A reader asked me to check out Rescue From Death (hereafter RFD) by Robert Allen Taylor, knowing that I didn't hold to the traditional views of hell it responds to, while also not agreeing with its own point of view, which is essentially annihilationism.
These days when I read works by annihilationists, I find myself marking huge portions of what they write, "N/A" -- because the fact that their responses (of whatever quality) are to the traditional view almost always means that they don't have any bearing on my views.
Needless to say, Taylor doesn't have anything to say about my views of hell as shame rather than literal fire and physical torture. He offers all the standard reinterpretations of the usual suspect passages, and that is precisely why there's not much to say here. Taylor suggests, for example, that weeping and gnashing of teeth  "reflects fear and/or it may indicate anger". Well, no, it was neither of those; it represented shame. Not that it matters, since the main issue here is how Taylor is compelled to re-interpret such passages for an annix view. E.g., the traditionalist sees it (as I do) as eternal, but to make that fit, Taylor has to generate the rationalization: "Weeping, fear, anger -- what else would be expected from sinners cast into an unquenchable fire which, Scripture declares, will burn them up [that is, annihilate them]?"
In that particular case, rather ironically, Taylor's own rebuttal is tripped up by the very traditionalist reading of fire that he's trying to rebut: Since he takes those fires literally, he figures to use them as the mechanism of annihilation. But if the flames are shame...whoops. Better try that again.
Taylor only touches on the possibility of non-literal flames briefly , and with great inadequacy, essentially just saying that since Jesus draws on the image of literal fire in Is. 66:24, then he must mean literal fire too. But, um, what if we argue that Isaiah's fire and worms is a metaphor for shame too? Whoops again.
Speaking of Isaiah, that's cause for crashing on a different rock: That of premillenial eschatology. Taylor's treatment of Is. 66:24 may squeeze in there, but if you're a preterist, as I am, it's just another wrong turn. In the same way, because he reads Revelation 20:10 in dispensational terms, he steers wrong in asking why the goats of Matthew 25 aren't there. For a preterist, that's a moot point because the division of sheep and goats began when Jesus assumed the heavenly throne of the Son of Man, in the first century, while Rev. 20:10 is still in our future. And in any event, if fire = shame, then the goats are already in the "fire" after they die, and the only real news in Rev. 20:10 is who's added to it; there's no need to give the goats their own headline, especially when everyone in this high context society had that down pat already.
One of the few potential points of intersection has to do with Taylor's treatment of aionios, that word that makes hell eternal. Sadly, Taylor lacks the informing contexts provided by scholarly resources such as Barr's classic treatment; his one and only source is Vincent's word study material, which was published in 1887. Does Taylor think no more scholarly work has been done since the 19th century on this subject? (The point being, yes it has, and Vincent was wrong about aionios; it does not "acquire that sense by [its] connotation" but actually does mean "eternal".)
In the end, I found nothing that isn't already taken care of by my material linked below.Taylor seems an earnest and concerned man, but a serious scholar...he ain't.