argument from passages that speak of destruction or perishing. Once again, when Scripture merely uses these words without interpreting them, many views may be read into them. But once again, we want to read out of Scripture its meaning. And some passages are impossible to reconcile with annihilationism. Paul describes the fate of the lost as suffering “the punishment of eternal destruction” (2 Thess. 1:8). Also telling is the fate of the Beast in Revelation. “Destruction” is prophesied for him in 17:8, 11. The Beast (along with the False Prophet) is cast into “the lake of fire that burns with sulfur” (19:20). Scripture is unambiguous when it describes the fate of the devil, Beast, and False Prophet in the lake of fire: “They will be tormented day and night forever and ever” (20:10). So, the Beast’s “destruction” is everlasting torment in the lake of fire.

Read the relevent passages. Revelation 20:10 does not say "destruction." Perhaps if you want to take that one passage literally you have God torturing the devil, the beast, and the false prophet forever, but that's it. The author seems to be trying to get people to not look at the passages by stating what they say, then misrepresenting them. Look at them yourself. But again, when else do theologians take stuff from Revelation and use it to build doctrine? Never. The book is notoriously difficult to interpret and openly symbolic.

Third is the argument from the word eternal. In hell passages, it is claimed, eternal means only pertaining to “the age to come” and not “everlasting.” It is true that in the New Testament, eternal means “agelong,” with the context defining the age. And in texts treating eternal destinies, eternal does refer to the age to come. But the age to come lasts as long as the life of the eternal God Himself. Because He is eternal—He “lives forever and ever” (Rev. 4:9, 10; 10:6; 15:7)—so is the age to come. Jesus plainly sets this forth in His message on the sheep and goats: “And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life” (Matt. 25:46; italics added). The punishment of the lost in hell is coextensive to the bliss of the righteous in heaven—both are everlasting.

This is just a misunderstanding of the conditionalis argument. Eternal means that it lasts forever. If something is destroyed, then it is gone forever. Hence, eternal destruction is a destruction that lasts forever. If the torment goes on and on, then it is never over and cannot be eternal because there is always future torment.

Fourth is the argument that it is unjust of God to punish sinners eternally for temporal sins. It strikes me as presumptuous for human beings to tell God what is just and unjust. We would do better to determine from His Holy Word what He deems just and unjust.

I've already addressed this.

Jesus leaves no doubt. He will say to the saved, “Come, you who are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world” (Matt. 25:34). He will say to the lost, “Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels” (v. 41). We have already seen John define that fire as eternal conscious punishment in the lake of fire for the devil (Rev. 20:10). A few verses later, we read that unsaved human beings share the same fate (vv. 14–15). Evidently, God thinks it just to punish human beings who rebel against Him and His holiness with everlasting hell. Is it really our place to call this unjust?

Death and Hades are thrown into the lake of fire, "which is the second death." Second death... I've already addressed this.

I'm stopping there because it doesn't seem that the author makes any new arguments. He doesn't address the hundreds of passages that state the fate of the wicked will be death, destruction, consumed, blown away like chaff, etc. The entire argument is based on one parable and a few verses from Revelation, which literally no two Christian denominations agree on the interpretation of.

Address the verses I posted. If not here, read them and ask God. Seriously, they speak for themselves. If you honestly can't see a hermeneutic problem with using two passages of scripture that almost nobody denies are figurative and symbolic as the basis for your belief, while simultaneously disregarding non-symbolic and straightforward statements from Genesis through the Epistles, and straight from the mouth of Jesus Himself, then I guess I don't know what else to say.

Try reading something that isn't supportive of the view and see how the argument stacks up. I'd recommend "The Fire That Consumes," but for a primer you could poke around on the "rethinking hell" blog. I only say this because it doesn't seem to me you have a strong basis for your belief since you can't defend it on your own.