Critique of an Albert Mohler Article on Hell
Albert Mohler is the president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary
Kirk Cameron is rethinking hell. He just told us so in a podcast of The Kirk Cameron Show, recorded with his son, James. In the podcast, both father and son express grave doubts about the traditional doctrine of hell, and particular doubt about the fate of the wicked as eternal conscious torment.
Cameron is not a theologian or New Testament scholar, but he has been a prominent evangelical celebrity, based in his winsome personality and Hollywood experience, most famously as a teen actor in the series Growing Pains. As an adult, he has identified as an evangelical Christian and has participated in evangelistic ministries and media efforts.
Alas, it appears that he has now developed doctrinal growing pains, and it’s not a pretty picture.
Growing pains are often not a pretty picture, but if they are indicative of growth, they should be welcomed, not scoffed at. It’s interesting that God says he will try us by fire and purify us like silver, but he never says he will torment us by fire. God will sanctify his people, which is to say, they must experience growing pains.
Kirk and James are naturals at the podcasting mic, and it’s good to see a father and son talk openly about spiritual matters. Neither is vitriolic or agitated, and both seek to discuss the doctrine of hell calmly. They affirm their intention to be biblical, and they don’t lean into emotionalism. Nevertheless, emotion is part of their problem, as is so often the case when we witness doctrinal accommodation—in this case packaged as less important than it really is.
Ah, emotion, the logical man’s straw man. Balderdash. As if emotions were a kind of brain-possession, arriving without warning from a satanic source. In fact, the source is well known; it is our own thinking. If there are faults in our emotions, as there often are, they are due to faults in our thoughts. But when our thinking is true, so are our emotions. In short, to call a person’s thinking “emotional” is simply illogical. So when Mohler accuses the Camerons of emotionalism, what he means is that they ought to stop thinking.
Mohler never specifically identifies the Camerons’ emotional missteps. Guessing, the “guilt” seems to fall on the Camerons’ empathy for those cursed to an existence of everlasting torment. I wonder how Mohler would react if he actually had to observe one person being tortured for a single day. But Mohler advocates for emotional control. Perhaps he believes we should applaud when drunks drive into trees. But, honestly, isn’t emotional disturbance at the thought of torment a healthy human reaction? How do we reconcile Christianity with a call for apathy towards our neighbor? “Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven.” – Matthew 5.44,45
Father and son banter a bit, but they get to the heart of the matter when they ponder the meaning of eternal conscious torment in hell. Kirk responds to James: “After 10,000 years of anguish and pain and torment and darkness, you’re not one day closer to finding relief. You’re not even one second closer after a billion years. You’re not one second closer to the end.”
They reason together that we are finite creatures, so our sin is finite—even if we sin every second of life, James offers—and so God’s righteous judgment should also be finite. “We think of God as a just God, he is a just God and we believe that the punishment should fit the crime. Exactly, and so, if the punishment was cruel and unusual punishment that went far beyond the severity of the crime, that would no longer be just.” The formula Kirk and James Cameron present is simple—an infinite punishment is not just if the offense is finite and limited.
We might wonder where they came up with such an idea. Might it not be the Old Testament that demands proportionality in punishment? An eye for an eye? What or who inspired Moses?
They also argued that Scripture does not have to be interpreted in terms of hell as eternal conscious torment and they raise the issue of fairness and theological public relations. Their argument that eternal conscious punishment is unjust and disproportionate gives “ammunition to the enemies of God.”
Mohler’s last sentence is confusing but I believe he means that the Camerons’ perspective is that eternal suffering gives ammunition to the enemies of God. They have a point, certainly. Mohler seems dismissive. When God tells us to not take his name in vain, he is not targeting the careless human habit of referencing him in their exclamations. What he is talking about is attributing actions, prophecies, and judgments to him when these have been made up by men. And here is the particular point the Camerons suggest: Is it not a foul representation of God to say he means to torment the wicked forever when he has actually said no such thing? Does not such a belief aid the enemies of God by diminishing the God who is just and merciful?
