Kirk Cameron is wrong about Conditional Immortality.

Kirk Cameron is a brother most of us can respect. He is a Christian television and film actor who has maintained his Christian integrity and testimony. He has been an effective evangelist and spokesperson for the gospel for nearly a generation. Recently on his podcast DANGEROUS CONVERSATION's podcast he was interviewed by his son, James, who raised concerns about the eternal destiny of the wicked. The younger Cameron proposed that many unbelievers are troubled by the notion of eternal conscious punishment, and that he thinks the doctrine of a eternal conscious punishment is an obstacle to evangelism.

 

Many unbeliever's and sceptics object to the idea of eternal torment. They question "why would a loving God send someone he created to hell?" James Cameron finds it difficult to answer someone who raises this objection to the gospel because eternal punishment seems tyrannical to him. His interview with his father focused on whether the common notion of hell, being a place of eternal torment was actually biblical? How can a God who would send sinners to hell forever be consistent with the gospel's message of redemptive love? Kirk Cameron asserted that perhaps the doctrine of eternal conscious punishment is wrong. He believes that a more consistent biblical doctrine might be described as conditional immortality or annihilationism.

The majority of Bible believing Christians through the centuries have held the view that the Bible taught that the elect were destined for an ultimate place of blessing and abundance, while the unredeemed would suffer forever in an eternal conscious punishment after their deaths. Cameron answers his son, James, that the Bible teaches that unbelievers will face judgment followed by their complete destruction or annihilation, but denies that they live in a tortuous eternity. Cameron responded to his son that the unredeemed will, simply be annihilated after their death. He is not the first to hold this view. 

Some Bible believing Christian's throughout history have held this view called either conditional immortality or annihilationism. While some bible-believing people hold this doctrine, most evangelicals as well as all of the major historical creeds find conditionalism inconsistent with scripture. There are three concerns with the annihilationist perspective:

First the issue as framed in this podcast asserts a false premise. The younger Cameron wonders whether since all are born sinners, since God creates everyone knowing they would sin, whether the traditional doctrine portrays the sinner as being setup for judgement? 

Conditionalism asks, whether it is fair for God to punish all people equally for sin, since all men sin inevitably? If God punished men and women who were naturally inclined to sin, then is God just to punish eternally all who will inevitably sin? The premise of the sceptic who questions eternal conscious punishment is that it is unjust because while everyone sins, not every sin is equally offensive to God. The despotic ruler commits far more serious offenses than the average person. While he conditionalist agrees that God is just to hold sinners accountable for their actions, a just God will not punish everyone the same.  Redemption is as much God balancing his own flawed creation as it is about making a sinner right with God. God should not eternally punish men for something he created them with a disposition to do. How can a person who by all accounts live a virtuous life who commits the occasional peccadillo be deserving of the same tortuous eternity as the heinous criminal or despotic ruler?  

Conditionalism doesn't solve the problem that hell seems unjust or unloving. If man sins inevitably, then he is like a criminal who is determined to be incompetent to stand trial. He is not responsible for his action. If the premise behind this assertion is that eternal conscious punishment in unfair because sin is inevitable, then any punishment for any sin is unjust. The logical conclusion of the annhiationism is that judgment needs some degree of temperance because our sinful actions are a result of the way we were created. Everyone deserves some mercy. Christ had to come to solve a problem God created. Conditionalism does not solve the problem it claims to solve. It at best diminishes and at worst denies  individual responsibility for sin; thereby diminishing the atonement. 

Jesus taught that some people would receive less severe consequence for their sin, because their sin was less serious. The standard of justice under the old covenant was "an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth," the idea was the punishment was to be proportionate to the crime. 

The Bible does teach that rewards and punishments in heaven will be proportionate to our actions in life:

[12] If you say, “Behold, we did not know this,”

does not he who weighs the heart perceive it?

Does not he who keeps watch over your soul know it,

and will he not repay man according to his work? (Proverbs 24:12ESV cf Matthew 16:27;Romans 2:5-7 et.al). The promise of Scripture is that in eternity there will be proportionality

Kirk Cameron asserted that eternal conscious punishment for everyone is disproportionate and therefore is unjust. The virtuous person who commits only minor sin deserves a less severe penalty than a reprobate. Condemning everyone to an eternal torment is disproportionate and, therefore, problematic. But does annihilationism offer a just solution.

