The same words can mean different things depending upon the passage and context. I’ve heard that Greek doesn’t have as many words to describe things as the English language does. I think that’s where a lot of the confusion lies…
Matt 25:46 could easily be read like this:
And these shall go away into without end punishment: but the righteous into life without end.
The UR’s want the verse to read like this:
And these shall go away into long lasting correction: but the righteous into life without end.
UR’s want to put a time limit on the punishment while the life is without end. But there is no contexual ground to do this. Those who argue that the punishment in the lake of fire for the wicked will one day end, must also argue that the life of those who are saved will one day end. Otherwise both the punishment and the life are the same duration.
I will quote a portion from this SOURCE: mercifultruth.com/eternity.html
"First, let’s look at the etymology of aionios, then we will examine the Biblical word usage. Consider this: the English name Christian was first used by non-Christians to describe Jesus Christ’s early followers. The term means “of Christ” or “pertaining to Christ.” Why is this revealing when considering the word eonian?
“Pertaining to”
Christ…Christ - ian
Edward…Edward - ian
Armenia…Armen - ian
Orwell…Orwell - ian
history…histor - ian
eon…eon - ian
Likewise, in considering the parts of the Greek aionios, it is formed from two: aion (age) and the suffix -ios (pertaining to). Thus, aionios means pertaining to aion or pertaining to ages.
Example: In ancient Greek texts - notably in Homer - a man’s hometown would be part of his name. The suffix -ios would signify which town by modifying it into an adjective. Thus, “Ajax son of Telamon” translates to “Aias Telamwvios.” The English is the same: if a man is from Italy, he is an Italian.
Dr. Marvin Vincent, a notable New Testament scholar, in Word Studies of the New Testament wrote the following regarding aion:
Aristotle says: “The period which includes the whole time of each one’s life is called the aion (eon) of each one.” (Peri Ouravou, i.9, 15)
Hence, it often means the life of a man, as in Homer, where one’s life (aion) is said to leave him or consume away (Iliad. v. 685; Odessy. v. 160). It is not, however, limited to human life;
It signifies any period in the course of events, as the period or age before Christ in the flesh; the period of the millennium (the 1000 year reign of Christ to come); the mythological period before the beginnings of history. The word has not a “stationary and mechanical value” (De Quincey). It does not mean a period of a fixed length for all cases. There is one aion of a human life, another of the life of a nation, another of a crow’s life, another of an oak’s life.
The length of the aion depends on the subject to which it is attached. It is sometimes translated “world,” with “world” representing a period or a series of periods of time. (See Matt 12:32; Matt 13:40-49; 1 Cor. 1:20; 1 Cor. 1:20; Ephesians 1:21). Similarly the worlds, the universe, the aggregate of the ages or periods, and their contents which are included in the duration of the world. (1 Cor. 2:7; 1 Cor. 10:11; Heb. 1:2; Heb 9:26; Heb 11:3)
The word always carries the notion of time, and not of eternity. It always means a period of time. Otherwise it would be impossible to account for the plural, or for such qualifying expressions as this age, or the age to come. It does not mean something endless or everlasting. . . . The adjective aionios in like manner carries the idea of time. Neither the noun nor the adjective, in themselves, carry the sense of endless or everlasting. (pp. 58-59, vol. IV, Vincent’s Word Studies of the New Testament.
The False Assumption
The reason that aionios was translated “everlasting” is largely due to a false assumption. Their reasoning is that because this adjective is applied to life, God, and punishment, the word means “everlasting” on that basis alone. If I told you that three large objects are red, does that mean we should believe that the word “red” means “large?” Of course not. Likewise, just because aionios is applied to God does not mean “aionios” automatically means “everlasting.” God is many things, and immortal is one of them. God is holy, righteous, and good. Guess what? The word aionios doesn’t mean any of those things either. Here are the scriptures they use to support their false assumption:
John 3:16
For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal (aionios) life.
Matthew 18:8
And if your hand or your foot causes you to stumble, cut it off and throw it from you; it is better for you to enter life crippled or lame, than having two hands or two feet, to be cast into the eternal (aionios) fire.
Romans 16:26
And by the Scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the eternal (aionios) God, has been made known to all the nations, leading to obedience of faith."
They say: since God is “aionios” and the life promised to Christians is “aionios,” doesn’t that mean that “aionios punishment” is therefore bound to be infinite? If we say punishment for those who do not obey the Gospel is “related to the ages” rather than everlasting, does that limit the God and aionios-life to likewise being temporal?
