In contrast with those holding to the "eternal conscious torment" view of hell, there are some Christians who deny that the unsaved will live forever. According to this view, immortality is a conditional blessing or privilege that will be bestowed upon the saved only. And rather than being a place of eternal conscious torment, the second death is thought to be a judgment that will involve the eternal death of those who are to be “injured” by it. Thus, rather than viewing the fate of the unsaved as involving an eternal, conscious existence in some greater or lesser degree of torment, it’s believed that the unsaved will be annihilated, or eternally erased from existence.
1. Being “cast into the lake of fire” and “injured by the second death” is a future judgment that will consist in mortal human beings literally dying a second time, and remaining lifeless for the remainder of Christ’s future reign.
 Some seem to think that the closer a Christian in antiquity lived to the time of the apostles, the purer his doctrine most likely was. However, the fact is that we have no good reason to think that the doctrinal views of any Christians who lived during the first few centuries of “church history” are more likely to be any more correct than those living during any subsequent generation. Even during the lifetime of Paul, major doctrinal errors had already begun to enter into the various ecclesias of that day (and had Paul not been around to intervene and “nip it in the bud,” this problem would’ve likely been far more detrimental to the body of Christ than it was, and resulted in far more believers being led astray). And we have absolutely no reason to think that the threat of deception and doctrinal heresy entering – and then spreading among – the ecclesias ended after Paul’s death.
If anything, the death of Paul and the other apostles would’ve made it far easier for doctrinal error to infiltrate and take root within communities of believers. Rather than thinking that doctrinal purity would improve – or at least stay the same – after his death, Paul seemed to believe just the opposite (see, for example, Acts 20:29-31; 1 Tim. 4:1-3; 2 Tim. 2:15-18; 3:13-15; 4:2-4). We also read that, during Paul’s imprisonment in Rome, all in the province of Asia turned away from him, being ashamed of his chain (2 Tim. 1:15-16). If anyone was more likely to become deceived by false doctrines and led astray from the distinctive truths that Paul had labored to bring the nations during his apostolic ministry, it was those believers who turned away from Paul at this time (it’s also worth pointing out that two “early church fathers” – i.e., Polycarp and Irenaeus – grew up in the very province in which Paul said “all” had turned away from him during his imprisonment).
 Many Christians who oppose the truth of the salvation of all seem to believe that, according to this view, God can simply “overlook” the sins of those who are going to be saved (as if sin were but a trivial, inconsequential matter to God), or that the doctrine of universal salvation is based entirely on the scriptural truth of the love of God. But that’s not the case at all. As important and necessary as the love of God is to the realization of the salvation of all, it is not, in itself, a sufficient explanation for why all are going to be saved. Sin is not a small thing to God, and the procuring of the salvation of all required that the problem of sin be fully dealt with. What must be included in any defense of the truth of universal salvation is the fact that Jesus Christ died for our sins. It was by means of this historical event that God dealt decisively with the problem of sin, and secured the reconciliation of all to himself (and, of course, the death of Christ for our sins – in conjunction with the fact that he was subsequently roused from among the dead by God – is essential in the gospel of our salvation).