Presuppositionalism and Transcendental Arguments

A truly transcendental argument takes any fact of experience which it wishes to investigate, and tries to determine what the presuppositions of such a fact must be, in order to make it what it is — Cornelius Van Til

Presuppositionalists attempt, then, to argue transcendentally. That is, they argue that all meaning and thought—indeed, every fact—logically presupposes the God of the Scriptures — Steven B. Cowan

Our argument should be transcendental. That is, it should present the biblical God, not merely as the conclusion to an argument, but as the one who makes argument possible — John Frame

It is impossible for the same man to suppose at the same time that the same thing is and is not; for the man who made this error would entertain two contrary opinions at the same time. Hence all men who are demonstrating anything refer back to this as an ultimate belief; for it is by nature the starting-point of all the other axioms as well — Aristotle

The existence of outer things is required for the possibility of a determinate consciousness of the self — Immanuel Kant

If God is God, then God is. Now the antecedent is so true that it cannot be thought not to be. Therefore, it is true without doubt that God exists — St. Bonaventure

Presuppositional Apologetics: Reformed vs. Catholic Approaches

The cultural moment we now find ourselves in demands, possibly more than any other time in history, a potent and spirited renewal of apologetics in the Catholic Church — Matthew Nelson

Apologists may soon find themselves in a situation where much of the culture lacks even the bare minimum of common ground necessary for rational engagement — Edward Feser

Apologetics already acknowledges the truth of revelation, for one only defends what one thinks is certain — Fr. Réginald Garrigou-Lagrange

For how does one know that the thoughts that come to us in dreams are any more false than the others, given that they are often no less vivid and explicit? And even if the best minds study this as much as they please, I do not believe they can give any reason sufficient to remove this doubt, unless they presuppose the existence of God — René Descartes

The only proof for the existence of God is that without God you couldn't prove anything — Cornelius Van Til

Presuppositionalism is guilty of a logical howler: it commits the informal fallacy of petitio principii, or begging the question, for it advocates presupposing the truth of Christian theism in order to prove Christian theism — William Lane Craig

A Libertarian Case Against Abortion

In celebration of the overturning of Roe v. Wade, I thought I would share an (unpublished) essay I wrote against the moral permissibility of abortion a few years ago. At the time, I was somewhat of a libertarian (this is no longer the case). Consequently, I approached the issue through a libertarian lens. If there is an apologetic advantage to this, it is that pro-choice arguments are, I think, strongest when evaluated against a libertarian backdrop. Thus, the essay seeks to refute the pro-choice position on its home turf, so to speak. Anyway, without further ado, the essay can be accessed HERE.

The Catholic Doctrine of Merit: The Proverbial Bus and the Good Thief

Objection: It seems highly implausible that good works are necessary for salvation. Suppose, for instance, that someone is baptized and therefore brought into a state of salvation. Further, suppose that this person is then immediately hit by a bus and killed, without having had the opportunity to do any good works. If good works are necessary for salvation, then this person would be damned, which is absurd. After all, he was just saved through being baptized. Or what about an infant who is baptized and then dies due to health complications? The infant in such a case has not performed any good works. But surely that infant will be in Heaven. Finally, we can take an example from Sacred Scripture. The Good Thief on the cross next to Christ repented, and Jesus told him, “Truly, I say to you, today you will be with me in Paradise” (Luke 23:43). The Good Thief, therefore, was brought into a state of salvation, and Jesus assured him that he would be in Heaven. And clearly, he had not performed any (supernatural) good works at that point, and he would not have the opportunity to do so since he would soon die on the cross. For all of these reasons, therefore, it must not be the case that good works are necessary for salvation.

A Brief Argument on Infant Baptism

Some Protestants reject the legitimacy of infant baptism by holding that baptism, being an outward sign of salvation, must be received with full, conscious consent, and this is because salvation itself can only be received by making an explicit act of faith (which requires full, conscious consent), no exceptions. This view is referred to in certain Protestant circles as "believer's baptism." Since, therefore, infants are neither capable of giving full, conscious consent nor, a fortiori, making an explicit act of faith, it follows that infant baptism is invalid. The trouble with this reasoning, aside from the fact that baptism is not merely an outward sign but rather also the instrumental cause of salvation, is that it entails that infants cannot be saved, which is in utter contradiction to the teaching of Jesus (cf. Luke 18:15-16). The Protestant is here making two claims which logically entail the conclusion that salvation is impossible for infants:

1. An explicit act of faith is necessary for salvation.
2. Infants are not capable of making an explicit act of faith.
3. Therefore, infants cannot be saved.

