Eternal Conscious Torment

[The Tanager]

As of right now I would consider myself an Annihilationist in regards to my view of Hell. I'm not looking to try to push Annihilationism or get into a debate between the various views. I want to look more deeply into the issues around what Hell is with other minds and I would love to hear from those who believe in the eternal conscious torment view, to the various reasons you believe it makes sense within Christianity. I'm looking to challenge my view and I was hoping you all could help me out.

[The Tanager]

. . . Hell is indeed eternal because the soul was created eternal.

https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print ... yes-part-i

That is what that catholic catechism says is true, but why believe it is true?

a conundrum that can really only be resolved by a kind of nihilism. For, if God keeps the souls in hell alive, then he is vengeful and hateful. But if he slays the wicked, then it would also seem, to most observers, that he is vengeful and hateful.

Why are both of these views "vengeful and hateful"? If I'm playing a game with my kids and a neighbor's kid comes over and continually tries to mess the game up and make fun of my kids and all of that kind of thing, then I could respond, analogically, in the vein of the two views being talked about here. Now, this is assuming I've tried many times to include him in the right way and all of that, but he won't listen. He has to be removed from the game.

I can remove him and place him into a place where he will be punished, made fun of, tortured for what he did, paying him back. That seems vengeful and hateful to me (but I welcome someone who believes in eternal conscious torment who doesn't think this is being vengeful and hateful to share their reasoning).

Or I can remove that person without further punishing them. I'm not being vengeful against him or hateful. I'm just saying he can't continue to infect the game.

This puts us into deciding between a view like annihilationism and CS Lewis' view in the Great Divorce, which I think are both plausible views. Which of these is the least vengeful or hateful? Is it more merciful to end your life or continue to provide you with life that is a life of self-inflicted misery?

Now, of course, the universalist God is being even more clearly less vengeful or hateful, but that kind of God seems to me to run into the free will problem you are talking about.

And in the end if God were to kill the souls in Hell He would be saying to them, and to us, you really only DO have one choice. Love me, choose me, or die, cease to exist. Is that really a choice? Is that really to love God if, in the end we there is only one lasting choice?

It is a choice. We can choose to be with God, the source of life or we can choose to be without God, the source of life. Just as much as the choice to love God or live a life of misery without God and no hope of coming back. And the same with the choice to love God or be tortured for eternity for going our own way.

[RightReason]

[Replying to The Tanager]

That is what that catholic catechism says is true, but why believe it is true?

We can continue to beg the question " why believe in God at all? You and I both know it comes down to a matter of faith. The same can be said for belief in Christs Church, the Catholic Church. I believe what the Catholic Church teaches because I believe it is the one, true, faith, established by Christ Himself to teach us these things. I have also found her teachings to be supported in what we know from Scripture, revelation, our understanding of God and who He is and is reasonable given what we know.

Why are both of these views "vengeful and hateful"? If I'm playing a game with my kids and a neighbor's kid comes over and continually tries to mess the game up and make fun of my kids and all of that kind of thing, then I could respond, analogically, in the vein of the two views being talked about here. Now, this is assuming I've tried many times to include him in the right way and all of that, but he won't listen. He has to be removed from the game.

Sure, and in your defense you could even say the neighbor kid has removed himself from your game by not playing by the rules. He knew your house rules, right? You would have liked him to stay and play well, but he chose not too. But if he is another eternal soul like your own children are, can an eternal soul be vanished? Is removing him from the game, the same as making the neighbor boy non exist, or is it simply not allowing him to stay at your home?

I can remove him and place him into a place where he will be punished, made fun of, tortured for what he did, paying him back. That seems vengeful and hateful to me (but I welcome someone who believes in eternal conscious torment who doesn't think this is being vengeful and hateful to share their reasoning).

Again, you arent setting out to place him somewhere where he will be tortured and made fun " of are you? He made that choice. He chose not to stay and enjoy your company and as a result he finds out he chose his own isolation and loneliness. Are you and your children torturing him? Did you tell others to torture him?

Or I can remove that person without further punishing them. I'm not being vengeful against him or hateful. I'm just saying he can't continue to infect the game.

Again, the eternal existence of the soul has been set in motion. A beautiful thing for those who choose love. If the neighbor boy wasnt created with an eternal soul, then neither were you or your children.

