Kirk Cameron Takes Heat for His Annihilationist View on Hell

[1Tonne]

I don't watch videos. The idea that everybody has eternal life by default is rubbish.

You should watch the video. It is only 20 odd minutes, and it explains where people who believe in annihilation go wrong. (Though I do not agree with everything he says in the vid, I still think he is pretty onto it and does very well with refuting annihilationism.)

Those who are sent to destruction do not get eternal life. They get eternal death.
I think the real difference between us is how we understand “death.” We actually agree that those sent to destruction do not receive eternal life. Where we differ is what eternal death means. Your view seems to treat death as a finality. When the body dies (the shell), this is a finality in the physical. So, your understanding of “eternal death” is understood as extinction, the person is gone forever.

My view is different. Scripture shows that when the body dies, it is not the end of the person. The spirit/soul continues but sleeps in the grave, unconscious, awaiting the resurrection (Eccl 9:5; Ps 146:4; John 5:28–29). Earthly death is therefore not final; it is temporary and preparatory.
Because death is not final in the first sense, I don’t see the second death as annihilation either. It is eternal death because it is eternal ruin, eternal separation, and eternal loss of life with God, not because the person ceases to exist. Death, biblically, can be an ongoing state of ruin, not merely a moment where something stops existing.

So yes, the wicked do not receive eternal life. They receive eternal ongoing death/ruin. Eternal death is not non-existence; it is the eternal opposite of life with God.
That’s the core difference in how we’re reading the texts.

 

[JulieB67]

So yes, the wicked do not receive eternal life. They receive eternal ongoing death

Can't you honestly see that makes no sense? You are basically stating they receive eternal life but only in a different place. You can spin it however but that is basically what you are stating. You continue to use the second meaning of the word apollumi although many verses like Matthew 10:28 dictates that we should use the first meaning "destroy fully". So no, there is no ongoing death.

And death and hell are going to be thrown into the lake of fire. There will be no more death after that.

And this will eventually happen-

Hebrews 2:14 "Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, He also Himself likewise took part of the same; that through death He might destroy him that had the power of death, that is the devil;"

Revelation 20:14 "And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.


Revelation 21:4 "And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away."

He doesn't state there shall be no more death other than those suffering an ongoing death in the Lake of Fire. He states "there shall be no more death". The former things are passed away. The lake of fire is a "former thing". He makes "all' things new.

Revelation 21:5 "And he that sat upon the throne said, Behold, I make all things new. And he said unto me, Write: for these words are true and faithful."

Scripture shows that when the body dies, it is not the end of the person.

Not yet.

. Earthly death is therefore not final

It's not. The second death is final at Judgement Day.

Because death is not final in the first sense I don’t see the second death as annihilation either

It's called the "second" death for a reason. The first is physical.

You should watch the video.

I took a look at it. His argument about the fate of the wicked in the OT is way off. For example his talking about the "vanishing away, etc" is about earthly death. Which makes no sense at all because righteous people die earthly deaths as well. So what would be the point in stating that about the wicked? God is making a point that the wicked will perish.

“But the wicked will perish; the enemies of the Lord are like the glory of the pastures; they vanish—like smoke they vanish away.” – Psalm 37:20

So again, what he stated was pointless that it was only about an earthly death, since the righteous die earthly deaths as well.

So no, it's not talking about earthly/physical death. He's stating the fate of the wicked.

 

[timothyu]

I think the real difference between us is how we understand “death.”

1 Corinthians 3:19 For the wisdom of this world is folly with God. For it is written, “He catches the wise in their craftiness,”

 

[1Tonne]

1 Corinthians 3:19 For the wisdom of this world is folly with God. For it is written, “He catches the wise in their craftiness,”

Quoting 1 Corinthians 3:19 doesn’t refute this view. Paul is not condemning careful study of Scripture.
Many modern annihilationist arguments rely on the assumption that death must mean non-existence, an idea drawn from contemporary thinking, not the Bible. Scripture consistently describes death and destruction as ruin, separation, and judgment while the person continues to exist (Eph 2:1; Luke 15:24; Mark 9:48; Rev 14:11). Letting Scripture define its own terms is true wisdom, not worldly reasoning.

 

[timothyu]

The adversarial spirit will live on but contained. God's Will will be done, not the will of either elohim or man.

 

[1Tonne]

The adversarial spirit will live on but contained. God's Will will be done, not the will of either elohim or man.

I agree that God’s will will ultimately prevail. My focus here is on what Scripture teaches about death, resurrection, and the eternal consequences for those who reject God.

