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.