This puts us into deciding between a view like annihilationism and CS Lewis' view in the Great Divorce, which I think are both plausible views. Which of these is the least vengeful or hateful? Is it more merciful to end your life or continue to provide you with life that is a life of self-inflicted misery?

Yes, that is the question. The Great Divorce was a wonderful book depicting how some souls simply cant let go of their sin. If they cant let go of their sin, then they cant see God. God and sin are incompatible. God is light and truth. The closer we get to Him, it would literally hurt to see ourselves as we really are if we are in the state of sin and therefore we back away from Him. We coil in the presence of the light. In a sense, we even beg Him not to shine His light on us. We prefer the darkness. We dont want to get closer. And so, He gives the soul what it wants " what it chooses.

Did it have to be set up/designed this way? Again, in a way, I think it did. Otherwise there is no choice. We actually are logical people. It makes no sense to think an eternal soul can just cease to exist " thats illogical.

Now, of course, the universalist God is being even more clearly less vengeful or hateful, but that kind of God seems to me to run into the free will problem you are talking about.

Yes.

[The Tanager]

We can continue to beg the question " why believe in God at all? You and I both know it comes down to a matter of faith. The same can be said for belief in Christs Church, the Catholic Church. I believe what the Catholic Church teaches because I believe it is the one, true, faith, established by Christ Himself to teach us these things. I have also found her teachings to be supported in what we know from Scripture, revelation, our understanding of God and who He is and is reasonable given what we know.

But I don't want to beg back and forth. And I'm not wanting to get into a debate over it. I want to see where it ultimately comes from. It's a fine line of then sharing why it isn't convincing to me (if that ends up being the case), but I'm trying to respond only in the sense of "well, why that?" or "this doesn't seem to make sense to me, can you shed some light on this possible problem?"

If you think this ultimately comes from Scripture, point to it so that I can see what I think that scripture says. If you think this ultimately comes from a different revelation, show me why you trust that revelation so I can decide if I trust that revelation. If you think it comes from theological cohesion, explain it to me so that I can see if I disagree with part of that theological web that would change my belief here. If you think it comes from philosophical reflection, grant me the privilege of seeing if I agree with that reflection.

Again, the eternal existence of the soul has been set in motion. A beautiful thing for those who choose love. If the neighbor boy wasnt created with an eternal soul, then neither were you or your children.

But on annihilationism, it's not you either were created with an actual eternal soul or not, it's that we were created with the potential of having an eternal soul.

We prefer the darkness. We dont want to get closer. And so, He gives the soul what it wants " what it chooses.

I agree. The question to me, though, is what this darkness is. In Lewis' view, the unrepentant one is not completely separated from God because He still sustains their existence. Being completely separate from God, the source of life, would lead to annihilation. But, like I said, I think these are the two best views available. If I became convinced that God had to or did create the soul actually eternal, I would not have a problem with a view of Hell like Lewis'.

[William]

[Replying to post 43 by The Tanager]

In Lewis' view, the unrepentant one is not completely separated from God because He still sustains their existence. Being completely separate from God, the source of life, would lead to annihilation.

This is what I am referring to in relation to consciousness. We are not separate from GOD, simply because if we were, we would not exist as conscious beings. It is that very thing which 'sustains' existence, and without it, the individual cannot BE.

The illusion which allows for us to think we are separate from GOD (consciousness) is that we are in individual form and those forms have allowed for the illusion to happen because they suppress any memory of prior existence AND give the individual a sense of having a beginning.

The 'soul' is not the consciousness of the individual, but it is that which saves the total memory of the individual experience. It is, in that, an aspect of an individuals consciousness, but an individuals consciousness is also an aspect of a far vaster consciousness/self conscious system.

The separation is illusion, and without the illusion no one could experience being an individual.

If ones soul was annihilated, all this means is that the data of experience is not saved. It is deleted.
Effectively one becomes a clean slate (but one still exists) and can be placed into another individual experience, and memories of that experience become part of what makes one the unique being that one is. It is a gift.

I am not convinced that any data of experience is deleted. I think it may be saved with the option of retrieving, even if the individual goes through another individual experience - and will eventually be reintroduced to that individual as something which it uniquely experienced, when it can be safely dovetailed alongside subsequent experiences without causing the individual undue problems.