Kant's First Antinomy: The Beginning of the Universe

The philosopher Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) famously argued that reason is not capable of answering the question of whether the universe began to exist. Kant sought to show this by demonstrating that both the proposition that the universe began to exist and its negation (i.e., the universe did not begin to exist) admit of incontrovertible arguments in their favor, thus implying that reason leads to the conclusion that a proposition (what Kant calls the “thesis”) and its negation (what Kant calls the “antithesis”) are both true. But by the principle of non-contradiction, a proposition and its negation cannot both be true. Kant refers to such paradoxes as antinomies of pure reason. In his Critique of Pure Reason, Kant identifies four such antinomies, the first of which is the one presently under discussion. In trying to answer such cosmological questions by way of pure reason, reason itself, as Kant puts it, “soon falls into such contradictions that it is constrained, in this cosmological field, to desist from any such pretensions” (Critique of Pure Reason, Bk. II, Ch. II, pg. 385). Given the present antinomy, we must conclude that reason itself is bankrupt with respect to answering the question of whether the universe began to exist, even though the question must of logical necessity have an objective answer. As Kant writes,

Quitting the Quintilemma: Eternal Security and Warnings of Falling Away: A Response to William Lane Craig

In a previous post (HERE), I presented an argument against the doctrine of eternal security in which I argued that, in order to avoid antinomianism while maintaining eternal security, a proponent of the doctrine of eternal security has four possible moves, none of which is ultimately acceptable: (i) Antinomianism; (ii) No true Christian (i.e., no person in the state of justification) has ever committed the sins listed in 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, Galatians 5:19-21, and Revelation 21:8; (iii) Antinomianism minus apostacy; (iv) Sacred Scripture contains numerous completely pointless warnings. This set up a quintilemma in which it was concluded that the doctrine of eternal security is false. Focusing on (iv), if the doctrine of eternal security is true, then it would seem that Scripture contains pointless warnings. For if a Christian cannot lose his salvation, then warnings about Christians losing their salvation are pointless.

The Ethics of Mockery

Two fundamental questions:

1. Is mockery ever morally permissible?
2. If yes, under what conditions?

In answer to the first question, we must answer with yes. For our Lord Himself engaged in mockery (cf. Matthew 23:24). Since, therefore, our Lord is utterly without sin (cf. Hebrews 4:15), it follows that mockery is not intrinsically sinful and therefore can be morally permissible.

Answering the second question is more difficult, but if we follow the example of our Lord, we can identify various conditions under which mockery is morally permissible. When Christ engaged in mockery, the chief reasons for doing so were to combat error and to teach truth. Christ engages in mockery in order to repudiate the hypocrisy of the scribes and Pharisees, and to teach the truth that the interior life is more important than the exterior (cf. Matthew 23:27-28). So, using mockery for these purposes is morally legitimate. Purposes for engaging in mockery that are obviously not morally legitimate would include, for example, wanting to calumniate someone or wanting to simply manifest cruelty by inflicting emotional pain on someone.

The Biblical Case for the Doctrine of Eternal Security: Arguments and Rebuttals

The doctrine of eternal security can be defined, according to the Westminster Confession, as follows:

They whom God hath accepted in his Beloved, effectually called and sanctified by his Spirit, can neither totally nor finally fall away from the state of grace; but shall certainly persevere therein to the end, and be eternally saved (Westminster Confession, XVII.I).

The basic thesis is that a Christian cannot lose his salvation. Once a person is justified, he is always justified. In my last post (HERE), I presented an argument against eternal security. In this post, I want to consider the biblical arguments for eternal security and to offer rebuttals to those arguments. In what follows, I will present passages of Sacred Scripture accompanied by arguments from the passages to the doctrine of eternal security as well as corresponding rebuttals to those arguments. I have attempted to be simultaneously comprehensive and concise. The scriptural passages are taken from the NIV translation. I have opted to use this translation because it is an Evangelical translation, which allows me to avoid the lame objection that I am using a translation with "Catholic bias."