The conditionalist doctrine is inadequate punishment for our disproportionate acts of sin. If all unrighteous people are annihilated, then they all receive the same punishment. If everyone receives the same ultimate punishment of annihilation, then then there is no weighting of the offense. Conditionalism fails to solve the problem of disparity in consequences.

The second problem with conditional immortality (at least the way Kirk Cameron states it) is that applies human justice standards to the divine covenant. Cameron said several times that the notion of eternal conscious punishment was "cruel and unusual punishment," which is unjust. "Cruel and unusual punishment" is not a scriptural term. It comes from the eighth amendment to the United States Constitution. It is a term that courts-of-law struggle to define. Cruel and unusual is standard of what is acceptable to when flawed humans punish other flawed humans. The human justice system assume that all human beings are flawed and metes out justice to compensate the damage done by one act to another. Justice takes into account the fact that while we all have a capacity for virtue, we all have a capacity for depravity. No one deserve cruelty because in essence we are all equal. In courts, at least in the West, justice is supposed to compensate the damage with an equal penalty. It is retributive. Eternal conscious punishment seems unfair because the damage that our sins do to one another, have varying consequences. The little white lie about why one was late to work is not as consequential as unfaithfulness to one's spouse. Stealing a pair of shoes so our kids can have shoes to go to school is not as serious as destroying people's future through organizing a Ponzi scheme. 

Conditionalism misunderstands that God has given human magistrates the ability to adjudicates penalty for social injustices (Rom 13:1-4), but in eternity, while our earthly actions are considered, we are judged for wrong committed against a Holy God. Our fellow humans are not the primary victims of our sin. The measure of the appropriateness of eternal judgment is God's righteousnes. This why Cameron's answers to the question "are we wrong about hell" is convoluted. It applies human justice standards to a holy God.

The wicked have no right to object to divine eternal punishment. The objection itself belies the argument that God is unfair. The judge alone sets the standard of what is just punishment, not the offender. To claim that eternal conscious punishment is "somehow" unfair because unbelievers might be repulsed by a gospel message that includes it is ludicrous". 

The third error annihiationist make is that they deny the eternality of the human soul. What does the scripture say about the eternal destiny of the wicked? Here again this broadcast lacks a serious treatment of the subject. Cameron rightly points out that some in history (like Luther, Tyndale and Origen) have raised questions about the immortality of the soul. Only a very few denied it, and every major creed and confession declares that men and women will be punished eternally. 

Cameron claims that the Bible teaches that human beings are temporal beings. Eternity is not inherent to us. Some bible believers have taught that the soul like the body is temporal. Martin Luther William Tyndale and recent times John Stott have embraced these ideas claiming that human beings were not created to be eternal and therefore punishment need not be so. 

Cameron like other annhilationist claim that Jesus taught that the soul was temporal: 

[28] And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell. (Matthew 10:28ESV)

The claim is that Jesus warned the unbeliever that after death both their body and soul would be "destroyed" or annihilated. The term "destroy" (sometimes translated "perish") in the original language is "apolesai." It comes from a root word (apollumai) meaning "to ruin." Jesus used the same term in his metaphor of putting new wind into old wineskins, which he says will "destroy" the skins (Math 9:17). There the terms meant to break, to corrupt or to ruin. When Jesus cast a demon out of a possessed man in Luke 4:34, the demons accuse Jesus of destroying them. The demons continued to exist after Jesus "destroyed" them but were no longer useful. Jesus warning that the soul can be destroyed does not mean that it will be rendered non-existent. If my car perishes or is totally destroyed in a accident it is ruined. Some people find support from for annihilationism in Old Testament passages like (Eccl 9:9), but in context of the rest of the book of Ecclesiastes and the Old Testament teaching this passage need not be taken in this way. 