In relation to the Earth Entity (which I mentioned in post # 23 in this thread) all individual experiences are regarded as the sum total of Its individual experience. We are both individuals AND the collective make up of the individual Entity who created 'us' through using the human form to individualize the experiences we each have. The EE uses all forms for experience of individual perceptive and unique experiences, and altogether these experience make up the one experience It is having.

It is one of those things a GOD is able to achieve.

[RightReason]

[Replying to The Tanager]

I want to see where it ultimately comes from. It's a fine line of then sharing why it isn't convincing to me (if that ends up being the case), but I'm trying to respond only in the sense of "well, why that?" or "this doesn't seem to make sense to me, can you shed some light on this possible problem?"

If you think this ultimately comes from Scripture, point to it so that I can see what I think that scripture says. If you think this ultimately comes from a different revelation, show me why you trust that revelation so I can decide if I trust that revelation. If you think it comes from theological cohesion, explain it to me so that I can see if I disagree with part of that theological web that would change my belief here. If you think it comes from philosophical reflection, grant me the privilege of seeing if I agree with that reflection.

Sorry, thought my response was more obvious then it must have been. I believe a combination of the above. We can know that hell exists and is eternal from both Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition, which is exactly what we are supposed to use " not one, but both!

There is evidence in Scripture that Hell is eternal and so is the suffering in Hell. In fact, Im a little amazed that people can suggest annihilism from Scripture.

"At that time shall arise Michael, the great prince who has charge of your people. And there shall be a time of trouble, such as never has been since there was a nation till that time; but at that time your people shall be delivered, every one whose name shall be found written in the book. And many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt. And those who are wise shall shine like the brightness of the firmament; and those who turn many to righteousness, like the stars for ever and ever.
(Daniel 12:1)

And another angel, a third, followed them, saying with a loud voice, "If any one worships the beast and its image, and receives a mark on his forehead or on his hand, he also shall drink the wine of God's wrath, poured unmixed into the cup of his anger, and he shall be tormented with fire and sulphur in the presence of the holy angels and in the presence of the Lamb. And the smoke of their torment goes up for ever and ever; and they have no rest, day or night, these worshipers of the beast and its image, and whoever receives the mark of its name." (Revelation 14:9-11)

Then he will say to those at his left hand, 'Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels; for I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink, I was a stranger and you did not welcome me, naked and you did not clothe me, sick and in prison and you did not visit me.' Then they also will answer, 'Lord, when did we see thee hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to thee?' Then he will answer them, 'Truly, I say to you, as you did it not to one of the least of these, you did it not to me.' And they will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life."
(Matthew 25:41-46 )

And they marched up over the broad earth and surrounded the camp of the saints and the beloved city; but fire came down from heaven and consumed them, and the devil who had deceived them was thrown into the lake of fire and sulphur where the beast and the false prophet were, and they will be tormented day and night for ever and ever.
(Revelation 20:9-10)

Jude 13: "for whom the black darkness has been reserved forever" "outer Darkness" Lk 13:27

2 Th 1:9 And these will pay the penalty of eternal destruction, away from the presence of the Lord

"there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth there when you see Abraham in the kingdom of God, but yourselves being cast out." Mt 22:13

"outside are the dogs" Rev 22:15

"assign him a place with the hypocrites" Mt 24:51

Annihilationists argue that if you burn some paper, it is eternally destroyed and that is how we should view hell. But Scripture contradicts this:

-Shadrach, Meshach and Abed-nego, who were thrown into a furnace of fire, yet were not consumed. Dan 3:19

-Moses, who saw the burning bush that was not consumed by fire. Ex 3:2

Then annihilationists argue it would be beyond the nature of God to allow someone to be tortured for eternity, but this argument is not based on Biblical passages. Humanly speaking, we cannot understand either "kindness and severity of God" Rom 11:22

22 Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God: on them which fell, severity; but toward thee, goodness, if thou continue in his goodness: otherwise thou also shalt be cut off. Rom 11:22

And like I said, Scripture tells us God gave us His Church, who gave us Scripture and Christ gave authority to His Church to interpret Scripture and heres what Christs Church says . . .

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

366 The Church teaches that every spiritual soul is created immediately by God - it is not "produced" by the parents - and also that it is immortal: it does not perish when it separates from the body at death, and it will be reunited with the body at the final Resurrection.235

But on annihilationism, it's not you either were created with an actual eternal soul or not, it's that we were created with the potential of having an eternal soul.