An Anti-Antinomian Quintilemma Against the Doctrine of Eternal Security

A neuralgic point of contention between various traditions of Christianity is whether a Christian can lose his salvation. Among Protestants, Calvinists are especially associated with the doctrine of eternal security (alternatively, perseverance of the saints), which holds that no true Christian can lose his salvation, and this is because God will always preserve every Christian in a state of grace and continually and unconditionally forgive their sins. As the Westminster Confession states:

Thomism, Molinism, and God's Universal Salvific Will

One of the central disputes between Thomists and Molinists is over whether actual grace is intrinsically efficacious (Thomism) or extrinsically efficacious (Molinism). The late, great Fr. Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange explains this difference as follows:

According to Molinism, grace is efficacious only because God foresees that man will consent, whereas, for St. Thomas, “God indeed moves the will immutably, because of the efficacy of the moving power which cannot fail; but because of the nature of the will that is moved, which is indifferently disposed toward various things, it is not necessitated but remains free” (God, His Existence and His Nature, Vol. II pg. 516).

The Catholic Doctrine of Merit: The "Legalism" Objection

Objection: The idea that good works contribute to justification can’t be right. The Gospel is a message of grace, not works-righteousness. We are “justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as an expiation by his blood, to be received by faith” (Romans 3:24-25). Our entrance into Heaven is secured by God’s mercy, not by our good deeds outweighing our bad deeds. Such a notion constitutes a cold and servile legalism that falsifies the Gospel and causes us to pridefully look in on ourselves. As Martin Luther put it, “Turning to myself and looking into myself, into what I am and ought to be and do, I lose sight of Christ, who alone is my righteousness and my life…[W]orks…only compel us to look to ourselves again, and turn our eyes from that brazen serpent, Christ crucified” (Commentary on Galatians, 1535; quoted in A Lutheran’s Case for Roman Catholicism, pg. 15-16).

Sola Scriptura, the Canon Problem, and Reformed Epistemology

In a previous post (HERE), I laid out an argument against the Protestant doctrine of sola Scriptura as follows:

1. Either the canon of Sacred Scripture is known infallibly, or it is not.
2. If the canon of Sacred Scripture is not known infallibly, then Sacred Scripture is a fallible collection of infallible books.
3. A fallible collection of infallible books is incoherent.
4. Therefore, Sacred Scripture is not a fallible collection of infallible books (3).
5. Therefore, the canon of Sacred Scripture is known infallibly (2, 4).
6. Either the canon of Sacred Scripture is known by Sacred Scripture itself or by Tradition.
7. The canon of Sacred Scripture is not known by Sacred Scripture itself.
8. Therefore, the canon of Sacred Scripture is known by Tradition (6, 7).
9. If the canon of Sacred Scripture is known infallibly and is known by Tradition, then there is an infallible Tradition (pertaining to the Christian faith) outside of Sacred Scripture.
10. Therefore, there is an infallible Tradition outside of Sacred Scripture (5, 8, 9).
11. If there is an infallible Tradition outside of Sacred Scripture, then sola Scriptura is false.
12. Therefore, sola Scriptura is false (10, 11).

The Catholic Doctrine of Merit: Calvin's "No Contribution" Objection

Objection: Even if our good works are the products of God’s grace, what we could contribute to them would only detract from their goodness. Thus, any contribution we could make to our good works would be an evil contribution. Since merit can accrue to us only insofar as we make a good contribution to a praiseworthy action, it follows, therefore, that our good works cannot be meritorious. Everything deserving of praise in our good works is attributable solely to God’s grace. As John Calvin explains:

