Last month, Kirk Cameron made waves in the evangelical world by announcing that he now believes in “annihilationism.” This is the idea that those whom God sends to hell do not experience eternal, conscious punishment for their sins. Rather, they are at some point “annihilated” and simply cease to exist.

To be sure, Cameron isn’t the first to make such a claim. The venerable, evangelical Anglican John Stott also taught this idea, as have other “less than orthodox” voices through the years. So, the idea itself isn’t new, and it is often coupled with the concept of “conditional mortality” in contrast to the more widely held “immortality of the soul.”

I can’t say I was all that surprised by Cameron’s announcement, even as I was somewhat surprised that his announcement garnered so much online attention. Upon reflection, it makes sense because (1) Cameron is a high profile personality, even if he isn’t viewed as a serious theologian, (2) Cameron became well-known for his evangelistic work with Ray Comfort (The Way of the Master), and (3) online keyboard warriors will argue and debate any point of doctrine or theology.

When it comes to hell and annihilationism, the central argument set forth by the likes of Stott and Cameron is an emotional appeal to “fairness.” It just doesn’t seem “fair,” we’re told, that God would send human beings to hell for eternity in response to a finite lifetime of sin. These voices want to uphold the holiness of God and the heinousness of sin, but they want to temper eternity in hell with God’s mercy and love.

The standard response from those who defend the traditional view of hell as eternal conscious punishment is that (1) God is infinitely holy and (2) sin against an infinitely holy God demands an infinite punishment. These voices argue that the annihilationism camp ends up holding to a low view of both God’s holiness and sin’s heinousness. After all, we’ve all sinned, and the wages of sin is death. This metric applies to those who “only” break one command – even they are lawbreakers (James 2:11).

I wholeheartedly agree that the holiness of God and the heinousness of sin must be maintained, even when thinking about a difficult doctrine like hell. In fact, I think the vast majority of modern theological errors can be traced back to a pitifully low view of God and a triflingly low view of sin. Calvin was right, most of what we truly know comes down to having an accurate knowledge of God (who is holy) and self (who are sinners).

So, while I agree with the response that God is exceedingly holy and humans are exceedingly sinful, I think the standard response to the annihilationists fails to respond to the actual question of “fairness.” When it comes to eternal, conscious torment, the appeal to fairness isn’t only based on our sin and God’s character – it’s also based on the temporal nature of our sin compared to the eternity of hell. This, we are told, it what is fundamentally “unfair.”

To this objection, we must be sure to clarify that the damned are not repentant or penitent in hell. The working assumption of many seems to be that once we sinful humans die we are automatically done sinning simply by virtue of the fact that we have died. We assume that those who are sent to hell suddenly have a change of heart and recognize the folly of their ways. They feel regret, and they repent, but alas, it’s too late. With these assumptions, the question is then raised, “How is it fair for God to punish a finite amount of sin with an eternity in hell?”

At this point we must remember that only God’s grace frees us from the penalty, the power, and the presence of sin. Death itself does not free us from any of these things. Neither does hell function in any kind of purifying or sanctifying way. Instead, those cast into the lake that burns with fire and sulfur, those who have sinned against an infinitely holy God, those who have not repented of their sin and trusted in Jesus for salvation, will continue to sin in their eternal state. Thus, their eternity in hell has little to do with the math of “temporal” sin and “eternal” punishment. The eternity of hell seems to be a direct function of ongoing sin, anger, rage, bitterness, and hostility to the Triune God.

Consider Jesus’ parable of the rich man and Lazarus (Luke 16). When the wicked rich man found himself in Hades, he didn’t stop sinning. Instead, he continued barking orders to Lazarus, and he stubbornly argued with father Abraham. Fundamentally, he was the same sinful person he was on earth. Simply being relocated from earth to Hades did not change his sinful constitution. Thus, enduring sin involves enduring punishment.

The Bible seems to end with a similar idea. Revelation 22:11 says, “Let the evildoer still do evil, and the filthy still be filthy, and the righteous still do right, and the holy still be holy.” The idea behind these haunting words seems to be that our earthly lives have a lasting impact on our eternal state. Those dying in their sins are confirmed in a sinful state, and ongoing sin will require ongoing punishment. Those dying in Christ are confirmed in righteousness and holiness, and ongoing obedience will receive ongoing reward.

On this note, many have noted that it isn’t the damned who are treated “unfairly,” but the redeemed who are not treated “fairly.” Instead, they are treated “mercifully and graciously.”