If you're like me, you said something like, "Oh, a celebrity with weird theology, how novel," and went on about your day. However, one response caught my eye as such a good example of what not to do, I thought a closer look would be useful.
Quick background: On Kirk Cameron's podcast, he and his son discussed whether what is usually referred to as "eternal conscious torment" in hell is just. They asked whether the Bible actually teaches that or something like annihilationism, where the soul is eventually destroyed. For those who'd like to learn more about annihilationism, Gavin Ortlund (who does not believe in it) posted a video on the topic a few months ago.
For the record, I would love to believe in annihiliationism if only I could find it in the Bible. I cannot. Even though I disagree with Cameron on this, I don't think everyone has responded well to him.
Such as the headline that caught my eye, "The Deadly Danger of Remodeling Hell", written by the venerable Al Mohler. Already, the piece is asserting that Cameron's position is not just wrong but dangerous. How does he prove that?
After briefly introducing the Camerons' podcast, Dr. Mohler lays out the basics of their position. Then he waves away their argument ("They exchanged some banter about word studies—not particularly helpful"), says this is "old hat and worn-out", and asserts this is the path to liberalism. Then he quotes a proof text he asserts teaches his position, restates the traditional view, and wags his finger at Cameron for questioning this essential doctrine.
Dr. Mohler is adamant annihilation is unbiblical, but he never really explains why. He admits they discussed word studies. He does not discuss them at all. He doesn't address the passages they brought up.
But he appeals to the slippery slope: "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." Every philosophy student is taught correlation is not causation. That may be where liberalism tends to start, but that does not prove it will always result in liberalism.
He says this is "old hat" and cites Edward Fudge from the 20th century, but surely Dr. Mohler knows this view is far older than that. Ortlund, whose specialty is church history, points out something similar can be found in some early church fathers. Even John Stott said he was sympathetic to the view. It is not a sure path to liberalism.
He quotes one prooftext on the nature of hell, but he certainly knows adherents of annihilationism offer many prooftexts of their own. Perhaps he could have spent more time addressing them and less making snide comments about Kirk Cameron.
Dr. Mohler says, "One should pause before presenting a podcast like this ... and ponder the arrogance of trying to correct what has for so long been the faith upheld by the faithful." That's true. We should not take dissenting from our forefathers in the faith lightly. But that doesn't mean we can never disagree with them. This made me watch the video of Cameron's podcast, and I see no sign he's saying this lightly. Has he studied it very carefully? I have no idea. But we shouldn't assume the worst. Dr. Mohler follows that statement with, "More importantly, trying to correct what is so clearly revealed in the Bible". That is, in fact, the question. Cameron is asking whether that's really what the Bible teaches.
We are assured giving up the doctrine of eternal conscious torment is dangerous. But that only matters if it's true. If it's not true, we shouldn't care one bit how "dangerous" proponents think it is to abandon it. When someone espouses what you believe is aberrant doctrine, the response should be to refute the error and defend the truth, not to mock your opponent or state the importance of your view.
Dr. Mohler's article seems more like lecturing a disobedient child than arguing with a brother who disagrees with him over a theological position which is considered by most to be within the pale of orthodoxy. Cameron says the traditional view gives "ammunition to the enemies of God.” Mohler insists Cameron's view does the same. I'm more concerned about our behavior and how that gives ammunition to the enemies of God. The lost around us are not concerned about the minutia of our theology, but they watch how we treat each other. "And they will know we are Christians by our love."
Image via Pixabay
No comments:
Post a Comment