The Catholic Doctrine of Merit: The "Not a Righteousness of my Own" Objection

As discussed in previous posts (such as HERE), the Catholic understanding of justification differs from the Protestant view primarily with respect to the kind of righteousness that is received in justification. On the Catholic view, we receive a real, ontological righteousness that inheres in our soul and makes us a new creation. By contrast, on the Protestant view, we are merely imputed with the perfect, alien righteousness of Christ (the iustitia Christi aliena). We are credited with being as righteous as Christ even though, intrinsically, we are unchanged. On the Catholic view, because the righteousness received in justification is a real righteousness inhering in our soul and is distinct from Christ's personal and perfect righteousness (and hence is finite), it follows that the righteousness received in justification—referred to in Catholic theology as sanctifying grace—can be increased. And, according to Catholic teaching, good works done through God's grace contribute to growing in sanctifying grace, growing in righteousness, growing in justification (cf. Romans 2:13, James 2:24). I have argued for this doctrine HERE. On the Protestant view, however, the righteousness received in justification cannot be increased. This is because, on the Protestant view, in justification we are imputed with Christ's perfect righteousness. Since Christ's righteousness does not increase, therefore, our righteous standing before God does not and cannot increase. Hence, good works cannot contribute in any way to justification, not even to a growth in justification.

Lying in Extraordinary Circumstances: Some Biblical Considerations

Here are some thoughts on the morality of lying, particularly in extraordinary circumstances. Lying, as classically defined by St. Augustine, "consists in speaking a falsehood with the intention of deceiving" (CCC 2482, quoting St. Augustine). And, according to Augustine, lying is intrinsically wrong, i.e., it is never permissible in any circumstances: “It seems to me, however, that every lie is a sin, albeit there is a great difference depending on the intention and the topic of the lie” (Enchiridion, Ch. VI, par. 18). The classic problem case for this conception of lying is the Nazis-at-the-door scenario. You are living in Germany during the Jewish Holocaust. You are hiding Jews in your attic to protect them. Some Nazis knock at your door and ask you if you are hiding Jews in your house. What to do? On the one hand, you might think that lying is intrinsically wrong, and lying consists in speaking a falsehood with the intention of deceiving. So, you reason that you cannot licitly lie to the Nazis (i.e., you cannot licitly speak a falsehood to the Nazis with the intention of deceiving them). So, telling the Nazis that you do not have Jews in your house seems like it’s off the table. On the other hand, if you tell the Nazis the truth, they will arrest the Jews and send them off to a concentration camp. Needless to say, this would be very bad. So, we seemingly have a serious moral dilemma. One possibility to explore is to scrutinize the Augustinian conception of lying. There are substantive philosophical arguments both for and against the Augustinian view, but for this post I will restrict myself to some biblical considerations.

Some Arguments Against Sola Scriptura

Sola Scriptura is the Protestant doctrine that holds that Sacred Scripture, i.e., the Bible, is the sole infallible theological authority for Christians. Consequently, a Christian is not bound to assent to a doctrine that is not deducible from Sacred Scripture alone. According to Lutheran theology, for instance:

[T]he Word of God alone should be and remain the only standard and rule of doctrine...to which everything should be subjected (Formula of Concord, "Comprehensive Summary, Foundation, Rule and Norm", par. 10).

Similarly, according to traditional Reformed theology (as expressed in the Westminster Confession):

The Supreme Judge, by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits, are to be examined, and in whose sentence we are to rest, can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture (Westminster Confession I.X).

Thus, Sacred Tradition and the teaching authority of the Church are not infallible, and the Church is consequently not capable of giving an infallible interpretation of Scripture. Rather, as the Westminster Confession declares:

The infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture is the Scripture itself; and therefore, when there is a question about the true and full sense of any scripture (which is not manifold, but one), it must be searched and known by other places that speak more clearly (ibid., I.IX).

What follows are a few arguments against the doctrine of sola Scriptura.

Justified by Faith Apart from Works of the Law

Romans 3:28 is perhaps the most commonly proffered prooftext of the Protestant doctrine of sola fide (justification by faith alone). The argument is that the verse teaches that we are justified by faith and not by works. Consequently, justification is by faith alone. Galatians 2:15-16 teaches similarly. Good works, therefore, play no role in justification. Martin Luther explained this as follows:

All have sinned and are justified without merit [freely, and without their own works or merits] by His grace, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, in His blood, Rom. 3:23f. Now, since it is necessary to believe this, and it cannot be otherwise acquired or apprehended by any work, law, or merit, it is clear and certain that this faith alone justifies us as St. Paul says, Rom. 3:28: For we conclude that a man is justified by faith, without the deeds of the Law. Likewise 3:26: That He might be just, and the Justifier of him which believeth in Christ (Smalcald Articles, II, I, 3-4).

