Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
Then (R&D) => Grace is false in general, since (R&D) alone is insufficient to yield Grace.

It is only true in a universe of discussion in which "God always gives Grace to those who exhibit (R&D)" is an axiom.

Yes.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Yes.

Very well. I am satisfied that we are back on track and that you have fully addressed the critique that bbarr raised, although he may have further concerns.

The remaining issue is whether you acknowledge that (R&D) and dying in a state of mortal sin must be perfectly mutually exclusive in order for the totality of your proposed conditions to be coherent.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
Very well. I am satisfied that we are back on track and that you have fully addressed the critique that bbarr raised, although he may have further concerns.

The remaining issue is whether you acknowledge that (R&D) and dying in a state of mortal sin must be perfectly mutually exclusive in order for the totality of your proposed conditions to be coherent.

Yes.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Yes.

Super.

Does man have it in his power to refrain from dying in a mortal state if he so chooses?

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
Super.

Does man have it in his power to refrain from dying in a mortal state if he so chooses?

I presume you mean "dying in a state of mortal sin".

Yes, since mortal sin is always deliberate and voluntary, man has it in his power to avoid it.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
I presume you mean "dying in a state of mortal sin".

Yes, since mortal sin is always deliberate and voluntary, man has it in his power to avoid it.

Very good. I misspoke and you corrected my properly.

We may now progress to conclude that all men have the power to avoid hell, should they so choose, for you have said that man has it in his power to avoid a necessary condition for condemnation. Do we agree?

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
Very good. I misspoke and you corrected my properly.

We may now progress to conclude that all men have the power to avoid hell, should they so choose, for you have said that man has it in his power to avoid a necessary condition for condemnation. Do we agree?

Given the promise of grace and salvation, yes.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Given the promise of grace and salvation, yes.

So, you dispute Nemesio's interpration of doctrine by which he concludes that one may at best achieve only high likelihood, but not certainty, of salvation?

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
So, you dispute Nemesio's interpration of doctrine by which he concludes that one may at best achieve only high likelihood, but not certainty, of salvation?

If that is, indeed, what he says the Church says (whew!) - then yes.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
If that is, indeed, what he says the Church says (whew!) - then yes.

Don't you think the Church should revise its documents so that they convey a uniform meaning to all intelligent people interested in their contents? You and Nemesio are both reasonable people, so it baffles me that you can have drastictly different findings on what the church says about salvation, arguably the most crucial aspect of the faith.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
I presume you mean "dying in a state of mortal sin".

Yes, since mortal sin is always deliberate and voluntary, man has it in his power to avoid it.

Isn't using the power to avoid mortal sin called Abstainence which is neither Repentence or Desire it might be a sub set of one or the other although total avoidance would make the other two moot . The only way for it not to lead to salvation is Grace is just a sub set of Whim

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
Don't you think the Church should revise its documents so that they convey a uniform meaning to all intelligent people interested in their contents? You and Nemesio are both reasonable people, so it baffles me that you can have d ...[text shortened]... ys about salvation, arguably the most crucial aspect of the faith.

First, we haven't yet established which passages/documents were being referred to by either of us when we arrived at our respective positions. Hence, it is possible (or not! 🙂 ) that one of us is making an unreasonable interpretation of what is an otherwise unambiguous passage.

Second, it isn't clear that Nemesio and myself actually have fundamentally different interpretations. It is possible that what Nemesio calls the "likelihood" of salvation is equivalent (!) to my view when one factors in the promise of grace. The "clean slate" argument is a case in point.

Finally, no matter how intelligent a person is, it is extremely unlikely he will understand much of a PhD thesis in string theory unless he has the necessary mathematical/physics background. Theology, like any other academic discipline, requires a certain level of expertise and knowledge. You can only "take out the jargon" so much. Many documents being referred to (like papal encyclicals) are actually letters from the Pope to the Bishops, both of whom would be expected to possess a reasonably high level of theological expertise.

EDIT: And, yes, the Church does publish new documents from time to time that is intended to convey doctrine in a reasonably simple manner to a modern audience. The CCC would be one example. I'd think the Vatican II documents would be another.