Death came to humanity after creation. Men were created to live with God forever. And every person has an eternal sense or dimension to them (Ecc 3:11). God told the first couple that death come into the world as a consequence of their sin."[16]And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, “You may surely eat of every tree of the garden, [17] but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.(Genesis 2:16–17ESV)...[12] Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned— (Romans 5:12ESV)e" Death comes to all, because of their sin, not as result of creation. Death is counter to creation. Eternal life is the natural state of existence of those created in his likeness. We are eternal because he sustains us eternally (Col 1:15 - 17). Our deaths are unnatural. It is inconsistent with the created order for a man or a woman to die. Even the unrighteous will live forever. 

Psalm 49 is the clearest Old Testament description of the eternal destiny of the unrighteous in the Old Testament. 

[18] For though, while he lives, he counts himself blessed—

and though you get praise when you do well for yourself—

[19] his soul will go to the generation of his fathers,

who will never again see light. (Psalm 49:18–19ESV)

[16] The heavens are the LORD’s heavens,

but the earth he has given to the children of man.

[17] The dead do not praise the LORD,

nor do any who go down into silence.

[18] But we will bless the LORD

from this time forth and forevermore.

Praise the LORD! (Psalm 115:16–18ESV)

Psalm 115 makes clear that the righteous will praise God forever while the unrighteous will be silent before him. Psalm 88 describes the conditions of the unrighteous after their death.

[7] Your wrath lies heavy upon me,

and you overwhelm me with all your waves. Selah

The 88th Psalm is a description of an unbeliever in an eternal separation from God

[8] You have caused my companions to shun me;

you have made me a horror to them.

I am shut in so that I cannot escape;

[9] my eye grows dim through sorrow.

Every day I call upon you, O LORD;

I spread out my hands to you. (Psalm 88:7–9ESV)

Judas was said to have had a place "prepared for him in the afterlife (Acts 1:25).  God created man in his own image. This is what separates man from the rest of creation. The creation of man in his own image implies the eternality of the soul. The Scripture seems to support the belief that there is an immaterial part of man that is eternal, because God creates him and sustains. When Adam and Eve sinned, death came to the created order. Their bodies began to age and eventually they died. They did not lose their eternal souls at the point of their deaths. 

The scripture teaches that eternal conscious punishment glorifies God because it is the appropriate remedy to sins effect on an eternal creation. God is the primary victim of sin. He is the one who has been wronged most severely. While a just penalty for my sin must be appropriate to the harm it has done to other people and to the creation, the greater damage that my sin does is to the Creator. It is deserving of His Wrath. We all fall short of his glory.  The standard by which we are judged is not how sin has effects my relationship with other humans of the created world, but the damage it has done ultimately to a holy God. The punishment for sin must have an eternal outcome because God alone is holy, he is the only one whose innocence and righteousness is violated (Gen39:9; Ps 51:4; 1 Cor 8:12). We have violated his holiness. It is his holiness that sin's penalty must remedy. 

God's eternal wrath against the sinner is necessary to display the fullness of his justice and mercy. Eternal conscious punishment brings glory to God because it is just. 

[22] What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, [23] in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory— (Romans 9:22–23ESV)

The doctrine of eternal conscious punishment magnifies and glorifies God's holiness whereas conditionalism is disproportionate penalty for sin and diminishes his holiness.  A correct understanding of God's holiness can lead to the answer to the question the "Dangerous Conversations' podcast proposes-- are we wrong about hell?

When an unbelieving person asks about the justice of eternal conscious punishment the question, we need to ask them what the judicial remedy is for violating an eternally righteous God. The remedy is an eternally righteous atonement. 

[2] He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world. (1 John 2:2ESV)

God has satisfied the injustice done to him by sending his son on our behalf. That satisfaction has not done all that is necessary to redeem the elect. It has fully satisfied the demands for justice. Those who reject the offer of salvation have treated God's love with contempt. 

Why should God who has paid so much as an act of his mercy extract anything less than an eternal consequence for someone who is indifferent to what he has done for them? Who are you to question the right actions of a holy God? While I respect Kirk Cameron's faith, I think his answer to his son's question was incomplete and inadequate. An evangelist need not strive to make God acceptable to the sceptic, he needs to let the sinner see that God has provided for them and his gospel is just. No Mr. Cameron we are not wrong about hell. 

 

 

.