Here lies the false assumption that led to false doctrine Please pay strict attention to this: Aionios neither means “infinite” OR “temporary.” Instead, it means “PERTAINING to the aions/ages.” The difference is huge:
Prove it.
And by the way. Following the irrefutable fact within linguistics that the descriptive power of an adjective cannot extend beyond the actuality of the noun the adjective is describing; IE: the Titanic is long, “long” is a description that the Titanic is 882 feet and 9 inches in length, “long” in relation to the noun it is describing, the Titanic, will never exceed beyond the bound of 882 feet and 9 inches by any measurement or means; and if it ever does hyperbole has entered into play, or else outright falsehood.
This is a linguistic law that is not merely intrinsic to English, but must include Koine Greek and Hebrew.
Hence because of this law, I can conclude from the basis of the adjective “Aionion” in relation to its nouns, along with the actual definitions of the nouns, that the Biblical verse Matthew 25:46, renders as follows;
And these shall go into [chastening lasting for as long as the chastisement lasts] and the righteous into [life lasting for as long as the life lasts].
The use of eon-ian (that which is descriptive of the quality of an eon, by virtue of being its [eon’s] adjective form) is for the purpose of drawing out and describing its quality as one pertaining to the qualities of an eon, lengthy, and enduring. But not properly, or defaultly infinite or eternal in duration and length - that would go beyond the noun’s intrinsic properties.
The length of the noun; whether life, or chastisement (punishment) is not determined by the descriptive adjective anymore than the length of the Titanic is determined by the adjective “long” - “long” merely describes an already present property of the noun itself, which the adjective cannot surpass without reaching into hyperbole or lies.
The length, therefore, of the life and chastisement; is determined by the nouns (life and chastisement) themselves, in which case there is no issue at all with the dual-use of aionion in the verse.
Life in the verse is “Zoe” which is understood to be the life and life in abundance that is promised. It is life with a God-natured quality, something immortal, inexhaustible, and pleasant.
Chastisement in the verse is “Kolasin” which never describes never-ending torture, the etymology does not support such a notion.
Hence; Life of Life-lasting duration, being God’s life, it is eternal by nature. Chastisement of Chastisement-lasting duration, being chastisement must have a corrective end, or else it slips into the vindictive and torturous, where God more or less incessantly beats the orphaned, rebel child (as Man is to God as a child is to a man, small and weak) with the proverbial sledge hammer screaming “I Love you so much! I love you so much!” into the never ending ever after, having little purpose else except to prove that God has been offended.
That does not follow. I would rather say that “of the age” doesn’t have any time related connotations at all. Adam lost his life when he ate of the apple. He gained punishment. People gain life when they believe in Jesus. Those who do not believe are condemned already. Those without life experience the second death, where they are chastised. Furthermore, I believe this is actually a simplification of the reality, being a parable and all. God doesn’t have to tie himself to some stringent norms of time, but he may do so to explain something. So when he says “age this vs age that” he may be speaking about a considerably more complex process.
There’s nothing in this verse to imply we’re talking about durations in the first place, tbh.
I’d be more likely to read it “so these go to live”, “and these go to get punished”. “aionios” could refer simply to “as pertaining to this age”. I.e., for the time being, the ones who are pure will go on living. Those who are not will be punished. But what does, or does not happen after that, is undecided.
If he wanted to say eternal there’s a word for that. I indeed think “eternal life” is a mistranslation across the entire Bible. Not because the life is not “eternal”, but because that’s not the point Jesus was trying to make. The life is spiritual, it’s here, now, not just after you die. He even said “you may not die”, he didn’t mean we won’t die physically, but we won’t die a spiritual death of Adam. Some of the unbelievers, those condemned (and many believers, as well), are already spiritually dead, but nowhere does it say they will never gain “life”, it just won’t be the life of this age, it won’t be now.
There is nothing in the Greek grammar that requires that the duration of the life and punishment be the same. This is your assumption. Aionios can be of a limited duration or not depending on the context. We know from other scriptures that the life that God gives is eternal. For example, in 1Corinthians it says that we “put on immortality”. We are given immortal bodies to live this “aionios life”. What does scripture say about punishment?
Lamentations 3:31
New International Version (NIV)
31** For no one is cast off
by the Lord forever.
**
Psalm 103:9
GOD’S WORD Translation (GW)
9He will not always accuse us of wrong
**or be angry with us forever.
**
Jeremiah 3:5
5He won’t hold a grudge forever.
