An Open Letter to Kirk Cameron and those exploring the question of Annihilationism:

Wow, that is a long title, and I suppose I ought to commend you for reading beyond the title, as many in today’s world prefer to live their lives in theological sound bites. The problem is that while theological sound bites may produce conformity in some circles, they rarely produce understanding. Due to providential hindrances, I am entering this conversation a little late, but there are a few things that seem to be missing from the broader dialogue that ought to be brought to the table. Yet first, please understand that I am not impugning Mr. Cameron’s salvation, nor am I condemning the raising of honest questions. As Christians, our goal ought not be to march blindly along a party line, but to use the tools that are at our disposal to understand why we believe the things we profess. How else will we be able to make a reasoned defense for the hope we have?

One of the concerns that I have is that many of the conversations are centered around matters that are essential and matters that are non-essential to salvation. While I appreciate the spirit behind such a position, I do not see this distinction either in Scripture or in the life of the early church. One might respond lightly that there are teachings on which we may disagree, where we will openly expect to see one another in heaven (and then have our views corrected). True. I baptize babies and do so by pouring water; others only baptize those who profess faith and do so by immersion. We disagree strongly in these matters, but the vast majority of creedo-baptists that I know would expect to see me in heaven one day, as I would expect to see them. Yet, where do we see the idea of such “non-essentials” presented as a virtue in Scripture? You might be tempted to cite Jesus’ remark in Mark 9:40 that “whoever is not against us is for us,” but I would respond that such is not the end toward which Christians should strive. Instead, Paul speaks of us maintaining the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace (Ephesians 4:3) and that we have “one faith” (Ephesians 4:5) through which the church is built up in the truth and in love (Ephesians 4:16). The principle here seems clear, we will have some points of disagreement within the body of Christ, but we ought never be content to remain in those points of disagreement, but in love and unity search the scriptures to find answers that will keep Christ’s church from being tossed about by every wind of doctrine like a boat in a storm (Ephesians 4:14). So, let us agree that if God thought it good and wise to provide it to the church in the scripture, it is essential (2 Timothy 3:16-17). We just may need to labor together within the scriptures to better and more accurately understand what God is teaching us in such areas. 

To illustrate this principle, I would appeal to the Council of Jerusalem, recorded in Acts 15. A debate arose between the Christians who had a Jewish background and the Christians who had a pagan background. Did these Gentiles need to be circumcised to be saved (Acts 15:1)? Some said yes; some said no. What was the solution? Notice that the solution was not to allow the church to split into two factions. No, the desire was to be clear on how the Bible instructed Christians to order their lives. The solution, then, was to call a meeting of all of the Apostles and of all of the Presbyters  in Jerusalem to debate the matter. Why? They recognized that while the church had disagreements, God was not confused in what He taught. The end result was to insist that circumcision was not necessary for the Christians, but there were four rules that were necessary: abstain from things polluted by idolatry, from sexual immorality, from what has been strangled, and from blood. These rulings were put in the form of an authoritative letter to the churches and Paul would circulate that letter as he traveled on his missionary journeys (Acts 15:22-29; 16:4; 21:25).

Though there is only one such council recorded in the New Testament, the church would follow this practice when teachings arose that threatened the unity of the church. These later councils are not Scripture as there were no Apostles present, but they were gatherings of the church in the same spirit as was recorded in Acts 15. These Councils would articulate what the Bible taught on new areas of debate that arose within the church. From these Councils, we have received Creeds like the Nicene Creed, the Apostles’ Creed, the Chalcedonian Definition, and the Athanasian Creed. We also find that these councils clarified those books that were to be understood as inspired Canonical books. This does not mean that they invented the Canon, but they were used by God to clarify for the church as a whole those books which were inspired by God and useful for the edification of the church body (much like the Jews did when they defined the canonical books of what we call the Old Testament).

Further, like the Council of Jerusalem, these Councils addressed specific questions and teachings that had arisen in the church with the aim of bringing clarity to “the faith that was once and for all time delivered to the saints” (Jude 3). They addressed matters like the Trinity, inspiration, the dual nature of the God-man, who should serve in the office of Elder or Deacon, and the practice of church discipline. Again, these teachings were meant to preserve the unity of faith amongst the church as it was challenged with new ideas. These Councils were not perfect, and often we see later Councils correcting earlier Councils. In other words, they were not inspired Scripture, but applications and interpretations of Scripture that were meant to be binding on the church as a whole.

One of the ideas the early church debated was that of annihilationism. Why must hell be understood as eternal? The Second Ecumenical Council of Constantinople (AD 553) addressed this matter. The conclusion of the Council was articulated in its ninth anathema:

If anyone says or thinks that the punishment of demons and of impious men is only temporary, and will one day have an end, and that a restoration (ἀποκατάστασις) will take place of demons and of impious men, let him be anathema.

In essence, this anathema is simply denouncing any teaching that would depart from that of the Athanasian Creed, which states: “And they who have done good shall go into life everlasting and they that have done evil into everlasting fire.”

