This is the third in a series of responses to the extensive review of Is There Anything Good About Hell? by the conditionalist, David Jukobovic. As stated previously, the reviewer is erudite and congenial, both welcome attributes in a reviewer. I will be dealing exclusively in this installment with the reviewer’s response to chapter 8, Infinite Honour and Infinite Sin. By way of introduction and summary, I will be arguing that Jukobovic has somewhat missed (or ignored) the center of the chapter’s thesis, and perhaps of Anselm’s theory as well.

Continue reading→

In part one of my response to David Jakubovic’s review of Is There Anything Good About Hell (AGAH), I introduced a few small matters concerning my intentions with this series of articles and the constraints and goals of my book, before finally arguing that there is a strong theological tradition concerning the word “evil” (eg. Aquinas) that does not bleed into moral evil and that hell is an evil in this general sense. In this sense too, a conditionalist would be constrained to view the annihilation of the wicked as an evil. The fascinating question which arises in consideration of comparing these two “evils” (eternal punishment vs. extinction) is which one constitutes the greatest punishment?

This question lies near the centre of the larger debate, as far as I can figure, and certainly is quite significant to Jakubovic’s critical review of my book. It crops up again and again, and I will give a few examples before arguing that there is an exceptionally strong biblical and experiential case for the greater punishment of eternal torment.

Before I do, however, I point out that the reviewer quotes extensively from other sources and that this approach presents both advantages and disadvantages. Jakubovic is certainly well-read, and his breadth in citations looks impressive—indeed, in a certain sense it is impressive. There is a commensurate weakness to this approach, however. Firstly, the reviewer doesn’t often state his own case in disagreeing with the book and I find it difficult at certain points to ascertain the precise nature of the critique and the reviewer’s own thoughts. Secondly, there are times that those he quotes seem to disagree among themselves. No doubt these other authors are marshalled for particular purposes at certain times, but in concert with the paucity of his own clear conclusions and statements, the critique is left ambiguous in many places. These weaknesses (not inherently wrong in approach), plays into the central challenge I will be addressing in this second response.

The crux of this second article is that the reviewer states, in principle, his support for hell not only as retribution, but as a punishment of the wicked that is more serious/severe than the traditional, endless suffering, viewpoint. This is my best understanding of Jakubovic’s position, one which I have a hard time nailing down because, in all honesty, it seems to me to be discordantly expressed throughout the entirety of the review. More than this, however, I think that this discordance is a function of a basic incoherence. I hope I will make that case by the end of the article.

Continue reading→

Several weeks ago, I was contacted by a friendly annihilationist who had written a critical review of the book that was both impressive and erudite . It begins by stating, “This is the most coherent philosophical/theological defence of Eternal Conscious Torment  that I have seen. Author Dirks doesn’t just go for the usual ‘low-hanging fruit’ that we have all heard before. His 10 chapters  are lucidly expressed & scripturally researched.”

The kind introduction, especially so given the expertise of the reviewer, is followed by a number of significant criticisms, which is to be expected from someone with such a radically different viewpoint.  I am thankful for David Jakubovic contacting me and for interacting with the book. This is the first in what will be several responses to the review. I make no promises that they will all follow quickly, and due to my other responsibilities it is quite likely that I will not engage further after these initial articles.

In this initial response, I want to address a few more general concerns expressed in the review, the sorts of arguments I intend to engage, and to deal with one of them that the reviewer emphasizes multiple times. I then plan to deal more  significantly with the philosophical matters and questions in the next article.  Continue reading→