Kirk Cameron Hosts “Hellgate” and the Attacks Continue!
In late 2025, Christian actor turned podcaster Kirk Cameron (almost) literally set the “Christian internet” on fire by questioning the concept of eternal conscious torment, i.e., a place called hell where unbelievers spend eternity- in a literal fire with no hope of ever escaping. Cameron shared that he was now leaning towards annihilationism, the view that non-believers would simply cease to exist at some point, rather than burning or being otherwise tormented forever. A third view, universalism, posits that everyone will eventually be saved, possibly after a temporary period of punishment for unbelievers.
I have addressed the reaction to Kirk Cameron’s announcement in a previous essay and discussed the topic further in a second essay. Since Cameron has responded to the backlash he received by hosting a round table discussion that he referred to as “Hellgate,” it seems appropriate to review the event and the reactions to that.
The roundtable discussion included a group of scholars, with two representing the eternal conscious torment (ECT) view and two supporting the annihilation view, otherwise known as conditional immortality. The event lasted over two hours, with fellow believers discussing their differing opinions and listening to each other’s opposing views in a very respectful manner.
Who Were the Panelists on “Hellgate?”
The speakers were Gavin Ortlund and Paul Copan, who represented the traditional (ECT) view, while Chris Date and Dan Patterson represented the annihilationism viewpoint.
Gavin Ortlund is a pastor, author and apologist with a PhD from Fuller Theological Seminary and currently serves as President of Truth Unites.
Paul Copan is a theologian, analytic philosopher and apologist with a Ph.D. in Philosophy from Marquette University. He is currently a professor at the Palm Beach Atlantic University.
Chris Date is a theologian, author, speaker, and the co-founder of Rethinking Hell and Theopologetics ministries.
Dan Paterson is a pastor and lecturer who founded Questioning Christianity in 2021. He studied theology and apologetics in Australia and at Oxford.
Needless to say, the panel was well qualified to discuss the issue of the afterlife.
They didn’t change each other’s views, but that wasn’t the point. I felt it was a great example of how we can engage in dialogue effectively with people we disagree with. Apparently, not everyone agrees.
The Backlash Continues
One pastor, who we’ll call Pastor G., shared in a YouTube video that he felt the panel discussion had been “rigged.” According to him, those who supported annihilationism outnumbered those supporting the eternal conscious torment view. (There were actually two proponents of each view; he was counting Kirk Cameron, the moderator, as an annihilationist). Pastor G. made it clear that he supported the traditional view – that hell was not only eternal torment, but a literal unquenchable fire. He concluded that Kirk Cameron needs to be “marked and avoided,” according to Romans 16:17-18.
17 Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them.
18 For they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly; and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple.
- Romans 16:17-18 (KJV)
According to Pastor G., Kirk Cameron was appealing to his emotions, rather than the Bible. He further accused people like Cameron of “changing their beliefs to accommodate others” and “compromising to accommodate people’s sin.” He also suggested that Cameron had handpicked his panelists (the ones defending ECT) because he knew they would be “soft.” Ortlund and Copan were accused of not making any efforts at “fighting for the truth.” According to Pastor G., the panelists were all “buddies, just having a lovefest, with no real conviction.” Pastor G.’s take was that, based on this panel discussion, everyone would think that the doctrine of hell wasn’t “already settled.” He concluded that Cameron was defending and normalizing a false doctrine.
Cancel Culture in the Christian World
What determines who is “in” or “out?”
Unfortunately, the attitude of ostracizing people with different beliefs – even when they are still genuine Christians – is all too common. This attitude was exemplified when the famous evangelical preacher John Piper posted a tweet that read “Farewell Rob Bell,” in response to a book that the latter had written in which he embraced the concept of universalism.
Such reactions lead us to wonder – is a belief in eternal torment really the defining factor when it comes to determining who is “in” and who is “out?” John Piper has said that even though he didn’t like Rob Bell’s view of hell, his comment wasn’t in response to that, but rather Bell’s view of penal substitutionary atonement. In an interview with Christianity Today, Piper said that he didn’t like John Stott’s view of hell, either, but he kept learning from him and never made such a comment about him. Regardless of whether the issue was the doctrine of hell or the atonement, Bell was no longer considered an “insider” by Piper (and many others) based on his beliefs.
Are All Issues of Theology “Settled?”
What does it mean to “know in part” and how did Dan Paterson change his mind?
For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known. And now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity.
- 1 Corinthians 13:12-13 (KJV)
The above passage implies that we don’t (yet) know everything, so it would make sense that knowledge is progressive and that our views on theological issues can and perhaps should change as we grow and develop.
Interestingly enough, if only Pastor G. had taken the time to listen to Chris Date’s and Dan Paterson’s stories about how they changed their minds on ECT and became convinced that annihilation was supported by the Bible, he may not have been so dismissive. They both changed their views based on rigorous study of the Bible, not emotions.
Dan Paterson shared his experience in this video. A theology professor had advised him to fight the temptation to draw hasty conclusions in dealing with controversial subjects where intelligent and godly Christians disagreed. He was also advised to devote himself to examining the biblical arguments from all sides, while praying that God’s Spirit would form in him a faithful theological conscience.