It should be understood that this position was not simply the position of the medieval church; it was considered the universal teaching of the church, even by the Reformers. The Belgic Confession (Article 37) and the Westminster Confession of Faith (Article 33) echo this language with even further clarity. Knowing Mr. Cameron’s Baptistic leanings, it should also be noted that such was the view of the London Baptist Confession (Chapter 32). Likewise, the Welsh Calvinistic Methodist Confession (Article 41) articulates the same doctrine. Arguably, this has been the consistent teaching of the True Church across the ages. This point cannot be stressed highly enough. Here are the councils of the church, looking to the Word of God, and seeking to articulate for the body the clear teachings therein, defending against false teachings and heresies.

Does that mean that Mr. Cameron is not entitled to ask questions? Absolutely not! We should ask questions and seek to understand what the Councils have articulated according to the Scriptures. My criticism lies not in his asking an honest question. As Peter wrote of Paul’s teachings, some of them are hard to understand (2 Peter 3:16). And herein lies the problem with our culture today. As in the days of Judges, where every man did what was right in his own eyes (Judges 21:25), today it seems that theology is done in much the same manner. The reason, we are told that people behaved as they wanted was because there was no king in Israel. At least, there was no human king. God was king, but people chose to do what was right in their own eyes as if they were God and as if they had His authority. Essentially, what the author of Judges was saying is that the people behaved like Adam and Eve, discerning what was good and evil in their own eyes rather than submitting to the authority of God.

Today, there are thousands of different denominations and innumerable people and groups who evaluate theology on the basis of what seems good to them. Even though there is a King in Christ’s church, people act as if they are their own authorities rather than as men and women under the authority of God. The scriptures tell us of an interaction that Jesus had with a Roman Centurion. What is striking about this encounter is that, unlike most, the Centurion was content with Jesus’ word alone and did not insist that Jesus come and enter his home. Why? The soldier spoke of being a man under authority, and he believed that the physical world itself was under the authority of Jesus. In this case, we are told that Jesus marveled at this man’s faith (Matthew 10:8-9). What is the common thread? One of the effects of sin is that people desire to be like God, discerning right from wrong themselves. Nevertheless, we are meant to be men and women under authority, submitting to the clear and consistent teaching of the word of God as our authority. How do we discern that? Indeed, we look to the Word of God itself as our ultimate authority, but we are also to listen to and submit to the Consiliar rulings that our spiritual fathers have made. As noted above, Counsels and Confessions are not scripture, but they are authoritative for the church. And so, while we may not understand a given theology as articulated, let us say, in the Westminster Confession, we begin there by affirming its teaching as people under authority while seeking those wiser to understand why it is worded in a given manner. Remember, Mr. Cameron is a teacher in the church, and teachers are judged by God with greater strictness (James 3:1). Like it or not, his questioning orthodox teachings here is opening the door for others to pursue this error as well. To borrow the words of Anselm of Canterbury: “I believe so that I may understand.” Faith in God’s revealed Word must always be preeminent.

So, my concern for the path that Mr. Cameron is going down is that all scripture is God-breathed and thus all things are essential to believe and strive to understand. In addition, we should not be spending all our effort on reinventing the wheel. These are matters that the church has already wrestled through; why ought we be starting over again and again? In the case of Annihilationism, the church recognized the notion of eternal punishment was so significant to the Christian faith that they anathematized (essentially placed a curse upon) those who taught otherwise. In other words, this is a very important doctrine to understand and “get right.”

So, with the principle laid forth, why has the doctrine of Eternal Punishment been one that the church has so universally held to and defended? Or, perhaps, one might more simply ask, “Doesn’t eternal punishment seem vindictive on God’s part?” Of course, the answer is that, no, it is not vindictive, but perhaps we should define why it is just and right. To make an analogy to our experience in society, imagine that one day, after a particularly bad day at work, someone in the parking lot angers you. The reason why is not important, but imagine a situation where someone “pushes all of your buttons” just right and you, in anger, haul off and punch them, breaking their nose. Yes, that would be pretty bad, and you would likely be arrested and charged with a crime. Yet, once justice is served and a fine is paid, life goes on as it normally would. Now, imagine the same setting, but that you punched the President of the United States. The likelihood is such that you would end up in prison for a lot longer than if you hit a co-worker. Neither situation is good, excusable, or commendable, but with the increase in someone’s station in society comes an increase in the severity or duration of the punishment. To complete the analogy, apply it to God, who is infinitely greater and higher in society than any human might be. Hence, justice demands that the punishment be infinitely greater than any punishment served for a crime against a human. As God is the being greater than which no other being can be conceived, sin against God, in turn, is greater in severity than any other sin which one may commit. Thus, sin against the person of an eternal God warrants eternal judgment. You might be tempted to respond that your sins are not so much against God as they are against your fellow man. James makes it clear that when you break one aspect of God’s divine Law, you have broken the whole (James 2:10). Thus, even the sin of lying to one’s neighbor makes one guilty of breaking the whole of God’s Law. Justice demands that sin be punished.

