Kirk Cameron Rejects Eternal Conscious Torment, Embraces Conditional Immortality

[John Bauer]

From Protestia.com:

Former actor-turned-evangelist Kirk Cameron has revealed that he no longer believes in ‘eternal conscious torment’ for the wicked, which he suggests is “cruel and unusual punishment.” Instead, he revealed he leans strongly towards annihilationism, saying: “It fits the character of God.”

Click here for the rest of the story …

 

[Josheb]

From Protestia.com:

Former actor-turned-evangelist Kirk Cameron has revealed that he no longer believes in ‘eternal conscious torment’ for the wicked, which he suggests is “cruel and unusual punishment.” Instead, he revealed he leans strongly towards annihilationism, saying: “It fits the character of God.”

Click here for the rest of the story …

Is there a particular point of inquiry or comment to be discussed relevant to Cameron's position?


Lots of mainstream orthodox Christians have questioned the premise of "eternal torment" and held to conditional mortality. Cults have, unblessedly, built their soteriology/hamartiology/eschatology around the position but that does not mean without validity and merit, that it should not be considered, or that it is not the truth regarding the sinner's eternal disposition. Personally, I think appeals to God's "character" lame and foolish. All sides use that argument feebly. The fact is God's character is such that He can do whatever He wants to do with trash. That's what God-denying, Christ-denying dead-in-sin humans are: trash. The fact that God has any mind for any sinner is a function of grace and every single person who has ever lived should be thankful for that fact. Good endless punish sinners for sin if He so chooses to do so.

The way I see it, annihilationism is the correct position to hold because if death is not destroyed - literally and completely eradicated from existence - then nothing else in the fiery lake is, either (whether the lake is construed to be something literal or figurative). If death is not destroyed then the new heavens and earth still contain death (sinful death, not the kind of death like that inherent in the cycle plants). There are two main Greek words for "destroy" in the NT. One is phthora, which means to rot, decay, perish or be destroyed. Items that rot and decay eventually cease to exist. They do not rot in perpetuity. The enormity of rotting material may mean the rotting take a very long time before it is all done and there's nothing left to rot, but the end is still the same: everything decays until it ceases to exist. The other main word used for destruction is apolesai. That word is more immediate, extensive and final. It literally means to eradicate to the point of cessation of existence. An example of the first term in scripture would be Galatians 6:8 and an example of the latter would be Matthew 10:28. There's one other word that's germane: "katargeo," or "abolished," or "annulled." This is sometimes translated as "destroyed." And example of that would be 1 Corinthians 15:26.


Galatians 6:8
For the one who sows to his own flesh will reap destruction from the flesh, but the one who sows to the Spirit will reap eternal life from the Spirit.

Matthew 10:28
And do not be afraid of those who kill the body but are unable to kill the soul; but rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.

1 Corinthians 15:26 KJV
The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death.

1 Corinthians 15:26 ESV
The last enemy to be destroyed is death.

1 Corinthians 15:26 NAS
The last enemy that shall be abolished is death.


In the case of Gal. 6:8, the NAS does not do an adequate job of reflecting the Greek. The KJV and the more modern translations use, "corruption." Corruption is reaped when a person, including a Christian in the case of Gal. 6:8, reaps rot, decay, or corruption. In the case of 1 Cor. 15:26, the NAS is a better reflection. Either way, something that has been abolished or annulled ceases. It's done away with, brought to an end, destroyed.

