Months ago, Kirk Cameron ignited controversy surrounding the doctrine of hell, in which he posited arguments for annihilationism. Annihilationism posits that God will, in His judgment, give eternal death to the souls of nonbelievers rather than eternal conscious torment, which is the historic view of the Church. This past week, Cameron hosted a conversational debate on the nature of hell, bringing on Gavin Ortlund and Paul Copan against Dan Paterson and Chris Date.
Ultimately, in a two-hour debate, it is the equivalent to a boxing match where the fighters are hugging it out in the ring rather than exchanging blows or compelling arguments. This is in part due to Cameron’s hosting style, in which he is adamant that this debate can exist within the Christian sphere. Early on, they each explain their convictions and the origins thereof, with Cameron espousing that it was his feelings that caused him to question the traditional view. He attempts to assure the audience that these feelings did not impact how he interpreted Scripture, but nevertheless, that is often what people who change their minds as a result of personal feelings say regarding significant changes in doctrine.
Because they spend so much time having the opposing sides define their opponents, this ultimately prevents an actual debate from transpiring. Too much time is exhausted before a meaningful exchange is had on various passages, discussing Revelation as a subject after an hour and forty-seven minutes into the discussion. Cameron boasts that this is a model for how Christians should do debate, but there ultimately is little debate to be had, while the arguments are rather deficient and unconvincing.
The annihilationists on the panel, Chris Date and Dan Paterson, posit annihilationism, Conditional Immortality. Early on, he positively frames John Stott (1921-2011) and Edward Fudge (1944-2017) as Christian Annihilationists while being a believer in the horrendous Lausanne Covenant, which is the embodiment of Christian globalism. Fudge is a low-church minister and lawyer who popularized Annihilationism, but these are hardly compelling Christian examples. To their detriment, neither of them really establishes a historic case for annihilationism, so regardless of how well they can interpret Scripture, arguing with Church history warrants a strong standard of evidence. They ultimately fail to teach that their view is anything but historically novel. Moreover, they reduce the Traditional view to the influence of Greek philosophy, which is not in itself disqualifying nor an argument. As an aside, the Trinity as a doctrine is predicated on Greco-Roman philosophy on the subjects of Nature, Person, Will, and other attributes of ontology. Dismissing a doctrine because of the Greeks is neither an argument, while also questioning the will of God to allow such incorrect doctrine to be historically dominant. On the eternality of the soul, the Greeks had conflicting thoughts, so they were not uniform in thought.
Historically, Origen would be an example of a quasi-annihilationist, but he posited that there was an end to the punishment, which introduces the subject of time. Since God exists outside of time, the notion of eternal punishment is not necessarily subject to time, meaning that eternal torment is a constant outside of time without expiration and expiation. Similarly, in the new Heaven and Earth, God’s light would be the source of light. The nature of hell would be an eternal state, not necessarily a duration of time as is experienced in this world. This level of thought was not posited by the annihilationist, thus distancing themselves from an errant historic precedent. Overall, they do not really make an attempt to suggest that the early church believed their view which, when arguing against the Tradition, is a severe disadvantage.
Much of the debate centered around whether annihilation was preferable to eternal damnation, which is a feelings-based debate. Human preference is irrelevant to this debate. Christ’s saying “it had been good for that man if he had not been born” in reference to Judas’s soul would suggest that eternal damnation is more severe than annihilation. The language of “gnashing of teeth,” “weeping,” and “unquenchable” used to describe the flame makes the nature of the torment exceedingly severe, and if continued, would render annihilation mercy by comparison. The notion that annihilation would be preferable to eternal torment is assumed in Scripture regardless of one’s stated preference.
Another fault in the debate is the imagery of eternal punishments applied against cursed cities, like Sodom, Gomorrah, and Sidon. Ultimately, the eternal nature of these punishments or the imagery of fire can be likened to the eternal lake of fire. That the fires in Scripture denote temporal realities does not invalidate any eternal significance regarding the nature of hell. The arguments presented by the Annihilationists are rather uncompelling while the traditionalists fail to capitalize on these weak arguments. It also should be noted that plenty of events and images in the Old Testament point to Christ so this same typological imagery can apply to the eternal state.
Their interpretation of the Tree of Life being shielded from Adam and Eve after the fall (Genesis 3:22) actually works against annihilationism, since if they were to eat of the tree, they would eternally remain in their sinful state. In no fashion does this support annihilationism, rather the opposite, since they would have been eternally damned in this state while having flesh.
To the rare credit of Ortlund, he does deliver a crucial blow to his opponents when confronting Revelation 20:10, “And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever.” Ortlund asks, “Why should I accept that John is using an image of eternal torment to describe what is not eternal torment?” to which Chris Date ultimately concedes that the everlasting torment depicted is “a point in traditionalism’s favor.” While the traditional doctrine is not solely predicated on this one verse, it did not necessarily present a counterargument to this verse. Date goes in circles, arguing that other verses stack in favor of annihilationism, but none of those verses, which are more ambiguous, address the two verses in Revelation that are clear. Their best counterargument is that only the beast, devil, and false prophet are eternally damned, but these, being nonhuman entities, are dependent on a specific eschatological interpretation. It is highly inferred that the reprobate mentioned in Revelation 20:14-15, being thrown into the same lake of fire as Death and Hades would receive a state of eternal torment.
Apart from this moment and even a later crossfire, Ortlund is not a good defender of the orthodox position. He fails to relay why an eternally damned individual requires a body, which is because the punishment is sensory in nature, not merely a separation from God. In other words, the torment cannot afflict the soul unless the soul is attached to a vessel. He also does not dive deep into the Reformers who combatted these same issues in their days, instead more affirmatively citing C. S. Lewis’s more heterodox view rather than the Reformed tradition.
Why Eternal Damnation
The notion that the eternal state of the reprobate is one of never-ending torment is easily proven by Scripture. First and foremost, the language used in Revelation and the Olivet Discourse denotes an eternal nature to the punishment, but the eternality also reflects the attributes of God.
Francis Turretin stated the following in his Institutes of Elenctic Theology:
Thus the infinite demerit of sin is visited as it were with a punishment infinite in duration. And on this account the more justly, that as he will never cease to sin against God, so neither to be punished by him. The guilt of fault will always remain and not be extinguished by any expiation because no place will be given against the Judge and will curse him in the midst of the flames. Thus the wrath of God, the most just avenger of crimes, will rest upon them for ever. (20.7.11)
Because the debt of sin is so profound, it requires an eternal punishment owed to an eternal God. The sinner will never be without guilt so he will forever require punishment.
Conclusion
The debate over Hellgate, as Kirk Cameron hosted, was only a debate in rare moments, with too much time wasted haggling over feelings-based arguments and ineffective presentations of the opposing views, rather than deep dives into specific verses. Ultimately, by having weak advocates of the orthodox position, it further enables Annihilationism to gain ground even though their proponents were ineffective in their arguments. Therein lies the goal of Kirk Cameron: to legitimize this errancy in the church.
Powered by RedCircle
