The latest comment posted there was made by my friend, Michael Burgos of Grassroots Apologetics. As I began to respond, however, I realized that I had so many thoughts to articulate that it would make more sense to write a whole blog post rather than squeeze my large response into the comments area at the end of the previous post.
Here was my friend's comment:
First let me preface my comments by saying that I wholly reject the doctrine known as Physicalism and/or Monism. I find them to be heretical and I say that only because that position tends to be assumed when the topic at hand is discussed. I found Dr. Fudge's presentation very good and incredibly powerful. I have held the traditional view since I can remember, and I have even defended it in writing. However, the arguments put forward by Dr Fudge are in my view profound, consistent, and to be taken seriously. Therefore, I participate in this dialogue from as an objective view point as possible. Let the truth of God's word shine forth.
Regarding your first point:
Lets talk about ἀπόλλυμι (apollumi). The etymology of the word is, I believe, essential to arriving at its meaning. The word is derived from two:ἀπό (apo) which means away from, or away, and ὄλεθρος (olethros) which means destruction or ruin. The word therefore is an emphatic of ὄλεθρος and signals the utter destruction of a person, place, or thing. Certainly we can't decipher a usages meaning without context. Given the contexts of Matt. 10:28, 2 Thess. 1:9, Phil. 3:19 I cannot see any reason to conclude that this word indicates anything other than the full and unbridaled destruction of the reprobate. So far as Mr. Holding's argumentation, I think that while "lostness" is part of the semantic range of the term, that "lostness" is had within the context of utter ruin/destruction.
What are the implications of the reality of this term on the terminal state of the damned? I think the term fits perfectly within the annihilationist understanding. But, I see no reason why it does not fit perfectly within the traditional understanding as well. It's compatibility with annihilationism seems obvious to me. But, my understanding of the traditional view is that the state of punishment that the damned suffer is a state that is ineffably fixed and final. The finality of the fate of the reprobate is utter ruin/destruction in their fixed state of punishment. Therefore, while I think Holding is running from the plain meaning of the text, I am inclined to think that both views find validity therein.
Let me preface my response with first saying that while I am considering monism a little more than Mike is, nevertheless I am sympathetic to at least some of Mike's arguments. In fact, I dedicated a whole episode to one of them when I interviewed notable monist Dr. Joel Green from Fuller Theological Seminary. And so I think it is very important to reaffirm that monism or physicalism, although often assumed to be part of the annihilationist equation, so to speak, is not at all required to hold to Fudge's view. Fudge pointed that out both in our interview together, as well as in his book.
Second, Mike, I share your assessment of Fudge's presentation, and appreciate your desire to be as objective as possible in critically analyzing his case, and that of Holding in opposition. I think too few Christians take this debate seriously, and I think they do a disservice to those of us trying to see what the Bible really says. So as I explained to you in email, I look forward to examining Holding's article together and with my readers and listeners. I'm sure the discussion will be quite fruitful. With that...
UTTER RUIN IN THEIR FIXED STATE OF PUNISHMENT
I think you're right that the etymology suggests a meaning of utter destruction (though we should be careful not to commit what Carson calls the "root fallacy"). What I don't buy, at this point, is that either apollymi or olethros can mean "ruin" or "waste" in the sense proposed by traditionalists. I certainly haven't (yet, perhaps) seen any examples in Scripture where this is the case. And that was the point I tried to make in the post: that apollymi seems invariably to carry the meaning of something which is destroyed (or being destroyed, or on the way to destruction) to the point where it is no longer alive, eaten away, reduced to rubble and vanishes--not in the scientific sense, but in the sense, as I explained, of food rotting away, or oil vanishing into the scalp of Christ.
In other words, apollymi seems to be consistently used by biblical authors (and translators, in the case of the LXX) to refer to destruction which is not merely "final," but which is so complete that what once was, is (or eventually will be) no longer. I'm beginning to suspect that there's no legitimate sense in which the word would have been used by biblical authors to refer to a person or thing being wasted or ruined in an ongoing, eternal process which never culminates with the complete destruction of the object which finally vanishes. In fact, I'm beginning to wonder if biblical authors would have found it absurd to use the word to describe something so seemingly the opposite of how they typically used the word.