Therefore, if there is a time and place for/of conscious torment on the other side of the grave (and I think there is) then it is not forever. Eventually the rot and decay of sin and the judgment of God thereof have an eradicating effect and eventually there is neither sin nor death in the new creation. John Stott was an Annihilationist. So too is Clark Pinnock (who is often criticized for his Open Theism). Ignatius of Antioch (D: c. 108 AD) argued those who abstained from the Eucharist, denying "the Eucharist is the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ" (this was before the doctrine of transubstantiation existed), would not rise again. He asserted a conditional mortality. In his "First Apology" he asserted God bestowed worthy men with immortality and the wicked were endowed with "eternal sensibility" into an everlasting fire which would bring about repentance. That repentance would not be received, and they would eventually be destroyed. For martyr it was the fire that is eternal, not the punishment. He openly argued against the Platonic Greek belief human souls were immortal. God grants eternal life only to those found in Christ. Immortality is conditional. Irenaeus took a different approach. He held all humans depend on God's will to exist and the continuation of that existence. If and when God withdraws that will the creature ceases to exist. He said the wicked would be "deprived of continuance." His point of entrance into the topic was his repudiation of Gnosticism, which taught/teaches the soul is immortal. There have always been Christians who understand scripture to teach immortality is conditional and eternal or everlasting torment or punishment contradicts the normal, ordinary meaning of death.

If death is not dead, then neither is anything else and the word is meaningless.

Revelation 20:13-15
And the sea gave up the dead which were in it, and death and Hades gave up the dead which were in them; and they were judged, every one of them according to their deeds. Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death, the lake of fire. And if anyone’s name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire.

The death of death is the second death and there is no more death.

So why is Kirk Cameron's rejection of eternal conscious torment and embrace of conditional immortality significant?






For those with an interest, there are two Counterpoint Series books (both with the same title but different contributors) books titled, "Four Views on Hell," that are worth a read. This link is to the second version, but here's the link to the first book. The arguments made by the contributors are similar. I suspect Stackhouse replaced Pinnock in order to remove Open Theism from the mix. I think the use of the word "hell" is suspect because its use implies pagan mythologies have merit. Is suspect Jesus used the word "sheol," not hel, hades, or tartarus. Even though the Greek uses those terms Jesus could not be implying there exist other gods (like those of the underworld). Rarely is that considered in the discussion of the sinner's disposition.

 

[fastfredy0]

Former actor-turned-evangelist Kirk Cameron has revealed that he no longer believes in ‘eternal conscious torment’ for the wicked, which he suggests is “cruel and unusual punishment.” Instead, he revealed he leans strongly towards annihilationism, saying: “It fits the character of God.”

I hope Kirk is correct. I'm not betting on it though.

 

[prism]

I hope Kirk is correct. I'm not betting on it though.

Why? God wouldn't be true to His Word if eternal torment was untrue.

Rev 14:9 And the third angel followed them, saying with a loud voice, If any man worship the beast and his image, and receive his mark in his forehead, or in his hand,

Rev 14:10 The same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his indignation; and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb:

Rev 14:11 And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night, who worship the beast and his image, and whosoever receiveth the mark of his name.

 

[fastfredy0]

Why? God wouldn't be true to His Word if eternal torment was untrue.

Of course. God is perfect, His actions are perfect and the torment of unbelievers is for the best. I just don't get any pleasure from it and wouldn't be disheartened if God had declared annihilationism but God has declared a better way and I bow to His wisdom.

11 Say to them, ‘As I live,’ says the Lord God, ‘I take no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but rather that the wicked turn from his way and live.

 

[John Bauer]

I hope Kirk is correct. I'm not betting on it though.

Don’t worry, he is.

 

[John Bauer]

Is there a particular point of inquiry or comment to be discussed relevant to Cameron's position? … Why is Kirk Cameron's rejection of eternal conscious torment and embrace of conditional immortality significant?

Only because of his celebrity within the Christian community (i.e. famous and well-known). It is noteworthy insofar as it brings increased attention to the doctrine of conditional immortality and the troubling theological implications of eternal conscious torment, in addition to being a story of public interest to people like Gen Xers who remember him fondly as Mike Seaver.

For me, the most troubling aspect of the eternal conscious torment doctrine is its implication that wrath is an eternal attribute of God, rather than a relative disposition, contingent on sin and ordered toward a judicial end. Wrath answers to a problem; goodness names God’s eternal character. John R. W. Stott had some great material on this issue in his magnum opus, The Cross of Christ.

