Dr. Christopher Cloos Demonstrates Why Kirk Cameron is NOT a Heretic

Posted by on

 


Recently, Kirk Cameron—known from Growing Pains and Way of the Master—stirred up some online controversy after revealing a shift in his theology during a livestream with his son. Cameron shared that he now embraces conditional immortality, the view that while believers receive eternal life, the punishment of the unsaved results in permanent death or non-existence rather than eternal conscious torment, which he had previously believed.

In response, many Christians online have accused Kirk of stepping into “dangerous territory,” with some even labeling him a heretic. This naturally raises the question: Is conditional immortality a heretical view?  I don't think so and neither does Dr. Christopher Cloos of the Christian Philosophy Academy, as he explained thoroughly on X. 

He writes:

Is Conditional Immortality heresy? I've been surprised by how flippantly people have said it is, nearly always without any argument to back that up. So let's put this claim to bed. I'll suggest why you might think it's heresy and show they're bad reasons.

Reason 1: "It contradicts the creeds."

No it doesn't. Go read them. The Apostles' Creed says Christ "will come to judge the living and the dead." The Nicene Creed says the same. Judgment? Absolutely. The nature of that judgment? Unspecified. No creed defines eternal conscious torment v. annihilation. The councils never settled this question.

Reason 2: "It contradicts church tradition."

Two problems. First, sola scriptura. If you're Protestant, tradition doesn't settle the question. Scripture does. The Reformation happened because tradition got things wrong. You can't invoke Reformation authority while treating patristic consensus as untouchable. Also, the "universal consensus" for ECT is largely an Augustinian consensus. One position that won, not the only position that existed.

Reason 3: "It's what the cults believe."

Genetic fallacy. Jehovah's Witnesses also believe Jesus is the Messiah and that Scripture is authoritative. Does that make those positions suspect? The question is whether the position is biblical. Meanwhile, conditionalism has been held by John Stott, F.F. Bruce, I. Howard Marshall, Richard Bauckham, John Wenham, Philip Hughes, Michael Green. Hardly cult figures.

Reason 4: "It undermines the gospel."

How? Conditionalism affirms judgment is real, permanent, and irreversible. The stakes are ultimate. Eternal life v. permanent death. That's not soft on sin. Ceasing to exist forever, losing everything is terrible. If anything, conditionalism clarifies the gospel. Christ died. The penalty for sin is death. He bore it. Those in him live. Those outside him perish. Clean logic.

Reason 5:

"My confession says otherwise." Then you have confessional disagreement, not heresy. Westminster isn't Scripture. The 2nd London Baptist Confession isn't Scripture. These are subordinate standards, revisable in light of biblical exegesis. Plenty of confessional Protestants hold views departing from their standards on secondary issues without being called heretics. Why should this be different?1

Cloos rightly concludes as follows:

"Heresy has a meaning. It refers to denial of doctrines essential to Christian faith as defined by the ecumenical councils. Trinity. Christology. The nature of salvation. The precise nature of final punishment isn't in that category. It never has been.

Conditionalism affirms the Trinity. It affirms the full deity and humanity of Christ. It affirms salvation by grace through faith. It affirms the authority of Scripture. It affirms final judgment with permanent consequences. It affirms the reality of hell. It differs from the dominant Western tradition on what hell is, not whether it exists.

Calling conditionalism 'heresy' is rhetorical malpractice. It substitutes social pressure for argument. It says, "I don't have to engage your exegesis because you're already beyond the pale."

That's not theology. That's tribalism.

You can think conditionalism is wrong. Make the case. I welcome that conversation. But 'heresy' without argument is just a way of avoiding the conversation."2

I am genuinely curious how many of those attacking Cameron have taken the time to:

1. Watch a debate like this one.
2. Read a book like this one.  
3. Listen to an interview like this one. 

You may disagree with Kirk’s position, but that doesn’t make him a heretic. Many would do well to become informed before passing judgment too hastily.

To learn more on this topic, please see the recommended resources below.

Courage and Godspeed,
Chad

Comments

Post a Comment