Kirk Cameron Rejects Eternal Conscious Torment, Embraces Conditional Immortality

[fastfredy0]

Just to ensure we're talking about the same thing. I think your comment refers to God's sustaining evil souls forever.

But does it not only bring glory to His name?

... well,assuming you're asking if there is some other purpose ...
Premise 1: God's purpose is His glory/pleasure
Premise 2: There is nothing of intrinsic value save God so everything is all about God. God is the cause of everything.
Conclusion: So I can't think of anything of relatively significant value as a reason to sustain evil souls forever.

 

[JesusFan]

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.

Heaven is the ternal realm of the mercy and grace of God, while hell and lake of fire is his eternal judgement against all evil

 

[John Bauer]

Heaven is the ternal realm of the mercy and grace of God, while hell and lake of fire is his eternal judgement against all evil

God’s judgment is forever, but he does not judge forever.

The Bible speaks of “eternal salvation.” Does that mean God is forever saving his people? No, “It is finished.”

Similarly, the wicked experience eternal punishment, but not eternal punishing.

 

[Carbon]

Just to ensure we're talking about the same thing. I think your comment refers to God's sustaining evil souls forever.

... well,assuming you're asking if there is some other purpose ...
Premise 1: God's purpose is His glory/pleasure
Premise 2: There is nothing of intrinsic value save God so everything is all about God. God is the cause of everything.
Conclusion: So I can't think of anything of relatively significant value as a reason to sustain evil souls forever.

Well, actually, you or I dont have to think of any reasons. If God says so, then it simply is.

 

[Carbon]

God’s judgment is forever, but he does not judge forever.

Quite true, it would seem.

The Bible speaks of “eternal salvation.” Does that mean God is forever saving his people? No, “It is finished.”

Similarly, the wicked experience eternal punishment, but not eternal punishing.

 

[fastfredy0]

Similarly, the wicked experience eternal punishment, but not eternal punishing.

... interesting way to put it ... never thought of it that way...

Took a while but I found this verse that makes it sound like the wicked are punished eternally.
Revelation 20:10: "...they will be tormented day and night forever and ever" (ESV)

How do you explain that verse given your statement that the wicked don't experience eternal punishing?

 

[atpollard]

How do you explain that verse given your statement that the wicked don't experience eternal punishing?

You have to study it in Koine Greek.

 

[John Bauer]

... interesting way to put it ... never thought of it that way...

Took a while but I found this verse that makes it sound like the wicked are punished eternally.

Revelation 20:10: "... they will be tormented day and night forever and ever" (ESV).

How do you explain that verse, given your statement that the wicked don't experience eternal punishing?

You have to study it in Koine Greek.

Actually, @atpollard is not entirely wrong. Had he remembered the principles of analogia fidei and analogia scripturae, he would have been entirely correct. Although I am not a Greek scholar, Greg Beale is. Regarding this passage, he wrote (emphasis mine):

But there is theological debate about the nature of the final judgment. Does the portrayal mean that unbelievers are to be annihilated, so that their existence will be abolished forever? Or does this text refer to a destruction involving not absolute annihilation but the suffering of unbelievers for eternity? The OT context of Isaiah 34 could support the former view, since there the historical annihilation of Edom is portrayed. The image of continually ascending smoke in Isaiah 34 serves as a memorial of God’s annihilating punishment for sin, the message of which never goes out of date … Likewise, … in Jude 7, Sodom is set forth as an example of [others] undergoing the punishment of eternal fire. Accordingly, the lack of rest “night and day” also has its background in Isaiah 34:9 where, like the smoke, it refers to the enduring effects of the extinction of Edom. In particular, “day and night” … in 14:11 can be taken as a qualitative genitive construction indicating not duration of time … but kind of time, that is, time of ceaseless activity … The lack of rest will continue uninterrupted as long as the period of suffering lasts, though there will be an end to the period. Therefore, the imagery of Revelation 14:10–11 could indicate a great judgment that will be remembered forever, not one that leads to eternal suffering.