When it came to re-examining his views on the afterlife, Paterson had the opportunity to follow his professor’s advice. While he had written his master’s thesis defending the traditional view of eternal conscious torment and started his ministry defending this position, he eventually came across reasons to scrutinize his beliefs. He changed his views (privately) after rigorous study and his ministry leaders somehow found out. He was then given an ultimatum – to either sign a new doctrinal statement of faith that explicitly mentioned belief in eternal conscious torment or relinquish his position. He tried to argue himself out of his conviction, reading every critique of conditional immortality (annihilationism) he could find. He sought counsel from theologians, one of whom advised him to just sign the statement so he could keep his job and provide for his family. Despite the high stakes, Paterson decided that he simply could not go against his conscience and concluded that “the church may have gotten this one wrong.”
The Problem of Certainty
Pastor G., on the other hand, says that the issue of hell is already “settled.” As far as he is concerned, there is no room for discussion and anyone who believes differently should be avoided. Unfortunately, this attitude is prevalent in Christian circles.
Regardless of what we believe, we would do well to listen to opposing views. People like Pastor G. sincerely believe that they are upholding the Bible’s teaching and that those who don’t believe in ECT are adopting a “liberal” or “progressive” agenda. In reality, as demonstrated by Dan Paterson’s story, many people change their views on various topics because they take the Bible seriously and have studied it rigorously.
If we are so certain of our position on any topic, the tendency is to feel the need to convince others that we are right and they are wrong. Even if we sincerely believe in our convictions, we should at least be open to listening to other perspectives. Pete Enns, author of “The Sin of Certainty,” recently published an essay on Substack, in which he shared a “Hymn to Certainty” that he wrote in his early twenties.
The last verse of the hymn sums it up:
“I’m so important can’t you see
To present Christianity.
And if you can’t think just as I,
I pray God opens up your eyes.”
This statement from another verse also stood out:
“There is no faith but certainty.”
Even though the overall tone of the song is very sarcastic, it is indeed true that if we had certainty, we wouldn’t need faith. So many people equate faith with certainty.
Another issue that needs to be addressed is that what we believe about the afterlife affects our understanding of God and how we interact with other people in the here and now.
What We Believe About God and How it Affects Other People
An atheist reminds us about God’s character
Alex O’Connor, a well-known “agnostic atheist” YouTuber, in responding to a question about how he got over the fear of hell, explains that if Christianity is true, then the God that exists is a perfectly loving and just God, so he could only end up in hell (eternal fire) if a perfectly just God sent him there. He concluded that he didn’t think there was any justifiable way he could be sent to a place of eternal torment.
His take-home message:
“If the Christian God exists, I have nothing to be afraid of.”
“If you’re scared of the existence of a perfectly just God, then maybe you should do some self-reflection.”
So, here we have someone who doesn’t believe in God reminding us that the God we claim to believe in is just and loving and won’t do anything that is not consistent with His character. Many proponents of ECT will argue that eternal torment exists because God is just and sin must be punished, but that doesn’t explain the need for unending torment. It really seems like people come up with various ways of dealing with the cognitive dissonance they experience while holding on to their views.
A retired evangelical pastor reminds us that our views about the afterlife affect how we perceive others
In a video discussion, Pat Kahnke, a retired evangelical pastor, describes how people’s beliefs about the afterlife often have a negative impact on how they treat their fellow human beings.
According to Kahnke, many Christians believe that their own salvation is “secure,” based on a prayer they said at summer camp (or wherever), at some point in their life. This gives them “fire insurance,” a sense of “existential relief” – in that they’ve escaped the prospect of eternal conscious torment and that is the sole content and function of their faith. They are grateful that Jesus saved them from an eternity in hell but not interested in anything else he has to say. The rest of their Christianity is based on “culturally determined signifiers,” and when it comes to their every day life, their behavior doesn’t differ from that of the rest of the culture.
Kahnke says that “If your faith teaches you that your own personal eternal destiny as a chosen one of God is secure, but that conscious eternal torment is the consequence for billions of people who believe differently, I believe that’s not only a bad interpretation of scripture, but I think it dehumanizes entire groups of people in ways that evangelicals just haven’t come to terms with.”
While Kahnke acknowledges that there are people who believe in ECT and really struggle with the concept who have dedicated their lives to reaching out to the “lost” in love, there are many who hold this view who don’t care for others the way they should. Kahnke believes that the dehumanization of “others” leads people to think that whatever suffering those “others” experience here on earth is nothing compared to what awaits them in the afterlife. One natural consequence of this attitude is a desensitization to human suffering.
I can’t tell people what to believe, but we all need to be willing to re-examine our views and at the very least, listen to people with opposing views – on any topic. Changing our beliefs on specific issues is a sign of growth and does not equate apostasy. I think it’s a good thing that someone like Kirk Cameron has opened up this dialogue and I also can’t help wondering about Alex O’Connor’s statements referenced above – it says a lot if it takes a nonbeliever to remind us of the goodness of the God we claim to believe in.
Lastly, here’s a quote from Galileo:
“I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use.”
― Galileo Galilei
Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In