It might be said that one’s view of sin parallels one’s view of grace. The more seriously we take our sin, the more weighty we will understand grace to be. The more lightly that we look at sin, the less seriously we will take grace. If sin is not such a big deal, neither is grace. If we realize that even our more “insignificant” sins deserve eternal condemnation in the fires of Hell, the more in awe we will be over the grace of God. If you make light of one, you make light of the other; if you treat one with great gravity, so too will the other be seen as weighty. So, what does the Bible say, specifically, about God’s judgment upon the wicked? There are three general categories in which the Bible speaks of Hell. It is a place of privation (a separation from anything good), positive retribution (punishment that is deserved due to sin), and eternal destruction (not annihilation, but a permanent time of slowly being destroyed). Below we will break down all three categories, but 2 Thessalonians 1:9 gives us an overview that includes all three aspects:

“They will pay the penalty [positive retribution] of eternal destruction [destruction] apart from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of His power. [privation]”

Privation:

This refers to a separation from anything good, glorious, peaceful, wholesome, pleasant, or good. It is a place without rest (Isaiah 57:2,20-21) or even light (Nahum 1:8). It is sometimes referred to as “the outer darkness” (Matthew 22:13) and of eternal chains in gloomy darkness (2 Peter 2:4). It is a place for those who do not abide in Christ (John 15:6). Further, it is described as a place of waiting until the final judgment will be brought. Any comfort you may have is gone; any pleasure that one might experience is removed. It is a place of weeping and gnashing of teeth (Matthew 8:12) and it is an abyss (Psalm 71:20).

Positive Retribution:

Why use the term “positive” here? It is positive because the retribution that is poured out by God is earned by the wicked. We may feel that sometimes punishment can be vindictive, but this punishment is just, fair, and moral. The language found here helps us to understand just how greatly our sin is an affront to God. It is described as a place of weeping and gnashing of teeth (Matthew 24:51) and that of a fiery furnace that will destroy (Matthew 13:42). It is also described as a place where people are tormented for all eternity (Matthew 18:34 — note that many Bibles use the term “jailer” here, but the Greek word βασανιστής is better translated as “torturer” or “inquisitor.”)

Destruction:

The key verses when dealing with this matter are Matthew 7:13 and 10:28. It should be understood, is that when this teaching is harmonized with the other Biblical teachings on Hell, annihilation is not in view. Instead, it is a picture of a slow and gradual destruction that will take place across eternity. Think of an eternal unmaking. As humans are made in the image of God, something perfected in glory, destruction implies a gradual decay and ruin of the Imago Dei through fire and worms. One of the terms that is used to describe Hell in the Greek New Testament is Gehenna, a Helenized reference to the Valley of the Sons of Hinom (Joshua 15:8; 2 Kings 23:10). It was a place where infants were sacrificed to Molech (also known as “The Burning Place — Isaiah 30:33) and was seen as the place where God would enter into final judgment (Isaiah 66:24), characterized by worms and fire, weeping and gnashing of teeth, and torture (Matthew 13:42,50; 18:8,34). By Jesus’ day the valley was used as a place where the offal from Jerusalem was dumped and burned. Some rabbinic references speak of the stench of Gehenna as something that could be smelled for miles. Ultimately, it became one of Jesus’ most common analogies for what God’s eternal judgment would be like.

Eternality

What one must note is that the uniform teaching surrounding Hell is that it is eternal. There is essentially an equal ultimacy in view. God offers eternal life to His elect and delivers eternal death to the reprobate. For Christians, the horrors of Hell are one of the reasons we share the Gospel so energetically.

Human language often lacks the ability to capture the fullness of eternal concepts. Yet, analogies are meant to get us as close to the principle being addressed as humanly possible. Thus, Hell should not be understood as a metaphor, but our finite minds and language will never capture the fullness of the Hell and fire reserved for the enemies of God. Knowing, as we do, that God is love often makes the doctrine of Hell difficult for people to reconcile, yet we need to remember that God is also just and holy, thus punishment must be exacted upon those who offend the God of glory. Indeed, God is merciful, but in His mercy, he renders punishment upon the wicked, which is a loving act toward those who are objects of His eternal redemption. Finally, the one who speaks of Hell and its reality the most frequently is our Lord Jesus Christ himself. If we are going to be faithful to the Biblical text, we must not water down the doctrine of Eternal Conscious Torment that is presented in the Bible and has been testified to by the church councils. 

The good news for the Christian is that none shall bring any charges against God’s elect, for it is God who justifies, but it is also Christ who condemns, as He is the one raised to the right hand of God Almighty (Romans 8:33-34). The bad news for unbelievers is that unless they repent of their unbelief, they will die in their sins and face the wrath that they deserve (John 8:24).

So, what is the conclusion? Heaven and Hell are real, and we need to submit to the unified teaching on the matter as laid out in the Scriptures. We also need to learn from the Councils of the  Church, for this matter was resolved long ago; there is no sense in trying to re-invent the wheel.