I think one thing that Christian Infernalism and Christian Annihlationism have in common is that there is a cut-off point, whereas Christian Universalism would posit that there is no cut-off point.

Actually, I posted this in ⁠server-meta but it made me realize that there can be two types of Christian Annihlationists. Ultra-Annihlationists, who believe that people are annihlated without post-mortem torment and Annihlation Restorationists, who believe that people are annihlated after experiencing post-mortem torment. So I think an Annihlation Restoriationist viewpoint would be better at resolving Rev 19:3, Rev 14:11 since torment is included, but it just ends up with annihlation once the torment has concluded, when the "ages of the ages" has been reached so to speak.

Huhh... not the answer I was expecting, which is quite exciting for me at least! I've felt that many Christian Infernalists have put the cut-off point at death, where as soon as you die there's no second chance. But I personally think it makes sense for God to give people at least another chance after death. The story you mentioned is very interesting. For me, I also think of places where Christianity was not popular. And even the 1 Peter 3:19 event where Christ was preaching to the dead in Sheol/Hades ("Hell"). I think Christ preached to the dead there knowing that the cut off point was not a person's death, since otherwise, I'm not sure what the preaching would have accomplished if these people were already locked into a point of no return. So we also at least also agree that the cut-off point is not absolutely the moment of death for everyone, very interesting

I actually think that Christian Annihlationism makes more sense in terms of varying degrees of punishment than Christian Infernalism. Because with Christian Infernalism, if a person is getting paper cuts (lesser punishment) and another person is getting stabbed (greater punishment), the pain from the paper cuts would eventually reach the pain of being stabbed for X amount of time every time because both would continue indefinitely. So the least sinner in hell would eventually experience the torment of the worst sinner in hell in a moment, which doesn't seem fair to me at least from a varying degrees of punishment perspective. But Christian Annihlationism can actually have different pain levels for different people since there's an Annihlation afterwards

I used to be a Christian Annihlationist before, but if I were to go back to being one, I would go into the Annihlation Restorationist camp personally. Honestly, I think out of all the non-universalist positions out there, if I had to choose one that's the most aligned with scripture, it would be Annihlation Restorationist.

And if we want to get really complicated, there's also the whole concept of Christian Infernannihlationism which my mother believes in, where some people are permanently destroyed and some people are tormented forever. Been trying to get that added to the roles lol, but I don't think it's worked yet XD. But, they could try to use that as an explanation to different lengths of punishment.

That is an intriguing thought experiment. The way I see it, if Christian Infernalism or Christian Annihlationism or Christian Universalism is true, then that's what always would have been true. So God could have prepared a set number of places for us in advance and that could be what determines whatever camp is right or not. It's a bit more of a deterministic predestination leaning though and might possibly even lean to Double Predestination like John Calvin posited.

That's actually a very interesting proof condition, where you essentially have to look for scripture that shows punishments as fatal rather than tormenting-but-alive. Meanwhile a Christian Infernalist might not want to run into those fatal verses, which could prove fatal to their position

Oooooo ok I hadn't thought of that until you brought it up, but I'm so glad you did! Let's say Jesus resurrected someone from the dead, but they had already gone past the cut-off point and can no longer be saved. It begs the question... why? Why give that person the taste of life again if they have no chance at being saved anymore? Either that's somehow part of their torment (which would imo contradict with the whole theme of raising the dead on Earth, which is supposed to be a joyous occasion). Or somehow that raising of the person of the dead is used to convince another person to be saved, even though the dead raised person themselves cannot be saved. A sort of "I guide others to a treasure I cannot possess" moment like from Infinity War I guess lol

Hmm... perhaps under the framework of Free Will, God felt that a person's life was cut too short in order to allow them to have enough time to decide whether to accept Christ or not. So for some people, God decides to resurrect them to experience more of earthly life to decide, and for some other people, God lets them have some time in Sheol/Hades as a sort of waiting room, some time to process things, before letting them decide.

1 Cor 3:11 I agree with you here that the foundation is Jesus Christ. But I'm going to put on my own personal intepretation that this is faith in Christ. So anyone who has the foundation of Christ is already permanently saved, from my personal viewpoint of faith alone salvation.

1 Cor 13:13 here it mentions works which I associate with good work. I personally believe in OSAS, but that still means that I believe people can lose good works rewards by doing bad things.

So like 1 Cor 13:15 the builder is saved by faith, a permanent savation which can't be lost, but they can lose their rewards which is what they suffer loss from.

Therefore, at least from my personal framework, I speculate that each of the builders on the foundation are already saved and already believers in Christ. Howevee, they will gain rewards based on their good works and lose rewards based on their bad works, but not to the point of losing salvation, since the foundation still remains.

I think that's why 1 Cor 13:10 NRSVue mentions "According to the grace of God given to me" because each of the builders have been given faith through grace. That's what I think at least.

Ah for me I think it's like I can see a reason behind the 1) AD70 prophechy fulfillment that makes sense 2) the king killing since they aren't permanently killed imo 3) the weeping is fine since it's more so someone suffering from the natural consequences of their own actions 4) burning impurities through a furnace I'm fine with since that's like Isaiah 48:10 so allegorical. Idk maybe more of a personal thing for me, but I think those 4 points make sense. At least.

I think if a person believes in a faith + works salvation framework, then it makes sense for them not to believe in OSAS. Even I believe that a person can lose rewards associated with their good works, so when those good works are tied to salvation, then it would make sense that a person could also lose their salvation. So I think a prerequisite to OSAS in general would be some form of faith alone belief at the very least.

I see it as though we are all “wicked servants” where we all essentially have some sort of debt to God. So when Christ died, He poured out agape love forgiveness for the whole world already. Yet, because this person did not have faith, which would have inevitably produced a feeling of forgiveness afterwards, then the person experiences torment until they receive that faith.

So for me personally, I don’t see it as much as God “reversing” His agape love forgiveness, but more-so God not giving faith for a person to receive a faith forgiveness.

I will admit though, it’s definitely tricky at least for me trying to reconcile both the fact that God loves the whole world currently also with the fact that God has not given salvation to certain people yet. So it feels like there’s two different types of “forgivenesses” at play I think

Alright alright alright, so far I haven’t heard back on the Infernannihlationist role suggestion. Butttttt... I’ve just thought of another idea in terms of role additions!

Get ready for...... Annihlationism Sub Categories!!!!

That’s right, so you know how there’s the Universalism Sub Categories of

Ultra-Universalist = all persons without exception would enter immediately into heaven at the moment of death, and that no one had to endure any postmortem punishment for sins

Universal Restorationist = many (if not most) persons are not ready for heaven at the time of their death, and so a purgatory-like state of suffering and fiery purification is required prior to entering into the unending joy of heaven

But thinking about Annihlationism, I just realized that it also has two sub categories too!

Ultra-Annihlationist = all who are unsaved post-mortem would be immediately annihlated at the moment of death, and that they did not have to endure any postmortem torment for sins.

Annihlation Restorationist = many (if not most) persons are not ready for heaven at the time of their death, and so a purgatory-like state of suffering and fiery purification is required prior to entering into Annihlation

... thoughts?