 

[timothyu]

My focus here is on what Scripture teaches about death, resurrection, and the eternal consequences for those who reject God.

And yet the focus is not on us, but God's war against adversity from beginning to end of the Bible. This is the bigger picture, but man likes to make it all about us.

 

[1Tonne]

And yet the focus is not on us, but God's war against adversity from beginning to end of the Bible. This is the bigger picture, but man likes to make it all about us.

I agree that God’s overarching plan is the defeat of evil. The focus of this thread, however, is on what Scripture teaches about eternal consequences for those who reject Him, which is part of that bigger picture. Some who embrace annihilationism tend to focus on a complete non-existence because they are uncomfortable with the reality of eternal judgment, making it more about their own sensibilities than what Scripture clearly teaches.

 

[timothyu]

is on what Scripture teaches about eternal consequences for those who reject Him, which is part of that bigger picture.

Tares = adversity. Again even the tares have shells like man. What is their fate? What the tares represent lives on but what happens to the tares?

 

[SarahsKnight]

I took a look at it. His argument about the fate of the wicked in the OT is way off. For example his talking about the "vanishing away, etc" is about earthly death. Which makes no sense at all because righteous people die earthly deaths as well. So what would be the point in stating that about the wicked? God is making a point that the wicked will perish.

Aaaaaand winner.

 

[1Tonne]

Can't you honestly see that makes no sense? You are basically stating they receive eternal life but only in a different place. You can spin it however but that is basically what you are stating. You continue to use the second meaning of the word apollumi although many verses like Matthew 10:28 dictates that we should use the first meaning "destroy fully". So no, there is no ongoing death.

And death and hell are going to be thrown into the lake of fire. There will be no more death after that.

And this will eventually happen-

Hebrews 2:14 "Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, He also Himself likewise took part of the same; that through death He might destroy him that had the power of death, that is the devil;"

Revelation 20:14 "And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.


Revelation 21:4 "And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away."

He doesn't state there shall be no more death other than those suffering an ongoing death in the Lake of Fire. He states "there shall be no more death". The former things are passed away. The lake of fire is a "former thing". He makes "all' things new.

Revelation 21:5 "And he that sat upon the throne said, Behold, I make all things new. And he said unto me, Write: for these words are true and faithful."

• Context matters for apollumi :- In Matthew 10:28, “destroy both soul and body in hell” uses apollumi to describe eternal ruin, not annihilation. Even if one argues for a “primary meaning” of complete destruction, the context in Revelation 14:10–11 and Mark 9:48 shows conscious ongoing punishment. The smoke goes up forever; the worm does not die (the soul). This cannot describe non-existence. The “destruction” is eternal ruin, not cessation of being.
• The second death is eternal separation and judgment, not extinction :- Revelation 20:14–15 says death and Hades are cast into the lake of fire. This is a symbolic description of the final defeat of death as a power, not that individual persons cease to exist. The dead are already raised for judgment (John 5:28–29; Daniel 12:2), so the lake of fire is about judicial finality, not annihilation.
• Revelation 21:4–5 describes the renewal of creation - no more death, sorrow, or pain for the redeemed, in the new heaven and new earth. It doesn’t say the wicked cease to exist; it says the former order (death, suffering) is gone for those in eternal life with God.

Using “apollumi” as eternal ruin is not an arbitrary second meaning, it is exactly how Scripture uses the word in context. Death and hell being cast into the lake is the final act of God’s judgment, not a literal annihilation of those under punishment. The wicked exist to experience that eternal punishment; the righteous enjoy the new creation without sorrow or death.

Tares = adversity. Again even the tares have shells like man. What is their fate? What the tares represent lives on but what happens to the tares?

Yes, the tares as physical plants are removed, but the parable emphasizes that those who reject God will be separated and punished (Matt 13:41–42). Just as the wheat is gathered to eternal life, the tares are cast into the fire — Scripture describes this as a conscious, ongoing judgment, not mere annihilation.

Aaaaaand winner.

How???
While some OT passages speak of the wicked “perishing,” the broader biblical context shows this is about their ultimate fate, not just earthly death. Physical death happens to everyone, but Scripture consistently distinguishes that the wicked face conscious, eternal ruin (Mark 9:48; Revelation 14:10–11; 2 Thess 1:9). “Perish” and “destroy” often mean ruin, loss, or separation, not ceasing to exist. So, highlighting the wicked’s fate isn’t redundant, it underscores God’s justice: the righteous die physically but live eternally, while the wicked experience eternal ruin.

 

[timothyu]

Scripture describes this as a conscious, ongoing judgment, not mere annihilation.