THAT'S WHAT I CALL A DEAD PARROT!
I'm reminded of a Monty Python skit in which John Cleese wants to return a parrot to a pet store. At one point Cleese tosses the motionless bird into the air which subsequently falls lifeless on the floor, and he says, "Now that's what I call a dead parrot." Unphased, Michael Palin responds, "Oh no, it's just stunned." "I've had about enough of this," Cleese objects, "that parrot is definitely deceased." A little later, Palin says the reason the parrot had been nailed to the perch was so that it couldn't muscle apart the bars and, "Boom!" Unmoved, Cleese picks up the parrot and says, "Look, matey, this parrot wouldn't boom if I put 4,000 volts through it. It's bleedin' demised." Palin: "No, it's pining!" Cleese: "It's not pining, it's passed on! This parrot is no more! It has ceased to be! It's expired and gone to meet its maker! This is a late parrot! It's a stiff! Bereft of life it rests in peace! If you hadn't nailed it to the perch it'd be pushing up the daisies!..This is an X-parrot!"
There are a couple of reasons I'm reminded of this skit. First, consider the words Cleese's character uses to desribe the bird: Dead. Deceased. Demised. Passed on. Expired. Late. These seem to align with the meaning of apollymi as used of formerly living creatures in the Bible. The parrot was not merely ruined or wasted; it was a motionless, lifeless corpse. When the Bible, then, says that the fate of the wicked is to "perish" in the "second death," it seems at least likely to me that something like this fictional parrot's state of being (that of death) is what's in mind.
Second, consider how Cleese's character goes on to describe the parrot. It was "no more," it had "ceased to be," it was "an X-parrot." And we all understand that language and laugh at the absurdity of the clerk even though the bird which allegedly was "no more" was right there in front of our eyes. The creature which is said to have "ceased to be" is nevertheless able to be physically tossed around. The parrot, despite all of its constituent parts being handled by the characters, nevertheless is justifiably called "an X-parrot." When writers like Holding object to annihilation on the grounds that when someone dies they don't cease to exist, or that matter can not be destroyed, their arguments seem pretty ridiculous in light of how obvious it is to us that when Cleese calls the parrot "no more," says it has "ceased to be," is an "X-parrot," he doesn't mean the parrot has instantaneously vanished. We all understand what that language means, and there is, in fact, a very real sense in which the parrot is "no more."
THAT'S WHAT I CALL A DEAD SINNER?!
What's more, something just occurred to me. As we watch this skit we're moved to laughter by how utterly absurd it is that the pet store clerk continuously insists that this clearly dead parrot is, in fact, alive. But given how apollymi is used to refer to the final state of the unregenerate, and how their fate is called "the second death," imagine a sort of reversal of this skit. Imagine John Cleese walks in and the parrot is cawing and flapping its wings in the cage. Now imagine him insisting to the clerk that the parrot is dead, having perished moments ago. Picture in your mind how equally comical the situation would be as Mr. Cleese tries to come up with all sorts of ways of explaining the allegedly dead parrot's obvious signs of life in order to convince the skeptical clerk to return his money.
I'm beginning to wonder if this is, in fact, analogous to the way traditionalists try to explain how apollymi and "second death" could refer to the final state of the wicked. Michael Palin: "Hello, sir. How can I help you?" John Cleese: "That's what I call a dead sinner. Clearly this wicked man raised from the dead shortly ago has now perished, has fallen victim to the second death." Palin: "Umm... Really? This man is screaming, clearly in pain. Obviously he is quite alive." Cleese: "Oh no, his muscles and vocal chords are just going through post-mortem twitches." Allegedly dead man: "No I'm not, I'm very alive! Please help me!" Palin: "Post-mortem twitches? The man just yelled for help!" Cleese: "No, no, that was me, throwing my voice. I'm a ventriloquist. I assure you, this man has most definitely perished."
And on and on it goes. Were I more creative, I'd write a whole skit to see what came of it. And granted, to be truly analogous to this debate, Cleese would have to say at some point, "Well when I say he's perished, that he's dead, what I really mean is that he's ruined, in a sense eternally dying." Or something like that. But I'm no longer certain that's any less absurd than Monty Python's classic skit.