Here's some of what I thought about the debate:
At the 20 minute point in the podcast debate, the first Scripture is presented. It is Matt 25:46 to which Chris says; “
What’s not in question [WRT this Scripture] is the duration of the punishment. Dr. Mohler and I agree with that. The question is, what is the nature of that punishment. … Dr. Mohler and a lot of traditionalists think that the nature of that punishment is torment. The biblical testimony is that the nature of that punishment is death.” Chris then points out that this verse itself shows that Eternal Life is only given to the saved, such that Jesus is rather obviously contrasting life to death. NOT life to torment. He then points out that other texts explicitly define the nature of the punishment to the lost as death (Rom 6:23) and destruction (2 Thess 1:9) to back-up his claim.
Dr. Mohler’s response is; “
The normal Christian reading of that text and the context of the whole of Scripture has been that Eternal, if it simply means destruction, that doesn’t make much sense.”
Huh? Chris and Dr. Mohler are not disagreeing on what “eternal” means. Chris just said so. Nor does Chris make the case that “eternal” means death. Chris says the nature of the punishment is death, Albert says not it's a life of torment. They disagree on what the punishment means, not what eternal means, yet that seems to escape Dr. Mohler’s understanding. (He's not alone in that misunderstanding though).
Chris presents three Scriptures that support his case that the nature of the punishment is death and destruction (i.e. not an eternal life of torment). Fair enough. That’s a reasonable and good Theological debate tactic. Dr. Mohler’s response, on the other hand, is that “
doesn’t make sense” given a “
normal Christian reading of that text” and seems to imply that the “normal” meaning of “
destruction” and “
death” of (2 Thess 1:9 and Rom 6:23) is really torment, though it does say death and destruction.
Also, a continuing theme of Dr. Mohler’s debate tactic is presented throughout the debate; “
normal/majority/hisotorical” Christians don’t think the punishment is death/destruction. They think the punishment is torment. Therefore, the “normal Christian” must be correct. Umm, that’s what is up for debate, right?
Plus, you guessed it, later on in the podcast (~ 32:36) Dr. Mohler then digresses back to presenting a strawman argument against so-called Condtionalism; that is conditionalists don’t think “eternal” means “eternal”. Which of course Chris just got through saying that there was no disagreement on the meaning of “eternal” within this text(s) between them. Dr. Mohler says; “
It’s just not legitimate to claim that eternal in one phrase of one sentence means something different than the clear parallelism that the Christian church has understood Jesus to mean from the very beginning”.
Wow. He’s obviously not listening to the fact the Christ DOES NOT make an argument that eternal means one thing in the first ½ of the phrase and another thing in the 2nd ½ of the phrase. Plus, Chris has already quoted several Early Church Fathers that were conditionalists, so Dr. Mohler is just making a flat out incorrect claim that the Christian church has always understood the nature of the punishment as torment, rather than death/destruction. It’s just wrong and he should know that it’s wrong if he’s actually studied some of the ECF’s writings.
But in a respectful manner, Chris then corrects Dr. Mohler’s strawman; “
That’s not may argument…” and encourages Dr. Mohler to then explain how the nature of the punishment really is a life of torment verses death/destruction. Dr. Mohler never does provide any Biblical support really. He simply repeats the claim; “
That is not the way the church has rightly understood the text.” In other words, I’m right and you’re wrong because the majority of my church says so. Even claiming that Chris is “
importing death and destruction there”. Again, Chris listed the Scriptures that directly tell us that the punishment is death/destruction/perishing and Dr. Mohler simply imports what he terms “
the normal Christian church” as his 'evidence' that the punishment is an eternal life of torment.
Look, Dr. Mohler is the president of MY denomination's seminary. I've listened to and read so much of his work over decades and have an upmost respect for him personally, professionally and theologically. But He lost this debate, hands down because of his strawman argument and lack of any real exegetical supporting passages.
Justin asks Dr. Mohler what he thinks about the idea that immortality is conditional (i.e. only believers in Christ are gifted with immortality). Dr. Mohler’s response is not really a response to that question at all.
Dr. Mohler says; “
I think one of the problems we have here is using the word immortality.” Excuse me, but the Bible does use the word immortality and says that only God possess immortality (1 Tim 6:16). He then goes on to imply that one of the things that it means to be “
made in the image of God” is that we are made immortal. Hogwash! It’s an unbiblical notion that we are created as immortal creatures and that we simply cannot be destroyed (both body and soul) because God created us that way. Because God’s immortal, we are too? Hogwash.
It’s true God’s immortal. Just as it’s true that God is the ONLY one immortal. (Matt 10:28, 2 Tim 6:16, Rom 11:36, 1 Cor 12:6, 1 Cor 15:27, etc.) One of the reasons we know and believe God is immortal is that the Bible tells us God's immortal. Guess what? It also says God's the only one immortal. We can't just pick and choose texts we like.
These two points seem to at the center of this overall debate’s foundational issues. The “red meat”, so-to-speak is; 1) What, exactly, is the nature of the punishment of the lost depicted by Scripture and 2) Are humans created immortally or not.
Chris won the debate WRT 1) and Dr. Mohler cut off his own foot on 2) by not discussing the fact that the Bible does, most certainly, tell us that humans are NOT created as immortal creatures.
When asked by Justin what other texts might support punishment = and eternal life of torment, Dr. Mohler references 2 Thess 1’s use of “everlasting”. Which is again, not in debate. Yet astonishingly there we have directly in the Scripture the very nature of the punishment defined for us. It’s directly defined as destruction, not torment!
giving punishment to those who do not know God and who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus, 9 who will pay the penalty of eternal destruction,
Amazingly he says; “
If you are going to read that [Destruction] as just death and the removal of the gift of life, it seems to miss the point of the text which is something that is ongoing and experienced.”
Huh? Destruction really means so
mething that is ongoing and experienced, on his view? Okay but how is that the “normal” reading of the text? And did you catch his use of “
the gift of life” given to the wicked? I know he didn’t say the gift of Eternal Life or the gift of an immortal life, but I’m betting that’s exactly what he meant it.
Plus, there’s that underlying assumption of the gift of immortality at conception shining through.
And he makes this same claim with this text that he did with Matt 25. He keeps saying that there’s a "
parallel" given in these two texts. Huh? I wouldn’t call it a parallel, I’d call it a contrast. Saved versus loss. Punishment versus gift. Life versus death. Destruction versus Eternal life. Etc. These passages are contrasting the treatment of the lost versus the saved, not paralleling their treatment. (unless of course you think the lost experience eternal torment as their punishment. I guess then you've got to read them as parallel versus contrasting.)
I’ll just stop there other than to say the discuss Luke 16 comes with mostly agreement between Al/Chris on what the text actually depicts (the intermediate state, not the final state). So it’s not really a fundamental teaching on the final state and/or the final punishment to begin with. (But it does use that word torment, though doesn’t it).