It seems you do. I grew up on a farm and have yet to see tares survive a fire. If scripture would have meant writhing while toasted in an oven, it would have said so. What the adversarial spirit has corrupted and remained unrepentant shall be destroyed.

 

[JulieB67]

The smoke goes up forever; the worm does not die (the soul).

Why have you added soul? The worms are a sign of total destruction. That's why Gehenna is used as an example. And Christ states fear the one that can kill both body and soul. So yes, the soul can and will die.

. It doesn’t say the wicked cease to exist;

Most of the Bible points out that the wicked will cease to exist, vanish, melt away, be no more, consumed to ashes and so on....
That doesn't happen at the earthly death but the second death at Judgment Day. That's what a fire does.

it says the former order (death, suffering) is gone for those in eternal life with God

It does not state that. It states there shall be no more death -for the former things are passed away.

Revelation 21:4 "And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away."

In Matthew 10:28, “destroy both soul and body in hell” uses apollumi to describe eternal ruin, not annihilation.

Strong's Exhaustive Concordance
destroy, die, lose, mar, perish.
From apo and the base of olethros; to destroy fully (reflexively, to perish, or lose), literally or figuratively -- destroy, die, lose, mar, perish.

Christ states both body and soul which would mean fully destroyed. He can't make that any clearer by including both.

And yes, the smoke of their torment rises forever. That does not mean they will be tormented forever.

This is a symbolic description of the final defeat of death as a power,

The last thing defeated is death, so there is no "ongoing death" that's not biblical.

about judicial finality, not annihilation.

I'll take God's word about the ultimate fate of the wicked. I've read it many times. Your suggesting that we are going by emotions and not scripture is false. I'm all about scripture. And your doctrine has to add to God's word. I like to let the scriptures speak for themselves. If God tells me there's going to be a day when the wicked will be "burned up" that will neither leave root or branch and consumed to ashes (just as our example in Sodom and Gomorrah, I'll believe that. You're hanging on to a few verses and adding to others (like John 3:16)

but live eternally, while the wicked experience eternal ruin.

Meaning according to you that both live eternally. But you can't exactly state that so you have to put a spin on it instead of letting the scriptures speak for themselves.,

 

[1Tonne]

It seems you do. I grew up on a farm and have yet to see tares survive a fire. If scripture would have meant writhing while toasted in an oven, it would have said so. What the adversarial spirit has corrupted and remained unrepentant shall be destroyed.

Parables are illustrations, not exhaustive explanations. They are designed to highlight one main truth, not to map every detail literally. If we press every element woodenly, parables quickly break down. For example, in the parable of the lost sheep, the sheep is not literally a sinner wandering on four legs. In the parable of the sower, people are not literally soil. In the parable of the ten virgins, salvation is not obtained by buying oil at a shop.

Likewise, in the parable of the tares, the point is the certainty and finality of judgment, not how weed react in flames. To argue that because tares are burned up, therefore people must cease to exist, is to over-literalize the metaphor while ignoring Jesus’ own explanation that this judgment involves weeping and gnashing of teeth (Matt 13:42), which presupposes consciousness.

So, the parable teaches decisive judgment and exclusion from God’s kingdom, not the mechanics of what consciousness in judgment must be like. Parables clarify truth; they are not meant to replace the clearer, didactic passages that speak directly about eternal punishment.

 

[BPPLEE]

Parables are illustrations, not exhaustive explanations. They are designed to highlight one main truth, not to map every detail literally. If we press every element woodenly, parables quickly break down. For example, in the parable of the lost sheep, the sheep is not literally a sinner wandering on four legs. In the parable of the sower, people are not literally soil. In the parable of the ten virgins, salvation is not obtained by buying oil at a shop.

Likewise, in the parable of the tares, the point is the certainty and finality of judgment, not how weed react in flames. To argue that because tares are burned up, therefore people must cease to exist, is to over-literalize the metaphor while ignoring Jesus’ own explanation that this judgment involves weeping and gnashing of teeth (Matt 13:42), which presupposes consciousness.

So, the parable teaches decisive judgment and exclusion from God’s kingdom, not the mechanics of what consciousness in judgment must be like. Parables clarify truth; they are not meant to replace the clearer, didactic passages that speak directly about eternal punishment.

It could also mean that lost people suffer Hell for a certain amount of time. Remember some would receive a few stripes others would receive many stripes

 

[1Tonne]

Why have you added soul?