Gregory K. Beale, The Book of Revelation: A Commentary on the Greek Text, New International Greek Testament Commentary (Eerdmans, 1999), 761–762.

Two notes:

• Beale does not take the annihilationist view himself. He simply acknowledges the exegetical strength of that view.
  
  ​
• Regarding Sodom and Gomorrah “suffering the punishment of eternal fire,” it should be noted they are not currently ablaze—a curious fact about “eternal fire.”

 

[fastfredy0]

You have to study it in Koine Greek.

Gee, I'm still trying to figure out English.

Actually, @atpollard is not entirely wrong.

Gee, he must be improving then. giggle

• Beale does not take the annihilationist view himself. He simply acknowledges the exegetical strength of that view.
• Regarding Sodom and Gomorrah “suffering the punishment of eternal fire,” it should be noted they are not currently ablaze—a curious fact about “eternal fire.”

Well, you've made some very good points and you've got me wavering as to the truth of "annihilation" or not. I can't say you've won me over due to my decades of indoctrination, but I now think it's a possibility. Thanks for you insights.

 

[makesends]

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

Yep. Like I used to wish I had a bumper sticker (I dislike bumper stickers) that said, "WHO IS JR?"

I dislike celebrity ...I really don't care who Cameron is or what he thinks.

 

[John Bauer]

I really don't care who Cameron is or what he thinks.

I sure had a celebrity crush on Mike Seaver's sister, though—Carol (Tracy Gold).

 

[makesends]

Regarding Sodom and Gomorrah “suffering the punishment of eternal fire,” it should be noted they are not currently ablaze—a curious fact about “eternal fire.”

I'll have to remember that for the next debate on the relevance of the details in Jesus' stories and parables. (As in, should not those details [you point out] here carry more weight?)

 

[makesends]

I sure had a celebrity crush on Mike Seaver's sister, though—Carol (Tracy Gold).

It took me years to warm up to Tim Conway, just because everyone liked him. But, yeah, he won out in the end...

But Elvis —he can take a hike. Go back to Mars, to impregnate 9-year old girls with Cabbage Patch babies like the Tabloids say! Get off my phone!

 

[fastfredy0]

R.C. Sproul was a
staunch opponent of the annihilation doctrine, which he considered an erroneous view with no scriptural basis. He firmly held the traditional Christian position that hell is a place of conscious, unending, and eternal punishment.

Dr. James White's opinion
is firmly against the annihilationist doctrine, holding to the traditional view of eternal conscious torment (ECT) for the unsaved, seeing annihilationism as a softening of God's justice and a departure from biblical truth, though he acknowledges it's a secondary theological issue debated even within Reformed circles. He argues the Bible depicts hell as perpetual suffering, not a final cessation of existence, and emphasizes that the infinite atonement of Christ necessitates eternal punishment for sin

John MacArthur
strongly rejected annihilationism (the belief that the unsaved are completely destroyed/extinguished in hell), viewing it as a denial of Scripture that redefines "eternal" punishment; he championed the traditional doctrine of eternal conscious torment ( ECT) for the damned, arguing that the same Greek word (aionios) used for the eternal life of believers also describes the punishment of the wicked, meaning one cannot be eternal without the other, and that hell is a real, everlasting place of suffering, not extinction, citing passages like Matthew 25:46

 

[John Bauer]

Those are matters of biography, not theology or exegesis. Our concern should be the latter, in my opinion. Since none of those gentlemen are going to show up here to defend their view—two of them for obvious reasons—if you want to take up their arguments I would be happy to engage them with you.

 

[fastfredy0]

Those are matters of biography, not theology or exegesis.

Well, these are the men's opinions based on their theology/exegesis. I grant the argument would be under the fallacy of authority.
I don't wish to continue our personal debate.