He won’t always be angry.’
Psalms 30:5
5His anger lasts only a moment.
His favor lasts a lifetime.
Weeping may last for the night,
but there is a song of joy in the morning.
Micah 7:18,19
18 Who is a God like you,
who pardons sin and forgives the transgression
of the remnant of his inheritance?
**You do not stay angry forever
but delight to show mercy. **
19 You will again have compassion on us;
you will tread our sins underfoot
and hurl all our iniquities into the depths of the sea.
The scriptures tell us that God has revealed himself as one who is not angry forever; does not cast off forever; and delights in showing mercy. Revival says that this only applies to Israel. This was pretty funny because when Jesus talked about “aionios” punishment and life, he was talking to Israel (though it is possible that a few gentiles may have been hidden in the crowd 
). They grew up learning the Torah and in the Torah God revealed himself to be one who, though he hated sin, he delighted in showing mercy. Though he punished iniquities, he did not remain angry forever. Though he might cast away, he would never do so forever.
It is one thing for God to act a certain way toward a person or group of persons. This may be an isolated incident. It is another thing entirely for God to say “I am this way”. When he does this, he is describing his nature and how he acts as a whole and not just in isolated instances. So, if he shows mercy to a person, that is one thing. But if he says “I am a God of mercy”, he is describing his nature. He reveals his nature as being one who is not angry forever; as one who does not cast away forever; as one who delights in showing mercy. You show me a person who God has sentenced to eternal hell and you have shown me a person who God has “cast away forever”; who God is “angry at forever” by pouring out his wrath on them for eternity.
In the scripture, in Romans chapter 16:25,26 “aionios” is used twice, once with a limited duration in mind and once speaking about the eternal God:
25"Now to him that is of power to stablish you according to my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began (aionios),But now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting (aionios) God…"
There is no Greek grammar rule that determines whether it is eternal or lasting for an age. Revivals repeated claim that they must be the same has no basis in Greek grammar. His repetition of the argument does not make the case stronger. Context determines. Since aionios itself has no specific duration that is intrinsic to the definition, something that Revival has yet to understand, the “equal duration” argument is irrelevant. The duration is determined by GOD, not the word “aionios”. We know for a fact that life is eternal. The bible says so. We also know for a fact that God does not punish forever. The bible says so in numerous places in numerous ways. Contextually, a limited duration is required when it comes to the punishment because God NEVER casts away forever. Where Revival gets hung up is in thinking that aionios specifies a certain amount of time. It doesn’t. The noun that it is modifying and the context determine the time. I know Revival won’t concede anything here, but the context is clear to see and I have full confidence that any lurkers will see this to be true. It is a beautiful thing that God does not cast off forever, otherwise we could be cast into hell forever. Thank God, though he casts some in hell, they will not be cast off forever.
Dirtboy
God never implies anywhere in His word that He uses the LOF for refining, regeneration, correcting or to change anyone! It was created to be an eternal prison for the devil and his angels and for all who share the same sin death nature as him.
Besides the very language he uses, you mean?
That doesn’t answer a thing I said. It’s like you are avoiding the clear teaching of scripture in order to maintain your theology. God says that he does not cast off forever. His words, not mine.
P.S. I agree that the bible doesn’t plainly say, “I use the lake of fire for correction”, but there are plenty of implications, you just don’t accept them, such as every knee bowing and tongue confessing; or all things being reconciled in Christ, etc. When you put all of scripture together, it begins to paint a picture, albeit incomplete. ECT does not fit in this picture, but UR does. In order to maintain ECT, many scriptures have to be plainly contradicted, scriptures such as the ones I just quoted above about God not being angry forever or casting away forever. In order for UR to be true, scripture fits together quite well.
By the way, the bible does not teach anywhere that God is a trinity, but I believe that he is. Not because it is plainly taught but because when you put all the scriptures together, it is the best explanation, in my opinion. However, none of the biblical authors use anywhere near the trinitarian language that we use. The bible never says “God the son” or “co-equal” or “God the spirit” or “three in one” etc. etc. Individually there are many passages that teach against the trinity. Scriptures like John 17:3 that says
3And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.
This passage says that the father is the only true God and it puts Jesus outside that category, when you take the passage by itself. However, when you take all of the scriptures together and harmonize them, the trinity makes better sense than any other explanation. I think the same thing is true of UR. All positions have their difficulties and difficult scriptures. UR fits them together the best.
