A very positive review of “Is There Anything Good About Hell” from Bob Snyder, including a Q & A in which he asks me some deep questions about hell, one about what Bible I am using, and a trite one about whether I hate neckties! Check it out:
Here’s a preview:
Question #7: On page 133 I found Anselm’s argument “…that our sins are worthy of an infinite punishment because they are committed against an infinite majesty…” I found Anselm’s argument sufficient. This concept is where I stopped when I was looking into the justice of Hell as an expression of God’s love. I found satisfaction there, so I didn’t delve deeper. How difficult was it for you to read many of the other arguments, isolate them, and refute them after dealing with this argument?
Answer: I think different people find different arguments compelling or sufficient. Anselm’s argument is brilliant because it ties God’s infinite honor (a somewhat abstract concept) to our infinite obligation to Him and then proves it’s infiniteness by a ratcheting measurement of differing obligations (there are places in Jonathan Edward’s preaching that he also makes many of these connections.) Those who dismiss Anselm’s argument by saying it is tied to his feudal context haven’t understood him at all.
To be honest, I love reading the opposing arguments. It’s another puzzle. I know enough (God’s word is sufficient) to know they are wrong, but there is reward and even enjoyment in discovering how they are wrong and seeing what truths or emphases surface in refuting those positions (as well as which nuggets of truth are there in the erroneous positions.) For instance, I remember coming across Kronen and Reitan’s argument in “Species of Hell” and thinking, “now finally, that is a decent argument against hell–how are they wrong?” (See chapter 9). Conundrums are some of the best aids to developing clarity.