Oh, I see you're a Canuck. I was born in Toronto, but moved to the U.S. 28ish years ago. About 70F (21C) here today.

 

[makesends]

Those are matters of biography, not theology or exegesis. Our concern should be the latter, in my opinion. Since none of those gentlemen are going to show up here to defend their view—two of them for obvious reasons—if you want to take up their arguments I would be happy to engage them with you.

Not to be an ass —well, ok, maybe to be an ass— if it is bad argument for @fastfredy0 to bring up these well-known and trusted 'pillars' of Christendom, and Reformed/Calvinistic at that, then how does it make sense to mention on this site what Kirk Cameron thinks?

 

[John Bauer]

Not to be an ass —well, ok, maybe to be an ass— if it is bad argument for @fastfredy0 to bring up these well-known and trusted 'pillars' of Christendom, and Reformed/Calvinistic at that, then how does it make sense to mention on this site what Kirk Cameron thinks?

Context.

It was news (at the time I posted it) that Kirk Cameron now believes this.

It's not news that Sproul, MacArthur, and White oppose it.

 

[Josheb]

R.C. Sproul was a
staunch opponent of the annihilation doctrine, which he considered an erroneous view with no scriptural basis. He firmly held the traditional Christian position that hell is a place of conscious, unending, and eternal punishment.

Dr. James White's opinion
is firmly against the annihilationist doctrine, holding to the traditional view of eternal conscious torment (ECT) for the unsaved, seeing annihilationism as a softening of God's justice and a departure from biblical truth, though he acknowledges it's a secondary theological issue debated even within Reformed circles. He argues the Bible depicts hell as perpetual suffering, not a final cessation of existence, and emphasizes that the infinite atonement of Christ necessitates eternal punishment for sin

John MacArthur
strongly rejected annihilationism (the belief that the unsaved are completely destroyed/extinguished in hell), viewing it as a denial of Scripture that redefines "eternal" punishment; he championed the traditional doctrine of eternal conscious torment ( ECT) for the damned, arguing that the same Greek word (aionios) used for the eternal life of believers also describes the punishment of the wicked, meaning one cannot be eternal without the other, and that hell is a real, everlasting place of suffering, not extinction, citing passages like Matthew 25:46

Appeals to authority?

Those are matters of biography, not theology or exegesis.

Amen.

Our concern should be the latter, in my opinion. Since none of those gentlemen are going to show up here to defend their view—two of them for obvious reasons—if you want to take up their arguments I would be happy to engage them with you.

Oh! (josh repeatedly jumps up and down) Me! Me! Can I join in? Can I join in? LOL

Well, these are the men's opinions based on their theology/exegesis.

Can we amend that to say, these men based their opinions on prevailing tradition and doctrinally biased theology/exegesis?

I grant the argument would be under the fallacy of authority.

Then why make it?

I don't wish to continue our personal debate.

Oh, I see you're a Canuck. I was born in Toronto, but moved to the U.S. 28ish years ago. About 70F (21C) here today.

The annihilationists here can provide a response - a polite, respectful, well-reasoned and exegetical response to any exegesis you provide (although I, personally, hope it is not copied and pasted from Sproul, White or JMac). I'll wager all of us annihilationists 1) were former ECTs, and 2) were persuaded to our position by scripture and not an annihilationist theologian. We did not trade one set of theologians for another. It was only after being persuaded (or perhaps, in the beginning, perplexed over the conflicts perceived between scripture and ECT) that we (re-)searched to see if there was any history for that position. I've laid out some of the basics for the conditional mortality/annihilationist position (see Posts 2 and 8) so as you lay out a case for ECT you have a means for anticipating objections and preemptively addressing them. I, for one, would like to read it.

 

[fastfredy0]

Appeals to authority?

Yes.... I mentioned that aspect in post#36. I referred to their comments on the subject as their theology tends to mirror mine and their training/knowledge is superior to mine. I was interested to see if they had an opinion different than mine.