It also implies that some corner of creation will be forever marred by sin, that sin, anguish, and hatred of God are never entirely removed. The language of Scripture testifies that every last enemy is destroyed, not quarantined somewhere. It describes an unopposed, healed, consummated order in which no rival principle continues to assert itself. If a sector of creation remains eternally populated by image-bearers in conscious rebellion, anguish, and hatred of God, then sin is never entirely eradicated; it is quarantined and preserved. That is God over all, but God is not all in all (1 Cor 15:24-28), nor would God reconcile all things to himself, just most things (Col 1:20).

It also sits awkwardly with a Christological center. Wrath is not merely expressed on the cross; it is exhausted in judgment. Christ’s mediatorial work is a witness to the fact that divine justice can be satisfied, as are the many judgment texts in the OT.

The usual rejoinder—“hell glorifies God by displaying his justice”—concedes the problem rather than solving it. Justice glorified by endless sin presupposes sin as a permanent feature of reality. That edges uncomfortably close to a Manichaean structure: good eternally opposed by evil, even if evil is contained and powerless.

And let’s not forget: Hell cannot be self-existent. Nothing exists except by divine decree and sustenance.

 

[Josheb]

For me, the most troubling aspect of the eternal conscious torment doctrine is its implication that wrath is an eternal attribute of God, rather than a relative disposition, contingent on sin and ordered toward a judicial end. Wrath answers to a problem; goodness names God’s eternal character. John R. W. Stott had some great material on this issue in his magnum opus, The Cross of Christ.

That is very well said and "The Cross..." is an excellent book. I cannot recall ever reading anything by Stott that wasn't profoundly informative and uplifting. The Church lost something special when he and Packer died.

It also implies that some corner of creation will be forever marred by sin, that sin, anguish, and hatred of God are never entirely removed.

Exactly! There's a new creation where everything is new and shiny..... except for that pit of fire over there in the corner where people are endlessly writhing in immeasurable pain as the flesh burns off, returns, burns off, returns, while the smell of the barbeque masks the underlying stench of decay.

The usual rejoinder—“hell glorifies God by displaying his justice”—concedes the problem rather than solving it...

I get what you're saying but my response to that rejoinder is they'd argued a strawman. Hell does glorify God. Endless hell does not. By dropping the "endless" they've attempted to redefine the matter and thereby misrepresent it. The same cross that saves also condemns and the result of the former is eternal life; the result of the latter is eternal destruction (destruction that is eternal).

And let’s not forget: Hell cannot be self-existent. Nothing exists except by divine decree and sustenance.

Did you catch that part I posted about "lesser gods"? This trips up people a lot. Christian doctrine hadn't formed when the New Testament was written. The first century Jew and the first century Gentile would have understood the words "hades," "hel," and "tartarus" as references to pagan deities, as well as some under-the-ground geographic location ruled by those deities. They were lesser gods in pagan mythologies just like Baal, Beelzebub, or Dagon. There is no Aphrodite, Apollo, Artemis, or Dionysus and more than there is a Hades (Greek God of the underworld), or Hel (Norse goddess of death). Assuming Jesus ever used those actual words, he did so repudiate the entire construct. In old-school Judaism you died and that was it. Outside of what we now call mythology, Judaism was nihilistic. It was the Pharisees who preached a resurrection, the possibility of a life on the other side of the grave. Everyone else outside of Judaism held to a belief in an underworld where dead folks continued living. It was usually a despondent existence but a conscious one, nonetheless. A conscious existence in the realm of a lesser God. The alternative in some cultures, like the Greeks and Romans, was that of the Elysian Fields where a noble warrior or person of great accomplishment (works) could be awarded or "promoted" to a status that would allow them to live at the foot of Olympus, just outside where the gods lived. Good for them.

Jesus comes along and confronts all of it. You will die. You will die and face judgment. You will die and face judgment but there is only one of two outcomes: eternal life or destruction in which your body and soul are destroyed. There are no lesser gods and even if there were true, they all bow in subjugation to me, the Son of God Almighty Who is God. I rule them all and they too will all be destroyed.

So, they nailed him to a cross thinking that would solve the problem when in reality it simply empowered their destruction and our salvation.


What? So you don't believe in hell?

Aaaarrgh!