I’m explaining how the imagery functions and how the word “worm” was used in early times. In Psalm 22:6, David writes, “I am a worm.” This is self-descriptive language; he is not talking about literal worms, but about himself as reduced, despised, and treated as refuse. In Hebrew thought, “worm” can metaphorically describe a person brought to utter shame and contempt.
Jesus’ words in Mark 9:48 use the same imagery, describing someone utterly despised. That’s why I bracketed the word “soul” for clarity. Just as David used “worm” to describe himself, Scripture elsewhere identifies the human person as a living soul (Gen 2:7). Referring to the “worm” as the person/soul under contempt and judgment aligns with biblical usage.
The point isn’t zoology; it’s the ongoing condition of the judged person. The “worm” is a metaphor for the person who is despised, not a literal insect.

Strong's Exhaustive Concordance
destroy, die, lose, mar, perish.
From apo and the base of olethros; to destroy fully (reflexively, to perish, or lose), literally or figuratively -- destroy, die, lose, mar, perish.

Christ states both body and soul which would mean fully destroyed. He can't make that any clearer by including both.

And yes, the smoke of their torment rises forever. That does not mean they will be tormented forever.

I understand that the primary meaning of apollumi is ‘destroy fully,’ but in Scripture, context often determines the nuance. Here, ‘destroy both soul and body’ is consistent with eternal ruin, complete separation from God, rather than annihilation, because the verses around it (e.g., Mark 9:48; Revelation 14:10) describe ongoing conscious judgment. Destroying in this sense is about ruin, not non-existence.

Meaning according to you that both live eternally. But you can't exactly state that can you?

I’m not saying the wicked receive eternal life. Scripture clearly distinguishes eternal life with God from eternal ruin under His judgment. Both exist forever, but one is a blessed, conscious union with God; the other is a conscious state of loss, separation, and ongoing ruin. They ‘live’ in the sense of conscious existence, but only the righteous share in eternal life.

 

[Yeshua HaDerekh]

I’m explaining how the imagery functions and how the word “worm” was used in early times. In Psalm 22:6, David writes, “I am a worm.” This is self-descriptive language; he is not talking about literal worms, but about himself as reduced, despised, and treated as refuse. In Hebrew thought, “worm” can metaphorically describe a person brought to utter shame and contempt.
Jesus’ words in Mark 9:48 use the same imagery, describing someone utterly despised. That’s why I bracketed the word “soul” for clarity. Just as David used “worm” to describe himself, Scripture elsewhere identifies the human person as a living soul (Gen 2:7). Referring to the “worm” as the person/soul under contempt and judgment aligns with biblical usage.
The point isn’t zoology; it’s the ongoing condition of the judged person. The “worm” is a metaphor for the person who is despised, not a literal insect.

And again, you are taking it completely out of context as I have explained to you previously...

 

[SarahsKnight]

seems you do. I grew up on a farm and have yet to see tares survive a fire. If scripture would have meant writhing while toasted in an oven, it would have said so.

That's something I have always wondered as well when I began to study the veracity of conditionsl immortality and universal reconciliation back in 2013, when I first heard that alternate thought about heaven, hell, life, and death apart from eternal torment even existed.

It dawned on me, those who teach eternal torment are usually quick to assure us (unless they are just that prideful and sadistic, and we've definitely seen a few such folk right here at CF in debates on this topic) that while eternal torment in hell is the truth, God doesn't want us to go there, so He's given plenty of warnings about it. Okay, so hell is supposed to be infinitely more horrific than we humans could ever imagine - as though literally death and destruction, and missing out on eternal life with the Lord forever isn't a scary enough thought, at least it is for me - and yet there's not A WORD about it throughout all of the Old Testament at any of the hundreds of times in history that Israel drifted away from worship of the true God Who rescued them from Egypt's tyranny and started doing all sorts of abominable practices worshiping other, false gods. Not a single word about the infinite torture that awaits disobedient Israelites after their death on Earth as a result of the plagues, famine, or conquest from the outside nations who God has many times in the OT allowed to happen to them as punishment. Even a horrible death on Earth as a result of these punishments will be nothing compared to endless torture in hell, and yet if that is God's intention for His own disobedient children the Israelites when they get out of line like that, He doesn't warn them a single time of the infinite torture that awaits them after the death on Earth that He does mention they will suffer as a result of their turning away from Him? .... The latter is nothing compared to the former! Why bring up the latter not once, not twice, but every single time the Israelites as a nation turned away from Him in the OT, and yet say nothing of the former, if the former is true?

