In this paper I contribute to the ongoing debate on hell in three ways: (1) I distinguish between three questions that play a key role in any discussion of the doctrine of hell; (2) I argue positively for the need of a doctrine of hell for Christian theism; (3) after evaluating several theological positions, I argue that the doctrine of hell should be construed as intrinsically bound up with the Christian conviction that God is love and wants to live with (...) human beings in a relationship of mutual love and fellowship. From this perspective on hell I provide some fresh criticisms on the positions of John Hick, Thomas Talbott, and Charles Seymour. (shrink)

In the traditional arguments for the existence of God it is argued from the world, or features of the world, to God as the ground or explanation of the world. Such arguments inevitably raise the question as to who or what explains God in turn. In response to this question some theologians have argued that God cannot be explained any further because God’s exists necessarily. Sometimes God’s necessary existence is taken to imply his self-explanation. In the present paper the author (...) reviews three different interpretations of God's necessary existence and investigates their success in establishing God’s selfexplanation. After a detailed discussion of God’s purported logical necessity, the author concludes that this interpretation, even if coherent, does not succeed in making God’s existence selfexplanatory. The author concludes with a plea for the traditional view of God’s ontological or factual necessity. (shrink)