We’re posting this video compilation (at the end) and explanation to document contradictions and moral/ethical inconsistencies in how Kirk Cameron has handled public criticism following his promotion of annihilationism. We’re also publicly calling him to repent – not so much for his false and dangerous beliefs about hell, but about how he has sinfully responded to disagreement and correction.
This became necessary after Kirk went to CBN (a platform that has promoted Benny Hinn, Joyce Meyer, Kenneth Copeland, T.D. Jakes, Rick Warren, Joel Osteen, Todd White, Bill Johnson, etc.) to whitewash the record and level accusations against his brothers yet again.
This is not about tone, personality, or online drama. It is about accountability for public teaching.
Before anything else, I want to be clear about what I am and am not saying. I am not accusing Kirk Cameron of being an unbeliever. I am not claiming he is outside the faith. I am not “outing” him as something other than a brother in Christ. And although I believe annihilationism is a formal theological heresy, I am not declaring Kirk himself to be a heretic. I do not know him personally.
My concern is not personal animus, but repentance where error exists, and more broadly, the integrity of Christian engagement with one another online, which must be governed by Scripture even when that engagement is difficult or uncomfortable.
Because @Protestia was the original “heresy hunter” website that drew 3rd-party attention to Kirk’s podcast, I also want to clarify something plainly. Protestia accurately characterized and quoted Kirk.
We did not rebuke him. We did not accuse him of heresy. We did not editorialize on his theology. We quoted his words directly, provided clips, and linked to his full podcast. Our reporting brought the issue into the open, led to dozens, if not hundreds, of corrective sermons around the country. Men like Albert Mohler, Justin Peters, Ray Comfort and Todd Friel provided lengthy, corrective responses.
In response to Kirk’s rebuke of “sin sniffers” and “heresy hunters,” looking for people to attack so our “ministries don’t dry up,” it must be said that neither Protestia nor I, as its publisher, earn any profit from this work. I operate without a salary, without ad profit tied to outrage, and without financial incentive to manufacture controversy. We also publish a clear, accessible set of doctrinal and editorial standards that invite accountability. Readers are encouraged to evaluate our reporting against those standards at any time.
With sadness, I report the following ongoing hypocricies, errors, and sins, call for public repentance, and call on fellow public Christian ministers who confirm the public witness of the evidence to call Kirk to repentance as well:
First, Kirk repeatedly characterizes annihilationism as a secondary issue, something Christians may disagree on without serious consequence. Yet in Episode 86, he frames the potential error of teaching ECTorment as a first-tier moral offense, calling it a “severe misrepresentation of God’s character” and “a great sin and mistake.” In effect, annihilationism’s potential error is treated as second-tier, while ECT’s potential error is framed as first-tier. His critics are condemned for strong language, even though his own framing assigns a clear double standard.
Second, Kirk continues to publicly accuse unnamed brothers of unspecified sins against him. He speaks of “sin sniffers,” “heresy hunters,” and brothers behaving like unbelievers, yet never names who supposedly sinned or what sin was committed. Scripture does not authorize anonymous moral indictment. Accusation without identification prevents repentance, response, or clarification.
Third, Kirk makes public claims about what Scripture teaches, on a public platform, for a mass audience, while insisting that responses to those claims must occur privately. This is incoherent. Public teaching creates public responsibility. A teacher cannot embrace the delegated authority of public instruction while exempting himself from open, public evaluation.
Fourth, in the CBN interview, Kirk reframes the controversy as a surprising overreaction to an off-the-cuff question from his son. The episode itself shows otherwise. Episode 86 was planned, structured, cited, and presented as a “dangerous conversation.” He named specific theological positions, referenced Edward Fudge, and declared a personal conclusion. This was not accidental commentary, and it was not unexpected that it would draw strong reaction.
Fifth, Kirk gives contradictory explanations for how he formed his beliefs. In attempting to minimize the doctrinal seriousness of ECT, he says he held to it only because of tradition, then says “verses” brought him to it, and continues to insinuate that ECT proponents today rely on tradition rather than Scripture.
Sixth, Kirk repeatedly accuses online critics of illegitimate financial motives, claiming their analysis and arguments were driven by clicks, outrage, or income. At the same time, he presents his own financial concerns, canceled events, and lost opportunities as legitimate considerations. Financial motive is treated as sinful when attributed to others and understandable when attributed to himself.
Seventh, Kirk appealed to many ECT teachers as fellow serious scriptural scholars, yet only listed figures who had passed away and could neither reject his conclusions nor correct his use of their authority. Living theologians who object are portrayed as divisive; dead ones are cited as allies.
Eighth, Kirk openly admits that he wants annihilationism to be true, calls it a “great relief,” and imagines the joy of presenting annihilationism as “good news” to unbelievers who reject a God who eternally punishes. This is not a neutral inquiry. It is not merely “asking questions.” It is doctrinal modification shaped by emotional desires – precisely the method Scripture warns against.
Scripture does not require private confrontation before public correction when the teaching itself was public. Matthew 18 governs private interpersonal sin, not public doctrine.
When error is public, correction must be public for the sake of those who heard it. Paul rebuked Peter publicly because the error was public. Elders are commanded to refute false teaching openly. Demanding private correction for public doctrine protects the teacher while leaving the audience confused. That is not loving. It prioritizes reputation over truth and the flock over no one.
Public correction is not unchristian. It is biblical. It protects those exposed to error and provides clarity rather than silence.
Jesus’ parable in Luke 16 about stewardship applies here. Teachers are not owners of doctrine; they are stewards of it. The steward is condemned not for dishonesty alone, but for handling what belonged to another according to his own preferences. Doctrine is not ours to reshape according to emotional comfort or perceived evangelistic usefulness. Faithfulness, not palatability, is the measure of stewardship.
The gospel cannot be separated from what Christ saves us from. Hell is not a minor doctrine, and it is not ours to soften for relief or rhetorical safety.
This video is not about malice. It is about accountability, witness, and loving a brother enough to call him out.
I’m posting this video compilation and explanation to document contradictions and moral/ethical inconsistencies in how @KirkCameron has handled public criticism following his promotion of annihilationism, and to publicly call him to repent – not so much for his false and… pic.twitter.com/xCRGVEsMBl
— David Morrill (@coconservative7) February 2, 2026