You don’t know Greek Revival and its obvious you don’t plan to ever actually study it. I have barely studied it and I know you are dead wrong in this case.
**Therefore, knowing the fear (phobos) of the Lord, we persuade others. (2 Corinthians 5:11)
There is no fear in love (phobos), but perfect love casts out fear (phobos). For fear (phobos) has to do with punishment, and whoever fears (phobos) has not been perfected in love. (1 John 4:18)**
Get the point sonny? Its the same fear, God uses this healthy fear to bring correction, period!
Wearing my Moderator hat; AA please try to avoid calling people “sonny” during discussions. It comes across a bit aggressive and patronising. Unless the person concerned actually is your son of course. 
I don’t see anything in this passage to indicate the fear being used has anything to do with a godly reverence fear or God using fear to correct anyone.
The verse starts out by indicating fear has no place in love. ( obviously this is not talking about reverence fear) 1 john 4:17 states that bold confidence based on love, cannot coexist with fear. Love, when perfected, gives bold confidence and casts out fear.
Fear has punishment. Perfect love is incompatible with such a self-punishing fear. Godly fear of offending God is quite distinct from slavish fear of consciously deserved punishment. The latter fear is natural to us all until love casts it out. “Men’s states vary: one is without fear and love; another, with fear without love; another, with fear and love; another, without fear with love”
In conclusion, 1 John 4:18 contextually is no way no how referencing about godly reverence fear but fear of terror or consciously derserving punishment.This verse has nothing to do with God imposing any kind of punishment. God does not use fear to punish anyone. This fear is produced by a lack of being perfected in love.
Revival,
We understand this verse so differently for a few reasons. 1) I see this verse as being addressed to Christians, talking about imperfections in Christians, not talking about things wrong with unbelievers. 2) I recognize that kolasis can be interpreted, even usually should be, understood and interpreted as chastisement or remedial punishment. And 3) I recognize that “fear” is an emotional response that can be rooted in reality or deception; and thus fear can be positive or negative.
The passage is talking about Christians being fearful, being afraid of punishment (kolasis, torment, chastisement) in the day of judgment. And the reason they are afraid is because they are not perfected in love. If we are perfected in love then we are living right and treating others right and therefore are not afraid when we consider the day of judgment. John’s purpose in writing is to inspire believers to live right, to walk in love. And he uses hyperbole, overstatement to make his point. If we are perfected, complete, wholly living in the love of God from God, for God, and for others then we are not fearful. The less we walk in love, the more we walk in selfishness, and the more we fear and live in fear - both fear rooted in reality and in deception. I see it as a continuum with absolute paranoia on one end and absolute faith and peace at the other. We’re all on that continuum somewhere.
I do appreciate Peterson’s paraphrase of it the The Message
17-18God is love. When we take up permanent residence in a life of love, we live in God and God lives in us. This way, love has the run of the house, becomes at home and mature in us, so that we’re free of worry on Judgment Day—our standing in the world is identical with Christ’s. There is no room in love for fear. Well-formed love banishes fear. Since fear is crippling, a fearful life—fear of death, fear of judgment—is one not yet fully formed in love.
If we’re living right, living fully in the love of God we do not fear judgment or punishment.
And if I remember the reason we started going down this rabbit trail, it was because you were trying to make the point that “kolasis” cannot mean chastisement or remedial punishment because of its use in 1 Jn. 4.18. But on this we disagree on. I think kolasis, as in chastisement, fits well in this passage. John is encouraging believers to live in love and thus not be bound in fear of punishment - whether that punishment comes in this life or the next.
‘‘HERE HERE’’ plus the inconvenient fact that ‘‘we are all sinners deserving of punishment’’ so if you limit the atonement as all forms of traditionalism do ,then what exactly is it that makes them righteous 
or more to the point what type of GOD does that make GOD out to be towards the calvinsim end is a GOD who is a schizophrenic monster ,and at the free-will end is
a GOD who is at least loving but utterly powerless to save anyone
I’m amazed someone hasn’t pointed out yet that in order to argue that {kolasis} at Matt 25 means a hopeless punishment from God, Aaron has referred to a verse where he stridently insists that the same term there has nothing at all to do with punishment from God in any way, much less hopeless punishment in any way, thus definitely nothing at all to do with hopeless punishment from God in any way. While just as stridently insisting that they have to be interpreted exactly the same way in both verses.