What evidence from Sacred Scripture or Sacred Tradition supports this potential theory? And does Satan exist or potentially exists?

RightReason wrote:

We prefer the darkness. We dont want to get closer. And so, He gives the soul what it wants " what it chooses.

I agree. The question to me, though, is what this darkness is. In Lewis' view, the unrepentant one is not completely separated from God because He still sustains their existence. Being completely separate from God, the source of life, would lead to annihilation.

I dont follow this.

If I became convinced that God had to or did create the soul actually eternal, I would not have a problem with a view of Hell like Lewis'.

Then I dont see the problem believing it. Seems to be more evidence pointing to that belief than annihilation. Also, keep in mind the groups that came up with annihilation theory were some Johnny come latelys (Jehovah's Witnesses, Christadelphians, Seventh-day Adventists, Herbert W. Armstrong/plain truth magazine.) It wasnt until almost the 1900s when these groups began and started making such false doctrines popular.

[William]

[Replying to post 45 by RightReason]

It wasnt until almost the 1900s when these groups began and started making such false doctrines popular.

In your obviously fervent need to call out false doctrines, you do so by neglecting to see the obvious possibility that the doctrine of eternal hell and damnation, and pain and suffering are themselves false doctrines introduced into the mix through Roman rule which was motivated by political agenda rather than spiritual truth.

Jesus is attributed with saying that this would happen. That many would be deceived in his name.

Such a doctrine has been very useful to Rome in many ways, but to link this to the practice of an actual GOD is something which stems from paganism, the idea of Hell has its roots in far older concepts than the Abrahamic religions, which in itself should be a rather BIG clue as to its origins being false when dovetailed into words spoken by Jesus.

Word is that those who promoted the belief in hell eventually are tasked with the job of trying to convince individuals that they need not remain in that state. Those who have inadvertently created such places for themselves (not even realizing they have done this).

As a parable to that;

An atheist spent his life believing that there was no afterlife or GOD and when he died he discovered that he was still very much alive. He immediately began to think that he had made a mistake and that he was doomed to hell, and in thinking this, what he believed hell to be instantly manifested around him and he was stuck there, suffering as he was told he would.

He wasn't a bad individual anyway. He was just too focused upon arguing with Christians to the point where no other type of theism was relevant to him.
He was diagnosed with terminal cancer. He diligently continued to believe when his body dies, that would be the end of him.

When he died he discovered the truth. He still existed. Then - all hell broke loose.

Meantime there was this Christian who had died and went to heaven. She enjoyed everything she believed in. GOD was enthroned and all creatures were worshiping Him.

This continued for a 'time' and then some humans came into her reality and told her that it was all an illusion she had created for herself and that she really didn't need to be in that reality.

At first she resisted because she didn't want to believe what the humans had told her, and they left her to herself. Occasionally they would come and try to reason with her. She kept resisting and even accused them of being demons trying to deceive her. They asked her why GOD would allow this to be, and she said that GOD as testing her, and they replied that there was no reason for GOD to test her as she was in heaven.

Eventually she began to see that their answers were reasonable, and she went with them and saw that there was so much more to afterlife than what she had ever believed.

Eventually the illusion that she had created for herself evaporated as she experienced the other reality.

Eventually she chose to be part of a retriever program which specifically targeted those who had created hells for themselves, in order to try and help them out of their self created predicaments.

She eventually was able to convince the atheist in hell that he didn't need to be there and that there were far better realities that he could experience.

End of Parable.

There is no escaping consequence of action. No action requires the eternal damnation of hell.

[Claire Evans]

The blazing furnace is forever.

Matthew 3:12
His winnowing fork is in His hand to clear His threshing floor and to gather His wheat into the barn; but He will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire."

He will be tormented forever:

Revelation 20:10

And the devil, who deceived them, was thrown into the lake of burning sulfur, where the beast and the false prophet had been thrown. They will be tormented day and night for ever and ever.

Paul tells that the fires of God as in the "Lake of fire" means to clean and purify the person so that they become "dead to sin" and everyone gets saved, see 1 Corinthians 3:15-16



Jesus made the point rather clear when Jesus said that not even one (1) sinful sheep will be left out or lost.

