What Are David Guzik’s Thoughts On Kirk Cameron’s View Of Hell & Annihilationism?
Q: Can you share your thoughts on recent discussions around Kirk Cameron and the doctrine of hell, including annihilationism, and how Christians should approach these debates biblically?
A: I’m aware of this debate in Christian circles right now, and it’s unfortunate. Annihilationism, or conditional immortality, is not a heresy. Listen, I’ve got a pretty high bar for heresy. I would define heresy as, “If you believe this, you’re going to hell, and you’re outside the kingdom.” Therefore, I make a distinction between heresy and bad teaching or false doctrine.
I think annihilationism is bad teaching. I would even say it’s false doctrine. But I don’t think it’s heresy. And I’m not particularly excited about some of the reasons he stated for this view. The number one concern to me is based on a lot of Old Testament passages that talk about the destruction or the perishing of the wicked. Listen, I think it is very important for us to give clear priority to the New Testament teaching about the world beyond. 2 Timothy 1:10 says that in Jesus Christ, life and immortality have come to light. There is something about immortality and the world beyond that the New Testament makes clear which the Old Testament does not. The Old Testament understanding of the afterlife is cloudy. You have David saying things like this in the Old Testament, he’s saying, “Can I praise you from the grave? I don’t know.” What would Paul say to David? He’s say, “What do you mean? To die is gain. To be out of this body is to be present with the Lord. David, you don’t need to be uncertain about that.” The understanding of the afterlife in the Old Testament was cloudy and inconsistent. But it is not cloudy or inconsistent in the New Testament. So, it does alarm me that priority is not being given to the New Testament understanding based on that principle from 2 Timothy 1:10.
The other thing is how Kirk seems to regard this issue as a facet of God’s character. He speaks as if the traditional understanding of Hell is inconsistent with God’s character, and that it makes God seem too mean. I don’t like that. Whatever arguments there are to be made, and I think that there are a few arguments to be made for annihilationism or conditional immortality, they’re not found in saying, “Oh, it makes God seem too mean to believe this.” Those are things that concern me.
The people that I’ve seen articulate annihilationism seem motivated by a desire to make God look better. They say, “The traditional understanding makes God seem too mean. Let’s have a nicer God.” Listen, whatever reason there is for discarding the traditional view of hell and embracing annihilationism or conditional immortality, it is not to be found in the idea of needing to make God seem nicer. All the proof you need that God is nice is displayed in the cross of Jesus Christ, who saves us from an eternity of being separated from Him. That is the epitome of a demonstration of the love of God. And the New Testament says that it’s the epitome of the demonstration of His love. To look at the cross and say, “God should have done more,” is wrong. And I’m not trying to say that’s what Kirk Cameron is saying, but there are people who have that attitude.