While complaining that URs treat {kolasis} at Matt 25 as having nothing at all to do with hopeless punishment from God in any way.
http://www.wargamer.com/forums/smiley/zombie.gif
“The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom.” 
Even many non-Christians know that scripture.
Come to think of it, “Fear the Lord and turn away from evil; it will be healing to your belly and refreshment to your bones.” That’s from Proverbs 3:7-8, only a few verses before what was quoted by the Hebraist in chapter 12 when talking about how we should not despise discipline from our Father.
He who is fearing is not yet perfected in love (per 1 John 4:18), and perfect love is casting out fear for fear has chastening (also per 1 John 4:18). Why does fear have chastening? Because the one who fears is not yet perfected in love! And once one is perfected in love, there is no need for chastening anymore. This is all entirely consonant with the concept of {kolasis} meaning corrective punishment here, too. Those who don’t have perfect love must have chastening until they have perfect love at which point the chastening, as well as the fear, is cast out. Which is effectively what Heb 12 says, too. There is no difference in principle.
Notably, I don’t have to add “involves” to that verse; but something is often added there in English beyond what it literally says in Greek (“for fear has chastening”) because that’s a strange way to talk in English.
I also don’t have to claim that the fear of 1 John 4:18 is the reverential fear of those who are completely righteous and so already perfected in love.
It is very strange that you think “involves” instead of “has” involves adding something to the verse in some way that you feel so threatened by as to call it absurd; but also highly amusing that you constantly refer to the KJV which “adds words” in a similar fashion where a literal English translation would sound weird.
That’s at best an inference, or in your case I expect a mere guess. The scriptures don’t say it’s a self-punishing fear, although clearly you have to acknowledge that the fear John is talking about has punishment. The text doesn’t say the fear is itself the punishment either, self-punishment or otherwise.
But of course it would make no sense either to be interpreting this as God punishing someone due to their fear.
God does however punish those who are not yet perfect in love, sooner or later, with punishments you yourself acknowledge are at least sometimes corrective instead of hopelessly non-corrective! And those who are not yet perfect in love ought to fear God in several ways, including with terror if they can’t manage reverential fear yet.
And indeed you yourself, after calling this “a self-punishing fear”, in the very next breath talk about this kind of fear as “fear of consciously deserved punishment”. After which you go on to reiterate that you think it has “nothing to do with God imposing any kind of punishment”.
What’s even more amazing is that your position logically commits you to the idea that God punishes people with never-ending torment yet does not punish people with fear! (“God does not use fear to punish anyone.”) Terror is not part of never-ending torment!?!? Or are you now going to deny that God punishes anyone with never-ending torment?!
“Fear Him Who is able to destroy both body and spirit in Gehenna.” Matt 10:28 (Although also do not fear Him shortly afterward for He loves you and wants to save you.)
“Fear the authority” set in place by God to punish evildoers, even if they are secular or pagan. Rom 13:3-4. There would be no point to doing this unless Paul was expecting troublemakers, or those thinking of being troublemakers, to repent and do right instead.
The Hebraist when warning fellow Christians not to keep on sinning voluntarily after receiving the Holy Spirit (which you yourself acknowledge can involve being erased from the BoL), states that there is “a certain fearful waiting for judging and fiery jealousy” about to be eating those who do that; and “Fearful it is to be falling into the hands of the living God!” (Heb 10:27, 31) Better to fear and to repent than to not repent and fear even more!
The angel flying in midheaven, bringing an eonian gospel to those sitting on the earth and to every nation and tribe with language and people, says in a loud voice “Be ye afraid of God and give glory to Him, for the hour of His judging has come, and worship the Maker of the heaven and the land and the sea and the springs of water.” But many will still refuse to be afraid of God and repent despite the judgments from God already having come, or coming afterward–as you yourself have no problem recalling when you think that their impenitence under punishment for a while means they must therefore never repent. (Rev 14:6-7) But there would be no point for the angel to exhort them to do this as part of his proclamation of the gospel if it was intrinsically impossible that fear could lead to repentance.
The penitent rebel on the cross rebukes the impenitent one declaring, “Are you not fearing God yet, that you are in the same judgment! And we indeed justly, for we are getting back the deserts of what we commit!” That rebel hadn’t previously been repentant (per GosMatt) but now he has come to repentance, whereas the other who does not yet fear God even on the cross of death is not yet repentant. (Luke 23:40-41)
There are numerous other examples that could be adduced from the OT (and possibly from the NT–I was only restricting examples to those using the same term for “fear” (phoebos) as at 1 John 4. The concept doesn’t have to involve using that term, of course.)