Sola Gratia and Solo Christo

Using traditional Protestant terminology, the Catholic understanding of justification and salvation affirms sola gratia (by grace alone) and solo Christo (through Christ alone) but rejects sola fide (by faith alone). We are saved by grace alone (cf. John 10:27-28; 15:5, Acts 15:11, Romans 3:24; 6:23, Ephesians 2:8-9, Titus 3:4-7) through Christ alone (cf. John 10:9-16; 14:6, Acts 4:12), and we are justified not by faith only but also by our good works wrought by grace (cf. Matthew 25:31-46, Romans 2:6-8; 2:13, Galatians 5:6, Philippians 2:12-13, James 2:24). This is well explained in a paper by Richard A. White, a Calvinist convert to Catholicism:

Calvin, Total Depravity, and Pagan Virtue

It seems obvious that there are unbelievers (and thus those who have not been regenerated by grace) who do good and who have genuine virtue. This basic fact of experience seems to falsify the doctrine of total depravity. John Calvin, however, did not think this to be a successful objection. In response, Calvin wrote as follows:

Justified by Works and Not by Faith Alone: Objections and Replies

Consider the following argument, rooted in Scripture, for the conclusion that good works are necessary for salvation.

1. Faith without works is dead (James 2:17, 26).
2. Dead faith cannot save (James 2:14, 19).
3. Faith that is not dead is necessary for salvation (2).
4. If faith is not dead, then it has works (1).
5. So, having works is necessary for salvation (3, 4).

Furthermore, St. James teaches us that our good works are not merely the necessary products of justification, but they also make a contribution to our justification: “You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone” (James 2:24). This is the only place in Scripture where the phrase “by faith alone” (from the Greek, ek pisteos monon) is found, and it is rejected as false teaching. The teaching that good works make a contribution to justification needs to be qualified; such qualification will be done in the course of responding to objections.

The Catholic Doctrine of Merit: The "All or Nothing" Objection

Objection: Paul teaches, “For all who rely on works of the law are under a curse; for it is written, ‘Cursed be every one who does not abide by all things written in the book of the law, and do them’” (Galatians 3:10). Paul is here referencing Deuteronomy: “’Cursed be he who does not confirm the words of this law by doing them.’ And all the people shall say, ‘Amen’” (Deuteronomy 27:26). The referent of “law” in this passage is the entire Law of Moses as laid out in Deuteronomy, which includes the Ten Commandments (cf. Deuteronomy 5:6-21). Thus, the moral law and not just the ceremonial law is in view. Consequently, Paul is excluding not just ceremonial works but also (morally) good works from justification, and this is because whoever would be justified by such works would have to perfectly keep the entire law, including the moral law, and this is manifestly impossible. In a similar vein, James teaches that, “[W]hoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become guilty of all of it” (James 2:10). And James cites two of the Ten Commandments in the very next verse, which clearly indicates that the moral law is what James has in mind. What is being taught is that in order for works, good works included, to justify, one would have to keep the entire law perfectly. But it is evident that no one is capable of doing this. Hence, for both Paul and James, works, good works in particular, cannot play any role in justification. As John Calvin taught:

The Catholic Doctrine of Merit: Calvin's "Impurity and Dirt" Objection

A common Calvinist objection to the Catholic doctrine of merit is that our good works are always finite and human. They cannot possibly have supernatural merit in God’s eyes. They simply cannot be meritorious with respect to the infinite value of eternal life. Something of finite value cannot merit something of infinite value. Furthermore, according to Sacred Scripture, “We have all become like one who is unclean, and all our righteous deeds are like a polluted garment” (Isaiah 64:6). Now, that which is polluted does not have merit in God’s eyes; hence, our good works have no merit. As John Calvin taught,

The Catholic Doctrine of Merit: Meriting Unmerited Favor?

A common objection to the Catholic doctrine of merit is that it amounts to the contradiction of asserting that we can merit unmerited favor. The Catholic Church teaches that Christians can merit an increase of grace and even eternal life:

If anyone shall say, that the good works of a man that is justified are in such wise the gifts of God, as that they are not also the good merits of him that is justified; or, that the said justified, by the good works which are performed by him through the grace of God and the merit of Jesus Christ, whose living member he is, does not truly merit increase of grace, eternal life, and the attainment of that eternal life, if so be, however, that he depart in grace, and, moreover, an increase of glory; let him be anathema (Council of Trent, On Justification, Canon XXXII).