They exchanged some banter about word studies—not particularly helpful—and they really tip their hand when they cite Edward Fudge and the concept of God’s just punishment of the wicked as the annihilation of their souls—they simply cease to exist, forever.
Mohler’s writing leaves us to decide which “they” it is that ceases to exist—the wicked or the Camerons.We also must puzzle over his use of the phrase “tip their hand”, in reference to Edward Fudge, as if Fudge was a notorious heretic. Christianity Today identified Fudge’s book, The Fire That Consumes as “the standard reference on the subject” of conditional everlasting life. Mohler fails to acknowledge that large numbers of Evangelicals are coming to see everlasting torment as an extra-biblical theological concept.
Theologically and biblically, there is nothing new here. It’s old hat and worn-out arguments. What makes this podcast noteworthy is the fact that it is the Kirk Cameron Show and many evangelicals have looked to Kirk as a celebrity, a family man, an evangelist, and what we now call an “influencer.” In this case, the influence is not good, very not good, and it needs to be addressed.
Hell is not a passage into non-existence, but the torment of the wicked. The truth is horrible, so the warnings are stark.
This is a strange denial of the importance of life itself. Is not the punishment God warned Adam and Eve about Death? Mohler needs to be careful of falling into the secular trap that says “death is just a part of life”. It may seem this way from a human point of view, but it is not the biblical view. Death is the terrible negation of life. G.K. Chesterton was on to something when he observed, “The man who kills a man, kills a man. The man who kills himself, kills all men; as far as he is concerned he wipes out the world.” When a person disassociates himself from the Source of life, he gives up not only his own life; he gives up on all life. He gives up on all creation. He gives up on his Maker. This is more than horrible enough to make everlasting torment irrelevant.
Historians of American theology point to the rejection or radical modification of the traditional doctrine of hell as a signal of the emergence of liberal theology in early America, organized as a movement by the end of the 19th century.
This argument suggests that if we disagree with someone about doctrines in general, we must disagree with him on all particular doctrines. Logically, then, if Adolph Hitler believes it’s wrong to be cruel to dogs, it must be right to be cruel to dogs.
The Congregationalist pastor Washington Gladden serves as a good example. He declared: “To teach such a doctrine about God is to inflict on religion a terrible injury and to subvert the very foundations of morality.” In other words, Pastor Gladden declared his moral vision to be superior to the doctrinal understanding of classical Christianity and just came out and said that if God really sends the wicked and unregenerate to hell, where they suffer eternal conscious torment, God is Himself unjust. The traditional doctrine of hell “subverts the very foundations of morality” and is beneath the liberal vision of divine justice.
There is a logical split going on here. Washington Gladden may well be raising a complaint against “classical” Christianity. He is not the first and will not be the last. If no one ever raised red flags at traditions gone astray, the Church would still be selling indulgences to limit sojourns in Purgatory. No one would vacation in Spain for fear of the Inquisition. All banking would be left to the Jews, while Christendom would continue to persecute them for flourishing. Tradition is worthy respect but it has also proven itself to be worthy of suspicion. It can be challenging to distinguish “tradition” from a mob in fine costume.
I do not see that Gladden has directed any complaint against God. He clearly is bothered by “a doctrine about God” that he considers to be false. Gladden, and all people, depend on God being just. There is no standard of justice outside of God to which he must comply. He defines justice. His being demands justice. The battle is not over whether God is just; it is a battle over whether we are hearing his words about justice, or we are sitting in echo chambers of human opinion.
The New Testament evidence for hell as eternal conscious punishment is clear, as Jesus declared in Matthew 25:46: “And these will go away unto eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.” Note carefully that eternal punishment and eternal life are presented as parallel destinies—both are eternal and both are final.
Mohler has lost the thread here. Annihilationists agree with Mohler that God’s punishment is eternal. The verse he has chosen as a proof text does not address the nature of the punishment. On the other hand, while alluding to the parallel nature of the two destinies, Mohler fails to notice the clear contrast of the destinies: one leading to life, the other to death.
The wicked, without Christ, go to eternal conscious torment, described in the Bible with graphic intensity. The redeemed, bearing the imputed righteousness of Christ Himself, enter into eternal life.
