The Flaw of Kirk Cameron’s Annihilationism
The Absence of God’s Holiness
Disclaimer: I believe Kirk Cameron is a Christian. Furthermore, I deeply applaud that he has a podcast and YouTube channel with his son, James. Lastly, I appreciate that their appeals in the episode I reference below are from Scripture.
The Flaw of Kirk Cameron’s Annihilationism: The Absence of God’s Holiness
Recently, Kirk and James Cameron released an episode on The Kirk Cameron Show titled “Are We Wrong About Hell?” After watching the show, I believe that Kirk and James are wrong about hell and so does the Westminster Larger Catechism (Q29 & Q89); however, I am not writing to instigate a tête-à-tête on eternal conscious torment and annihilation with the Cameron men. No, my motive is what Kirk missed altogether: the holiness of God.
A Brief Background of the Episode
The episode in question is about thirty-nine minutes long. Here, young James poses questions about degrees of punishment, the character of God, and eternal conscious torment. James presents his case for annihilationism, which is “the belief that at least some humans will permanently cease to exist at death or some point thereafter.”[1] Then Kirk, showing his evangelistic and apologetic savvy, presents a would-be counterargument, saying:
Kirk: Now, some people will say that the reason eternal conscious torment is a fair and just punishment for any sinner is because of the person you and I are sinning against. It’s not just any person. Yea, I’ve heard it. It’s almighty God . . . And so, if God is an ultimate, infinite, eternal authority and I sin against him, how much greater should that punishment be? In fact, it must be eternal, a forever punishment and the worst punishment of all (start at 27:47).
Kirk goes on to answer such an objection a minute later:
James: The person who says that you’re sinning against God so you deserve to be eternally tormented, I would disagree with.
Kirk: Unless the Scriptures say that. Unless we can find somewhere in the scriptures where we say that’s actually how it works. Just like a caste system in a feudal system that you have a hierarchy of punishments based on the importance of the person you’re sinning against. Problem is, I don’t find that in the Scriptures (start at 29:02).
God is Not Man
I’ve quoted Kirk directly from the YouTube transcript as not to misrepresent him (I’ve only added some commas along the way to help the reader). At the 27:47 timestamp, he identifies the argument against annihilationism as sin against “almighty God.” But then, at the 29:02 timestamp, he demands that Scripture must show him a “hierarchy of punishments based on the importance of the person you’re sinning against.” Here, Kirk errantly lumps God into humanity, as if the Creator of the cosmos were common like man. Such an action disregards the holiness of God.
Kirk, we cannot treat “Almighty God” in your first statement like he is any other “person” in your second statement. Here, you have failed to make the Creator-creature distinction (Gen 1:1, 26; Num. 23:19).[2] God’s holiness, in the words of the late R.C. Sproul, means that he is “transcendentally separate.”[3] Therefore, you err when you use the criteria of sinning against people to argue against those who say that sinning against Almighty God deserves a greater punishment. Sinning against God and man is categorically different because God and man are categorically different. The fact that all sin against God is not necessarily sin against man but that all sin against man is necessarily sin against God further displays the Creator-creature distinction (Ps. 51:4).
Regarding the concept of being punished more or less “based on the importance of the person you’re sinning against,” you’ve said, “I don’t find that in the Scriptures.” However scarce you may be able to extract passages about the magnitude of eternal consequences for sin against man, I find that the Scriptures teem with verses explaining the steep consequence for sinning against our holy God.
Hebrews: A Greater Punishment for Sin Against God
The thrust of the book of Hebrews is the superiority of Jesus, something Kirk and James Cameron would faithfully advocate. Christ is superior to angels, prophets, and priests by virtue of his sonship. He ushers in a more superior covenant than the Mosaic because he is the superior high priest serving in the priesthood, sacrificing himself, and shedding his blood for the remission of sin (Heb. 9:22). The superiority of the New Covenant demands a more severe punishment for rejecting the King of the Covenant, a truth taught in Hebrews 10:28-29.
Now, I want to be very careful to point out the wording of these verses. On multiple occasions, Kirk and James appeal to their concept of the character of God by stressing that “there is mercy even in his judgment” (see timestamp 38:22; also, similar quotes are in 6:30; 6:58; 26:53; and 36:22). Notice in the following verses, however, that those who reject Jesus receive a much worse punishment than those who die “without mercy.” Wow. These words are pointedly in direct contradiction to the Cameron men. The author of Hebrews writes:
Anyone who has set aside the law of Moses dies without mercy on the evidence of two or three witness. How much worse punishment, do you think, will be deserved by the one who has trampled underfoot the Son of God, and has profaned the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has outrage the Spirit of grace? (Heb. 10:28-29, emphasis added).