The fire of God is unquenchable because it is blessed and holy, the fires of God are not to hurt or to torture anyone.

The Devil might be "tormented" by the salvation of humanity, but tormented does not mean tortured.

Are you saying that includes the Devil? That God intends for Satan to be purified? Sulphur does not purify. When demons manifest, often they are accompanied by the smell of sulphur. They have just come from hell.

http://supernatural.wikia.com/wiki/Sulfur

None of the verses of Corinthians 3:15 mention a lake of fire.

http://www.godvine.com/bible/1-corinthians/3-15

They are two different contexts. Fire is purification but not in this context. This is supported by the OT.

Isaiah 66:24 (ESV) " And they shall go out and look on the dead bodies of the men who have rebelled against me. For their worm shall not die, their fire shall not be quenched, and they shall be an abhorrence to all flesh.

Isaiah is about God's judgment. And so it is not surprising that Jesus referred to Gehenna, the valley of Hinnom (Jeremiah 7:31"32) as Hades and a place of everlasting torment.

Do not water down the atonement. Not everyone is saved.

Matthew 7:

22Many will say to Me on that day, Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name drive out demons and perform many miracles? 23Then I will tell them plainly, I never knew you; depart from Me, you workers of lawlessness.

[JP Cusick]

Are you saying that includes the Devil? That God intends for Satan to be purified?

Yes even Satan the Devil get saved in the end, because God loves His enemies, see Matthew 5:43-48.

But that does not mean that Satan will get purified as that is different from being saved.

After Satan has no more power then Satan becomes harmless and so saving Satan does not have to include purifying Satan.

In 1 Corinthians 3:15-16 it only says that the works ( the sins ) are to be burned and the person saved - by the fire of God.

I would change my view that possibly people are not really "purified" just because our sinful works get burned away when we all get saved.

[RightReason]

[Replying to post 46 by William]

In your obviously fervent need to call out false doctrines, you do so by neglecting to see the obvious possibility that the doctrine of eternal hell and damnation, and pain and suffering are themselves false doctrines introduced into the mix through Roman rule which was motivated by political agenda rather than spiritual truth.

Jesus is attributed with saying that this would happen. That many would be deceived in his name.

Yes, He did. And your little parable sounds exactly the kind of thing Satan would suggest to convince Christs followers that there is no eternal hell. So if you believe in Jesus, you know He was on the earth around 2000 years ago and established His Church, who He gave authority and promised to remain with. What you are suggesting is Christ left His Church and started it back up again 1000 years later under a new title like JWs or Seventh Day Adventist. This of course would contradict Scripture itself that Christ would remain with His Church " and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. If JWs got it right, Christ left His original established church and started a new church, then you are saying the gates of hell prevailed. Which is it?

Such a doctrine has been very useful to Rome in many ways

Like what?

Also, I already posted all the Scriptural evidence supporting an eternal hell. The JWs use the Bible given to her by my Church (well, kind of " they actually changed some of the Scripture to fit their own theology, but they used what we gave them as their starting point).

Word is that those who promoted the belief in hell eventually are tasked with the job of trying to convince individuals that they need not remain in that state. Those who have inadvertently created such places for themselves (not even realizing they have done this).

Those? As in Jesus Christ? Like I already showed, Scripture is full of God revealing the truth about hell.

Also, your parable suggests reality does not actually exist. That we create our own reality. I disagree with such psychological mumbo jumbo. Thinking I am a poached egg does not make me a poached egg. That is the kind of meaningless drivel that people discuss when their stoned, Is the color blue you see, the same color blue I see? Are any of us really here? Sounds so profound when your high, but in reality is useless drivel and an actual denial of reality.

There is also another problem with your parable. The girl was perfectly happy in her heaven. When she realized it was only her own imagination, what was her reality like then? Was the actual place she ended up better than her heaven. You mention nothing about it. How would I know if I actually want it?

There is no escaping consequence of action. No action requires the eternal damnation of hell.

Unless the consequence of the action is eternal damnation.

If the consequence can be eternal bliss, why cant a different consequence be eternal hell?

Could anyone actually deserve heaven? Deserve LOVE for eternity? If you believe that, then why not the other?

[The Tanager]

Sorry, thought my response was more obvious then it must have been. I believe a combination of the above. We can know that hell exists and is eternal from both Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition, which is exactly what we are supposed to use " not one, but both!