This argument for the graphic intensity of torment described in the Bible would be more convincing if Mohler had actually produced examples.
Annihilation is not part of the picture. Hell is not a passage into non-existence, but the torment of the wicked. The truth is horrible, so the warnings are stark.
Furthermore, the argument about finite sin and the injustice of eternal punishment fails to recognize the fact that sin—every sin and the very fact of sin—is an infinite offense against God’s infinite holiness. Eternal conscious torment is not disproportionate, much less unjust. It is the revelation of God’s perfect righteousness and justice.
We believe God’s holiness is infinite or, to make better sense of it: pure and perfect. But it does not follow that human sin against him is infinitely bad or perfectly impure or perfectly imperfect. Humans never have and never will have the capacity to be infinitely perfect. Even glorified, we can only be perfect for one moment, one act, one thought at a time.
Mohler calls on the old canard about sin being measured on the basis of the quality of the one sinned against. Apparently, he would find me less guilty if I stole ten dollars from a street urchin than if I stole ten dollars from a U.S. Senator. Only a moment’s consideration reveals the opposite.
We should also give some thought to the effects of sin. David proclaimed that our sin is first and foremost an offense against God. Even so, we also recognize that no human has the capacity to harm God. Our sins are futile acts against him. The sin we commit against God can harm only ourselves, other persons, and God’s creation. It is a kind of hubris to imagine any human action having infinite impact.
One should pause before presenting a podcast like this—or after hearing a podcast like this—and ponder the arrogance of trying to correct what has for so long been the faith upheld by the faithful. More importantly, trying to correct what is so clearly revealed in the Bible.
It is true that we should proceed with care when we think about bucking tradition. When an idea has held for a long time there is usually a good reason for it…sometimes many good reasons. However, let us not overlook the fact that there have been more than a few Christian theologians, even from the first century, who weighed in against the prevailing opinions. Let us also not overlook how this particular theological position fails badly under scrutiny. Finally, and to Mohler’s last assertion, the Bible is nearly devoid of statements that support the idea of everlasting torment. It would have been fun to review with Mohler the “clearly revealed” references, but, strangely, he references only one verse from the Bible, one that utterly fails to serve his purposes.
Kirk and James Cameron are right about one thing—there certainly are evangelistic ramifications of our testimony about hell. The gospel call is to turn to Christ and be saved, and escape the fires of hell. The admonition to confess Christ or risk non-existence just doesn’t pass the New Testament test, and there is a good reason it doesn’t work in a sermon, either. The stakes are just too low, and the fires of hell hold no eternal consequence.
How I wish I would hear sermons about the precious gift of life that God has granted to us and that, second only to him, it is something we should treasure. God did not create us for the sake of avoiding torment; he created us for abundant life. This is the Gospel.
This podcast was really sad, and I genuinely hope Kirk Cameron and his son will soon be convinced of the importance and truthfulness of the biblical doctrine of hell. Even if that doesn’t happen, hell will not conform to their preferences. Just consider the power of Jesus’s words in Matthew 25:46. Could the truth be clearer? It is truly horrible to deny the true horror of hell.
Is it really horrible to think that God might be more merciful than Mohler has heretofore imagined? But let me elaborate on the argument Mohler implies but does not express. If there is a horror in denying the horror of hell, it can only be that the failure to warn people away from the horror actually means that more people end up experiencing it.
But the question remains: Is this true? Salvation does not depend on a person’s belief in the nature of hell, no matter what hell is. Salvation depends on trusting the Lord Jesus Christ, the author of life. We must then ask, does the thought of eternal torment give people cause to trust in Jesus, or is it a theological stumbling stone? The answer is clearly the latter. Therefore, what is truly horrible is to assert the horror of hell.
I appreciate that Mohler did not make his article an attack on the Camerons. His words towards them were kind and respectful. He, properly, made his argument against the idea of annihilationism, or conditional life. But his argument was not a careful one. Even if he had been more careful, though, his arguments would have fallen short. “Tradition” did not fare well for the Pharisees in their debates with Jesus. The Truth then and now is what we need.
Recent Comments