Here, we see that there is a more severe punishment for those who reject the Son of God than there was for those who rejected Moses. Their less severe punishment is very pertinent to answer Kirk Cameron’s claims that, “I don’t find that in the Scriptures.” In Hebrews 10:28, the author makes a direct reference to Deuteronomy 19:15. In Moses’ day, the death penalty by stoning was required for idolatry (Deut. 17:2-6) and blasphemy (Lev. 24:14-16). The author of Hebrews refers to this stoning as a death “without mercy” (10:28). Then, he says those who reject Jesus will receive, contrary to what the Cameron men say, a punishment that is “much worse” than a death without mercy (10:29). The result of violating a superior covenant is a more severe punishment, one worse than death without mercy.[4]
The Worse Punishment
Lastly, how is this so? How can there be a worse punishment than dying a death without mercy? Is not death itself the worst punishment possible? Well, the idolater and blasphemer in Moses’ day still had the opportunity to repent and be right with God between their conviction and before their stoning, much like inmates who are on death row today. They still died a death without mercy but if they were repentant before God, they would see him the moment their soul departed their body (by the way, that is the definition of death, see 2LBC, Of the State of Man After Death, and of the Resurrection of the Dead, 31.1). However, those who ultimately reject Jesus in the New Covenant have no further opportunity to be right before their Holy Judge. Crassly stated, another “New Covenant” just ain’t coming, boys. Christ is the last train, so to speak. Therefore, based on sinning against the Triune God, unrepentant sinners who die in such a state receive a punishment far worse than Kirk and James will allow themselves to credit God with . . . they receive eternal conscious torment as a punishment without mercy, just as the Scriptures testify and God receives all the glory for the holiness that his wrath reveals (Hebrews 10:26-31; Rev. 14:9-11; 20:10; Mark 9:43-48 – note the possessive use of “their” in the Mark 9 passage, something Kirk and James argue is absent from Scripture in their video).
A Parting Word
Kirk and James reference several Scriptures in their video and this action is praiseworthy. However, their survey of Scripture is incomplete and the repetitive appeal to their concept of the character of God is inherently faulty. When Isaiah saw the Lord, the angels cried out, “Holy, Holy, Holy is the Lord of hosts, the whole earth is full of his glory” (Is. 6:3). In this instance, Kirk and James fail to consider God’s holiness, the attribute which the angels sing most prominently about. Their omission shows that their concept of God’s character is flawed. Therefore, they lose credibility by appealing to their own flawed perception of God as an authority or comfort to make Scripture seem cogent for themselves and their listeners.
I humbly confess that my perception of God and all his glorious attributes is also flawed. And so is yours (more evidence of the Creator-creature distinction). However, through the illumination of the Holy Spirit, we must continually use tota Scriptura to allow God’s word to shape our understanding of him. In this instance, the Cameron men did not canvas all the inspired material before them, and the consequences of such an action are severe. Some days, being annihilated in the end appeals much more to my flesh than denying myself daily and picking up my cross (Luke 9:23). Doctrine has consequences.
Finally, when it comes to sinners standing at the end of the age before the throne of God, I do not bind the Lord to granting any degree of mercy to those who rejected him because he does not bind himself to such a commitment. In the words of Kirk, “I don’t find that in the Scriptures.” However, as Kirk and James have taught us, if a truth is in the Word that we are not seeing, we need to humbly open our eyes and hearts to receive the word, repent of error, and put on truth for the glory of our Holy, Just, and Merciful God. Myself included.
For Further Study:
God is Faithful. Soli Deo Gloria!
Notes:
[1] John MacArthur and Richard Mayhue, eds., Biblical Doctrine: A Systematic Summary of Bible Truth (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2017), 923.
[2] Dr. John Frame teaches the concept of Creator-creature distinction in his A History of Western Philosophy and Theology. He writes, “The first element of this worldview is the Creator-creature distinction itself. In the biblical metaphysic, there are two levels of reality: that of the Creator and that of the creature . . . These may never be confused . . . the Lord is always Lord, and the creatures are always his servants.”
[3] R.C. Sproul, The Holiness of God (Sanford, FL: Ligonier, 2010), 46.
[4] Portions of a previously written exegetical study are in this paragraph. You may find the full study by the current author at https://www.reformconfess.com/blog/exegetical-study-hebrews10-LFLVN
Great article. Very charitable as well. I agree about the holiness of God being the main issue. I think that in the "Hellgate" episode, Gavin Ortlund did a great job of defending the orthodox stance as well.
Thank you for your thoughts on this topic. Concerning the interpretation of Hebrews 10:28-29, however, I’m wondering if we have inadvertently missed the author’s rhetorical ability. What I mean, is that most scholars note how well Hebrews was written, both in style and rhetoric. The author was clearly educated rhetorically (I.e., Aristotle, Quintilian) and rhetoric, at its core, is persuasion. Those two verses are clearly meant to be persuasive and as such, uses exaggerated language to prove a point. But it sounds like you are interpreting it literally. I am just not sure we can apply that passage to the doctrine of the afterlife while noting the persuasive language used. Moreover, it says nothing about eternity, torment, consciousness, resurrection, post mortem punishment, final judgment, etc. With all due respect, connecting this passage to hell seems to be making quite a leap.