You are (or were when you first tried to claim phoebos has nothing to do with godly fear) also clearly unaware that there are only a handful of times the word “fear” shows up in the NT that don’t involve phoebos or some cognate of it. That includes, yes, almost every time a godly reverential “fear” (of those already loyal to God) is mentioned in the NT. (I can only find at most possibly five exceptions.)
But you absolutely denied it. That was your whole stated ground for rejecting the notion that the fear at 1 John 4 could be involved with corrective discipline. You went so far as to bold it, you were so totally confident you were right about that!
This is all completely aside from the fact that when you first arrived here (back before you were banned for forum violations), one of your drums was that if UR was true it would remove the impetus of fear of punishment as a reason to repent and be converted; and you thought even fear of hopeful punishment wouldn’t be proper but that it would have to be fear of hopeless punishment. Your attempted argument would have had no meaning unless you yourself believed that fear of punishment was a legitimate rationale (even if not the best one) for repentance and conversion, which God expects us to use in evangelism. Have you changed your mind on this? Is ECT no longer part of the face of Christianity for you? – nothing you bother to mention in presenting the gospel at all?!
Meanwhile, let us compare your insistence that {kolasis} at 1 John 4 has nothing whatever to do with punishment, including punishment from God, and your insistence that we interpret {kolasis} at Matt 25 as referring to a hopeless punishment from God – which was the only reason you brought up 1 John 4 in the first place!
In effect, you have undermined your whole rationale. At first your approach to 1 John 4 was that it has nothing to do with corrective punishment, therefore the punishment at Matt 25 cannot be corrective either. But in the end you have strongly declared that 1 John 4 has nothing to do with punishment per se at all, but only an emotional self-torment of people not yet perfect in love, that by your own contextual attempts cannot be intrinsically hopeless at 1 John 4!! Because perfect love can cast out that fear!!! (And thus that torment.)
You denied the hopelessness and denied the punishment, leaving only a non-hopeless non-punishment feeling of torment behind–and you still want us to interpret Matt 25 by reference to 1 John 4 as involving a hopeless punishment from God!!!
Your only logical conclusion from that must be that {kolasis} at Matt 25 also has nothing to do with a hopeless punishment, especially punishment from God; or that {kolasis} at 1 John 4 must mean (despite your own strenuous arguments) at least involves punishment from God and hopeless punishment, too! Just like in Matt 25!!
And then you have the gall to copy-paste your complaint that URs, if we interpret “eonian” as involving duration at Matt 25, have to mean something only superficially similar but ultimately quite different about the two uses of it (one for eonian life and the other for eonian kolasis). While also claiming there is not the slightest contextual reason for supposing two meanings. While also totally ignoring any actual discussion of the detailed contextual argument I myself provided (but rightly predicted you would basically refuse to actually discuss despite challenging us to provide such context. Instead you hared off, of your own choice, on other ‘challenges’ you thought I couldn’t answer.)
This is only the beginning of my comments on this thread while catching up on it. More to come later.
A god reverence fear not a tormenting fear that is produced from not being perfect in love. This fear in 1 John 4:18 is similar to the fear used in Matt 14:26.
God does not use tormenting demonic fear to correct anyone. This tormenting fear is the opposite of faith, love and sound mind.
Hebrews 12 chastening does not involve bastards(unbelievers) only sons. Hebrews 12:8.
God can use anything He likes. He’s used it on me, and it worked.
but we are all son’s because we all have one father 
You mean the god (or God) reverence fear that the eternally tormented sinner will eventually have? (You yourself acknowledged they will come eventually to reverence God.) Or perhaps you think the eternally tormented sinner will come to reverence God without fear?
And if the former, is this the same god (or God) reverence fear that you say involves faith, love and sound mind, as opposed to tormenting demonic fear which is the opposite of that? Or do you think the eternally tormented sinners in hell (including the demons) come to reverence god (or God) with the fear given by tormenting demons?
The same not-hopeles fear that is not a punishment from God but is cured eventually by Christ, then, (as in the incident you referenced from Matt 14:26 and parallels.)
This is the fear, and thus the torment, that you want us to believe is going on at Matt 25. Correct? The fear (and the torment resulting from that fear) that leads Peter to cry out saying “Lord, save me!” to which Jesus responds by saving him.