These authors below, supporters of Conditional Immortality, address the arguments you presented and dismiss them:
26. For our part, we do not know how any man of honest mind and common understanding can put a second meaning upon this long extract from Irenaeus. There are, however, men who stand deservedly high in estimation who do put a second meaning upon these words. Dr. Roberts, the translator of Irenaeus, gives the following annotation upon them: "As Massuet observes, this statement is to be understood in harmony with the repeated assertion of Irenaeus that the wicked will exist in misery for ever. It refers not to annihilation, but to deprivation of happiness."
27. We will merely say that we have read Irenaeus and have never met with any assertion of his that "the wicked shall exist in misery for ever." We will add that if such an assertion of his could be adduced it would only prove that Irenaeus contradicted himself as many men have done. We will lay down our indignant protest against a principle of interpretation which would make words of no use whatsoever to convey meaning. To tell us that "existence," and "continuance," spoken in the very same connection of the "enduring" of sun and moon and soul and spirit, mean "happiness " whether learned editors tell us this to save their author's consistency, or to prop up any favourite theory of their own— is just to tell us that we may cease the use of words altogether, because they may have any meaning that any one may choose to put upon them. To say that "sweet" means "bitter," or that "light" means "darkness," is just as allowable a use of words as to say that the "enduring" and "continuing" of one of God's works, such as the sun in the sky or the human soul, means, "the happiness" of these works. We dismiss such interpretation as an insult to our common understanding. http://www.truthacco...t/chapter17.php
Both of our sources are from heterodox Christians. Since Iranaeus is at times somewhat contradictory on this subject, I wonder if anyone here knows of Orthodox patristics studies of Conditional Immortality?
The authors here seem to twist meaning and definitions and extend it into dogma. It's quite a feat and flawed in character because it still ignores what St. Irenaeus himself says here:
And to as many as continue in their love towards God, does He grant communion with Him. Butcommunion with God is life and light, and the enjoyment of all the benefits which He has in store. But on as many as, according to their own choice, depart from God, He inflicts that separation from Himself which they have chosen of their own accord. But separation from God is death, and separation from light is darkness; and separation from God consists in the loss of all the benefits which He has in store. Those, therefore, who cast away by apostasy these forementioned things, being in fact destitute of all good, do experience every kind of punishment. God, however, does not punish them immediately of Himself, but that punishment falls upon them because they are destitute of all that is good. Now, good things are eternal and without end with God, and therefore the loss of these is also eternal and never-ending. It is in this matter just as occurs in the case of a flood of light: those who have blinded themselves, or have been blinded by others, are for ever deprived of the enjoyment of light. It is not, [however], that the light has inflicted upon them the penalty of blindness, but it is that the blindness itself has brought calamity upon them: and therefore the Lorddeclared, He that believes in Me is not condemned, John 3:18-21 that is, is not separated from God, for he is united to God through faith. On the other hand, He says, He that believes not is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only-begotten Son of God; that is, he separated himself from God of his own accord. For this is the condemnation, that light has come into this world, and men have loved darkness rather than light. For every one who does evil hates the light, and comes not to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved. But he that does truth comes to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that he has wrought them in God.
Against Heresies V.27.2
He likens the eternal condemnation as those who are blind and will not be able to enjoy the beauty of the light forever. Thus, it speaks against the idea that they will cease to exist.
We are by nature mortal and prone to mortality. But it is also believed that if God created man in His own image only for some to be left to go back to non-existence, then God would look defeated, as if He created these specific men for nothing.
At the same time, what's the point of the Resurrection of the unjust, which is very clear that even your source admits? Just to make a spectacle? No, the Resurrection was powerful enough for all, the just and the unjust, "making His sun to rise upon the evil and on the good, and sending rain upon the just and unjust."