I figured it was a combination. I should have also added something like "if you think it multiple ones, share all of them."

A major part of the passages you bring up has to do with the original meanings of the words being translated as everlasting, for ever and ever, etc. These include the Hebrew words olam and ad which, according to lexicons, are used in other places to refer to a specific duration, even a past time that has ended (among other things). And the Greek words aion and it's adjectival form aionios which have to do with an age, or the present age as contrasted with a future age, or the quality of life in such an age.

So, the question seems to me to be what in the context of the passages you speak of lead to necessarily interpreting these words as lasting for ever?

And even if it does, Daniel 12:1-3 shows the contempt being eternal, not the one being abhorred.

Why do you think the two passages in Revelation (14:9-11 and 22:15) are talking about Hell after all things rather than before Jesus comes at the end of all things?

Rev 14:9-11 passage seems to me to be talking about a time on earth, not about Hell after all things. Why do you think otherwise?

Why do you think Matthew 22:13 and 24:51 speak of eternal states? If Hell lasts forever, these verses would mean that the weeping is forever, but why think these passages give us Hell lasting forever?

Annihilationists argue that if you burn some paper, it is eternally destroyed and that is how we should view hell. But Scripture contradicts this:

-Shadrach, Meshach and Abed-nego, who were thrown into a furnace of fire, yet were not consumed. Dan 3:19

-Moses, who saw the burning bush that was not consumed by fire. Ex 3:2

So, your argument is that the Bible teaches that fire doesn't destroy and that, therefore, the fire of Hell won't? Aren't these passages just talking about miracles from God that go against the normal nature of fire, not about every talk of fire and not about the fires of Hell?

Then annihilationists argue it would be beyond the nature of God to allow someone to be tortured for eternity, but this argument is not based on Biblical passages. Humanly speaking, we cannot understand either "kindness and severity of God" Rom 11:22

Well, it would be based on the passages that speak of God being loving and the theological and philosophical reasons for not believing love to include actively torturing others. Now, on Lewis' view of Hell, which you seem to hold, I don't think there is a contradiction because God isn't actively torturing other people.

And like I said, Scripture tells us God gave us His Church, who gave us Scripture and Christ gave authority to His Church to interpret Scripture and heres what Christs Church says . . .

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

366 The Church teaches that every spiritual soul is created immediately by God - it is not "produced" by the parents - and also that it is immortal: it does not perish when it separates from the body at death, and it will be reunited with the body at the final Resurrection.235

Yes, I can understand that if you are a Catholic, you should believe this.

What evidence from Sacred Scripture or Sacred Tradition supports this potential theory? And does Satan exist or potentially exists?

I'm not aware of passages that answer this question directly one way or the other. So, then we either turn to philosophy or what follows from other Biblical understandings. And I'm not convinced the Bible speaks of a Hell that lasts forever. It may be pointing to annihilation. If it actually is, then these verses would be scriptural reasons that support the potential theory.

RightReason wrote:

We prefer the darkness. We dont want to get closer. And so, He gives the soul what it wants " what it chooses.

I agree. The question to me, though, is what this darkness is. In Lewis' view, the unrepentant one is not completely separated from God because He still sustains their existence. Being completely separate from God, the source of life, would lead to annihilation.

I dont follow this.

I was mentioning a distinction of the views, not making an argument. Your view still has the unrepentant being connected to God because God is sustaining their existence, giving them life. Annihilationism has the unrepentant being completely separated from God as He no longer sustains their life.

Also, keep in mind the groups that came up with annihilation theory were some Johnny come latelys (Jehovah's Witnesses, Christadelphians, Seventh-day Adventists, Herbert W. Armstrong/plain truth magazine.) It wasnt until almost the 1900s when these groups began and started making such false doctrines popular.

That simply isn't true. Conditional immortality was taught by Ignatius of Antioch, the author of the Epistle of Barnabas, Irenaeus, Arnobius in the 4th century, Athanasius.

There were people during these times that believed Hell lasted forever with torments (like Tertullian) and some (like Augustine, it seems to me) that didn't want to speculate as to what those torments actually were like, leaving room for views like CS Lewis held. Many of the early Christians simply didn't address this question. The eternal conscious torment became dominant only after Augustine and the rise to power of Catholicism in the Roman Empire.