Contra Calvin on Paul's "Works of the Law"

In Romans and Galatians, St. Paul speaks against "works of the law" with respect to justification. Paul's meaning of "works of the law" has been a contentious issue in Christian theology. Traditional Protestantism, as represented by Luther and Calvin, understands "works of the law" to be equivalent to, or at least to include, morally good works. It is on the basis of this understanding that Luther interpreted Romans 3:28 as teaching justification by faith alone and that good works have no role whatsoever to play in justification. By contrast, the traditional and predominant Catholic understanding is that Paul's phrase "works of the law" refers to the ceremonial precepts of the Law of Moses such as, for example, circumcision and dietary regulations. On this interpretation, Paul means to exclude not good works but Jewish cultic observances from Christian justification. In contemporary Pauline scholarship, this interpretation is typically referred to as the "new perspective," whereas the traditional Protestant interpretation is referred to as the "old perspective." The interested reader can read my defense of the new perspective understanding of "works of the law" HERE. In this post, I want to respond to an objection to this interpretation raised by John Calvin.

An Argument Against the Possibility of Multiple Omnipotent Beings and Some Implications for the Trinity and Incarnation

Argument: Suppose there are two omnipotent beings G1 and G2. Now, suppose that G1 wills that Earth gets created and that G2 wills that Earth does not get created. Who “wins”? On the one hand, Earth should get created since G1 wills it, G1 is omnipotent, and the creation of Earth is logically possible. On the other hand, Earth should not get created since G2 wills it, G2 is omnipotent, and Earth not being created is logically possible. The answer therefore seems to be that Earth gets created and Earth does not get created, a flat contradiction. Such a state of affairs, therefore, is impossible. And yet, such a state of affairs seems like it would be possible if there really were two omnipotent beings (since it seems possible that the two beings could will such mutually contradictory states of affairs). Hence, it must not be the case that there are two omnipotent beings. Even more strongly, it must not be possible for there to be two omnipotent beings. And more generally, it must not be possible for there to be any number of omnipotent beings greater than one, since the same paradox can be derived no matter how many more omnipotent beings we keep adding beyond two. The argument can be formalized as follows:

The Doctrine of Justification in Titus

The primary difference between the Catholic and Protestant understandings of justification is that the Catholic view holds that in justification we receive a gift of infused righteousness that interiorly renews us, making us a new creation, whereas the Protestant view holds that we receive a merely external righteousness (Christ's personal righteousness) that is legally imputed to us, and we receive this imputation by faith alone. Our righteousness before God is merely legal and not ontological. As John Calvin taught:

The Principle of Double Effect and the Atomic Bombings of WWII

Catholic moral theologians have consistently held that the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki by the United States during World War II were gross violations of justice. The Church herself has taught this:

"Every act of war directed to the indiscriminate destruction of whole cities or vast areas with their inhabitants is a crime against God and man, which merits firm and unequivocal condemnation." A danger of modern warfare is that it provides the opportunity to those who possess modern scientific weapons—especially atomic, biological, or chemical weapons—to commit such crimes (CCC 2314).

The Church and human reason assert the permanent validity of the moral law during armed conflicts. Practices deliberately contrary to the law of nations and to its universal principles are crimes (CCC 2328).

An Argument from Privileged Access to the Immateriality of the Mind

1. Thoughts have privileged access.
2. Physical things do not have privileged access.
3. Therefore, thoughts are not physical things (1, 2).
4. Thoughts are caused by minds.
5. Physical things cannot cause nonphysical things.
6. Therefore, minds are not physical (3, 4, 5).

The Dignity/Value Argument for the Justice of Hell

In an area of philosophy of religion and philosophical theology called the Problem of Hell, the eternity of Hell is thought to be unjust by some due to the fact that any crimes that human beings commit are finite and yet they are, for those who are damned, punished for an eternity in Hell. The punishment (which is infinite) does not fit the crime (which is finite) and so, the argument goes, Hell is unjust. There are a number of defenses and theodicies that have been offered by theologians and philosophers on behalf of the doctrine of Hell. One such defense is what we might call the “Infinite Dignity/Value” defense.