top of page
Search

Is Kirk Cameron's View of Hell Biblical?

  • Writer: Chad Lee
    Chad Lee
  • Jan 9
  • 4 min read

Updated: Jan 9


Type of Doctrine: Debated


"And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life."

-Matthew 25:46 ESV



What Is Kirk Cameron's View of Hell?


Kirk Cameron has recently released a video explaining that he has changed his view on hell. (Click here to listen to Kirk Cameron's podcast as he describes his theological shift.)


In the past, Cameron subscribed to one of the eternal, conscious torment views. Now, he is shifting to the conditional view (i.e., though not always considered exactly the same thing, some use the terms conditional immortality and annihilationism). (For a quick article covering the 4 main views on hell click here.)


In a nutshell, the conditional view believes that punishment is not eternal. Many believe that after a certain period of punishment, those being punished will cease to exist (i.e., annihilationism).


Kirk Cameron has changed his view on hell to the conditional immortality view.

Is His View Biblical? | Some Thoughts


#1 | This situation highlights the importance of theology.


Why? Because this podcast went viral on YouTube and without an awareness of theology, it's difficult to understand the argument Cameron is making against the other views on hell.


#2 | This situation highlights the importance of triage.


Why? Because we are faced with a response. Should we believe that Kirk Cameron has left the Christian faith? (Primary Issue) Should we stop attending the same church as him? (Secondary Issue) Or should we consider it an agree-to-disagree type of issue where we can stay in fellowship in the same church? (Tertiary Issue)


This is a tricky subject to triage, because some who hold to the conditional view have ventured into universalism (they believe all people will be saved). In this case, it seems to be a primary issue.


However, others who hold to the conditional view believe annihilationism. They believe that punishment will still take place, but it won't be eternal. In this case, it seems to be either a secondary or tertiary issue depending on various factors. (I believe that Kirk Cameron is in this category.)


#3 | This situation highlights the importance of church history.


Some responded to Kirk Cameron's podcast with shock. Others have never heard of this view before. Still others said he left the faith. However, this is not a new view. Historically, the conditional view stretches back to the early church (alongside other views). The church has generally not considered it a primary issue.


"Okay," you're thinking, "but is it biblical?! I mean that was the title of the blog!" Let me be clear: I don't think the conditional view is biblical.


I will acknowledge that some of the arguments for the conditional view are robust. (Much more robust than you might expect!) However, the main reason that I think this view is not biblical is because of specific teaching from Jesus himself.


Some of the arguments for the conditional view are robust (maybe even more robust than you might expect!). However, the main reason that I think this view is not biblical is because of specific teaching from Jesus himself.

Let's look at Matthew 25:46.

-------------------

[Mat 25:46 ESV]

46 And these will go away into eternal punishment,

but the righteous into eternal life."


The word translated "eternal" is the same Greek word. Jesus seems to be contrasting the two. Is Jesus saying both eternal life and eternal punishment will take place for a fixed time period and then they will end? If you're like me, then I hope that is not the case on the eternal life part! I want eternal life to be . . . well . . . eternal. Of course, I do hope that is the case on the eternal punishment part. I don't want anyone to suffer eternal punishment. But I don't think that Matthew 25:46 allows me to read "eternal" in two different ways. I would find it odd that Jesus means two different things by the same word "eternal." There's a lot more that could be said on this subject from the Bible, but this verse is one of the clearest verses that I'm aware of which refutes the conditional view.


-------------------


So, to summarize:

  • Is his view biblical? Not in my opinion.

  • Why? Mainly because of Matthew 25:46.

  • Does it make him a heretic? No.

  • Should we consider him a fellow believer? Yes.

  • Let's respond reasonably, graciously, lovingly, and truthfully. This isn't a case where a more firm approach is needed since a primary doctrine is not being violated.



Some helpful resources on this issue:

©2026 by Aflame Theology. Proudly created with Wix.com

bottom of page