And no, eternal torment proponents in this thread, I already know the phony pearl-clutching response to this that is coming. What i have spoken in this post is not me arguing with God or telling Him how He should seek justice or wrath against sin, because eternal torment simply isn't what He has revealed in Scripture about His character or sense of justice; what I am arguing with is your crappy interpretation about what you think God should do to punish unbelievers, which of course is a group of folk that conveniently excludes yourselves.

 

[SarahsKnight]

the other is a conscious state of loss, separation, and ongoing ruin. They ‘live’ in the sense of conscious existence, but only the righteous share in eternal life.

You can't expect people to buy this argument where you are clearly mudding the waters about what life and death means.

Besides that, you mention separation here as a feature of being in hell. Okay. Totally fair. As a conditionalist I see the second death as separation, too; if one is is separated from the Creator Who gave him life in the first place, then his can he be anything but dead? .... So how then can you honestly use Revelation 14:10 as a pro-verse for eternal torment, when that passage describes the torment with fire and brimstone as being IN the presence of the Lamb, not out of it? How then is part or all of the torment in hell, in your view, coming from being completely separated from the Lord?

 

[Jipsah]

You should watch the video. It is only 20 odd minutes

Pass.

, and it explains where people who believe in annihilation go wrong.

In other words, some bloke tells you what he thinks. Pass.

(Though I do not agree with everything he says in the vid, I still think he is pretty onto it and does very well with refuting annihilationism.)

If you're willing to simply wiling to change the meaning of words en masse to make them fit your beliefs. Still rubbish.

Those who are sent to destruction do not get eternal life.

If not, then hell is simply a matter of roasting dead bodies, innit?

They get eternal death.

Except then have to be alive to be properly tortured, don't they?

I think the real difference between us is how we understand “death.”

Exactly. I use the normal English meaning, while you have an ad hoc definition to make it suit your doctrine.

We actually agree that those sent to destruction do not receive eternal life.

Sorry, but the dead can't be tortured.

Where we differ is what eternal death means.

No, it's just about what "death" means. I say it means "dead". Yiou say it't means "alive but being tortured".

Your view seems to treat death as a finality.

Yep.

When the body dies (the shell), this is a finality in the physical. So, your understanding of “eternal death” is understood as extinction, the person is gone forever.

Yep, dead really means dead.

My view is different.

So yeah. Julius Caesar is "dead", but he's still alive, but you don't say he's alive because he's being tortured which is what "dead" really means as opposed to meaning, just, you know, actually dead.

Scripture shows that when the body dies, it is not the end of the person.The spirit/soul continues but sleeps in the grave, unconscious, awaiting the resurrection Eccl 9:5; Ps 146:4

Funny that you'd choose those two, because the dead in those Scriptures are straight up dead. That's the OT viewpoint. John is essentially of the same view except he anticipates the dead being resurrected to face judgement.

John 5:28–29). Earthly death is therefore not final; it is temporary and preparatory.

And the according to Scripture, the righteous will receive the gift of God, which is eternal life, and the rest will receive the wages of sin, which is not eternal life under torture, but death, as in death. You really believe that God gives the damned the gift of eternal life just so He can keep them around to torture them? He erases them from space and time. How do I know that? Easy: " I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!’". If God never knew them, they never existed. That's dead dead.

Because death is not final in the first sense, I don’t see the second death as annihilation either.

That's because you have to play games with the language to allow your doctrine to survive contact with Scripture.

It is eternal death because it is eternal ruin, eternal separation, and eternal loss of life with God

Say so right there on your doctrine, which requires you to redefine words when they provce inconvenient. At best it's intellectualy dishonest.

, not because the person ceases to exist

Dang, how do they continue to exist if God never knew them? Does Gos have selective amnesia? And if they are still around, why? Does God take pleasure in their torture? I ain't buying that for an instant.

. Death, biblically, can be an ongoing state of ruin, not merely a moment where something stops existing.

Baloney. Again, that's jutst made up ad hoc. Sounds real pious, but's it's just just a matter of making up a doctrine and then making it sounds as though it kinda makes sense when in fact it doesn't, at all.

So yes, the wicked do not receive eternal life.

Or rather they do, in your doctrine, live forever, but you don't say that they do.

They receive eternal ongoing death/ruin.

Yeah, God keeps them around for..., what? Why would He? He's not some ancient despot impaling His enemies on pikes or boiling people in oil. He suffered torture Himself, and now now he's condemning people to eternal torture Himself? What happened to "Father forgive them"?

Eternal death is not non-existence; it is the eternal opposite of life with God.
That’s the core difference in how we’re reading the texts.

The core difference is that you have to make up your own lexicon to make Scripture "say" what your denom needs it to in order to keep it from messing up their doctrine. I say a fig for their doctrine.